Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.11 AVERAGE
4.11 AVERAGE
کتاب فعلاً رها میشه چون:
- نثر و زبان سیمون دوبووار بهشدت برام کسلکنندهست
- کمتر از بقیه اثار دو حوزه کتابهای فمینیستی برام جذابیت داشته
- فکر میکنم برای حالا کتاب سنگینیه
- ذهنم درگیره و باید کتابهای سبکتر بخونم
- مهلت کتابخونه تموم شد :/
- نثر و زبان سیمون دوبووار بهشدت برام کسلکنندهست
- کمتر از بقیه اثار دو حوزه کتابهای فمینیستی برام جذابیت داشته
- فکر میکنم برای حالا کتاب سنگینیه
- ذهنم درگیره و باید کتابهای سبکتر بخونم
- مهلت کتابخونه تموم شد :/
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
funny
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
A slightly-less-well-written (but still underlineable on every page) Black Skins, White Masks for white chicks and mirroring its crisis--the white woman has only one future, and it is male--but while Fanon seems genuinely ripped up at this possibility, Beauvoir can't WAIT for us all to become men--broads, after all, are fucking annoying, delusional, hysterical, unserious, narcissistic, shit writers, shit artists, "the worst thing created by the human race."
This is Andrea Long Chu's beat what I'm about to say but I think the book better read as a general existential work on impotence, immanence, etc than a political work on gendered social relations. There is no difference between production and reproduction, nor between immanence and transcendence.
As far as social relations go (because ontology is boring) the first 250 pages are solid, but also they reveal Beauvoir as the real essentialist (reactionary, even!) original sinner of the feminist canon usually pinned on Dworkin, fleshing out Engels' nonsense in the run-up to 600 pages of shower thoughts and embarrassing exegeses on bourgeois ladies' dinner parties (which I don't think stuff like that is worthless per se, but it's worth nothing Woolf did it earlier and better). By way of excusing her I do think misogynized (<- made up word) people have a tougher starting hand than racialized or proletarianized people--gendered labor is not socialized, and as such it's far fetched to try mass politics (ie politics at all) around gender the way you would around race or class. We've never had our Wretched of the Earth. (Wittig? A fictionalist? You gotta be kidding.)
It's still the same game it was 100,000 years ago. To the extent that it has changed at all (and it has, immensely, in the past 200 years as far as rights for women are concerned) it did so because capitalism opened up a need for working women and capitalism's attendant ideologies like progressivism and communism were commandeered to various degrees by feminist militants through politicking and horse-trading. Beauvoir pretty much figured this out, which is why she credits the Soviet Union with creating the new woman, but she underestimated the degree of struggle that would be needed. (Later after touring the USSR a few times and experiencing May '68 she would change her mind here.) Of course, it's hard to say which feminists succeeding her even figured it out that far, besides the prolefems. And it feels like prolefems take this as the final insight of feminism rather than the starting point. Much to think about.
This is Andrea Long Chu's beat what I'm about to say but I think the book better read as a general existential work on impotence, immanence, etc than a political work on gendered social relations. There is no difference between production and reproduction, nor between immanence and transcendence.
As far as social relations go (because ontology is boring) the first 250 pages are solid, but also they reveal Beauvoir as the real essentialist (reactionary, even!) original sinner of the feminist canon usually pinned on Dworkin, fleshing out Engels' nonsense in the run-up to 600 pages of shower thoughts and embarrassing exegeses on bourgeois ladies' dinner parties (which I don't think stuff like that is worthless per se, but it's worth nothing Woolf did it earlier and better). By way of excusing her I do think misogynized (<- made up word) people have a tougher starting hand than racialized or proletarianized people--gendered labor is not socialized, and as such it's far fetched to try mass politics (ie politics at all) around gender the way you would around race or class. We've never had our Wretched of the Earth. (Wittig? A fictionalist? You gotta be kidding.)
It's still the same game it was 100,000 years ago. To the extent that it has changed at all (and it has, immensely, in the past 200 years as far as rights for women are concerned) it did so because capitalism opened up a need for working women and capitalism's attendant ideologies like progressivism and communism were commandeered to various degrees by feminist militants through politicking and horse-trading. Beauvoir pretty much figured this out, which is why she credits the Soviet Union with creating the new woman, but she underestimated the degree of struggle that would be needed. (Later after touring the USSR a few times and experiencing May '68 she would change her mind here.) Of course, it's hard to say which feminists succeeding her even figured it out that far, besides the prolefems. And it feels like prolefems take this as the final insight of feminism rather than the starting point. Much to think about.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
It is a heavilly academic work, and it's findings might be easier acquired through more modern feministic writings, which would most likely be way easier to comprehend
Found the beginning slow so skipped to the lesbian section to see if it that was more interesting... I didn't like it.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced