Just a note, it is actually so offensive to a woman’s role in society that many (most? I have no idea) scholars think that it was so over-the-top that it must have been meant as a critique of the then-status-quo.
The author outright stated that it was meant as a critique in the 2nd edition, so there’s no need to guess :)
Was that the actual author, or a statement added on their behalf? I thought I recalled reading it as the latter, where it seemed they were just guessing.
Either way it could be a kind of trigger warning for someone who even knowing that wouldn’t want to read the text.
The author outright stated that it was meant as a critique in the 2nd edition, so there’s no need to guess :)
Was that the actual author, or a statement added on their behalf? I thought I recalled reading it as the latter, where it seemed they were just guessing.
Either way it could be a kind of trigger warning for someone who even knowing that wouldn’t want to read the text.