Jeremy Stangroom

Also, tangentially, it gets bloody close to misandry (in my view), which is interesting because it's not treated in the same way that an explicitly misogynistic theory would be treated.

The acceptance of misogyny in the work of philosophers hasn't really been a problem in philosophy has it? Gee wonder why. Can't imagine why.

You really think a theorist could stick biological reproduction, motherhood, etc., at the front and center of how they conceptualize womanhood, and the epistemological "privileges" that flow from it, and everybody would be adult about it? Really?

But the development here is absolutely crucial to Hartsock's view. It's a psychodynamic theory that relies on object relations theory to explain why it is that men seek to dominate (and kill) nature. You can't just throw it out! 1/

And it's that bit that's problematic, because the feminist standpoint - in effect a different way of knowing - is rooted in the different way the Oedipus complex resolves for boys and girls (which in turn is dependent on a certain view of motherhood and its centrality).

I realize you know all this. I do. And I hope you're right that actually there wouldn't be a fuss if the implications of this view for how "woman" is conceptualized were made explicit, but... Well, I'm dubious. That said, you've got more experience than me, so maybe I'm wrong.