@hypostase @olivia
Cryptogyny or misogyny plain and simple? Yesterday I borrowed a book from the university library called 'Symmetry' by György Darvas, 2007.

Darvas knows why women can't measure up to men's genius (in particular, his own genius). On p. 358 he says: 'Experience shows that women are more susceptible to thought driven by emotions, while men are more driven by rational thinking. The history of science says that the most successful women in mathematics were more masculine in nature.'
Oho, so Hypatia was lynched and murdered by a mob of rational-thinking men. Darvas goes on:
'However, there is no evidence in the history of art that the majority of eminent artists might have been women.'
Darvas covers all bases! His beliefs are still all-pervasive.

@Rowena
Absolutely it's misogyny, but it's also good to have the word for the precise thing, where women's work is actively hidden, particularly in service of that misogynistic belief women are unable to do it.

It's that aspect of I know, and have always known, that in this society men take credit for women's work, but now when I want to argue back, or even think about it more precisely, I've a word for it.

Like lancing a boil, now I have the right tool, I just need to sit with it to make sure I use it properly, to drain the wound they've chosen to make.

@olivia

@olivia @hypostase

Good-o. Then individual practitioners can be distinguished as cryptogynistic pimps. Not a few Nobel prizewinners are deserving of that epithet.