The views of Luce Irigaray are an absurd extreme that can safely be ignored. I doubt any serious scientist would give them a second thought.

The hounding of Larry Summers, though, is a far more serious issue. Regardless of one’s view of Summers, the things that he said did not warrant the response to them. If an academic is not free to posit a hypothesis that it logical and consistent with the evidence, then academia is seriously degraded. That’s not to say he’s right, of course!

Great piece for the rubes on this site but pretty silly for anybody with a working brain.
Babette you go wrong in your first line and it just gets worst as you go. You need to read Luce Irigaray actual paper rather than copy and paste from your favourite right wing talking points website. I'd explain it to you but I don't think you'd get it.
I find it funny that you often read the right wing whining about how these lefty teachers don't teach kids to think. When faced with the actual teaching methods they can't handle it. I know I wasting my time with the OLO trolls but for thinking readers...
There is no privileged POV even in physics. Maths is a beautiful language more powerful than any other we have invented, but it isn’t perfect some thoughts just can’t translate. For anybody who has learnt another language would know it also gives you a different thought process as well. Culture also changes the way you view things. Different world view enables us to see things differently, provide insights that we may not otherwise have.
I find it funny that many right wings thump the table and say that the Judo-christ-stain world view has invented science and yet will poop poop the idea that a Asian world view would offer a different perspective. would colour their view on a topic including physics.

It is interesting that E=MC2 was used as a reference point for this essay.
But what does the now famous archetypal equation E=MC2 tell us about the nature of Reality altogether. The nature of our body-mind-complex, and the nature of the Cosmic Process in which we are completely entangled and completely dependent upon even for our next breath.
What are its all-the-way-down-the-line revolutionary cultural implications?

First of all it tells us that we live in an open-ended Quantum universe which is full of space-time paradoxes. Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle.
It also tells us that everything is light, that all of reality - every person, every object, every iota of space and time - is nothing but waves in an ocean of radiant light.
But what science does not tell us is that this light is not merely an impersonal force or mass of energy.
It is CONSCIOUS: it is ALIVE.
In Truth and Reality it is a Great Person of Light, a Radiant Being of Infinite Brightness.
Even better put,in REALITY, Light Is the DIVINE Person, the Great One, Living as everything, Appearing as everything, and yet, paradoxically, Always and Only Conscious Light.

So called "matter" is Conscious Light. Man, and every individual being, are, each and all, a paradoxical manifestation of infinite Energy and Being.

This is interesting from another perspective. Namely that this Quantum understanding is never ever featured or even taken into consideration by any of the usual dreadfully sane conservative or right-wing Christian propagandists. Which is to say that they are all stuck in an essentially 19th century world-view. An entirely mortalistic world-view which reduces everybody to the mortal-meat-body scale ONLY.

Using E=MC2 as our template what is our understanding and application of biochemistry, biophysics, human anatomy, human life, human culture?
What will we do when we take the discovery of the relationship between matter and energy seriously? How do we make medicine out of the understanding that the human body is Energy? How do we practice ordinary diet, sexuality, and social relations?
How do we practice religion on a day to day basis?

Realise that Ms Francis is talking about ideological Feminism, not describing the way normal,mentally healthy women think.
If you think that the quotes in this article are insane then read this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/are-you-ready-for-a-feminist-programming-language/

Daffy Duck,
This isn't a question of Left vs Right, ideological Feminism isn't any more a valid critique of the world than Christianity or Islam, it's not rational, it's not evidence based and it's adherents are nothing but psychologically damaged individuals who behave like your typical deranged cultists

The sad thing is that these what Jay calls ideological feminism has discredited and obscured what was once mainstream feminism, which was mainly concerned with equality of treatment and opportunity, combatting violence against women and kids, and refuting false stereotypes.

Cobber the hound, Luce Irigaray's claim is wrong on many levels. First, it resorts to fixed stereotypes about masculinity and femininity, which in themselves have not been empirically validated, but are just metaphysical claims plucked out of the feminist lexicon. Secondly, it engages in psychological reductionism. Reducing claims/theses/hypotheses to the psyche doesn't actually refute the claims being made.

There are bucket loads of other claims made by feminists that have no empirical grounding; instead they are metaphysical claims identical to how claims are made in religion