Reply to comment

All I could think about while reading the articles was the ivory tower syndrome, and how so much of academia is aimed at people within their narrow field of interest. Most of the readings-- especially Grosz's-- were lost in a sea of absolutely unnecessary jargon.

So if I've totally missed the point of the articles, let me know. Because I feel a bit, uh, overwhelmed.

I've heard arguments like Grosz's before; where the world view is inherently male because the male is the intellect, while the female is at the mercy of her body. I haven't heard it put in quite that form, especially not with bodies being neutral. If the male is the intellect, isn't the female fulfilling a negative, nonintellectual role? Especially as the female is prone to being hysterical and irrational, as the argument goes.

I'm not entirely sure where she was going with that, though. I see how the feminine and the masculine perspectives can change things in the social sciences, but not so much the hard sciences-- at least not in the terms of "knowledges." Then again, I'm not sure what she means by knowledges, as it doesn't seem to be any knowledge that I'm aware of. I know that I'm not particularly philosophically minded, but... did I miss something there?