Author: Jason Gregory
I
admit
it.
I
have
a
guilty
pleasure—feminist-philosophers
(now
defunct).
No,
feminist-philosophers
are
not
necessarily
oxymoronic,
though
some
of
them
are
morons.
Take,
for
example, Iris
M.
Young.
Young
studied
philosophy
and
earned
a
doctorate
in
philosophy
from
Pennsylvania
State
University.
She
became
a
professor
of
political
science
and
was
well
known
for
her
work
in “theories
of
justice,
democratic
theory
and
feminist
theory.” Sadly,
Young
lost
a
battle
with
cancer
in
2006
and
the
world
was
deprived
of
“one
of
the
most
important
feminist
thinkers
in
the
world…one
of
the
most
important
political
philosophers
of
the
past
quarter
century.”
While
researching
this
much
respected
philosopher,
I
discovered
one
of
her
papers, “Humanism,
Gynocentrism,
and
Feminist
Politics.” It
is
a
brilliant
and
fascinating
paper.
It
is
a
must
read
for
anybody
interested
in
The
Patriarchy™,
gender
politics,
and
philosophy.
In
this
paper,
Young
presents
two
remarkably
different
versions
of
feminism—humanist-feminism
and
gynocentric-feminism.
Young
admits
that
these
two
types
of
feminisms
are
often
contrary
to
and
sometimes
contradictory
with
each
other.
She
also
admits
that
both
feminisms
share
the
common
narrative
thread
of
male-as-antagonist.
The
overarching
antagonist
to
both
narratives
is
the
male
dominated
culture
that
oppresses
women—The
Patriarchy™.
This
antagonist
represents
weak
and
lazy
writing.
It’s
a
tired,
uninspiring,
and
one-dimensional
villain.
This
antagonist
no
longer
has
a semblance
of
truth
sufficient
to
procure
for
these
shadows
of
imagination
that
willing
suspension
of
disbelief
for
the
moment,
which
constitutes
poetic
faith. The
Patriarchy™
is
the Snidely
Whiplash of
feminist
narratives—a
cartoonish
caricature
of
evil,
the
archenemy
of
all
women,
humanity,
and
civilization.
It
is
not
an
artifact
of
“poetic
faith.”
As
such,
The
Patriarchy™
is
not
a
real
thing.
It
is
only
an
imagined
thing—a
fetishized
object
of
imagination
that
exists
in
the
minds
of
feminists
and
other
morons.
It
exists
to
perpetuate
a
shallow
and
one-dimensional
narrative
that
presents
women
as
objects-of-victimization.
It
is
the
sort
of
thing
that
feminists
love
to
hate.
It
is
loved
because
it
can
be
blamed
for
everything.
It
is
hated
because
it
is
the
villain.
Without
The
Patriarchy™,
there
would
be
no
feminist
narratives.
Without
Snidely
Whiplash,
there
would
be
no Dudley
Do-Right.
The
Patriarchy™
is
one
half
of
a
shallow
and
one-dimensional
dichotomy
of
good
vs.
evil
that
exists
in
feminist
narratives.
It’s
not
any
real
thing
of
lived-experience.
It
is
only
an
imaginary
thing
of
imagined-experience.
To
better
understand
this
shallow
dichotomy
and
the
silliness
of
feminist
narratives,
let’s
look
at
two
of
the
most
significant
and
influential
feminist
narratives
as
presented
by
Iris
M.
Young.
Both
narratives
present
women
as
victims
of
The
Patriarchy™.
Both
narratives
present
The
Patriarchy™
as
an
antagonist,
a
villain
like
Snidely
Whiplash
who
twiddles
his
moustache
and
has
no
human
depth
beyond
a
sadistic
lust
for
the
devaluing
and
disempowerment
of
women.
Humanist-feminism
Humanist-feminism,
according
to
Young,
is
best
described
in
the
works
of Simone
de
Beauvoir.
At
its
core
is
a
revolt
against
being
imprisoned
in
femininity.
For
them
The
Patriarchy™
“has
ascribed
to
women
a
distinct
feminine
nature
by
which
it
has
justified
the
exclusion
of
women
from
most
of
the
important
and
creative
activity
of
society—science,
politics,
invention,
industry,
commerce,
the
arts.”
By
rejecting
such
femininity,
humanist-feminism
delivered
a
revolt
against
The
Patriarchy™
itself.
What
makes
this
Beauvoirian
revolt
so
fascinating
is
the
fact
that
it
is
founded
theoretically
on
the
philosophical
distinction
between
immanence
and
transcendence.
Immanence
roughly
designates
being
an
object.
Transcendence
roughly
designates
being
a
free-subject
that
defines
its
own
nature
and
“makes
projects
that
bring
new
entities
into
the
world.”
It
is
argued
by
humanist-feminists
that
The
Patriarchy™
does
not
allow
women
to
become
such
transcendent
and
free-subjects.
Instead,
women
are
relegated
to
being
objects
of
domestic
and
sexual
service
to
men
and
for
the
benefit
of
men.
As
such,
the
full
humanity
of
women
is
restricted
by
The
Patriarchy™.
This
is,
according
to
humanist-feminists,
a
brutalization
of
the
personhood
of
half
the
human
race
for
benefit
to
the
other
half.
The
Patriarchy™
mutilates
and
deforms
women
into
objects—the
non-human
Other.
Young
writes
that
this
“distinction
between
transcendence
and
immanence
ensnares
Beauvoir
in
the
very
definition
of
woman
as
a
non-human
Other…”
By
defining
humanity
as
transcendence,
as
a
free-subjectivity
above
mere
life
and
the
processes
of
nature
that
repeat
in
endless
cycles,
women
can
only
exist
as
victims—“maimed,
mutilated,
dependent,
confined
to
a
life
of
immanence
and
forced
to
be
an
object.”
In
short,
humanity
transcends,
but
women
are
imprisoned
to
a
life
of
immanence.
Humanist-feminism
was
a
revolt
against
this
sort
of
immanence,
reproductive
biology,
domestic
concerns,
and
motherhood—the
things
Beauvoir
found
most
oppressive
to
women.
As
such,
Beauvoirians
devalue
women…just
like
The
Patriarchy™
devalues
women.
The
humanist-feminist
revolt
against
The
Patriarchy™
is
patriarchal.
As
such,
humanist-feminism
is
The
Patriarchy™.
They
smash
The
Patriarchy™
by
being
it.
Gynocentric-feminism
According
to
Young,
“gynocentric
feminism
defines
the
oppression
of
women
very
differently
from
humanist
feminism.
Women’s
oppression
consists
not
of
being
prevented
from
participating
in
full
humanity,
but
of
the
denial
and
devaluation
of
specifically
feminine
virtues
and
activities
by
an
overly
instrumentalized
and
authoritarian
masculinist
culture.”
Gynocentric-feminism
is
not
a
revolt
against
femininity.
It
is
a
revolt
against
the
devaluation
of
femininity.
It
is
a
revolt
against
The
Patriarchy™
by
embracing
what
The
Patriarchy™
always
“ascribed”
to
women.
As
such,
gynocentric-feminism
is
The
Patriarchy™.
For
gynocentric-feminists,
femininity
is
“not
the
problem,
not
the
source
of
women’s
oppression,
but
indeed
within
traditional
femininity
lie
the
values
that
we
should
promote
for
a
better
society.
Women’s
oppression
consists
of
the
devaluation
and
repression
of
women’s
nature
and
female
activity
by
the
patriarchal
culture.”
Again,
The
Patriarchy™
is
still
to
blame
because
it
“threaten[s]
the
survival
of
the
planet
and
the
human
race.
[Patriarchal]
values exalt
death,
violence,
competition,
selfishness,
a
repression
of
the
body,
sexuality,
and
affectivity.”
According
to
Young,
The
Patriarchy™
produces
“phallogocentric
categorization,”
a
moral
rationality
and
language
of
sharp
distinctions,
of
abstract
rights
and
justice.
However,
the
feminine
is
supposed
to
produce
loose
categories,
a
flowing
of
language
that
envelops
and
folds
in
on
itself,
reflects
itself
in
a
continuous
and
particularistic
ethics
of
care—a
continuous
flowing
of
garbled
gibberish.
The
feminine
virtue
is
supposed
to
place
the
particular
over
the
abstract
and
universal,
all
the
while
denying
the
“nature/culture
dichotomy
held
by
humanists…
[asserting]
the
connection
of
women
and
nature,”
rooting
the
feminine
in
the
body-experience,
rather
than
in
some
sort
of
abstract
transcendence.
Gynocentric-feminism
places
a
high
value
on
the
woman’s
reproductive
processes.
It
is
supposed
that
these
processes
give
women
a
“living
continuity
with
their
offspring
that
it
does
not
give
men.
Women
thus
have
a
temporal
consciousness
that
is
continuous,
whereas
male
temporal
consciousness
is
discontinuous.”
As
such,
males
are
said
to
be
more
alienated
from
their
children,
but
more
connected
to
their
work
and
other
endeavors
of
artifact
creation.
In
this
way,
being
woman
is
not
being
an
object.
Bringing
forth
life
into
this
world
is
one
of
the
most
important
endeavors-of-creation…and
only
women
can
do
that.
Gynocentric-feminism
inverts
humanist-feminism—completely
upending
prior
notions
of
women’s
oppression.
Yet,
smashing
The
Patriarchy™
remains
a
goal
of
gynocentric-feminism.
They
smash
The
Patriarchy™
by
embracing
it.
Implications
Where
humanist-feminism
destroyed
the
value
of
the
feminine,
gynocentric-feminism
restores
it.
There
is
dignity
for
women
within
their
bodies
and
within
their
uniquely
female
body-experiences.
Gynocentric-feminism
shows
that
this
connection
with
the
body
produces
uniquely
feminine
virtues,
language,
and
experiences
of
which
men
are
not
privy.
In
fact,
men
are
not
privileged
at
all
in
this
way.
Men
are
alienated
from
these
experiences,
from
a
“living
continuity”
with
their
children,
and
relegated
to
such
experiences
by
proxy—through
intellectual
creations, hierarchal
competition,
and
through
functioning
as
an
object-of-utility
for
a
woman,
for
women,
and
for
society-in-general.
This
reality
requires
a
reassessment
of
what
male
privilege
means.
Young
writes,
“If
we
claim
that
masculinity
distorts
men
more
than
it
contributes
to
their
self-development
and
capacities,
again,
the
claim
that
women
are
the
victims
of
injustice
loses
considerable
force.”
She
eventually
questions,
“what
warrants
the
claim
that
women
need
liberating…of
what
does
male
privilege
consist?”
She
has
difficulty
swallowing
that
bitter
red
pill.
She
has
difficulty
being
straight
and
saying
that
we’ve
been
wrong
about
The
Patriarchy™
and
male
privilege.
Although,
she
never
disavows
patriarchy
theory,
she
does
put
forth
a
clever
analogy
as
a
way
to
try
and
change
the
subject,
to
escape
responsibility,
yet
still
fetishize
and
blame
The
Patriarchy™.
In
regards
to
gender,
Young
states
that
“we
need
a
conception
of
difference
that
is
less
like
the
icing
bordering
the
layers
of
cake
and
more
like
a
marble
cake,
in
which
the
flavors
remain
recognizably
different
but
thoroughly
insinuated
in
one
another.
[And
this]…
social
change
requires
changing
the
subject,
which
in
turn
means
developing
new
ways
of
speaking,
writing,
and
imagining.”
Translation
Young
wants
her
cake
and
eat
it
too.
She
wants
to
change
the
subject
and
direct
attention
away
from
the
wrongheaded
notions
about
male
privilege
and
female
oppression.
She
wants
to
create
a
narrative
in
which
female
oppression
and
privilege
simultaneously
exist
in
one
swirl
of
garbled
gibberish—a
marble
cake.
She
does
not
come
forward
to
clearly
say,
“Oops,
we
were
wrong
about
male
privilege
and
The
Patriarchy™.”
She
does
not
apologize
for
the
decades
of
bashing
and
shaming
men
about
their
so-called
privilege.
She
makes
no
apologies
for
the
centuries
of
oppression
men
have
endured
as
objects-of-utility
for
women
and
for
society-in-general.
She
does
not
make
any
apologies
for
wanting
her
cake
and
eating
it
too.
Young
is
playing
a
game,
essentially
saying
“it’s
the
fault
of
The
Patriarchy™
that
we
were
wrong…even
though
we
weren’t
really
wrong.
The
Patriarchy™
forced
feminists
to
make
distinct
icing
and
borders
on
their
narrative-cake.
It’s
the
fault
of
The
Patriarchy™
that
feminists
didn’t
create
a
marble-cake-narrative
in
which
women
could
be
simultaneously
oppressed
and
liberated, thoroughly
insinuated
in
one
another.
It’s
the
fault
of
The
Patriarchy™
that
The
Patriarchy™
was
allowed
to
be
the
primary
antagonist
of
any
feminist
narrative.”
This
is
Young’s
elaborate
game
of
victim-blaming.
Why
did
you
men
allow
us
to
blame
you?
It’s
your
fault
that
we
falsely
accused
you.
Had
you
men
simply
valued
us
women,
we
would
never
have
falsely
accused
you
men
of
oppressing
us.
Never
mind
the
countless
bodies
of
men
who
sacrificed
their
lives
for
women
and
for
society-in-general;
that’s
oppression
of
women
too.
Valuing
us
is
not-valuing
us.
Oppressing
us
is
not-oppressing
us.
No
matter
what
men
do,
it’s
the
fault
of
men
that
women
are
simultaneously
liberated
and
oppressed,
valued
and
not-valued,
empowered
and
not-empowered.
Men
and
by
extension,
The
Patriarchy™,
are
to
blame
for
everything.
Conclusion
Young,
like
most
feminists,
clings
to
her
fetish—her
imagined-experience
of
The
Patriarchy™.
She
refuses
to
develop
a
more
comprehensive
narrative.
She
refuses
to
create
a
narrative
that
gives
depth
to
the
lived-experiences
of
men.
She
refuses
to
relinquish
her
hatred
of
men.
She
prefers
blaming
men
for
everything.
This
is
her
love,
her
hatred,
and
her
fetish.
She
clung
to
these
until
death.
Sadly,
this
is
what
makes
Young’s
paper
so
brilliant
and
fascinating.
It
illustrates
the
grasp
of
this
fetish—The
Patriarchy™.
A
philosopher
as
clever
as
Young
fails
to
relinquish
her
fetish.
Even
after
clearly
making
the
case
that
prior
notions
of
The
Patriarchy™
and
male
privilege
were
wrong,
she
maintains
that
men
are
still
to
blame.
Even
when
she
knows
that
it’s
not
the
fault
of
men,
she
still
blames
men—The
Patriarchy™.
By
painting
men
as
The
Patriarchy™,
men
can
be
made
a
cartoonish
caricature
of
evil.
Men
become
as
shallow
and
one-dimensional
as
Snidely
Whiplash—the
archenemy
of
women,
humanity,
civilization,
and
all
things
good.
Men
become
The
Patriarchy™,
the
non-human
Other.
This
is
the
narrative
of
feminisms.
This
is
the
common
thread
that
binds
together
feminist
narratives.
This
is
the
dehumanization
of
men
as
the
antagonist.
It
is
the
fetishizing
of
men
as
The
Patriarchy™–an
imagined
thing,
a
fetishized
object
of
imagination,
a
villain.
This
villain
no
longer
inspires
the
“willing
suspension
of
disbelief.”
This
villain
is
not
an
artifact
of
“poetic
faith.”
This
villain
represents
weak
and
lazy
writing.
The
Patriarchy™
is
bad
literature…and
so
are
feminist
narratives.
The
way
forward
may
be
some
sort
of
“marble
cake,”
as
Young
describes,
where
gender
differences
are
distinct,
yet thoroughly
insinuated
within
each
other.
However,
before
that
can
happen,
a
narrative
granting
multi-dimensionality
and
depth
to
men
is
needed.
A
narrative
consisting
of
compassion
and
consideration
for
the
lived-experiences
of
men
and
boys
is
needed.
That
will
never
happen
as
a
feminist
narrative.
So
long
as
men
are
written
as
the
antagonist,
as
The
Patriarchy™,
men
will
always
be
the
Other–the
icing
on
the
outside,
apart
from
the
cake,
apart
from
humanity.
The
featured
image
of
marble
cake
is
licended
under
CC-BY-SA
4.0
and
is
courtest
of
Wikimedia
Commons.
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)