My take on The Dialectic of Sex is that Firestone’s arguments really do not fare well in the context of our current society. She seems to pare down oppression of women to an argument for the abolition of biological reproduction which would free women from the inequalities inherent in childbirth/rearing. The feminism that Firestone is arguing for denies the existence of women who are not biologically female and, although there is an attempt made to expand upon Marx and Engel’s theories of oppression, she does not take into consideration the necessity of intersectional feminism. I think (though I’m not 100% certain) that Firestone’s ideal feminist revolution must overthrow the existing modes of reproduction, which in the technological age, is becoming more and more possible. But I think that the oppression of women goes beyond biology and has more to do with the woman as a commodity; an object to be stabilized and destabilized under capitalism and until we revolt against this economic system, all oppressed people will never be free.

Reading chapter 5 and shaking my head the whole time so everyone on the bus knows I'm not racist. If anyone makes eye contact with me, I hastily but loudly explain that I also don't think child liberation includes abolishing the age of consent, so everyone knows that I'm not a pedo either.

Still historically important as a foundational radfem text, and it's interesting to see the roots of some of the ideas and examples that [b:The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood|32841099|The Man-Not Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood|Tommy J. Curry|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1490333707l/32841099._SY75_.jpg|53443455] would later build upon and take in a completely different direction from what Firestone would have imagined.

3.5 if we’re being honest.

i was hooked from the start when she proposed for women to seize the means of reproduction like shulamith you’re very funny. sth id tweet for sure. i generally think that some of what she has come up with is in a positive sense some of the most revolutionary and necessary contributions to the feminist thought and conceptualisation of a revolution, in particular xenofeminism, abolishing the applied/empirical science and arts/humanities divide and integrating of marxism, freudianism into a radical feminist framework of a societal revolution. it’s incredible that she wrote this at 25

however, i have two enormous qualms:

1. chapter 5: shulamith firestone please never write about race again
2. children: i think she has a fundamental misunderstanding of child psychology. her points about liberating children, while interesting at first, are taken to such a radical extreme as to imply that age should be culturally disregarded within a sexual/relationship context which is a dangerous, uninformed, and an inane conclusion for a feminist to make. it would only enable pedophilic, abusive relationships between parties that are just neurologically superior one to the other, whether shulamith likes it or not. dismissing child and developmental psychology as a product of the reality it is describing can only go so far and implying that children have the capacity to function as adults fully integrated in every way in human society contradicts aby care for the wellbeing of children and is utopian at best, extremely ridiculous and dangerous at worst (at present)

both of the issues have the ability to question the credibility of anything she posits in the rest of her book, however i find incredible merit in some of her other analysis as well as a good literary talent. i just think some of her inferences are self-serving and biased, without taking into consideration their uninformed nature and logical fallacies

It’s hard to know how to rate this book—it’s definitely an interesting read, and a polemic about everything Firestone hates about being a woman in the 1970s (fair). I don’t think that her premise—that all societal problems are basically an extension of sexism—holds up, but she does fantastic readings of Freud under feminism, and her push for women to seize the means of reproduction through cybernetics feels very ahead of its time.

Simply a must read. I don't care who you are or what you think you think about sex differences or what you think about Marx. Shulamith will set your ass straight on key issues.

Freud is the wrong lense for trying to deconstruct patriarchal oppression. As much as this is considered a classic, it feels very dated. The chapter on racism was buck wild. I think there were only 3 worthwhile chapters in this book that could still be relevant today. The rest of it, she's just making shit up, a lot of which comes off as offensive to the modern reader.

The Dialectic of Sex is a well-articulated book but she definitely also makes some iffy (to say the least) points at times.

To start with the positives, her application of Marxist analysis to feminism as well as feminist critique of contemporary socialist movements are spot on (and the latter is absolutely still applicable in 2018, anyone who is or has ever been in a socialist group/organization/party will likely find themselves nodding along to what she's saying about marginalization of feminist goals as well as female comrades who sideline feminism in favor of 'more inclusive' sex-blind class analysis).

Her chapter on childhood was also thought-provoking and definitely accomplished the goal of making me/the reader reconsider the current perspective on childhood. There were points that I would've contested from a psych perspective, but she makes a convincing case overall and her review of the history of childhood is undeniably valuable. Essentially - Her analysis of unequal power relations within the nuclear family and how this harms children - good; Her critique of the school system - good; Her historical analysis which demonstrates that children have much higher capacities than we assume they do, and that they thrive by being more included in adult activities - great. H o w e v e r, she later goes back to build onto these points to ultimately condone pedophilia, and ?????? No.

She also has a whole chapter on Freudianism, and I appreciated her argument about why Freudian ideas became so popular when they did (both feminism and Freudianism emerged at a similar time with similar aims - analysis of sexuality - and Freudianism ended up being accepted as the lesser of the two evils - "If we /have/ to deal with sexuality, might as well take this patriarchal perspective in order to bury the perspective challenging male violence") but Firestone didn't really buy me with the whole attempt to somehow salvage Freudianism by running it through a feminist lens. If it was done simply to explain Freudian problems through feminist analysis - and then discard it, I would've been excited about it. I wasn't too impressed with her assimilationist approach, though. Reactionary ideas are reactionary ideas regardless of their packaging.

It gets more bizarre in her chapter on racism, which she also writes through a psychoanalyst lens and honestly it's extremely awkward to read due to, well, the woke racism of it all.

An interpretation of historical theory (kind of) or rather a rumination on it, and an interpretive argument about Marxist feminism which seeks to seize the means of reproduction as a means of women's liberation.

Second wave garbage mostly. But, good to know exactly what second wave "radical" feminism thought, especially along the lines of how they interpreted Marxism, and how freaking weirdly, insidiously and deeply racist this kind of thinking is.