Reddit reviews Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center
We found 9 Reddit comments about Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
Every single "person with similar views as nolimitsoldier" I have encountered has always fallen into 1 of the following groups.
To learn more about feminism you can read or watch the following websites,books, or videos:
Youtube Videos or Channels:
Websites/Blogs:
Books:
Her Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center is pretty badass. It was the first feminism book I read, I'd definitely recommend it.
> Simply stating you are something when you stand for the opposite does not magically make you the thing you state.
It makes you a self-identified member of a group. Groups are responsible for self-policing members who do not share "core ideology", and for their own public relations/public perception problems.
You might not really hate black people, but if I see you in a KKK robe, you will be considered a racist - it doesn't matter what your group thinks about it. Likewise, if you claim you are a feminist but behave misanthropically, you will be considered both a feminist and a misandrogynist.
Again, you don't speak for feminism as an ideology nor all feminists: no one does. It is not on you to define the group membership of another individual. It is on the group as a whole, and there isn't a cohesive view of this topic across all of the different feminist philosophies and schools of thought.
You don't know how "No True Scotsman" works. You are literally attempting to defend a generalized statement with an ad-hoc statement. It's about as clear an example as there can possibly be.
You: All feminists support gender equality.
Me: There are, demonstrably, some feminists who also hate men.
You: Well, they aren't real feminists then.
Definition from Wikipedia: "Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women" [emphasis added, note the absence of the concept of gender equality in the encyclopedia definition.]
"Difference Feminism" - also from Wikipedia: "Taking for granted an equal moral status as persons, difference feminism asserts that there are differences between men and women that are not or should not be considered equally."
Wendy McElroy, an individualist feminist, wrote in 2001 that some feminists "have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex" as "a hot anger toward men [that] seems to have turned into a cold hatred." She argued it was a misandrist position to consider men, as a class, to be irreformable or rapists.
Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young argued that "ideological feminism" as opposed to "egalitarian feminism" has imposed misandry on culture. Their 2001 book, Spreading Misandry, analyzed "pop cultural artifacts and productions from the 1990s" from movies to greeting cards for what they considered to be pervasive messages of hatred toward men.
bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins), American author, feminist, and social activist: "[mainstream feminist] voices have been marginalized. To be in the margin is to be part of the whole but outside the main body." Hooks argues in her work that if feminism seeks to make women equal to men, then it is impossible because in Western society, not all men are equal. She further claims: "Women in lower class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women's liberation as women gaining social equality with men since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status."
So to reiterate from my original post:
>"Feminists" are not a cohesive group of people who share identical beliefs, nor does every feminist employ the same strategies toward the goal of dismantling patriarchy.
But please go tell a radical feminist, difference feminist, ecofeminist, etc. they aren't really feminists because they don't agree with your definition of what feminism is. Watching a gang of angry women educate you by tearing you a dozen new assholes would be hilarious.
I would recommend that you read Bell Hooks. She explains some concepts better than I am able. I've read most of Feminist Theory - from Margin to Center. I'm not sure if it's her best work, but it's very good, and it's the only one I've personally read. I hear her other stuff is also great.
Bell Hooks promotes a brand of radical feminist theory which I can get behind. (I can't get behind all radical feminist thinking). She is a black woman who rather heavily criticizes some aspects of mainstream feminist thinking for being very slanted towards upper class white women and overlooking other, more marginalized women who lack the privileges of being upper class and white.
She promotes a brand of feminism which is radical because it supports an overhaul of the entire structure of society in order to eliminate ALL oppression. She describes how we, as humans, as society, are trained and set up to live in a society of has and has-nots, of inferiors and superiors. There are those who lead, and there are those who follow. Privilege concentrates at the top.
Her brand of feminism promotes a solution that goes far beyond simply highlighting and struggling against various instances of sexism. She argues that sexism is merely one of many consequences of a society that is structured to be oppressive towards many groups, and that until you overthrow the entire system that condones superiors controlling inferiors, you are only treating the symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem.
As such, her brand of radical feminism is actually not even particularly focused on sexism against women - it's more focused on overthrowing all oppression in society as a whole.
On the one hand, I don't imagine ever actually achieving the radical goals she has set out. But on the other hand, I think she's basically right - we do keep falling back into trying to figure out who gets to oppress and who gets to be oppressed, and pointing out instances where this happens misses the point when the whole structure is wrong.
And, bringing it back to your point, it's a version of feminism that is concerned with ALL instances of inequality, not just sexism against women.
> Oh, you mean like the multitude of times I've asked people in this very thread to define what they think patriarchy is? Can I get you to follow me around and suggest I do things I've already done all the time?
no I literally meant what I said. when you say stuff like "patriarchy is a third wave feminist concept" it reveals that you don't have any idea what you're talking about and are either lying about taking a gender studies class or slept through the entire thing
> I wouldn't describe Sarkeesian that way, but you can if you want.
I was talking about this actually https://www.reddit.com/r/GGFreeForAll/comments/3yxs6x/is_the_patriarchy_the_ultimate_conspiracy_theory/cyhmafb
> For example, rather than bitch and moan about how bad you think my handle on third wave feminism or "the patriarchy" is, why not use what you perceive as my shortcoming to help educate myself and the wider audience on the subject.
here ya go buddy http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theory-From-Margin-Center/dp/0896086135
I have a bad habit of reading multiple books at once, so I'm currently on Women Behind Bars: The Crisis of Women in the US Prison System, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, and one day I'll finish Rules for Radicals. Women Behind Bars is a really great, easy read that has a lot of good information in it. The other two are a bit slower, but still good and I recommend them all.
Other than these books, I read a lot about dogs....so previously I've read Don't Shoot the Dog and On Talking Terms with Dogs: Calming Signals. If anyone is interested in positive reinforcement, Don't Shoot the Dog is really applicable to every situation - you can apply it to dogs, clients, spouses, children, any relationship really. I thought it was a good read as a social worker and dog...understander.... :)
Oh shit is this the cavalry? Is it the phone a friend round of the retard olympics?
>refuses to read material when linked
I assure you I read all the material that was linked at this url
http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theory-From-Margin-Center/dp/0896086135
For example I read this review
>I was saddened to read how boring and uninterested the author made the topic of feminism to be. I rented this book for one of my college courses, which I'm so thankful I only rented it because its def not worth purchasing. I did not enjoy how scattered and uneasy the material is to understand while reading. I have requested my college to restrain from using this text as part of the class curriculum.
It certainly sounds similar to the criticisms alot of feminists have of Anita's work.
Good job being wrong "bro".
This will make the third feminist theory on the topic of patriarchy I'll have read and dissected within 24 hours, but I guess when I'm done with Sherlock I'll give it a squizz. I'll probably even make it it's own post.
>reading her is worth your time in any regard
I am highly dubious, but we'll see.
It's not a quip, really. This is not a venue for deep learning.
>patriarchy theory becomes meaningless
The above statement is not a good starting point to expand understanding, it's a conclusion.
If someone has a conclusion without reviewing the material, it would reason to believe that they have an agenda. I don't find that telling people explicitly what I think they're doing is particularly constructive (e.g. "you have an agenda"), so I just said what I think this style of argument looks like.
I ain't no bell hooks, so go with her!
http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theory-From-Margin-Center/dp/0896086135
Here's a good start from academic perspective: http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theory-From-Margin-Center/dp/0896086135
Also if you do literally any research on it (which you can if you actually want to argue in good faith) you'll see feminist theory is pretty complex.