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 year ago

      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 year ago

        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
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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 year ago

      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 year ago

          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
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.