Scan barcode
Reviews
Feminism is Queer: The Intimate Connection Between Queer and Feminist Theory by Mimi Marinucci
marynalavr's review against another edition
3.0
sometimes i was bored reading it, but i it wasn’t bad
se_wigget's review
4.0
This would work well for a Feminist Theory 101 class, or for anyone who wants an academic introduction to the interconnectedness of feminist theory and queer theory. If someone who has only a mainstream media perception of feminism and queerness picks this book up, they would learn a great deal. Someone who (like me) is immersed in and very familiar with third wave feminism of course find “Feminism is queer” a statement of common sense rather than new information.
dashadashahi's review against another edition
4.0
If you are looking for an introduction to queer and feminist, this is a very accessible introduction to what is often a very academic and difficult to understand topic. I wish Marinucci spent more of the book on Queer Feminism, rather than spending much of the book doing an overview of the two fields separately and only briefly bringing it together. Nonetheless, the questions at the end of each chapter would be useful to teachers or TAs and the sources for further reading is a nice touch. If you are familiar with the field there really isn't much new here, but nonetheless a well-written and concise summary of two dense topics.
gloomyboygirl's review against another edition
DNF @ 50%
It was an alright/kind of mid read-- though that's on me because this is far too introductory for my understanding of queerness-- until the definition of pansexual being the acknowledgement of nonbinary people, as though there is not a history of nonbinary people in bisexuality. I've accepted not everyone will understand microlabels as valid and thus avoid referring to pan as such, but at the very least go for the preference definition in that case? It's just a huge pet peeve of mine to exclude transness in bisexuality, and I wasn't interested enough otherwise to keep on regardless
It was an alright/kind of mid read-- though that's on me because this is far too introductory for my understanding of queerness-- until the definition of pansexual being the acknowledgement of nonbinary people, as though there is not a history of nonbinary people in bisexuality. I've accepted not everyone will understand microlabels as valid and thus avoid referring to pan as such, but at the very least go for the preference definition in that case? It's just a huge pet peeve of mine to exclude transness in bisexuality, and I wasn't interested enough otherwise to keep on regardless
sophielinehan39's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
really helpful for my degree but quite dense and academic - still full of interesting theory .