But she does know that; it is, in fact, the whole point of the piece
Secondly, any claim that E = mc^2 is a 'sexed' equation is such utter drivel it's hardly worth spending a minute's thought on. Sexed HOW, exactly? Does she imagine some nasty sexist physicists sat down one day and decided on the laws on the universe to suit themselves?
The meaning of her claim that it is a 'sexed equation' is not obvious, that is why it requires some thought.
As for her idea being a piece of feminist philosophy and not science, well, that's all well and good, but she should limit herself to talking about things that have some relevance to her subject, rather than ranting incoherently about a subject which clearly has nothing to do with hers.
Oh dear, we're back with self-evidence again.
So the gendered language of solids and fluids has nothing to do with feminist philosophy?
OK, so I misread the part about Principia, but don't see how that can be seen as much more ridiculous than her assertion about E = mc^2.
But you've said you don't know what her assertion about E=mc2 means.. so how can it be ridiculous?
I just find it incredible that people can assume that their intellectual discipline, which has arisen more oiut of political fashion than anything else
interesting and revealing characterisation of feminist thought, that
and may well be forgotten about in a few decades' time, takes precedence over laws of physics which demonstrably apply throughout the whole of time and space.
You're aware of course that the ways in which those 'laws' - if they can be characterised as laws, not all scientists would talk in such terms any more - have been interpreted and understood has changed over the years? You're aware that science is not some monolithic entity which agrees on everything...
Finally, I've noticed a trend in this thread for anyone who supports any thinker under attack to say "well they're not really a postmodernist at all". If Irigaray isn't a postmodernist, then what is she? Why do opponents of postmodernism attack her? Does that mean it has become a dirty word, that no-one really wants to be associated with it these days? I'm reminded of people who say al-Qu'eda and the Taleban are "not Muslims", full stop, rather than merely representing the most reactionary and violent strain of Islam.
It's just a question of accuracy. Lyotard, for instance, I would have no problem with him being described as a postmodernist; he uses the term and uses it positively. Baudrillard is at best ambivalent about the term, which he rarely uses. Irigaray, as far as I am aware, never uses the term, nor is she especially interested in postmodern themes, except where the term is used incredibly vaguely to mean 'that continental stuff'.
The muslim analogy is inappropriate, too. Those who make the argument that the Taleban are 'not Muslim' do so in order to disavow particular examples and defend the general category Islam. We are rejecting the lazily-applied general category 'postmodernism' in order to defend particular thinkers.