Discussion questions:

What new books are you reading?

Do you prefer fiction or non-fiction?

Question of the week:

What books are you eager to read that you haven’t read yet?

Enjoy!

    • Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 年前

      Indeed she is. Though that didn’t stop some communists criticizing her for her individualistic bourgeois philosophy.

      • Makan ☭ CPUSA@lemmygrad.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 年前

        Her work was also presaged or done better by communist authors who themselves were female as well but none of the communist books really struck it big.

        Her’s did though.

        Still, whatever one may think, she did support the May '68 protest movement, which many famous French philosophers never did…

        • Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 年前

          The importance of her book is in the breakthrough it accomplished in deconstructing the millenia-old patriarchal/paternalistic logic which indiscriminately governed (Western) society. So it definitely merits its critical acclaim.

          By the way, she supported the PRC since its establishment and visited China in the Fifties. She wrote an investigative book about her visit entitled The Long March.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 年前

      I’m not sure if she was a Marxist. Her chapter on historical materialism and Engels in The Second Sex is… problematic.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 年前

          Go on… I’m happy to be wrong. I only read that chapter but I wasn’t overly impressed.

          • Makan ☭ CPUSA@lemmygrad.mlOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 年前

            No, I wasn’t doubting you; I said “Oh boy” because it’s such a pity and I can only imagine what the author took issue with Engels on, considering that he’s something of a punching bag even among Marxists.

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 年前

              Oh, I see. That’s one of those phrases that can mean a lot of things! When I get time, I’ll have another look and see what the beef was.

            • Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 年前

              If you’re curious to know, she argues, unlike Engels in his Origin of the Family, that the rise of private property and the social relations of production are a useful yet insufficient explanation for women’s servitude.

              According to her, the women’s material (physiological) incapacity in the production process constitute an inherent disadvantage only if viewed through a certain perspective (e.g. historical materialism). In other words, women’s alterity isn’t intrinsic to her biological sex, but rather the consequence of the imperialist human consciousness which seeks to objectively accomplish its sovereignty.

              Basically, the classical doctrines of Marxism are based on a modernist tradition which seeks to uncover “objective truths” which conflict with de Beauvoir’s deconstructionist portrayal of women’s conditioning in the West.