LOL oh I’m familiar with Eislers work. As incoherent as it is, it is a very poor choice to support any argument since it can’t even complete a single argument without wandering off on some incomprehensible tangent based unproven facts and dubious logic. Calling it “research” is a stretch because much of her work is based on other feminist authors before her and much of the rest is based on “evidence” she created out of thin air. Her attempt to coalesce all of these ideas into an imagined bucolic past is laughable not just because it lacks any foundation in reality but because she willfully ignores historic facts that contradict her narrative. But beyond that her work focuses far to much on pre-modern pre-history non industrialized civilizations. Because of this she lacks evidence to back up what she claims as fact and any coherent arguments on how ideas from such imagined societies could even apply to the modern world. Much of her historical “evidence” is not agreed upon fact and more of it is just speculation that she wishes to be true. She imagines how prehistoric societies lived with no evidence and presents it as fact. Further the logical arguments that she draws from this flawed interpretation of imagined history is just as flawed. This is because it written through the filter of her own Marxist feminism agenda. In her conclusions she demonstrates little understanding of the difference between correlation and causation. Often confusing the two or asserting causation when there is only correlation.

You can’t build a valid argument on imaginary history anymore than you can stand on an imaginary box.