The psychoanalyst at ShrinkWrapped is trying to make heads or tails of a dissertation entitled "Quantum Feminist Mnemotechnics: the Archival Text, Digital Narrative and the Limits of Memory", which is also a forthcoming book. To be honest, I'm still trying to make heads or tails of what quantum feminism might be. The ShrinkWrapped doctor is convinced that it's just a bunch of pernicious gobbledygook, an interesting take for someone who has spent their life in the field of psychoanalysis.
At any rate, he could be right that it's nonsense. However, the tone of his article, which roughly translates to "Harrumph!", and the tone of the comments, which roughly translate to "Haw, haw! Wouldja lookit that city slicker with her fancy egghead talkin'!", really rub me the wrong way. I find much of academic theoretical writing to be absurd as well, but I'm getting a bit tired of reading things on the Internet that amount to "Here's something that I've never read and why it's probably crap!" Is there a better definition of a Philistine than someone who brags about not reading all of the books they haven't read?
That said, I'm having trouble with the dissertation too. Apparently, history people are no more qualified than psychoanalysts to wade through this stuff. And yet... at the risk of irritating Greg once more, and remembering that he has done some work in the field of quantum electronics, and with much groveling... (“Oh Lord, ooh you are so big! So absolutely huge! Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here, I can tell you!”) Dr. VonWinkle, would you like to take a look at the Abstract of this thing, and see if it makes any sense to you? I can probably translate the theoretical jargon, if'n you can tell me if she's explaining "Quantum space" correctly.
Update: I've now read the abstract five times, and actually, it's starting to make sense to me. I'm not sure how her theories couldn't also apply to any sort of archive, such as a traditional library, and so why the focus on the Internet. But, perhaps she gets to that in the body of the dissertation. Anyway, I'm interested in knowing what others make of it.
Update 2: I'm also not sure why the rather sexist assumption that linearity is somehow particularly masculinist necessitates the counter-argument that other models of time are somehow particularly feminist. But the fact that I disagree with the point she's making means that I also disagree with the people who are saying that she's not making a point!