I don't find much about The Matrix story interesting, honestly, but for me the head in a jar/body in a factory things are similar -- it's about illusion first, and then what's outside the jar/pod.

With The Matrix they're contrasting your normal, actually disembodied state with the reality of being corporeal. To come out of the matrix means taking your brain out of the jar with the mind-world.

As for women dealing with the topic -- I have no idea. Admittedly, I have little cred in the typical-chick arena, but it never felt like a gender-related idea, not least of all because I find it interesting.

Head-in-a-box doesn't sound gender-specific. However, refining a woman down to the good bits (namely the uterus and torso) a la The Hellstrom Chronicles?

Icky. And Niven's genetically-engineered stupid women also deeply squickmaking.

IIRC, Niven has an ongoing long-time (30 yrs+) marriage to an anything-but-stupid woman.

but for me the head in a jar/body in a factory things are similar -- it's about illusion first, and then what's outside the jar/pod.

I don't understand what you mean, but my suspicion is that you and I are talking about two very different sets of questions here.

For me, the head in a jar is about assumed reality, and about a clearly defined mind/body duality.

What does it mean to you?

sits quietly in ita's corner of the room.

What I'm talking about is when theorists/scientists/philosophers start posing the question of whether or not the body is a necessary element to thought/life/consciousness.

I see. That doesn't indeed align with The Matrix, but is a subset of my interpretation of the scenario.

Still have no idea what's inherently male about it, but I don't read enough theorists/scientists/philosophers to be an expert.

In fact, it seems reasonably core to philosopy -- anything I can come up with (though not explore well, of course) before my tenth birthday doesn't strike me as all too abstract.

the question of whether or not the body is a necessary element to thought/life/consciousness.

Ah, I see.

I really haven't encountered this particular idea often enough to have strong feelings about it - my gut reaction would be a big fat honking "well of course it is. Duh!" At which point the theorist/scientist/ philosopher would likely hit me with a big dusty book.

But I do remember getting very animated about the concept of AI, because I don't think that something we could recognise as thought/life/consciousness, or that we could engage with in any meaningful dialogue, could exist without a biological body and a context.

I have no solid basis for this, though, and could perhaps be shown that I am in fact on crack.

I don't see any reason the body is a necessary part, but it does assume something's going to be faking some of its functions, or the brain dies. So that's a semantic game.

I'm really lousy at philosophy, because I just end up saying "Well, that could be taken care of by something beyond my ken. And there are lots of things like that."