Best products from r/feminisms

I'm sure others will have perhaps better suggestions but when I was in elementary school in the mid 90s I really enjoyed:

• The Ameican Girls Series. It's a series of books detailing the lives of a girl from different historical periods. My favorite character was Molly from the WWII period. I ended up reading the entire series, which was only 5 charecters (so 20ish books as each character has like 4 books of their own) and it has since grown, but I was so proud of myself at the time for doing that. I haven't read the books again as an adult so it's hard to say if they are healthy from a feminist perspective. The most harmful thing could be too much mindless patriotism but that didn't leave a lasting effect on me though. I think they did give me some mind expanding historical perspective and enriched my ability to see others point of view.
  
  
• Matilda. I highly recommend this one. It's undoubtedly a good book for a growing girl and especially from an empowering feminist perspective. It was the first book I read where I remember really getting into and identifying with a charecter. I gave a copy to my 8 year old cousin and she enjoyed it too. Cannot say enough good things about this book. Recommend.
  
  ...wow I feel like I wrote a lot for children's book recommendation! It was nice to reminisce I guess. Good luck on finding a good book for your daughter! :)

Sorry, I thought that sources for earliest diamond rings were pretty readily available and not that hard to Google.

The reason diamond engagement rings became a common item to give during an engagement in the late 1800's was because couple usually had long engagements, and also became sexually active then (something most people don't know/realize). The man was usually working to prepare a home for the couple and so the ring was seen as a gift to the woman in case the man died, or if he broke the engagement off. It was a form of insurance for her, not a sign of her being his property with an expensive bauble. Remember back then the mortality rate was much higher everywhere, and people didn't live as long, and people were still as wishy-washy about love and all that as they are today.

The diamond engagement ring (which had been a sapphire, ruby, or plain gold engagement ring before diamonds were affordable) was a symbol of the man's commitment to the woman, not a sign that he owned her. Women weren't generally given property rights, and the backwards idea of virginal brides was still pretty common for the more upper class and religiously minded folk (as that was something common for the rich and nobles - the celebrities of their time, and thus the people the middle class tried to emulate). He gave her the ring so that if he died, left her or offended her in some way then she wouldn't be up a creek without a paddle. She had insurance against society's ill will as it were. Back then most people still shopped at general stores, and they would order rings from new mail-order companies like Sears and Roebucks, etc.. Tiffany's was a new trend - a store that only sold jewelry. Hell, multi-type stores were still common only four generations ago. My great-great grandfather owned a optometry, clock, watch, jewelry, and specialties good store during the 1930s in Kansas City.

If you want some links regarding the history of jewelry here are some:

Here's some semi-good information: http://www.diamondwholesalecorporation.com/TheHistoryoftheEngagementRing.html

A good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewellery
some basic info on engagement rings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring

This is a good book: http://www.amazon.com/7000-Years-Jewelry-International-Illustrated/dp/1554073952

also another good book: http://www.amazon.com/Jewelry-Antiquity-Present-World-Art/dp/0500202877/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247079543&sr=1-4

Something interesting I just found: http://www.google.com/search?q=jewelry+history&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=1&tbs=tl:1&num=100&ei=0uxUSoKxFo30sgPam7XJDg&oi=timeline_navigation_bar&ct=timeline-navbar&cd=3

Not a real life example but as they are in year 4 there's a book called 'Fearless Girls, Wise Women & Beloved Sisters' it's a collection of fairy tales and folklore from around the world featuring women. There may even be some from Kuwait or around the region. My dad read it to me when I was young and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393320464

Read the newly released "Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society" by Dr. Cordelia Fine for an introduction to this topic. It's very entertaining and easy to read, and also very informative - about the last 50 pages are notes and citations of the studies she mentions that you can investigate further if you wish.

>“Goodbye, beliefs in sex differences disguised as evolutionary facts. Welcome the dragon slayer: Cordelia Fine wittily but meticulously lays bare the irrational arguments that we use to justify gender politics.”―Uta Frith, emeritus professor of cognitive development, University College London

>Many people believe that, at its core, biological sex is a fundamental, diverging force in human development. According to this overly familiar story, differences between the sexes are shaped by past evolutionary pressures?women are more cautious and parenting-focused, while men seek status to attract more mates. In each succeeding generation, sex hormones and male and female brains are thought to continue to reinforce these unbreachable distinctions, making for entrenched inequalities in modern society.

>In Testosterone Rex, psychologist Cordelia Fine wittily explains why past and present sex roles are only serving suggestions for the future, revealing a much more dynamic situation through an entertaining and well-documented exploration of the latest research that draws on evolutionary science, psychology, neuroscience, endocrinology, and philosophy. She uses stories from daily life, scientific research, and common sense to break through the din of cultural assumptions. Testosterone, for instance, is not the potent hormonal essence of masculinity; the presumed, built-in preferences of each sex, from toys to financial risk taking, are turned on their heads.

>Moving beyond the old “nature versus nurture” debates, Testosterone Rex disproves ingrained myths and calls for a more equal society based on both sexes’ full, human potential.

Her previous book "Delusions of Gender" is also quite good.

I highly recommend Hey Shorty! A Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment in Schools and on the Streets. It's part founding story of Girls for Gender Equity, a New York-based non-profit, part organizing guide for people working on these issues with girls in K-12.

In fact, I am sure if you called GGE or another feminist girl-centered organization, they would be happy to set up a phone meeting with someone who creates feminist curriculum for that age group. Hardy Girls Healthy Women in Maine does a great job of introducing feminism to girls and teens.

You could also lead some discussions around articles in Rookie! It's an online magazine founded by a teen girl, written by teen girls, and all with a feminist bend. Tavi Gevinson's TED Talk could be another great conversation starter.

According to The Science on Women in Science gender bias is apparent as early as 4th grade in our school system. At the university level, thousands of science scholarships specifically set aside for girls go unfulfilled because our high schools are simply not graduating enough girls who qualify for them.

This isn't just a professional, academic level of sexism. It's much more deep rooted than that.

In Outliers, the law of diminishing academics are demonstrated. Essentially a small difference in population at age 10 is a huge difference at age 20. If you do not fix a problem in academic trends early on, the problem only gets exacerbated as time progresses.

What the data says is that if you want to fix the gender bias in the sciences in the professional world, you can't simply address those gender biases in the professional world. That is akin to putting a bandaid on a broken leg; it's just not going to fix the problem. You must start younger, in elementary school, if you want to fix this problem. If 60% of those very interested in the sciences in the 4th grade are boys, and 40% are girls; then by the beginning of college the gap in those number will increase to 70-30, or even 75-25. And by grad school those numbers can be as high as 85-15 depending on the specific scientific field and region. The gap widens, over time, due to the diminishing academics which are returned.

Without a push to get girls interested in the hard sciences early on in elementary school, there will always be a gender gap in adulthood. And not the small gap that exists in 4th grade, but the exacerbated gap that results.

And as long as that exacerbated gap exists there will be a gender-stereotype that women are not qualified in the sciences. Even with many examples of brilliant female scientists, when only 18% (depending on source) of PhD's in the hard sciences are being earned by women, the negative stereotype against women will persists. Simply gaining acceptance for those 18% is not enough. You must also make the changes early on, so that girls in the 4th grade see science as a legitimate career field that is exciting and interesting; so that girls do not self-sort themselves out of the sciences and so that teachers do not condition girls to think that sciences are not for them.

tl;dr - If we want to end the gender-bias in sciences we need to start in elementary schools and work our way up; as well as in the professional world and work our way down.

You mention Atwood but I'd like to put The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake out there as well. Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower is a great one as well.
One I read when I was quite young and I still have vivid mental images from it is John Wyndham's The Chrysalids.
Also... I am saving this for all of the other suggestions!

I don't know if you are in a religious setting or not but I recommend "Doing Girlfriend Theology". If you are not in a religious setting, the method might still be useful. It encourages girls to find empowerment through the telling of their own stories and by listening to the stories of their peers. In a nutshell - Step 1: a girl tells a story from her life. This story has been written down and will be read from something prepared so the story doesn't ramble. Step 2: The storyteller and the group share the feelings that the story evoked. Step 3: Talk about themes, concepts, and issues that the story brought up. Step 4: Ask the girls "How might this story change our actions in the future?"
Here's a link to the book just in case you think it would be helpful
http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Girlfriend-Theology-God-Talk-Young/dp/082981616X

There is a Ken Burns doc "Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony" that looks really good. I've been wanting to watch it for some time now since my knowledge of early feminism is seriously lacking.

Description: "Two women. One allegiance. Together they fought for women everywhere, and their strong willpower and sheer determination still ripples through contemporary society. Here lies the story of two of our century's most celebrated pioneers - Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Recount the trials, tribulations and triumphs of these two women as they strive to give birth to the women's movement. Not until their deaths was their shared vision of women's suffrage realized. A powerful historical introspective."

Here is a review from BitchFlicks.

(Edited to add link.)

I said I wouldn't hold my breath because I (correctly) predicted that you wouldn't take the science seriously. I'm accustomed to being one of few people who have studied the science of the issue. Most people are more like you and believe the scientific facts are an "interesting distraction" (your words).

If you don't like "intersex" then maybe you prefer the pop term "differences of sex development" - or is that phrase too similar to "gender-sex variance" for you? They are similar for a reason - because they are biologically and socially related conditions. You correctly noted that the intersex umbrella covers "hormonal and chromosomal abnormalities." The connection you missed is that transgender is a a hormonal abnormality - that's why it's treated with "hormone replacement therapy."

There is frequently overlap between transgender and intersex individuals. So it is invalidating of both trans and intersex people to accuse trans people of "co-opting" intersex. Some intersex people transition their gender and thus are simultaneously transgender and intersex. Your error is failing to understand that there is a wealth of scientific evidence showing the physical nature of the transgender condition, which inherently makes transgender an intersex condition.

I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink. As much as I would love to spend all day arguing with you, it's a lot easier for me to post the citations, offer a quick lesson, and then hope you do your own homework. If you're serious about studying this issue, you might also want to check out the anthology Critical Intersex (Queer Interventions) The term 'intersex' is still very useful.

I completely agree. I love Phyllis Schlafly. She is right, as usual.

What a brave and daring woman. A notable exception.

Nausicaa of the Valley of The Wind by Hayao Miyazaki (creator of Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke). It's a post-apocalyptic fantasy epic in the true sense of the word "epic". There's also an animated film that's good, but the comic series is absolutely awesome.

Scott Westerfeld's Leviathan series. Alternate history/steampunk for young adults with good female characters.

The Hunger Games series could also work.

It may be a bit advanced, but have her take a crack at anything by Tamora Pierce. Her Song of the Lioness books are some of my favorites of all time. I think I read them in 7th grade, but they were definitely "kids books" that I didn't want my friends to see at the time... your daughter might do just fine with them!

I'd also recommend the Redwall series by Brian Jacques. There are dozens of them and they kept me occupied for all of fourth and fifth grades.

That's a lot of monolithing you're doing. Dworkin wrote Pornography in the midst of the 1970s-1980s feminist sex wars, which generated radical thought from all angles, including what you consider "sex-positive".

I also find it interesting that your main factor in determining whether someone is a radical feminist is their view on sex/porn. There are a lot of definitions of "radical feminist", but Kathie Sarachild puts it this way:

>Before we go any further, let's examine the word "radical." It is a word that is often used to suggest extremist, but actually it doesn't mean that. The dictionary says radical means root, coming from the Latin word for root. And that is what we meant by calling ourselves radicals. We were interested in getting to the roots of problems in society. You might say we wanted to pull up weeds in the garden by their roots, not just pick off the leaves at the top to make things look good momentarily. Women's Liberation was started by women who considered themsleves radicals in this sense.

You're essentialising a lot of conflicting thought through history. Like Sarachilde mentions, you're grouping in Susan B. Anthony (and Alice Paul). As well as Angela Davis and Shirley Chisholm. May I suggest reading some bell hooks?

I also find it humorous that you bring up Malcolm X. Martin Luther King, Jr. was quite the radical, and Malcolm X was quite reasonable. Question the narratives you have been fed.

Two that I think are great without going back too far are Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, and Female Chauvinist Pigs.

I'm looking at amazon.com and thinking of ordering a new one from bell hooks, who I've always liked. As an African-American woman, hooks has always had a broader perspective.

I'd also recommend Susan Faludi's Backlash.

Amanda Marcotte's recent It's a Jungle Out There was a quick read and good.

I'm currently looking at Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism and by Siegel and Baumgardner's Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild, but they're about 4th and 5th on my current reading list and I can't yet say how I'd rate them.

Also on my reading list is Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (Point/Counterpoint) by Warren Farrell, Steven Svoboda, and James P. Sterba on my list. Looking forward to that one. Warren Farrell is a former feminist and the father of the men's liberation movement. The movement had progressive roots, but I think Farrell's moved more center, and certainly the men's movement has some very conservative branches. I think it will be interesting splitting apart any anti-feminism from the pro-men's liberation stuff.

I personally don't think there's any conflict between men and women's liberation, but I want to be more informed as to the current arguments.

My recs for someone who is just getting into Feminism:

• Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics
  
• Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation
  
• Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV
  
• Women's Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings

You're just going to get turned around in circles looking for answers here.

Start with bell hooks, specifically this.