This is categorically wrong according to Indian philosophy. Culture is identified as feminine (Prakrti). Not only that, language as a whole is identified with the feminine principle. Activity & power (Shakti) are also feminine. Nature is feminine, but culture is part of it.https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1002584728770400256 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @vakibs
There is something categorically wrong with a philosophy that ascribes genders to culture and language. (It is literally a category mistake to do so.)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Are you saying that there are no cognitive, emotional or psychological differences between the sexes? Are you saying gender does not exist? If no, it makes perfect sense to project the theory of cognition on the axes separating the genders..
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vakibs
There is a bimodal distribution of a subset of human traits that correlates with testosterone/estrogen/progesterone. It does not makes sense to pretend that the archetype that you get by extrapolating that distribution applies to things that are not animals.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
The hormones themselves have evolved for greater success in the quite different evolutionary strategies of male and female. But I see where you are coming from. You see intelligence and cognition as a more abstract principle than life (atleast that with sexual differentiation).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Gender is the bit with the highest predictive power for trait differences, which is why we are so interested in learning it. Even if intrasexual variance is higher then intersexual
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.