While this book is scientific in set-up and execution, it is more than that: it is also deeply engaged in gender emancipation. It is a strong plea for revolution, for the redirection of human energies to create the society we want, and an attempt to go beyond envisioning the next small step in reforming society. With hindsight I would conclude that the second feminist wave achieved reform, but not revolution, and I wonder whether it is perhaps necessary or inevitable that we go through all the intermediate steps that don't take us by the shortest route to the best society we can envision at any present time. The question I would pose is whether it is necessary to propose revolution in order to achieve reform in the end, or whether it is more effective to direct our energies to reform in the first place? It is a very old question of course, and I don't know enough history to answer it.

"The nominal struggles have their enduring value as ways of getting to know ourselves and our situation."

"Love is not possible between inferior and superior, because the base cannot free their love from selfish interest, either as the desire for security, or social advantage, and, being lesser, they themselves cannot comprehend the faculties in the superior which are worthy of love. The superior being on the other hand cannot demean himself by love for an inferior; his feeling must be tinged with condescension or else partake of perversion and a deliberate self-abasement. The proper subject for love is one's equal, seeing as the essence of love is to be mutual, and the lesser cannot produce anything greater than itself. Seeing the image of himself, man recognizes it and loves it, out of fitting and justifiable amour propre; such a love is based upon understanding, trust and communality. It is the love that forms communities, from the smallest groups to the highest. It is the only foundation for viable social structures, because it is the manifestation of common good. Society is founded on love, but the state is not because the state is a collection of minorities with different, even irreconcilable common goods. Like a father controlling siblings of different ages and sexes, the state must bring harmony among the warring groups, not through love, but external discipline. What man feels for the very different from himself is fascination and interest, which fade when the novelty fades, and the incompatibility makes its presence felt."

"every mistake made is redeemed when it is understood"

"The consequences of militancy do not disappear when the need for militancy is over."

I would like to reread this, and will offer it as a bookring in the meantime.
Participants:
scrutiny
kitten99
drutt

Received today in the mail! I just finished my last read so I will get started on this right away.

Can someone tell me who's next in line for this bookring? Thanks!

I simply couldn't finish this book because of its dense, overly serious and sometimes radical preach about feminism. I am a soft feminist, but this was simply too hard-core for me. I hope someone else might find it a bit more enlightening than I did!

Off in the mail to kitten99 today!

Received as part of the bookring. Thanks!

I found this very hard going, which is why I've had it for so long! Some very interesting concepts, and it gave me a much better understanding of the beliefs of the author, but a little extreme for my liking. Thanks to martinburo for the bookring.

Off in the post to drutt today!

Welcome to BookCrossing! I hope you enjoy this book. If you join bookcrossing.com (it's free), you can release this book once you've read it and track its journey. If you have any questions, you can send me a private message by clicking on the name "drutt".