Speaking of the subject of telling women what to want and logic, let me quote you something from the translator's introduction of the 1795 English translation of Leonhard Euler's Letters to a German Princess -- which contains some important advances in the algebraization of logic, and directly influenced Augustus De Morgan -- by the Scottish minister Henry Hunter, D.D.:

> Euler wrote these Letters for the instruction of a young and sensible female, and in the same view that they were written, the are translated, namely, the improvement of the female mind; and object of what importance to the world! I rejoice to think I have lived to see female education conducted on a more liberal and enlarged plan. I am old enough to remember the time when well-born young women, even of the north, could spell their own language but very indifferently, and some hardly read it with common decency... While the boys of the family were conversing with Virgil, perhaps with old Homer himself, the poor girls were condemned to cross-stitch, on a piece of gauze-canvass, and to record their own age at the bottom of a sampler.

> They are now treated as rational beings, and society is already the better for it. And wherefore should the terms female and philosophy seem a ridiculous combination? Wherefore preclude to a woman any source of knowledge to which her capacity, and condition in life, entitle her to apply? It is cruel and ungenerous to expose the frivolity of the sex, after reducing it to the necessity of being silly and frivolous. Cultivate a young woman's understanding, and her person will become, even to herself, only a secondary concern; let her time be filled up in the acquisition of attainable and useful knowledge, and then she will cease to be a burden to herself and to every body about her; make her acquainted with the world of nature, and the world of art will delude her no longer.

So you are deeply mistaken about who it is that tells women what to want and who precludes them from making choices. An 18th century Scottish minister was more enlightened than you on the subject (although no less patronizing, but hey, 18th century) and more knowledgable. I'm guessing that's because he actually bothered to study math, logic, science and history, rather than just throw those words around.

-------------

> Science? Irrelevant.

You can't even understand simple sentences now? Science is not irrelevant. But chemistry is irrelevant to Goldbach's conjecture. A scientist would see that immediately.

The interesting question of nature vs. nature (to which, almost everyone agrees, the answer is "both", but may debate on degree), is simply unrelated to the question of how best to fight sexism.

> Math? Don't understand, don't want to understand.

Dude, my formal education is in mathematics.

> Logic? Don't bother us with that.

Oh boy. I wrote this https://pron.github.io/posts/tlaplus_part2 and this https://pron.github.io/posts/tlaplus_part3, and am currently writing about the history of formal logic, in particular, the development of the relationship between formal logic, algebra and computation, with a focus on Leibniz, Boole, Frege and Babbage.

> What people want? I know what they should want.

Is that that same myth of "feminists tell women what they want" by those who haven't even spent an hour reading what feminism is, and know nothing about the history of gender relations? You really have no clue what you're talking about. You are repeating myths by others who think it is possible to express intelligent opinions about a subject without studying it for even a second. If you want to know what we feminists actually say (rather than parrot newspaper headlines and conservative blogs), why don't you take an hour or two to actually read it?

> It's a pure power play with no redeeming qualities and nothing to back it whatsoever.

It's clear you haven't even read the link I posted (to Wikipedia!) about what power even is. You're like one of those new-age folks who talk about "positive energy".

> The whole thing hinges on the rhetorical trick of redefining words in such a way that the definitions already contain the conclusion you wish to reach

Nope. Again, the same trope by those who believe that's what social scholars and feminists do, without ever having studied a thing about the subject. You are like a Reiki practitioner telling a physicist that her definition of "energy" is redefining words to reach the conclusion she wants to reach.

The truth is that someone who's learned nothing of a subject (and, no, reading blog posts by other equally ignorant people doesn't count) can't intelligently debate it, and, confused and angry, is reduced to attacking the rhetoric of his opponent.

> for which there is no actual evidence

I've provided links to mountains of very actual evidence, which you just refuse to look at. Shutting your eyes doesn't really make the world disappear.

> Well, it's such a cheap trick that it doesn't even pass the "debating 101" silly tricks laugh test, and just because you've constrained yourself to being inside an echo chamber that reinforces these religious beliefs (because that is all they are) unquestioningly doesn't actually give you any authority to speak on the subject.

Dude, you are speaking about something that you know nothing about. You call it religion because, knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, you want it to be that. Why are you afraid of reading research? Ignorance is not a virtue.