Feminist Literature

Gender doesn't exist. That guy who talked about solites paradox in the last thread completely debunked you brainlets.

No he didn't. He was just /pol/tard who lacked reading comprehension.

What is the goal of modern feminism? What do they wish to accomplish for themselves?

As far as I can tell, equal rights movements began in the 60s and were a massive success. Women now are more privileged then men, even.

Women in the Western world have always been more privileged than men.

I mean, only in the head of a feminist is raising children and washing clothes worse than mining coal and dying from blacklung when you're 45.

Feminist non-fiction I've read so far-

Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft
A Room of Ones Own, Woolf
The Second Sex, de Beauvoir
aint i a woman, hooks
Gender Trouble, Butler

Butler and hooks were by far my favorites here. Going for a wide sampling of feminist theory "essentials" before I start checking out more obscure stuff. Was thinking of reading Simians, Cyborgs, and Women by Donna Haraway next. What else should I check out to patch up the holes in this list?

Also looking for recs for women writers of pomo lit. Obviously I know Morrison.

yah, this.

>entire field of academia
>debunked by some random shitposter from /pol/
totally /b/ro! we rekt those cucks!

redpill me on Camille Paglia

never read any of her shit but i like her personality from watching interviews. kinda rubs me the wrong way how she trashes Susie Sontag tho cuz she's my waifu...

Her books are interesting and she's smart, but I do get this nagging feeling whenever I watch her interviews that she somehow feels guilty for her role in the second-wave of feminism.

Really quite great literary analysis. Haven't read outside of that.
>Camille "The Gal who Blew up the Ecole Normale" Paglia

>supports free speech

>is not on board with infantilizing women when it comes to sexual assault

>is not on board with blaming men for everything

>doesnt make a fuzz on alien pronouns

Is she even a feminist?

Is it even possible to separate feminism from all that baggage at this point? shits too far gone.

>Is she even a feminist?

By her standards? Yes. But by the standards of the majority of other self-described feminists? No, many even describe her as an anti-feminist (along with quasi-fascist and "extremist crackpot"). She's described herself as a "libertarian feminist", which had been anathema to mainstream feminism since the late 80s or so. If you read her essay, "No Sex in the Arena" (I think that's the right title), she says that date rape is a myth, and that to the extent that it exists, it's not really rape and that girls are at least partially to blame for it, that "sexual harassment" is a joke and that women need to deal with male sexuality and braggadoccio, and a couple of other statements about the roles and characteristics of men and women that would get you kicked out of the Democratic Party today.

> whenever I watch her interviews that she somehow feels guilty for her role in the second-wave of feminism.

I'm not sure that she feels guilty, so much as she feels she has to give her feminist bona fides to be able to engage in debate ("I read The Second Sex and Betty Friedan while these other feminists were cooking rumaki for their garden parties!", "I was always a tomboy", "I'm a lesbian, and was before 'political lesbians' even existed", etc). I kind of wonder how much she really believes what she is saying when she talks about her past in the 60s, it feels like theater, although she's always been kind of overly dramatic.

The goal of feminism is, and has always been, to enlist women to support left-wing parties and political movements.

>I kind of wonder how much she really believes what she is saying when she talks about her past in the 60s, it feels like theater

Which is my point. She speaks like someone who was complicit in the destruction of pre-60s social structures and now feels like she has to repent.

I'm not saying it's true, it's just that this is how it appears sometimes.

>What is the goal of modern feminism? What do they wish to accomplish for themselves?
feminism does nothing to liberate the talk about psychological violence on men from women

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk of raped men inside a household

feminism favorizes the abortion whithout even the requirement to inform the father

feminism does nothing against coerced paternity

feminism does nothing about the inequality favouring women on the dating game

feminists actually do not promote intellectual independence as a men is considered a sexist scumbag as soon as he disagrees with them or even try to nuance their positions

do you still believe that the feminists fight for equality ?

Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation

>everyone that disagrees with my retarded dogma is a shitposter
the user in question gave well thought out, persuasive arguments. feminists replied with obsfucation and irony

the one feminist fedora-tippers like to namedrop alongside "based mom"

I think you idea of feminism is way too narrow. I see so many people talk about modern feminism like it only consists of radical feminism.
I get it, because tumblr feminism gets a lot of attention.

But Equality feminism is actually concerned about the points that you made.

>Feminist Literature
y tho

because it's actually a real thing with academic merit, and people who think it isn't have probably only encountered feminism through trending facebook/reddit articles

>with academic merit
hardly

>because it's actually a real thing with academic merit
Quick rundown?
and people who think it isn't have probably only encountered feminism through trending facebook/reddit articles
The feminists I have encountered at uni have no academic merit either.

The only thing about feminism that had any academic merit was Simone De Beauvoir's arguments against the idea that nature designed women for the kitchen.