So, I’m currently reading a book laced with feminist articles, and it’s highly amusing. The author, it appears, is attempting to justify the nonsensical nature of feminist rhetoric — and, by extension, the argumentative style of “hysterical women” (the author genuinely uses that term) — by claiming that logic and reason are the domain of “Masculine Discourse”, and that any woman who wishes to oppose the patriarchy must shed herself of these oppressive boundaries and go beyond logic and reason, into the emotional, “more meaningful” realm of “Feminine Discourse”. As evidence of this, she points out that the stereotype that women don’t talk plain is patriarchal oppression, because forcing women to utilise reason instead of “woman’s intuition” means forcing them to conform to the masculine way of thinking — logic, she argues, is a patriarchal construct and is therefore not necessary. This, apparently, makes it perfectly acceptable for an angry feminist to engage in an argument “in which she sets off in all directions, leaving ‘him’ unable to discern the coherence of any meaning.” Of course, this is all the man’s fault for adhering so adamantly to that damn patriarchal tool he calls “reason”, instead of adopting feminist emotional responses as his primary cognitive function. Damn him and his “logic”. Well, that explains everything, doesn’t it?