You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
amaranthpalmer's Reviews (294)
Yikes. (Though calling someone 'Anse Bundren' might be a very debilitating insult.)
Edit: I am wondering, will ingesting talc kill a person?
Edit: I am wondering, will ingesting talc kill a person?
The book was as it is intended to be, a primer on feminism and the ideas it encompasses. The title, though, is a misnomer. This book in no way convinced me that feminism is for everybody. I know the anyone-who-values-equality-is-a-feminist jargon quite familiarly--I've even used that explanation when arguing abortion policies with devoutly republican highschoolers. This book certainly illustrates the fundamental critiques that feminism cannot ignore if ever successful, but it kindly neglects the politics of concurrent movements. Namely, exclusion. bell hooks argues that the notion that there-are-as-many-feminisms-as-there-are-women is a null point. I can agree principally: words, movements, identities, etc. need boundaries to create commonality and direction. This becomes dangerous when those who define a movement's terms are not intimate with the alternate of the movement's goals. If feminism is truly a campaign to end sexism and sexist exploitation, why should anyone (woman or not) who is left behind entirely by the construct of sex, embrace it? The book is a convincing memoir of the struggle, unity, and mutuality of a movement...for cisgender women. For me, I conclude that to be excluded in such an encompassing book, perhaps means that feminism is not for everybody.