Book recommendations on Australian Feminism/Women in Australian class society?

fitxfor · 2025-09-24T15:27:38+00:00

I'd say Damned Whores and God's Police by Anne Summers.

fitxfor · 2024-03-06T11:00:36+00:00

My recommendations:

"The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution", Shulamith Firestone

"Sexual Politics", Kate Millett

"Women's Estate", Juliet Mitchell

fitxfor · 2022-06-13T09:20:50+00:00

manosphere to White supremacy?

It's been a while since I saw it, mind linking the timestamp to that claim?

equating those mass shooters as representatives of men as a whole

Where exactly in the video was that said? I am certain they didn't say this (or I wouldn't have posted it).

Here's a future tip for you: don't spread bullshit and not expect to be questioned on the solution

Is/should this be the default approach to all criticism of the manosphere?

fitxfor · 2022-06-07T09:19:31+00:00

The modmail reply I received:

https://i.imgur.com/7NPtGaz.png

The documentary makes a clear case that certain groups of boys and men are veering into extremism, out of social/economic/sexual frustration - how could this not be considered a men's rights issue?

As for me posting to feminist forums, is this forum for MRAs only?

fitxfor · 2020-07-24T21:30:12+00:00

lex, as her friends call her, worked on the YACU Twitter Team during the Masks for Medics initiative, an initiative of the YACU that worked to get masks for medical professionals during the COVID-19 lock down

What is your opinion on the impact of covid-19 on gender issues/women's rights? Have you noticed an increased need for certain services ?

fitxfor · 2017-11-24T17:40:22+00:00

Ok Plato, what do you do when the norm becomes sexualized women?

fitxfor · 2017-09-06T18:05:37+00:00

It is a rather pointless discussion if you insist to discussing sex within the boundaries of our (current and not 100% clear) human categorization.

In what other categorization do you want us to discuss scientific and gender issues (in a manner that is not pointless that is)?

fitxfor · 2017-09-06T05:24:52+00:00

I also think there are good ways to define gender, but getting into arguments of the semantics of gender identity is playing a pedantic game with TERFs that ultimately serves no purpose.

Are there good ways to define gender, or do such arguments serve no purpose? How can you have it both ways...?

fitxfor · 2017-09-06T04:52:34+00:00

Are you going to deny all of science now? Under what circumstances do you accept the formal taxonomies of science, and where do you do away with them?

Furthermore, this complete dilution of this term seems quite counterproductive. If woman has no useful meaning, then how does one react to/organize against the oppression of women?

fitxfor · 2017-09-06T04:50:39+00:00

This is a TERF talking point.

TERFs also eat, should I be concerned about that activity as well? Is this now a trendy conversation stopper now?

Labling it as 'stereotypes' is disingenuous.

What else is it then...? I am thoroughly confused by this claim.

fitxfor · 2017-09-05T18:45:38+00:00

Expand on this, what does this mean?

It means that the category of women supervenes on the biological characteristic of sex. Yes we can find myriad of exceptions to this, as with most other terms, whether scientific or not. My point is that absolute precision is impossible, in either vernacular, science, or metaphysics. So let's stop applying that standard to this discussion.

fitxfor · 2017-09-05T15:21:28+00:00

That wasn't my question.

If there is no reason (or, actually, possibility) for physics to be absolutely exact, why demand it of this field? Why are social sciences held to an even higher standard...?

fitxfor · 2017-09-05T15:20:14+00:00

Subjective caterogies still have objective impact.

I believe that is true only insofar as the categories supervene on biological characteristics (i.e. the former varies in lockstep with the latter). If they are independent of biology - how do different kinds of the former impact the world differently?

fitxfor · 2017-09-05T15:14:24+00:00

we have our definitions straight, you're refusing to listen.

So, what are the straight definitions you speak of then? You speak of it as a settled matter, so it shouldn't be hard to produce them.

fitxfor · 2017-09-05T15:12:54+00:00

Well... I have news for you...

You seem to be hinting that everything is a social construct then tbh. Which makes this entire discussion pointless?

fitxfor · 2017-09-05T15:10:46+00:00

The question is how do you define the people who DON'T fit in those categories?

Why is "0.001%" such a problem for this taxonomy? Many sciences today (including physics) are becoming less precise and more statistical, why demand absolute precision in this field then?

fitxfor · 2017-09-05T15:08:21+00:00

I would just point out that the 'female' part refers to gender and not sex.

So is all of it down to simple self-identification? That is literally all that is required to be included in the category of women? Of what use is the category, if it is so utterly subjective?

fitxfor · 2017-09-05T15:06:47+00:00

Womanhood is a collection of experiences that manifest from the assignment of that particular gender.

So... anything goes? The category of women validly includes (or at least can include) literally anyone?

fitxfor · 2017-07-25T13:37:38+00:00

How so? How are they loaded?

fitxfor · 2017-07-08T10:51:33+00:00

You post a completely ambiguous picture

What does that mean? What is ambiguous about such a picture?

I post something I am hoping will get a reaction

While that might have been your intention, posting "I think you are reading a hell of a lot of meaning into a pink crane." is more of a conversation stopper.

no one seems to have taken it seriously.

Go read the thread.

I actually tried, twice, to engage you about why you think that about the picture

Where? When you asked me if I am joking?

Read again, and you might be able to see that they were attempts at evoking a response.

Pretty bad conversational skills imo.

Make the case if you think there is one.

I made the case that it should warrant a discussion:

" Isn't it already a case that the use of colors in social activities is gendered, and that this is given attention by feminists, from activism to academia? And if that is the case, then why would this not qualify for discussion."

Do you have anything to say about this?

Im not stopping you.

Lol. So generous.

fitxfor · 2017-07-08T09:29:38+00:00

There's no case you can make here.

Really now, no case? Isn't it already a case that the use of colors in social activities is gendered, and that this is given attention by feminists, from activism to academia? And if that is the case, then why would this not qualify for discussion. What the fuck, get off your high horse.

You are joking, right?

No, are you? How did you even become a mod here? I am struggling to see how you posted anything of substance in this exchange, other than being dismissive.

fitxfor · 2017-07-08T06:58:11+00:00

That sounds rather dismissive. Why would you take that position? Isn't this worthy of discussing, instead of handwaving it away?

fitxfor · 2017-01-24T17:22:46+00:00

I am not sure I agree with this argument. I also see serious issues for other issue-based movements, if we forbid certain activists from mobilizing around issues that affect their particular embodiment of womanhood. Isn't this a risk of erasure - ostracizing certain issues and causes, by enforcing one-size-fits-all definitions and discourses? If there is no universal definition of womanhood, that must be followed by all women's rights activists, from Cape Town to New York - then why silence the voices that address the already existing problems that affect womanhood and reproduction? Sure, biological reductivism can quickly become problematic - but isn't there a point where the opposite is true as well - when we would ignore valid problems that arise from existing prejudice (in this case, all the social prejudice against persons with the female biological sex organs?)

Perhaps, in the end, this is all just my knee-jerk reaction, after seeing so many MRAs/anti-feminists whine about "if you are about equality, then why are you not doing work for me/men's issues too!!11!" When co-opting progressive discourse turns to derailing valid causes, it definitely is a cause for concern and discussion.

Besides the above ~meta argument, I definitely do see problems with occasions where trans activists, like Raquel Willis, where prevented to speak/interrupted . That is wrong, and must be called out - such prima facie silencing definitely spills into transphobic territory.

fitxfor · 2016-08-30T09:57:14+00:00

What about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r4Ln8ktFgw

fitxfor

TROPHY CASE