I can’t speak for every woman but for me, as a writer, I am interested in what reading my beau has on his bedside table. I am not going to judge a book (a man) by its cover (what he is reading) but I will read into it and make fun of him when necessary. I will admit that there have been times when books by both Perez Hilton and Dr. Seuss have ended up on my desk but that is forgivable by the intelligent reading hiding underneath. By intelligent reading, I mean books that I don’t hide in my purse while reading to avoid judgement and pointed fingers by other subway passengers.

Why is this so important, you ask? Well, it should go without saying that not only do I want to ensure my boyfriend’s literacy but I also would like to know what ideas he is filling his head with. For example if he ends his long day reading a chapter from Victor Handler’s How to Live a Full Life From the Closet, I might want to start asking questions. While I do not have a strict reading list for anyone but myself, I would reccomend the following books for men ages 25-35.

How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie

This is not a Dr. Phil self-help book. Citing intimate examples from the likes of Rockefeller, Charles Schwab and FDR, this comprehensive guide is all about how to get ahead in business, relationships and life. Read one chapter a day for the rest of your life. It will make you a far better man than you would ever be without it.

The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger

Holden Caufield, if nothing else, should serve as a point of reference for the angst and cynicism that you perhaps once had, or ideally never had. If you thought like him when you were 16 or 17 years old, you are forgiven. If you still identify with him, you need to find some more joy, somehow…fake it ’til you make it. Do something. 

Catch-22, by Joseph Heller

The logic here is simple: any book which has the influence to have coined terminology commonly used in our society for decades on end should be perused based solely on principle. Nothing is worse than a man being caught using language of which he is unfamiliar with its proper meaning or origin. Also, it is a great book.  

Fight Club: A Novel, by Chuck Palahniuk

Featuring soap made from human fat, waiters at high-class restaurants who do unmentionable things to soup and an underground organization dedicated to inflicting a violent anarchy upon the land, Palahniuk’s apocalyptic first novel is clearly not for the faint of heart. Writing in an ironic deadpan and including something to offend everyone, Palahniuk is a risky writer who takes chances galore. Caustic, outrageous, bleakly funny, violent and always unsettling, this creation will make even the most jaded reader sit up and take notice.

The New York Trilogy: City of Glass; Ghosts; the Locked Room, by Paul Auster

If you’re looking for detective stories, look elsewhere. Auster isn’t interested in the classic private eye tale as anything but a way into territory vastly more compelling. Though his three novellas ostensibly revolve around men hired or driven into the pursuit of others, they end up being more about the psychology of the pursuer than the pursued.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, by Raymond Carver

Do not assume that because the word “love” is in the title that there will be Fabio inspired characters. “That morning she pours Teacher’s over my belly and licks it off. That afternoon she tries to jump out the window.” That is not even the best line out of this book. Just read a chapter, if you don’t like it… you will.

Deliverance, by James Dickey

A reminder of how close we are to animalism. Also a great read because there’s so much more to the book than that scene.

A Sport and a Pastime, by James Salter

Remember your college buddy’s girlfriend, the one you were in love with? This book was written because of her.

The Postman Always Rings Twice, by James M. Cain

This book knows how to teach men about women. Yes, some of you have a lot to learn. Just for the record, there isn’t a single postman in this book.

You are a spammer my lady. Please desist.

Damn. You should date my college roommate. I think the only one of these that he doesn't have is Deliverance. Although, he's also a bit of an abusive boyfriend so maybe not.

I would like to add:

Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein

I don't even know how to exhort the glories of a book, but I would be willing to date any girl who could use grok correctly in a sentence. (Although, I might not be able to stay with a girl like that, because, well, she can use grok in a sentence, and I have standards.) This book is an astounding look at humanity from the eyes of a non-human (Martian) human.

Joke:

Kama Sutra by Anonymous

I don't know if you've seen this book but it is AWESOME! The pictures are my favorite.

What about some dealbreaker books?

I would say that I wouldn't date a girl with Twilight on her shelf, but I have. hangs head in shame I would, if I were you, draw the line at a guy with the full Twilight 'saga.'

I would draw the line at a feminist philosophy book.

She gone.

What about all the poor literature majors out there who read femminist theory for their course?

I've read an enourmous amount, and despite initial misgivings, most of it's quite good.

Damn. You should date my college roommate. I think the only one of these that he doesn't have is Deliverance. Although, he's also a bit of an abusive boyfriend so maybe not.

Didn't you know women like that?

Mullog Mullog Mullog.  When are you going to stop this woman-hating?

The vast majority of Feminist theory is fascinating stuff.  It's not even about; it's about humanity and the under-represented.  If you've read some and didn't like it okay.  But I'd like to know what you've read and why you thought it was such odious stuff.

Mullog Mullog Mullog. When are you going to stop this woman-hating?

I do NOT hate women. I hate feminism. Feminism is stupid. Women struggling for equality with men is better dubbed slumming.

It's not even about; it's about humanity and the under-represented.

What? Some of it is actually "enlightened" or at least reasonably thought out, but other stuff like the idea that "firemen" tells small girls that they can't grow up and be firemen, because of the phoneme "men." Is crap.

I'm not a mysoginist; I'm a misanthrope. I love women, in entirely legal and non-creepy ways.

Also, equality is BS and entirely un-American.

Also Feminism killed Tupac.

I hate feminism. Feminism is stupid. Women struggling for equality with men is better dubbed slumming.

Bullshit.

What? Some of it is actually "enlightened" or at least reasonably thought out, but other stuff like the idea that "firemen" tells small girls that they can't grow up and be firemen, because of the phoneme "men." Is crap.

I agree there's some crap, but most of it is not like that.  Most of it is a reasoned attempt to understand the differences and similarities between women and men, and what they mean--if anything.  A lot of it (garbage like "wymyn" because it doesn't have "men" in it) is just an attempt to defamiliarize things.  Nobody seriously thinks we should call it "herstory," it's just an attempt to get you to look at things in a new way and consider what the implications are that so much of history is told by and about men.  It's an attempt to break away from marginalization.

Also, equality is BS and entirely un-American.

That's okay, I'm un-American anyway.

Also Feminism killed Tupac.

To this, though, I have no argument.  Fuck feminism.

 Feminism is stupid. Women struggling for equality with men is better dubbed slumming.

I barely even know how to respond to this other than to say this makes you sound like an ignorant fool, Derek, and will keep you from many a date.

Can someone explain to me the purpose of this thread? 

And can someone enlighten me as to the nature of the "spammer?" 

Signed,

occasionally in the dark

 Mullog,

What feminist theories have you read?  What feminist literature have you read?

 I'm disregarding the original post because it looks like it's from some publisher's marketing department looking for free research.  Spammer = one who sends spam, aka junk mail.

But now I'm jumping on the bandwagon to pwn Mullog's ass for making silly comments.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the spam either.  Sometimes people's spam doesn't even make sense.  It just is.

Especially when paired with egg, bacon and sausage, Stewart. Yes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger

Holden Caufield, if nothing else, should serve as a point of reference for the angst and cynicism that you perhaps once had, or ideally never had. If you thought like him when you were 16 or 17 years old, you are forgiven. If you still identify with him, you need to find some more joy, somehow…fake it ’til you make it. Do something.

How ironic to come across this today. RIP, J.D. !

How ironic to come across this today. RIP, J.D. !

Ah hell.   I hadn't heard about that.

That sucks.

That sucks.

Mostly for him, I'd imagine...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obit_salinger

BBC reported him as having 15 completed manuscripts in a safe.  Guess what we'll be seeing on the market soon?

 Somehow I feel like that would piss him off even more...

Feminism is stupid. Women struggling for equality with men is better dubbed slumming.

 

I barely even know how to respond to this other than to say this makes you sound like an ignorant fool, Derek, and will keep you from many a date.

I love how everyone is attacking me, but not actually setting up contrary statements or philosophies.

I get that everyone thinks I'm a moron (which I'm not) and a self-centered ass (which I am) but I'm reasonably certain that I'm right on this, if for the very simple fact that if A is not equal to B then A and B are not equal. Men and women are not the same, therefore they are not equal.

Also, weirded out by the awareness of my real name. (I thought my secret identity was safe!!!)

What feminist theories have you read? What feminist literature have you read?

I attended a feminist philosophy class until my laughter, rhetoric, and systematic destruction of a miserable teacher's insufficient defenses made me "disruptive." Perhaps I shouldn't have brought another professor in to laugh with me... I may have crossed the line there.

Perhaps this isn't the right thread to begin this on, but: Define Feminism.

Online Dictionary:

the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

No society predating industrial agriculture, soap, and/or contraceptives is capable of surviving this social change. I am also not yet willing to concede that a society with all these things can survive this ideology.

Also, weirded out by the awareness of my real name. (I thought my secret identity was safe!!!)

Seriously? Then you may want to take it off your profile ...

I am also not yet willing to concede that a society with all these things can survive this ideology.

I think the Feminists would agree with you.  A society without social, political, and equal rights for women shouldn't continue to exist.

What you are coming off as saying here (although I suspect it is not what you are saying) is that women are inferior to men.  Is that what you are saying?  Please clarify.

I love how everyone is attacking me, but not actually setting up contrary statements or philosophies.

Really?  What do you call this then:

I agree there's some crap, but most of it is not like that.  Most of it is a reasoned attempt to understand the differences and similarities between women and men, and what they mean--if anything.  A lot of it (garbage like "wymyn" because it doesn't have "men" in it) is just an attempt to defamiliarize things.  Nobody seriously thinks we should call it "herstory," it's just an attempt to get you to look at things in a new way and consider what the implications are that so much of history is told by and about men.  It's an attempt to break away from marginalization.

Or should I accuse you of being in a similar situation to the professor you brag of disrupting?  Because looking at that reply you seem to haev 100% ignored my post, which did in fact set up a contrary statement and philosophy.

There are, by the way, very real dangers involved in trying to define something as complicated and multi-faceted as "Feminism" in one sentence.  But just to play ball in the same way:

The term feminism can be used to describe a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women. Feminism involves political, cultural and sociological theories, as well as philosophies concerned with issues of gender difference.

The bolded bit is why you come of as seeming like a chauvinistic asshole here.  You're basically saying "Women?  Legal rights?  Ha!  Fuck 'em."  (Rather, it seems like that's what you're saying.  This is why I said you were a mysoginist.)

Most Feminism is concerned with the differences of men and women as well as the similarities.  Much of the old-school "second wave" feiminism is, I agree, to a certain degree bullshit.  But the point is that it has to be offensive to draw attention. 

If you write a paper and say "Hey guys let's basically treat women nicely." everybody will say "Oh yeah sure, that makes sense" and then promptly do nothing.  You have to shock people out of their accustomed culturally-imbibed mores.  The same is true of many radical philosophies from the 60s on up to today.

Thus: Post-structuralists deconstruct the meaning of statements and piss off literalists on purpose to make them think.

Thus: Post-colonists make inflamed statements about Whiteness, Europeanness, Colonization on purpose in order to piss people off and make them think.

You seem, in your posts here (and elsewhere--let's be fair) to be acting in a reactionary manner, but this puts you (as noted above) in the position of arguing that women should not be socially, legally, culturally equal to men.  Is that really what you believe, or are you just unaware of this implication?

I notice also that you did not actually respond to the question which feminist theory you'd read.  All you did was say that you went to a class and made fun of somebody, which is not the same thing at all.

Titles, authors, please.  [citation needed] and all that.

Also, weirded out by the awareness of my real name. (I thought my secret identity was safe!!!)

Seriously? Then you may want to take it off your profile ...

On a lighter note, lmao!

I am also not yet willing to concede that a society with all these things can survive this ideology.

 

I think the Feminists would agree with you. A society without social, political, and equal rights for women shouldn't continue to exist.

Read the statement:  I said earlier that a society could definitely not survive this ideology without those things (soap, contraceptives, and industrial agriculture.) This statement is simply affirming that I did NOT concede that it could exist NOW. - Therefore Feminists would probably disagree. And I didn't say "should" I said "could." I'm not getting moral, yet. I'm simply being practical at this point.

What you are coming off as saying here (although I suspect it is not what you are saying) is that women are inferior to men. Is that what you are saying? Please clarify.

Again, read what I said:

Feminism is stupid. Women struggling for equality with men is better dubbed slumming.

Slumming, as in deliberately socializing outside ur social class for your amusement or curiousity. I'm saying women could do better. I'm saying women seeking equality is the same as men looking to be pigs. It's a step down.

Really? What do you call this then:

 

A) I agree there's some crap, but most of it is not like that. Most of it is a reasoned attempt to understand the differences and similarities between women and men, and what they mean--if anything.
B) A lot of it (garbage like "wymyn" because it doesn't have "men" in it) is just an attempt to defamiliarize things. Nobody seriously thinks we should call it "herstory," it's just an attempt to get you to look at things in a new way and consider what the implications are that so much of history is told by and about men. It's an attempt to break away from marginalization.

A- I call that an open statement without proofs. Also, I'm not contradicted, they simply say that it's an exercise in self-discovery and gender differences. Which I didn't say it wasn't. I simply said that it was stupid- namely a futile exercise. You want to study the differences then study men and women, don't try to change their habitat. (A habitat which they themselves designed.)

B- B agrees with me. No reason to consider this an argument.

Or should I accuse you of being in a similar situation to the professor you brag of disrupting? Because looking at that reply you seem to haev 100% ignored my post, which did in fact set up a contrary statement and philosophy.

I believe that I have countered your point. Namely: Contrary statement? Where.

The bolded bit is why you come of as seeming like a chauvinistic asshole here. You're basically saying "Women? Legal rights? Ha! Fuck 'em." (Rather, it seems like that's what you're saying. This is why I said you were a mysoginist.)

No, the reason I'm coming off as chauvinistic is because I'm not agreeing with the women- and no one read what I actually wrote so they assume I wrote it wrong.

Define Feminism was meant to be an invitation, actually. I simply found a quick one to disagree with, but if you can find another one I'd be more than willing to disagree with that one as well.

If you write a paper and say "Hey guys let's basically treat women nicely." everybody will say "Oh yeah sure, that makes sense" and then promptly do nothing. You have to shock people out of their accustomed culturally-imbibed mores. The same is true of many radical philosophies from the 60s on up to today.

I agree with this. In order to change, you must shock. But I do not agree that a change is necessary or even beneficial.

You seem, in your posts here (and elsewhere--let's be fair) to be acting in a reactionary manner, but this puts you (as noted above) in the position of arguing that women should not be socially, legally, culturally equal to men. Is that really what you believe, or are you just unaware of this implication?

Depressing, although yes, I agree that women should NOT be socially (definitely not) equal, legally (hell no, laws should reflect societal norms, norms should not make them equal) equal, or culturally equal to men. AGAIN - SLUMMING - any attempt for women to achieve equality is a step down.

I don't actually have a source, I'll admit. There was a text book for the class, a collection of essays but I returned it to the bookstore. But the general philosophy is frequently tossed in my face. I still think that it's a misguided and poor attempt to make a statement. Perhaps, I simply haven't come across anyone "good" yet, provide an example.

Summary: Women NOT equal to Men.

My requests: Define Feminism (Your brand, please.) Philosophical Arguments For Feminism

I theorize that Women is greater than Men, but have no conclusive proof. Although if you want to get into details:

Legally: Crimes against women should be (and quite frequently are) treated as more heinous than crimes against men. Rape, for example, should be punished with the death penalty. I suggest an electric chair, only a very different sort of chair than the popular one.

Culturally: I suggest the return of chivalry. (I have other great social changes to endorse, but I'm in enough trouble as it is.)

Socially: How so? Should they be able to speak unless spoken to? Depends. I say if the person (gender neutral) is incapable of saying something worth saying, then he should be restricted in his speech. Don't speak unless spoken to? More like "Don't Speak unless You're Worth Speaking To."

I attended a feminist philosophy class until my laughter, rhetoric, and systematic destruction of a miserable teacher's insufficient defenses made me "disruptive."

My idea of attending a class was always to learn something and widen my horizons. This requires paying attention. Your antics in the classroom not only irritate the lecturer but stop your classmates from learning. This kind of behaviour smacks of immaturity and arrogance.

call it spam or dog shit on the bottom of your shoe, this woman admitted she reads Perez Hilton.

EVERYONE, SCATTER!

 I attended a feminist philosophy class until my laughter, rhetoric, and systematic destruction of a miserable teacher's insufficient defenses made me "disruptive."

I agree with Hans. I'm becoming a teacher, and no matter what you teach, no matter how old your students are, you've given A LOT of your time and effort to that material. It doesn't matter if the teacher is right, wrong, or just wants to get paid at the end of the day. You really shouldn't disrespect someone just trying to do their job, one that entails A GOOD-NATURED concept, nonetheless.

 Mullog, man, I don't know if you have children or anything but... i'm pretty sure you've cursed yourself.

Your future offspring will all be females.

I attended a feminist philosophy class until my laughter, rhetoric, and systematic destruction of a miserable teacher's insufficient defenses made me "disruptive."

 

My idea of attending a class was always to learn something and widen my horizons. This requires paying attention. Your antics in the classroom not only irritate the lecturer but stop your classmates from learning. This kind of behaviour smacks of immaturity and arrogance.

Please note, when people say things worth saying, I do listen. Constant demonstrations to the contrary convert this to play time- same for my psychology class where the professor discussed her enjoyment of Acid, illegal drugs, and the openly wondered why a scatter-plot was so-named. Or my gen-ed english class where the discussion focused on homonyms and why we should not confuse them in our papers- although sudoku was the play time here, since I guessed that over 90% of the class needed this lesson.

Thesis: Fools shouldn't teach. Consider this Civil Disobedience.

Your future offspring will all be females.

Thank God! Praise Allah! How do I salute Bhudda again?

SOMEONE READ ANYTHING I SAY!!!

I DISAGREE with feminism. I BELIEVE that women are BETTER than men.

 Please note, when people say things worth saying, I do listen.

dude, drop out of college and make the Mullog Institute of Worthy Education. Hans and I will be your first two students