A book i'm reading, Images of Women in Literature by David Holbrook, contains this tidbit in the introduction:
"And so it is with woman, who is naturally equipped with special and mysterious powers by which to respond to the many moods and needs of the infant. There is no point in denying that woman has these special powers and that the sanity of the world depends on them."(the "And so it is" refers to complex fears people have regarding moral and social issues
uh . . . these special powers? A vagina and social conditioning (or what some might call the "maternal instinct")? The author also has a problem with feminist university courses and their agendas. Apparently he doesn't realize that every syllabus contains some kind of bias, some kind of hole, some kind of problem. Instead of criticizing a specific course, he complains about the whole movement. Yes, social movements need criticism, but conflating the parts with the whole is problematic too. He also doesn't appear to think that there might be a reason why some feminists might reject aspects of psychoanalysis. i'm told (i have yet to study this for myself) that Freud's treatment of his female patients is somewhat questionable. And, well, he did put the phallus at the center of pretty much everything.
"Political polarity, with all its bigotry, is no service to the Socratic dialogue by which, we assume, truth may be found"Okay, this book is obviously dated. Thinking it was from the 70's, i just checked the date. '89. Hm. It still seems like a huge assumption that there is only one truth, or that truth will ever be accessible. Or that his text is free from political polarity and bigotry.
i'd just like to say that i'm waiting for my special and mysterious powers to emerge. i hope they involve super-strength and laser beams that shoot from my eyes, but maybe that's just me.