![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 19th, 2006 02:22 pmI can't wait to have tomorrow off work.
I've been reading this book, Fundamentalism & Gender, edited by John Stratton Hawley.
It breaks down to this: 4 essays on fundamentalist movements- American Christian, Indian Islam, Hindu and Japanese New Religions, Then a longer section titled Fundamentalism: Objections from a Modern Jewish Historian....I skipped over this section after a long, dry bout of talk of semantics and when the word "fundamentalist" is or is not appropriate...there's more to the section, I may try to go back and read it, I may not. And then the final, much shorter section: Fundamentalism and The Control Of Women...which is sort of a recap of the first 4 sections and what the different examples have in common and where they are different.
Interesting material. The stance is clearly anti-fundamental, but the tone of the book is very nonconfrontational. There were times where I would almost argue that its stance is neutral, except that I was reading caerfully enough to know that it's not the case.
I'm really thinking that what I need to do is read some fiction. I haven't done that in a while. Sometimes it's good to read something that doesn't have a particular informative or educational purpose.
I've been reading this book, Fundamentalism & Gender, edited by John Stratton Hawley.
It breaks down to this: 4 essays on fundamentalist movements- American Christian, Indian Islam, Hindu and Japanese New Religions, Then a longer section titled Fundamentalism: Objections from a Modern Jewish Historian....I skipped over this section after a long, dry bout of talk of semantics and when the word "fundamentalist" is or is not appropriate...there's more to the section, I may try to go back and read it, I may not. And then the final, much shorter section: Fundamentalism and The Control Of Women...which is sort of a recap of the first 4 sections and what the different examples have in common and where they are different.
Interesting material. The stance is clearly anti-fundamental, but the tone of the book is very nonconfrontational. There were times where I would almost argue that its stance is neutral, except that I was reading caerfully enough to know that it's not the case.
I'm really thinking that what I need to do is read some fiction. I haven't done that in a while. Sometimes it's good to read something that doesn't have a particular informative or educational purpose.
