/lit/ - Literature

>>13354720
I'd say there's definitely overlap there (progressivism as umbrella philosophy) - whereas G/ACC is a sort of niche umbrella which is (mostly, though could vary by author) under the larger umbrella.

As to the feminine nature of G/ACC itself, it's hard to say (maybe I'm not interpreting the question accurately either). Is philosophy in general considered widely to be a masculine endeavor, or can it vary by subject, or even by author, or by varied presentation of the same content by the same author? Would the femininity or masculinity of G/ACC be different if Nyx had written the blackpaper with a different aesthetic and with a different manner of presentation while keeping the content essentially the same, or is it the content itself which denotes the gendered connotation here?

The gendered-typing of different activities/dispositions/everything that a lot of feminist writing leans on is, I think, interesting in its romanticism of the genders (I mean this in the best possible way) but it does become difficult to really parse out what makes X masculine or feminine within a wider context than the way a given writer is using it at that very moment they are using it.

Put differently, does G/ACC, in your view, lacking much in the way of femininity, require femininity as such in order to achieve what it is trying to achieve? Does it become masculine by nature of lacking femininity, or can it exist with both/neither?