Favourite feminist philosophy texts

[RickLewis]

Occasionally you hear people ask "what books should I read if I want to find out more about feminist philosophy?"

Just now I stumbled across a reference to a reading list which one feminist philosopher - Cressida Heyes of the University of Alberta - compiled in 2009. She has recently put it back online, in response to popular request, so I've hunted down the link. To get to the reading list you go to this page here:

http://cressidaheyes.com/research/publi ... phy-texts/

and then click the words "Feminist Favourites reading list" halfway down the page to go to a PDF, which is the reading list itself.

[info]

On Putting the Active Back into Activism

Rosi Braidotti

This paper addresses a paradox: how to engage in affirmative politics, which entails the production of social horizons of hope, while at the same time doing critical theory, which means resisting the present. Drawing on the neo-vitalism of Deleuze, with reference to Nietzsche and Spinoza, the article argues in favour of an affirmative ethics: defined as a radical ethics of transformation. This new framework for re-thinking ethics moves away from the moral protocols of Kantian universalism, while also shifting its focus from unitary, rationality-driven consciousness to an understanding of subjectivity as processual in nature, propelled by affects and relations. Such a new framework disengages the emergence of the subject from the logic of negation and attaches subjectivity to affirmative otherness. Hence the self-other relation is reconceived in terms of reciprocity as creation and not as the recognition of Sameness. Taking critical distance from modern conceptions of self-centred individualism and the negative production of hierarchically inferior others which it assumes, an affirmative ethics for a non-unitary subject as proposed here aims at offering an enlarged sense of inter-connection between self and others, including the non-human or 'earth' others, following and enhancing the tradition of a bio-centred egalitarianism (Ansell-Pearson, 1999) that posits a nature-culture continuum (Haraway, 1997). Moreover by putting the emphasis on the positivity of affirmative ethics - conceived in a depsychologised sense similar to that of Nietzsche and Spinoza - the article suggests an ethics of sustainability: one that provides the subject with a frame for interaction and change, growth and movement; an ethics that affirms life as difference-at-work.

KEYWORDS: affirmative ethics; vitalism; biopolitics; immanence; becoming; futurity; Deleuze; Nietzsche; Spinoza

[Arising_uk]

Care to say what this would entail?

[tbieter]

On Putting the Active Back into Activism

Rosi Braidotti

This paper addresses a paradox: how to engage in affirmative politics, which entails the production of social horizons of hope, while at the same time doing critical theory, which means resisting the present. Drawing on the neo-vitalism of Deleuze, with reference to Nietzsche and Spinoza, the article argues in favour of an affirmative ethics: defined as a radical ethics of transformation. This new framework for re-thinking ethics moves away from the moral protocols of Kantian universalism, while also shifting its focus from unitary, rationality-driven consciousness to an understanding of subjectivity as processual in nature, propelled by affects and relations. Such a new framework disengages the emergence of the subject from the logic of negation and attaches subjectivity to affirmative otherness. Hence the self-other relation is reconceived in terms of reciprocity as creation and not as the recognition of Sameness. Taking critical distance from modern conceptions of self-centred individualism and the negative production of hierarchically inferior others which it assumes, an affirmative ethics for a non-unitary subject as proposed here aims at offering an enlarged sense of inter-connection between self and others, including the non-human or 'earth' others, following and enhancing the tradition of a bio-centred egalitarianism (Ansell-Pearson, 1999) that posits a nature-culture continuum (Haraway, 1997). Moreover by putting the emphasis on the positivity of affirmative ethics - conceived in a depsychologised sense similar to that of Nietzsche and Spinoza - the article suggests an ethics of sustainability: one that provides the subject with a frame for interaction and change, growth and movement; an ethics that affirms life as difference-at-work.

KEYWORDS: affirmative ethics; vitalism; biopolitics; immanence; becoming; futurity; Deleuze; Nietzsche; Spinoza

I'll bet that this blurb was written by Professor Judith Butler or one of her clones. http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

[info]

I think the blurb is a pastiche of the text?

The author is in a small feud with Judy Butler. Braidotti calls Butlerian Pomo too fragile and vulnerable: a bit tinged with the melancholic.

I can see Braidotti's calling Butler too fragile as a sexual slur due to Judy being known for her lesbianism; so to call her a bit too "fragile", that's like allusion or inuendo: "...are you afraid a man will brake you Judy because you are so fragile so that's why you're lesbian?"

[Arising_uk]

Still not hearing what you think such a program would entail?

[info]

Still not hearing what you think such a program would entail?

'Back to the body.'

This means surfing organic sense immediacy; acting and not reacting; living from the open and non-neurotic part of the brain,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J4ALKxQ0pA

[Arising_uk]

This means surfing organic sense immediacy; acting and not reacting; living from the open and non-neurotic part of the brain ...

Tell me what this means in English?

[safia1230]

Short stories and fiction books are okay because that's like watching a movie. It's all made-up and you know that going into it. History books are also okay because that's just a record of what happened.

However, books on controversial subjects seriously annoy me. I can't get through more than several pages of the book before I want to say "Wait, I disagree here." and "Well how do you know for a fact that THIS is true?" and "You're not being consistent over here..." and "What about THIS argument?" and "I disagree because...."

But no, I can't do that because it's a book. Reading a book is like listening to someone's long monologue rant about what they think and what they believe and what their opinions are. Who would want to read or listen to that? Seriously, I can't read more than a couple of pages before I want to start arguing with the author. But I can't, and that's what so annoying. I just have to sit there and take it and read it... or not read at all.

Does anyone else feel this way? This is why I never read books on controversial subjects. I'm more than happy to debate someone in person, but never read books. I'm not just gonna sit there and listen (mentally) while someone goes on and on and ON AND ON about their beliefs. WTF is that? Why would anyone want to do that?
I hate reading books about feminism, atheism, morality, homosexuality, philosophy, etc. Doesn't everyone?

[Thundril]

Short stories and fiction books are okay because that's like watching a movie. It's all made-up and you know that going into it. History books are also okay because that's just a record of what happened.

However, books on controversial subjects seriously annoy me. I can't get through more than several pages of the book before I want to say "Wait, I disagree here." and "Well how do you know for a fact that THIS is true?" and "You're not being consistent over here..." and "What about THIS argument?" and "I disagree because...."

But no, I can't do that because it's a book. Reading a book is like listening to someone's long monologue rant about what they think and what they believe and what their opinions are. Who would want to read or listen to that? Seriously, I can't read more than a couple of pages before I want to start arguing with the author. But I can't, and that's what so annoying. I just have to sit there and take it and read it... or not read at all.

Does anyone else feel this way? This is why I never read books on controversial subjects. I'm more than happy to debate someone in person, but never read books. I'm not just gonna sit there and listen (mentally) while someone goes on and on and ON AND ON about their beliefs. WTF is that? Why would anyone want to do that?
I hate reading books about feminism, atheism, morality, homosexuality, philosophy, etc. Doesn't everyone?

Written books were a step in our ability to communicate, teach discuss etc, moral/political questions. They have the drawbacks you list, sure.
Magazines like PN are something of an improvement. At least there's less of a chance the author will have changed her own mind by the time the piece of work is written and published.
And now the internet is another way to communicate, teach discuss, the same questions. Maybe the 100 000 word printed (therefore fixed-for-all-time) philosophical/political monologue is on its way out?

[The Voice of Time]

Does anyone else feel this way? This is why I never read books on controversial subjects. I'm more than happy to debate someone in person, but never read books. I'm not just gonna sit there and listen (mentally) while someone goes on and on and ON AND ON about their beliefs. WTF is that? Why would anyone want to do that?
I hate reading books about feminism, atheism, morality, homosexuality, philosophy, etc. Doesn't everyone?

I agree in part. It depends on the book.

Good writers give objective analysis that doesn't really "mean" anything, or "imply" anything. It just is.

However, when i try to read Descartes for instance I disagree so much it is impossible to enjoy any of it. Same with most philosophy writers, so I prefer to read comments on them, mostly comments based on the Falsifiability principle, because then I know the writer tries to actually make clear all possible mistakes, and me disagreeing means less because I feel more enlightened by augmentative warfare than by dogmas, and more enlightened by critical analysis of small but important parts of text than long rants about why something sucks.

My favourite book is most Wikipedia articles There they remain short and concise and I am free to argue the details if I want.

[chaz wyman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Subjection_of_Women

Everything else is just accretion.

[jakaos]

Simone de Beavoir's Second Sex

[Thundril]

Mary Daly's "Pure Lust".
In fact anything by Mary Daly is interesting IMO. Especially "Beyond God the Father".

[noerd]

Haraway

… as I suppose … meant …
… that’ere’s different kind’o’ „emotional’thinkin“ : …
… „whi“le technic’s „chance“ ?
… „am“ I body …
… or do I „suffer“ ?
… cause’t’s „my“ oppinion too :
… „playin“ with melancholia … or suggestion … or purpose …
… cause’t’s „common“ ?
… ( … cause – I – think … that most „uniformity“ just result’s from super’acid’ed’body … and this way …
… ( … „reflex“ : … „fear“ ! … ) …

… „am“ I … in this moment … „thinkin“ …
… or do I feel …
… „chance“ ?
… but I’m sure … tha’t’s quite difficult … „opposin“ …
… gains’t technic’s …
… cause … body … „work“s :
… „need“s – a – specific – place …
… cause ( „normally“ ) human’s … „beein“ ?
… „but“ …
… me myself I …
… prefere ( so’called ) „nature“ …