(Part 2) Best general gender studies according to redditors
We found 349 Reddit comments discussing the best general gender studies. We ranked the 139 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Its not just internet feminism, it is theoretical feminism too, especially on universities.
https://www.amazon.com/Unwanted-Advances-Sexual-Paranoia-Campus/dp/0062657860
Listening to the theory of it, modern feminism seems very out of touch with the reality of the world and exists within it's own bubble that cannot be challenged without being dismissed as sexist or as a product of a 'cis-gendered, white, hetero-male'. There is not room left open to being challenged from without the ideology, it only accepts certain perspectives from within, which is a recipe for an echo chamber. That said there are certainly feminists that are going phenomenal work addressing social problems and really are helping people and practice the good parts of what they preach, but the problem has always been the biased perspective on gender issues excluding most other issues, which is why most much of it has alienated say black women who face issues of racism and class leading to intersectionality studies. The problem is most middle class white women, the bulk of the movement, will pay lip service to the notions of intersectionality, but will then go right back to their core of gender warfare as the solution to everything, while trying to co-opt the very idea of equality only being a feminist idea, not that equality can exist without the ideology of feminist theory.
Overall while there may be certain sub-sections of feminism that are open to other perspectives and are focused on fixing specific issues that affect a broad range of people, most of feminism and feminists actually are fixed on their nearly religious political ideology and ways that is benefits them and their lives and are totally shut down to any other perspective on any issue. Its not just an issue of 'internet feminism' is a problem with the majority of feminism, including academic feminism and goes back to the 2nd wave and the extremism of the 1960s. The older women that ended up running the movement into the 1990s and beyond were those that stayed true to the ideology and didn't move on from it, while the older women that moderated and lived lives outside of the ideology, moving on to a more wholistic view of the issues of the world no longer were the drivers of it. The most extreme voices remained and influenced the later generations. Plus there is a fairly large number of people with personal issues that represent the leadership of feminism, which really seems to drive the movement; people like Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem had serious emotional problems stemming from rape in the case of Dworkin and a broken home in early childhood with Steinem (who helped actually push the feminist movement away from it's socialist roots toward a neo-liberal brand it has today while working in the employ of the CIA, about the pinnacle of all things patriarchy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem#CIA_ties
As am I. Every time a remotely queer topic comes up, they get hordes of Hoteps and Ankheads trying to spit some myths about how "Africa never had homosexuality" and "it's a white invention."
Thankfully there are more than enough knowledgeable people that are willing to share information about the subject.
EDIT
> I don't believe that men are in general priviliged over women in this society which is a recurring notion in feminist theory
I don't share your feminist ideals, but I'd like to rock the label, because... equality! Cool?
Ask not how feminists can validate your ignorance, ask how you can learn more on the subject. Do you like to read? Try one of these, this one here, and another too. Books are yummy. Learn about it.
> Feminism, at least on here, seems to completely ignore those factors and jump straight for 'social construct' with no evidence, no reasoning, and no discussion.
This is a false assertion on your part. There is a lot of very powerful evidence that gender is in fact the product of social forces and has very little to do with biology. This evidence emerges from decades of intensive research by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and even biologists - who will often point out that while humans are a sexually dimorphic species, the extent of that dimorphism is fairly small.
One of the reasons you might not be seeing this evidence in discussions of gender online is because, frankly, having to stop a discussion to provide links to this exhaustive mountain of evidence every time someone with little knowledge of the material demands to see it is frustrating and tiresome. There are hundreds - thousands - of introductory textbooks from sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and psychology that talk about the social construction of gender; if you want to see the evidence, then look there. Most feminists accept the academic consensus that gender is primarily the product of culture, and because that consensus is grounded in the best possible empirical research, you should accept it too.
Or don't. I'm not your boss. But if you don't accept it, then you should accept that in rejecting the social construction of gender, you're also rejecting the preponderance of evidence, which might not be the best place to plant your flag.
>I think saying it's 100% socially constructed is probably wrong too...
Good thing that's not what most people are saying. Bodies exist. They are the things onto which we inscribe our cultural values. But they are also incredibly malleable and so they are shaped and reshaped by the dictates of culture.
Why do children raised in poverty have poorer health outcomes than those raised in middle class or rich environments? Because poverty correlates with poorer diets, fewer calories consumed per day, and a lack of regular access to gyms or after-school fitness programs. Poor bodies are shaped in different ways than rich bodies because of culture. I mean, hell, the foundation of epidemiology is the recognition that cultural forces have enormous impact on bodies.
Why are men bigger and stronger than women? Biology? Perhaps, but we also cannot overlook the fact that in our society - and in many others - men are expected to consume an average of 300-400 additional calories per day than women. Is this because men are "naturally" bigger and stronger than women, or are men bigger and stronger than women because they've historically had access to higher calorie diets (which we know result in bigger, stronger people)? Do men have more muscle mass because testosterone, or do they have more muscle mass because they are incentivized to be more muscled than women - who are treated worse if their own muscle mass begins to impact their perceived femininity? Men are supposed to be big and strong; women are supposed to be petite and "trim" or "fit but not overly muscled". Men know this and women know this, and our recognition of these normative standards will pressure us to sculpt our bodies in different ways.
What I'm saying is that the cliches of "men are strong because biology, men like blue because culture" is reductionist to the point of being useless. The reality is far, far more complicated than this, but in the end, in light of decades of research into the question of nature v. nurture, the broad consensus is "a little bit of biology, and a whole boatload of culture".
No, it's pretty much solely based on Serrano's words (who says in the following article that she split up with her long-term partner around 2010). Like these words, from the same article in 2014:
> I’ve spent much of the last decade writing about trans woman exclusion and trans woman irrelevancy in queer women’s communities.
and these words from the same article:
>
> I certainly do not expect every cis queer woman to swoon over me. And if it were only a small percentage of cis dykes who were not interested in trans women at all, I would write it off as simply a matter of personal preference. But this not a minor problem—it is systemic; it is a predominant sentiment in queer women’s communities.
and these words from the same article:
> In other words, queer women’s spaces fulfill our need for sexual validation. Unless, of course, you are a trans woman. And personally, with each passing year, it becomes harder and harder for me to continue to take part in a community in which I am not seen as a legitimate object of desire.
This is also a person who wrote an entire book about how feminist and queer women communities should be more inclusive to trans women (the book is called: Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive), and who does things like write about the "FAAB mentality" and why it's a problem in blog posts.
This is also a person who coined the word "transmisogyny" in order to make queer women's communities open up to her.
I borked the link early, so now I've fixed it.
Explicitly feminist theory:
Other things that might be of interest:
There's From Transgender To Transhuman by Martine Rothblatt
Warren Farrell does it quite well. I suggest you read his book on the matter or listen to him.
Here is an interview with him.
Here is a longer lecture like thing.
Here is him in a debate.
Here is an interview of him by Tucker Carlson on the topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/08/african-homosexuality-colonial-import-myth
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/09/being-gay-african-history-homosexuality-christianity
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/africatoday.58.1.55?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.amazon.com/Boy-Wives-Female-Husbands-Studies-Homosexualities/dp/0312238290
As an intro, you might be interested in reading the studies cited under the gender socialisation section in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#GenSoc.
Secondly, The Gendered Society by Michael Kimmel would be a good reference point as I know there are several large studies cited throughout that book.
But then I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for as I feel a lot of the material linked in this thread already has been relevant to your question.
----
One area of study I'd possibly recommend is at how gender expectations differ across cultures. If gender differences are innate, then these differences should presumably remain fairly static. So it may be worth looking at how gender expectations are framed within their cultural environment.
Firstly I'd recommend Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives, which is available on Google Books and has a fantastic chapter on the relation between gender and emotions in different cultures. (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tS1C8Sl5ysEC&redir_esc=y)
If you're looking for the actual studies themselves, then this fairly recent study looking at the different gender expectations in America & South Korea - http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-097.pdf
Annoyingly, this study is behind a paywall, but the abstract is a worthy read - Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/81/2/322/
There's also Women, Culture and Society ( https://www.amazon.com/Woman-Culture-Society-Michelle-Rosaldo/dp/0804708517). Which (at least IMO) is a fantastically well researched book, but worth remembering that this was published in 1976.
----
In response to your main question looking at 'big effects', it's probably worth concentrating your research on subjects where significant gender differences still exist.
On that regard, this article looks into cultural gendered attitudes towards female murderers and serial killers. I know this doesn't answer your question directly, but does touch on how women convicted of murder have use gendered expectations to their advantage, certainly a good reference point for further research: http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/support-files/female-psychopathic-killers.pdf
While not directly relevant to gender itself, there are plenty of studies looking at the environmental causes of crime, which may go some way towards explaining why women are largely absent from some criminal behaviours. Gender differences in violent crime is just one obvious example...
----
However, I really don't think you're necessarily going to find any research that directly answers your question since research in this field tends to look at sub-conscious ways in which individuals and/or society at large influences gender roles and identity. By their definition, these are going to be small. It's not that 'one' thing determines differential treatment between boys and girls, it's more that numerous subconscious actions permeate through our culture causing large rifts between the sexes.
----
Some other possible areas of research:
(non-grammatical) gender differences within linguistics (/u/SagaciousUmbrella has already covered this brilliantly, below.) I've spent way too much time on this reply all ready to look for references, but there are plenty of studies out there looking at the differences in how men and women talk, both to each other and within their own groups. This should easily demonstrate how small subconscious differences in gendered socialisation can cause 'large effects' on a societal level.
Of the top of my head, there's also research looking at perceived gender differences within classical music - worthy since these differences disappear when performers are judged blindly.
& I'm assuming you've looked at the studies relating to the 'resume gap': Jennifer seen as significantly less competent than John etc... http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer
There's also studies looking at gender biases in literature (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/10/if-you-doubted-there-was-gender-bias-in-literature-this-study-proves-you-wrong).
Plenty of studies on gender bias in education as well. From memory, there should be lots of research out there looking at this from both student and teaching perspectives.
-----
I can think of lots of other things that might be relevant, but it's difficult to know exactly what you're after.
I'm going to stop writing now, but I do want to stress that cultural attitudes towards gender often don't seem apparent until the concepts themselves becomes outdated. Perhaps it might be worth looking at historical ideas related to gender differences as an initial reference point?
Edit: Obviously I wasn't going to get this wall of text right first time.
Interesting, I didn't get that at all from her speech. If you look at her book The Mismeasure of Woman: Why women are not the better sex, the inferior sex, or the opposite sex, she's clearly a feminist type, but she explicitly rejects and even provides good evidence against the idea of women as better or worse than men.
Also: opening up space and providing methodological instruments to allow for the academic study of men and masculinities - something that wasn't even on the horizon until early 3rd wavers rolled onto the scene.
If you're a dude looking for what the 3rd wave has done for men, I'd say that's a pretty big check mark right there.
Here are some resources for you to look at, if you're interested:
This is just the tip of the iceberg of academic research on men and men's lives, and the overwhelming majority of it is a direct result of the revolutions in feminist thought brought forth by what we now think of as 3rd wave feminists.
Now bear in mind that this is all academic stuff, but think about what that means for a moment: each semester, tens of thousands of students from all over the world, are asked to think critically and sociologically (or anthropologically or psychologically, whatever your preferred brand happens to be) about men, men's lives, and the issues facing men and boys today. The textbook I'm currently working on has a whole chapter that focuses on the challenges young men and boys face in North American schools, and the textbook I'm using to teach a sociology of gender course this year devotes about half of its space to examinations of men of all shapes, sizes, orientations, and expressions. That's huge. That's really huge. It's huge because action - and activism - need to be grounded in knowledge, and that's what 3rd wave feminists have helped to provide; knowledge of the unique and often serious challenges facing men and boys today.
So that's what 3rd wave feminism has done for men and boys in academia. I'm sure there are resources around online that can help expand on this.
>My father is black and my mom is white. I am really white due to albinism. Not sure what my racial label would be. I'm a natal woman.
Your account is also quite new and this is the first time you’ve mentioned your heritage. ‘Round these parts, I find it can be really hard to believe what new accounts are saying… There are lots of trolls around here. It’s especially weird that you can’t come up with what racial category you’d fit into.
>Not everyone who disagrees with you is a natal male.
True. And even if you are exactly who you say you are, I’ve had plenty of words with brown natal women who fundamentally misunderstand concepts relating to anti-racism. Although I’ve never intereacted with her, one prime example of this is this black woman who argues that slavery was a choice. So, it’s just annoying in a different way than having a natal male fundamentally fail to grasp concepts related to race and gender.
>Your interpretation of transgender people is based on various conspiracy theories.
Proof?
>Attributing the situation in Iran to transgender people as a whole is illogical and ignores the specific cultural context of that country.
I attributed the situation in Iran primarily to homophobia within a repressive, misogynistic and sexist context. Transgenderism is a theory / set of beliefs that emerges within such contexts due to such societies wanting to shove everyone into acceptable categories.
>Homophobic conservatives agree with you in regards to draconian bathroom bills, does that mean you approve of their rationality because you have the same goal? Should we equally blame GC theorists for the implementation of these laws?
These bathroom bills are actually not draconian in my opinion. No one is being strip searched on the way in, they only bar natal males from using female spaces. And bathrooms are really interesting because they are the least concerning, more concerning are dressing rooms, locker rooms, prisons, women’s shelters, etc.
Anyway, you are right that conservatives and GC feminists want these protections for women for different reasons. I actually wish GC feminism had a hand in any of these laws, but I don’t think it does due to its lack of political clout. However, just because you are right on this point does not mean that the homophobic transitioning in Iran is fundamentally different than here in the West.
>How are GNC people being forced to transition in the West? There are very few hardcore Christians who subscribe to this (it's against the Bible anyway). The vast majority of people do not want their children to be trans.
Sure, most people don’t want their child to be anything other than a gender conforming heterosexual. But transition is often seen as a good alternative to a kid being homosexual or GNC. It also allows kids an out of the abuse that pretty much all gender non-conforming people get.
>This is why I say your beliefs are based off of conspiracy theory.
Well, I just refuted every point so you will have to do etter.
>There's no credible evidence that GNC women are forced to no longer as identify as women.
So what’s credible evidence to you? If trans theorists want to have it so that their subjective experience of feeling some gender or other is credible evidence that they are that gender, I really don’t think that they’re in a good position to be demanding hard evidence of much of anything. That said, no I don’t know of any rigorous studies on the topic but what I do know is that many, many lesbians especially have been converting to trans ideology. This also seems to be the group of people most likely to detransition. This leaves many young lesbians unable to find a lesbian partner who is not in some way queer aligned (i.e. natal females who are trans men, non-binary, or some other “gender identity” that isn’t woman”).
>The vast majority of women will always identify as women or not think about identity much at all. Even if 50 GNC women come out as trans this year, that's not even 1% of the female population in the US.
Ha, you in the last paragraph were all like “there’s no credible evidence for this general thing” and in this one you’re like “but this general thing is definitely true”. You trans theorists always want it both ways.
>The obvious trend here is that some people are experimenting with their identity. That doesn't constitute some paranoid Orwellian scenario.
Experimenting with different aspects of personality: fine, great, yay!, have fun, go nuts. Creating a myriand of special “gender identities” that cannot be objectively defined (i.e. defined in any way that is not hopelessly circular) on which are being built legislation and policies that overwrite or impinge on the rights of natal females: not ok, holy shit what is this mess? I guess it’s maybe more Handmaid’s Tale than Orwellian, but it is definitely dystopian and will have disastrous consequences for natal females as a class.
>Ignoring historical oppression of women is almost entirely a MRA/conservative phenomenon.
Haha, there are literally myriad examples of trans theorists doing that in this sub. The level of doublespeak on you people is amazing.
>Queer theory is literally founded on principles of feminism.
Queer theory takes terminology from feminism and distorts it in such a way that it ends up being oppressive and erasing to natal females. This is what neoliberalism generally does; it coopts progressive thinking in ways that feel and may appear on first glance to be progressive but in reality are trojan horses that are even more regressive and dangerous than conservatism. Sheila Jeffery’s book Unpacking Queer Politics has led many natal women to peak trans.
>Whether or not gender is biologically based is irrelevant.
Wrong. It is the crux of the matter. I argue that, in a sense, gender IS definitely biologically based as it is a system of oppression that has been arbitrarily attached to a very real biological phenomenon: that of sexual dimorphisim in humans.
For trans theory to make sense within a material, secular humanist context, it also has to be biologically based (e.g. there has to be sexed differences in the brain and sometimes a male bodied person has to be able to be somehow be born with a female brain). So you are left with either claiming that gender is based in the brain or comes from the ether somehow. It is definitely not irrelevant where it comes from and how it is formed.
>People are going to express themselves how they wish. Shaming them or assuming they've been brainwashed by the "trans cult" (kind of hard to have a cult without cohesive leadership or ideology) isn't the answer. Instead consider that every individual has their own idea of self and you can only understand their view by understanding their individual psychology.
Right, and free expression is what gender abolition is all about. Why in the world do personalities have to be labeled as male or female? That’s regressive. Really, I wouldn’t give a shit what madness people get into in their private lives. Go ahead and identify as Batman if you want. I do, however, start to care when you try to force me to believe that you are literally Batman because you feel like you are or when you start claiming that you’re just as much Batman as the real Batman, but only more oppressed and that you require special legal protections that override those already in place for actual Batmen.
>On an anecdotal note, I'm very GNC and have never had my identity dictated to me by trans women or men. Only by religious zealots and GC theorists.
My anecdata conflicts with yours on this point: pretty much every single trans theorist I’ve come across has said that since I don’t feel gender in any real way, I must be so cis priviliged I can’t see it or possibly agender or possibly non-binary or maybe gender fluid. They HAVE to try to slot me into a gender or their whole ideology falls apart.
SPOILER ALERT:
I'm more interested in Sam "Samantha" Healey. Trans* as well?
Here is a little fan theory I just thought of. Healey is Ukranian right? In parts of the Balkans (although it is dying out) there is a class of persons known as "Sworn Virgins." They are/were women who dressed, acted, and took the role of men to become household heads to protect their families. Unlike women they could inhereit property and some even married (though they of course did not have children). Some were raised to become Sworn Virgins by their parents when no male heir was produced in the family.
This would explain Healey's rigid bend to traditions, the name "Samantha," and the unsuccessful marriage to the Russian bride. He/she's of the older generation so he was raised to be a Sworn Virgin by his/her mother but when he/she came to the states, Healey had to undergo a physical and was discovered to be female. So Immigration gave Sam a female name and he/she went on to play the male role in the house while hiding his female gender from the rest of society. Until later, of course, when Sam gets a job with the department of corrections. He/she is able to hide it and has to have a more thourough backround screening...
Sam's superior Caputo is the only one who knows because he has access to his/her file. He uses this information to intimidate Sam (calling his "Samantha" in one episode).
Given what we know about Healey, and the subtle clues the show has given about his/her heritage, this could be a possibility and an interesting twist!
For more information on the Balkan's history of Sworn Virgins, read this book
A Slate article on them.
https://www.amazon.com/Cyborgs-Barbie-Dolls-Feminism-Posthuman/dp/1845114671
The truth is a bit more nuanced. Can I recommend a book? http://www.amazon.com/Do-Babies-Matter-Gender-Families/dp/0813560802/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380818517&sr=8-1&keywords=do+babies+matter
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:
Hi! Thanks for not being a jerk.
I guess I'm confused about what people think SRS's position is supposed to be. If the position is whether privilege exists or not, or whether intersectionality is a thing, then they share a position. cojoco's comment seemed to be about how feminism deals with men, and that's what I had in mind.
SRS likes to circlejerk about how female privilege doesn't exist and how only women can be victims. Research into men's issues is totally a thing. I have a couple of anthologies at home with chapters discussing how men are oppressed by masculinity, the place of male voices within feminism, and male sexuality.
Inasmuch as SRS takes a stance on these things ("but what about the menz bloo bloo bloo?" etc.), this isn't reflected in what's published. bell hooks devotes more-than-token space to men's issues at various points. You've got chapters in Defending Our Dreams and Third Wave Feminism, ed. Gillis. Those both have plenty of references. There are lots and lots of other anthologies out there, but I can't vouch for them. I recently read a feminist piece on domestic violence committed by women against men. I'm out-of-state, or else I would pull stuff from my books. Hopefully, some less specific ones will have to do.
Men Doing Feminism is the go-to book. IIRC though, it's the target of some harsh criticism along the lines of "good idea, poor execution" in the Gillis anthology. I think I've heard of Rethinking Masculinity before. Maybe you think that academic feminists aren't discussing men's issues enough, but they are anything but hostile to them. Men's concerns and experiences are taken seriously. There's a ton of stuff out there, just do a Google search.
Beyond that, their concerns are so different that there is no distinctly SRS-ish opinion on issues in feminist theory. SRSers are in the business of pointing out specific instances of shitty things said on the internet. Theorists have higher aspirations. What positions were you thinking of?
Lots of SRSers are anti-essentialists. Gender realism is coming back in a big way, though now people are questioning whether there's a difference between the two (that is, the argument is only about whether there's a difference between realism and anti-realism when it comes to gender) (Sally Haslanger, Charlotte Witt [she maintains that she can remain silent on the realism/anti-realism question for the purposes she's got, but she gives the gender realists everything they could ask for]).
This is hard to do in a general way because I don't know which issues you're worried about or what you think "SRS's position" on them is.
From a book called 'Organized crime':
> In 'The Politics of American Feminism' Professor James T. Bennett paraphrases more than twenty reasons why men earn more than women, as discussed and documented in great detail in 'Why Men Earn More' by Warren Farrell. Cumulatively, they go a long way toward explaining the “wage gap,” although neither Bennett nor Farrell believes that wage discrimination by gender is completely nonexistent. Nor is it limited to male discrimination against women. The reasons, based on generalizations that are supported by voluminous statistics, are:
>
•Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
•Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
•Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it (“compensating differences” in the language of economics).
•Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not “nine-to-five.”
•Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
•Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
•The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
•Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
•Men tend to “update” their work qualifications more than women do.
•Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay ap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
•Women are more likely to have “gaps” in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
•Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for “family reasons.” Less seniority leads to lower pay.
•Men work more weeks per year than women.
•Men have half the absenteeism rate than women.
•Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
•Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
•Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
•In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
•When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
•Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
•Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.
Ask women when they intend to smash the glass floor they have been walking on all their life.
Ask them where the lack of female garbage drivers are, the lack of female ditch diggers, etc.
Ask them how they can be so selfish and inconsiderate thinking unequal pay is more important than unequal work fatalities? It money vs human life.
Read them this list and ask them these questions in a manner that projects shame onto them. Most people and definitely most women do not answer to logic and facts, they answer to emotions. Shame them so them will understand. Make them realize they are not the 'good guys' they think they are.
Personally, I'm not very knowledgeable of this issue, but I believe Julia Serano has a relevant book out:
https://www.amazon.com/Outspoken-Decade-Transgender-Activism-Feminism/dp/099688100X
Here's my list so far. It's a mix of FTM-specific, general trans, and gender studies books, including essays, memoir, and more academic works. In no particular order:
Gender Trouble by Judith Butler
Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us by Kate Bornstein
Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation by Kate Bornstein and S. Bear Bergman
Nina Here Nor There by Nick Krieger
Female Masculinity by Judith Halberstam
Nobody Passes - Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity edited by Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
Whipping Girl by Julia Serano
How Sex Changed: A History of Transexuality in the United States by Joanne Meyerowitz
Becoming a Visible Man by Jamison Green
Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer by Riki Wilchins
PoMoSexuals: Challenging Assumptions About Gender and Sexuality edited by Carol Queen
Genderqueer: Voices From Beyond the Sexual Binary edited by Joan Nestle
From the Inside Out: Radical Gender Transformation, FTM and Beyond edited by Morty Diamond
Second Son by Ryan Sallans
Why are Faggots So Afraid of Faggots? by Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
and the must-read fiction:
Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg
I'll edit this if I can find any others, I'm probably missing a couple. Been a big non-fiction reading year for me!
EDIT: Edited to add links, and a few more on my wish list I haven't picked up yet.
Letters for my Brothers: Transitional Wisdom in Retrospect edited By Megan M. Rohrer, M.Div. & Zander Keig, M.SW.
That's Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation edited by Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
Transgender Voices: Beyond Women and Men by Lori B. Girshick
Just Add Hormones: An Insider's Guide to the Transsexual Experience by Matt Kailey
The Testosterone Files: My Hormonal and Social Transformation from Female to Male by Max Wolf Valerio
No problem!
I'm afraid I tend to focus more on LGBT issues and the anthropology of men/homophobia rather than feminist anthropology or the anthropology of women, so I'm likely not the best person to ask. If you haven't already checked out /r/Anthropology or /r/askanthropology I'd recommend it - there may be someone more qualified over there.
As for Ortner and the entire "man:woman::culture:nature" bit, it's a very influential and interesting essay, though at this point perhaps a little bit outdated. I'm a bit more partial to something like man:woman::public:domestic, or put less arcanely, the fact that men tend to dominate the public sphere (however you may define that), or even that how we think about something as public rather than private is tied into our ideas of masculinity and femininity, though this has its own set of issues. This is sort of something we see in how nationalist politics often tend to be, either explicitly or implicitly, politics of masculinity.
For example, in her book on the Partition, Veena Das (assuming I remember this correctly) describes how Pakistan and India's efforts to rescue abducted women was conducted through, and reinforced, how these states saw themselves and governance as something paternalistic - exchanging women as fathers give away daughters.
There's also Lila Abu-Lughod's Veiled Sentiments which is a personal favourite, though its been a while since I've read it. It's a fairly clear example of a situation where 'the public' is essentially masculine, and public/cultural virtues are fundamentally masculine virtues.
Full ethnographies aside, I'd also generally recommend Gayle Rubin's work - specifically her essay "The Traffic in Women: Notes on a Political Economy of Sex". I think you can find this in her book Deviations, but it's probably also available elsewhere. And also Michelle Rosaldo, especially her stuff in Woman, Culture, and Society, though I suppose this is a bit outdated also.
Well, I strongly identify as a trans-feminist, and I am often hesitant of feminist spaces that aren't queer-centric for the very reasons that you list. However, for me it is important to educate those feminists who are transphobic or cissexist etc to help broaden feminist thought into a more intersectional frame of thought that addresses the sexism of all different identities.
I personally really care about LGBT+ things (and as you can see the LGB movements have not always been trans friendly either), and feminism as well. I assure you that not all feminists are like those individuals your friends experienced, and I am sorry they both had to go through that. It sounds like what they experienced is what Julia Serano has called "cissexism" or, "the belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals." This sort of sexism is something that I think the feminist movements would benefit from addressing.
I know that it can get really depressing reading and experiencing feminists being transphobic and cissexist etc, but one author (and really great speaker) who I have really enjoyed reading is Julia Serano, who is a trans woman and a feminist. You can check out her book "Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity" and I am looking forward to her new book coming out called "Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive" which I think is something you might be interested in looking into.
Check out Susan Moller Okin's Justice, Gender, and the Family for one of the most prominent feminist critiques of Rawls. Also, a quick Google search yielded this paper, which you may find interesting.
Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions is a college textbook but it's chapters on men and masculinity are very informative and easy to understand.
I'm reading the following right now:
Crip Theory: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0814757138/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Access all Areas: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0956134270/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1. (Live art and disability specifically)
Dangerous discourses: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1137272805/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Disability rights and wrongs: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/041534719X/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
And yeah, it has taken a fair bit of research to find out these things. But, I am learning my history and where I come from. In terms of activism and performance, but sociology and disability studies come into this as well.
I don't know if documentaries are of much use, but Vital
Signs: Crip Culture talks back, and lives worth living is also a good shout
> Try reading the entire side bar including The Manipulated Man.
I have read that.
>Here, recommend me a book that describes your view, and I'll check it out too.
That's tough. I can recommend you a good primer on pre-2nd wave feminism, 2nd wave feminism, and critical theory. There's a long list of over 200 years of literature and articles that have gotten it to where it is today. Here's a few.
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sex-Simone-Beauvoir/dp/030727778X - Excellent place to start.
It's likely in your local library.
After that...
https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Kate-Millett/dp/023117425X
Another place to head to next. Controversial, most people have issue with some of things in here. There is no central authority, it's just lots of ideas and challenging yourself that's at the core of it.
https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Gender-Family-Susan-Moller/dp/0465037038
This is another good book to read on the subject after the first two. It's the first academic application of feminist theory to political theory.
That would set the groundwork.
As far as one that describes my view, not sure if I can do that, but that's cuz most people can't do that. I take ideas from multiple books/articles.
>I'll ask, If Feminism is about equality, why not simply fight for Egalitarianism?
Baggage is one reason. The term itself, egalitarianism, has a historical baggage associated with a pretty screwed up past.
Not only that, but feminism is about the advocacy of women's equality to that of men in areas where they are not equal. This is open to interpretation. If we are talking higher-level structural equality on a large scale, there is still much inequality. If we are talking about perceptions of women and stereotypes, there is much inequality. It's one way to look at it.
Also egalitarianism is not just about gender equality by definition, it deals with broader egalitarian concerns like social status, wealth, etc... It's all about catching flies appropriately. One issue at a time. Feminism is focused on gender inequalities, egalitarianism is focused on the total sum of all inequalities. Vast majority of feminists are egalitarian in regards to gender. They may not be in regards to economic status, they probably believe in free market capitalism for instance.
Also this seems like splitting hairs, what does it matter? I don't see many people rhetorically questioning why you call yourself red pill (haven't seen it, not saying they don't).
I actually got it from The Mismeasure of Woman, but I should probably try to figure out what more recent research says. It's hard to Google for, though...
Letters For My Brothers - Zander Keig
Testo Junkie - Paul Preciado
Becoming a Visible Man - Jamison Green
From the Inside Out - Morty Diamond
Self Made Men - Henry Rubin !! author is a cis man !!
Also! If you want to read more about trans stuff along with some other people from this sub, feel free to check out our monthly reading group :)
Here's a link to our February thread
I haven't read any really academic type stuff, but I have read some pretty great books of a radically queer nature.
I just finished reading From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Form and would highly recommend it. However, definitely go for the hard copy rather than the kindle version, as the etext is marred with formatting issues. In this expanded second edition of The Apartheid of Sex, she advocates an end to the legal separation of people based on genitals as well as even cooler things in the future as technology further erodes the reason for divisions between people based on genitals, or even social roles or meat/non-meat status. Her experience as a lawyer really shows in her ability to make concise, effective arguments for her points.
I would also suggest Whipping Girl by Julia Serano. I don't know if it's really that radical, but her understanding and explanation of sexism and it's impact on all people is pretty damn awesome in my opinion.
Also, for a more pot pourri style smattering of essays and such, I'd recommend GENDERqUEER, voices from beyond the sexual binary and Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation.
Finally, someone who knows what I'm taking about and I can converse with about this topic!
Usually I just get people who bash me for being a feminist or people who can't comprehend that patriarchy is oppressive.
>If I disagree with a woman's choice to wear a burka or veil, then I am engaging in an act of paternalism by telling her that from my perspective she is being oppressed and that there is something wrong with her for not seeing that.
Bingo, that's the crux of the problem. It is so difficult to parse out what is someone's choice and what is an environmental influence. There is also a difficulty with talking about an oppressive system without somehow maligning the folks who seemingly choose to be oppressed by it.
My view is a very radical and liberal one that most people would not find appealing. It's absolute egalitarianism in the sense that I would like to see society reach a point where there are no gender roles. It's an ideal that would take many years to achieve, but that's what I take to be a better society. Gender roles (no matter how they are set up) are inherently sexist, and I would like to see them go.
I mean, I could say I became an atheist out of free choice, but I can easily trace the events over several years that led me onto the path I am now.
Was I first coerced by my environment to be muslim and then coerced by a new environment to become an atheist.
I don't know how interested you are in reading academic feminism, but if you ever want more info on what I'm trying to say, try Justice, Gender, and Family by Susan Okin.
You might enjoy the book Gender: In Cross-Cultural perspective...I can't seem to find a free PDF copy off-hand but it is an excellent book that goes into both male and female gender roles across various cultures from modern to ancient.
Here is the mobile version of your link
Jack Kammer's Heroes Of The Blue Sky Rebellion sounds like that you are looking for. It's the one book I'd recommend everyone interested in this subject read.
I'm amazed no one has mentioned this yet, but Julia Serano's books (The Whipping Girl and Excluded) both discuss this in great detail with a focus on anti-trans and anti-bisexual discrimination in queer/feminist circles.
Definitely worth checking out if you're interested in this stuff.
sworebytheprecious wrote:
SPOILER ALERT:
I'm more interested in Sam "Samantha" Healey. Trans* as well?
Here is a little fan theory I just thought of. Healey is Ukranian right? In parts of the Balkans (although it is dying out) there is a class of persons known as "Sworn Virgins." They are/were women who dressed, acted, and took the role of men to become household heads to protect their families. Unlike women they could inhereit property and some even married (though they of course did not have children). Some were raised to become Sworn Virgins by their parents when no male heir was produced in the family.
This would explain Healey's rigid bend to traditions, the name "Samantha," and the unsuccessful marriage to the Russian bride. He/she's of the older generation so he was raised to be a Sworn Virgin by his/her mother but when he/she came to the states, Healey had to undergo a physical and was discovered to be female. So Immigration gave Sam a female name and he/she went on to play the male role in the house while hiding his female gender from the rest of society. Until later, of course, when Sam gets a job with the department of corrections. He/she is able to hide it and has to have a more thourough backround screening...
Sam's superior Caputo is the only one who knows because he has access to his/her file. He uses this information to intimidate Sam (calling his "Samantha" in one episode).
Given what we know about Healey, and the subtle clues the show has given about his/her heritage, this could be a possibility and an interesting twist!
For more information on the Balkan's history of Sworn Virgins, read this book
A Slate article on them.
I wasn't referring to physical imbalances. Keep in mind periods don't cause all women to be more emotional. Few, in fact. And men cycle through 30 day hormonal changes that are essentially the same, they're simply socialized to handle them differently.
You might want to read The Mismeasure of Woman, by Carol Tavris.
Looking for a pdf copy of these three books. Will pay lowest offer via PayPal
​
First: What does it mean to be human?
Second: Gender in cross cultural perspective
Third: Gender and Women's Studies
​
​
You're probably aware already, but for anyone reading along there is some good history to this general idea, or at least something close to what you're discussing. Martine Rothblatt wrote about the links between transgender and transhuman in 2011.
Going back further:
>At the 2003 Transvision conference Vanessa Foster, the chair of the National Transgender Acton Coalition, took the podium in the “The Future of Sex and Gender” workshop and announced that she was a pre-operative transsexual. Her presentation was built around the theme of the village mob’s attack on a misunderstood Frankenstein’s monster. Between images of beautiful transsexuals and stills from Frankenstein movies, Ms. Foster declared that transsexuals were the first transhumanists. As history we can debate the point, but as politics it was an historical moment. Transhumanism as a vanguard civil rights movement had arrived, and the stunned but open expressions on the faces of the largely straight male audience showed the work that transhumanists still needed to do to reach out to the disparate constituencies that will build democratic transhumanism.
Link.
A few books. Do Babies Matter: Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower, The Mind Has No Sex?: Women in the Origins of Modern Science, Pandora's Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong, and The 48 Laws of Power.
Howdy. You asked about a Kindle version of Heroes of the Blue Sky Rebellion, 2nd Edition. It's at amazon.com/dp/1548992534.
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
https://smile.amazon.com/Outspoken-Decade-Transgender-Activism-Feminism/dp/099688100X
---
^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot
> You do know that the concept of "Nations" and countries in Most of Europe wasn't invented back then?
Ummm yeah. When I said they are more than 30 countries in Europe, I meant each one of these countries have their own unique history. Different tribes, empires and cities had different rules. Ofcourse the borders dont look the same today, that wasn\t my point. I was just saying Europe wasnt monolith. Each had different levels of tolerance, some more than others. But most still had heteronormative expectations of gay people.
I AM GAY. And honestly, expecting gay people to birth babies and engage in a heterosexual \public life\ IS STILL HETERONORMATIVE. Not all homophobia is killing gays or hating us. Expecting gays to fullfill heteronormative standards in society is still homophopbia. I\m sure a gay man asking the father of his male lover to take his sons hand in marriage would look down upon. Same if lesbians did the same.
Ancient Greece is my favourite civilization and I always quote them and speak fondly of them. They were definately progressive, speficially the Spartans. I\m just saying heteronormative standards still existed for gay people in Greek society. Ofcouse it wasn\t as bad as the Christian. But I never said they were worse.
My original opinion was simply >>>>> ||| Homophobia existed before Christianity. |||| I originally never made any mention criticizing the Greeks. You brought them up and I said it\s true that they were accepting of gay relations but they still expected gay people to abide by heterosexual formal life.
I know tons of examples of gay acceptance in cultures. I mean, in sub saharan Africa, there was a concept of sister
husbands and boy wife. http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Wives-Female-Husbands-Studies-Homosexualities/dp/0312238290. Its example of gay accpeting socities in pre colonial Africa, but I am also of African origin so I know that a couple of reigions and empires being accepting is not equal to EVERY African tribe being accepting. That is what I meant when I said \ they are more than 30 countries in Europe and Ancient Greece didn\t represent the values of ALL of continental Europe.
My point is that ... Humans will create a hierarchy based on anything. And Im just saying that Christianity didnt invent it. Its all politics. Im sure most people wouldnt have given a fuck about gays if they werent rewarded in social ways from being homophobic.
This article is about WW2 gay prisioners being discriminated by allies. Someone blamed Christian values for the gay prisioners being left behind. Meh, I dont entirely see it that way. USA was anti Nazi but still invited over nazis
to America to continue with their medical experiments. Humans are selfish and opportunistic, that trumps everything before Christian values.
Im just saying that the allies leaving gay prisioners behind wasnt the only fucked up thing they did... Human selfishness is the root of all evil. And the problems in Christianity exist because of it. That is what I meant when I said homophobia existed before Christianity.
Even the good side aka the allies, were still corrupt, because they were human with their own agenda.
My original point was never specifically about homophobia. It was about humanity in general. Some guy blamed it on Christianity and I responded to him saying that humans have always been fucked up
Not completely off topic, there’s a good book about Title IX investigations and how they are unAmerican witch hunts. Unwanted Advances. It will re-frame how you think about dating professors—it used to be no big deal, if somewhat frowned upon. The modern idea of this huge power gap is in itself paternalistic and patronizing of women imho.
You can find it at most libraries but here is a link on amazon:
https://smile.amazon.com/Unwanted-Advances-Sexual-Paranoia-Campus/dp/0062657860
Sorry, back to the slutting!
How about a pantiless jaunt through your classes and flash some gash
go look how many stories there were in the past week alone of university sexual encounters ending up in court.
Go read up on title xi in the USA and the backlash against restoring due process to students accused of sexual offences, this book is a good read
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unwanted-Advances-Sexual-Paranoia-Campus/dp/0062657860
Then consider how many universities think consent classes should be mandatory.
The reality is if I had a son going to university I'd be advising him to be very careful about drunk encounters and to make sure there's zero doubt in his mind about what's taking place