(Part 2) Best women in history books according to redditors

Si vamos a hablar seriamente de feminismo, hay que partir por Simone de Beauvoir, el segundo sexo es la obra fundamental para entender la reivindicación feminista histórica

Este es light, pero es bueno para tener una perspectiva histórica

Este es más cercano a una revisión histórica académica. Se ha convertido en clásico en los últimos años

Este otro ayuda bastante a comprender la segunda ola, que es el core de la principal reivindicación de las manifestaciones de hoy en día

Y para una visión más local, la humanas tiene un par de cosas buenas

Además de lo que recomendó /u/Insania2014 que es good shit, especialmente Kirkwook.

No entraré en la crítica al feminismo (Camille Paglia tiene unos libros de ensayos buenos) o la tercera ola porque no he leido una obra que sintetise el fenómeno, así que no me voy a arriesgar.

> Does the fact that Black people once were slaved make it alright to be simply put, proud of their heritage?

Yes? Because the fact is that many black people do not know their heritage. It was, as I said, systematically erased. Most white folks do. There's a difference between being forced into a race (as many black folks are) and being allowed to "choose" a racial signifier. Ergo, how many white people are able to claim whiteness as well as their respective ethnic heritage, in comparison to many black folks who are nearly always read as just "black", even if they're, say, second-generation immigrants.

This has a lot to do with how race is constructed, etc. There's a lot of resources about this, including entire books. Mary Waters's "Optional Ethnicities?" is a fairly good primer, though, if you're really curious about this.

> How? excuse me I don't feel more powerful than my fellow black man.

I'm referring to systemic power, not individual.

Obama was one black President amongst 44 (including Trump). Congress doesn't fare much better. As of 2015, 13.5% of the U.S. population is black, not counting mixed race folks. We are not in any way close to reaching parity.

This isn't counting other institutional issues, such as systemic housing discrimination, job discrimination, the racial wage gap, and (of course!) police brutality.

> What criteria is that that only a few have and that allows them to enter the structure you mentionned?

Again, this is a racial formation question. You might want to read up on how immigrants such as the Irish and the Italians became white. And "conditional whiteness" in terms of how Ashkenazi Jewish folks are sometimes read as "white" and sometimes read as "Jewish".

The criteria, as most things of this nature, are often arbitrary. Both Indian and Japanese folks have lobbied for citizenship on the basis of their close identification with "whiteness". Both of these claims were rejected.

Wikipedia actually has an article on the whole idea of whiteness in the United States.

> Why are all these peoples treated differently?

Because society treats these people differently. (Refer to above.)

Again, "white" is not a heritage. It is perfectly all right to be proud of being French or German or Italian.

There is a very interesting book that came out in 1992 about female terrorists, written by journalist Eileen MacDonald: Shoot the Women First.

The gist of the book is that women are no strangers to terrorism, and that, contrary to what people would like to believe about women being some kind of hanger-ons or "girlfriends" of the terrorists, women are quite capable of being as determined and ruthless as any of the men—sometimes even more so.

The Palestinian women of the Intifada, for example, coached their own children to conduct various terrorist activities. Interestingly, they criticized the Palestinian men for not being as committed. Apparently, the men would get married and take on the responsibilities of providing for their wives and children, and this led to them only wanting to "talk politics." The Palestinian mothers, by contrast, were far beyond mere talk.

The book is out of print, but still available. It's a profile of several different women terrorists. I highly recommend it.

Rick Scott, Republican. This could be another chapter in a book about the overall decline of public health.

I actually want to thank you for bringing back memories of begging to stay up to read one more chapter of [this book].

If I remember correctly, its mostly about the 1996 olympic team that won a gold in Atlanta, but it also goes into the beginning of the WNBA/the end of the ABL(?) or whatever the other women's league around then was called.

Thanks for your interpretation. I majored in Latin, but I never got around to learning any Greek, which is unfortunate. But when most of the other writers (collective or others) of the NT raise very few misogynistic/feminist questions, and Paul seems to raise so many, it's hard for me to believe that Paul was so egalitarian. I know many Christians who take the Bible literally think that if one thing in the Bible is incorrect/not right, then everything in the Bible should be questioned, and I disagree with that; if Paul does exhibit misogynistic tendencies, I think we should admit that, but it doesn't null and void everything else he got right.

I don't know all your academic/scholastic background, but I do urge you to read more about Classical women and their roles. You seem to attribute Athenian society (which was quite misogynistic) to all of Hellenistic society (which ranged in its treatment of women); the ancient Greek polis-states were quite independent in culture and governments, and once most of the Greek polis-states were under Roman control (around the time of Paul), Roman women were gaining legal and economic status (though some Roman writers and politicians longed for the "good old days" of the Republic when women didn't have as many rights). I highly recommend Sarah B. Pomprey's "Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves" to anyone interested in Classical women and their changing roles.

Additionally, I'm not sure if your first example is apt. I was always told that Christianity appealed mostly to the lower class (for obvious reasons, as I'm sure you know), and it was only the richest Athenian families who could afford to sequester their women as you describe.

Thanks for not just downvoting, I appreciate that :)
Not sure what the web footprint regarding historical definitions of chivalry (verses the cleaned up 'dudes doing right' version) is (it's been about 11 years since I've done the reading).
The concept is tied in to, among other things, Aristotle's biological concepts of women (tl:dr; uterus is mis-formed penis that 'happens' to come in handy) and is what filters into the big-3 modern religions (along with unpleasant things said by people like Aquinas, St John, & other big names of the time) and classical Greek ideas (sex w/wife = gross necessity, pederasty = agape, true expression of love/aesthetic beauty, etc).
Most of this stuff was in a bunch of comparative religion/philosophy texts & books of essays but here's a couple of links pointing in that direction:
[book at amazon about Aristotle's biology, check out the editorial reviews/comment for brief summary (I promise that's not my review!)] (http://www.amazon.com/Female-Aristotles-Biology-Reason-Rationalization/dp/0226512002).
[here is a google search about Thomas Aquinas, one of Christianity's fathers, famous quote where he winkingly says we should be chaste, but sex feels to good to stop] (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Grant+me+chastity+and+continence%2C+but+not+yet%22).
The Aquinas quote is there as a barometer of the general indifference towards women and hypocrisy.
I'll look around here & see if I still have relevant texts/etc.

https://www.amazon.com/Curse-Cultural-History-Menstruation/dp/0252014529

Love this book! Not all specifically the US, but a lot of great information.

What does being beautiful have to do with anything? It should be OK, then for an ugly woman to ruin her face in the sun and samd? It's a pleasant theory, but it doesn't stand up to even the most casual bit of historical scrutiny.

Veiling woman came directly from Mohamed, who was worried about other men looking at his wife (wives). Every time he felt threatened: oh gosh, the Angel just spoke to me again, and said you have to stay behind that curtain when my friends come over, you have to cover your hair, you have to cover your face, etc.

Before Mo, women wore pretty much the same climate appropriate robes as everyone else.

Try Nine Parts of Desire for a capsule overview on how modern attitudes toward women in Islam developed directly from Mohamed's personal life.

Looks cool and also reminds me to recommend Ingenious Women: From Tincture of Saffron to Flying Machines by Deborah Jaffe and Sandi Toksvig

This is one out of hundreds of books that refute your outdated thinking. It has some colorful pictures and easy to read words, perfect for you. Its also peer reviewed and accepted in the scientific consensus. You're confusing humans of the neolithic age, with religious retards post agriculture and domestication of animals.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0692966005/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1