Who's your favorite feminist author?


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Who's your favorite feminist author?

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    JK Rowling

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Murasaki Shikibu

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dorothy Dinnerstein, Eve Sedgwick, Adrienne Rich, Nancy Chodorow, Shulamith Firestone, Hortense Spillers, Margaret Mead

      Margaret Mead

      Valerie Solanis by a mile.

      Good author

      Julia Kristeva. She's so hot, also read her essay on Teresa of Avila in Carnal Hermeneutics from Fordham University Press.

      Why are there women in my board?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not a woman, just israeli

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Shalom!
          Post Khazar milkers please

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dorothy Dinnerstein, Eve Sedgwick, Adrienne Rich, Nancy Chodorow, Shulamith Firestone, Hortense Spillers, Margaret Mead

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Margaret Mead

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Valerie Solanis by a mile.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good author

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Julia Kristeva. She's so hot, also read her essay on Teresa of Avila in Carnal Hermeneutics from Fordham University Press.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"Intrinsic to Christianity is an unshakable faith in the existence of an Ideal Father and an absolute love for this loving Father, who would be, simply put, the foundation of the speaking subject. In turn, the speaking subject is none other than the subject of amorous discourse. This is the Father of Agape and Amor, but who is not Eros. “I love because I am loved,
      therefore I am” could be the syllogism of the believer, which Teresa acts out in her visions and ecstasies. Freud is far from rejecting the existence of this “loving father.” He alludes to him in “The Ego and the Id” when he
      discovers the “primary identifi cation” with the “father of individual prehistory” (not to be confused with the father of the collective prehistory of the “primal horde”); he possesses the qualities of “both parents” and identification with him is “direkte und unmittelbare” (direct and immediate). For the psychoanalyst this is but a variant of the “Oedipal father.” On the other hand, in its ignorance of the Oedipus complex, the Christian faith only retains a de-eroticized love of and for the Father, as the foundation for the possibility of speaking, which exists if and only if the words spoken are words of love. We can go back to the “Song of Songs,” as Teresa and other mystics did, to find the source of this copresence of word/love.

      >Nevertheless, this extreme idealization is only maintained in its pure state, and with an injunction to repression, by the Church’s exoteric message. On the contrary, in her position of internal exclusion, the mystic constantly resexualizes idealization. Freud sheds light on this logic of alternation in the economy of drives: when the processes and excitation go over certain quantitative limits, they are eroticized or de-eroticized. Mystics, especially Teresa, experience this reversal; some, and our saint more than others, are actually able to name it. From here on the alternation between idealization/desexualization/resexualization and vice-versa transforms love for the Ideal Father into the nonstop frenzy of drives, a passion for the Father, which turns out to be a sadomasochistic father-version, a “père-version.” Drastic fasting, penance, flagellation—often using bouquets of nettle on open wounds, convulsions even to the point of epileptic comas, which take advantage of vulnerable neuronal and hormonal states—these are just a few of the sadomasochistic extravagances that mark these ongoing “exiles of the self” in Him (to borrow one of Teresa’s expressions) or this transference toward the Other (to use my terms).

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        messed up the greentext copypasting but whatever

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        the absolute state of academia

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          What do you not like about what she's got to say here? The application of Freudian psychoanalytic categories to the symbols of Catholic mystical experience? What she's saying here isn't even controversial from a traditional theological perspective.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Freud is pseudo-intellectual garbage and using him as a "lens" on anything only creates meaningless drivel by people who need to be subordinated but don't want it.
            Also, why are so many Freudians exactly the type of people Freud said were mentally ill?
            It's really no wonder most actual psychologists don't take him seriously and treat him as a mystic

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              I think Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principal is worth reading, at least.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Reads like a shitpost.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          She's just being creative no need to get so consumed by envy, you could try enjoying it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            enjoy what? I don't think you can convince Christians to ever enjoy sacrilege

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >envy
            projecting narcissist like all trannies

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              keep seething dog I'm a very comfortable masculine Christian man, probably bench twice what you can

              enjoy what? I don't think you can convince Christians to ever enjoy sacrilege

              Explain what's sacrilegious about it. She's deploying psychoanalytic categories to conduct an analysis of the psychic phenomena at work in the spiritual life of a beloved saint. It's done very earnestly and thoughtfully and isn't belittling or disrespectful or heretical in the slightest, and was published by an extremely well-respected theological institution in a volume edited by well-known and pious leaders in contemporary theology.

              Freud is pseudo-intellectual garbage and using him as a "lens" on anything only creates meaningless drivel by people who need to be subordinated but don't want it.
              Also, why are so many Freudians exactly the type of people Freud said were mentally ill?
              It's really no wonder most actual psychologists don't take him seriously and treat him as a mystic

              She's not using Freud as a "lens", she's reinterpreting and deploying categories he initially developed in order to shine a light on underconsidered aspects of a specific mystic experience and its implications. She's identifying potential origins and conditions for the direction of specific drives in St. Teresa's mystic experience. She's explaining how the specific institutional context in which St. Teresa existed and out of which her experience emerged created the parameters for her spiritual innovations. All that Kristeva's doing here is exploring the conditions of mysticism. Idk why the trads are so butthurt. I think they must simply not read.

              Also, Kristeva isn't really a Freudian in the sense you seem to be using it. At best maybe you could call her a post-Lacanian or something like that, if trying to place her in allegiance to a specific psychoanalytic school or era. She's evaluating the mystic experience in relation to Freudian psychoanalytic concepts, not making a committed ideological defense to either.

              The way you people discuss on here makes you come off as extremely dense.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    My girlie, Simone

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    My mom

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nick land

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    bell hooks is so good. changed my life.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is it good?

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sasha Grey

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    pagilla

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Every time I see a picture of Dworkin I feel an immediate and visceral sense of pure revulsion. Even her name seems calculated to be as ugly as sonically possible. It's honestly kind of impressive how hideous she is in every way

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *