Posted by Anonymous on 2005-12-30 20:43:24
Post Subject:
I haven't read it and I think your opinion of it might depend on your politics. Check out her bio on wikipedia and see if it's your bag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_O'Beirne
I see that this isn't her first anti-feminist book. Hmm.
Posted by athena on 2005-10-03 14:33:18
Post Subject: What Did You Read in Septembert 2005?
Ok, so I finally finished Guns, Germs, and Steel... by Jared Diamond. Great book about why certain societies came to conquer others. The answer lies basically in geography and what that geography allowed those people to accomplish (and didn't allow others to accomplish). Very fascinating. This book is not categorized in History, but in Biology.
I then read Myth and Religion by Alan Watts. These are some more edited lecture transcripts about his takes on modern Christianity and the similarities and differences between Eastern and Western religious philosophy. As always, he makes me laugh out loud. Can you believe it? A religious pundit making you laugh out loud?
I started reading Wacky Chicks... (don't remember the subtitle) by Simon Doonan. Boy, these chicks are wacky! I have to say I think this is a pretty feminist book. It's fun, too.
Posted by xuli on 2005-03-04 12:51:06
Post Subject:
Thanks for posting that review! It's been a few years since I've read Manifesta!, and I'm not about to claim that it was the be-all, end-all of feminist reading material (I excitedly bought the book, and ended up selling it on Amazon.com). At the same time, I think the author of the review has an axe to grind with feminism (well, that's pretty explicit with the sentence "I tend not to like feminist writing as a whole", isn't it?). I mean, I don't understand the point of having someone hostile to feminism do a review of a feminist book, you know? Usually, with non-fiction book reviews, you have someone equipped to assess the book's contribution to its field -- someone who understands the field and is capable of understanding the critical debates within it. I don't find that to be the case with this review writer (I mean, she claims to know a lot about feminist writing/history, and then claims that a big problem with feminism is "man-hating" -- the most simplistic characterization of feminism imaginable!)
She raises a few good points: Manifesta! is gimmicky, it claims to offer a comprehensive view of feminism but it isn't particularly well-researched, comprehensive or scholarly. OK -- so what? I would not use Manifesta! to teach an Introduction to Women's Studies in a university setting, nor would I cite it in a scholarly paper or article on feminism. But I would totally give it to a young woman I'm mentoring, use it to introduce my little sister or young cousin to feminism, something like that. It seems to me like the author of this review is asking the book to be something it's not, and that isn't fair. The book should be assessed on its own terms.
And accusing the authors of man-hating? I'm sorry. That's a tactic that's been used to bait feminists since Susan B. Anthony, and it's boring. The anti-feminists just need to think of something new. There's a big difference between hating patriarchy, or hating the social construction of gender in our culture which puts women into certain narrow roles and puts men in to certain other narrow roles, and hating men. It's just not the same thing. If anything, feminism benefits men: How many men in the world don't fit into the narrow, socially-constructed category of ideal masculinity? They need feminism too, even if they stand to lose some level of unearned privilege from it.
With that said, I think the author of the review brings up two valid points:
* Inga Muscio. I'm sorry, I do have an axe to grind with Inga Muscio. I think her ideas are often dangerous to the feminist movement. She has an essentialist conception of gender, and her writings on abortion are dangerously close to anti-choice. It did annoy me that the writers of Manifesta! chose to give her so much credibility, because her writings are not the best example of feminist writing. At all.
* Racism. I agree that feminism needs to really take a long, hard look at itself on this question. Some kinds of feminism have been very good on race; many have not. Many feminist movements/groups/waves have incorporated token lip service to the concerns of women of color and working-class women without fully incorporating their perspectives, and that is a real problem that feminism needs to address. (Of course, it's a real problem in society in general.) Just as one example: I was shocked, reading recent threads here and on Glitter about the so-called Fourth Wave of feminism, to find that commonly-accepted understanding of feminism's waves is that the First Wave was the suffragists, the Second Wave was the women of the 1970's who made so many strides in ending employment discrimmination, passing Roe v. Wade, etc., and that the Third Wave is thought to be Riot Grrrl and other 1990's young/punk feminism. I've always thought of the Third Wave of feminism being launched when women of color like Barbara Smith, Cherrie Moraga, Gloria Anzaldua and the Combahee River Collective published their critiques of the racism of the Second Wave in the early 1980s. They wrote some amazing books (This Bridge Called My Back and All the Blacks Are Men, All the Women Are White, But Some of us Are Brave are the two big ones), and really took the first step in having race, class and sexuality incorporated into feminist perspectives in a sustained and substantive way. While Riot Grrrl was important to me personally as a teenager, I think that the work of these women was much more important to the sustained power of the movement as a whole, and it does upset me that their work continues to be given token lip service within the movement as a whole. Their work enriched the movement in a very important, powerful way. It does bother me that Riot Grrrl is presented as more important than this important turn in Manifesta!
So that's my two cents on the whole thing. Man, I can't be concise about anything! Sorry.
Posted by KittenHasAWhip on 2005-01-28 12:05:37
Post Subject:
Some older books you might want to read are The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan and pretty much any psychology books by Carol Gilligan. I've never read the entire books but I did read excerpts from them for my methods in women's studies class last semester. While some things are a bit outdated, I found the older books and articles really interesting because it really shows you how much as changed and how much hasn't.
I don't remember this necessarily being a feminist book, but Talk Dirty To Me was an interesting read about sexuality, and not too long, it was a very small hardback that my community library had actually, and for some reason I always associate sexuality with feminism.
And there's a website, but I've lost the link, that has the full text of SCUM. I think that's it. My memory of it is a little fuzzy, Manifesto for the Cutting up of Men or something like that? But that doesn't sound quite right *shrugs* But it's out there. Society for the Cutting Up of Men. Society is what the first S stands for. I remember now.
And Signs is an academic journal that focuses on feminism. They've run articles on a variety of topics. My college carries the paper copy and has internet access to it as well. I believe it's printed by the University of Chicago Press.
Good luck with your reading :) I hope you find some good books!
Posted by siouxsie_homemaker on 2004-08-20 19:52:04
Post Subject:
1. how did you learn to knit? how old were you then and old are you now?
I learned to knit about 9 months ago. I am 24, and neither my mother or my grandmother are knitters or even into any kinds of crafts.
2. knitting = nesting? is your knitting a way of getting back to simpler times?
Sort of. I am really into learning how to do basic things for myself instead of having to depend on our consumer culture to feed and clothe me. I also think that because of this heavy consumerism, traditional women's crafts are dying out. I think this is terrible, and that women need to reclaim them and keep them going for future generations.
I also think knitting is a wonderful outlet for artistic expression, for rejecting cookie-cutter pre-made clothes, and as a fun way to pass the time.
It's sad that unless you're very resourceful, that it can actually be more expensive to make things for yourself than it is to buy all your clothes at chain stores. The fact that these companies employ children and adults for pennies an hour to make their clothing and products is sickening, and our finacial dependence on it is put upon us and is also self-created. I would rather scrape-up some yarn and needles to make myself my own blankets and sweaters and hats so I don't have to buy sweat-shop made products.
3. in regards to the current resurgence in knitting, when do you think it started and why?
I think part of it is the idealic "new domesticity", and part of it is sort of the post-riot grrrl DIY movement. Third wave feminism sort of open the gates for girls to get into makeing things for themselves and let them do "girlie" things and let them know that it was okay.
4. do you have a crafty group that you meet with? how often? why do you dig it?
I go to a knitting group at a local bar twice a month, and I helped organize a ladies social group that meets once a motnh and we do crafts and have a feminist book club. I love love love it. Not only is it fun, but it gives me a great feeling of community and a wonderful place to teach others and learn new skills.
5. where do you go online to discuss/learn/share your craftiness? how do these sites inspire you in ways that real life conversations don't?
I go on this site, and the craftster site. I find that there's a bigger world wide community that's on the net. it's neat. I love real life groups and on-line groups.
6. is there a subversive element to knitting? a punk rock element? or simply a DIY smugness?
For me, doing crafts felt very subversive in a way. My mother is a total tomboy, and growing up I never learned to sew or cook. I had to teach myself everything when I got older. I feel like I kind of missed out a bit because of this.
I also feel that durring the heyday of 2nd wave feminism (60's-80's) that women were focused on breaking out of traditional women's gender roles in order to assert their idependence and gain more civil rights for themselves. They did wonders for women, and I don't want to trash on them in the least, ebcause I highly repect those women, but I don't totally agree with how they went about things. Unfortunately, in this quest of breaking out of their bonds, I think it went a bit too far in rejecting everything classically "feminine".
I am all for re-claiming femininity and finding power in it, not just opression. Make-up, heels, knitting, sewing, baking, can all be wonderfully empowering and fun for women.
I think there's been more of a focus in modern feminism is accepting a variety of women and lifestyles.
In rejecting baking and sewing and going for ready made items, we've becomes horribly dependent on consumerism to take care of us. It's in no way liberating to me.
7. why do you knit?
It's sort of meditative, it gets my creative juices flowing, and it's wonderfully useful.
8. what other crafty things do you do besides knitting?
I make rugs and quilts out of recycled and new fabric.
I want to learn to make toys, improve my knitting and sewing skills, and learn to spin yarn.
I also can't wait to have some land in order to grow my own produce.
9. the future of knitting- is there one or are we just kidding ourselves?
I think their absolutely is a furture to knitting. We can't rely on our country to forever be the rich super power that it is. Once day Americans will need to be more self-sufficient and rescourceful.
Also, I think that knitting is univerally appealing to all generations.
10. do you prefer to knit alone or with other people? why?
Either is wonderful.
11. true or false: can craft save us all? (elaboration here would be nice, but not necessary.)
Certainly. Because crafts aren't just silly instructions on how to decoupage everything, or make decorative items alone. Crafts are making things that our the foundations of our daily lives.
Posted by amygdala on 2004-07-21 14:14:50
Post Subject:
Feminism to me is being able to make my own choices about how I live my life without others feeling entitled to denigrate them and without apology.
Reading list-wise: I really didn't like Cunt. Sometimes I think that intellectually I'm more second-wave even though demographically, I'd be third-wave. It isn't a "feminist" book per se, but I loved Natalie Angier's Woman: an Intimate Geography. I also recommend For Her Own Good and second Naomi Wolf.
Posted by Karla on 2004-07-21 09:43:50
Post Subject:
I'd consider "Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom" by Dr. Christiane Northrup to be a wonderful feminist book. It talks about health and healing from the perspective of a female doctor who believes in a woman's intuition and personal power. It has been a very influential and important book in my life. Also, Lauren Greenfield has put together a big book of her photos of women called "Girl Culture". It is a startling voyeuristic look at of all kinds of young women at spring break, at fat camp, in dressing rooms, at their Quinceañera. Some of the girls write about themselves. Some of it was hard for me to read. It's an honest look at the contradictions and struggles and beauty of growing up as a woman.
Posted by John Sutton on 2005-11-23 01:58:20
Post Subject: This is all a bit overwrought, no?
Come on people! "appropriation of the craftivist sentiment?". Please!
Someone posts a men-centric history of knitting on a men's knitting website and women are up in arms?! What the hell is going on?! That history lesson, as I understand it, was a response (some would say over-reaction) to Debbie Stoller's Stitch 'n Bitch wherein she gives the guys short shrift before launching into a celebration of women's continuing contributions to the craft of knitting. But then it's a feminist book, so who can blame her? That being said, who can blame a men's knitting website for posting what appears to be an accurate summary (that's a key word, summary) of men's on-going contribution to the craft. This isn't about protecting our fragile masculinity or appropriating anything. It's about celebrating men's contribution to the history of knitting.
I find it astounding and a bit disheartening that knitting is losing it's appeal for someone simply because it's becoming more acceptable. That seems to me a childish reaction. And I'm pretty certain it's not the men who are responsible for knitting's new polished appeal; it's the hip young urban women and the Hollywood movie stars and the feminists! Blame Debbie Stoller! She says in Stitch 'n Bitch that she made it her mission to "raise knitting's visibility and value in the culture." Her MISSION. And of course I'm being facetious when I say blame her. It's a brilliant book that has done more to increase the popularity and perceived value of knitting than any other. Hell, probably more than any book or person ever! I say mission accomplished. And to her credit, SHE doesn't shy away from inviting men to the needles! Thank you, Debbie.
I don't believe we (men) have come under fire for knitting (at least I didn't until I found this website). Not once in 13 years of knitting have I had a negative experience, and that includes the first 3 years when I did my knitting on a US Navy aircraft carrier. I am, however, frequently surprised by the number of women who expect that I get ridiculed. I've heard on more than one occassion, "it's great that you are knitting! Don't people make fun of you?" Well, no, they don't. And even if they did, I would continue to knit. And I'm sorry if my knitting feels like appropriation to you or if my masculinity somehow makes knitting okay and therefor limits your ability to enjoy the craft (?), but I promise you that's not why I knit. I'm not trying to rob you of your heritage as a woman or as a "craftivist" and I'm not looking for applause or validation. I don't need it to justify my knitting. I knit because I enjoy the process and the results and, usually, the community.
As far as Dicks with Sticks goes...yeah, I don't like it, either, but that's just because I don't think it's clever (sorry Evan). It makes me think of "jerk". Now Denver Men with Balls...that makes me chuckle. On that note, isn't BUST a reductionist name for a magazine that emphasizes the feminine? And isn't that the point? If you're starting a men's knitting group and you want to attract men, you emphasize the masculinity. When you advertise, you aim at your target audience. I'm also willing to bet that the "bitch" in the Stitch 'n Bitch book title isn't that limited in it's context. At least I hope not, because it was a pretty clever title for a feminist's knitting book when I thought it meant more than just talk.
Finally, delcq started this discussion with an invitation to "discuss" and ends it by yelling troll at a guy who knits because he got a little annoyed by all the negativity aimed at male knitters. Go back and read through these posts. It's REALLY negative and kind of sad. Now, I urge you to find Jean's Crafty Manifesto on this very website and reread it. If you can't bring yourself to reread the whole thing (a shame, because it's pretty good), at the very least find the paragraph where she talks about what being crafty means. She says, "it means always trying to be nice." Troll is a little harsh. It's not at all nice, or crafty.
