I don't understand the terms she used well enough to work out if this is a joke or not. You will find me in Wikipedia looking up feminist subject-object theory.
This article (and comments) reminds me of the fake interpreter at the Mandela memorial service: there's a lot of repetitive hand waving without conveying any meaning.
..which doesn't appear to have much literature behind it. Is this a joke about the objectivisation of women?
She appears serious enough in the comments section. It seems a shame to characterise male logic as aristotelian, and the feminist version as holistic. That seems to do a disservice to the vast number of people of both sexes who have pondered the problem.
One way or another, I suspect that this will make terrific flame-bait.
If I'm correct it refers to the preference for men's cognitive style (I perform an action on object X) whereas women's cognitive style tends to focus more on group dynamics (I relate to X and Y through Z.)
That actually sounds fairly interesting. Although feminist machine code would be impossible without feminist chips.
So she's targeting the wrong thing. She needs to move to analogue computers (or somesuch) before addressing the language, or all she will be doing is creating an essentially male abstraction of female thinking.
That sounds really interesting, actually. But, please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't one of the big arguments of feminism that women and men are "the same", i.e. women and men think in the same way and our current differences are only conditioned by society?
Wouldn't this feminist programming language imply that this is not actually the case? That men and women truly are different and think in different ways and that this is not (solely) a matter of condition but natural differences in our brains?
Feminism is a big field with a lot of different theories; many of which plainly contradict eachother.
I'm not really an expert on this but it sounds like you're describing a strict interpretation of first-wave feminism.
Second wave feminism started from the observation that many of the first wave's successes were very masculine women and argues that while women were now allowed into men's circles it was still on the precondition that they acted like men and essentially left their femininity behind.
The classic example of a first wave feminist is Margaret Thatcher who is undeniably a powerful woman but can hardly be called feminine. A good example of a second wave feminist is Sheryl Sandberg who became a powerful figure while retaining, and to some degree even capitalizing on, her femininity.
P.S. It's also important to remember that when it comes to studies like these it's important to keep the difference between gender and sex in mind.
The nice thing about that kind of argument is that, at least as I've usually heard it stated, the idea that there are inherent and fundamentally different male and female modes of thinking is impossible to falsify. If any woman fails to fit into the expected female mindset, it's easy to explain that as her surpressing her natural feminity in order to fit into male-dominated society. (Similar arguments have been used by feminists to impose a single, prescriptive model of female sexuality on women and dismiss all the women who don't fit into it.)
I'm so confused! Doesn't The Patriarchy ruthlessly enforce 'feminity' itself, as 'society' understands it? Wouldn't that necessarily mean that Margaret Thatcher might actually be the most feminine precisely because she adopts exactly what 'society' says is not feminine? Is it Sherly Sandberg's hairstyle(s) that make her more feminine than Thatcher? Or did she "capitalize" on engaging in Patriarchy-approved feminine behaviors?
You're obviously trolling or conflicted about this but I'll answer nonetheless.
I'm so confused! Doesn't The Patriarchy ruthlessly enforce 'feminity' itself, as 'society' understands it? Wouldn't that necessarily mean that Margaret Thatcher might actually be the most feminine precisely because she adopts exactly what 'society' says is not feminine?
Yes. That is the viewpoint of first wave feminism as I understand it and I'm not one to argue in favor or against it. I can confirm that it's not a belief universally held by all feminists.
Is it Sherly Sandberg's hairstyle(s) that make her more feminine than Thatcher?
No, even though that it's probably related. What makes her more feminine is that she embraces her softer and more nurturing side.
Or did she "capitalize" on engaging in Patriarchy-approved feminine behaviors?
She capitalized on it to the degree that one could argue that given Mark's lack of soft skills her softer, nurturing, communicative side (which are indeed traditionally perceived as more feminine) were themselves a crucial asset in attaining her current position.
Comments
I don't understand the terms she used well enough to work out if this is a joke or not. You will find me in Wikipedia looking up feminist subject-object theory.
This article (and comments) reminds me of the fake interpreter at the Mandela memorial service: there's a lot of repetitive hand waving without conveying any meaning.
..which doesn't appear to have much literature behind it. Is this a joke about the objectivisation of women?
She appears serious enough in the comments section. It seems a shame to characterise male logic as aristotelian, and the feminist version as holistic. That seems to do a disservice to the vast number of people of both sexes who have pondered the problem.
One way or another, I suspect that this will make terrific flame-bait.
If I'm correct it refers to the preference for men's cognitive style (I perform an action on object X) whereas women's cognitive style tends to focus more on group dynamics (I relate to X and Y through Z.)
That actually sounds fairly interesting. Although feminist machine code would be impossible without feminist chips.
So she's targeting the wrong thing. She needs to move to analogue computers (or somesuch) before addressing the language, or all she will be doing is creating an essentially male abstraction of female thinking.
That sounds really interesting, actually. But, please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't one of the big arguments of feminism that women and men are "the same", i.e. women and men think in the same way and our current differences are only conditioned by society?
Wouldn't this feminist programming language imply that this is not actually the case? That men and women truly are different and think in different ways and that this is not (solely) a matter of condition but natural differences in our brains?
Feminism is a big field with a lot of different theories; many of which plainly contradict eachother.
I'm not really an expert on this but it sounds like you're describing a strict interpretation of first-wave feminism.
Second wave feminism started from the observation that many of the first wave's successes were very masculine women and argues that while women were now allowed into men's circles it was still on the precondition that they acted like men and essentially left their femininity behind.
The classic example of a first wave feminist is Margaret Thatcher who is undeniably a powerful woman but can hardly be called feminine. A good example of a second wave feminist is Sheryl Sandberg who became a powerful figure while retaining, and to some degree even capitalizing on, her femininity.
P.S. It's also important to remember that when it comes to studies like these it's important to keep the difference between gender and sex in mind.
The nice thing about that kind of argument is that, at least as I've usually heard it stated, the idea that there are inherent and fundamentally different male and female modes of thinking is impossible to falsify. If any woman fails to fit into the expected female mindset, it's easy to explain that as her surpressing her natural feminity in order to fit into male-dominated society. (Similar arguments have been used by feminists to impose a single, prescriptive model of female sexuality on women and dismiss all the women who don't fit into it.)
I'm so confused! Doesn't The Patriarchy ruthlessly enforce 'feminity' itself, as 'society' understands it? Wouldn't that necessarily mean that Margaret Thatcher might actually be the most feminine precisely because she adopts exactly what 'society' says is not feminine? Is it Sherly Sandberg's hairstyle(s) that make her more feminine than Thatcher? Or did she "capitalize" on engaging in Patriarchy-approved feminine behaviors?
You're obviously trolling or conflicted about this but I'll answer nonetheless.
Yes. That is the viewpoint of first wave feminism as I understand it and I'm not one to argue in favor or against it. I can confirm that it's not a belief universally held by all feminists.
No, even though that it's probably related. What makes her more feminine is that she embraces her softer and more nurturing side.
She capitalized on it to the degree that one could argue that given Mark's lack of soft skills her softer, nurturing, communicative side (which are indeed traditionally perceived as more feminine) were themselves a crucial asset in attaining her current position.