This feels like a boiling down a masters thesis from a women's studies thesis-> gender studies thesis -> human intersectionality thesis. (The names of this fiel

This feels like a boiling down a masters thesis from a women's studies thesis-> gender studies thesis -> human intersectionality thesis. (The names of this field try to distance themselves from their roots at every step, because even women know "women" is bad. Sigh. Just dumb sexism all the way down.) The language they use has multiple overloading definitions, some of which conflict, and others are just completely opaque. And since it's about the "gender wars written from a woman", any critique will be tarred and feathered as "patriarchy". For example, this is the second-to-last paragraph and single massive run-on sentence: "It may well work in our favor to accelerate our way into Total Girl—that is, to consider the girl as a specific technology of subjectivity that maxes out on desire, attraction, replication, and cunning to achieve specific ends—and to use such technology to access something once unknowable about ourselves rather than for simple capital gains, blowing a kiss at individually-scaled pleasures while really giving voice to the egregore, the totality of not just information, but experience, affect, emotion." That's just dense-prose-diarrhea that basically means nothing. There's at least 6 different definitions of "girl", and which this sentencegraph uses different ones than above. And mixing para-psychology, science, technology, and occultism gives the "aura" (HAH!) that they have and know more than the rest. And in the end it reads like a cross between a newspaper horoscope, the "History Channel" (aliens!), and a rerun of 1990's Outer Limits.