Linking Radfem Archive. They have the complete collection of Andrea Dworkin's works (with the exception of 'Last Days at Hot Slit' since it was only published in 2019). As well as 'The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism' from various authors and 'Unpacking Queer Politics' from Sheila Jeffreys. http://radfem.org/

>>7 Which books would you recommend for starters? I read woman hating a few weeks ago and still am kinda conflicted about it but I still want to continue reading. Would like to know about other authors too if possible

>>8 I'd reccomend reading Right-Wing Women first, then mocing on to Woman Hating.

Imma be honest one of the reasons I don't wanna read any of Dowrkins work is because she's fat and I don't respect obese people of any gender

>>10 you're fucked in the head dude. she was so severely abused and beaten, was homeless, had to become a prostitute. good luck caring about your weight after that.

You may have convinced [women] that littleness and weakness are the very essence of beauty; and that the Supreme Being, in giving women beauty in the most supereminent degree, seemed to command them, by the powerful voice of Nature, not to cultivate the moral virtues that might chance to excite respect, and interfere with the pleasing sensations they were created to inspire. Thus confining truth, fortitude, and humanity, within the rigid pale of manly morals, they might justly argue, that to be loved, woman's high end and great distinction! they should 'learn to lisp, to totter in their walk, and nick-name God's creatures.' Never, they might repeat after you, was any man, much less a woman, rendered amiable by the force of those exalted qualities, fortitude, justice, wisdom, and truth; and thus forewarned of the sacrifice they must make to those austere, unnatural virtues, they would be authorised to turn all their attention to their persons, systematically neglecting morals to secure beauty. - Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, 1790. To me this is the most perfect summary of the hypocrisy of gender I've ever seen, crammed into a single wordy paragraph from the 18th century, and we are now well into the 21st and most people still don't understand.

>>12 It's sad how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Thanks for sharing, anon.

>>8 Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy is very good, I think it's a great radical feminist literature starter pack. Gerda Lerner is a historian who dedicated her work on Women's History. Her book answered my questions on how and why did women become the way they are (subordinate) in society. Very eye-opening stuff.

https://archive.org/details/AnarchismRadicalFeminism/page/n3/mode/2up Found an archive of pdfs about both anarchy + radicial feminism. Even if you're not a fan of the former, there's still some interesting pdfs. Surprised it's still on this site honestly.

"All of the major world religions deprecate women to some degree. This page archives texts which relate specifically to women and religion from a female perspective. This includes historic feminist texts on the topic, texts about Goddess-oriented sprituality and Amazons, as well as texts from otherwise male-dominated religions in the same vein. As might be expected, there are far fewer of these than might be desired. " https://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/index.htm

So I downloaded this book detailing some of the second wave feminist activism concerning porn and the sex industry, and the first two pages of the introduction already fucking killed it. This analysis is probably more relevant now than ever considering the fact that even children have easy access to high speed internet violent fetish porn if left unsupervised. We're living in interesting times, anons.

>>61 I’m interested in reading this, anon!

So I recently read "The Man-made World" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, its one of the first books that accurately and aggressively illustrates the patriarchal domination of women on all basis, before the current meaning of patriarchy even existed and cause its from the early 20th century some of the points she made aren't all that new If you have any understanding of even basic feminism but it was revolutionary for the time, but then a part of the book came up that I really don't know what to think of, its about sports and games and how all sports are inherently patriarchal >Most games are male. In their element of desire to win, to get the prize, they are male; and in their universal attitude of competition they are male, the basic spirit of desire and of combat working out through subtle modern forms, There is something inherently masculine also in the universal dominance of the projectile in their games. The ball is the one unescapable instrument of sport. From the snapped marble of infancy to the flying missile of the bat, this form endures. To send something forth with violence; to throw it, bat it,kick it, shoot it; this impulse seems to date back to one of the twin forces of the universe—the centrifugal and centripetal energies between which swing the planets.The basic feminine impulse is to gather, to put together, to construct; the basic masculine impulse to scatter, to disseminate, to destroy. It seems to give pleasure to a man to bang something and drive it from him; the harder he hits it and the farther it goes the better pleased he is. Games of this sort will never appeal to women. This threw me off really, I started debating with myself about this, are strength based sports such as Judo, baseball, Football e.t.c all inherently patriarchal to their core cause a form of domination does occur, I mean winning in the traditional sense mean beating the other through force which you could argue teaches one to subjugate anyone you deem weaker then you from an early age anons what your thoughts on this ? cause I'm really confused

>>66 the competition and yeah, subjugation in sports i can understand, but this >dominance of the projectile in their games. The ball is the one unescapable instrument of sport. From the snapped marble of infancy to the flying missile of the bat, this form endures. To send something forth with violence; to throw it, bat it,kick it, shoot it; this impulse seems to date back to one of the twin forces of the universe—the centrifugal and centripetal energies between which swing the planets.The basic feminine impulse is to gather, to put together, to construct; the basic masculine impulse to scatter, to disseminate, to destroy. It seems to give pleasure to a man to bang something and drive it from him; the harder he hits it and the farther it goes the better pleased he is. Games of this sort will never appeal to women. sounds very stupid. benevolent sexism etc.

>>67 tbf I have seen radfems spout more or less similar rhetoric >Men can never truly create on anything, just destroy or steal >Male bonding is based on subjugation and hierarchy I have seen tons of comments like this on radblrn

>>68 those two concepts aren't the same as the quoted text. what you're quoting is mostly true. claiming physical catharsis will never appeal to women is just stupid

>>69 and how much of that appeal is due to socialization, most women don't like violent sports

>>70 she describes hitting a ball or kicking a ball as violent, though. i understand these can be seen as "destructive" actions if you overanalyze them, but sometimes people just want to kick and punch shit because it's a great destressor. sports are garbage though and they're high pressure situations, which is annoying. the entire environment is annoying. i believe women, like all people, sometimes just enjoy non competitive sport that lets them kick and punch shit

>>71 The point I'm arguing is that in any sport where their is a winner and a loser patriarchal, winning means you beat another person and you might think that person is lesser then you

>>62 It's The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism. The download was linked earlier in the thread. >>7

>>6 Miles is a really bad source for history, anon. The first half of her book is >>16 tier fanfiction. While many neolithic societies were more egalitarian, there is no evidence for a pan-European matriarchal goddess cult. The section about witch trials is tragically ahistorical too. If you're interested in women's history that's actually based on facts, I recommend finding books by reputable historians focusing on their specific area of expertise. If you're interested in a woman-centered perspective on prehistory that's actually based on hard evidence, I really recommend Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times by Elizabeth Barber. >>61 This looks great anon, thanks for sharing.

>>68 >Male bonding is based on subjugation and hierarchy This is somewhat true.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000108568415&view=1up&seq=126 Kill The Enemy By Lieutenant Lyudmila Pavlichenko More confirmed kills than the navy seal copypasta.

What are the best radfem works to start with?

>>333 "Right wing women" by Dworkin is a go-to when you ask this question usually. I would recommend Graham's "Loving to survive". but I'm not sure if it's considered problematique nowadays. "Why does he do that" and "The cinderella complex" are too a good intro into why we are so fucked in a man's world. Sheila Jeffreys: "Industrial vagina" about the bigger picture with "sex work" "The Spinster and her enemies", "Unpacking queer politics", "Lesbian Heresy" about attack on women's sexual freedom from male left and right I would also recommend Valerie Solanas's play that never came to be, "Up You Ass". Not theory, but hilarious.

>>333 I can send you a bunch of PDFs if you want too

>>334 thank you for the list, i've heard right-wing women too but wanted to see if anything else came up! >>335 i got the pdfs just not sure what to start with thank you though!