Reddit mentions: The best women studies

>What qualifications do I need, exactly, to be able to express my potentially wrong opinions so that I may receive an educated reply?

You did not express opinions. You made statements of fact that were not only wrong, but idiotic on their face. You admitted that you were ignorant about the thing you were discussing, yet kept criticizing it as though you knew anything about it. It is not my job to hold your hand and cradle your precious feelings and gently explain to you why you're completely wrong about everything you say.

>Or is asking that question another no-no because apparently you're well-versed on the subject yet for some reason refuse to even give a subtle hint like an author's name or a specific movement I could look up.

I didn't bother because I don't believe you're here in good faith. I've seen the shit you post on TiA and its obvious that you don't actually care about social justice. It's not hard to project some "Red Piller bullshit" on you when you fucking act like one.

If you're actually interested in learning, I had this textbook for a couple classes during college. It had a bunch of different articles from a lot of perspectives on the issue of gender discrimination, and I found it very interesting. I'm sure you can find a copy online that you don't need to pay 63 dollars for. If you want a book by one person, rather than an anthology, I found The Equality Illusion to be pretty informative and easy to read, and it was published recently. The author addresses very well why there's discrimination, why it's a bad thing, and what specifically should be done about it, all of the things you ignorantly accuse feminism of not doing.

I somehow doubt that you're going to actually go and read those books, but that's okay, because there are lots of feminist blogs you can start reading and get educated. I like Feminist Frequency, though I dunno if you're one of those people who goes into a spitting rage at the sight of Anita Sarkeesian's face. Skepchick is a great skepticism/feminism blog run by another villain of the anti-feminist internet crowd, Rebecca Watson.

And of course, if you take 5 seconds to Google the issue, and read what feminists have to say about it, you'll find plenty more.

Hi! Former Studies in Women and Gender (SWAG) major here. I absolutely loathed the first class I took and thought it was a bunch of bullshit. Fast forward to present day - I ended up doing SWAG as a double major with sociology, started working in a hospital setting, now work as an RN, and proudly call myself a feminist (as my username suggests). I would highly, highly recommend it to anyone who wants to expand their horizons and critical thinking skills. Although I'm now a nurse working on a graduate degree, I find that I use the skills I gained in that curriculum every day.

To answer your questions more specifically:
-Women's studies can lead to a lot of different career fields (social work, nursing, counseling, academic tracks, etc.) but I think it is probably best to double major and pair it with another, more vocational degree if possible. Ultimately, it can be tough to find a job with ANY liberal arts degree, so you have to take care of yourself while you pursue your interests academically.

• Most of the folks I went to school with were double majors. Many programs allow for cross-counting classes so it makes it easier. A lot of people were already doing double majors and opted for the minor instead, which is also a good choice.
  
• I can't speak for other schools, but at my university it was probably a 90/10 split as far as women/men.
  
  If I may recommend a further reading - Feminist Thought by Rosemarie Tong completely changed my worldview and helped me understand feminism and why I identify myself as a feminist. It's available used for $5 on Amazon. :)
  https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Thought-Comprehensive-Introduction-third/dp/B006QNN5UW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1497922840&sr=8-4&keywords=feminist+theory+rosemarie+tong

Glad to hear it! Here's some ideas for self-education for basic civcs:

1. Pretend you're an immigrant and you need to pass the citizenship test for the US. This should help educate you on the basic structure of government. This is the right starting point: http://tinyurl.com/24wqrle Then, take and pass the test.
   
   
2. Never, ever take at face value the claims the claims of TV or radio hosts or guests discussing politics or government, particularly on popular commercial programs. These programs are not for education. They are there to make money by creating spectacle and conflict, then selling ads to companies who want to sell products to the crowd attracted by the spectacle. Never, ever watch these shows without a deeply critical eye and ear. Always research the things you hear claimed on these shows before believing or repeating anything you hear.
   
   
3. Never, ever, take at face value the claims of politicians running for office. Their statements are not intended to educate. Their statements are there for one reason: to gather your political support - your vote, your money contribution, your volunteer time. Always research the things you hear claimed by politicians before you decide on the validity of any statement.
   
   
4. Head to the library and read:
   
   http://www.amazon.com/American-Civics-Grades-9-12/dp/0030377781/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324590820&sr=8-1
   
   http://www.amazon.com/American-Government-Robert-Heineman/dp/0070282153/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1324590820&sr=8-4
   
   When you've got these under your belt, move up to College level educational writing on US civics and government. Try:
   
   http://www.amazon.com/American-Government-College-Examination-Program/dp/0837353513/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324591013&sr=1-2
   
   
5. Always, always read more than you watch TV or listen to radio. The only exception to this is watching C-SPAN, which is non-commercial and very educational because most of what it does is point a camera onto the government itself and on the people in it. Your order of importance/reliability in sources about this subject should be:
   
   

1. textbooks
   
2. c-span
   
3. newspapers/news web sites
   
4. public affairs blogs
   
5. political blogs
   
6. talk radio/TV
   
   Note that every one of these sources is subject to distortions of the truth, but the lower ranked sources are by far the most prone to distortions.
   
   This isn't especially difficult stuff when you're interested in how government works - but it does take more time and effort than you are led to think it does. One great rule of thumb: becoming educated on a complicated topic in civics/government always takes longer than commercial TV or talk radio has time for.
   
   Good luck and thanks for asking. I hope I helped.
   
   EDIT: bad grammar

Well said, it's all very true. Choice feminism / liberal feminism / third wave feminism is basically just a wolf in sheep's clothes. It isn't actually feminism at all, in fact, I believe it's just a backlash that is extremely effective as it cleverly and deliberately coopts the language of second wave / actual feminism.

One recent example is this nauseating thread on r/Documentaries about Hot Girls Wanted. (Please do not vote, comment or otherwise participate in the linked thread or do anything that could be considered brigading). All of the misogynistic males were defending their consuming porn that clearly harms women by appealing to "agency" "choice" and " empowerment". Cooption is really the best way to suppress any movement. If you can convince women that slavery is indeed freedom, then why would they ever petition for freedom? It's downright Orwellian, really. It's truly so obvious a tactic, it's a bit surprising that so many women have fallen for it but that's the way it is.

There's a good book about the failures of choice feminism called The Freedom Fallacy

There's also this wonderful article in the Onion that predicted the sorry fucking state of "liberal feminism" today.

I think, depending on how you feel you could handle yourself, that asking her questions about it might be really helpful (this is assuming she does want to talk about it). If she's down and you're able to assume a position that's more about listening to her explain her rationale and feelings before, during, and after (and keeping comments down and your facial reactions neutral), it might have a positive effect on helping you feel closer to her and more understanding, even if you still feel like it was a wrong and immoral choice.

If neither of you are in a place where that conversation wouldn't turn into something undesirable, my recommendation would be to turn to someone else to bounce your feelings off of. They can sometimes be hard to get through to, but I can't recommend Exhale Pro-Voice's hotline enough- it's a place you can talk to someone about abortion, regardless of your stance on it, and they can help you to sort of untangle the emotions you're going through.

Barring that, reading stories from other women who have had abortions might help if you can't directly talk to your sister about it. If struggling to understand why she did what she did is the main issue, then gathering up that information can really aid you in processing it. There are so many individual stories and situations and reasons for abortion, but the more you absorb and take in, the more you're able to understand and empathize, even when you ultimately still disagree. It's something I recommend for everybody, pro-choice or pro-life. Some places to start:

r/abortion

1 in 3 Campaign

My Abortion, My Life

Pregnancy Choices Directory

We Testify

The Abortion Diary (really great if you like podcasts or being able to listen to women tell their stories)

The Choices We Made: Twenty-Five Women and Men Speak Out About Abortion

May Cause Love: A Memoir by Kassi Underwood

I can totally see where that would be tough. It's also hard to discuss feminism in terms of waves anymore because like art movements, it doesn't exist as distinctly as it once did.

Once upon a time back in 1900 when the world seemed exclusively focused in western culture (I.e. western Europe including England and north american) it was easy to define and capture movements and assign traits.

Thanks to modern developments feminism moves swiftly, and is in different levels world wide. Is first wave feminism still happening in places where women are fighting for the right to vote? Or are they considered latter wave feminism because the rest of western culture have moved past first wave.

Also there are so many more books published now, once upon a time there were one or two basic text and everyone would look to those books to agree upon what makes up first, second or third waves feminism. Academics disagree about these definitions all the time now and publish those thoughts. Unlike science (where there are some disagreements also but mostly they can agree to the facts) the humanities do take opinion into account (their own and the people they research).

One researcher can claim stripping is liberating, another that it's oppression. Both would have great points, both would have supporters and both would related to many strippers. Like many research area's feminism lies in a grey area. Most questions have no yes or no, just good ideas worth discussion. Which can be frustrating, but also liberating in a way.

If you want a small affordable text on the subject check this one out. It's also illustrated, and I believe sourced at the end (from what I remember, don't quote me) so you can do your own research into subjects a little deeper.

Someone put it here beautifully, iirc it was something like equality for women and nothing less, equality for men and nothing more.

I think it goes back way to the very start,

>Cultivate the frontal portion of her brain as much as that of man is cultivated, and she will stand his equal at least. Even now, where her mind has been called out at all, her intellect is as bright, as capacious, and as powerful as his.

• Ernestine Rose
  
  Most of them do recognize that this isn't true in the physical attributes of strength and athleticism(and the overcompensation with regards to mental aptitude seems to be related to this inferiority), however you'd still hear of some deluded ones talking of ultramarathons and then there are some who go the whole hog.
  
  >Can women be equal to men as long as men are physically stronger? And are men, in fact, stronger?
  These are key questions that Colette Dowling, author of the bestselling The Cinderella Complex, raises in her provocative new book. The myth of female frailty, with its roots in nineteenth-century medicine and misogyny, has had a damaging effect on women's health, social status, and physical safety. It is Dowling's controversial thesis that women succumb to societal pressures to appear weak in order to seem more "feminine."
  
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Frailty-Myth-Redefining-Potential/dp/0375758151

>Thank you for renewing my faith that there's feminist archaeologists out there who aren't being reblogged ad nauseum on tumblr.

Odds are, if they're being reblogged on tumblr, they're pop historians and not archaeologists. Conkey and Tringham are always great reads. Alison Wiley, Joan Gero, and Christine Hastorf are some other good names to know. Engendering Archaeology is a classic and important read. Some worthwhile reads I have on hand are Conkey's Has Feminism Changed Archaeology? and Wiley's Doing Archaeology as a Feminist.

I have to admit, my favorite part was where this self-professed savior of feminism confided in her peons:

>I agree the word [feminism] is tarnished. I just wrote a little monograph called Freedom Feminism in which I tried to rescue the term from the hardliners. http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Feminism-Surprising-History-Capitalism/dp/0844772623 However, the term may be unsalvageable. Most women and certainly men reject the label. It's associated in the public mind with male-bashing and humorlessness. So maybe we do need a new word, but I'm not sure what it should be. I, too, welcome suggestions!

Lol, less than four months after her book is published, Sommers' gives up on feminism! (mark you calendars)

You are so welcome and I am grateful for your response as well. It is hard to find likeminded women who are women centered. I am only in my mid 30s and was raised by a father who gaslit me constantly for my entire development so I fell for it really hard when it came back around in the form of transactivism. It took me five years of floundering around, miserable and hating myself to the point of being 'nonbinary' then reading older feminist works and talking to some other women online who shared the other political beliefs I had (which now fall under the umbrella of radical feminism, apparently wanting to live your life free from male violence is radical) for me to wake up. That was only a year ago.

​

I just finished reading the book Female Erasure edited by Ruth Barrett (which I guess I mentioned in the original post but literally spent all day reading the last third so it's fresh in my mind) and it gave me the kind of true understanding of all this in a cohesive and compassionate way that galvanized me to keep speaking up and out about it all. It truly is a war on women and girls paralleled only by the Right's continual version of the war on women and girls they have been perpetuating for generations. Unfortunately, both are being ignored or wrongly defined by the only people who've ever historically done anything at all for us, and it will take a lot to resist this. I found this book to be an excellent starting point. I wish I could hand out copies to everyone I know. You may find some solidarity there. It covers a lot of history I was not around to experience, as well as a lot of what is going on today from the very lives of the women who are the victims of this religion.

​

Totally agree about the climate change thing. I've started using that as my go to comparison. It pisses people off but it's perfect.

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

What a brave and daring woman. A notable exception.

I'm trying to unpack all of the compounded errors in what you are saying. First, a "strawman" is not a person. A strawman, hypothetical or not, cannot say anything. You might say the claim that entire campuses are supposed to be safe spaces is a strawman, or a strawman argument.

Second, while you refer to outliers, it is actually not uncommon for "safe spaces" extend much beyond that. For example, the Safe Spaces program at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario extends to frosh week (first week of new students) and even extends its powers to students holding off-campus events protesting the Safe Space program. It's quite Orwellian to have something called as "safe space" reach off-campus, shut up protests against them, and force these students to apologize. In particular, it's "safe space" is not merely a unit, club, or limited space, but a campus-wide and off-campus policy. From the last link above:

> The Carleton University Students’ Association initially said it would abide by the university’s safe space policy. “We would like to make it unequivocally clear that this is an unacceptable message for Carleton students to promote whether on or off-campus as it does not accurately reflect the atmosphere within the Carleton University community,” it later said.

This is shameful for a university, and certainly no strawman.

As to what people generally mean about the absurdity of safe spaces, the above sort of behaviour is one, but the more famous ones include Brown and Oberlin. At Brown, there was a debate on the topic of rape culture, and activists tried to have it shut down (rather than simply not attend). To deal with the "trauma" of having an intellectual debate on campus, they created a safe space "equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma." It's quite literally a daycare for adults. It's a coddling, infantilizing space, and highly inappropriate for a university.

At Oberlin (and Georgetown), Christina Hoff Sommers gave speeches about Freedom Feminism. Safe spaces were created for people "triggered" by her speech, and the people creating the safe spaces were, in fact, engaged in massive bullying and smearing, accusing Sommers of things that weren't true, spreading hatred about her, and being extremely anti-male.

You refer to "not inviting racists to college campuses", but of course that is more of the smearing. These people aren't trying to keep racists from campus, they are smearing anybody who disagrees with their views with all sorts of name calling. Sommers at Oberlin, Warren Farrell at University of Toronto (watch it all the way through), and even Milo Yiannopolous at Berkeley. None of these are racists and their detractors were vicious, violent, and smearing of them. This is the state of safe spaces and those who promote them. It's a cult. Even members who have left the movement admit that it's very cultish.

>https://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Feminism-Graphic-Cathia-Jenainati/dp/1848311214/

Good point, i'll definitely implement that method instead. Thanks :)

Nu intelegi un aspect, insa iti prezint un exemplu:

-Sa presupunem ca avem domnul Y profesor la liceul ICHB.

-Sa presupunem ca avem doamna X profesor la liceul Pantelimon.



Nu stim date despre ce materie predau, nu stim numarul de ore, stim doar ca in medie doamna X face mai putin bani decat domnul Y, in baza acestei metodologii putem generaliza si la alte locuri de munca. Acum problema la statistica este ca ne permite sa aflam corelatii si informatii CANTITATIVE insa nu ne pot furniza informatii CALITATIVE, asta aflii in orice curs de initiere in statistca.


Faptul ca faci un Strawman acum si vii la mine cu o atitudine moral superioara de singurul pastrator tainic al adevarului si chiar faci o comparatie intre mine si Olivia Steer si miscarea de retarzi antivaccin este oarecum tragica.

Si faptul ca o majoritate este majoritar compusa din barbati nu inseamna ca nu este influentata politic de ideologie
Niste good reads : 1 2 3

Again sunt foarte putine studii pe tema asta si in stiinta avem niste lucruri numite meta-reviews care evalueaza cat adevar se afla in o idee. Sunt foarte putine studii care spun de existenta unui pay-gap.

Again sunt foarte sceptic ca 2 oameni cu aceleasi calificari si pe acelasi post sunt platiti diferit la o scara larga.

Ca o concluzie, personala, sa spui ca diferenta dintre genuri in cat sunt platiti se datoreaza unui misoginism al angajatorilor este o grava simplificare care nu tine cont de realitate.

Exactly. I've read a few of Sommers' books. She's an accredited authority with real sources (eg, US Dept. of Labor reports vs the $.70 to $1 claim). She's a feminist from the second wave, with high credentials. Her opponents are railing teens. When I first read Freedom Feminism I thought: Finally! Evidence and reason, an embracing of real feminism and a clear path forward. Radfems will attack obvious targets (#Gamergate) to expose misogyny for gain, but if they try to target such a reasonable authority as Sommers, the outcome will be actual education on their part.

I was mistaken. They don't care about facts, logic, or reason. They're impervious to such things. I'm losing hope, I really am - the uneducated are getting press all over the web, and on sites I'd previously respected; while educated authorities like Sommers are getting burned at the stake. Idiocracy, thou prophet.

(Incidentally, my favorite of hers is One Nation Under Therapy)

100% agree with the bell hooks recommendation.
I recently read The Equality Illusion which gives a good insight to how far we have yet to come. However, it's very focused on the UK / Western Europe and might be better for young adults / late teens.

> In "The Frailty Myth," Colette Dowling presents a compelling and well-researched analysis of why and how American girls are socialized to be "weak." Dowling examines the myths about the "weaker sex," tracing this myth as a source of the oppression of women handed down to us from Victorian times.

> She convincingly explains why men fear strong women: In part, she says, it's because strength is perhaps the only area in which our culture does not say that men and women are equal. Thus, as male-only professions and traits are rapidly disappearing from public discourse, strength is masculinity's last hope.

Source: The Frailty Myth: Redefining the Physical Potential of Women and Girls by Colette Dowling.

This book of Phyllis Schlafly essays might be an interesting read. Camille Paglia is also good for a critique of modern (starting in the 70s modern) feminism. Neither are a male perspective (obviously) but a good source for why feminism has always been a problem. We tend to think that they did a lot of good before now, but I believe that is simply awareness, and spin, rather than necessarily truth.

For the record, the definition I posted comes from an anti-trans source, but defines gender and sex in the original radical feminist terms, which distinguish between sex and gender, so the things you posted would be parts of being female (sex), as opposed to a woman (gender). I agree they're usually synonymous and I understand why people would see it that way, but there are some feminists who thought it was worthwhile to make a distinction

She does provide a lot of sources in her book


As for the voice, if you know of free software with better voices, please let me know!

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

I think someone should be clear: “men’s rights activists” and the so-called “men’s rights movement” are not something you’ll find in respected academic circles. This is a reactionary ideology associated (not always, but often) with hate groups, and its most recent reemergence is more connected with internet subgroups akin to incels than it is anything like a real social movement.

That said, some feminist readers you might find interesting include Contemporary Feminist Theories from NYU Press (1998) and/or the Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives from Routledge (2013).

I’d also suggest the SEP here, here, and here, among others.

And finally, the Marxists Internet Archive has some good stuff here, including texts and links.

I agree the word is tarnished. I just wrote a little monograph called
Freedom Feminism in which I tried to rescue the term from the hardliners. http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Feminism-Surprising-History-Capitalism/dp/0844772623
However, the term may be unsalvageable. Most women and certainly men reject the label. It's associated in the public mind with male-bashing and humorlessness. So maybe we do need a new word, but I'm not sure what it should be. I, too, welcome suggestions!

Yes! On Amazon in both Kindle and paperback.
https://www.amazon.com/Female-Erasure-Gender-Politics-Rights/dp/0997146702/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

edit: I forgot you are in Australia. Check and see, I hope they have it!

Well I wish you put more effort in your reasoning than "I think it does". Egalitarian cultures can really usually only be found in small short-term sustenance societies. The fact that there is a concept of property and strategies of long-term sustenance (people grow food in farms, not look for it in the rainforest) means that there is inherently people who own more or less than the other people, which means that the society is stratified. All developed nations are stratified.

You could maybe say that American values are more egalitarian than that of other developed nations, but you'd be comparing apples to oranges if you just say that America is egalitarian.

Not exactly directly related to your question, but it would help you understand what it means to be egalitarian, there's an ethnographic book that examines two African peoples, one is a hunter-gatherer egalitarian people, the other agrarian and stratified.

http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Here-Story-Ethnographic-Globalization/dp/0199764239

How long I have been a user, or what subreddits I choose to post in has absolutely no bearing on any points I make. None.

I mentioned Phyllis Schlafly because she is a heroine of mine. I have her book Feminist Fantasies and it is fantastic. The article I linked to sums up my own feelings about feminism quite nicely.

I envy you.

Every single "person with similar views as nolimitsoldier" I have encountered has always fallen into 1 of the following groups.

1. "12-24 Naive" This is the age where people tend to dismiss feminism without taking any initiative to learn about new and old feminist theories. I understand why so many people in this group so readily believe misconceptions about feminism. It is due to lack of knowledge or background regarding the new and old feminist theories. Also why nolimitsoldier believes all feminists think they are artists / photographers is beyond me. I blame the countless people who don't take the time to learn about the concepts and definitions regarding feminism and much of the media. Isn't until people mature and take the initiative to learn about feminism and realize that modern societies are still patriarchal, misogynist, and sexist.
   
   
2. "Man Eaters" This misconception is the standard among those who still disregard feminism. Most I have met lack any true knowledge on the feminist theory and believe the myth that all feminist are hairy man hating lesbians. Feminists come from all background and genders so this couldn't possibly true. This stereotype is false. Myth:Feminists are man hating lesbians
   
   
3. "Corporate" Again more misconceptions. People complain about feminism, woman, etc, while not understanding what feminism has to do with the plight of the woman. At the end of the day it'll depend on the person and the person they're respecting if they're a good leader or not. Because believe it or not people come from all different backgrounds and cultures! It just goes against our cultured societal beliefs that women can be good leaders. **A side example of this is the iron my shirt incident with Hillary Clinton
   
   
4. "more bullshit" The definition of feminist varies in each textbook but they all mean the same thing in the end: people seeking the equal treatment of women. Men already dominate the world. This hasn't allowed women to dominate or control men in any way. And feminists aren't seeking the domination of men, we are seeking the equality of genders.
   
   To learn more about feminism you can read or watch the following websites,books, or videos:
   
   Youtube Videos or Channels:
   
   

• Tony Porter:A Call to Men
  
• Feminism Survey:Men on the Street
  
• Missrepresentation Documentary Trailer
  
• Joss Whedon's Equality Now speech
  
• Feminist Frequency
  
• Trixie Films
  
  Websites/Blogs:
  
  
• Finally Feminism 101
  
• Feminist Frequency
  
• Geek Feminism
  
• The F-Word
  
• Feminist Peace Network
  
• Gender Across Borders
  
• Feministing
  
• Feministe
  
• Tiger Beatdown
  
• Feminist Teacher
  
• The Feminist Hub
  
• Lipstick Feminists
  
  Books:
  
  
• Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center by Bell Hooks
  
• Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings
  
• Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine
  
• Gender Knot Revised Ed: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy by Allan G. Johnson
  
• Feminist Theory: A Reader by Wendy Kolmar
  
• The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory
  
• Third Wave Feminism: Expanded
  
• Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women's Movement
  
• Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity by Chandra Talpade Mohanty
  
• Defending Our Dreams: Global Feminist Voices for a New Generation
  
• Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation
  
• Enlightened Sexism by Susan J. Douglas
  
• Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape
  
• The Equality Illusion: The Truth about Women and Men Today by Kat Banyard
  
• Reclaiming the F Word: The New Feminist Movement by Catherine Redfern and Kristin Aune
  
• Transforming a Rape Culture by Emilie Buchwald, Pamela Fletcher and Martha Roth
  
• Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History by Laurel Ulrich
  
• Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power

It's the article Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism by Kristen R. Ghodsee, which explains the reasons why women had better sex under socialism. She also wrote a book on this subject.

I love Equality Illusion: The Truth about Women and Men Today by Kat Banyard.

The book discusses many studies to try and bring answers to questions like why do women have a harder time negotiating a raise (answer: a women who asks for a raise is seen as hard, vindictive, a "bitch"...), why are women more risk adverse (little boys are encouraged to take risks like not backing out of going on the tallest slide wile girls are told to mind their dress) or more patient (baby boys are picked up by their parents much faster than baby girls when they cry, two out of three times teachers will ask a boy to provide an answer to a question instead of a girl)...

It's my go-to book when I hear comments like "women are more X".

You may have read, or be interested in reading The Frailty Myth. It talks about that very subject, about how it's got everything to do with early conditioning. It's a good read. Very thought-provoking.

These are both great.

http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Thought-More-Comprehensive-Introduction/dp/0813343755/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324396213&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theory-Reader-Wendy-Kolmar/dp/0073512265/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324396213&sr=1-6

This is a hilariously common delusion among feminists. The idea that women are on average physically weaker then men because of "patriarchy". And that if only we lived in a perfectly feminist utopic (read: sexless) society, all sexual dimorphic traits would vanish and women would be competing in the exact same powerlifting classes as men. No...seriously, that's what they actually think.

Here's a feminist anthropology PhD on here regurgitating this hilarious nonsense. And an actual book (written by a psychiatrist feminist) basically expressing the view that the only reason men "seem" more physically powerful than women is because teh menz are keeping them weak.

I guess once you decide to take a trip down the deranged rabbit hole of academic feminism, pretty soon no measure absurd research cherry-picking and perversion of reality in the form of wildly deluded "feminist theory" is out of bounds.

Is there any particular topic you would like to take on?

It would probably be the easiest to start with like anti-racist -> anti-cop stuff and some feminism and all that. The book is out in a couple of weeks but I don't know if you want to start using the word socialism yet.

I've provided sources in my post. You are welcome to read them for yourself. I was also made aware of a book coming out this November that delves deep into the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Women-Have-Better-Under-Socialism/dp/1568588909

Feminists are pretty much the only ones addressing those problems. Stiffed is the seminal work on the subject. Yes, it's a feminist book that's all about how men suffer in society. That's one of the many things feminists care about and work against.

"Men's Rights" organizations on the other hand, tend to be about men's "right" to harass women and earn more money than them.

probably a good idea to go on amazon, look up authors that have written on this topic (erin pizzey, esther vilar, christina hoff sommers, etc), and find similar recommendations on those pages that were released after 2012.

haven't read this, but just found it using that criteira - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00E5HER5I/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

...and remember I asked you to not change the subject. The reason.com article OP linked is a response to a book: Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence by Kristen R. Ghodsee.

Here is the mobile version of your link

What do you think about this:

Introducing Feminism: A Graphic Guide

https://www.amazon.com/Female-Erasure-Gender-Politics-Rights/dp/0997146702

Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism is an anthology that came out last year.

Paid For: My Journey through Prostitution by Rachel Moran is a memoir plus radical feminist analysis of the sex industry. This book came out in the US but was also published a few years before.

Misogyny Reloaded by Abigail Bray came out in 2014.

Well I'll be damned.

https://www.amazon.com/Female-Erasure-Gender-Politics-Rights/dp/0997146702 The kindle edition is only $10

Introducing Feminism: A Graphic Guide

I have heard good things about it (this has been years ago) but have never read it myself. Amazon.com reviews seem pretty mixed: http://www.amazon.com/Stiffed-The-Betrayal-American-Man/product-reviews/B000H2M9Y6/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 You could always check it out from the library and read a chapter or two - no money lost if you don't like it, and only a little bit of time.

I'll just leave this here. https://www.amazon.com/Women-Have-Better-Under-Socialism/dp/1568588909

That's pretty unhelpful criticism. Some concepts are difficult for the ELI5 mode and take a whole wack of time to formulate.

Why not read/recommend a book like this instead: https://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Feminism-Graphic-Cathia-Jenainati/dp/1848311214/

Well, to be fair... if the book was expensive.

"I finally broke down and bought the Cadillac I always wanted."

"I finally broke down and went to that $50 a meal restraunt."

"I finally broke down and bought that expensive video game."

It's fairly normal speech. https://www.amazon.com/Female-Erasure-Gender-Politics-Rights/dp/0997146702 but it's only $25 so unless she's poor...

Who does that?

...

Oh wait, you mean that you are doing that to her. She's a feminist and you are talking about how she's wrong. Hypocrisy much?

To be frank I'm not that well acquainted with Marx, but having traveled around South-East Asia and being engaged to someone born in China, I know a bit about his ideological descendants in Asia. The Khmer Rouge (http://hmd.org.uk/genocides/khmer-rouge-ideology), Mao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_(China)) and Vietnam all attempted to create an ideal society by purging undesirable elements: capitalists, religious leaders, nobility, intellectuals landowners, etc. This was done by killing them, imprisonment, or exiling them to the countryside. The intent was to rebuild a society without oppression or exploitation. They explicitly believed that concepts like exploitation were passed down families and via media, which is why they tended to break up problematic families and ban Western media.

I'm not sure if Pinker discusses how racism and sexism are ahistorical (don't have the book with me now), but I can cite numerous writers and activists who do.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/everyday-cissexism/

"we’re all socialized to be cissexist", despite the gender binary being the norm for not only humans but mammals in general.

http://theracecardproject.com/no-one-is-born-being-racist/

Claims nobody is born racist, despite evidence suggesting that people inherently distinguish others by race (http://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/)

https://prezi.com/j7e0d9z9doaw/challenging-colonialism-cultural-imperialism-and-possession/

A presentation I saw, where the speaker claimed that colonialism and oppression are rooted in white supremacy. Which makes no sense because countless civilisations independently practiced colonialism and oppression long before the early modern period.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Frailty-Myth-Redefining-Potential/dp/0375758151

A book arguing that women only appear to be smaller and less muscular than men because of patriarchy, not sexual dimorphism rooted in genetics.

I don't think Pinker cites any of the examples above but I'd call them cases of the blank slate myth at work.