(Part 2) Best sociology books according to redditors
We found 562 Reddit comments discussing the best sociology books. We ranked the 245 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.
Carlin was saying the same thing before he checked out. He said campuses made his career because they were open-minded bastions for ideas but they had since degraded into rooms full of scared, overly sensitive children who wanted to remain children (or something to that effect). He blamed boomers, of course.
Reading Excellent Sheep now and it wasn't just in his head. And yeah, boomers pretty much ruined college for the rest of us.
> This map from 1991 is so much like the current maps from 2019, what does that tell us about the territories?
Well, the short answer I guess is "I don't know," but I can think of a couple of lines-of-inquiry that might be fruitful.
The first response that sprang to mind, once it became clear which direction your question was headed, was that thirty years is rather less time than you seem to think it is. It is not unusual for stable academic careers to last for more than forty years. I have a handful of active, non-emeritus colleagues today who became professors in the 1970s. And because many universities are public institutions, they are governed not only by a board of directors and faculty senate but also by state legislatures where things often change very slowly indeed. Harvard, to my routine dismay, is a major trend-setter in higher education, so if the bleeding edge of identity politics was being taught there in the 1980s, and students educated there in the 1980s started showing up in professorships across the country in the 1990s, and their students started showing up in professorships in the 2000s... well now instead of three black students accusing a professor of racial insensitivity, you have a faculty-and-administration-supported slandering of your local bakery.
So to say that "I can take a book published 30 years ago and just change the names around and it fits the current 'universities are going woke and it's destroying higher education' narrative perfectly" seems like a pretty serious exaggeration. Perhaps we could say that universities started going woke circa 1960... but today, they are arriving at the destination--or, stated differently, they are reaching the bottom of a slope we have spent decades denying they were even on. The patterns are similar, but the actual events are much larger and more damaging than they have been previously.
This last idea comes to me in part because I had a discussion rather like this one just ten years ago, with a colleague whose position was approximately "this is all just CW froth, as isolated cases are blown up and discussed ad nauseam." I had to agree that, empirically, most faculty at most universities seem to be getting along just fine. But it is widely agreed that most faculty at most universities are at least marginally politically aligned with the project, so it is hard to judge from the number of incidents just how much of an epidemic we're really facing. The severity of the problem, and the number of people who don't think there's even a problem, seems to be growing quite rapidly, even if the general shape of the problem is much as it has been for 30 years.
Another response that is somewhat related to the first is that the capture of both professional organizations and university administration seems to have accelerated substantially during the Obama years. The American Philosophical Association barely even functions as a philosopher's association anymore; they seem to exist mostly as a promoter of black, Muslim, and LGBTQ causes in professional philosophy. And many philosophy department job listings have recently (in the last five years or so) begun asking for "diversity statements" to be included alongside the traditional teaching and research statements. These statements are ostensibly supposed to explain how candidates will contribute to the diversity of the campus, but the reality is that absolutely nobody is interested in hearing that you will contribute diversity to the campus because Christian conservatives are underrepresented in higher academia. And everyone knows it.
Yet another response is--a bunch of critical race and gender scholars making waves in humanities departments might just not be the kind of thing that is worth worrying about, because in some sense that is just what critical race and gender scholars are supposed to do. But when you start seeing job postings for physics professors asking applicants to explain how their work contributes to global justice and racial equity, maybe you should be concerned even though there was little reason to be concerned about similar requests from Gender Studies departments.
And building on that, there are a lot more people going to college today than there were 30 years ago, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population. So now, instead of history professors getting hit with complaints by students with too much time and imagination for their own good, you have fresh grads going out into non-academic positions with the attitude that people who don't share their politics shouldn't be allowed to have jobs. "Cancel culture" may have started in the Academy, but there was much less reason for people to care when it was limited to the Academy, which has for most of history been seen as a little weird and out-of-touch anyway.
I don't know how satisfactory any of these responses is, and (given the complexity of the world) I imagine that even put all together they represent a less complete account than I'd like. But hopefully they at least establish the plausibility of the claim that "problems of approximately this sort existed 30 years ago" is not obviously a good reason to be suspicious of a claim that "problems of approximately this sort are a serious problem today."
No. Voter suppression is a garbage tactic for garbage people. Here:
https://www.amazon.com/Its-Time-Fight-Dirty-Democrats-ebook/dp/B073YT8P8S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541731801&sr=8-1&keywords=time+to+fight+dirty
There's a whole book of dirty tricks that democrats should pull.
Also: automatic voter registration. That's our answer.
I'm not aware of any documentaries but there was a book published based on the research: Affluence and Influence
https://www.amazon.com/Apprentices-Sorcerer-Tradition-Critical-Haymarket/dp/1608462021/
this book really exposes the similarities between liberalism and fascism by examining its history and the attitudes from proponents of both ideologies.
>20th-century European Fascism is conventionally described as a fierce assault on liberal politics, culture and economics. Departing from this analysis, Landa highlights the long overlooked critical affinities between the liberal tradition and fascism. Far from being the antithesis of liberalism, fascism, both in its ideology and its practice, was substantially, if dialectically, indebted to liberalism, particularly to its economic variant
The argument made:
>A deep dive into the “angry white male” phenomenon should be instructive and interesting, though. Even conservatives understand the point: In 2016, right-wing pundit Wayne Allyn Root published a book called “Angry White Male.”
>“We are marked for attack,” Root writes in the book. “We are marked for extinction. We are the victims of racism.”
>It might take a semester of study to fully understand how a conservative such as Root could write those words.
>Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article228836999.html#storylink=cpy
R2: True politics is angsty. [Tropes warning] There are plenty of conservative pessimists and progressive optimists, and the diagonal "axis" seems to be pure shade-throwing, not actual criticism.
Ok, I'll put down the snark and, since you seem to be genuinely misinformed, make a serious suggestion that you read Professors and Their Politics by Neill Gross. It pretty conclusively shows that the academy overall leans strongly liberal.
A blog about a book that shows the data doesn't match the story told in The Spirit Level.
The authors of The Spirit Level had to cherry pick the data to get the correlations they found.
Je voulais appuyer ça. J'ai eu un accès relativement tardif à un ordinateur (à mes 13 ans, j'ai 30 ans maintenant), et je trouve ça bien.
Malgré ça j'ai eu les mêmes problèmes que toi, et si c'était à refaire je pense que j'attendrais encore un peu plus.
Il y a des impacts sur le cerveau des enfants. Cet excellent livre parle de l'impact de la télé: https://www.amazon.fr/TV-LOBOTOMIE-v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9-scientifique-t%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision/dp/2315001455
Ça me parait très probable qu'on puisse avoir des effets equivalents, et même certainement plus importants avec un PC et le web.
D'un autre côté, c'est une source d'information exceptionnelle, et socialement ça devient de plus en plus important. Donc l'interdiction complète, ça peut aussi avoir des conséquences négatives.
Je n'ai pas d'enfants, mais si j'en avais, je pense que j'attendrais "le plus longtemps possible", avant de les plonger là dedans. En vivant à la campagne, il y a beaucoup d'autres activités qui me semblent plus épanouissantes. Et je pense que pour ceux qui font le choix de donner un accès plus tôt, un contrôle et une modération sont indispensable, et doivent être pris au sérieux (contrairement à ce que je vois chez beaucoup d'amis)
Se former à la programmation ? Je pense que ça doit être un choix. C'est mon métier tous les jours, et c'est pas si évident à faire psychologiquement.
"The Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, requires a credit score of at least 500 to buy a home with an FHA loan. A minimum of 580 is needed to make the minimum down payment of 3.5%. However, many lenders require a score of 620 to 640 to qualify"
So that means they still need established credit AND a down payment. In other words credit and at least a little wealth. As for adult schools, there are highly educated people working shitty low paying jobs because that's whats out there. This seems a lot like you want it to be a certain way, the by the boot straps, get educated, buy a house, etc. mantra, that's just not how it actually works. It is possible to be educated and hard working and to be stuck in poverty.
You're reducing a huge and complex issue into the Republican "Pull yourself up by your boot straps", they are just lazy explanation. Thing is, when you look at data and have also lived this shit first hand, you realize it is not so simple. You realize that there are plenty of educated hard working people that will never escape poverty, not because they don't try but because of how our society is structured and the various intersections of identities and social constructs. When exactly does a single parent raising 2 kids have time between their children's needs and their 2 jobs to go to school? These are the sorts of things people don't think about. What the reality is, not what they want it to be.
Americans want to believe that hard work will get you ahead in life, but we live in a oligarchy and it's about networking more so than skill sets and hard work. Hell corporate structure itself limits opportunity for promotion with its top down approach. 80 employees and 1 management spot, not a lot of opportunity. There's a multitude of influences playing out, and those influences affect one's ability to climb out of poverty. Also, those Adult School have been traditionally made for White people, most education opportunity throughout US History has been made to specifically assist Whites, not poor PoC.
The Meritocracy Myth - https://www.amazon.com/Meritocracy-Myth-Stephen-J-McNamee/dp/1442219823/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0X1W94PHVX1MTDTXX4SF
Oligarchy Study - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
Capital in the 21st Century - https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491591617
Have you met many people living in poverty? Self-control is not a characteristic you would find in many of those families. Lack of self-control is a major contributor to why some of those people live in poverty. Let me be clear that it's not the only reason people live in poverty.
You also don't seem to have a grasp on how generational poverty works... If the parents live in poverty, there is a very high likelihood that their children will also live in poverty when they are adults. It's a cycle, and in many, many, many cases the only thing that breaks that cycle is external influences. Many of these outside influences are directly tied to education.
It's more expensive for you and I, in the long run, to pay for someones "fuck ups", and then their children's "fuck ups", and then their children's "fuck ups" because we never helped break that cycle. It's more cost effective to direct resources to help that initial child break the chains.
A really eye opening book that explains this in greater detail is A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne. I used to believe the same things you have been posting, until I really looked into the deeper issues of poverty. It's not as cut and dry as it seems like it would be.
https://www.amazon.com/Framework-Understanding-Poverty-Ruby-Payne/dp/1929229143
>Please expand on that, I'd be interested to hear your opinion/a link to a relevant article.
The Spirit Level is not on the Level in The Guardian
Un-Level Ground in The Wall Street Journal
Having Your Cake in Economist
The Spirit Level Delusion available on Amazon
The Fantasyland of 'The Spirit Level' at OpenDemocracy UK
Spirit Level Criticisms analysis by the TUC (Trade Union Congress)
The Spirit Level in Financial Times
Note: I've never read the book, never even heard of it until now and thus have no opinion of it. But, even the briefest of Google searches demonstrate that it is swimming in criticism.
I book I like is called "what white people who teach on the hood need to know" not exactly what your looking for but in the same lane.
https://www.amazon.com/White-Folks-Teach-Hood-Rest-ebook/dp/B00Z3E2LVO/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=what+white+folks+who+teach+in+the+hood&qid=1564178716&s=gateway&sr=8-3
> I don't read enough conservative media to get a sense as to whether pessimism still reigns there
Well, in some places it does.
Also, on the topic of "how will all this immigration work out?", optimism/pessimism maps pretty clearly to liberalism/conservatism.
It's a very dry read but there's a 1000 page CPA report that covers the entire occupation and what the US did after the invasion in mind-numbing detail, what went wrong and why. Let me see if I can find it, I wrote a low-level uni paper on it like a year or two ago. I think it was written by Paul Bremer but as I recall it was very frank about the mistakes that occured.
Edit: Here it is: https://books.google.se/books?id=OjM3DTks4ekC&pg=PA455&lpg=PA455&dq=coalition+provisional+authority+inspector+general+report+pdf&source=bl&ots=hSKJEkUytk&sig=ofhqub7tKjjNociRy8vg77vHwK4&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjesuKa86zSAhXB6CwKHbVpAsE4ChDoAQhIMAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
This report covers basically the entire occupation and thus the reason why IS exists, or at least exists as something more than just another Syrian Islamist opposition faction.
I haven't read any books about ISIS beyond that. If you want a book on politics/foreign affairs/the international system that covers
relevant concepts like power vacuums, states and so on, this book is the best textbook I've ever had in uni and it has pretty much everything: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Globalization-World-Politics-Introduction-International/dp/0198739850/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488081222&sr=1-1
>Shit dude...do your homework.
You first.
Sociology by Anthony Giddens is a great place to start for an introduction
Books:
News, Blogs:
Think Tanks:
Hope you'll find something interesting among these. I have put the focus on security and strategic studies because you said in another post that you have a particular interest there. Also, that's what I know best.
Where are you going to study in the UK, if you want to disclose?
Edit: If any of the links lead to somewhere else than the name suggests, I apologize, I have written this post at 0438 in the night. If you google, you should easily find any of the sources though.
That looks interesting. I'm definitely interested in all kinds of reform. This is a book I enjoyed which had more practical ideas:
https://www.amazon.com/Its-Time-Fight-Dirty-Democrats-ebook/dp/B073YT8P8S
A lot of the ideas are about increasing democracy but it's interesting in that the whole book could play out in real life, everything in there could be accomplished by democrats with 1 person majorities in the house, Senate, and the president. That's interesting to me because it's a more pragmatic look at changing the system as is.
Like I said before, once we get to the point where changes are unconstitutional I tend to get less interested in reforming democracy in a way that's more effective, and more interested in eliminating it. Since at that point it's all impossible anyway barring a revolution, but I might as well dream big.
Do you know if the authors of your book make an effort to keep their reforms constitutional or possible within our current system as is?
EDIT: I don't mean to get too partisan. I'm not a republican, but I have to admire their gamesmanship in manipulating the system to achieve their ideological goals. Vote suppression, gerrymandering, changing legislative rules or norms, politicizing the courts. It's all directed towards outcomes I couldn't disagree more with, but unlike others I can't condemn attacks on democracy or minority rule when I'd do it in a heartbeat if I could.
I may be in the minority but I don't think that Mills's Sociological Imagination is a good starting point for an introduction to sociology. While the first chapter (The Promise) may be worth a read, the rest of the book is very much an insider's critique of the subject and requires the reader to have a general understanding of sociology as it is being practiced post-WWII. I think that you will get the most out of Mills after familiarizing yourself with sociology more broadly.
As others have mentioned, Ritzer & Stepnisky's Sociological Theory is a very comprehensive overview of sociological thinking but it may be a bit overwhelming. While it isn't as encyclopedic as Ritzer & Stepnisky, I like Seidman's Contested Knowledge because it provides the reader with both a historical overview of sociological thinking and provides easy to read summaries of important thinkers.
I am not sure if you will find these too difficult but here are some other books that may expand your understanding of sociology:
The best general sociology textbook I've ever had is George Ritzer's Sociological Thoery. Sociological Theory https://www.amazon.com/dp/1506337716/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_icTLDbVMBQ94N
Here is his Intro text: Introduction to Sociology https://www.amazon.com/dp/1544355181/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_pgTLDbBAS0KDA
Also, this book seems good to me. The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained https://www.amazon.com/dp/146547854X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_9hTLDbJ8NP3RX
I'm thinking of design my own 101 course using the last 2.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608462021/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_c8SLDbQ5ET1KS
I would also recommend The Globalization of World Politics as an introductory text to the field. It's an absolutely phenomenal textbook, while summaries you've posted are indeed comprehensive and succinct.
To elaborate, with more comprehensive texts (should the OP choose to read them), IR is a broad field. But specifically regarding International Politics, I would recommend Nye's The Future of Power, as a current perspective on international power (and the fairly recent differentiation in power resources, eg. "hard" and "soft" power). Focusing specifically on International Politics (as opposed to other IR subfields like development), the seminal works for the current theories on international politics include:
Theory of International Politics by Kenneth N. Waltz (1979), which serves as the foundation for structural realist (or neorealist) school. Neorealists are generally split between offensive realists (like Mearsheimer) and defensive realists (Waltz and Walt) as general categorizations, and you can find related works from these scholars for a focused view from either on the issues they disagree upon.
After Hegemony (1984) by Robert Keohane is the neoliberal institutionalist response to Waltz (Power and Interdependence by Keohane & Nye (1977) is probably its founding text), and one of the leading works of the theoretical field itself.
Finally, Social Theory of International Politics by Alexander Wendt (1999) is the comprehensive overview of the social constructivist school.
These largely cover all the major theoretical branches of current International Political theory (without diverging too heavily into IR subfields), though I do emphasize that these classifications are fairly fluid, given the readiness of offensive realists like Mearsheimer to look into the "black box" of domestic politics in the (highly controversial) piece, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Again, these are the main theoretical works in these respective schools, and it is not necessary for you (the OP) to read through all of them to understand the subject.
While not exclusively International Politics focused, World Systems Theory is highly influential critical theory for IR studies, and understanding it (and Marxist-influenced dependency theory) as well as game theory (Nash Equilibrium etc) are both integral to modern IR methodologies and theories. By in large, Hobbes and the Leviathan (and a bit of Rousseau) is the only political theory that you need to start delving into IR theory, so you should be good on that front.
There are also specialized and diversified IR fields such as Development, Peace and Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights, but those are most likely not necessary given the scope of your conference (by the sounds of it, predominantly focused on state-centric International Politics).
Don't fret too much about grades, a few Cs is not the end of the world. I suggest to take on a new perspective.
Remember that you are in college to learn, and you are taking classes that interest you. You're not in college to get good grades or to get a job (I know this sounds a bit crazy). If you are actively interested in the material that is assigned then good grades will just happen. If you are actively interested in finding out what kind of job you would like to do by volunteering and doing internships, then a job offer should happen. Forget about the grades, sit in class and ask questions, read your book and Google questions you have. It takes more time, but you will have a better college experience and more physical knowledge in the long run. Focus on learning the material not "how do I get an A."
Stay in the sociology lab a bit longer and consider if it is something you enjoy doing. Try out a biology lab and consider if you like it more or hate it compared to sociology.
Lots of professors are late with deadlines. Be there for the experiences of learning how a lab operates and what it is like to do research.
College is a time to figure out who you are and how you would like to contribute to society. I suggest reading a book called "Excellent Sheep." http://www.amazon.com/Excellent-Sheep-Miseducation-American-Meaningful/dp/1476702713
This looks very interesting! Have you read this book by the same author? I'll have to pick that one up as well. Thanks for the suggestion!
EDIT: I think I found a preprint of this article in case anyone else is interested.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apprentices-Sorcerer-Tradition-Critical-Sciences/dp/1608462021
‘The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations’ (Oxford University Press) is excellent. It covers international relations theory, plus the global issues and changes facing world politics, effectively setting the stage for any deeper reading on geopolitics and international relations.
I’d also recommend iTunes U for introductory courses, plus podcasts and lectures (app of choice or YouTube) from academics. Plenty of good stuff out there for free to supplement reading.
The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (Oxfo04) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198739850/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4KysDb9BXX7A6
Alexander Wendt is a good place to start.
And this article has a more in depth examination of Constructivist theory with actual citations and a reading list. I'd do better, but I have to get on the 405 in a few minutes...
Well anyways, here's a NRx reading list I'm slowly making my way through...
​
Introduction
The Dark Enlightenment Defined*
The Dark Enlightenment Explained*
The Path to the Dark Enlightenment*
The Essence of the Dark Enlightenment*
An Introduction to Neoreaction*
Neoreaction for Dummies*
Reactionary Philosophy in a Nutshell*
The Dark Enlightenment – Nick Land*
The Neoreactionary Canon
The Cathedral Explained*
When Wish Replaces Thought Steven Goldberg *
Three Years of Hate – In Mala Fide***
****
The Decline
We are Doomed – John Derbyshire*
America Alone – Mark Steyn*
After America – Mark Steyn*
Death of the West – Pat Buchanan***
The Abolition of Britain – Peter Hitchens
****
Civil Society and Culture
Coming Apart – Charles Murray
Disuniting of America – Arthur Schlesinger
The Quest for Community – Robert Nisbet
Bowling Alone – Robert Putnam
Life at the Bottom – Theodore Dalrymple
Intellectuals and society – Thomas Sowell
****
Western Civilization
Civilization: The West and the Rest – Niall Ferguson
Culture Matters – Samuel Huntington
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization – Ricardo Duchesne
****
Moldbuggery
Mencius Moldbug is one of the more influential neoreactionaries. His blog, Unqualified Reservations, is required reading; if you have not read Moldbug, you do not understand modern politics or modern history. Start here for an overview of major concepts: Moldbuggery Condensed. Introduction to Moldbuggery has the Moldbug reading list. Start with Open Letter series, then simply go from the beginning.*
****
​
>Sikkert. Det sker i hundrede gange større størrelsesforhold at det at være en kvinde er en ulempe, og de konsekvenser, det har er meget mere dybdegående, idet kvindekønnet arbejder imod dig, hvis du f.eks. vil have adgang til magtfulde positioner. Mandekønnet arbejder imod dig, hvis du gerne vil opgive en magtfuld position, i grove træk.
Du bliver ved med at sige det er så stort et problem for kvinder. 100 gange mere end for mænd. Hvor man kan dokumenterer at mænd har deres køn imod sig, så må man jo også kunne det med kvinder, hvis det du siger da er sandt. Hvor er den dokumentation? Hvor er de artikler hvor en kvinde ikke måtte noget KUN pga hendes køn?
>Ej sorry, det er altså ikke til at tage seriøst, det der. Kvinderne kæmpede for stemmeret — hvor er mændendes protestmarch for at få lov til at skifte ble? Det er altså svært at finde det i historiebøgerne.
Jeg siger ikke, at mænd i dag ikke har et oprigtigt ønske om at tage del i deres børns opvækst. Det har de. Men det er sateme godt nok ikke på mænds foranledning, at den ændring er sket.
At mænd har mere ret til deres børn i dag end for 50 år siden for du lige lavet om til en sejr for kvinder ved at blande stemmeret ind i det?!? Flot.
Tror ikke der er nogen der er uenig i at kvinder havde ulemper ved deres køn for 100 år siden, men de fik stemmeret, lige så langsomt fik de de samme lovstedte rettigeder som mænd. Idag er der INGEN love imod kvinder, KUN mænd.
>Okay, nu ved jeg, at du troller. Jeg ville sende dig mit CV, hvis det ikke var at doxxe mig selv. Trust me, jeg har godt styr på, hvad feminisme er.
Flot. Tillykke. Fantastisk. 1 diskution for et par måneder siden siger du at du er programør. En anden at du studerer kultur. Og nu har du så et arbejde som gør dig ekspert i feminisme.
>Nej, det er alle feminister, der kæmper den kamp, for det er selve definitionen på at være feminist. Patriarkatet er et system som alle, der deltager i vores kultur, mænd som kvinder, bidrager til at opretholde. Det undertrykker primært kvinder, og bøsser, og transkønnede, men også lesbiske, og en masse andre. Og også heteroseksuelle ciskønnede mænd, især dem, der ikke har lyst til at opføre sig i overensstemmelse med kønslige stereotypier. Det er ikke en bevidst sammensværgelse, og det har ingen nogensinde påstået, at det var.
Igen ved du ikke hvad du snakker om. Prøv at læse hvad jeg skriver. Ikke alle feminister tror overhovedet på mænds privilegier eller patriarkatets stuktuealle undertrykkelse af kvinder. De vil bare have lig mulighed. Hvilket i vidt muligt omfang er nået.
Så vi sider med folk som dig tilbage som råber op om statistiker som viser at ikke 50% af alle direktører er kvinder og i bruger det til at retfærdiggøre jeres hetz imod maskulinitet.
>Disse kaldes for neo-feminister eller radikale feminister.
http://www.amazon.com/Sociology-Anthony-Giddens/dp/0745643582
og
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Stole_Feminism%3F
begge 2 gode bøger du burde læse.
Hvis du ikke gider bøger så er her nogle link jeg lige kunne finde såen hurtigt:
I dag er feminismen og dermed kvindekampen splittet imellem en række modsætninger. Blandt andet er der en konflikt om moderskabet, men også om i hvor høj grad kvinder skal privilegeres for at blive ligestillet med mænd.
[Feminismen kan opdeles i to hovedretninger: Liberal feminisme og radikal feminisme.
Liberal feminisme: ligestilling mellem kønnene, dog skal forskellen mellem kvinder og mænd anerkendes, men de samme rettigheder skal gælde for både mænd og kvinder. Den liberale feminisme forstår ligestilling mellem mand og kvinde som opnået, når disse har lige muligheder. Den liberale feminisme anerkender dog, at sociale og kulturelle holdninger og mønstre kan begrænse ligestilling, og således menes der med lige muligheder ikke blot formel ligestilling. Særegent for ideologen er, at den ikke anser kvinders underordnede position i samfundet som et resultat af en større struktur, som radikal og marxistisk feminisme gør det. Derfor kæmper den liberalistiske feminisme heller ikke for et konkret opgør med den nuværende samfundsorden og benytter sig i stedet af det eksisterende system i sin kamp for ligestilling. Gennem retsinstanser og demokratiske processer forsøges der at opnå og beskytte juridiske rettigheder for kvinder. Derfor kaldes ideologien ”moderat”, og den kritiseres ofte for udelukkende at beskæftige sig med de konkrete samfundsmæssige uligheder, i stedet for at undersøge de dybtliggende årsager til, hvorfor ulighed mellem kønnene finder sted.
Radikal feminisme: troen på, at kønslig undertrykkelse ses i samfundet. Patriarkatet menes at være skyld i denne undertrykkelse, måden at stoppe denne undertrykkelse må ske via revolution, da mænd er socialiseret til at være dominerende. Den radikale feminisme centrerer omkring forestillingen om, at mænd som gruppe opretholder og drager fordele af undertrykkelsen af kvinder. I denne ideologi anses patriarkatsteorien altså som den væsentlige forklaring på kvindeundertrykkelse, og alle aspekter af denne i samfundet, som f.eks. vold eller chikane mod kvinder, anses som en systematisk opretholdelse af patriarkatet, da den blandt andet næsten udelukkende begås af mænd. Patriarkatets opståen begrundes ofte med, at denne samfundsstruktur gør det nemmere for manden at tilegne sig og beherske kvindens krop og seksualitet, men da patriarkatet er så gammelt, så er der ingen 100% klar fakta omkring præcist hvordan den kan være opstået.(http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminisme)
They also weren't wrong about the profound hiring bias against conservatives and Christians in academia. I grew up treating such claims as so much conspiracy nonsense, but oops, they were right!
The Superclass.
You only use stats that you throw your own bias into and only show anecdotal evidence. There is no argument to be made against something that proves nothing other than saying it isn't a real argument.
>That is called a straw man. I never said that. People are ALWAYS trying to influence people towards their political views if they are politically active/savvy they only believe it's noble. People are biased and in the social scientists/gen ed politics always comes up.
That isn't a strawman. You said that.
> Getting thoughts injected into your brain by crazy Marxists professors
Can you provide any evidence that liberal professors are some huge issue on campuses. Universities aren't going to go out of their way to find conservative professors when there aren't as many. I've never had a single class where my professor only showed one view point and I've never heard of anyone else sharing this opinion. Can this issue exist, yes, does it exist as widespread as you're claiming, no. All you're doing is spewing the same "all colleges are liberal" argument that fox news and every right winged news source does.
https://www.amazon.com/Professors-Their-Politics-Neil-Gross/dp/1421413345
Educate yourself. Conservative students who become engaged become more conservative and liberal students become more liberal as well.
think what you want, its not like theres a source or citation that this sub would believe anyways. I only arrived at this after years of reading books and countless articles, piecing together things by myself. Its not like its one shadowy group controlling everything, that is a strawman. This kind of info is complex and it doesnt just get handed to you. Ill throw you guys a bone since I have a little time to kill:
I looked it up - I'm slow on mobile - and his last name is Emdin. Here's the book http://www.amazon.com/White-Folks-Teach-Hood-Rest-ebook/dp/B00Z3E2LVO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1455904288&sr=1-1&keywords=christopher+emdin I will give it a shot!
I'm far from an expert (or even particularly knowledgeable) on political philosophy but I highly recommend The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy for an overview of the important concepts of political philosophy. It has a bit of a focus on Rawls and Nozick, but covers pretty much all the other bases too.
Again hardly an expert on IR, but I found The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations to be an excellent intro textbook.
These aren't necessary 'neoliberal' books, but I would highly recommend them to anyone before wading through some of the classic primary sources on these topics. People might get a little bit lost in there otherwise.
1 Evil Spirit on Top
13 bloodline families report to it.
Each 13 families have 13 other families that report to it.
The "Council of 300" is a good place to start--this is a conventional book about it, by one of Kissinger's right hand pawns. https://www.amazon.com/Superclass-Global-Power-Elite-Making/dp/0374531617
Hey thanks, sorry for being newbie, but that looks really difficult tho.. is there no book covering all that basic concepts in one volume? I was recommended this by my friend http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sociology-Anthony-Giddens/dp/0745643582 I've been reading that and it's quite easy to understand. Is there something along that line but in polsci? Something that covers all version of political parties, all version of communism, etc. Something to get started with..
> but corruption as we traditionally know it...
Maybe they do not mean corruption in the traditional "bribing" sense, but more subtle ways or just in the sense of decay, lack of integrity or honesty. In this sense there is a very good case for it I'd say. When hundreds of millions of dollars are poured over politics by big interest groups, you have to be quite optimistic or flat out naive to think that's all honest. Of course, the US are still a better place than China, Brasil, Russia or Mozambique... but that wouldn't unvalidate the criticism. I accept that a compared view should be taken to realize how well off most of us here are, but it shouldn't lead to us giving up standards. If it's true that normal citiziens have virtually no way to really affect politics, that the agenda basically dominated by affluent americans, it would be a big problem and just unacceptable. And from what I know, there is a pretty good case.
https://www.amazon.com/Affluence-Influence-Economic-Inequality-Political/dp/0691162425
ManWoman wrote the same book in 2001
old news, yawn
https://www.amazon.fr/TV-LOBOTOMIE-v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9-scientifique-t%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision/dp/2315001455
http://www.amazon.com/Excellent-Sheep-Miseducation-American-Meaningful/dp/1476702713
You have obviously done ZERO fucking research on what the swastika actually means. Let me educate your ignorant ass. Read thisand then come back here with a different point of view.
>Even conservatives understand the point: In 2016, right-wing pundit Wayne Allyn Root published a book called “Angry White Male.”
>“We are marked for attack,” Root writes in the book. “We are marked for extinction. We are the victims of racism.”
W.A.R. is right, and that citation doesn't support the premise of the college course. People criticizing white genocide doesn't mean you start teaching people the positive benefits of genociding an entire race. As for W.A.R., I hope you're aware that he was the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential nominee in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Libertarian_National_Convention
cc /u/Blackened10