I apparently need to upgrade my lexical processor - I couldn’t understand it.
I’m trying to understand what she’s saying (while pretending to work at my corpo job), and much of it seems very 2nd wave feminist. “feminine = exploitable, subservient, vulnerable”, “masculinity = good at fixing things”, and then offers that cyborgs (ie transhumanism?) are an escape from this very narrow view of gender and political identity? Am I completely off the mark?
Like is she saying that because we have, for example, guns (technology superior to our animal flesh) that men and women are more equally capable of defending themselves and thus on more equal ground? Or is it something else entirely?
I apparently need to upgrade my lexical processor - I couldn’t understand it.
I’m trying to understand what she’s saying (while pretending to work at my corpo job), and much of it seems very 2nd wave feminist. “feminine = exploitable, subservient, vulnerable”, “masculinity = good at fixing things”, and then offers that cyborgs (ie transhumanism?) are an escape from this very narrow view of gender and political identity? Am I completely off the mark?
Like is she saying that because we have, for example, guns (technology superior to our animal flesh) that men and women are more equally capable of defending themselves and thus on more equal ground? Or is it something else entirely?