>>7859185
Modern feminists don't read or right just like modern reactionaries.

>>7859197
Since liberals dominate the academic community, surely they have some good literature to explain their viewpoints.
You can't tell me they all get their information from tumblr and Laci Green.

>>7859185
The second sex by Simone de Beauvoir

>>7859197
>Modern feminists don't read or right just like modern reactionaries.
>there's only 1 kind of feminists and they're the ones i complain about therefore they are poopyheads.

I'm not a feminist or anything, but this idea that there is one singular idealogy within the world of feminism is just wrong.

Deleuze, Walter Benjamin, Bell Hooks,

>>7859210
This site is too rightist for you to get a quick response to this and I'm not familiar with feminist literature for the most part. Check out Julie Kristeva (Powers of Horror) and Helene Cixous ("The Laugh of the Medusa"), those are really the only pieces of I've read that deal with feminism directly insofar as it relates to literature. A Room of One's Own, I suppose, by Woolf might be helpful as well.

OH, and bell hooks, Ain't I A Woman?, I've heard is quite good, though I've only read some of her essays dealing more directly with post-modernism. And Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. Wollstonecrat's Vindication of the Rights of Woman, maybe? I'unno.

There's also Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae, which, again, I haven't read, but I've heard is very good from a professor whose thoughts on such things I generally find useful.

>>7859264
lulz @ Sexual Personae being feminist.
It's impressively misogynistic. It puts 4chan to shame.
It was also clearly written under the influence of some sort of amphetamine.

>>7859288
I was under the impression that it was simply about the conflict within Western thought, manifested through art criticism, between traditionally masculine and feminine forces. My bad.

Kristeva is a fucking meme.

Greer's Female Eunuch

>>7859288
Camille Paglia is "some sort of amphetamine"

>>7859296
Her conclusion is that all art is because men fear the cthonic nature of women's slimeholes. Seriously read it's top kek. Your professor is a hell of a guy.

>>7859319
He's something of an old school intellectual. Previously he'd pointed me toward Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory, Walter Brueggemann's The Prophetic Imagination, and a number of other really interesting, eclectic books.

>>7859243
I am constantly shocked by this site's inability to rightfully criticize third wave post-structuralist feminism and identity politics while supporting perfectly reasonable first and early second wave feminist theory.

>>7859319
That isn't true at all. It's a classical Freudian analysis and she explicitly says so in her writings. She says that culture arose as a masculine activity in response to the perennial female preoccupation with reproduction. Men have a primordial fear of not being worthy of their most basic function, they are born fundamentally as voids without value, so they are creators and specialisers and autistic by nature, while women are tyrannised by their sexual role. Both genders come to embody their roles: men create conscious, visible social roles for their creative, competitive, etc. instincts, to rationalise the sublimated drives, and women do the same thing by controlling and embodying sexual selection at the social level.

It's a completely vital step toward any authentic feminism because women need to address that they are the unfortunate situation of their essence preceding their existence. Paglia is 100% correct in calling feminists naive Rousseauist tabula-rasists. Like Sartre, Beauvoir assumed a radically integral subject with radical agency.

>>7859231
/thread
go with some early thinkers like Wollstonecraft as wel

>>7859387
So the negative aspects of mostall women's natures is just gender wide ptsd carried over from evolutionary urges to shit out kids?

Gonna drop that shit on my lady.

>>7859387
> it's a classical Freudian analysis

uhhh, hello?
that's what i just said
are you autistic?

OP ignore everybody else in this thread - because this board is far too right wing for you to get a good answer - and read bell hooks' Feminist Theory from Margin to Centre. Also read the wiki page for the feminine mystique before you read it.

>>7859416
The way you were simplifying it made it look like you were dismissing it in a vulgar way (like "lmao Freud is good for a laugh, he thinks I want to fuck me mum innit").

Bell Hooks is a pile of garbage. Wendy McElroy is cool.

Joan Wallace Scott is OK.

Judith Butler is a hack.

>>7859243
Read or right?

>>7859425
Read the wiki page first?