IF YOU have any doubt that modern society is suffering from a profound disintegration in literacy and mental coherence, I invite you to read this excerpt from The Deepening Darkness: Patriarchy, Resistance and Democracy’s Future by the famous Harvard psychologist and madwoman Carol Gilligan and David A. J. Richards. The book was published by Cambridge University Press and was presumably edited. If I weren’t already acquainted with the science and code words of victimology, I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what the authors are saying. The audience for this book has a Pavlovian response to words like “patriarchy”and “women.” All the other words are filler.

Liberalism destroys the mind. It creates fissures in cerebral tissue that widen with time.

                                                                               — Comments —

Texane writes:

Legal scholarship also is NOT what you might think.

 Jesse Powell writes: 

There is a part of “feminist discourse” that attacks math, science, and logical thinking directly as being “phallocentric” and patriarchal, a literal attack on objective truth itself as being male-oriented, part of the oppression of women. The idea is that women have “different ways of knowing” that are just as legitimate as the “phallocentric” ideas of following strict logical rules and conducting experiments to prove or disprove hypotheses. Timothy Sandefur explains, and debunks, these ideas quite well on his website.

Though this entry is more than five years old, this blog is still active. I quote: 

Here’s a Feminist Epistemologist named Elizabeth Grosz, writing about the work of another Feminist Epistemologist, named Luce Irigaray: 

Irigaray’s work thus remains indifferent to such traditional values as “truth” and “falsity” (where these are conceived as correspondence between propositions and reality), Aristotelian logic (the logic of the syllogism), and accounts of reason based upon them. This does not mean her work could be described as “irrational,” “illogical,” or “false.” On the contrary, her work is quite logical, rational, and true in terms of quite different criteria, perspectives, and values than those dominant now. She both combats and constructs, strategically questioning phallocentric knowledges without trying to replace them with more inclusive or more neutral truths. Instead, she attempts to reveal a politics of truth, logic or reason. 

The fact is, this postmodernist feminist bulls–t holds that women are emotional, non-logical, and “inclusive,” and that what we know of as math and science are part of a patriarchal social and intellectual structure that exploits women, and from which women should be liberated.” 

Women, according to fashionable leftist Feminist Epistemology, are gentle, emotive creatures incapable of the cold, cruel, exploitative masculinity of math and science (not to mention, making contracts). They simply ought not to worry their pretty little exploited heads about such things. This passes for sophisticated, state-of-the-art thinking.

Please follow and like us: