According to the French feminist, psychoanalytic, and cultural theorist Luce Irigaray, the equation E=mc^2 is a sexist equation because, in her words: I would like to offer my rebuttal, as a scientist, to that statement. While the speed c does, in fact, represent the fastest possible speed at which anything can travel, and while this would indeed, in general, necessitate some sort of masculine influence on the equation, there is an important point that Luce has overlooked in her criticism of the equation. And when we take this point into account, we shall see not only that the equation E=mc^2 is not sexist, but it, in fact is a liberal, forward thinking equation that promotes equality among genders, as well as races. Consider this: that space and time are but two different labels that we attach to the same thing. Time, like the spacial dimensions, is a dimension. It is the dimension through which we all continually move forward, while space is a label that we attach to the orthogonal dimensions. Despite the fact that time and space are in their core essence the same thing, we insist on giving them two different labels. We insist on treating one unfairly, simply because it is orthogonal to all the others. This is not fair. This does not promote equality. Light, however, travels at a speed such that it traverses equal distances through time and space. For every unit forward that light moves through space, it moves exactly one unit forward through time. Thus the speed of light, c, is the great equaliser of the two quantities of time and space. It is the speed which unifies these two entities that man (in the masculine sense) has sought to separate since the beginning of spacetime. Therefore, the equation E=mc^2 does not privelage a masculine speed, rather, it urges us to treat the masculine, space, and the feminine, time on equal footing. It teaches us to look beyond the artificial boundaries that we have placed on our representation of the world. It teaches us to look beyond race, creed, and color. E=mc^2 is the ultimate civil rights activist, and despite what Luce Irigaray says, the ultimate feminist.
This is yet another example of why post-modern critique is massive pile of fatuous ass. Well done pointing it out, and showing exactly why it is a right load of old hotspurs.
Maths equations is where these woman are looking for a case now?? I think I've heard this one before actually. What a load of drivel!
So they get to burn things in public, they get to vote, they get to mess with natural biological process, they get the same wage as men, they get the same jobs, there have even been women only short lists for MPs, it's been made easier for drunken tarts to convict men of rape in Scotland because if they are drunk they can't make responsible decisions, they've been to space and back and they can even be priminister or president and they're still not happy. Conclusive proof of ever any were needed that women are responsible for global warming.
I'd like to see what E=mc^2 application in the development of nuclear weapons is (apart from some superficial derivation). I reckon she's thinking of Star Trek and their warp engines
Well some mass of the particles in the bomb is converted into energy according to the equation E=mc^2, so it's hardly superficial.
Feminism science must really suck if they can't use E=mc2. Oh wait that's right there is no feminist science just as there is no masculine science there is just science.
I work in an organisation where I have access to some geeks who really know their stuff about this, so I got on the phone and ask one of my mates over in the 'geek' section. Apparently, E=mc^2 only applies to nuclear weapons science on the 'principle level' of determining the relativistic mass of the energy released... or some such notion, I lost track and started thinking about training, girls and beer So, according to him (and he's in quite the know), the mass drop off is small enough to ignore, but due to the velocities of the gases produced they're all over the place anyway and rather you than me (you being me ) trying to scrape up enough to do a before and after calculation. My area of expertise is chemical combustion, whilst it is the 'trigger' of most nuclear weapons, I don't really get the fusion bit. That's what physics geeks are for Anyway, that's the long winded way of saying I was wrong
Ah yes, more evidence that supports Dr. Enfeilds theory: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU"]Harry Enfield - Women know your limits - YouTube[/ame]
Well, dismissing Postmodernism as drivel is a mistake. Some of it is drivel - like many wise things, drivel attaches itself like a limpet. Sometimes, however, it can be a mistake in understanding the information or ideas that have been presented to you, especially as Deconstruction specifically tends to be more popular on the Continent, and work often has to be translated. Deconstruction is partly about understanding how our ways of looking at things are built - taking an overview of how we come to formulate our views in the first place - even down to the micro-level of how language itself causes us to pre-suppose certain assumptions, even before we consciously are aware that we are formulating an opinion. There are certain assumptions, and ways of looking at the world, that we are programmed with, that form the basis of out world view. One, according to some Deconstruction thinkers, is fallo-centrism - masculinisation of the way we see the world. "E=MC2 is a sexist equation" doesn't mean what you might think it means. What it's looking at is the core language and assumptions behind the way we express our scientific ideas. It isn't a feminist idea in that gross sense - it isn't "feminist science", it's actually much more to do with linguistics.
I'm sorry Firequan but whatever kind of spin you want to put on it saying E=mc2 is a sexist equation is a massive amount of pap. It displays a remarkable inability to see past an ideological agenda. Isn't this the same woman who also suggested we don't understand turbulence because scientists are afraid of investigating a sytem involving flowing because of taboo's on menstruation? I think it is and I think anyone trying to argue that such complete nonsense is really worth listening to should really be spending time deconstructing their own assumptions about whats worthwhile.
Well, personally, I like "out there" thinkers - and I also know, because I am one, that they will come up with 49 stupid ideas for every good 1. Often, what marks out a good thinker is that they are prepared to have stupid ideas and then negate them. Ideas being pap depends on what level you understand them. To me, when I read e=mc2 is sexist, that didn't make me think of Feminism at all, it made me think about science. Sometimes, a pretty out-there thinker is useful because they stretch your thinking wildly, and even though it rebounds in to more sensible areas, sometimes it remains a little bit stretched. Sure, it could be a stupid idea that we have a masculinised view of the world - but it's also an interesting idea, and touches on some areas that are quite obscure because they are part of the sub-structure of what actually forms our world view and opinions in the first place. It's really not spin - I can understand why you say that - but it's really a matter of understanding where another thinker is coming from. For example, you'd think, reading these replies, that she thinks science is an affront to the female species. That's not her meaning. Here's a question - one that I thought of straight away reading this thread: Can e=mc2 be expressed in other ways?
That's not exactly a great ratio. What makes someone a good thinker I would contend is not their ability to think of many 'out there' ideas (if it was XT18 is a great thinker) but to think critically of good ideas based on good evidence and good arguments. An example of someone like that would be say Richard Feynman who was clearly an 'out of the box' thinker and yet you don't have to wade through 49 absolutely rubbish ideas to find the 1 he had that was actually good. What most people think is that judging from such comments she doesn't have any real idea of what science is about and is thus making severely misguided comments and from what I know of her writing- thats pretty accurate. Remember she wasn't just critiquing the use of the symbols she was actually critiquing the equation for 'privileging' the speed of light. It would be just as valid to suggest diagrams of atoms are sexist because they usually include balls. It's possible to make such an argument but in the end if you think about it, it's really just silly.
OK - equations and sexism in the same thread lets me tell the story of when I was back in 'A' level physics class. There were 6 of us - 5 lads and Nicole. The physics teacher wasn't in one day, and another teacher came to supervise us as we did the work that had been prepared for us. He walked through the door, saw the students and said "What on Earth are we doing teaching a girl physics at 'A' level?" With that level of career adviser in the school, how could any of us hope to succeed? True story
