It’s anudder crossova
Refreshingly, she dismisses typical feminist readings that look approximately like this
She seems more honest than most, so far at least. She says she was one of the only women in an early logic course and only men moved on to the more advanced ones
Is that a type of degraded state? I would say yes, even if it’s perhaps one of the least degraded ones I can think of.
She states well the general reason I bring any of this up
There is never only one reading. You can ask that they be sensitive, accurate, attentive, revealing, and informed by an aspiration to a better life for women and for men.
“I’m not going to study logic, shut up!” Suffrage was all you needed huh? Sounds like you were deceived if you believe that. “I got a vote, now I’m happy.”
I sense that I’m venturing into “people want to punch you” territory. I know you’ll see me as mansplaining, it’s just that this seems like a book that would be written be a “true feminist”, and you don’t see many people who will designate that formally.
“So, the stereotype is that I’m irrational- how about I tell you what I think logic itself is then?” Bold lady. I don’t even get the usual condescending thought to think “How cute!”, I simply recognize her as an equal. Do you actually care about any of this or…?
How they hope this book will make me feel
Just my opinion, this is apex female behavior. Feminists could learn from her. More from her than from the vulgar ones you tend to see today. “Want to play a game?”
She begins this cheekily, referring to the goddess that guided Parmenides, a thinker that some may say is the origin of “A=A”, i.e. the foundational formula of logic. This is a Promethean text.
Note from that alone about Parmenides how the disciplines were not so isolated from each other in those ancient times. A theological poem about logic. A feminist interpretation of logic is kind of similar.
There’s still a dialectic obviously (which I doubt they allow in the academy), i.e. when I see the following I wonder “Is this the only way women are able to think?”
That Marrano cryptotheology specialist is like this too, always using marriage as a theoretical concept. What’s interesting here though is she’s turning that around on men, asking them if they aren’t so sure that’s not what their “disinterested, detached logic” is ultimately. Neech did say that truth is a woman. Philosophy is not an elaborate mating ritual, sorry to break it to you women. Maybe she’ll convince me, we’ll see. “Woman reductionism”. On the other side of that, from an evolutionary theory perspective, what do mating monkeys know about “truth itself”?
Zooming out, think of these musings in the context of “elitology”. This is similar to simulating a conversation with Badiou. I’ve done this before with another “Veronica” – Irigaray.
So my suspicion so far is “Is this the ONLY way women can think?!”
This feminist characterizes the ordinary “world of women” with the following
family life, births, marriages, the keeping of houses
So it’s a question of cladistics. Forgive me for being ironic when I ask- has woman left the womb of woman? If one is writing a book on logic, I’d say she’s at least moving in the right direction of being born. Good luck getting away with including that idea in a scholarly review of this book. Shhhh women are really sensitive about all this. “You’re never getting any pussy if you keep this up.” I’m just trying to uh in your language, help you give birth to yourself.
My thesis is that woman’s world revolves around man, and while you can say the opposite is true it’s not as true. We care more about things not relating to you. And you even like that about us. For instance, is that something you look down on when a man only seems to care about women and nothing else, i.e. nothing else that’s “important in life”? Women like men who love their work, is another way to say it. And the reverse is not necessarily true. Being good with kids seems more important to me at least than their career. Though, this feminist is showing me that being able to mess with me philosophically is a bonus. Then there’s the question of whether one could trust a feminist with kids.
This is really explicit- do people like explicit takes?
Greek writers regularly referred to the inferiority of women, to their babbling, emotionality, and lack of courage. Because of their natural inferiority, women’s virtue was not courage or eloquence but submission to the superior rule of men in the family.
Will they cowardly babble emotionally when they read something like that? This feminist at least isn’t like that, very mature and amusing. Whether she escapes the cladistics I mention above is another story. “That’s such female humor.” “What do you expect?” “For women to escape cladistics.” I just see this book as a flirtation, sorry. Woman’s world revolves around man. Sad! This is a writer that the ladies should be proud of though, I can see her irritating many a logician. I can’t imagine a feminist making a similar concession regarding a “fascist” text- another difference between us. So just my initial personal reaction to this book in case anyone wonders is that it’s admirable, and at the same time if this is what woman is then I still conclude that it is a type of degraded state. This is a book from 2020, just noting where we are in terms of “progress”, since seemingly no one else will talk like this.