Thanks for the clarification, Max.

I was particularly intersted in your explanation of essentialism as it
relates to feminism. I very much share your view that it is a
problematic concept (I said so, actually, at the end of my post - but
it was a bracketed remark that may not have been noticeable). I
think we may need to have the courage to say simply that there IS
no such thing as "the feminine essence". Or more precisely, there
is the feminine principle and the masculine principle (and one could
write books about what is what), and the two mix in each of us,
some people (regardless of sex) being more attuned, by nature, to
masculine principles and others to feminine principles, but
everyone having some of each. Then there is the whole load of
existential conditioning, determined by one's biological sex, that
reinforces one and negates the other, trying to limit each of us to
one principle only.

I think that feminists who insist on the feminine essence, with a
"ne'er the twain shall meet" attitude to men, are repeating the sin
committed against us for centuries and imprisoning themselves
once again in the same prison. I, for one, try to cultivate both my
principles (and I have a lot of the male in me - as evidenced, among
others, by my affinity for classical philosophy), I try to validate the
female principle in the men I meet, and I regard our essence as
common: humanity.

You are right about theory often obfuscating action. Still, the above
thought is very theoretical but with immediate, profound practical
consequences, I'd say.

About "normative", I take my definition from what I learned in
economic theory, where "normative" versus "positive" economics
means economics involving policy prescriptions versus pure
description. I never had much time for the latter. What do we study
economics for, if not in order to make policy prescriptions? (Not to
mention the hidden values influencing the descriptions.)

As for Aristotle - in spite of what he thought about women, I still
think he was (one of) the greatest! An excellent antidote, I think, to
everyone from Kant to the postmodernists. The big caveat with him
is not his attitude to women, but the Platonic deification of reason
(as against instinct and the mythos) which he, and most "male"
philosophy after him, subscribed to. Which brings us back to the
opposition between the male and the female principle... And to the
core agenda of this list...

Cheers,
Barbara