1_MC1 Introduction_NN1 Morwenna_NP1 Griffiths_NP1 and_CC Margaret_NP1 Whitford_NP1 Philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ in_II urgent_JJ need_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 ._. 
For_IF centuries_NNT2 the_AT practice_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN overwhelmingly_RR the_AT prerogative_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR recently_RR that_DD1 feminist_JJ analysis_NN1 has_VHZ made_VVN it_PPH1 possible_JJ to_TO see_VVI the_AT distorting_JJ effect_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 historical_JJ fact_NN1 ._. 
The_AT articles_NN2 in_II this_DD1 book_NN1 demonstrate_VV0 in_II a_AT1 variety_NN1 of_IO ways_NN2 where_RRQ the_AT bias_NN1 occurs_VVZ and_CC how_RRQ it_PPH1 might_VM be_VBI redressed_VVN ._. 
They_PPHS2 also_RR show_VV0 that_CST redressing_VVG it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO importance_NN1 to_II feminists_NN2 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 to_II philosophers_NN2 ._. 
Feminist_JJ ideas_NN2 are_VBR interrelated_VVN with_IW philosophical_JJ ideas_NN2 ,_, but_CCB most_RGT feminist_JJ writing_NN1 would_VM not_XX be_VBI recognised_VVN as_58 '_GE philosophy_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Unlike_JJ most_RGT academic_JJ philosophy_NN1 much_DA1 of_IO it_PPH1 is_VBZ personal_JJ ,_, polemical_JJ ,_, poetical_JJ or_CC allusive_JJ ._. 
Yet_RR part_NN1 of_IO the_AT practice_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ with_IW the_AT essentially_RR philosophical_JJ activities_NN2 of_IO redrawing_VVG concepts_NN2 ,_, reclaiming_VVG language_NN1 ,_, redefining_VVG what_DDQ counts_VVZ as_RG significant_JJ or_CC important_JJ ,_, and_CC ,_, as_CSA Daly_NP1 (_( 1984_MC )_) calls_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE naming_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT reconceptualisation_NN1 which_DDQ feminism_NN1 is_VBZ attempting_VVG has_VHZ a_AT1 direct_JJ and_CC vital_JJ bearing_NN1 on_II central_JJ philosophical_JJ issues_NN2 ,_, not_XX only_RR in_II political_JJ philosophy_NN1 where_CS it_PPH1 might_VM have_VHI been_VBN expected_VVN ,_, but_CCB also_RR in_II epistemology_NN1 ,_, ontology_NN1 ,_, philosophy_NN1 of_IO mind_NN1 ,_, and_CC ethics_NN ._. 
At_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 ,_, in_II their_APPGE attempts_NN2 to_TO rearticulate_VVI these_DD2 basic_JJ issues_NN2 ,_, feminists_NN2 necessarily_RR take_VV0 over_RP and_CC use_VV0 philosophical_JJ concepts_NN2 already_RR available_JJ and_CC in_II so_RR doing_VDG they_PPHS2 may_VM import_VVI ,_, entailed_VVN or_CC entangled_VVN in_II apparently_RR neutral_JJ concepts_NN2 ,_, implications_NN2 which_DDQ reiterate_VV0 and_CC reinforce_VV0 the_AT assumptions_NN2 that_CST are_VBR being_VBG challenged_VVN ._. 
This_DD1 point_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN explicitly_RR by_II several_DA2 of_IO the_AT contributors_NN2 to_II this_DD1 volume_NN1 (_( see_VV0 Mary_NP1 Midgley_NP1 ,_, Jean_NP1 Grimshaw_NP1 ,_, Joanna_NP1 Hodge_NP1 and_CC Anne_NP1 Seller_NN1 )_) ._. 
Philosophy_NN1 from_II a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 has_VHZ practical_JJ implications_NN2 for_IF both_RR philosophers_NN2 and_CC feminists_NN2 ._. 
The_AT practice_NN1 and_CC content_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 are_VBR male-dominated_JJ and_CC male-biased_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 statement_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX directed_VVN at_II any_DD one_MC1 set_NN1 of_IO philosophers_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ in_RR21 general_RR22 ,_, in_II31 spite_II32 of_II33 the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST philosophers_NN2 by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 speak_VV0 with_IW a_AT1 single_JJ voice_NN1 ,_, and_CC do_VD0 not_XX even_RR agree_VVI among_II themselves_PPX2 about_II what_DDQ they_PPHS2 understand_VV0 philosophy_NN1 to_TO be_VBI ,_, since_CS the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE preoccupations_NN2 and_CC methods_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ itself_PPX1 a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO philosophical_JJ disagreement_NN1 ._. 
How_RRQ then_RT could_VM philosophy_NN1 in_RR21 general_RR22 be_VBI said_VVN to_TO have_VHI a_AT1 male_JJ bias_NN1 ?_? 
To_TO see_VVI this_DD1 one_PN1 needs_VVZ to_TO take_VVI a_AT1 closer_JJR look_NN1 at_II some_DD of_IO the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ philosophy_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN conceptualised_VVN ._. 
Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 long_JJ tradition_NN1 so_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX surprising_JJ that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ changed_VVN over_II the_AT centuries_NNT2 both_RR in_II content_NN1 and_CC in_II method_NN1 ._. 
Schools_NN2 and_CC traditions_NN2 ,_, with_IW their_APPGE prescriptions_NN2 about_II content_NN1 ,_, method_NN1 or_CC both_RR ,_, have_VH0 risen_VVN and_CC fallen_VVN ,_, sometimes_RT to_TO rise_VVI up_RP again_RT in_II a_AT1 new_JJ guise_NN1 ._. 
Philosophers_NN2 of_IO all_DB kinds_NN2 continually_RR look_VV0 to_II thinkers_NN2 from_II previous_JJ times_NNT2 for_IF inspiration_NN1 and_CC argument_NN1 ,_, and_CC schools_NN2 can_VM often_RR be_VBI distinguished_VVN by_II which_DDQ predecessors_NN2 they_PPHS2 read_VV0 and_CC discuss_VV0 ._. 
Conversely_RR ,_, bitterly_RR opposed_VVN schools_NN2 can_VM sometimes_RT look_VVI to_II a_AT1 common_JJ ancestor_NN1 ._. 
The_AT result_NN1 of_IO all_DB this_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 web_NN1 of_IO overlapping_JJ but_CCB different_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO conceiving_NN1 of_IO the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ._. 
The_AT tradition_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ presently_RR characteristic_JJ of_IO the_AT Englishspeaking_JJ world_NN1 ,_, including_II the_AT United_NP1 Kingdom_NP1 ,_, is_VBZ often_RR called_JJ '_GE analytic_JJ '_GE ._. 
From_II about_RG 1955_MC to_II 1975_MC it_PPH1 had_VHD a_AT1 particularly_RR strong_JJ hold_NN1 here_RL in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO '_GE conceptual_JJ analysis_NN1 '_GE or_CC '_GE linguistic_JJ philosophy_NN1 '_GE ,_, in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ axiomatic_JJ that_CST any_DD '_GE empirical_JJ '_GE question_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX philosophical_JJ ._. 
Philosophy_NN1 was_VBDZ held_VVN to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 '_GE second-order_JJ subject_NN1 '_GE concerned_JJ only_RR with_IW reason_NN1 ,_, logic_NN1 and_CC the_AT clarification_NN1 of_IO thought_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 could_VM be_VBI of_IO use_NN1 to_II '_GE first-order_JJ '_GE ,_, empirically_RR based_VVN subjects_NN2 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 could_VM learn_VVI nothing_PN1 from_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
Plainly_RR ,_, any_DD questions_NN2 about_II sex_NN1 or_CC gender_NN1 are_VBR necessarily_RR non-philosophical_JJ ,_, if_CS philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ taken_VVN to_TO be_VBI conceptual_JJ analysis_NN1 in_II this_DD1 narrow_JJ sense_NN1 ._. 
Any_DD attempt_NN1 to_TO introduce_VVI them_PPHO2 into_II the_AT discourse_NN1 is_VBZ immediately_RR blocked_VVN by_II the_AT slogan_NN1 posing_VVG as_II question_NN1 '_GE but_CCB is_VBZ it_PPH1 philosophy_NN1 ?_? 
'_GE Philosophy_NN1 that_CST limits_VVZ itself_PPX1 to_II conceptual_JJ analysis_NN1 can_VM discuss_VVI the_AT discourses_NN2 of_IO those_DD2 who_PNQS talk_VV0 about_II sex_NN1 and_CC gender_NN1 ,_, looking_VVG for_IF conceptual_JJ coherence_NN1 and_CC the_AT presence_NN1 or_CC absence_NN1 of_IO rational_JJ argument_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX treat_VVI gender_NN1 as_II a_AT1 theoretical_JJ or_CC methodological_JJ category_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 might_VM structure_VVI its_APPGE own_DA tools_NN2 and_CC methods_NN2 of_IO inquiry_NN1 ,_, and_CC so_RR it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX examine_VVI its_APPGE own_DA discourse_NN1 for_IF masculine_JJ bias_NN1 ._. 
Unless_CS the_AT category_NN1 of_IO gender_NN1 is_VBZ explicitly_RR seen_VVN as_II21 of_II22 methodological_JJ importance_NN1 ,_, the_AT question_NN1 can_VM not_XX even_RR be_VBI raised_VVN ._. 
Alternative_JJ traditions_NN2 to_II the_AT analytic_JJ one_PN1 are_VBR mostly_RR to_TO be_VBI found_VVN in_II Continental_JJ Europe_NP1 (_( and_CC in_II some_DD North_NP1 American_JJ universities_NN2 )_) ._. 
Montefiore_VV0 and_CC Ishiguro_NP1 (_( 1979_MC )_) point_VV0 out_RP :_: The_AT universities_NN2 of_IO Europe_NP1 which_DDQ have_VH0 not_XX been_VBN influenced_VVN by_II the_AT analytical_JJ tradition_NN1 ..._... have_VH0 by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 represented_VVN any_DD unitary_JJ tradition_NN1 ._. 
The_AT disagreements_NN2 ,_, or_CC even_RR lack_NN1 of_IO communication_NN1 ,_, between_II ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, Hegelians_NN2 ,_, Marxists_NN2 ,_, phenomenologists_NN2 and_CC Thomists_NN2 have_VH0 often_RR been_VBN deep_RR ._. 
But_CCB these_DD2 disagreements_NN2 are_VBR '_GE small_JJ '_GE in_II31 comparison_II32 with_II33 the_AT barriers_NN2 of_IO mutual_JJ ignorance_NN1 and_CC distrust_VV0 between_II the_AT main_JJ representatives_NN2 of_IO the_AT analytical_JJ tradition_NN1 on_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 and_CC the_AT main_JJ philosophical_JJ schools_NN2 of_IO the_AT European_JJ continent_NN1 on_II the_AT other._NNU (_( pp._NN1 viiiix_NN1 )_) These_DD2 barriers_NN2 have_VH0 reached_VVN towering_JJ heights_NN2 in_II the_AT twentieth_MD century_NNT1 ,_, although_CS information_NN1 does_VDZ slowly_RR trickle_VVI through_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ still_RR true_JJ to_TO say_VVI that_CST many_DA2 Continental_JJ philosophers_NN2 would_VM hardly_RR be_VBI recognised_VVN as_CSA such_DA by_II their_APPGE English-speaking_JJ contemporaries_NN2 ._. 
Montefiore_VV0 and_CC Ishiguro_NP1 again_RT :_: How_RGQ unfortunate_JJ ..._... that_CST they_PPHS2 have_VH0 refused_VVN to_TO read_VVI or_CC respect_NN1 one_PPX121 another_PPX122 ,_, the_AT one_PN1 convinced_VVD that_CST the_AT other_NN1 survives_VVZ on_II undisciplined_JJ rhetoric_NN1 and_CC an_AT1 irresponsible_JJ lack_NN1 of_IO rigour_NN1 ,_, the_AT other_NN1 suspecting_VVG the_AT former_DA of_IO aridity_NN1 ,_, superficiality_NN1 and_CC over-subtle_JJ trivialization_NN1 (_( Ibid._RR ,_, p._NN1 ix_MC )_) Partly_RR as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 slow_JJ trickle_NN1 through_II the_AT barriers_NN2 ,_, and_CC partly_RR as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO internal_JJ inconsistencies_NN2 ,_, the_AT analytic_JJ tradition_NN1 has_VHZ recently_RR shown_VVN signs_NN2 of_IO moving_VVG from_II the_AT strictly_RR aloof_JJ position_NN1 it_PPH1 adopted_VVD in_II the_AT heyday_NN1 of_IO conceptual_JJ analysis_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ now_RT possible_JJ ,_, even_RR in_II respectable_JJ academic_JJ circles_NN2 in_II this_DD1 country_NN1 ,_, to_TO recognise_VVI that_CST the_AT concepts_NN2 people_NN use_VV0 are_VBR related_VVN to_II the_AT (_( changing_VVG )_) circumstances_NN2 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 live_VV0 ._. 
The_AT question_NN1 '_GE but_CCB is_VBZ it_PPH1 philosophy_NN1 ?_? '_GE is_VBZ losing_VVG its_APPGE power_NN1 to_TO block_VVI further_JJR discussion_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 remains_VVZ true_JJ ,_, however_RR ,_, that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ still_RR deeply_RR contentious_JJ to_TO suggest_VVI the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO points_NN2 of_IO view_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 ,_, let_II21 alone_II22 that_DD1 substantial_JJ conclusions_NN2 might_VM be_VBI drawn_VVN from_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 volume_NN1 ,_, the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 women_NN2 's_GE point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ discussed_VVN directly_RR by_II Paula_NP1 Boddington_NP1 from_II within_II the_AT analytic_JJ tradition_NN1 ._. 
Other_JJ contributors_NN2 who_PNQS are_VBR working_VVG within_II this_DD1 tradition_NN1 (_( Brenda_NP1 Almond_NP1 ,_, Morwenna_NP1 Griffiths_NP1 ,_, Mary_NP1 Midgley_NP1 and_CC Anne_NP1 Seller_NN1 )_) also_RR consider_VV0 in_II what_DDQ ways_NN2 central_JJ philosophical_JJ issues_NN2 might_VM look_VVI different_JJ from_II a_AT1 women_NN2 's_GE (_( or_CC feminist_NN1 )_) points_NN2 of_IO view_NN1 ._. 
Other_JJ contributors_NN2 ,_, like_II Alison_NP1 Assiter_NP1 ,_, Joanna_NP1 Hodge_NP1 and_CC Margaret_NP1 Whitford_NP1 ,_, have_VH0 been_VBN influenced_VVN by_II the_AT non-analytic_JJ traditions_NN2 of_IO Continental_JJ Europe_NP1 ._. 
In_II some_DD ways_NN2 these_DD2 traditions_NN2 are_VBR of_IO especial_JJ interest_NN1 to_II feminists_NN2 since_CS part_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE history_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 opposition_NN1 to_II seventeenth-_JJ and_CC eighteenth-century_JJ versions_NN2 of_IO the_AT Enlightenment_NN1 and_CC the_AT mechanistic_JJ ,_, scientific_JJ ,_, atomistic_JJ picture_NN1 of_IO the_AT universe_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 are_VBR concerns_NN2 shared_VVN by_II substantial_JJ numbers_NN2 of_IO feminists_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ from_II these_DD2 three_MC papers_NN2 that_CST the_AT Continental_JJ traditions_NN2 themselves_PPX2 need_VV0 to_TO be_VBI subjected_VVN to_II feminist_JJ scrutiny_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 traditions_NN2 are_VBR ,_, in_II theory_NN1 ,_, more_RGR hospitable_JJ than_CSN the_AT analytic_JJ one_PN1 to_II the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO different_JJ points_NN2 of_IO view_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II practice_NN1 their_APPGE point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN overwhelmingly_RR male_JJ ._. 
The_AT feminist_JJ criticism_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 volume_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT more_RGR powerful_JJ because_CS its_APPGE contributors_NN2 come_VV0 from_II a_AT1 variety_NN1 of_IO philosophical_JJ traditions_NN2 ._. 
No_RR21 doubt_RR22 it_PPH1 will_VM very_RG quickly_RR become_VVI apparent_JJ to_II the_AT reader_NN1 that_CST there_EX are_VBR differences_NN2 in_II their_APPGE philosophical_JJ assumptions_NN2 that_CST may_VM not_XX be_VBI reconcilable_JJ ._. 
Nor_CC do_VD0 they_PPHS2 share_VVI any_DD body_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ dogma_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI odd_JJ if_CS they_PPHS2 did_VDD ,_, since_CS feminists_NN2 ,_, like_II philosophers_NN2 ,_, do_VD0 not_XX speak_VVI with_IW a_AT1 single_JJ voice_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 think_VV0 it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI a_AT1 mistake_NN1 to_TO try_VVI and_CC establish_VVI any_RR '_GE consensual_JJ '_GE version_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 or_CC of_IO feminist_JJ philosophy_NN1 because_CS we_PPIS2 are_VBR committed_VVN to_II exploration_NN1 of_IO the_AT beliefs_NN2 and_CC views_NN2 we_PPIS2 hold_VV0 ,_, even_RR the_AT ones_NN2 which_DDQ at_RR21 present_RR22 seem_VV0 indisputable_JJ ._. 
At_II this_DD1 point_NN1 the_AT question_NN1 may_VM well_RR arise_VVI :_: since_CS there_EX are_VBR such_DA profound_JJ differences_NN2 among_II the_AT contributors_NN2 ,_, how_RRQ could_VM these_DD2 different_JJ views_NN2 be_VBI said_VVN to_TO constitute_VVI a_AT1 perspective_NN1 ?_? 
And_CC given_VVN the_AT diversity_NN1 both_RR of_IO contemporary_JJ philosophy_NN1 and_CC of_IO contemporary_JJ feminism_NN1 (_( Delmar_NP1 ,_, 1986_MC )_) ,_, how_RRQ could_VM a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 be_VBI recognised_VVN ?_? 
One_MC1 suggestion_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 feminist_JJ philosophy_NN1 could_VM be_VBI identified_VVN by_II its_APPGE content_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 suggestion_NN1 we_PPIS2 agree_VV0 with_IW ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 popular_JJ one_PN1 ,_, especially_RR in_II North_ND1 America_NP1 where_RRQ a_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO closely_RR related_JJ discussions_NN2 have_VH0 emerged_VVN recently_RR about_II the_AT content_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT form_NN1 a_AT1 feminist_JJ critique_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 should_VM take_VVI (_( Flax_NP1 ,_, 1983_MC ;_; Hartsock_NP1 ,_, 1983_MC ;_; Jaggar_NP1 ,_, 1983_MC ;_; and_CC see_VV0 also_RR Ruth_NP1 ,_, 1981_MC )_) ._. 
They_PPHS2 include_VV0 substantive_JJ conclusions_NN2 about_II what_DDQ would_VM be_VBI different_JJ in_II philosophy_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 were_VBDR influenced_VVN by_II feminine_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 by_II masculine_JJ assumptions_NN2 ._. 
For_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, Flax_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST certain_JJ preoccupations_NN2 are_VBR typical_JJ of_IO masculine_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, and_CC arise_VV0 out_II21 of_II22 dilemmas_NN2 deeply_RR rooted_VVN in_II the_AT masculine_JJ unconscious_JJ ,_, resulting_VVG from_II childrearing_VVG practices_NN2 :_: Apparently_RR insoluble_JJ dilemmas_NN2 within_II philosophy_NN1 are_VBR not_XX the_AT product_NN1 of_IO the_AT immanent_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT human_JJ mind_NN1 and/or_CC nature_NN1 but_CCB rather_RR reflect_VV0 distorted_JJ or_CC frozen_JJ social_JJ relations._NNU (_( p._NNU 248_MC )_) Philosophy_NN1 reflects_VVZ the_AT fundamental_JJ division_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 gender_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 fear_NN1 and_CC devaluation_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 characteristic_NN1 of_IO patriarchal_JJ attitudes._NNU (_( p._NNU 268_MC )_) The_AT apparently_RR irresolvable_JJ dualisms_NN2 of_IO subject-object_NN1 ,_, mind-body_NN1 ,_, inner-outer_JJ ,_, reason-sense_NN1 ,_, reflect_VV0 this_DD1 dilemma._NNU (_( pp._NNU2 26970_MC )_) Hartsock_NP1 (_( 1983_MC )_) argues_VVZ that_CST for_IF men_NN2 but_CCB not_XX for_IF women_NN2 :_: The_AT core_NN1 experience_NN1 to_TO be_VBI understood_VVN is_VBZ that_DD1 of_IO discontinuity_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE consequences_NN2 ._. 
As_II a_AT1 consequence_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 experience_NN1 of_IO discontinuity_NN1 and_CC aloneness_NN1 ,_, penetration_NN1 of_IO ego-boundaries_NN2 ,_, or_CC fusion_NN1 with_IW another_DD1 is_VBZ experienced_VVN as_CSA violent_JJ ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, the_AT desire_NN1 for_IF fusion_NN1 with_IW another_DD1 can_VM take_VVI the_AT form_NN1 of_IO domination_NN1 of_IO the_AT other._NNU (_( pp._NNU2 299300_MC )_) She_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST this_DD1 perception_NN1 of_IO discontinuity_NN1 and_CC dominance_NN1 has_VHZ consequences_NN2 for_IF the_AT way_NN1 experience_NN1 finds_VVZ expression_NN1 in_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO male_JJ philosophers_NN2 ._. 
For_IF women_NN2 ,_, in_II contrast_NN1 ,_, discontinuity_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX the_AT core_NN1 experience_NN1 ,_, and_CC relationships_NN2 are_VBR not_XX perceived_VVN as_CSA violent_JJ ._. 
Jaggar_NP1 (_( 1983_MC )_) sums_VVZ up_RP the_AT position_NN1 as_CSA follows_VVZ :_: '_GE The_AT standpoint_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 generates_VVZ an_AT1 ontology_NN1 of_IO relations_NN2 and_CC of_IO continual_JJ process_NN1 '_GE (_( p._NNU 376_MC )_) ._. 
There_EX are_VBR serious_JJ problems_NN2 with_IW this_DD1 kind_NN1 of_IO content-based_JJ assertion_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Grimshaw_NP1 (_( 1986_MC )_) points_VVZ out_RP in_II her_APPGE discussion_NN1 of_IO '_GE the_AT maleness_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Firstly_RR ,_, it_PPH1 ignores_VVZ those_DD2 male_JJ ,_, often_RR misogynist_NN1 ,_, philosophers_NN2 who_PNQS have_VH0 emphasised_VVN relations_NN2 and_CC continual_JJ processes_NN2 ._. 
She_PPHS1 cites_VVZ Hegel_NP1 and_CC Bradley_NP1 as_CSA examples_NN2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 would_VM also_RR point_VVI out_RP that_CST prior_II21 to_II22 the_AT seventeenth-century_JJ scientific_JJ revolution_NN1 the_AT universe_NN1 was_VBDZ seen_VVN ,_, by_II European_JJ men_NN2 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 great_JJ chain_NN1 of_IO being_VBG ,_, connected_VVN rather_II21 than_II22 atomistic_JJ ,_, necessarily_RR related_VVN to_II humanity_NN1 ,_, rather_II21 than_II22 being_VBG a_AT1 '_GE neutral_JJ domain_NN1 of_IO facts_NN2 ,_, of_IO contingently_RR correlated_VVN elements_NN2 ,_, the_AT tracing_NN1 of_IO whose_DDQGE correlations_NN2 will_VM enable_VVI greater_JJR and_CC greater_JJR manipulation_NN1 and_CC control_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 '_GE (_( Taylor_NP1 ,_, 1985_MC ,_, p._NN1 134_MC )_) ._. 
Secondly_RR ,_, it_PPH1 distorts_VVZ the_AT history_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 by_II assuming_VVG that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN unchanging_JJ in_II its_APPGE preoccupations_NN2 and_CC conceptualisations_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ it_PPH1 clearly_RR has_VHZ not_XX ._. 
However_RR ,_, as_CSA Lloyd_NP1 (_( 1984_MC )_) shows_VVZ in_II her_APPGE tracing_NN1 of_IO changing_JJ ideas_NN2 of_IO reason_NN1 ,_, while_CS ideas_NN2 may_VM change_VVI ,_, their_APPGE gender_NN1 inflection_NN1 may_VM remain_VVI ._. 
Throughout_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 women_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN thought_VVN inferior_JJ or_CC less_DAR than_CSN fully_RR human_JJ ,_, though_CS some_DD philosophers_NN2 ,_, like_II Kant_NP1 and_CC Rousseau_NP1 ,_, have_VH0 found_VVN them_PPHO2 charming_JJ and_CC necessary_JJ to_II men_NN2 's_GE well-being_NN1 ,_, as_CS31 long_CS32 as_CS33 they_PPHS2 keep_VV0 in_II their_APPGE place_NN1 ._. 
Thirdly_RR ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ a_AT1 tendency_NN1 to_II a_AT1 rather_RG static_JJ and_CC essentialist_NN1 picture_NN1 of_IO both_RR '_GE men_NN2 '_GE and_CC '_GE women_NN2 '_GE ,_, in_II this_DD1 way_NN1 ignoring_VVG the_AT important_JJ and_CC real_JJ differences_NN2 between_II women_NN2 themselves_PPX2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 do_VD0 not_XX think_VVI that_CST any_DD particular_JJ content_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 can_VM be_VBI identified_VVN as_CSA female_JJ ._. 
Where_CS we_PPIS2 agree_VV0 with_IW the_AT suggestions_NN2 of_IO the_AT feminist_JJ philosophers_NN2 we_PPIS2 have_VH0 just_RR quoted_VVN is_VBZ in_II their_APPGE insistence_NN1 that_CST philosophical_JJ theory_NN1 comes_VVZ out_II21 of_II22 experience_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 philosophy_NN1 formulated_VVN exclusively_RR by_II men_NN2 will_VM reflect_VVI the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB we_PPIS2 also_RR want_VV0 to_TO emphasise_VVI that_CST neither_RR the_AT experiences_NN2 men_NN2 have_VH0 nor_CC their_APPGE ideas_NN2 about_II masculinity_NN1 have_VH0 remained_VVN constant_JJ ._. 
They_PPHS2 have_VH0 varied_VVN over_II history_NN1 and_CC they_PPHS2 still_RR vary_VV0 today_RT with_IW race_NN1 ,_, culture_NN1 and_CC class_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB however_RGQV much_RR they_PPHS2 vary_VV0 ,_, the_AT symbolic_JJ division_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 by_II gender_NN1 appears_VVZ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 constant_JJ and_CC fundamental_JJ way_NN1 of_IO articulating_VVG experience_NN1 ._. 
Therefore_RR ,_, the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 will_VM vary_VVI systematically_RR over_II time_NNT1 ,_, place_NN1 and_CC circumstance_NN1 ,_, in_II step_NN1 with_IW ,_, but_CCB different_JJ from_II ,_, the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
As_RG several_DA2 of_IO the_AT contributors_NN2 point_VV0 out_RP ,_, one_PN1 should_VM be_VBI wary_JJ of_IO reducing_VVG women_NN2 's_GE experiences_NN2 (_( plural_NN1 )_) to_II women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 (_( singular_NN1 )_) ._. 
But_CCB the_AT division_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 by_II gender_NN1 continues_VVZ to_TO underlie_VVI these_DD2 changes_NN2 ._. 
Gender_NN1 is_VBZ defined_VVN by_II opposition_NN1 ._. 
To_TO be_VBI masculine_JJ is_VBZ not_XX to_TO be_VBI feminine_JJ ._. 
Feminine_NN1 is_VBZ what_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX masculine_JJ ._. 
What_DDQ appears_VVZ on_II either_DD1 side_NN1 of_IO the_AT male-female_JJ divide_NN1 is_VBZ extremely_RR variable_JJ ._. 
For_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, whether_CSW males_NN2 tend_VV0 to_TO be_VBI warlike_JJ ,_, bookish_VV0 ,_, competitive_JJ ,_, cooperative_JJ ,_, individualist_NN1 or_CC role-oriented_NN1 is_VBZ specific_JJ to_II time_NNT1 and_CC place_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB where_RRQ masculinity_NN1 is_VBZ associated_VVN with_IW any_DD one_MC1 of_IO these_DD2 ,_, femininity_NN1 will_VM be_VBI associated_VVN with_IW the_AT opposite_JJ ,_, and_CC ,_, where_CS women_NN2 are_VBR oppressed_VVN ,_, taken_VVN to_TO be_VBI inferior_JJ ._. 
Philosophy_NN1 ,_, in_CS41 so_CS42 far_CS43 as_CS44 it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT articulation_NN1 of_IO the_AT concepts_NN2 ,_, dilemmas_NN2 ,_, explanations_NN2 and_CC abstractions_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 culture_NN1 ,_, will_VM only_RR be_VBI half_DB the_AT story_NN1 unless_CS both_DB2 genders_NN2 contribute_VV0 equally_RR ._. 
As_CS31 far_CS32 as_CS33 our_APPGE own_DA history_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ ,_, feminist_JJ criticism_NN1 shows_VVZ that_CST Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN consistently_RR masculine_JJ in_II orientation_NN1 even_RR while_CS it_PPH1 has_VHZ changed_VVN its_APPGE preoccupations_NN2 and_CC methods_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT other_JJ half_NN1 of_IO the_AT story_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI simply_RR added_VVN on_RP ._. 
Grimshaw_NP1 (_( 1986_MC )_) suggests_VVZ :_: The_AT trouble_NN1 with_IW &lsqb;_( a_AT1 view_NN1 that_CST what_DDQ is_VBZ needed_VVN is_VBZ a_AT1 re-evaluation_NN1 of_IO the_AT feminine_JJ &rsqb;_) is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 still_RR leaves_VVZ uncriticised_JJ the_AT whole_JJ association_NN1 of_IO particular_JJ qualities_NN2 with_IW the_AT masculine_JJ and_CC others_NN2 with_IW the_AT feminine_JJ ..._... 
A_AT1 response_NN1 to_II the_AT gender_NN1 inflection_NN1 or_CC masculinism_NN1 of_IO philosophical_JJ theories_NN2 should_VM involve_VVI ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, neither_RR merely_RR the_AT assertion_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 too_RR should_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA included_VVN under_RP or_CC capable_JJ of_IO whatever_DDQV norms_NN2 are_VBR suggested_VVN by_II the_AT theory_NN1 ,_, nor_CC merely_RR the_AT assertion_NN1 that_CST what_DDQ is_VBZ seen_VVN as_CSA feminine_JJ should_VM be_VBI valued_VVN too_RR ,_, or_CC given_VVN equal_JJ status_NN1 with_IW what_DDQ is_VBZ male_JJ ._. 
Rather_RR ,_, what_DDQ is_VBZ needed_VVN is_VBZ a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT polarisation_NN1 of_IO masculine_JJ and_CC feminine_JJ qualities_NN2 ,_, and_CC in_RR21 particular_RR22 a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ such_DA qualities_NN2 may_VM be_VBI interpreted_VVN or_CC clustered._NNU (_( pp._NNU2 478_MC )_) Grimshaw_NP1 emphasises_VVZ that_DD1 femininity_NN1 or_CC masculinity_NN1 are_VBR not_XX fixed_VVN ,_, nor_CC are_VBR they_PPHS2 independent_JJ of_IO each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ._. 
We_PPIS2 would_VM add_VVI that_DD1 to_TO suggest_VVI giving_VVG equal_JJ status_NN1 to_II what_DDQ is_VBZ currently_RR thought_VVN to_TO be_VBI feminine_JJ or_CC masculine_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO ignore_VVI the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ one_PN1 is_VBZ defined_VVN by_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
In_II our_APPGE culture_NN1 to_TO give_VVI equal_JJ status_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 contradiction_NN1 in_II terms_NN2 ,_, so_RG long_RR as_CSA gender_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 expression_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 relations_NN2 and_CC the_AT male_NN1 continues_VVZ to_TO be_VBI the_AT superior_JJ term_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 are_VBR saying_VVG ,_, in_RR21 short_RR22 ,_, that_CST a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ necessarily_RR critical_JJ ._. 
Like_II any_DD other_JJ philosophy_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ specific_JJ to_II its_APPGE circumstances_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 will_VM depend_VVI on_II the_AT characteristic_JJ experiences_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 and_CC men_NN2 at_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO its_APPGE formulation_NN1 ,_, and_CC on_II the_AT way_NN1 they_PPHS2 have_VH0 entered_VVN into_II philosophical_JJ discourse_NN1 ._. 
Feminist_JJ criticisms_NN2 and_CC contributions_NN2 need_VV0 to_TO expose_VVI and_CC redress_VVI distortions_NN2 where_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR found_VVN ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, if_CS maleness_NN1 is_VBZ especially_RR associated_VVN with_IW individualism_NN1 ,_, feminists_NN2 may_VM need_VVI to_TO point_VVI to_II connectedness_NN1 ,_, but_CCB if_CS connectedness_NN1 is_VBZ part_NN1 of_IO the_AT male_JJ view_NN1 ,_, emphasising_VVG it_PPH1 wo_VM n't_XX be_VBI feminist_JJ ._. 
Intuition_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT said_VVN to_TO be_VBI '_GE feminine_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC is_VBZ opposed_VVN to_II logic_NN1 (_( which_DDQ is_VBZ thereby_RR '_GE masculine_NN1 '_GE )_) ._. 
But_CCB intuition_NN1 used_VMK to_TO be_VBI the_AT favoured_JJ type_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ,_, and_CC St_NP1 Thomas_NP1 Aquinas_NP2 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, would_VM never_RR have_VHI allowed_VVN intuition_NN1 to_TO constitute_VVI a_AT1 specifically_RR feminine_JJ attribute_NN1 ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 would_VM have_VHI meant_VVN admitting_VVG that_CST women_NN2 were_VBDR nearer_RRR God_NP1 ._. 
Since_CS the_AT feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 is_VBZ necessarily_RR critical_JJ ,_, feminist_JJ philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO articulating_VVG women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 in_II parallel_NN1 with_IW men_NN2 's_GE :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO relativism_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 particularly_RR important_JJ point_NN1 ._. 
That_DD1 which_DDQ a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 enables_VVZ us_PPIO2 to_TO perceive_VVI is_VBZ valid_JJ for_IF everyone_PN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, since_CS we_PPIS2 have_VH0 argued_VVN that_DD1 content_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX the_AT defining_JJ criterion_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ perspectives_NN2 ,_, we_PPIS2 are_VBR not_XX claiming_VVG a_AT1 new_JJ objectivity_NN1 or_CC neutrality_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 are_VBR not_XX claiming_VVG that_CST women_NN2 on_II their_APPGE own_DA (_( or_CC feminists_NN2 on_II their_APPGE own_DA )_) have_VH0 the_AT truth_NN1 ,_, but_CCB rather_RR that_CST men_NN2 on_II their_APPGE own_DA do_VD0 not_XX ._. 
Therefore_RR ,_, here_RL again_RT we_PPIS2 have_VH0 reservations_NN2 about_II the_AT position_NN1 articulated_VVN by_II Alison_NP1 Jaggar_NP1 (_( 1983_MC )_) at_II the_AT end_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 excellent_JJ discussion_NN1 of_IO political_JJ philosophy_NN1 from_II a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 :_: Women_NN2 's_GE subordinate_JJ status_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST ,_, unlike_JJ men_NN2 ,_, women_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX have_VHI an_AT1 interest_NN1 in_II mystifying_VVG reality_NN1 and_CC so_RR are_VBR likely_JJ to_TO develop_VVI a_AT1 clearer_JJR and_CC more_RGR trustworthy_JJ understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 representation_NN1 of_IO reality_NN1 from_II the_AT standpoint_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 is_VBZ more_RGR objective_JJ and_CC unbiased_JJ than_CSN the_AT prevailing_JJ representations_NN2 that_CST reflect_VV0 the_AT standpoint_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
The_AT concept_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE standpoint_NN1 also_RR provides_VVZ an_AT1 interpretation_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ for_IF a_AT1 theory_NN1 to_TO be_VBI comprehensive_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 asserts_VVZ that_CST women_NN2 's_GE social_JJ position_NN1 offers_VVZ them_PPHO2 access_NN1 to_II aspects_NN2 or_CC areas_NN2 of_IO reality_NN1 that_CST are_VBR not_XX easily_RR accessible_JJ to_II men_NN2 ..._... 
The_AT standpoint_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 reveals_VVZ more_DAR of_IO the_AT universe_NN1 ,_, human_JJ or_CC non-human_NN1 ,_, than_CSN the_AT standpoint_NN1 of_IO men._NNU (_( pp._NNU2 3845_MC )_) Though_CS appealing_VVG and_CC heroic_JJ ,_, such_DA a_AT1 vision_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO claim_VVI too_RG much_DA1 ._. 
But_CCB although_CS we_PPIS2 are_VBR not_XX arguing_VVG that_CST women_NN2 or_CC feminists_NN2 have_VH0 privileged_JJ access_NN1 to_II the_AT truth_NN1 about_II reality_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 agree_VV0 with_IW Jaggar_NN1 that_CST the_AT standpoint_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 offers_VVZ an_AT1 opportunity_NN1 to_TO see_VVI what_DDQ is_VBZ wrong_JJ with_IW current_JJ male-defined_JJ theories_NN2 and_CC to_TO correct_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
It_PPH1 could_VM be_VBI objected_VVN at_II this_DD1 point_NN1 that_CST all_DB philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ critical_JJ ,_, that_CST all_DB philosophical_JJ theory_NN1 attempts_NN2 to_TO question_VVI ,_, correct_JJ or_CC overturn_VV0 current_JJ orthodoxy_NN1 and_CC so_CS21 that_CS22 feminist_JJ philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ just_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, and_CC there_EX is_VBZ nothing_PN1 specifically_RR feminist_JJ about_II it_PPH1 ._. 
The_AT difference_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, that_DD1 feminist_JJ criticism_NN1 arises_VVZ from_II the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 and_CC from_II taking_VVG feminist_JJ theories_NN2 seriously_RR ._. 
This_DD1 would_VM be_VBI true_JJ whatever_DDQV the_AT particular_JJ circumstances_NN2 which_DDQ produced_VVD the_AT feminist_JJ response_NN1 ._. 
The_AT experience_NN1 of_IO becoming_VVG feminist_NN1 inevitably_RR leads_VVZ to_II changes_NN2 in_II one_PN1 's_GE view_NN1 of_IO oneself_PNX1 ,_, and_CC in_II one_PN1 's_GE view_NN1 of_IO the_AT rest_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ never_RR an_AT1 intellectual_JJ exercise_NN1 which_DDQ leaves_VVZ everything_PN1 the_AT same_DA ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 discovery_NN1 that_CST changing_JJ concepts_NN2 is_VBZ a_AT1 political_JJ activity_NN1 :_: that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX value-free_RR ,_, but_CCB is_VBZ tied_VVN to_II the_AT adoption_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 particular_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
The_AT result_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 re-evaluation_NN1 of_IO one_PN1 's_GE personal_JJ life_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 re-evaluation_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ often_RR surprising_JJ and_CC usually_RR difficult_JJ ._. 
Things_NN2 which_DDQ were_VBDR previously_RR seen_VVN as_CSA obviously_RR true_JJ come_VV0 to_TO be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA obviously_RR false_JJ ._. 
The_AT tensions_NN2 generated_VVN by_II this_DD1 process_NN1 (_( and_CC by_II the_AT kinds_NN2 of_IO activity_NN1 ,_, personal_JJ and_CC political_JJ ,_, which_DDQ accompany_VV0 it_PPH1 )_) have_VH0 philosophical_JJ consequences_NN2 ,_, both_RR concerning_II which_DDQ concepts_NN2 seem_VV0 problematic_JJ ,_, and_CC also_RR what_DDQ is_VBZ problematic_JJ about_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
The_AT articles_NN2 in_II this_DD1 book_NN1 explore_VV0 some_DD of_IO these_DD2 consequences_NN2 ._. 
A_AT1 preoccupation_NN1 common_JJ to_II all_DB the_AT papers_NN2 in_II the_AT book_NN1 springs_NN2 directly_RR from_II the_AT difficulties_NN2 involved_JJ in_II reassessing_VVG how_RRQ the_AT '_GE facts_NN2 '_GE of_IO one_PN1 's_GE experience_NN1 correspond_VV0 to_II the_AT descriptions_NN2 of_IO them_PPHO2 offered_VVD by_II others_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 could_VM be_VBI summarised_VVN by_II the_AT feminist_JJ slogans_NN2 ,_, '_GE the_AT personal_JJ is_VBZ political_JJ '_GE or_CC '_GE the_AT politics_NN1 of_IO experience_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Whatever_DDQV the_AT problems_NN2 with_IW these_DD2 rather_RG global_JJ and_CC unanalytic_JJ formulations_NN2 ,_, none_RR31 the_RR32 less_RR33 they_PPHS2 do_VD0 encapsulate_VVI one_PN1 indispensable_JJ and_CC basic_JJ argument_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 ,_, the_AT argument_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN left_VVN out_RP :_: one_MC1 of_IO the_AT central_JJ themes_NN2 of_IO feminism_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 ,_, and_CC one_MC1 of_IO its_APPGE central_JJ enterprises_NN2 has_VHZ been_VBN to_TO show_VVI how_RRQ a_AT1 great_JJ deal_NN1 of_IO male_NN1 theorising_VVG about_II women_NN2 has_VHZ tended_VVN to_TO deny_VVI ,_, invalidate_VV0 ,_, or_CC be_VBI unable_JK to_TO account_VVI for_IF this_DD1 experience_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX to_TO say_VVI that_CST women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 ,_, perceptions_NN2 ,_, feelings_NN2 and_CC emotions_NN2 are_VBR self-validating_JJ and_CC constitute_VV0 in_II themselves_PPX2 an_AT1 epistemological_JJ standpoint_NN1 ,_, or_CC even_RR to_TO say_VVI that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR always_RR correctly_RR identified_VVN and_CC described_VVN ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO suggest_VVI that_DD1 philosophy_NN1 would_VM look_VVI rather_RG different_JJ if_CS women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 had_VHD the_AT same_DA rights_NN2 of_IO entry_NN1 as_CSA that_DD1 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
Most_DAT of_IO the_AT contributors_NN2 draw_VV0 attention_NN1 to_II this_DD1 point_NN1 in_II one_MC1 way_NN1 or_CC another_DD1 ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, Morwenna_NP1 Griffiths_NP1 refers_VVZ to_II the_AT feminist_JJ emphasis_NN1 on_II generating_JJ abstractions_NN2 on_II the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO concrete_NN1 ,_, personal_JJ experience_NN1 (_( rather_II21 than_II22 assuming_VVG that_CST inherited_VVD abstractions_NN2 adequately_RR explain_VV0 experience_NN1 )_) ._. 
One_MC1 of_IO the_AT strengths_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 approach_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 becomes_VVZ much_RR more_RGR immediately_RR apparent_JJ why_RRQ certain_JJ issues_NN2 are_VBR felt_VVN to_TO be_VBI important_JJ ._. 
The_AT experience_NN1 of_IO trying_VVG to_TO force_VVI one_PN1 's_GE perceptions_NN2 into_II preconceived_JJ categories_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT pain_NN1 and_CC distortion_NN1 that_CST this_DD1 has_VHZ often_RR led_VVN to_II ,_, is_VBZ now_RT used_VVN as_II a_AT1 basis_NN1 by_II feminist_JJ theorists_NN2 for_IF the_AT argument_NN1 that_CST to_TO see_VVI feeling_VVG as_58 '_GE contaminating_NN1 '_GE objective_NN1 ,_, scientific_JJ knowledge_NN1 points_VVZ to_II a_AT1 distortion_NN1 of_IO conceptualisation_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Jaggar_NP1 (_( 1983_MC )_) points_VVZ out_RP ,_, this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 simple_JJ process_NN1 of_IO incorporating_VVG the_AT neglected_JJ experience_NN1 :_: '_GE a_AT1 theory_NN1 may_VM require_VVI that_CST we_PPIS2 revise_VV0 even_RR the_AT description_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 on_II which_DDQ the_AT theory_NN1 itself_PPX1 is_VBZ based_VVN '_GE (_( p._NNU 381_MC )_) ._. 
The_AT contributors_NN2 are_VBR not_XX making_VVG the_AT easy_JJ assumption_NN1 that_CST to_TO validate_VVI their_APPGE experience_NN1 women_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX have_VHI to_TO put_VVI themselves_PPX2 into_II question_NN1 ;_; on_II the_AT contrary_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI recognised_VVN that_CST to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 feminist_JJ theorist_NN1 may_VM involve_VVI some_DD painful_JJ and_CC hard-won_JJ putting_VVG into_II question_NN1 of_IO the_AT beliefs_NN2 and_CC commitments_NN2 that_CST are_VBR the_AT point_NN1 of_IO departure_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT contributors_NN2 all_DB agree_VV0 on_II the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 experience_NN1 ._. 
In_II these_DD2 papers_NN2 ,_, all_DB kinds_NN2 of_IO non-_NN1 and_CC extra-philosophical_JJ activities_NN2 become_VV0 the_AT basis_NN1 for_IF philosophical_JJ reflection_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 menstruation_NN1 and_CC childbirth_NN1 (_( Brenda_NP1 Almond_NP1 's_GE paper_NN1 )_) ;_; a_AT1 gut_NN1 reaction_NN1 to_II pornography_NN1 (_( Alison_NP1 Assiter_NP1 's_GE paper_NN1 )_) ;_; the_AT fantasies_NN2 that_CST disturb_VV0 because_II21 of_II22 their_APPGE apparently_RR unfeminist_NN1 nature_NN1 Jean_NP1 Grimshaw_NP1 's_GE paper_NN1 )_) ;_; and_CC nonviolent_JJ demonstrations_NN2 against_II missile_NN1 bases_NN2 (_( Anne_NP1 Seller_NN1 's_GE paper_NN1 )_) ;_; the_AT point_NN1 in_II each_DD1 case_NN1 being_NN1 that_CST these_DD2 experiences_NN2 are_VBR the_AT starting_NN1 point_NN1 ,_, because_CS their_APPGE importance_NN1 did_VDD not_XX seem_VVI to_TO be_VBI recognised_VVN within_II the_AT theoretical_JJ categories_NN2 already_RR provided_VVN ,_, and_CC so_RG urgently_RR impel_VV0 the_AT theorist_NN1 to_TO work_VVI out_RP categories_NN2 that_CST are_VBR more_RGR adequate_JJ ._. 
A_AT1 second_MD preoccupation_NN1 evident_JJ in_II these_DD2 papers_NN2 is_VBZ responsibility_NN1 ,_, and_CC what_DDQ could_VM roughly_RR be_VBI described_VVN as_II the_AT ethical_JJ dimension_NN1 of_IO conceptualisation_NN1 ._. 
Several_DA2 contributors_NN2 explicitly_RR criticise_VV0 the_AT social_JJ atomist_NN1 conception_NN1 of_IO human_JJ beings_NN2 ,_, defined_VVN by_II Mary_NP1 Midgley_NP1 in_II this_DD1 volume_NN1 as_CSA follows_VVZ :_: This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT idea_NN1 ,_, implied_VVN by_II all_DB Social_JJ Contract_NN1 myths_NN2 ,_, that_CST an_AT1 individual_NN1 is_VBZ essentially_RR a_AT1 solitary_JJ unit_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 free_JJ chooser_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 being_NN1 intrinsically_RR without_IW social_JJ ties_NN2 ._. 
As_CSA she_PPHS1 goes_VVZ on_RP to_TO argue_VVI ,_, '_GE The_AT pronoun_NN1 '_GE he_PPHS1 '_VBZ is_VBZ an_AT1 essential_JJ part_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 description_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Because_CS the_AT life-experience_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 is_VBZ normally_RR so_RG different_JJ from_II that_DD1 of_IO men_NN2 ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR likely_JJ to_TO conceptualise_VVI freedom_NN1 ,_, equality_NN1 ,_, rights_NN2 ,_, responsibility_NN1 and_CC autonomy_NN1 ,_, to_TO give_VVI but_CCB a_AT1 few_DA2 examples_NN2 ,_, in_II a_AT1 rather_RG different_JJ way_NN1 from_II men_NN2 ._. 
Thus_RR Brenda_NP1 Almond_NP1 suggests_VVZ that_CST the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 's_GE lives_NN2 differ_VV0 from_II those_DD2 of_IO men_NN2 are_VBR morally_RR significant_JJ ._. 
In_II our_APPGE culture_NN1 women_NN2 typically_RR conceptualise_VV0 themselves_PPX2 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 others_NN2 ;_; discussion_NN1 of_IO the_AT implications_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 can_VM be_VBI found_VVN in_II several_DA2 of_IO the_AT papers_NN2 (_( Alison_NP1 Assiter_NP1 ,_, Lorraine_NP1 Code_NN1 ,_, Jean_NP1 Grimshaw_NP1 and_CC Judith_NP1 Hughes_NP1 )_) ._. 
The_AT result_NN1 of_IO seeing_VVG the_AT difference_NN1 in_II women_NN2 's_GE experiences_NN2 in_II positive_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 negative_JJ terms_NN2 seeing_VVG women_NN2 as_CSA having_VHG something_PN1 to_TO offer_VVI philosophy_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 seeing_VVG them_PPHO2 as_CSA inferior_JJ or_CC aberrant_JJ versions_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 male_JJ norm_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT contours_NN2 of_IO familiar_JJ conceptual_JJ landscapes_NN2 begin_VV0 to_TO change_VVI ._. 
Judith_NP1 Hughes_NP1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, puts_VVZ forward_RL a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO seeing_VVG autonomy_NN1 (_( and_CC adulthood_NN1 )_) based_VVN primarily_RR on_II the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 that_DD1 of_IO rationality_NN1 ,_, thus_RR giving_VVG an_AT1 ethical_JJ dimension_NN1 to_II autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Lorraine_NP1 Code_NN1 argues_VVZ that_DD1 epistemology_NN1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI divorced_VVN from_II ethics_NN ;_; one_PN1 should_VM be_VBI a_AT1 responsible_JJ knower_NN1 ._. 
Alison_NP1 Assiter_NP1 extends_VVZ the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 into_II the_AT private_JJ realm_NN1 where_CS the_AT tradition_NN1 cautiously_RR refrains_VVZ from_II setting_VVG foot_NN1 ,_, and_CC suggests_VVZ that_CST how_RRQ we_PPIS2 treat_VV0 and_CC are_VBR treated_VVN by_II other_JJ people_NN in_RR21 private_RR22 has_VHZ a_AT1 direct_JJ bearing_NN1 on_II our_APPGE autonomy_NN1 in_II the_AT public_JJ sphere_NN1 ._. 
The_AT ideal_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 unrelated_JJ self_NN1 is_VBZ shown_VVN to_TO be_VBI an_AT1 ideal_NN1 developed_VVN by_II people_NN who_PNQS have_VH0 never_RR been_VBN in_II the_AT position_NN1 of_IO having_VHG primary_JJ responsibility_NN1 for_IF the_AT care_NN1 of_IO children_NN2 or_CC the_AT old_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 position_NN1 ,_, actual_JJ or_CC potential_NN1 for_IF all_DB women_NN2 ,_, leads_VVZ to_II a_AT1 version_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ more_RGR likely_JJ to_TO be_VBI defined_VVN in_II relationship_NN1 and_CC which_DDQ therefore_RR implies_VVZ certain_JJ commitments_NN2 or_CC responsibilities_NN2 which_DDQ can_VM hardly_RR be_VBI denied_VVN ._. 
Where_CS standard_JJ discussions_NN2 of_IO autonomy_NN1 place_VV0 it_PPH1 in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO rights_NN2 ,_, freedom_NN1 and_CC equality_NN1 ,_, paternalism_NN1 and_CC rationality_NN1 ,_, here_RL it_PPH1 is_VBZ discussed_VVN in_II31 conjunction_II32 with_II33 questions_NN2 of_IO fantasy_NN1 ,_, how_RRQ we_PPIS2 treat_VV0 others_NN2 ,_, social_JJ and_CC personal_JJ relations_NN2 ,_, and_CC responsibilities_NN2 ._. 
Where_CS standard_JJ discussions_NN2 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 talk_NN1 about_II memory_NN1 and_CC unity_NN1 ,_, brain_NN1 transplants_NN2 ,_, the_AT rational_JJ agent_NN1 acting_VVG on_II his_APPGE beliefs_NN2 and_CC desires_NN2 ,_, or_CC the_AT self_NN1 in_II its_APPGE public_JJ aspect_NN1 as_CSA citizen_NN1 ,_, here_RL the_AT self_NN1 is_VBZ looked_VVN at_II in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO the_AT past_JJ history_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 ,_, unconscious_JJ or_CC fantasy_NN1 relationships_NN2 with_IW others_NN2 ,_, the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO feelings_NN2 ,_, or_CC the_AT body_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX simply_RR an_AT1 alternative_JJ or_CC complementary_JJ perspective_NN1 ,_, since_CS it_PPH1 raises_VVZ directly_RR the_AT issue_NN1 that_CST what_DDQ counts_VVZ as_II a_AT1 philosophical_JJ problem_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 an_AT1 issue_NN1 for_IF critical_JJ inquiry_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 been_VBN arguing_VVG that_DD1 changing_JJ concepts_NN2 is_VBZ a_AT1 political_JJ activity_NN1 ;_; that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX value-free_RR ,_, but_CCB arises_VVZ out_II21 of_II22 a_AT1 particular_JJ ethical_JJ or_CC political_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO the_AT word_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST one_MC1 of_IO the_AT aims_NN2 of_IO the_AT dialogue_NN1 between_II feminism_NN1 and_CC philosophy_NN1 should_VM precisely_RR be_VBI to_TO reconceptualise_VVI the_AT world_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ offered_VVN by_II philosophy_NN1 as_CSA it_PPH1 is_VBZ at_RR21 present_RR22 ._. 
Some_DD feminists_NN2 would_VM expand_VVI this_DD1 argument_NN1 to_TO suggest_VVI that_CST the_AT political_JJ and/or_CC ethical_JJ discussion_NN1 should_VM be_VBI made_VVN an_AT1 explicit_JJ part_NN1 of_IO the_AT methodology_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ._. 
Harding_NP1 (_( 1986_MC )_) argues_VVZ that_CST since_CS scientific_JJ knowledge_NN1 (_( the_AT epistemological_JJ paradigm_NN1 )_) is_VBZ in_II any_DD case_NN1 used_VVN for_IF social_JJ ends_NN2 ,_, social_JJ aims_NN2 should_VM determine_VVI the_AT formulation_NN1 of_IO scientific_JJ or_CC epistemological_JJ problems_NN2 ._. 
Along_II the_AT same_DA lines_NN2 ,_, Anne_NP1 Seller_NN1 in_II this_DD1 volume_NN1 argues_VVZ for_IF a_AT1 more_RGR democratic_JJ epistemology_NN1 ._. 
From_II this_DD1 perspective_NN1 ,_, ethics_NN in_II the_AT broad_JJ sense_NN1 (_( the_AT question_NN1 of_IO relations_NN2 with_IW and_CC responsibilities_NN2 towards_II other_JJ people_NN or_CC a_AT1 community_NN1 )_) is_VBZ not_XX just_RR a_AT1 branch_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 but_CCB informs_VVZ the_AT conception_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ or_CC might_VM be_VBI ._. 
Contributors_NN2 to_II this_DD1 volume_NN1 were_VBDR given_VVN no_AT more_RGR precise_JJ brief_JJ than_CSN the_AT provisional_JJ subtitle_NN1 '_GE explorations_NN2 in_II philosophy_NN1 from_II a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 are_VBR working_VVG within_II quite_RG different_JJ philosophical_JJ traditions_NN2 and_CC on_II different_JJ sorts_NN2 of_IO issues_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT papers_NN2 are_VBR unified_VVN by_II a_AT1 common_JJ factor_NN1 :_: they_PPHS2 all_DB draw_VV0 on_II a_AT1 body_NN1 of_IO writing_NN1 and_CC thinking_VVG with_IW admittedly_RR elastic_JJ boundaries_NN2 which_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX taken_VVN seriously_RR by_II the_AT mainstream_JJ as_CSA having_VHG anything_PN1 to_TO offer_VVI philosophy_NN1 ._. 
Providing_VVG an_AT1 outline_NN1 of_IO each_DD1 paper_NN1 in_II the_AT second_MD part_NN1 of_IO the_AT introduction_NN1 ,_, below_RL ,_, we_PPIS2 draw_VV0 attention_NN1 to_II the_AT feminist_JJ debates_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR the_AT source_NN1 for_IF each_DD1 contributor_NN1 's_GE point_NN1 of_IO departure_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT third_MD and_CC final_JJ section_NN1 we_PPIS2 give_VV0 a_AT1 brief_JJ survey_NN1 of_IO the_AT most_RGT well-known_JJ publications_NN2 in_II the_AT area_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 from_II a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 hope_VV0 this_DD1 will_VM be_VBI of_IO value_NN1 to_II both_RR feminists_NN2 and_CC philosophers_NN2 approaching_VVG these_DD2 questions_NN2 for_IF the_AT first_MD time_NNT1 ._. 
The_AT opening_NN1 paper_NN1 ,_, by_II Mary_NP1 Midgley_NP1 ,_, discusses_VVZ the_AT central_JJ issue_NN1 of_IO the_AT possibility_NN1 and_CC necessity_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 women_NN2 's_GE point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 addresses_VVZ the_AT tensions_NN2 generated_VVN by_II two_MC related_JJ dilemmas_NN2 in_II feminist_JJ thinking_NN1 ,_, and_CC points_VVZ out_RP why_RRQ they_PPHS2 have_VH0 a_AT1 wider_JJR relevance_NN1 in_II philosophical_JJ and_CC political_JJ thought_NN1 ._. 
The_AT first_MD of_IO these_DD2 tensions_NN2 is_VBZ about_II the_AT degree_NN1 of_IO attention_NN1 that_CST needs_VVZ to_TO be_VBI paid_VVN to_II natural_JJ (_( i.e._REX genetically_RR given_VVN )_) sex_NN1 differences_NN2 and_CC similarities_NN2 ._. 
The_AT second_NNT1 ,_, related_VVD one_PN1 is_VBZ about_II the_AT reasons_NN2 for_IF treating_VVG all_DB people_NN as_CS21 if_CS22 they_PPHS2 were_VBDR the_AT same_DA ,_, regardless_RR of_IO their_APPGE individual_JJ peculiarities_NN2 of_IO sex_NN1 and_CC gender_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 relates_VVZ these_DD2 concerns_NN2 to_II the_AT philosophical_JJ projects_NN2 of_IO finding_VVG universals_NN2 of_IO human_JJ nature_NN1 ,_, of_IO morality_NN1 and_CC of_IO political_JJ being_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, to_II the_AT project_NN1 of_IO achieving_VVG equality_NN1 between_II individuals_NN2 of_IO varying_JJ class_NN1 ,_, race_NN1 ,_, age_NN1 and_CC cultural_JJ background_NN1 ._. 
The_AT questions_NN2 are_VBR both_RR political_JJ and_CC controversial_JJ ._. 
As_CSA Midgley_NP1 makes_VVZ clear_JJ ,_, discussions_NN2 of_IO natural_JJ sex_NN1 differences_NN2 can_VM never_RR be_VBI simply_RR a_AT1 neutral_JJ issue_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ an_AT1 empirical_JJ one_PN1 ,_, since_CS one_PN1 still_RR has_VHZ to_TO consider_VVI what_DDQ consequences_NN2 should_VM follow_VVI from_II the_AT differences_NN2 one_PN1 has_VHZ discovered_VVN ._. 
Feminists_NN2 began_VVD by_II arguing_VVG that_DD1 sex_NN1 differences_NN2 are_VBR artificial_JJ and_CC insignificant_JJ ,_, for_IF the_AT very_RG good_JJ reason_NN1 that_CST the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO natural_JJ differences_NN2 had_VHD so_RG often_RR been_VBN used_VVN to_TO justify_VVI discriminatory_JJ treatment_NN1 against_II women_NN2 ._. 
Midgley_NN1 argues_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ time_NNT1 to_TO move_VVI on_RP from_II this_DD1 position_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 sees_VVZ natural_JJ sex_NN1 differences_NN2 as_CSA providing_VVG the_AT basis_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO certain_JJ philosophical_JJ conceptions_NN2 which_DDQ exclude_VV0 women_NN2 ,_, and_CC in_II that_DD1 way_NN1 is_VBZ enlisting_VVG them_PPHO2 on_II the_AT side_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 ._. 
The_AT view_NN1 that_CST philosophical_JJ conceptions_NN2 may_VM be_VBI not_XX so_RG much_RR '_GE universal_JJ '_" as_58 '_GE male_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ discussed_VVN further_RRR in_II the_AT next_MD paper_NN1 ._. 
Brenda_NP1 Almond_NP1 draws_VVZ on_II recent_JJ feminist_JJ arguments_NN2 that_CST women_NN2 's_GE distinctive_JJ perspective_NN1 and_CC experience_NN1 lead_VV0 them_PPHO2 to_TO view_VVI morality_NN1 in_II a_AT1 different_JJ light_NN1 from_II men_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 distinctive_JJ perspective_NN1 is_VBZ derived_VVN from_II a_AT1 focus_NN1 on_II the_AT concrete_NN1 ,_, as_II31 opposed_II32 to_II33 the_AT abstract_JJ ,_, and_CC is_VBZ characterised_VVN by_II an_AT1 emphasis_NN1 on_II responsibility_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 on_II rights_NN2 ._. 
Almond_NN1 suggests_VVZ a_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ the_AT ancient_JJ idea_NN1 that_CST the_AT two_MC sexes_NN2 have_VH0 or_CC should_VM have_VHI different_JJ moral_JJ outlooks_NN2 can_VM be_VBI given_VVN new_JJ life_NN1 in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO modern_JJ feminism_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 considers_VVZ whether_CSW it_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ to_TO claim_VVI that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 sex-related_JJ divergence_NN1 of_IO views_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT possible_JJ reasons_NN2 for_IF any_DD such_DA divergence_NN1 ,_, and_CC goes_VVZ on_RP to_TO suggest_VVI that_CST there_EX are_VBR areas_NN2 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 's_GE views_NN2 may_VM typically_RR differ_VVI from_II those_DD2 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
In_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, Almond_NP1 questions_VVZ the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 as_CSA it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN developed_VVN since_CS Kant_NP1 ,_, arguing_VVG that_CST this_DD1 notion_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO limited_JJ value_NN1 to_II women_NN2 ,_, since_RR '_GE the_AT '_GE masculine_NN1 '_GE goal_NN1 of_IO moral_JJ autonomy_NN1 has_VHZ in_II practice_NN1 almost_RR always_RR been_VBN outside_II a_AT1 woman_NN1 's_GE grasp'_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ that_CST women_NN2 's_GE distinctive_JJ experience_NN1 leads_VVZ them_PPHO2 to_TO form_VVI a_AT1 moral_JJ sensibility_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ closer_JJR to_II aesthetic_JJ response_NN1 than_CSN to_II the_AT legalism_NN1 implicit_JJ in_II much_RR principle-based_JJ morality_NN1 ._. 
Almond_NN1 argues_VVZ ,_, like_II Midgley_NP1 ,_, that_CST women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 adds_VVZ a_AT1 positive_JJ and_CC complementary_JJ contribution_NN1 to_II our_APPGE ethical_JJ conceptions_NN2 ._. 
An_AT1 ethical_JJ perspective_NN1 is_VBZ also_RR present_JJ in_II Alison_NP1 Assiter_NP1 's_GE paper_NN1 ,_, in_II which_DDQ she_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT Kantian_JJ or_CC Hegelian_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 should_VM apply_VVI to_II sexual_JJ relations_NN2 as_RG much_DA1 as_CSA to_II the_AT public_JJ world_NN1 of_IO social_JJ contract_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ that_CST persons_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE autonomy_NN1 should_VM be_VBI respected_VVN in_II all_DB private_JJ and_CC personal_JJ activities_NN2 ,_, including_II erotic_JJ fantasy_NN1 ._. 
The_AT argument_NN1 should_VM be_VBI seen_VVN in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ debates_NN2 about_II pornography_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE significance_NN1 ._. 
One_MC1 of_IO the_AT clearest_JJT discussions_NN2 of_IO these_DD2 debates_NN2 can_VM be_VBI found_VVN in_II Elizabeth_NP1 Wilson_NP1 's_GE book_NN1 What_DDQ Is_VBZ to_TO Be_VBI Done_VDN about_II Violence_NN1 against_II Women_NN2 ?_? (_( 1983_MC )_) ._. 
She_PPHS1 points_VVZ out_RP that_DD1 what_DDQ feminist_JJ thought_NN1 has_VHZ done_VDN is_VBZ to_TO take_VVI pornography_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 its_APPGE usual_JJ position_NN1 in_II the_AT argument_NN1 between_II conservatives_NN2 and_CC liberals_NN2 over_II censorship_NN1 ,_, and_CC to_TO put_VVI it_PPH1 into_II a_AT1 completely_RR different_JJ framework_NN1 (_( p._NNU 137_MC )_) ._. 
For_IF feminists_NN2 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ another_DD1 context_NN1 which_DDQ gives_VVZ the_AT phenomenon_NN1 of_IO pornography_NN1 a_AT1 different_JJ meaning_NN1 :_: the_AT social_JJ context_NN1 of_IO violence_NN1 against_II women_NN2 ._. 
Pornography_NN1 is_VBZ seen_VVN as_CSA one_MC1 manifestation_NN1 among_II others_NN2 of_IO the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 are_VBR controlled_VVN by_II male_JJ power_NN1 or_CC violence_NN1 (_( other_JJ manifestations_NN2 are_VBR rape_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT fear_NN1 of_IO rape_NN1 ,_, wife-battering_NN1 ,_, prostitution_NN1 ,_, child-abuse_NN1 ,_, etc_RA ._. 
)_) ._. (_( For_IF further_JJR discussion_NN1 see_VV0 Brownmiller_NP1 ,_, 1975_MC ;_; Lederer_NP1 ,_, 1980_MC ;_; Dworkin_NP1 ,_, 1981_MC ;_; Griffin_NP1 ,_, 1981_MC ;_; and_CC Kappeler_NP1 ,_, 1986_MC which_DDQ are_VBR directly_RR concerned_JJ with_IW pornography_NN1 ,_, and_CC Snitow_NP1 et_RA21 al._RA22 ,_, 1984_MC ;_; and_CC Vance_NP1 ,_, 1984_MC on_II sexuality_NN1 ._. )_) 
Like_II these_DD2 writers_NN2 ,_, Assiter_NN1 makes_VVZ a_AT1 consideration_NN1 of_IO pornography_NN1 central_JJ to_II a_AT1 consideration_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE social_JJ situation_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 enters_VVZ the_AT feminist_JJ debate_NN1 here_RL ,_, arguing_VVG that_CST some_DD feminists_NN2 have_VH0 misunderstood_VVN the_AT significance_NN1 of_IO pornography_NN1 ,_, taking_VVG it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 major_JJ cause_NN1 of_IO the_AT oppression_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 ,_, rather_II21 than_II22 a_AT1 symptom_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ,_, albeit_CS a_AT1 symptom_NN1 which_DDQ itself_PPX1 then_RT contributes_VVZ to_II that_DD1 oppression_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ now_RT beginning_VVG to_TO be_VBI argued_VVN by_II feminists_NN2 that_CST in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO deal_VVI with_IW pornography_NN1 and_CC what_DDQ the_AT phenomenon_NN1 reveals_VVZ ,_, we_PPIS2 have_VH0 first_MD to_TO understand_VVI it_PPH1 ,_, understand_VV0 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, the_AT meaning_NN1 and_CC function_NN1 of_IO fantasy_NN1 for_IF both_RR men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 ,_, and_CC what_DDQ effects_VVZ it_PPH1 has_VHZ on_II the_AT rest_NN1 of_IO one_PN1 's_GE life_NN1 (_( see_VV0 Wilson_NP1 ,_, 1983_MC for_IF a_AT1 summary_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 discussion_NN1 ,_, and_CC also_RR Carter_NP1 ,_, 1979_MC ;_; Linden_NP1 et_RA21 al._RA22 ,_, 1982_MC ;_; Midgley_NP1 and_CC Hughes_NP1 ,_, 1983_MC )_) ._. 
For_IF Assiter_JJR ,_, fantasy_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX just_RR a_AT1 harmless_JJ and_CC essentially_RR solitary_JJ activity_NN1 in_II which_DDQ everyone_PN1 engages_VVZ to_II a_AT1 greater_JJR or_CC lesser_JJ extent_NN1 ,_, but_CCB is_VBZ something_PN1 which_DDQ also_RR has_VHZ an_AT1 effect_NN1 on_II the_AT way_NN1 people_NN behave_VV0 towards_II others_NN2 ,_, and_CC on_II the_AT way_NN1 they_PPHS2 may_VM feel_VVI they_PPHS2 can_VM justifiably_RR treat_VVI each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ,_, particularly_RR women_NN2 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ thus_RR a_AT1 connection_NN1 between_II people_NN 's_GE private_JJ fantasies_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE status_NN1 as_CSA autonomous_JJ individuals_NN2 ._. 
Drawing_VVG on_II a_AT1 notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 which_DDQ originates_VVZ with_IW Kant_NP1 ,_, and_CC which_DDQ is_VBZ developed_VVN in_II the_AT writings_NN2 of_IO Hegel_NP1 and_CC Marx_NP1 ,_, Assiter_NN1 extends_VVZ this_DD1 notion_NN1 and_CC criticises_VVZ the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN confined_VVN to_II the_AT public_JJ sphere_NN1 ._. 
In_II arguing_VVG for_IF the_AT relevance_NN1 of_IO the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 in_II private_JJ life_NN1 ,_, she_PPHS1 brings_VVZ into_II question_NN1 the_AT demarcation_NN1 point_NN1 between_II private_JJ and_CC public_JJ life_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ assumed_VVN by_II most_DAT of_IO the_AT philosophical_JJ tradition_NN1 she_PPHS1 is_VBZ working_VVG in_RP ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN pointed_VVN out_RP by_II feminists_NN2 that_CST the_AT tradition_NN1 which_DDQ depends_VVZ upon_II this_DD1 demarcation_NN1 line_NN1 fails_VVZ to_TO give_VVI a_AT1 satisfactory_JJ account_NN1 of_IO conflicts_NN2 that_CST arise_VV0 in_II the_AT private_JJ sphere_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR two_MC apparently_RR unrelated_JJ discussions_NN2 :_: the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT public-private_JJ distinction_NN1 ,_, and_CC pornography_NN1 ,_, are_VBR shown_VVN here_RL to_TO be_VBI intimately_RR related.4_FO The_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ discussed_VVN in_II a_AT1 different_JJ context_NN1 by_II Judith_NP1 Hughes_NP1 in_II the_AT next_MD paper_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, like_II Assiter_NP1 's_GE ,_, illuminates_VVZ the_AT concept_NN1 from_II a_AT1 new_JJ angle_NN1 and_CC ,_, like_II Almond_NP1 's_GE ,_, emphasises_VVZ the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 ._. 
Underlying_VVG Hughes_NP1 's_GE paper_NN1 are_VBR questions_NN2 about_II how_RRQ children_NN2 figure_VV0 in_II political_JJ debate_NN1 ,_, what_DDQ problems_NN2 the_AT considerations_NN2 about_II children_NN2 bring_VV0 to_II light_NN1 ,_, whether_CSW these_DD2 problems_NN2 have_VH0 any_DD special_JJ significance_NN1 for_IF women_NN2 ,_, and_CC whether_CSW women_NN2 's_GE new_JJ awareness_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE own_DA political_JJ situation_NN1 can_VM be_VBI used_VVN effectively_RR in_II thinking_VVG about_II children_NN2 ._. 
Thinking_VVG about_II these_DD2 questions_NN2 produces_VVZ the_AT conclusions_NN2 that_CST are_VBR the_AT starting_NN1 point_NN1 for_IF Hughes_NP1 's_GE paper_NN1 :_: that_CST the_AT philosopher_NN1 's_GE child_NN1 invariably_RR turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO be_VBI male_JJ and_CC that_DD1 autonomy_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI for_IF men_NN2 only_RR ._. 
These_DD2 conclusions_NN2 lead_VV0 her_PPHO1 to_TO argue_VVI that_DD1 rationality_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN falsely_RR assumed_VVN to_TO be_VBI the_AT criterion_NN1 of_IO political_JJ adulthood_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_DD1 rationality_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX entail_VVI autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, analysing_VVG the_AT attempt_NN1 by_II political_JJ philosophers_NN2 to_TO justify_VVI the_AT exclusion_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 from_II public_JJ life_NN1 on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE defective_JJ capacities_NN2 (_( either_RR rational_JJ ,_, moral_JJ or_CC cognitive_JJ )_) ,_, she_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 hidden_JJ argument_NN1 which_DDQ takes_VVZ the_AT exclusion_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 to_TO be_VBI unquestionable_JJ and_CC attempts_NN2 to_TO justify_VVI the_AT status_NN121 quo_NN122 by_II seeking_VVG an_AT1 explanation_NN1 in_II the_AT defective_JJ capacities_NN2 that_CST women_NN2 must_VM then_RT be_VBI assumed_VVN to_TO have_VHI ._. 
She_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_DD1 autonomy_NN1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 psychological_JJ capacity_NN1 ,_, but_CCB as_II a_AT1 social_JJ one_PN1 ,_, depending_II21 on_II22 public_JJ acknowledgement_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST this_DD1 acknowledgement_NN1 arises_VVZ from_II the_AT recognition_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 of_IO rationality_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 fourth_MD paper_NN1 discussing_VVG the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 indicates_VVZ the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO the_AT concept_NN1 for_IF women_NN2 ,_, for_IF whom_PNQO the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO dependence_NN1 and_CC powerlessness_NN1 is_VBZ often_RR a_AT1 central_JJ feature_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE lives_NN2 ._. 
Jean_NP1 Grimshaw_NP1 looks_VVZ at_II some_DD of_IO the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ feminists_NN2 have_VH0 tried_VVN to_TO conceptualise_VVI what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ for_IF a_AT1 woman_NN1 to_TO be_VBI autonomous_JJ ,_, and_CC the_AT relationship_NN1 between_II these_DD2 conceptions_NN2 and_CC philosophical_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO thinking_VVG about_II the_AT human_JJ self_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 locates_VVZ her_APPGE argument_NN1 within_II both_DB2 feminism_NN1 and_CC philosophical_JJ thought_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 considers_VVZ the_AT idea_NN1 ,_, implicit_JJ in_II much_RR feminist_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, of_IO an_AT1 authentic_JJ self_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ said_VVN to_TO be_VBI socially_RR conditioned_VVN by_II patriarchal_JJ power_NN1 ,_, and_CC argues_VVZ that_CST this_DD1 idea_NN1 owes_VVZ much_RR to_II a_AT1 tradition_NN1 in_II Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 which_DDQ dates_VVZ back_RP to_II the_AT Aristotelian_JJ distinction_NN1 between_II actions_NN2 that_CST are_VBR voluntary_JJ and_CC actions_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR coerced_VVN ,_, a_AT1 tradition_NN1 that_CST can_VM be_VBI traced_VVN through_II Descartes_NP1 to_II the_AT present_JJ time_NNT1 ._. 
Grimshaw_NN1 argues_VVZ that_CST feminists_NN2 '_GE appeal_NN1 to_II this_DD1 humanistic_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 as_II a_AT1 unitary_JJ ,_, atomistic_JJ ,_, conscious_JJ and_CC rational_JJ core_NN1 is_VBZ quite_RG inadequate_JJ to_TO conceptualise_VVI experiences_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 self-deception_NN1 or_CC obsessional_JJ delusions_NN2 ,_, or_CC the_AT contradictions_NN2 which_DDQ feminists_NN2 have_VH0 described_VVN between_II their_APPGE rationally_RR held_VVN views_NN2 and_CC political_JJ convictions_NN2 on_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 ,_, and_CC their_APPGE emotions_NN2 and_CC desires_VVZ on_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO account_VVI for_IF women_NN2 's_GE lack_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX sufficient_JJ to_TO think_VVI merely_RR in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 removing_VVG a_AT1 veil_NN1 ,_, or_CC stripping_VVG away_RL the_AT outer_JJ layers_NN2 ._. 
The_AT concrete_JJ experiences_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 (_( and_CC men_NN2 )_) are_VBR here_RL used_VVN as_II the_AT basis_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 particular_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO the_AT Grimshaw_NN1 suggests_VVZ that_CST Freud_NP1 and_CC psychoanalysis_NN1 might_VM offer_VVI an_AT1 explanatory_JJ account_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 of_IO considerable_JJ value_NN1 ._. 
Both_RR feminists_NN2 and_CC contemporary_JJ philosophers_NN2 in_II England_NP1 and_CC America_NP1 have_VH0 had_VHN an_AT1 uneasy_JJ relationship_NN1 with_IW psychoanalytic_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
Philosophers_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN primarily_RR preoccupied_JJ with_IW the_AT scientific_JJ status_NN1 of_IO psychoanalysis_NN1 and_CC whether_CSW its_APPGE therapeutic_JJ claims_NN2 can_VM be_VBI substantiated_VVN ._. 
They_PPHS2 have_VH0 ,_, on_II the_AT whole_NN1 ,_, ignored_VVD it_PPH1 as_II a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO mind_NN1 ,_, though_CS a_AT1 few_DA2 (_( such_II21 as_II22 Richard_NP1 Wollheim_NP1 )_) have_VH0 been_VBN deeply_RR influenced_VVN ._. 
Feminists_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN antagonistic_JJ to_II psychoanalysis_NN1 ,_, seeing_VVG it_PPH1 as_II a_AT1 means_NN for_IF the_AT social_JJ control_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 ,_, although_CS over_II the_AT last_MD few_DA2 years_NNT2 ,_, the_AT mood_NN1 has_VHZ shifted_VVN ,_, and_CC psychoanalysis_NN1 is_VBZ being_VBG re-examined_VVN for_IF its_APPGE possible_JJ value_NN1 to_II feminists_NN2 (_( see_VV0 Sayers_NP1 (_( 1986_MC )_) for_IF an_AT1 overview_NN1 )_) ._. 
In_II France_NP1 ,_, psychoanalysis_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN taken_VVN more_RGR seriously_RR by_II both_RR feminists_NN2 and_CC philosophers_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT psychoanalytic_JJ model_NN1 used_VVN as_II a_AT1 basis_NN1 for_IF the_AT reconceptualisation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO philosophical_JJ issues_NN2 ._. 
The_AT paper_NN1 by_II Margaret_NP1 Whitford_NP1 shows_VVZ how_RRQ the_AT feminist_JJ philosopher_NN1 and_CC psychoanalyst_NN1 ,_, Luce_NP1 Irigaray_NP1 ,_, uses_VVZ psychoanalytic_JJ theory_NN1 to_TO provide_VVI a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ rationality_NN1 and_CC the_AT traditional_JJ symbolism_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ symbolises_VVZ rationality_NN1 as_58 '_GE male_NN1 '_GE (_( see_VV0 Lloyd_NP1 ,_, 1984_MC )_) ._. 
Foregrounding_VVG the_AT theme_NN1 of_IO sexual_JJ difference_NN1 ,_, Irigaray_NP1 locates_VVZ male-female_JJ symbolism_NN1 as_CSA one_MC1 of_IO the_AT fundamental_JJ underlying_JJ polarities_NN2 of_IO Western_JJ thought_NN1 ._. 
Placing_VVG Irigaray_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO Freudian_JJ and_CC post-Freudian_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, Whitford_NP1 suggests_VVZ that_CST Irigaray_NP1 's_VBZ apparently_RR very_RG traditional_JJ and_CC essentialist_NN1 use_NN1 of_IO symbolism_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 strategic_JJ function_NN1 ,_, like_II that_DD1 of_IO Derrida_NP1 's_GE analyses_NN2 ,_, designed_VVN to_TO draw_VVI attention_NN1 to_II the_AT underpinnings_NN2 of_IO Western_JJ metaphysics_NN2 ,_, in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO undermine_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
Feminists_NN2 have_VH0 approached_VVN the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Irigaray_NP1 eagerly_RR ,_, looking_VVG for_IF a_AT1 theory_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM help_VVI to_TO understand_VVI and_CC change_VVI the_AT situation_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 ,_, but_CCB have_VH0 been_VBN divided_VVN in_II their_APPGE interpretations_NN2 of_IO her_APPGE writing_NN1 ._. 
Some_DD see_VV0 a_AT1 romantic_JJ celebration_NN1 of_IO difference_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 static_JJ ,_, essentialising_VVG ,_, ahistorical_JJ view_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 ,_, others_NN2 find_VV0 her_APPGE work_NN1 politically_RR equivocal_JJ ._. 
Whitford_NP1 's_GE view_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST Irigaray_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN read_VVN out_II21 of_II22 context_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST we_PPIS2 need_VV0 to_TO give_VVI much_DA1 more_DAR careful_JJ attention_NN1 to_II the_AT psychoanalytic_JJ dimension_NN1 of_IO her_APPGE thought_NN1 ._. 
Her_APPGE argument_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 Irigaray_NN1 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 psychoanalyst_NN1 ,_, sees_VVZ psychoanalysis_NN1 as_II a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO change_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 as_II a_AT1 scientific_JJ theory_NN1 :_: Irigaray_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 suggests_VVZ ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ psychoanalysis_NN1 could_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 model_NN1 for_IF feminists_NN2 seeking_VVG fundamental_JJ social_JJ change_NN1 ,_, in_RR21 particular_RR22 by_II proposing_VVG an_AT1 alternative_JJ model_NN1 for_IF the_AT relation_NN1 between_II the_AT rational_JJ and_CC the_AT non-rational_JJ which_DDQ would_VM be_VBI more_RGR satisfactory_JJ than_CSN the_AT dominant_JJ paradigm_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT next_MD paper_NN1 Morwenna_NP1 Griffiths_NP1 also_RR addresses_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 between_II the_AT rational_JJ and_CC the_AT non-rational_JJ ._. 
Drawing_VVG on_II the_AT re-evaluation_NN1 of_IO emotion_NN1 characteristic_NN1 of_IO contemporary_JJ feminist_JJ theory_NN1 and_CC practice_NN1 ,_, she_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST feminist_JJ conceptions_NN2 of_IO emotion_NN1 constitute_VV0 a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO dualist_NN1 conceptions_NN2 of_IO mind_NN1 found_VVD in_RP much_RR Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 in_II the_AT English-speaking_JJ world_NN1 and_CC elsewhere_RL ._. 
She_PPHS1 refers_VVZ ,_, in_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, to_II radical_JJ feminists_NN2 who_PNQS turn_VV0 on_II its_APPGE head_NN1 the_AT criticism_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 are_VBR more_RGR emotional_JJ than_CSN men_NN2 ,_, and_CC claim_VV0 that_CST not_XX only_RR are_VBR women_NN2 more_RGR emotional_JJ ,_, but_CCB that_CST this_DD1 is_VBZ their_APPGE strength_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST in_II comparison_NN1 ,_, men_NN2 are_VBR enfeebled_VVN ,_, deadened_VVD and_CC impoverished_JJ creatures_NN2 ._. 
As_CSA Griffiths_NP1 points_VVZ out_RP ,_, there_EX are_VBR problems_NN2 with_IW this_DD1 position_NN1 ,_, but_CCB she_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST ,_, despite_II its_APPGE flaws_NN2 ,_, its_APPGE passionate_JJ impetus_NN1 to_II reconceptualisation_NN1 is_VBZ invaluable_JJ ._. 
Griffiths_NP1 suggests_VVZ that_CST the_AT legacy_NN1 of_IO Descartes_NN2 to_II the_AT philosophical_JJ understanding_NN1 of_IO emotions_NN2 has_VHZ been_VBN to_TO subsume_VVI them_PPHO2 into_II one_MC1 of_IO two_MC categories_NN2 ,_, mind_NN1 or_CC body_NN1 ,_, and_CC to_TO make_VVI them_PPHO2 rational_JJ or_CC non-rational_JJ ._. 
She_PPHS1 proposes_VVZ an_AT1 alternative_JJ model_NN1 of_IO mind_NN1 in_II which_DDQ feelings_NN2 are_VBR paid_VVN sufficient_JJ attention_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_II which_DDQ ,_, through_II language_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR seen_VVN to_TO be_VBI intelligent_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 rational_JJ ,_, non-rational_JJ or_CC irrational_JJ ._. 
She_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST one_PN1 's_GE feelings_NN2 are_VBR a_AT1 source_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 being_VBG a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO understanding_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_DD1 for_IF both_DB2 social_JJ and_CC biological_JJ reasons_NN2 they_PPHS2 are_VBR gender-related_JJ ._. 
Thus_RR she_PPHS1 concludes_VVZ that_DD1 being_VBG male_JJ or_CC female_NN1 gives_VVZ one_PN1 a_AT1 distinctive_JJ viewpoint_NN1 which_DDQ should_VM be_VBI included_VVN in_II any_DD theory_NN1 of_IO human_JJ beings_NN2 ._. 
She_PPHS1 also_RR endorses_VVZ the_AT radical_JJ feminist_JJ view_NN1 that_CST the_AT well-being_NN1 of_IO private_JJ and_CC public_JJ life_NN1 depends_VVZ on_II a_AT1 better_JJR understanding_NN1 of_IO feeling_NN1 ._. 
The_AT legacy_NN1 of_IO Descartes_NP1 comes_VVZ in_RP for_IF further_JJR scrutiny_NN1 in_II Joanna_NP1 Hodge_NP1 's_GE paper_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ examines_VVZ the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO '_GE the_AT subject_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ philosophy_NN1 has_VHZ inherited_VVN from_II Descartes_NP1 ._. 
This_DD1 concept_NN1 ,_, she_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN both_RR valuable_JJ and_CC limiting_VVG for_IF women_NN2 ._. 
Valuable_JJ ,_, in_II that_DD1 ,_, by_II providing_VVG a_AT1 conception_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 autonomous_JJ ,_, rational_JJ and_CC apparently_RR neutral_JJ subject_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 made_VVD it_PPH1 possible_JJ for_IF Enlightenment_NN1 liberalism_NN1 (_( in_RR21 particular_RR22 Mary_NP1 Wollstonecraft_NP1 )_) to_TO question_VVI the_AT exclusion_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 from_II public_JJ life_NN1 ._. 
Limiting_JJ ,_, in_CS21 that_CS22 it_PPH1 conceals_VVZ a_AT1 covert_JJ gender_NN1 specificity_NN1 which_DDQ operates_VVZ to_TO justify_VVI women_NN2 's_GE continued_JJ exclusion_NN1 whether_CSW from_II public_JJ life_NN1 or_CC philosophy_NN1 ._. 
Now_RT ,_, however_RR ,_, contemporary_JJ critiques_NN2 of_IO the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 (_( see_VV0 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, Heideggerian_JJ phenomenology_NN1 ,_, structuralism_NN1 ,_, psychoanalysis_NN1 or_CC Derrida_NP1 's_GE deconstruction_NN1 )_) have_VH0 begun_VVN to_TO dismantle_VVI the_AT assumptions_NN2 concealed_VVN in_II the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO subjectivity_NN1 ._. 
In_II her_PPHO1 densely_RR argued_VVN and_CC complex_JJ paper_NN1 ,_, Hodge_NP1 points_VVZ out_RP that_CST one_PN1 can_VM distinguish_VVI between_II the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 notion_NN1 with_IW ontological_JJ and_CC metaphysical_JJ commitments_NN2 ,_, and_CC subjectivity_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 empiricist_NN1 notion_NN1 (_( developed_VVN ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, by_II Hume_NP1 )_) which_DDQ retains_VVZ its_APPGE epistemological_JJ function_NN1 while_CS abandoning_VVG its_APPGE ontological_JJ links_NN2 ._. 
Descartes_NN2 ,_, effecting_VVG a_AT1 split_NN1 between_II rational_JJ consciousness_NN1 and_CC sensual_JJ embodiment_NN1 ,_, offered_VVD an_AT1 account_NN1 of_IO the_AT mind-body_JJ relationship_NN1 which_DDQ accepted_VVD the_AT traditional_JJ hierarchy_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 which_DDQ reason_NN1 governs_VVZ the_AT body_NN1 or_CC the_AT senses_NN2 ._. 
He_PPHS1 saw_VVD the_AT body_NN1 in_II functionalist_NN1 terms_NN2 ,_, but_CCB failed_VVD to_TO make_VVI a_AT1 distinction_NN1 between_II the_AT different_JJ functions_NN2 of_IO the_AT male_NN1 and_CC female_JJ bodies_NN2 ._. 
Subsequent_JJ empiricist_NN1 versions_NN2 avoid_VV0 the_AT Cartesian_JJ problem_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 between_II mind_NN1 and_CC body_NN1 by_II focusing_VVG instead_RR on_II the_AT epistemological_JJ processes_NN2 of_IO subjectivity_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II this_DD1 way_NN1 obscure_VV0 even_RR further_RRR the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT body_NN1 attached_VVN to_II these_DD2 processes_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, feminism_NN1 brings_VVZ back_RP to_II the_AT centre_NN1 of_IO the_AT debate_NN1 the_AT ontological_JJ issue_NN1 of_IO the_AT different_JJ kinds_NN2 of_IO body_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT rational_JJ processes_NN2 may_VM be_VBI '_GE attached_JJ '_GE ._. 
Feminist_JJ analysis_NN1 has_VHZ shown_VVN in_II detail_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 's_GE bodies_NN2 bear_VV0 cultural_JJ meanings_NN2 that_CST are_VBR quite_RG different_JJ from_II those_DD2 ascribed_VVN to_II men_NN2 's_GE bodies_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 difference_NN1 is_VBZ particularly_RR visible_JJ in_II the_AT phenomenon_NN1 of_IO pornography_NN1 which_DDQ serves_VVZ to_II foreground_NN1 the_AT issue_NN1 of_IO the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT body_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 issue_NN1 not_XX discussed_VVN by_II Descartes_NP1 and_CC completely_RR absent_JJ from_II subsequent_JJ post-Cartesian_JJ philosophy_NN1 ._. 
Hodge_NP1 argues_VVZ therefore_RR that_CST women_NN2 's_GE epistemological_JJ position_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI exactly_RR the_AT same_DA as_CSA men_NN2 's_GE ._. 
Like_II Assiter_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, Hodge_NP1 suggests_VVZ a_AT1 link_NN1 between_II the_AT issue_NN1 of_IO pornography_NN1 and_CC the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 autonomous_JJ and_CC rational_JJ subject_NN1 ._. 
Her_APPGE paper_NN1 argues_VVZ for_IF the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO standpoint_NN1 to_TO be_VBI taken_VVN into_II account_NN1 in_II discussion_NN1 of_IO fundamentals_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 epistemology_NN1 and_CC ontology_NN1 ,_, but_CCB also_RR suggests_VVZ that_CST feminist_JJ political_JJ theories_NN2 which_DDQ assume_VV0 that_CST a_AT1 conception_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 is_VBZ already_RR available_JJ need_NN1 to_TO be_VBI complemented_VVN by_II more_RGR radical_JJ feminist_JJ theories_NN2 (_( such_II21 as_II22 those_DD2 of_IO Daly_NP1 or_CC Irigaray_NP1 )_) which_DDQ criticise_VV0 and_CC take_VV0 apart_RL the_AT metaphysical_JJ implications_NN2 inherent_JJ in_II philosophical_JJ conceptions_NN2 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 ._. 
The_AT epistemological_JJ issue_NN1 is_VBZ discussed_VVN in_II more_DAR detail_NN1 in_II the_AT following_JJ two_MC papers_NN2 ._. 
Firstly_RR ,_, Anne_NP1 Seller_NN1 's_GE paper_NN1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT view_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 as_II a_AT1 correct_JJ description_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 has_VHZ only_RR limited_VVN application_NN1 ._. 
The_AT epistemological_JJ model_NN1 of_IO truth_NN1 and_CC falsity_NN1 which_DDQ applies_VVZ to_II formal_JJ statements_NN2 of_IO propositions_NN2 turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO be_VBI difficult_JJ to_TO apply_VVI in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO social_JJ and_CC political_JJ life_NN1 ._. 
Like_II Hodge_NP1 ,_, Seller_NN1 takes_VVZ the_AT view_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 who_PNQS uncritically_RR adopt_VV0 philosophical_JJ conceptions_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 may_VM find_VVI themselves_PPX2 saddled_VVN with_IW consequences_NN2 that_CST are_VBR at_II odds_NN2 with_IW their_APPGE perceptions_NN2 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 and_CC their_APPGE politics_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 discusses_VVZ this_DD1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 epistemological_JJ stances_NN2 of_IO realism_NN1 and_CC relativism_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Realism_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE relativism_NN1 '_GE are_VBR not_XX exact_JJ terms_NN2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 are_VBR each_DD1 used_VVD here_RL to_II gesture_NN1 at_II a_AT1 range_NN1 of_IO philosophical_JJ positions_NN2 ._. 
Realists_NN2 are_VBR impressed_VVN by_II the_AT constraints_NN2 imposed_VVN by_II the_AT '_GE external_JJ world_NN1 '_GE on_II what_DDQ we_PPIS2 know_VV0 and_CC can_VM know_VVI ._. 
Seller_NN1 takes_VVZ realism_NN1 as_II the_AT view_NN1 that_CST '_" there_EX is_VBZ an_AT1 objective_JJ order_NN1 of_IO reality_NN1 which_DDQ can_VM be_VBI known_VVN by_II the_AT human_JJ observer_NN1 '_GE ._. 
She_PPHS1 discusses_VVZ this_DD1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT view_NN1 held_VVN by_II some_DD feminists_NN2 that_DD1 '_VBZ every_AT1 woman_NN1 's_GE experience_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 is_VBZ valid_JJ ,_, not_XX false_RR ,_, illusory_JJ or_CC mistaken_JJ ,_, and_CC that_CST all_DB views_NN2 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 are_VBR equally_RR valid_JJ '_GE ._. 
She_PPHS1 considers_VVZ the_AT strengths_NN2 and_CC weaknesses_NN2 of_IO both_RR positions_NN2 and_CC shows_VVZ how_RRQ the_AT epistemological_JJ and_CC political_JJ questions_NN2 are_VBR intertwined_VVN with_IW each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ._. 
She_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT main_JJ task_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 of_IO deciding_VVG what_DDQ to_TO do_VDI ,_, and_CC that_CST the_AT best_JJT way_NN1 of_IO deciding_VVG is_VBZ through_II a_AT1 genuinely_RR democratic_JJ epistemology_NN1 ._. 
Once_RR this_DD1 is_VBZ achieved_VVN ,_, she_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ ,_, the_AT dichotomy_NN1 between_II realism_NN1 and_CC relativism_NN1 becomes_VVZ irrelevant_JJ ;_; both_DB2 will_VM proceed_VVI in_II the_AT same_DA way_NN1 in_II trying_VVG to_TO sort_VVI out_RP what_DDQ is_VBZ going_VVG on_RP and_CC what_DDQ to_TO do_VDI ._. 
Lorraine_NP1 Code_NN1 's_GE paper_NN1 arises_VVZ out_II21 of_II22 a_AT1 concern_NN1 on_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 with_IW the_AT epistemological_JJ status_NN1 of_IO experiences_NN2 ,_, and_CC on_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, with_IW the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO recognising_VVG the_AT ethical_JJ dimensions_NN2 of_IO knowing_VVG :_: what_DDQ she_PPHS1 terms_NN2 '_GE knowing_JJ well_NN1 '_GE or_CC '_GE taking_VVG epistemic_JJ responsibility_NN1 '_GE ._. 
She_PPHS1 elucidates_VVZ her_APPGE concept_NN1 of_IO epistemic_JJ responsibility_NN1 by_II focusing_VVG on_II the_AT practice_NN1 of_IO stereotyping_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, the_AT stereotyping_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 by_II men_NN2 ._. 
The_AT philosophical_JJ tradition_NN1 she_PPHS1 is_VBZ working_VVG within_RL is_VBZ Kantian_JJ :_: she_PPHS1 emphasises_VVZ that_CST human_JJ cognition_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 '_GE active_JJ process_NN1 of_IO taking_VVG and_CC structuring_NN1 experience_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC therefore_RR ,_, she_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, a_AT1 process_NN1 that_CST entails_VVZ freedom_NN1 and_CC responsibility_NN1 and_CC the_AT associated_JJ ethical_JJ virtues_NN2 of_IO honesty_NN1 ,_, humility_NN1 and_CC courage_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 active_JJ process_NN1 is_VBZ hindered_VVN for_IF everyone_PN1 if_CS they_PPHS2 use_VV0 stereotypes_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ rendered_VVN particularly_RR difficult_JJ for_IF women_NN2 who_PNQS have_VH0 been_VBN stereotyped_JJ ,_, because_CS the_AT stereotype_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 is_VBZ one_PN1 which_DDQ precludes_VVZ the_AT exercise_NN1 of_IO active_JJ responsibility_NN1 ._. 
The_AT other_JJ central_JJ theme_NN1 of_IO Code_NN1 's_GE paper_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT relation_NN1 between_II experience_NN1 and_CC knowledge_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 argues_VVZ against_II the_AT Kantian_JJ tradition_NN1 of_IO seeking_VVG a_AT1 pure_JJ ,_, clear_JJ objectivity_NN1 in_II knowledge_NN1 which_DDQ will_VM leave_VVI personal_JJ experience_NN1 behind_RL ._. 
A_AT1 concept_NN1 of_IO knowing_VVG well_RR which_DDQ rejects_VVZ stereotyping_NN1 can_VM not_XX move_VVI very_RG far_RR from_II the_AT experience_NN1 which_DDQ generates_VVZ the_AT knowledge_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 defines_VVZ the_AT area_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ epistemology_NN1 as_CSA that_DD1 of_IO developing_JJ theoretical_JJ accounts_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 which_DDQ retain_VV0 continuity_NN1 with_IW women_NN2 's_GE experiences_NN2 ._. 
In_II a_AT1 critical_JJ discussion_NN1 of_IO Carol_NP1 Gilligan_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 in_II moral_JJ development_NN1 (_( Gilligan_NP1 ,_, 1982_MC )_) ,_, she_PPHS1 notes_VVZ that_CST Gilligan_NP1 's_GE methodological_JJ principles_NN2 ,_, in_RR21 particular_RR22 the_AT aim_NN1 of_IO listening_VVG responsively_RR with_IW receptiveness_NN1 and_CC humility_NN1 ,_, supply_VV0 an_AT1 example_NN1 of_IO the_AT kind_NN1 of_IO approach_NN1 that_CST might_VM fulfil_VVI this_DD1 aim_NN1 ._. 
The_AT concluding_JJ paper_NN1 ,_, by_II Paula_NP1 Boddington_NP1 ,_, returns_VVZ to_II the_AT issue_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 women_NN2 's_GE point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 and_CC what_DDQ difference_NN1 this_DD1 might_VM make_VVI to_II philosophy_NN1 ,_, leaving_VVG the_AT reader_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 kind_NN1 of_IO map_NN1 of_IO the_AT basic_JJ issues_NN2 to_TO be_VBI explored_VVN :_: '_GE an_AT1 opening_NN1 up_RP of_IO complexities_NN2 '_GE ._. 
Situating_VVG herself_PPX1 within_II the_AT Anglo-Saxon_JJ analytic_JJ tradition_NN1 ,_, she_PPHS1 looks_VVZ at_II different_JJ conceptions_NN2 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE content_NN1 and_CC methods_NN2 ._. 
Readers_NN2 unfamiliar_JJ with_IW philosophy_NN1 will_VM find_VVI her_APPGE discussion_NN1 of_IO the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 illuminating_VVG ;_; they_PPHS2 should_VM be_VBI warned_VVN ,_, though_CS ,_, that_CST philosophers_NN2 are_VBR likely_JJ to_TO find_VVI it_PPH1 contentious_JJ ._. 
Including_II a_AT1 review_NN1 of_IO material_NN1 already_RR published_VVN about_II women_NN2 and_CC philosophy_NN1 ,_, she_PPHS1 distinguishes_VVZ between_II female_NN1 ,_, feminine_JJ and_CC feminist_JJ points_NN2 of_IO view_NN1 ,_, and_CC then_RT ,_, focusing_VVG on_II the_AT first_MD of_IO these_DD2 ,_, she_PPHS1 considers_VVZ how_RRQ philosophy_NN1 could_VM or_CC would_VM be_VBI affected_VVN by_II the_AT inclusion_NN1 of_IO more_DAR women_NN2 in_II its_APPGE institutional_JJ structures_NN2 ._. 
She_PPHS1 looks_VVZ first_MD at_II how_RRQ the_AT present_JJ conceptions_NN2 and_CC practices_NN2 of_IO philosophy_NN1 might_VM admit_VVI of_IO different_JJ points_NN2 of_IO view_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
She_PPHS1 then_RT goes_VVZ on_RP to_TO consider_VVI what_DDQ might_VM be_VBI changed_VVN by_II the_AT inclusion_NN1 of_IO more_DAR women_NN2 ._. 
Finally_RR she_PPHS1 returns_VVZ to_II her_APPGE original_JJ distinction_NN1 between_II female_NN1 ,_, feminine_JJ and_CC feminist_NN1 ,_, and_CC suggests_VVZ how_RRQ the_AT relation_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 might_VM have_VHI implications_NN2 for_IF possible_JJ developments_NN2 in_II the_AT practice_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 concludes_VVZ that_CST women_NN2 's_GE views_NN2 need_VV0 to_TO be_VBI considered_VVN and_CC then_RT synthesised_VVN with_IW men_NN2 's_VBZ to_TO '_" find_VVI a_AT1 human_JJ whole_NN1 '_GE ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ now_RT known_VVN as_98 '_GE second-wave_NN1 '_GE feminism_NN1 emerged_VVD in_II the_AT late_JJ sixties_MC2 and_CC seventies_MC2 ._. 
By_II the_AT early_JJ seventies_MC2 ,_, articles_NN2 that_CST saw_VVD themselves_PPX2 as_CSA explicitly_RR feminist_JJ were_VBDR beginning_VVG to_TO appear_VVI in_II philosophy_NN1 journals_NN2 (_( e.g._REX The_AT Monist_NN1 ,_, special_JJ issue_NN1 ,_, 1973_MC )_) ._. 
As_CSA women_NN2 began_VVD to_TO cast_VVI a_AT1 critical_JJ eye_NN1 over_II the_AT discipline_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO different_JJ types_NN2 of_IO work_NN1 appeared_VVD ._. 
These_DD2 can_VM be_VBI divided_VVN ,_, very_RG broadly_RR ,_, into_II the_AT following_JJ categories_NN2 (_( although_CS the_AT categories_NN2 clearly_RR overlap_VV0 both_RR chronologically_RR and_CC conceptually_RR )_) ._. 
Firstly_RR ,_, there_EX were_VBDR discussions_NN2 of_IO issues_NN2 thought_VVD to_TO be_VBI of_IO particular_JJ interest_NN1 or_CC relevance_NN1 to_II women_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 abortion_NN1 or_CC equality_NN1 ._. 
Many_DA2 of_IO these_DD2 discussions_NN2 are_VBR to_TO be_VBI found_VVN in_II the_AT early_JJ collections_NN2 (_( see_VV0 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, Gould_NP1 and_CC Wartofsky_NP1 ,_, 1976_MC ;_; English_NN1 ,_, 1977_MC ;_; Vetterling-Braggin_NP1 ,_, Elliston_NP1 and_CC English_NN1 ,_, 1977_MC )_) ._. 
An_AT1 extended_JJ discussion_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 kind_NN1 can_VM be_VBI found_VVN in_II The_AT Sceptical_JJ Feminist_NN1 by_II Janet_NP1 Radcliffe_NP1 Richards_NP1 (_( 1980_MC )_) ._. 
These_DD2 discussions_NN2 are_VBR characterised_VVN by_II an_AT1 increasing_JJ scope_NN1 and_CC depth_NN1 as_II the_AT issues_NN2 are_VBR accorded_VVN greater_JJR philosophical_JJ seriousness_NN1 ._. 
Thematic_JJ collections_NN2 on_II issues_NN2 of_IO particular_JJ concern_NN1 to_II women_NN2 continue_VV0 to_TO appear_VVI ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 The_AT Family_NN1 in_II Political_JJ Thought_NN1 (_( Elshtain_NN1 ,_, ed._NN1 ,_, 1982_MC )_) or_CC Mothering_NN1 (_( Trebilcot_NP1 ,_, ed._NN1 ,_, 1984_MC )_) ._. 
A_AT1 couple_NN1 of_IO recent_JJ collections_NN2 which_DDQ bring_VV0 together_RL a_AT1 range_NN1 of_IO articles_NN2 on_II a_AT1 variety_NN1 of_IO topics_NN2 are_VBR 'Femininity'_JJ ,_, '_GE Masculinity_NP1 '_GE and_CC '_GE Androgyny_NP1 '_GE :_: A_ZZ1 Modern_JJ Philosophical_JJ Analysis_NN1 ,_, edited_VVN by_II Mary_NP1 Vetterling-Braggin_NP1 (_( 1982b_FO )_) and_CC the_AT special_JJ issue_NN1 of_IO Radical_JJ Philosophy_NN1 (_( 1983_MC )_) on_II '_GE Women_NN2 ,_, Gender_NN1 and_CC Philosophy_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Secondly_RR there_EX was_VBDZ the_AT re-examination_NN1 and_CC reinterpretation_NN1 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ,_, looking_VVG at_II philosophers_NN2 through_II '_GE the_AT prism_NN1 of_IO sex_NN1 '_GE to_TO see_VVI what_DDQ they_PPHS2 had_VHD to_TO say_VVI about_II women_NN2 ._. 
In_II practice_NN1 ,_, since_CS philosophy_NN1 often_RR proceeds_VVZ by_II paying_VVG attention_NN1 to_II past_JJ philosophers_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE ideas_NN2 ,_, the_AT two_MC categories_NN2 overlapped_VVN to_II some_DD extent_NN1 with_IW each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ,_, and_CC with_IW a_AT1 third_MD category_NN1 ,_, political_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ looks_VVZ at_II the_AT political_JJ philosophers_NN2 in_II41 the_II42 light_II43 of_II44 the_AT practice_NN1 and_CC experiences_NN2 of_IO feminist_JJ politics_NN1 (_( see_VV0 Okin_NP1 ,_, 1980_MC ;_; Elshtain_NN1 ,_, 1981_MC ;_; O'Brien_NP1 ,_, 1981_MC )_) ._. 
As_II the_AT often_RR misogynistic_JJ views_NN2 of_IO philosophers_NN2 were_VBDR exposed_VVN ,_, two_MC lines_NN2 of_IO approach_NN1 were_VBDR adopted_VVN ._. 
Either_DD1 one_PN1 could_VM discard_VVI what_DDQ the_AT philosopher_NN1 had_VHD said_VVN about_II women_NN2 and_CC keep_VV0 the_AT rest_NN1 which_DDQ in_II fact_NN1 often_RR meant_VVD accepting_VVG conceptions_NN2 of_IO human_JJ nature_NN1 that_CST took_VVD the_AT male_NN1 as_CSA paradigm_NN1 ,_, and_CC trying_VVG to_TO demonstrate_VVI that_CST women_NN2 were_VBDR as_RG fully_RR human_JJ as_CSA men_NN2 ,_, or_CC one_PN1 could_VM argue_VVI that_CST the_AT philosopher_NN1 's_GE thought_NN1 formed_VVD a_AT1 system_NN1 within_II which_DDQ the_AT attitude_NN1 towards_II women_NN2 formed_VVD an_AT1 inseparable_JJ part_NN1 (_( see_VV0 Elshtain_NN1 's_GE (_( 1981_MC )_) discussion_NN1 of_IO the_AT private-public_JJ distinction_NN1 or_CC Grimshaw_NP1 (_( 1986_MC )_) for_IF the_AT examples_NN2 of_IO Aristotle_NP1 and_CC Kant_NP1 )_) ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ impossible_JJ just_RR to_TO take_VVI certain_JJ parts_NN2 and_CC leave_VVI the_AT rest_NN1 ._. 
The_AT second_MD of_IO these_DD2 choices_NN2 was_VBDZ the_AT one_PN1 that_CST most_DAT feminists_NN2 adopted_VVD ,_, and_CC as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 the_AT next_MD decade_NNT1 was_VBDZ marked_VVN by_II an_AT1 increasing_JJ self-confidence_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 feminists_NN2 about_II their_APPGE place_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 led_VVD to_II a_AT1 fourth_MD type_NN1 of_IO work_NN1 which_DDQ discussed_VVD the_AT nature_NN1 and_CC limits_NN2 of_IO philosophy_NN1 itself_PPX1 and_CC whether_CSW there_EX was_VBDZ any_DD place_NN1 for_IF women_NN2 in_II it_PPH1 ,_, and_CC considered_VVD whether_CSW the_AT basic_JJ assumptions_NN2 of_IO philosophy_NN1 included_VVN or_CC excluded_VVD women_NN2 ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 would_VM just_RR like_VVI to_TO mention_VVI briefly_RR some_DD of_IO the_AT studies_NN2 that_CST came_VVD out_RP between_II 1980_MC and_CC 1986_MC ,_, which_DDQ attempt_VV0 to_TO develop_VVI accounts_NN2 that_CST would_VM be_VBI either_RR specifically_RR feminist_JJ or_CC draw_VV0 upon_II a_AT1 women_NN2 's_GE point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 ._. 
Under_II the_AT heading_NN1 of_IO political_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, feminist_JJ philosophers_NN2 begin_VV0 by_II arguing_VVG with_IW the_AT tradition_NN1 ,_, trying_VVG to_TO reconcile_VVI feminist_JJ insights_NN2 with_IW already_RR existing_JJ systems_NN2 of_IO thought_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 liberalism_NN1 or_CC Marxism_NN1 ,_, and_CC go_VV0 on_RP to_TO attempt_VVI to_TO define_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ perspective_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 ._. 
In_II The_AT Politics_NN1 of_IO Reproduction_NN1 (_( 1981_MC )_) ,_, Mary_NP1 O'Brien_NP1 rereads_VVZ traditional_JJ political_JJ theory_NN1 's_GE preoccupation_NN1 with_IW the_AT family_NN1 and_CC reproduction_NN1 ,_, and_CC uses_VVZ a_AT1 revised_JJ version_NN1 of_IO dialectical_JJ materialism_NN1 with_II41 a_II42 view_II43 to_II44 developing_VVG a_AT1 feminist_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 argues_VVZ for_IF the_AT view_NN1 that_CST there_EX is_VBZ such_DA a_AT1 thing_NN1 as_CSA a_AT1 '_GE feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 '_GE and_CC criticises_VVZ feminist_JJ theorists_NN2 (_( de_NP1 Beauvoir_NP1 ,_, Millett_NP1 ,_, Firestone_NP1 and_CC Reed_NP1 )_) who_PNQS depend_VV0 too_RG heavily_RR on_II existing_JJ (_( male_NN1 )_) theories_NN2 ._. 
Jean_NP1 Bethke_NP1 Elshtain_NN1 ,_, in_II Public_JJ Man_NN1 ,_, Private_JJ Woman_NN1 ._. 
Women_NN2 in_II Social_JJ and_CC Political_JJ Thought_NN1 (_( 1981_MC )_) ,_, looks_VVZ at_II the_AT way_NN1 political_JJ thought_NN1 has_VHZ conceptualised_VVN the_AT public-private_JJ distinction_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE bearing_NN1 on_II attitudes_NN2 towards_II women_NN2 ,_, and_CC critically_RR examines_VVZ contemporary_JJ feminist_JJ versions_NN2 of_IO that_DD1 same_DA distinction_NN1 ._. 
Alison_NP1 Jaggar_NP1 ,_, in_II Feminist_JJ Politics_NN1 and_CC Human_JJ Nature_NN1 (_( 1983_MC )_) ,_, looks_VVZ at_II the_AT relation_NN1 between_II feminist_JJ theory_NN1 and_CC political_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, arguing_VVG that_DD1 different_JJ feminist_JJ theories_NN2 liberal_JJ feminism_NN1 ,_, radical_JJ feminism_NN1 ,_, Marxist_JJ feminism_NN1 and_CC socialist_JJ feminism_NN1 imply_VV0 different_JJ conceptions_NN2 of_IO human_JJ nature_NN1 and_CC have_VH0 different_JJ implications_NN2 for_IF practice_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 collection_NN1 of_IO essays_NN2 edited_VVN by_II Ellen_NP1 Kennedy_NP1 and_CC Susan_NP1 Mendus_NP1 ,_, Women_NN2 in_II Western_JJ Political_JJ Philosophy_NN1 (_( 1987_MC )_) ,_, presents_VVZ a_AT1 feminist_JJ perspective_NN1 on_II questions_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 been_VBN central_JJ to_II political_JJ philosophy_NN1 and_CC raises_VVZ questions_NN2 about_II the_AT philosophical_JJ underpinning_NN1 of_IO political_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
In_II ethics_NN ,_, there_EX have_VH0 been_VBN attempts_NN2 to_TO incorporate_VVI or_CC develop_VVI a_AT1 women_NN2 's_GE point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 ,_, perceived_VVN as_CSA missing_VVG from_II mainstream_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
Carol_NP1 Gilligan_NP1 ,_, in_RP In_II a_AT1 Different_JJ Voice_NN1 :_: Psychological_JJ Theory_NN1 and_CC Women_NN2 's_GE Development_NN1 (_( 1982_MC )_) ,_, examines_VVZ psychological_JJ theories_NN2 concerning_II human_JJ moral_JJ development_NN1 ,_, and_CC suggests_VVZ that_CST a_AT1 male_JJ model_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN developed_VVN which_DDQ does_VDZ not_XX fit_VVI the_AT experiences_NN2 of_IO most_DAT women_NN2 's_GE lives_NN2 ._. 
Criticising_VVG a_AT1 rights-based_JJ ethics_NN ,_, she_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ that_CST an_AT1 alternative_JJ view_NN1 of_IO morality_NN1 is_VBZ needed_VVN which_DDQ would_VM include_VVI a_AT1 typically_RR feminine_JJ way_NN1 of_IO conceptualising_VVG the_AT relationship_NN1 between_II self_NN1 and_CC other_JJ ._. 
Nel_VV0 Noddings_NP1 describes_VVZ her_APPGE book_NN1 ,_, Caring_VVG :_: A_ZZ1 Feminine_JJ Approach_NN1 to_II Ethics_NN and_CC Moral_JJ Education_NN1 (_( 1984_MC )_) ,_, as_58 '_GE an_AT1 essay_NN1 in_II practical_JJ ethics_NN from_II the_AT feminine_JJ view_NN1 '_GE and_CC attempts_NN2 to_TO evolve_VVI a_AT1 specifically_RR feminine_JJ form_NN1 of_IO ethics_NN ._. 
A_AT1 recent_JJ collection_NN1 ,_, Women_NN2 and_CC Morality_NN1 ,_, edited_VVN by_II Eva_NP1 Kittay_NP1 and_CC Diana_NP1 Meyers_NP2 (_( 1986_MC )_) widens_VVZ the_AT discussion_NN1 by_II bringing_VVG together_RL different_JJ viewpoints_NN2 on_II the_AT issues_NN2 raised_VVN by_II Gilligan_NP1 ._. 
A_AT1 variety_NN1 of_IO work_NN1 has_VHZ appeared_VVN addressing_VVG issues_NN2 relating_VVG to_TO reason_VVI ,_, rationality_NN1 and_CC emotion_NN1 ._. 
Carol_NP1 McMillan_NP1 ,_, in_II Women_NN2 ,_, Reason_NN1 and_CC Nature_NN1 (_( 1982_MC )_) ,_, argues_VVZ that_DD1 feminism_NN1 makes_VVZ the_AT same_DA mistake_NN1 as_CSA anti-feminism_JJ in_II its_APPGE excessive_JJ belief_NN1 in_II rationality_NN1 and_CC empiricism_NN1 ,_, and_CC consequently_RR undervalues_VVZ emotion_NN1 ,_, intuition_NN1 and_CC the_AT private_JJ sphere_NN1 ._. 
Genevieve_VV0 Lloyd_NP1 ,_, in_II The_AT Man_NN1 of_IO Reason_NN1 :_: '_GE Male_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE Female_NN1 '_GE in_II Western_JJ Philosophy_NN1 (_( 1984_MC )_) ,_, looks_VVZ at_II the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 has_VHZ conceptualised_VVN reason_NN1 ,_, and_CC shows_VVZ that_CST throughout_II its_APPGE history_NN1 ideals_NN2 of_IO reason_NN1 have_VH0 incorporated_VVN an_AT1 exclusion_NN1 of_IO the_AT feminine_JJ ,_, which_DDQ creates_VVZ both_RR practical_JJ and_CC conceptual_JJ problems_NN2 for_IF women_NN2 who_PNQS may_VM experience_VVI conflicts_NN2 between_II reason_NN1 and_CC femininity_NN1 ._. 
(_( This_DD1 study_NN1 contains_VVZ a_AT1 useful_JJ bibliographical_JJ essay_NN1 on_II women_NN2 and_CC philosophy_NN1 ,_, going_VVG up_RG21 to_RG22 1983_MC ._. )_) 
Mary_NP1 Daly_NP1 ,_, in_II Pure_JJ Lust_NN1 (_( 1984_MC )_) ,_, a_AT1 polemical_JJ book_NN1 subtitled_JJ '_GE Elemental_JJ Feminist_JJ Philosophy_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ explicitly_RR and_CC insistently_RR refuses_VVZ to_TO fit_VVI the_AT usual_JJ categories_NN2 of_IO what_DDQ philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ supposed_JJ to_TO consist_VVI of_IO ,_, argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT passions_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE relation_NN1 to_TO reason_VVI must_VM be_VBI renamed_VVN ,_, and_CC thus_RR reunderstood_VVN by_II women_NN2 if_CS they_PPHS2 wish_VV0 to_TO free_VVI themselves_PPX2 from_II the_AT constrictions_NN2 inherent_JJ in_II the_AT male_JJ naming_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
In_II the_AT areas_NN2 of_IO language_NN1 and_CC epistemology_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 collection_NN1 of_IO essays_NN2 edited_VVN by_II Mary_NP1 Vetterling-Braggin_NP1 ,_, Sexist_JJ Language_NN1 :_: A_ZZ1 Modern_JJ Philosophical_JJ Analysis_NN1 (_( 1982a_FO )_) ,_, which_DDQ usefully_RR brings_VVZ together_RL a_AT1 wide_JJ range_NN1 of_IO articles_NN2 by_II a_AT1 variety_NN1 of_IO contributors_NN2 ._. 
Another_DD1 collection_NN1 ,_, edited_VVN by_II Sandra_NP1 Harding_NP1 and_CC Merrill_NP1 Hintikka_NP1 ,_, Discovering_VVG Reality_NN1 (_( 1983_MC )_) ,_, a_AT1 wide-ranging_JJ and_CC challenging_JJ selection_NN1 of_IO essays_NN2 in_II epistemology_NN1 ,_, metaphysics_NN2 ,_, methodology_NN1 and_CC philosophy_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 ,_, argues_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX just_RR content_JJ but_CCB also_RR methodological_JJ assumptions_NN2 and_CC epistemology_NN1 which_DDQ show_VV0 male_JJ bias_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 book_NN1 draws_VVZ extensively_RR on_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Nancy_NP1 Chodorow_NP1 (_( 1978_MC )_) and_CC object-relations_NN2 theory_NN1 in_II psychoanalysis_NN1 concerning_II the_AT construction_NN1 of_IO male_NN1 and_CC female_JJ personality_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 recent_JJ book_NN1 by_II Sandra_NP1 Harding_NP1 ,_, The_AT Science_NN1 Question_NN1 in_II Feminism_NN1 (_( 1986_MC )_) ,_, develops_VVZ the_AT work_NN1 in_II epistemology_NN1 and_CC philosophy_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 ,_, and_CC examines_VVZ the_AT work_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ theorists_NN2 in_II this_DD1 area_NN1 ._. 
Harding_NP1 shows_VVZ the_AT obstacles_NN2 to_II ,_, and_CC the_AT far-reaching_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO ,_, trying_VVG to_TO construct_VVI a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO gender_NN1 as_II an_AT1 analytic_JJ category_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ relevant_JJ to_II the_AT natural_JJ sciences_NN2 ._. 
Most_DAT recent_JJ work_NN1 is_VBZ often_RR concerned_JJ with_IW philosophical_JJ issues_NN2 within_II feminism_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
Mary_NP1 Midgely_NP1 and_CC Judith_NP1 Hughes_NP1 ,_, in_II Women_NN2 's_GE Choices_NN2 (_( 1983_MC )_) ,_, discuss_VV0 the_AT philosophical_JJ issues_NN2 facing_VVG feminism_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 locate_VV0 the_AT various_JJ strands_NN2 in_II feminist_JJ thinking_NN1 ,_, and_CC show_VV0 the_AT conceptual_JJ problems_NN2 involved_JJ in_II combining_VVG them_PPHO2 ._. 
The_AT collection_NN1 edited_VVN by_II Carol_NP1 Gould_NP1 ,_, Beyond_II Domination_NN1 :_: New_JJ Perspectives_NN2 on_II Women_NN2 and_CC Philosophy_NN1 (_( 1983_MC )_) ,_, discusses_VVZ some_DD of_IO the_AT philosophical_JJ problems_NN2 raised_VVN by_II feminism_NN1 ._. 
Jean_NP1 Grimshaw_NP1 ,_, in_II Feminist_JJ Philosophers_NN2 :_: New_JJ Perspectives_NN2 on_II Philosophical_JJ Traditions_NN2 (_( 1986_MC )_) ,_, explores_VVZ tensions_NN2 in_II feminist_JJ thought_NN1 and_CC examines_VVZ some_DD of_IO the_AT philosophical_JJ problems_NN2 underlying_VVG them_PPHO2 ._. 
The_AT work_NN1 of_IO French_JJ women_NN2 theorists_NN2 is_VBZ also_RR beginning_VVG to_TO be_VBI translated_VVN and_CC discussed_VVN in_II this_DD1 country_NN1 ,_, although_CS for_IF French_JJ theorists_NN2 ,_, the_AT boundaries_NN2 between_II philosophy_NN1 ,_, literary_JJ theory_NN1 and_CC psychoanalytic_JJ theory_NN1 are_VBR often_RR fluid_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 their_APPGE work_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX always_RR fall_VVI clearly_RR into_II the_AT familiar_JJ categories_NN2 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Christine_NP1 Delphy_NP1 ,_, Luce_NP1 Irigaray_NP1 ,_, Julia_NP1 Kristeva_NP1 and_CC Michele_NP1 Le_NP1 Doeuff_NP1 (_( to_TO name_VVI the_AT most_RGT well_JJ known_JJ )_) is_VBZ currently_RR being_VBG discussed_VVN by_II feminists_NN2 working_VVG in_II the_AT area_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 or_CC feminist_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
An_AT1 impressive_JJ overview_NN1 of_IO the_AT context_NN1 in_II which_DDQ contemporary_JJ French_JJ theory_NN1 is_VBZ being_VBG thought_VVN is_VBZ offered_VVN by_II Alice_NP1 Jardine_NP1 in_II Gynesis_NP1 :_: Configurations_NN2 of_IO Women_NN2 and_CC Modernity_NP1 (_( 1985_MC )_) ._. 
Jane_NP1 Gallop_NN1 's_GE book_NN1 ,_, Feminism_NN1 and_CC Psychoanalysis_NN1 (_( 1982_MC )_) ,_, is_VBZ an_AT1 excellent_JJ introduction_NN1 to_II the_AT range_NN1 and_CC implications_NN2 of_IO French_JJ feminist_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 more_RGR accessible_JJ introduction_NN1 can_VM be_VBI found_VVN in_II Claire_NP1 Duchen_NP1 ,_, whose_DDQGE book_NN1 Feminism_NN1 in_II France_NP1 :_: From_II May_NPM1 '_GE 68_MC to_II Mitterrand_NP1 (_( 1986_MC )_) contains_VVZ a_AT1 couple_NN1 of_IO chapters_NN2 discussing_VVG the_AT central_JJ theoretical_JJ issues._NNU 2_MC On_II Not_XX Being_VBG Afraid_JJ of_IO Natural_JJ Sex_NN1 Differences_NN2 Mary_NP1 Midgley_NP1 THE_AT LURE_NN1 OF_IO THE_AT UNIVERSAL_JJ The_AT long-standing_JJ philosophical_JJ controversy_NN1 into_II which_DDQ this_DD1 topic_NN1 most_RGT obviously_RR fits_VVZ is_VBZ the_AT political_JJ one_PN1 about_II equality_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 concerns_VVZ the_AT degree_NN1 to_II which_DDQ human_JJ beings_NN2 are_VBR standardised_JJ items_NN2 ._. 
How_RGQ far_RR are_VBR we_PPIS2 all_DB essentially_RR the_AT same_DA ?_? 
My_APPGE main_JJ point_NN1 will_VM be_VBI that_CST this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 simple_JJ ,_, package-deal_JJ question_NN1 ._. 
There_EX are_VBR angles_NN2 from_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ important_JJ to_TO emphasise_VVI similarities_NN2 ,_, and_CC others_NN2 from_II which_DDQ for_IF equally_RR strong_JJ moral_JJ reasons_NN2 it_PPH1 is_VBZ important_JJ to_TO emphasise_VVI differences_NN2 ._. 
In_II the_AT last_MD century_NNT1 or_CC two_MC ,_, the_AT similarities_NN2 have_VH0 had_VHN more_DAR emphasis_NN1 from_II philosophers_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ happened_VVN partly_RR for_RR21 good_RR22 political_JJ reasons_NN2 because_CS there_EX was_VBDZ need_NN1 to_TO demand_VVI a_AT1 more_RGR equal_JJ society_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ also_RR happened_VVN for_IF formal_JJ reasons_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX good_JJ ones_NN2 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 notion_NN1 that_CST philosophy_NN1 ought_VMK only_RR to_II deal_NN1 with_IW matters_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR absolutely_RR universal_JJ ._. 
Now_RT it_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ that_CST all_DB very_RG wide_JJ questions_NN2 have_VH0 a_AT1 philosophical_JJ aspect_NN1 ._. 
Philosophy_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, often_RR does_VDZ deal_VVI with_IW these_DD2 questions_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX mean_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ fitted_VVN only_RR to_TO be_VBI used_VVN on_II matters_NN2 at_II the_AT extreme_JJ end_NN1 of_IO the_AT spectrum_NN1 of_IO abstraction_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 can_VM ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, discuss_VV0 people_NN only_RR in_CS41 so_CS42 far_CS43 as_CS44 they_PPHS2 are_VBR rational_JJ beings_NN2 ,_, or_CC sets_NN2 of_IO behaviour-patterns_NN2 ,_, or_CC immortal_JJ souls_NN2 ._. 
Philosophy_NN1 deals_VVZ with_IW conceptual_JJ difficulties_NN2 ,_, and_CC these_DD2 arise_VV0 in_II the_AT working_JJ out_II21 of_II22 quite_RG detailed_JJ and_CC specific_JJ ideas_NN2 ,_, as_RG well_RR as_CSA of_IO wider_JJR ones_NN2 ._. 
Indeed_RR ,_, since_CS we_PPIS2 actually_RR live_VV0 in_II particular_JJ contexts_NN2 and_CC often_RR have_VH0 difficulty_NN1 in_II understanding_VVG them_PPHO2 ,_, many_DA2 of_IO our_APPGE mistakes_NN2 arise_VV0 at_II that_DD1 level_NN1 ,_, before_CS more_RGR abstract_JJ speculation_NN1 begins_VVZ at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
The_AT hasty_JJ flight_NN1 to_II apparently_RR universal_JJ rules_NN2 often_RR gives_VVZ philosophical_JJ notions_NN2 only_RR a_AT1 specious_JJ air_NN1 of_IO universality_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ notorious_JJ that_CST ambitious_JJ ideas_NN2 claiming_VVG to_TO mirror_VVI the_AT whole_JJ human_JJ condition_NN1 have_VH0 often_RR turned_VVN out_RP to_TO describe_VVI chiefly_RR the_AT condition_NN1 of_IO the_AT group_NN1 doing_VDG the_AT theorising_NN1 ._. 
When_CS a_AT1 different_JJ set_NN1 of_IO people_NN takes_VVZ up_RP the_AT questions_NN2 ,_, this_DD1 becomes_VVZ obvious_JJ ._. 
Of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, errors_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 kind_NN1 will_VM always_RR be_VBI made_VVN ._. 
We_PPIS2 can_VM not_XX jump_VVI off_RP our_APPGE own_DA shadows_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB after_CS so_RG many_DA2 of_IO these_DD2 experiences_NN2 ,_, we_PPIS2 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI becoming_VVG increasingly_RR aware_JJ of_IO the_AT danger_NN1 ._. 
Though_CS we_PPIS2 can_VM not_XX look_VVI at_II things_NN2 from_II all_DB points_NN2 of_IO view_NN1 at_RR21 once_RR22 ,_, we_PPIS2 can_VM at_RR21 least_RR22 learn_VVI not_XX to_TO pretend_VVI that_CST we_PPIS2 are_VBR doing_VDG so_RR ._. 
We_PPIS2 speak_VV0 with_IW relative_JJ confidence_NN1 about_II our_APPGE own_DA group_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB to_TO see_VVI what_DDQ limitations_NN2 this_DD1 brings_VVZ ,_, we_PPIS2 absolutely_RR need_VV0 to_TO have_VHI a_AT1 more_RGR lively_JJ sense_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE differences_NN2 from_II at_RR21 least_RR22 the_AT groups_NN2 which_DDQ neighbour_NN1 it_PPH1 ._. 
A_AT1 gradient_NN1 of_IO dissimilarity_NN1 leads_VVZ away_II21 from_II22 each_DD1 of_IO us_PPIO2 ._. 
Yet_RR in_II31 spite_II32 of_II33 this_DD1 ,_, we_PPIS2 all_DB need_VV0 to_TO communicate_VVI and_CC to_TO get_VVI some_DD general_JJ understanding_NN1 of_IO each_PPX221 other_PPX222 and_CC of_IO the_AT world_NN1 we_PPIS2 live_VV0 in_RP ._. 
Total_JJ scepticism_NN1 about_II this_DD1 project_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX an_AT1 option_NN1 for_IF us_PPIO2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 therefore_RR continually_RR try_VV0 to_TO correct_VVI one_MC1 philosophical_JJ perspective_NN1 about_II it_PPH1 against_II another_DD1 ._. 
Among_II these_DD2 corrections_NN2 ,_, feminist_JJ ones_NN2 have_VH0 by_RT21 now_RT22 resoundingly_RR made_VVN good_JJ their_APPGE place_NN1 ._. 
Earlier_JJR generations_NN2 had_VHD already_RR noticed_VVN the_AT odd_JJ consequences_NN2 which_DDQ followed_VVD from_II Aristotle_NP1 's_VBZ having_VHG seen_VVN the_AT human_JJ condition_NN1 as_CSA unquestionably_RR that_DD1 of_IO an_AT1 Athenian_JJ gentleman_NN1 ,_, and_CC Kant_NN1 's_VBZ having_VHG seen_VVN it_PPH1 as_CSA that_DD1 of_IO a_AT1 Prussian_JJ bourgeois_JJ ._. 
But_CCB until_CS lately_RR very_RG few_DA2 people_NN had_VHD managed_VVN to_TO make_VVI themselves_PPX2 heard_VVN when_CS they_PPHS2 pointed_VVD out_RP the_AT dramatic_JJ effect_NN1 of_IO all_DB previous_JJ philosophers_NN2 having_VHG seen_VVN it_PPH1 as_CSA that_DD1 of_IO a_AT1 man_NN1 that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, not_XX an_AT1 exact_JJ reflection_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ men_NN2 are_VBR like_II ,_, but_CCB an_AT1 image_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ they_PPHS2 tend_VV0 to_TO see_VVI themselves_PPX2 when_CS they_PPHS2 contrast_VV0 themselves_PPX2 with_IW women_NN2 ._. 
How_RGQ much_DA1 does_VDZ this_DD1 particular_JJ limitation_NN1 matter_NN1 ?_? 
Till_CS lately_RR ,_, respectable_JJ intellectual_JJ opinion_NN1 has_VHZ held_VVN that_CST it_PPH1 hardly_RR mattered_VVN at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
From_II the_AT ancient_JJ hierarchical_JJ point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 (_( unchanged_JJ from_II Aristotle_NP1 to_II Kant_NP1 and_CC beyond_RL )_) it_PPH1 could_VM not_XX matter_VVI because_CS women_NN2 themselves_PPX2 did_VDD not_XX really_RR matter_VVI ._. 
They_PPHS2 were_VBDR in_II effect_NN1 an_AT1 inferior_JJ kind_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 ,_, with_IW no_AT distinctive_JJ character_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE own_DA ._. 
They_PPHS2 thus_RR shared_VVD in_II the_AT human_JJ condition_NN1 to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST inferior_JJ men_NN2 did_VDD ,_, and_CC needed_VVD no_AT special_JJ comment_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, those_DD2 who_PNQS abandoned_VVD the_AT hierarchical_JJ position_NN1 and_CC held_VVD ,_, not_XX only_RR that_CST all_DB men_NN2 were_VBDR equal_JJ but_CCB that_DD1 all_DB people_NN were_VBDR so_RR ,_, lost_VVD interest_NN1 in_II sex_NN1 differences_NN2 for_IF the_AT opposite_JJ reason_NN1 ._. 
For_IF them_PPHO2 ,_, women_NN2 were_VBDR as_RG good_JJ as_CSA men_NN2 because_CS they_PPHS2 were_VBDR no_AT different_JJ from_II men_NN2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 were_VBDR effectively_RR men_NN2 but_CCB no_RR21 longer_RR22 inferior_JJ ones_NN2 ._. 
The_AT move_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 which_DDQ Aristotle_NP1 or_CC Kant_NN1 would_VM have_VHI made_VVN if_CS they_PPHS2 had_VHD promoted_VVN all_DB outsiders_NN2 (_( such_II21 as_II22 women_NN2 and_CC non-European_JJ peoples_NN2 )_) to_II the_AT status_NN1 of_IO honorary_JJ Athenian_NN1 or_CC Prussian_JJ men_NN2 ._. 
Now_RT from_II certain_JJ points_NN2 of_IO view_NN1 mainly_RR political_JJ ones_NN2 this_DD1 is_VBZ an_AT1 admirable_JJ move_NN1 ._. 
For_IF the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO asking_VVG whether_CSW a_AT1 given_JJ set_NN1 of_IO people_NN may_VM be_VBI enslaved_VVN ,_, or_CC deprived_JJ of_IO their_APPGE property_NN1 ,_, or_CC denied_JJ access_NN1 to_II the_AT law_NN1 courts_NN2 ,_, or_CC the_AT like_JJ ,_, decency_NN1 is_VBZ best_RRT served_VVN by_II remembering_VVG that_CST these_DD2 are_VBR beings_NN2 as_CSA conscious_JJ and_CC valuable_JJ as_II ourselves_PPX2 ,_, sharing_VVG our_APPGE vulnerabilities_NN2 and_CC sensibilities_NN2 ._. 
So_RR we_PPIS2 call_VV0 them_PPHO2 equal_JJ ._. 
But_CCB there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 whole_JJ range_NN1 of_IO other_JJ situations_NN2 where_RRQ the_AT opposite_JJ move_NN1 is_VBZ needed_VVN ,_, where_CS we_PPIS2 need_VV0 to_TO stress_VVI that_CST people_NN can_VM differ_VVI from_II us_PPIO2 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 over_II proposals_NN2 to_TO give_VVI all_DB children_NN2 the_AT same_DA kind_NN1 of_IO education_NN1 or_CC to_TO make_VVI everybody_PN1 live_JJ in_II the_AT same_DA kind_NN1 of_IO house_NN1 ._. 
Notoriously_RR ,_, long_JJ and_CC gruelling_JJ work_NN1 is_VBZ needed_VVN to_TO make_VVI the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO political_JJ equality_NN1 fit_VV0 both_RR these_DD2 kinds_NN2 of_IO demand_NN1 ._. 
To_II date_NN1 ,_, feminism_NN1 has_VHZ contributed_VVN a_AT1 good_JJ deal_NN1 of_IO fuel_NN1 to_II both_DB2 sides_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 dialectic_NN1 ,_, because_CS the_AT case_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 is_VBZ a_AT1 peculiar_JJ one_PN1 ,_, and_CC introduces_VVZ even_RR more_DAR complications_NN2 into_II an_AT1 already_RR troublesome_JJ argument_NN1 ._. 
The_AT main_JJ need_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ to_TO bring_VVI the_AT two_MC sides_NN2 somehow_RR together_RL ,_, since_CS all_DB of_IO us_PPIO2 at_II one_MC1 time_NNT1 or_CC another_DD1 need_VV0 help_NN1 from_II both_DB2 of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 think_VV0 feminists_NN2 have_VH0 not_XX seen_VVN this_DD1 need_VM clearly_RR enough_RR ._. 
They_PPHS2 have_VH0 been_VBN too_RG ready_JJ to_TO use_VVI one_PN1 or_CC other_JJ of_IO the_AT clashing_JJ theses_NN2 as_CSA occasion_NN1 served_VVD ,_, without_IW troubling_VVG to_TO bring_VVI them_PPHO2 into_II intelligible_JJ relation_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ happened_VVN naturally_RR enough_RR ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 reflects_VVZ the_AT habits_NN2 of_IO those_DD2 with_IW whom_PNQO they_PPHS2 were_VBDR disputing_VVG ._. 
Reformers_NN2 attacking_VVG the_AT subordinate_JJ status_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 have_VH0 naturally_RR appealed_VVN to_II the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO equality_NN1 ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ already_RR recognised_VVN as_II a_AT1 proper_JJ and_CC powerful_JJ tool_NN1 of_IO reform_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB in_II other_JJ situations_NN2 for_REX21 instance_REX22 in_II asserting_VVG a_AT1 mother_NN1 's_GE special_JJ right_NN1 not_XX to_TO be_VBI deprived_VVN of_IO her_APPGE children_NN2 ,_, or_CC in_II offering_VVG characteristically_RR female_JJ insights_NN2 to_TO correct_VVI a_AT1 narrowly_RR male_JJ view_NN1 of_IO life_NN1 they_PPHS2 have_VH0 equally_RR naturally_RR appealed_VVN to_II the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 distinct_JJ female_JJ nature_NN1 ._. 
Quite_RG sharp_JJ conflicts_NN2 continually_RR develop_VV0 between_II these_DD2 two_MC approaches_NN2 ,_, and_CC will_VM continue_VVI to_TO do_VDI so_RR until_CS their_APPGE relation_NN1 is_VBZ thought_VVN out_RP properly_RR ._. 
Is_VBZ all_DB difference_NN1 eventually_RR to_TO be_VBI abolished_VVN ?_? 
Should_VM the_AT dialectic_NN1 process_VVI ideally_RR lead_VV0 to_II a_AT1 simple_JJ merging_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT views_NN2 of_IO men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 on_II any_DD matter_NN1 will_VM normally_RR be_VBI indistinguishable_JJ ?_? 
Or_CC is_VBZ the_AT position_NN1 more_RRR like_II that_DD1 of_IO the_AT interaction_NN1 between_II two_MC separate_JJ cultures_NN2 or_CC indeed_RR two_MC individuals_NN2 where_CS each_DD1 can_VM indeed_RR gain_VVI a_RR31 great_RR32 deal_RR33 from_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, but_CCB will_VM always_RR retain_VVI its_APPGE own_DA distinct_JJ identity_NN1 ?_? 
AUTONOMY_NN1 ,_, SOLITUDE_NP1 AND_CC EGOISM_NP1 An_AT1 interesting_JJ and_CC crucial_JJ example_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 difficulty_NN1 concerns_VVZ the_AT '_GE social_JJ atomism_NN1 '_GE typical_JJ of_IO Enlightenment_NN1 thinking_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT idea_NN1 ,_, implied_VVN by_II all_DB Social_JJ Contract_NN1 myths_NN2 ,_, than_CSN an_AT1 individual_NN1 is_VBZ essentially_RR a_AT1 solitary_JJ unit_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 free_JJ chooser_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 being_NN1 intrinsically_RR without_IW social_JJ ties_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 unit_NN1 can_VM become_VVI bound_VVN to_II others_NN2 only_RR by_II his_APPGE own_DA free_JJ choice_NN1 ,_, and_CC his_APPGE choice_NN1 is_VBZ rational_JJ only_JJ in_CS41 so_CS42 far_CS43 as_CS44 he_PPHS1 can_VM safely_RR expect_VVI it_PPH1 to_TO serve_VVI his_APPGE own_DA interests_NN2 ._. 
The_AT pronoun_NN1 '_GE he_PPHS1 '_VBZ is_VBZ an_AT1 essential_JJ part_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 description_NN1 ._. 
If_CS '_" she_PPHS1 '_VBZ is_VBZ substituted_VVN ,_, the_AT ludicrous_JJ unreality_NN1 of_IO the_AT picture_NN1 at_RR21 once_RR22 becomes_VVZ plain_NN1 ._. 
The_AT great_JJ Social-Contract_NP1 theorists_NN2 of_IO the_AT Enlightenment_NN1 therefore_RR explicitly_RR excluded_VVN women_NN2 from_II their_APPGE systems_NN2 ._. 
Each_DD1 woman_NN1 remained_VVD attached_VVN to_II some_DD male_JJ contractor_NN1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 the_AT older_JJR organic_JJ and_CC hierarchical_JJ pattern_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT resulting_JJ brand_NN1 of_IO individualism_NN1 thus_RR contains_VVZ a_AT1 radical_JJ anomaly_NN1 ,_, affecting_VVG half_DB of_IO those_DD2 present_VV0 an_AT1 anomaly_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, however_RR ,_, does_VDZ not_XX seem_VVI to_TO have_VHI been_VBN visible_JJ until_CS light_NN1 was_VBDZ specially_RR directed_VVN on_II21 to_II22 it_PPH1 by_II feminists_NN2 ._. 
(_( This_DD1 little_JJ bit_NN1 of_IO extra_JJ enlightenment_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 key_JJ move_NN1 in_II the_AT creation_NN1 of_IO modern_JJ feminism_NN1 ._. )_) 
There_EX are_VBR two_MC possible_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO curing_VVG the_AT anomaly_NN1 ._. 
One_PN1 is_VBZ to_TO go_VVI the_AT whole_JJ atomist_NN1 hog_NN1 and_CC turn_VVI women_NN2 too_RR into_II full-time_JJ contracting_JJ egoists_NN2 ,_, no_AT less_RGR exploitative_JJ and_CC solitary_JJ than_CSN the_AT males_NN2 ._. 
Rousseau_NP1 (_( 1755_MC )_) ,_, in_II his_APPGE early_JJ accounts_NN2 of_IO the_AT state_NN1 of_IO nature_NN1 ,_, attempted_VVD this_DD1 heroic_JJ move_NN1 ,_, and_CC he_PPHS1 has_VHZ recently_RR been_VBN echoed_VVN from_II the_AT feminist_JJ side_NN1 by_II Shulamith_NP1 Firestone_NP1 in_II The_AT Dialectic_NN1 of_IO Sex_NN1 (_( 1971_MC )_) ._. 
As_II a_AT1 response_NN1 to_II the_AT brutal_JJ competitive_JJ individualism_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ fashionable_JJ today_RT ,_, this_DD1 proposal_NN1 is_VBZ understandable_JJ ._. 
If_CS the_AT rest_NN1 of_IO us_PPIO2 can_VM not_XX beat_VVI the_AT gangsters_NN2 ,_, we_PPIS2 may_VM well_RR be_VBI tempted_VVN to_TO join_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
But_CCB efforts_NN2 to_TO work_VVI out_RP this_DD1 atomistic_JJ society_NN1 in_II detail_NN1 are_VBR not_XX very_RG plausible_JJ ._. 
In_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, the_AT situation_NN1 of_IO children_NN2 both_RR in_II Rousseau_NP1 's_GE world_NN1 and_CC in_II Shulamith_NP1 Firestone_NP1 's_GE is_VBZ a_AT1 more_RGR or_CC less_RGR impossible_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX just_RR a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO children_NN2 's_GE physical_JJ dependence_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 concerns_VVZ the_AT emotional_JJ constitution_NN1 of_IO human_JJ beings_NN2 generally_RR ._. 
The_AT asocial_JJ attitude_NN1 which_DDQ these_DD2 pictures_NN2 call_VV0 for_IF is_VBZ not_XX one_PN1 normal_JJ to_II human_JJ beings_NN2 of_IO either_DD1 sex_NN1 ._. 
The_AT only_JJ situation_NN1 in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 tends_VVZ to_TO look_VVI so_RR is_VBZ the_AT transient_JJ one_PN1 of_IO adolescents_NN2 leaving_VVG home_RL and_CC protesting_VVG against_II their_APPGE parents_NN2 ._. 
Even_RR Nietzsche_NP1 expected_VVD his_APPGE future_JJ Supermen_NN2 to_TO form_VVI a_AT1 community_NN1 ._. 
Why_RRQ then_RT has_VHZ the_AT atomistic_JJ image_NN1 been_VBN so_RG powerful_JJ ?_? 
Why_RRQ has_VHZ it_PPH1 been_VBN extended_VVN so_RG far_RR beyond_II the_AT large-scale_JJ political_JJ contexts_NN2 where_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ needed_VVN ,_, to_TO permeate_VVI modern_JJ ideas_NN2 about_II choice_NN1 and_CC freedom_NN1 ?_? 
Why_RRQ ,_, when_CS we_PPIS2 all_DB know_VV0 that_DD1 loneliness_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 paralysing_JJ form_NN1 of_IO human_JJ misery_NN1 ,_, do_VD0 we_PPIS2 go_VVI on_RP as_CS21 if_CS22 we_PPIS2 thought_VVD that_CST the_AT deepest_JJT need_NN1 of_IO rational_JJ individuals_NN2 was_VBDZ to_TO be_VBI independent_JJ of_IO one_PPX121 another_PPX122 ?_? 
Traditional_JJ thinking_NN1 answered_VVD these_DD2 questions_NN2 by_II saying_VVG simply_RR that_DD1 such_DA was_VBDZ the_AT true_JJ nature_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 ._. 
And_CC it_PPH1 often_RR explicitly_RR contrasted_VVD that_DD1 nature_NN1 with_IW that_DD1 of_IO woman_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ no_AT accident_NN1 that_CST both_DB2 the_AT Greek_NN1 and_CC Latin_JJ words_NN2 for_IF '_GE virtue_NN1 '_GE originally_RR meant_VVN '_GE maleness_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Much_DA1 morality_NN1 ,_, and_CC thereby_RR much_DA1 metaphysics_NN1 ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN distorted_VVN by_II serving_VVG a_AT1 polemical_JJ purpose_NN1 in_II a_AT1 clash_NN1 of_IO ideals_NN2 seen_VVN as_CSA dividing_VVG the_AT two_MC sexes_NN2 ._. 
Theorists_NN2 have_VH0 constantly_RR and_CC explicitly_RR used_JJ antitheses_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 active/passive_JJ ,_, reason/emotion_NN1 ,_, form/matter_VV0 ,_, mind_NN1 body_NN1 ,_, autonomy/dependence_NN1 as_CSA weapons_NN2 in_II this_DD1 supposed_JJ war_NN1 ,_, recommending_VVG their_APPGE own_DA ideals_NN2 by_II directly_RR claiming_VVG that_CST the_AT contrary_JJ ones_NN2 were_VBDR typical_JJ of_IO women_NN2 ._. 
The_AT call_NN1 to_TO '_" be_VBI a_AT1 man_NN1 '_GE has_VHZ regularly_RR been_VBN seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 self-explanatory_JJ moral_JJ exhortation_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 way_NN1 ,_, grossly_RR oversimple_VV0 notions_NN2 about_II sex_NN1 differences_NN2 have_VH0 affected_VVN philosophy_NN1 far_RR beyond_II the_AT obvious_JJ context_NN1 of_IO egalitarian_JJ theory_NN1 from_II which_DDQ we_PPIS2 started_VVD ._. 
False_JJ claims_NN2 to_II universality_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN used_VVN to_TO cover_VVI a_AT1 persistent_JJ warping_NN1 in_II our_APPGE notions_NN2 of_IO what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI an_AT1 individual_NN1 ._. 
Once_CS we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN it_PPH1 ,_, can_VM we_PPIS2 get_VVI rid_VVN of_IO this_DD1 distortion_NN1 quite_RG easily_RR ?_? 
We_PPIS2 can_VM certainly_RR make_VVI some_DD progress_NN1 towards_II doing_VDG so_RR by_II peeling_VVG away_RL the_AT gender-drama_NN1 from_II the_AT conflicts_NN2 of_IO ideals_NN2 in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 has_VHZ often_RR figured_VVN ,_, and_CC trying_VVG to_TO see_VVI those_DD2 conflicts_NN2 in_II sex-neutral_JJ terms_NN2 ._. 
Freedom_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 now_RT notice_VV0 ,_, is_VBZ not_XX always_RR a_AT1 higher_JJR ideal_JJ than_CSN those_DD2 with_IW which_DDQ it_PPH1 competes_VVZ ,_, nor_CC is_VBZ rationality_NN1 necessarily_RR just_RR a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO self-interest_NN1 ._. 
Certain_JJ social_JJ bonds_NN2 are_VBR essential_JJ for_IF the_AT highest_JJT activities_NN2 that_CST we_PPIS2 are_VBR capable_JJ of_IO ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT antithesis_NN1 '_GE bond_NN1 or_CC free_JJ '_GE was_VBDZ always_RR a_AT1 tendentious_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
And_RR31 so_RR32 on_RR33 ._. 
Can_VM we_PPIS2 then_RT go_VVI on_RP from_II there_RL to_II a_AT1 new_JJ unbiased_JJ universality_NN1 ?_? 
Have_VH0 we_PPIS2 reached_VVN down_RP to_II the_AT true_JJ bedrock_NN1 of_IO human_JJ life_NN1 ,_, at_II which_DDQ sex_NN1 differences_NN2 are_VBR revealed_VVN as_CSA artificial_JJ and_CC insignificant_JJ ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 we_PPIS2 no_RR21 longer_RR22 need_VV0 a_AT1 tribal_JJ division_NN1 ?_? 
On_II this_DD1 point_NN1 ,_, feminist_JJ thinking_NN1 is_VBZ as_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 mentioned_VVN highly_RR ambivalent_JJ ._. 
The_AT egalitarian_JJ strand_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 says_VVZ yes_UH ,_, and_CC dismisses_VVZ all_DB suggestions_NN2 of_IO genuine_JJ ,_, irreducible_JJ sex_NN1 differences_NN2 as_58 '_GE sexist_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Another_DD1 and_CC at_RR21 least_RR22 equally_RR powerful_JJ strand_NN1 says_VVZ no_UH ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 wants_VVZ to_TO emphasise_VVI the_AT distinctive_JJ value_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE insights_NN2 ,_, and_CC also_RR the_AT special_JJ bond_NN1 of_IO sisterhood_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ seen_VVN as_CSA binding_JJ women_NN2 together_RL ,_, rather_II21 than_II22 letting_VVG them_PPHO2 be_VBI absorbed_VVN and_CC assimilated_VVN into_II he_PPHS1 wider_RRR human_JJ group_NN1 ._. 
For_IF both_DB2 these_DD2 purposes_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ inconvenient_JJ to_TO regard_VVI the_AT existing_JJ distinctive_JJ qualities_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 whatever_DDQV these_DD2 may_VM be_VBI as_RG simply_RR deformations_NN2 produced_VVN by_II oppression_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ could_VM be_VBI expected_VVN to_TO evaporate_VVI when_RRQ that_DD1 artificial_JJ pressure_NN1 is_VBZ removed_VVN ._. 
Those_DD2 who_PNQS stress_VV0 sisterhood_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 equality_NN1 value_NN1 a_RR31 great_RR32 deal_RR33 in_II women_NN2 's_GE distinctive_JJ approach_NN1 as_CSA it_PPH1 now_RT is_VBZ (_( and_CC has_VHZ been_VBN in_II societies_NN2 much_RR less_RGR egalitarian_JJ than_CSN ours_PPGE )_) and_CC do_VD0 not_XX want_VVI it_PPH1 lost_VVD in_II the_AT melting-pot_NN1 of_IO assimilation_NN1 ._. 
Deeper_JJR thinking_NN1 can_VM no_RR21 doubt_RR22 resolve_VVI this_DD1 clash_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB until_CS it_PPH1 does_VDZ ,_, constant_JJ confusion_NN1 arises_VVZ from_II trying_VVG to_TO combine_VVI the_AT two_MC approaches_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 (_( again_RT )_) is_VBZ not_XX just_RR a_AT1 problem_NN1 for_IF feminism_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 indicates_VVZ much_DA1 wider_JJR unfinished_JJ business_NN1 in_II our_APPGE long_JJ task_NN1 of_IO digesting_VVG Enlightenment_NN1 ideas_NN2 of_IO working_VVG out_RP the_AT proper_JJ relations_NN2 between_II such_DA large_JJ concepts_NN2 as_CSA nature_NN1 ,_, freedom_NN1 ,_, equality_NN1 ,_, justice_NN1 ,_, individuality_NN1 and_CC the_AT human_JJ affections_NN2 ._. 
By_II ceasing_VVG to_TO ignore_VVI the_AT awkward_JJ case_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 as_CSA most_DAT of_IO the_AT traditional_JJ theorists_NN2 did_VDD we_PPIS2 can_VM often_RR see_VVI what_DDQ has_VHZ gone_VVN wrong_JJ with_IW our_APPGE thinking_NN1 in_II other_JJ ,_, apparently_RR more_RGR straightforward_JJ cases_NN2 ._. 
THE_AT USELESSNESS_NN1 OF_IO STANDARDISING_VVG One_MC1 point_NN1 which_DDQ should_VM help_VVI us_PPIO2 to_TO start_VVI here_RL is_VBZ already_RR familiar_JJ from_II existing_JJ discussions_NN2 of_IO equality_NN1 ._. 
Political_JJ equality_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX call_VVI for_IF standardisation_NN1 ._. 
Political_JJ equals_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX have_VHI to_TO be_VBI indistinguishable_JJ in_II any_DD respect_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 do_VD0 not_XX even_RR have_VHI to_TO be_VBI alike_RR at_II all_DB beyond_II some_DD minimum_JJ range_NN1 of_IO conditions_NN2 which_DDQ puts_VVZ them_PPHO2 into_II the_AT same_DA political_JJ category_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 range_NN1 varies_VVZ for_IF different_JJ purposes_NN2 ,_, but_CCB the_AT aim_NN1 is_VBZ always_RR to_TO make_VVI it_PPH1 as_RG wide_JJ as_CSA possible_JJ ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, for_IF basic_JJ civic_JJ rights_NN2 like_VV0 not_XX being_VBG enslaved_VVN or_CC imprisoned_VVN without_IW trial_NN1 ,_, people_NN should_VM need_VVI only_RR to_TO be_VBI people_NN ._. 
For_IF slightly_RR more_RGR demanding_JJ purposes_NN2 like_II voting_NN1 or_CC serving_VVG on_II juries_NN2 ,_, they_PPHS2 need_VV0 also_RR some_DD minimum_JJ level_NN1 of_IO maturity_NN1 and_CC sanity_NN1 ,_, because_CS here_RL their_APPGE actions_NN2 affect_VV0 the_AT interests_NN2 of_IO others_NN2 ,_, so_CS they_PPHS2 need_VV0 to_TO understand_VVI what_DDQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR doing_VDG ._. 
For_IF more_RGR demanding_JJ purposes_NN2 still_RR more_DAR is_VBZ required_VVN ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ often_RR hard_JJ to_TO decide_VVI just_RR where_RRQ to_TO fix_VVI the_AT borderline_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB what_DDQ the_AT ideal_NN1 of_IO equality_NN1 never_RR demands_NN2 is_VBZ likeness_NN1 in_II any_DD respect_NN1 above_II this_DD1 minimum_NN1 ._. 
In_II31 spite_II32 of_II33 its_APPGE quantitative_JJ sound_NN1 ,_, political_JJ equality_NN1 never_RR means_NN having_VHG an_AT1 equal_JJ amount_NN1 of_IO any_DD chosen_JJ characteristic_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 does_VDZ indeed_RR enshrine_JJ a_AT1 quantitative_JJ metaphor_NN1 ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 exists_VVZ to_TO counter_VVI an_AT1 older_JJR picture_NN1 which_DDQ used_VVD one_PN1 ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ the_AT archaic_JJ picture_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 king_NN1 ten_MC times_NNT2 as_RG large_JJ as_II a_AT1 noble_JJ ,_, a_AT1 noble_JJ ten_MC times_NNT2 as_RG large_JJ as_II a_AT1 merchant_NN1 and_RR31 so_RR32 on_RR33 down_RP to_II the_AT almost_RR imperceptible_JJ peasant_NN1 woman_NN1 ._. 
Against_II this_DD1 notion_NN1 ,_, the_AT reformers_NN2 contended_VVD that_CST ,_, in_II Bentham_NP1 's_GE words_NN2 ,_, '_" each_DD1 should_VM count_VVI for_IF one_MC1 and_CC nobody_PN1 for_IF more_DAR than_CSN one_MC1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB there_EX does_VDZ not_XX seem_VVI to_TO be_VBI any_DD useful_JJ way_NN1 of_IO developing_VVG this_DD1 idea_NN1 by_II seeing_VVG people_NN as_CSA containing_VVG equal_JJ quantities_NN2 of_IO any_DD special_JJ substance_NN1 ,_, or_CC equal_JJ degrees_NN2 of_IO any_DD property_NN1 ._. 
Imaginatively_RR ,_, however_RR ,_, negative_JJ moves_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 kind_NN1 have_VH0 to_TO be_VBI completed_VVN by_II devising_VVG new_JJ pictures_NN2 to_TO replace_VVI the_AT old_JJ ones_NN2 ._. 
To_TO replace_VVI hierarchal_JJ pictures_NN2 ,_, the_AT Enlightenment_NN1 used_VVD many_DA2 such_DA images_NN2 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 often_RR did_VDD tend_VVI to_TO suggest_VVI some_DD deeper_JJR kind_NN1 of_IO standardisation_NN1 as_II the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO equality_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR when_CS Burns_NP1 wrote_VVD :_: The_AT rank_NN1 is_VBZ but_CCB the_AT guinea_NN1 stamp_NN1 ,_, The_AT man_NN1 's_VBZ the_AT gold_NN1 for_IF a'_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 vigorously_RR used_VVN an_AT1 ancient_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO personal_JJ worth_NN1 as_CSA resting_VVG in_II an_AT1 original_JJ standard_JJ substance_NN1 ,_, and_CC variation_NN1 as_CSA introduced_VVN by_II society_NN1 ._. 
How_RGQ ancient_JJ this_DD1 thought_NN1 is_VBZ we_PPIS2 can_VM see_VVI by_II noticing_VVG that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ just_RR the_AT figure_NN1 Plato_NP1 used_VVD in_II The_AT Republic_NN1 to_TO supply_VVI his_APPGE political_JJ myth_NN1 justifying_VVG political_JJ inequality_NN1 (_( Bk_NP1 ._. 
III_MC ,_, 41415_MC )_) ._. 
The_AT hereditary_JJ caste_NN1 of_IO Guardians_NN2 must_VM (_( Plato_NP1 says_VVZ )_) be_VBI believed_VVN to_TO be_VBI originally_RR golden_JJ while_CS the_AT other_JJ castes_NN2 are_VBR of_IO various_JJ baser_JJR metals_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT various_JJ metals_NN2 ought_VMK not_XX to_TO be_VBI mixed_VVN together_RL ._. 
Therefore_RR except_II21 for_II22 an_AT1 occasional_JJ mutated_JJ child_NN1 which_DDQ turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO be_VBI plainly_RR of_IO the_AT wrong_JJ metal_NN1 for_IF its_APPGE caste_NN1 ranks_NN2 must_VM remain_VVI separate_JJ ._. 
Burns_NP1 triumphantly_RR hijacks_NN2 this_DD1 image_NN1 by_II extending_VVG the_AT golden_JJ substance_NN1 to_II the_AT borders_NN2 of_IO manhood_NN1 '_GE a_AT1 man_NN1 's_VBZ a_AT1 man_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 '_GE that'_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 one_PN1 could_VM properly_RR ask_VVI for_IF '_" one_MC1 man_NN1 ,_, one_MC1 vote_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Women_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, were_VBDR still_RR perceived_VVN as_CSA being_VBG made_VVN of_IO a_AT1 different_JJ metal_NN1 and_CC ,_, in_II31 spite_II32 of_II33 Mill_NN1 ,_, their_APPGE voting_NN1 remained_VVD an_AT1 absurd_JJ and_CC scandalous_JJ project_NN1 for_IF many_DA2 decades_NNT2 after_RT '_GE manhood_NN1 suffrage_NN1 '_GE became_VVD a_AT1 reality_NN1 ._. 
And_CC indeed_RR the_AT otherwise_RR democratic_JJ Swiss_JJ are_VBR still_RR of_IO Burns_NP1 's_GE mind_NN1 in_II this_DD1 matter_NN1 ;_; their_APPGE women_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX vote_VVI ._. 
People_NN who_PNQS are_VBR denied_VVN political_JJ privileges_NN2 like_II this_DD1 on_II the_AT ground_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR not_XX standard_JJ items_NN2 naturally_RR tend_VV0 to_TO reply_VVI that_CST the_AT charge_NN1 is_VBZ false_JJ to_TO claim_VVI that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR actually_RR just_RR as_RG standard_JJ as_CSA everybody_PN1 else_RR ._. 
When_CS political_JJ conflicts_NN2 rage_VV0 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ far_RR harder_JJR to_TO take_VVI on_RP the_AT awkward_JJ task_NN1 of_IO asking_VVG why_RRQ this_DD1 particular_JJ standard_NN1 was_VBDZ set_VVN up_RP in_II the_AT first_MD place_NN1 ._. 
In_II class_NN1 warfare_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, oppressed_JJ people_NN easily_RR find_VV0 themselves_PPX2 claiming_VVG to_TO be_VBI just_RR as_RG noble_JJ or_CC gentlemanly_JJ as_CSA their_APPGE supposed_JJ betters_NN2 ,_, without_IW properly_RR criticising_VVG existing_JJ ideas_NN2 of_IO nobility_NN1 or_CC gentility_NN1 ._. 
(_( Burns_NP1 avoided_VVD this_DD1 move_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ what_DDQ gives_VVZ his_APPGE protest_NN1 its_APPGE particular_JJ dignity_NN1 ._. 
)_) Aspiring_JJ castes_NN2 can_VM easily_RR be_VBI led_VVN in_II this_DD1 way_NN1 to_TO inherit_VVI actual_JJ faults_NN2 from_II their_APPGE predecessors_NN2 ._. 
More_RGR subtly_RR and_CC widely_RR ,_, they_PPHS2 can_VM be_VBI led_VVN to_TO waste_VVI effort_NN1 in_II imitating_VVG traits_NN2 which_DDQ had_VHD a_AT1 point_NN1 in_II the_AT situations_NN2 which_DDQ gave_VVD rise_NN1 to_II them_PPHO2 ,_, but_CCB become_VV0 empty_JJ and_CC even_RR harmful_JJ when_CS transplanted_VVN ._. 
The_AT Victorian_JJ middle_JJ class_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO have_VHI become_VVN entangled_VVN in_II a_AT1 good_JJ deal_NN1 of_IO bad_JJ faith_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 kind_NN1 by_II its_APPGE attempts_NN2 to_TO imitate_VVI an_AT1 aristocratic_JJ life_NN1 which_DDQ it_PPH1 did_VDD not_XX fully_RR understand_VVI ._. 
The_AT pursuit_NN1 of_IO standardisation_NN1 the_AT failure_NN1 to_II value_NN1 a_AT1 difference_NN1 here_RL goes_VVZ beyond_II a_AT1 mere_JJ passing_JJ mistake_NN1 and_CC becomes_VVZ actively_RR pernicious_JJ ._. 
There_EX will_VM be_VBI similar_JJ trouble_NN1 over_II the_AT gender_NN1 difference_NN1 if_CS indeed_RR as_CSA I_PPIS1 am_VBM suggesting_VVG it_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ that_CST ideas_NN2 about_II the_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO maleness_NN1 have_VH0 distorted_VVN moral_JJ thinking_NN1 in_II our_APPGE culture_NN1 quite_RG deeply_RR ,_, so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO affect_VVI the_AT whole_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO individuality_NN1 ,_, and_CC thereby_RR condition_VV0 the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ some_DD central_JJ metaphysical_JJ issues_NN2 are_VBR seen_VVN ._. 
(_( If_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ right_JJ at_RR21 all_RR22 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, right_RR to_II some_DD extent_NN1 for_IF other_JJ cultures_NN2 too_RR ,_, but_CCB that_DD1 must_VM be_VBI left_VVN aside_RL for_IF now_RT ._. )_) 
If_CS ,_, therefore_RR ,_, women_NN2 want_VV0 to_TO storm_VVI the_AT citadel_NN1 and_CC share_VVI its_APPGE existing_JJ treasures_NN2 ,_, they_PPHS2 have_VH0 to_TO decide_VVI what_DDQ to_TO do_VDI about_II these_DD2 autonomy-centred_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO thinking_NN1 ._. 
Are_VBR they_PPHS2 satisfactory_JJ ,_, genuinely_RR universal_JJ conceptual_JJ systems_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ everybody_PN1 in_II the_AT new_JJ ,_, gender-free_JJ intellectual_JJ cosmos_NN1 can_VM use_VVI with_IW perfect_JJ comfort_NN1 ?_? 
Or_CC are_VBR they_PPHS2 biased_VVN ,_, faulty_JJ and_CC badly_RR in_II31 need_II32 of_II33 revision_NN1 ?_? 
The_AT first_MD option_NN1 is_VBZ Shulamith_NP1 Firestone_NP1 's_GE ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, the_AT logical_JJ conclusion_NN1 of_IO the_AT line_NN1 in_II Enlightenment_NN1 thought_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ run_VVN from_II Rousseau_NP1 through_II Nietzsche_NP1 and_CC Sartre_NP1 the_AT strand_NN1 of_IO truly_RR anarchic_JJ individualist_NN1 thinking_NN1 which_DDQ avoids_VVZ the_AT vulgar_JJ Nozickian_NN1 '_GE libertarian_NN1 '_GE path_NN1 of_IO concentrating_VVG on_II the_AT freedom_NN1 of_IO certain_JJ selected_JJ institutions_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 commercial_JJ companies_NN2 ,_, and_CC genuinely_RR exalts_VVZ only_RR the_AT freedom_NN1 of_IO the_AT individual_NN1 ._. 
Anyone_PN1 who_PNQS finds_VVZ that_CST this_DD1 entire_JJ detachment_NN1 from_II personal_JJ ties_NN2 really_RR is_VBZ their_APPGE highest_JJT ideal_NN1 will_VM be_VBI happy_JJ with_IW this_DD1 kind_NN1 of_IO utopia_NN1 ._. 
Shulamith_NP1 Firestone_NP1 undoubtedly_RR did_VDD everyone_PN1 a_AT1 great_JJ service_NN1 by_II vigorously_RR extending_VVG this_DD1 notion_NN1 to_II women_NN2 ,_, and_CC pointing_VVG out_RP the_AT absurdity_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 's_VBZ viewing_VVG themselves_PPX2 as_CSA totally_RR detached_JJ individuals_NN2 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT rest_NN1 of_IO society_NN1 ,_, while_CS still_RR expecting_VVG to_TO go_VVI home_RL to_II a_AT1 wife_NN1 who_PNQS would_VM always_RR have_VHI their_APPGE dinner_NN1 hot_JJ for_IF them_PPHO2 in_II the_AT evening_NNT1 ._. 
But_CCB once_RR this_DD1 absurdity_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN clear_JJ ,_, many_DA2 of_IO us_PPIO2 today_RT will_VM probably_RR find_VVI that_DD1 extreme_JJ individualism_NN1 ,_, when_CS thus_RR exposed_VVN in_II its_APPGE full_JJ aridity_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 heritage_NN1 that_CST we_PPIS2 want_VV0 to_TO claim_VVI ._. 
And_CC that_DD1 leaves_VVZ us_PPIO2 with_IW the_AT second_MD alternative_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 to_TO do_VDI the_AT more_RGR general_JJ piece_NN1 of_IO work_NN1 involved_JJ in_II clearing_VVG one_MC1 more_DAR bias_NN1 from_II our_APPGE morality_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 to_TO look_VVI at_II the_AT range_NN1 of_IO ideals_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR somehow_RR clustered_VVN together_RL to_TO guide_VVI us_PPIO2 ,_, arrayed_VVN as_CSA they_PPHS2 are_VBR in_II some_DD sort_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 rough_JJ priority_NN1 system_NN1 ,_, and_CC take_VV0 out_II21 of_II22 its_APPGE slot_NN1 the_AT unquestioned_JJ ideal_NN1 '_GE be_VBI a_AT1 man_NN1 '_GE ._. 
We_PPIS2 must_VM examine_VVI it_PPH1 to_TO see_VVI what_DDQ sense_VV0 it_PPH1 can_VM yield_VVI us_PPIO2 in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO those_DD2 who_PNQS ,_, as_CSA it_PPH1 happens_VVZ ,_, are_VBR not_XX men_NN2 in_II the_AT first_MD place_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_II what_DDQ way_NN1 ,_, once_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ done_VDN ,_, it_PPH1 will_VM have_VHI changed_VVN its_APPGE meaning_NN1 for_IF those_DD2 who_PNQS ,_, by_II no_AT special_JJ fault_NN1 or_CC merit_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE own_DA ,_, actually_RR are_VBR so_RR ._. 
DIFFERENCE_NN1 IS_VBZ NOT_XX INFERIORITY_NN1 As_II the_AT title_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 paper_NN1 shows_NN2 ,_, I_PPIS1 am_VBM sure_JJ that_CST we_PPIS2 can_VM not_XX hope_VVI to_TO do_VDI this_DD1 rethinking_NN1 while_CS still_RR clinging_VVG to_II the_AT currently_RR orthodox_JJ view_NN1 that_CST there_EX are_VBR no_AT natural_JJ ,_, genetically_RR determined_JJ sex_NN1 differences_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 orthodox_JJ view_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX really_RR rest_VVI on_II factual_JJ evidence_NN1 ,_, though_CS such_DA evidence_NN1 is_VBZ sometimes_RT brought_VVN in_RP to_II back_RP it_PPH1 ._. 
(_( There_EX is_VBZ no_AT hypothesis_NN1 which_DDQ can_VM not_XX find_VVI some_DD facts_NN2 to_TO support_VVI it_PPH1 ._. )_) 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ held_VVN because_CS people_NN believe_VV0 the_AT acceptance_NN1 of_IO natural_JJ sex_NN1 differences_NN2 to_TO be_VBI dangerous_JJ ._. 
The_AT danger_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN a_AT1 real_JJ one_PN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ flowed_VVN entirely_RR from_II distorted_JJ views_NN2 about_II what_DDQ the_AT differences_NN2 are_VBR ,_, not_XX from_II acceptance_NN1 of_IO difference_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
Different_JJ does_VDZ not_XX mean_VVI worse_JJR or_CC better_RRR ,_, it_PPH1 means_VVZ different_JJ ._. 
And_CC in_II fact_NN1 the_AT greater_JJR the_AT difference_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, the_AT less_RGR easy_RR does_VDZ it_PPH1 become_VVI to_TO dismiss_VVI one_MC1 of_IO the_AT differing_JJ parties_NN2 as_II a_AT1 mere_JJ inadequate_JJ version_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ clearly_RR enough_RR seen_VVN in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO differing_JJ individuals_NN2 ,_, and_CC also_RR in_II that_DD1 of_IO differing_JJ cultures_NN2 ._. 
And_CC the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT sexes_NN2 is_VBZ on_II the_AT same_DA footing_NN1 ._. 
The_AT main_JJ reason_NN1 why_RRQ difference_NN1 is_VBZ harmless_JJ has_VHZ already_RR been_VBN mentioned_VVN ._. 
Equality_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX mean_VVI standardisation_NN1 ._. 
One_PN1 can_VM be_VBI '_GE as_RG good_JJ as_CSA '_GE somebody_PN1 else_RR in_II all_DB kinds_NN2 of_IO ways_NN2 while_CS still_RR being_VBG very_RG different_JJ from_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
This_DD1 may_VM sound_VVI obvious_JJ ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ extremely_RR hard_JJ to_TO remember_VVI ._. 
Life_NN1 is_VBZ constantly_RR astonishing_VVG us_PPIO2 by_II confronting_VVG us_PPIO2 with_IW new_JJ kinds_NN2 of_IO character_NN1 ,_, and_CC thereby_RR with_IW different_JJ kinds_NN2 of_IO goodness_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR Anne_NP1 Elliott_NP1 in_II Persuasion_NN1 ,_, astonished_JJ at_II her_APPGE friend_NN1 Mrs_NNB Smith_NP1 's_GE cheerful_JJ acceptance_NN1 of_IO misfortune_NN1 and_CC hardship_NN1 ,_, watched_VVD observed_JJ reflected_JJ and_CC finally_RR determined_VVN that_CST this_DD1 was_VBDZ not_XX a_AT1 case_NN1 of_IO fortitude_NN1 and_CC resignation_NN1 only_RR ._. 
A_AT1 submissive_JJ spirit_NN1 might_VM be_VBI patient_JJ ,_, a_AT1 strong_JJ understanding_NN1 would_VM supply_VVI resolution_NN1 ,_, but_CCB here_RL was_VBDZ something_PN1 more_DAR ;_; here_RL was_VBDZ that_DD1 elasticity_NN1 of_IO mind_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 disposition_NN1 to_TO be_VBI comforted_VVN ,_, that_DD1 power_NN1 of_IO turning_VVG readily_RR from_II evil_NN1 to_II good_JJ ,_, and_CC of_IO finding_VVG employment_NN1 which_DDQ carried_VVD her_PPHO1 out_II21 of_II22 herself_PPX1 ,_, which_DDQ was_VBDZ from_II Nature_NN1 alone_RR ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ the_AT choicest_JJT gift_NN1 of_IO Heaven_NN1 ._. 
(_( Persuasion_NN1 vol._NNU 2_MC ,_, ch._NNU 5_MC )_) Failure_NN1 to_TO be_VBI ready_JJ for_IF this_DD1 kind_NN1 of_IO thing_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT main_JJ cause_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE dismissing_JJ whole_JJ squadrons_NN2 of_IO our_APPGE fellow-creatures_NN2 as_CSA uninteresting_JJ or_CC inferior_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ Aristotle_NP1 's_GE mistake_NN1 over_II women_NN2 ._. 
Judging_VVG them_PPHO2 by_II the_AT standard_NN1 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 used_VVD for_IF men_NN2 ,_, in_II a_AT1 society_NN1 where_RRQ their_APPGE roles_NN2 were_VBDR totally_RR different_JJ ,_, he_PPHS1 naturally_RR did_VDD not_XX think_VVI much_DA1 of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
So_RG far_RR ,_, what_DDQ I_PPIS1 say_VV0 may_VM not_XX sound_VVI too_RG shocking_JJ ._. 
Moral_JJ pluralism_NN1 ,_, the_AT notion_NN1 that_CST there_EX are_VBR different_JJ kinds_NN2 of_IO goodness_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ quite_RG acceptable_JJ to_II modern_JJ thought_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ worries_VVZ people_NN is_VBZ the_AT idea_NN1 that_CST these_DD2 differences_NN2 ,_, however_RGQV valuable_JJ ,_, are_VBR in_II any_DD way_NN1 naturally_RR determined_VVN and_CC therefore_RR out_II21 of_II22 the_AT control_NN1 of_IO the_AT individual_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO personal_JJ differences_NN2 ,_, how_RGQ much_DA1 does_VDZ that_DD1 matter_VVI ?_? 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ that_CST I_PPIS1 can_VM not_XX become_VVI you_PPY ,_, you_PPY can_VM not_XX become_VVI me_PPIO1 and_CC Blake_NP1 could_VM not_XX be_VBI Beethoven_NP1 ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX an_AT1 infringement_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE freedom_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA theologians_NN2 have_VH0 noticed_VVN ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX clear_JJ that_CST even_RR God_NP1 could_VM become_VVI somebody_PN1 other_II21 than_II22 himself_PPX1 ._. 
The_AT power_NN1 to_TO become_VVI absolutely_RR anybody_PN1 goes_VVZ beyond_II any_DD normal_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO omnipotence_NN1 ;_; why_RRQ should_VM it_PPH1 be_VBI a_AT1 necessary_JJ part_NN1 of_IO freedom_NN1 ?_? 
The_AT idea_NN1 of_IO freedom_NN1 which_DDQ lies_VVZ behind_II this_DD1 kind_NN1 of_IO demand_NN1 is_VBZ confused_VVN in_II the_AT same_DA way_NN1 as_CSA the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO equality_NN1 which_DDQ calls_VVZ for_IF standardisation_NN1 ._. 
Both_DB2 universalise_VV0 prematurely_RR ,_, hardening_VVG and_CC expanding_VVG one_MC1 aspect_NN1 of_IO the_AT moral_JJ situation_NN1 to_TO cover_VVI ground_NN1 that_CST goes_VVZ far_RR beyond_II its_APPGE relevance_NN1 ._. 
Does_VDZ this_DD1 point_VVI lose_VV0 its_APPGE edge_NN1 if_CS we_PPIS2 think_VV0 of_IO the_AT differences_NN2 as_CSA socially_RR rather_II21 than_II22 naturally_RR produced_VVN ?_? 
This_DD1 too_RR is_VBZ a_AT1 strange_JJ idea_NN1 ._. 
Of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ true_RR that_RG much_DA1 of_IO the_AT individuality_NN1 which_DDQ people_NN show_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN the_AT result_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE upbringing_NN1 ._. 
Nobody_PN1 who_PNQS brings_VVZ forward_RL biological_JJ causes_NN2 supposes_VVZ that_CST they_PPHS2 replace_VV0 social_JJ causes_NN2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 merely_RR supplement_VV0 them_PPHO2 ,_, as_CSA the_AT original_JJ qualities_NN2 of_IO food_NN1 supplement_VV0 the_AT effects_NN2 of_IO cooking_VVG in_II accounting_VVG for_IF the_AT properties_NN2 of_IO the_AT finished_JJ dish_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 fact_NN1 can_VM not_XX save_VVI the_AT inflated_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO freedom_NN1 just_RR mentioned_VVN ,_, because_CS people_NN 's_GE upbringing_NN1 is_VBZ normally_RR just_RR as_RG far_RR out_II21 of_II22 their_APPGE control_NN1 as_CSA their_APPGE genetic_JJ constitution_NN1 is_VBZ ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ called_JJ '_GE biological_JJ determinism_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ not_XX more_DAR of_IO an_AT1 attack_NN1 on_II freedom_NN1 than_CSN the_AT social_JJ determinism_NN1 (_( or_CC economic_JJ determinism_NN1 )_) which_DDQ is_VBZ accepted_VVN without_IW moral_JJ qualms_NN2 throughout_II the_AT social_JJ sciences_NN2 ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ injurious_JJ is_VBZ not_XX determinism_NN1 but_CCB fatalism_NN1 that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, the_AT pretence_NN1 that_CST bad_JJ things_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR in_II fact_NN1 within_II our_APPGE control_NN1 lie_VV0 outside_RL it_PPH1 and_CC are_VBR incurable_JJ ._. 
On_II any_DD view_NN1 of_IO causes_NN2 ,_, a_RR31 great_RR32 deal_RR33 in_II the_AT life_NN1 of_IO each_DD1 of_IO us_PPIO2 is_VBZ completely_RR out_II21 of_II22 our_APPGE power_NN1 ,_, and_CC our_APPGE freedom_NN1 must_VM consist_VVI in_II the_AT way_NN1 we_PPIS2 handle_VV0 that_CST small_JJ but_CCB crucial_JJ area_NN1 which_DDQ does_VDZ actually_RR come_VVI before_II us_PPIO2 for_IF choice_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 situation_NN1 is_VBZ far_RG more_RGR benign_JJ than_CSN people_NN obsessed_JJ with_IW freedom_NN1 make_VV0 it_PPH1 sound_VVI ,_, because_CS what_DDQ comes_VVZ to_II us_PPIO2 by_II no_AT choice_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE own_DA is_VBZ a_AT1 gift_NN1 a_AT1 whole_JJ world_NN1 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 could_VM not_XX possibly_RR have_VHI made_VVN and_CC at_II which_DDQ ,_, in_II31 spite_II32 of_II33 all_DB its_APPGE horrors_NN2 ,_, we_PPIS2 can_VM on_II the_AT whole_NN1 only_RR bow_VV0 our_APPGE heads_NN2 in_II wonder_NN1 ._. 
Moralists_NN2 able_JJ only_RR to_II think_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ,_, of_IO the_AT active_JJ imposition_NN1 of_IO the_AT will_NN1 on_II what_DDQ is_VBZ round_II us_PPIO2 ,_, miss_VV0 the_AT essential_JJ values_NN2 of_IO receptivity_NN1 ,_, of_IO contemplation_NN1 ,_, of_IO openness_NN1 to_II the_AT splendours_NN2 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX oneself_PNX1 ._. 
Our_APPGE inheritance_NN1 ,_, both_RR social_JJ and_CC natural_JJ ,_, is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 shocking_JJ intrusion_NN1 on_II our_APPGE privacy_NN1 and_CC freedom_NN1 ,_, but_CCB a_AT1 realm_NN1 for_IF us_PPIO2 to_TO live_VVI in_RP ._. 
Morally_RR speaking_VVG ,_, one_MC1 of_IO the_AT worst_JJT aspects_NN2 of_IO the_AT autonomy-centred_JJ Enlightenment_NN1 attitude_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN to_TO denigrate_VVI the_AT receptive_JJ virtues_NN2 ,_, to_TO make_VVI us_PPIO2 so_RG obsessed_JJ with_IW giving_VVG that_CST we_PPIS2 do_VD0 not_XX know_VVI how_RRQ to_TO receive_VVI ._. 
As_RR21 usual_RR22 ,_, one_MC1 of_IO these_DD2 aspects_NN2 of_IO life_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX make_VVI much_DA1 sense_NN1 without_IW the_AT other_JJ ._. 
About_II individual_JJ differences_NN2 ,_, much_DA1 of_IO what_DDQ I_PPIS1 am_VBM saying_VVG here_RL may_VM not_XX sound_VVI too_RG bad_JJ ,_, but_CCB many_DA2 people_NN will_VM want_VVI to_TO treat_VVI sex_NN1 differences_NN2 quite_RG otherwise_RR ._. 
Here_RL ,_, the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT various_JJ disputes_NN2 has_VHZ been_VBN important_JJ ._. 
Modern_JJ educational_JJ theory_NN1 has_VHZ strongly_RR promoted_VVN the_AT idea_NN1 that_CST individual_JJ differences_NN2 are_VBR intrinsic_JJ and_CC must_VM not_XX be_VBI ironed_VVN out_RP ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 been_VBN told_VVN for_IF several_DA2 centuries_NNT2 now_CS21 that_CS22 every_AT1 child_NN1 is_VBZ naturally_RR different_JJ and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ therefore_RR wrong_JJ to_TO impose_VVI on_II one_MC1 the_AT mould_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN prepared_VVN for_IF others_NN2 unlike_II it_PPH1 ._. 
This_DD1 important_JJ thought_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN constantly_RR at_II odds_NN2 with_IW the_AT equally_RR influential_JJ notion_NN1 that_CST we_PPIS2 are_VBR all_DB blank_JJ paper_NN1 at_II birth_NN1 ,_, ready_JJ to_TO be_VBI entirely_RR formed_VVN by_II our_APPGE society_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 last_MD wild_JJ exaggeration_NN1 has_VHZ also_RR been_VBN popular_JJ with_IW educators_NN2 at_II times_NNT2 when_RRQ they_PPHS2 wanted_VVD to_TO stress_VVI the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE task_NN1 and_CC the_AT need_NN1 to_TO get_VVI it_PPH1 right_JJ ._. 
But_CCB the_AT quite_RG opposed_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO innate_JJ individuality_NN1 has_VHZ also_RR maintained_VVN its_APPGE strength_NN1 ,_, no_RR21 doubt_RR22 because_CS there_EX is_VBZ so_RG much_DA1 in_II the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO anybody_PN1 who_PNQS actually_RR works_VVZ with_IW children_NN2 to_TO support_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
If_CS the_AT little_JJ creatures_NN2 were_VBDR really_RR blank_JJ paper_NN1 at_II birth_NN1 ,_, nobody_PN1 would_VM ever_RR have_VHI the_AT slightest_JJT difficulty_NN1 in_II writing_VVG on_II them_PPHO2 whatever_DDQV their_APPGE particular_JJ culture_NN1 required_VVN ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI impossible_JJ for_IF them_PPHO2 ever_RR to_TO surprise_VVI their_APPGE elders_NN2 by_II unexpected_JJ conduct_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ so_RG far_RR from_II the_AT truth_NN1 that_CST on_II the_AT whole_NN1 ,_, for_IF those_DD2 really_RR attending_VVG to_II education_NN1 ,_, the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO innate_JJ given_JJ individuality_NN1 has_VHZ remained_VVN the_AT stronger_JJR ._. 
Sex_NN1 differences_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, have_VH0 been_VBN put_VVN into_II a_AT1 different_JJ box_NN1 ._. 
By_II bad_JJ luck_NN1 ,_, the_AT question_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE emancipation_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN most_RGT often_RR seen_VVN as_CSA parallel_RR to_II that_DD1 of_IO non-European_JJ races_NN2 ._. 
And_CC race_NN1 difference_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, among_II all_DB the_AT differences_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 been_VBN used_VVN to_TO justify_VVI oppression_NN1 ,_, probably_RR the_AT most_RGT trivial_JJ ._. 
Where_CS it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX coincide_VVI with_IW cultural_JJ frontiers_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ insignificant_JJ ._. 
In_II this_DD1 case_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, Burns_NP1 's_GE idea_NN1 of_IO treating_VVG differences_NN2 of_IO status_NN1 built_VVN on_II it_PPH1 as_RG idle_JJ and_CC artificial_JJ is_VBZ just_RR as_RG appropriate_JJ as_CSA it_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO class_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 can_VM not_XX follow_VVI ,_, however_RR ,_, that_CST this_DD1 is_VBZ true_JJ of_IO all_DB other_JJ differences_NN2 ._. 
Burns_NP1 's_GE image_NN1 of_IO the_AT gold_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, we_PPIS2 should_VM notice_VVI ,_, bound_VVN to_II the_AT Blank_JJ Paper_NN1 theory_NN1 of_IO human_JJ difference_NN1 ._. 
Gold_NN1 can_VM be_VBI made_VVN into_II all_DB sorts_NN2 of_IO other_JJ things_NN2 besides_II guineas_NN2 ._. 
Is_VBZ the_AT gingerbread_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ currently_RR stamped_VVN into_II men_NN2 equally_RR capable_JJ of_IO being_VBG stamped_VVN into_II standard_JJ unisex_NN1 persons_NN2 ?_? 
If_CS we_PPIS2 are_VBR tempted_VVN to_TO assume_VVI so_RR ,_, it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI worth_II while_NNT1 looking_VVG at_II yet_RR another_DD1 parallel_NN1 to_TO balance_VVI the_AT highly_RR peculiar_JJ one_MC1 of_IO race_NN1 ._. 
How_RRQ about_II age_NN1 ?_? 
This_DD1 certainly_RR has_VHZ a_AT1 biological_JJ basis_NN1 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 a_AT1 social_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
The_AT physiological_JJ states_NN2 of_IO growing_JJ organisms_NN2 including_II human_JJ beings_NN2 vary_VV0 greatly_RR from_II one_MC1 stage_NN1 to_II another_DD1 ._. 
Typical_JJ behaviour_NN1 patterns_NN2 also_RR change_VV0 ._. 
Play_VV0 ,_, sleep_VV0 ,_, sexual_JJ behaviour_NN1 and_CC other_JJ proceedings_NN2 are_VBR differently_RR distributed_VVN typically_RR at_II different_JJ ages_NN2 ,_, in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 that_CST broadly_RR holds_VVZ across_II cultural_JJ barriers_NN2 ._. 
What_DDQ reason_NN1 would_VM there_EX be_VBI to_TO deny_VVI the_AT obvious_JJ causal_JJ connections_NN2 with_IW changing_JJ physique_NN1 ?_? 
'_GE Ageism_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ objectionable_JJ ,_, not_XX because_CS it_PPH1 means_VVZ admitting_VVG these_DD2 connections_NN2 ,_, but_CCB because_CS it_PPH1 means_VVZ treating_VVG old_JJ people_NN or_CC children_NN2 badly_RR ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ nothing_PN1 fishy_JJ about_II simply_RR admitting_VVG the_AT reality_NN1 of_IO the_AT difference_NN1 ,_, or_CC that_DD1 of_IO the_AT physical_JJ causes_NN2 which_DDQ alongside_II cultural_JJ ones_NN2 help_VV0 to_TO produce_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
To_TO insist_VVI on_II denying_VVG the_AT reality_NN1 of_IO such_DA causes_NN2 is_VBZ to_TO draw_VVI a_AT1 bizarrely_RR hard_JJ line_NN1 between_II the_AT physical_JJ and_CC the_AT mental_JJ aspects_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 human_JJ being_NN1 a_AT1 line_NN1 which_DDQ does_VDZ seem_VVI sometimes_RT to_TO be_VBI drawn_VVN in_II the_AT social_JJ sciences_NN2 ,_, and_CC may_VM prove_VVI handy_JJ in_II academic_JJ feuds_NN2 between_II them_PPHO2 and_CC biology_NN1 ,_, but_CCB which_DDQ seems_VVZ very_RG badly_RR suited_VVN to_II the_AT realistic_JJ description_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE lives_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 have_VH0 carefully_RR said_VVN nothing_PN1 here_RL about_II the_AT details_NN2 of_IO particular_JJ natural_JJ sex_NN1 differences_NN2 ._. 
The_AT general_JJ point_NN1 about_II the_AT innocuousness_NN1 of_IO natural_JJ difference_NN1 as_CSA such_DA needs_NN2 to_TO be_VBI grasped_VVN on_II its_APPGE own_DA ._. 
Once_RR seen_VVN ,_, it_PPH1 gives_VVZ us_PPIO2 back_RP a_AT1 legitimate_JJ access_NN1 to_II a_AT1 great_JJ wealth_NN1 of_IO traditional_JJ human_JJ experience_NN1 on_II the_AT matter_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ must_VM of_RR21 course_RR22 be_VBI critically_RR used_VVN ,_, but_CCB which_DDQ certainly_RR does_VDZ not_XX leave_VVI us_PPIO2 utterly_RR puzzled_JJ ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 might_VM be_VBI in_II starting_VVG to_TO observe_VVI a_AT1 strange_JJ species_NN ._. 
Feminists_NN2 have_VH0 already_RR made_VVN good_JJ use_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 tradition_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, however_RR ,_, that_CST their_APPGE use_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 is_VBZ still_RR often_RR confused_VVN and_CC inhibited_VVN by_II mistaken_JJ ideas_NN2 about_II what_DDQ equality_NN1 demands_NN2 ,_, and_CC that_CST the_AT senseless_JJ ideal_NN1 of_IO standardisation_NN1 still_RR produces_VVZ a_AT1 waste_NN1 of_IO effort_NN1 on_II this_DD1 topic_NN1 ,_, as_CSA on_II many_DA2 others_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT sort_NN1 of_IO muddle_NN1 which_DDQ often_RR causes_VVZ good_JJ ideas_NN2 to_TO run_VVI out_RP into_II the_AT sand_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 particularly_RR do_VD0 not_XX want_VVI this_DD1 to_TO happen_VVI to_II feminism_NN1 ;_; hence_RR my_APPGE choice_NN1 of_IO subject_NN1 for_IF this_DD1 essay._NNU 3_MC Women_NN2 's_GE Right_JJ :_: Reflections_NN2 on_II Ethics_NN and_CC Gender_NN1 Brenda_NP1 Almond_NP1 There_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 view_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ as_RG old_JJ ,_, probably_RR ,_, as_CSA the_AT human_JJ race_NN1 ,_, and_CC certainly_RR as_RG old_JJ as_CSA Homer_NP1 and_CC the_AT ancient_JJ Greeks_NN2 ,_, that_CST there_EX is_VBZ one_MC1 ethical_JJ structure_NN1 that_CST represents_VVZ right_RR for_IF men_NN2 :_: a_AT1 composite_NN1 of_IO manly_JJ virtues_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 courage_NN1 ,_, endurance_NN1 ,_, physical_JJ stamina_NN1 ,_, wiliness_NN1 and_CC political_JJ judgement_NN1 ,_, and_CC a_AT1 corresponding_JJ but_CCB complementary_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ right_JJ for_IF women_NN2 ,_, womanly_JJ virtue_NN1 being_VBG seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 mixture_NN1 of_IO timidity_NN1 ,_, tenderness_NN1 ,_, compliance_NN1 ,_, docility_NN1 ,_, softness_NN1 ,_, innocence_NN1 and_CC domestic_JJ competence_NN1 ._. 
Views_NN2 about_II the_AT exact_JJ composition_NN1 of_IO virtue_NN1 ,_, male_JJ and_CC female_NN1 ,_, have_VH0 changed_VVN over_II time_NNT1 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 may_VM vary_VVI ,_, too_RR ,_, with_IW differing_JJ social_JJ and_CC geographical_JJ contexts_NN2 ,_, but_CCB the_AT underlying_JJ theme_NN1 is_VBZ constant_JJ :_: the_AT theme_NN1 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, of_IO difference_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ recognisable_JJ even_CS21 when_CS22 it_PPH1 appears_VVZ in_II feminist_JJ dress_NN1 ,_, as_CSA it_PPH1 does_VDZ ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, in_II these_DD2 remarks_NN2 of_IO Hester_NP1 Eisenstein_NP1 (_( 1984_MC )_) :_: '_" I_PPIS1 argue_VV0 that_CST feminist_JJ theory_NN1 has_VHZ moved_VVN from_II an_AT1 emphasis_NN1 on_II the_AT elimination_NN1 of_IO gender_NN1 difference_NN1 to_II a_AT1 celebration_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 difference_NN1 as_II a_AT1 source_NN1 of_IO moral_JJ values_NN2 ._. 
A_AT1 woman-centered_JJ analysis_NN1 presupposes_VVZ the_AT centrality_NN1 ,_, normality_NN1 ,_, and_CC value_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 and_CC women_NN2 's_GE culture_NN1 '_GE (_( p._NNU xviii_MC )_) ._. 
Clearly_RR ,_, a_AT1 distinctively_RR feminist_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE moral_JJ values_NN2 will_VM differ_VVI significantly_RR from_II traditional_JJ stereotypes_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ worth_II asking_VVG ,_, nevertheless_RR ,_, whether_CSW the_AT old_JJ and_CC the_AT new_JJ might_VM not_XX be_VBI rooted_VVN in_II the_AT same_DA set_NN1 of_IO facts_NN2 ._. 
Any_DD discussion_NN1 of_IO ethics_NN and_CC gender_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, must_VM involve_VVI some_DD reference_NN1 to_II facts_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT primary_JJ question_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX one_PN1 about_II facts_NN2 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ about_II moral_JJ ideals_NN2 ._. 
Should_VM we_PPIS2 women_NN2 and_CC men_NN2 be_VBI aiming_VVG at_II a_AT1 common_JJ ethical_JJ conception_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 shared_JJ moral_JJ perspective_NN1 ?_? 
Or_CC should_VM we_PPIS2 women_NN2 alone_RR be_VBI working_VVG to_TO rewrite_VVI the_AT map_NN1 of_IO morality_NN1 to_TO promote_VVI a_AT1 separate_JJ moral_JJ perspective_NN1 ?_? 
Must_VM we_PPIS2 ,_, in_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, accept_VV0 an_AT1 ultimate_JJ sexual_JJ apartheid_NN1 as_CS31 far_CS32 as_CS33 ethical_JJ values_NN2 are_VBR concerned_JJ ?_? 
The_AT larger_JJR question_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, is_VBZ not_XX about_II what_DDQ is_VBZ ,_, but_CCB about_II what_DDQ ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI ._. 
But_CCB since_II answering_VVG this_DD1 question_NN1 involves_VVZ reference_NN1 to_II some_DD matters_NN2 of_IO fact_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ necessary_JJ to_TO say_VVI something_PN1 about_II those_DD2 facts_NN2 ._. 
Essentially_RR ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR of_IO two_MC kinds_NN2 ._. 
First_MD ,_, there_EX are_VBR facts_NN2 about_II what_DDQ different_JJ people_NN 's_GE moral_JJ ideals_NN2 actually_RR are_VBR ._. 
Here_RL it_PPH1 is_VBZ important_JJ to_TO know_VVI (_( a_ZZ1 )_) whether_CSW male_JJ and_CC female_JJ ideals_NN2 diverge_VV0 :_: whether_CSW ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, the_AT moral_JJ outlook_NN1 people_NN have_VH0 depends_VVZ in_II some_DD causally_RR related_JJ way_NN1 on_II whether_CSW they_PPHS2 are_VBR male_JJ or_CC female_NN1 ,_, and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) whether_CSW the_AT ideals_NN2 themselves_PPX2 are_VBR gender-relative_JJ :_: that_REX41 is_REX42 to_REX43 say_REX44 ,_, whether_CSW what_DDQ is_VBZ good_JJ in_II a_AT1 woman_NN1 or_CC right_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 woman_NN1 might_VM not_XX be_VBI bad_JJ in_II a_AT1 man_NN1 ,_, or_CC wrong_JJ for_IF a_AT1 man_NN1 ,_, and_CC vice_RR21 versa_RR22 ._. 
Secondly_RR ,_, there_EX are_VBR facts_NN2 about_II the_AT lives_NN2 of_IO men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 and_CC the_AT systematic_JJ ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ their_APPGE lives_NN2 differ_VV0 ,_, which_DDQ it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI unwise_JJ to_TO overlook_VVI ._. 
A_AT1 systematic_JJ difference_NN1 in_II the_AT life-experience_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 and_CC men_NN2 can_VM have_VHI ethical_JJ implications_NN2 both_RR in_II generating_VVG a_AT1 different_JJ moral_JJ ideal_JJ making_NN1 women_NN2 think_VVI differently_RR about_II morality_NN1 from_II the_AT way_NN1 men_NN2 think_VV0 about_II it_PPH1 and_CC also_RR in_II justifying_VVG a_AT1 different_JJ moral_JJ ideal_JJ justifying_NN1 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, a_AT1 genuinely_RR alternative_JJ moral_JJ perspective_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 last_MD points_NN2 may_VM seem_VVI to_TO imply_VVI a_AT1 flagrant_JJ disregard_NN1 of_IO the_AT well-known_JJ difficulty_NN1 ,_, first_MD pointed_VVD out_RP by_II the_AT philosopher_NN1 David_NP1 Hume_NP1 in_II the_AT Treatise_NN1 of_IO Human_JJ Nature_NN1 (_( 1739_MC )_) ,_, of_IO reasoning_VVG from_II '_" is_58 '_GE to_II '_" ought_VMK '_GE (_( Selby-Bigge_NP1 ed._NN1 ,_, 1952_MC ,_, pp._NNU2 46970_MC )_) ._. 
But_CCB no_AT transgression_NN1 against_II Hume_NP1 's_GE stricture_NN1 is_VBZ involved_JJ in_II pointing_VVG out_RP that_CST people_NN 's_GE views_NN2 about_II what_DDQ ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI their_APPGE moral_JJ stance_NN1 and_CC outlook_NN1 may_VM be_VBI directly_RR related_VVN to_II certain_JJ distinctive_JJ features_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE lives_NN2 ._. 
And_CC no_AT transgression_NN1 ,_, either_RR ,_, is_VBZ involved_JJ in_II accepting_VVG that_DD1 moral_JJ views_NN2 and_CC ideals_NN2 must_VM take_VVI account_NN1 of_IO ,_, and_CC be_VBI responsive_JJ to_TO ,_, facts_NN2 ._. 
Ideals_NN2 are_VBR not_XX formed_VVN in_II an_AT1 aseptic_JJ vacuum_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II the_AT chemical_JJ brew_NN1 of_IO interacting_JJ personal_JJ lives_NN2 and_CC events_NN2 ._. 
So_RR let_VV0 me_PPIO1 begin_VVI by_II making_VVG some_DD impressionistic_JJ guesses_NN2 about_II the_AT views_NN2 women_NN2 do_VD0 in_II fact_NN1 currently_RR hold_VV0 on_II morality_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 can_VM do_VDI this_DD1 best_JJT by_II31 way_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 personal_JJ anecdote_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ might_VM be_VBI called_VVN the_AT Incident_NN1 of_IO the_AT Taxman_NN1 and_CC the_AT Philosopher_NN1 ._. 
Discussing_VVG the_AT case_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 headmaster_NN1 who_PNQS had_VHD reported_VVN his_APPGE pupils_NN2 to_II the_AT police_NN2 for_IF criminal_JJ behaviour_NN1 ,_, the_AT Philosopher_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS was_VBDZ female_JJ ,_, expressed_VVD the_AT opinion_NN1 that_CST ,_, since_CS the_AT headmaster_NN1 is_VBZ in_RR31 loco_RR32 parentis_RR33 ,_, he_PPHS1 should_VM have_VHI tried_VVN to_TO avoid_VVI resort_NN1 to_II law_NN1 ;_; he_PPHS1 should_VM have_VHI dealt_VVN with_IW his_APPGE pupils_NN2 himself_PPX1 ,_, privately_RR and_CC without_IW publicity_NN1 as_CSA would_VM ,_, she_PPHS1 suggested_VVD ,_, a_AT1 loving_JJ parent_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Taxman_NP1 expressed_VVD moral_JJ outrage_NN1 at_II such_DA a_AT1 suggestion_NN1 ,_, declared_VVD that_CST this_DD1 was_VBDZ not_XX his_APPGE conception_NN1 of_IO the_AT implications_NN2 of_IO being_VBG in_RR31 loco_RR32 parentis_RR33 ,_, and_CC said_VVD that_CST he_PPHS1 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 parent_NN1 and_CC husband_NN1 ,_, would_VM have_VHI no_AT hesitation_NN1 in_II reporting_VVG the_AT criminal_JJ actions_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE child_NN1 or_CC indeed_RR his_APPGE wife_NN1 ,_, particularly_RR if_CS he_PPHS1 saw_VVD no_AT sign_NN1 of_IO either_RR remorse_NN1 or_CC an_AT1 intention_NN1 to_TO reform_VVI ._. 
He_PPHS1 added_VVD that_CST apprentice-Taxmen_NN2 are_VBR coached_VVN in_II the_AT matter_NN1 of_IO the_AT known_JJ duplicity_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE willingness_NN1 to_TO lie_VVI to_TO protect_VVI members_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE family_NN1 ._. 
At_II this_DD1 point_NN1 ,_, the_AT Taxman_NP1 's_GE wife_NN1 expressed_VVD moral_JJ outrage_NN1 at_II the_AT discovery_NN1 that_CST her_APPGE husband_NN1 would_VM ,_, without_IW compunction_NN1 ,_, report_VV0 her_APPGE misdeeds_NN2 ,_, or_CC those_DD2 of_IO her_APPGE daughter_NN1 ,_, to_II the_AT authorities_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT Philosopher_NN1 was_VBDZ left_VVN with_IW a_AT1 sense_NN1 of_IO having_VHG stumbled_VVN upon_II a_AT1 set_NN1 of_IO basic_JJ moral_JJ presumptions_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR held_VVN in_RR21 common_RR22 by_II one_MC1 sex_NN1 ,_, and_CC entirely_RR inverted_JJ in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ a_AT1 looking-glass_NN1 reversal_NN1 of_IO priorities_NN2 and_CC values_NN2 ._. 
As_CSA it_PPH1 happens_VVZ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, this_DD1 conclusion_NN1 conforms_VVZ to_II the_AT observations_NN2 of_IO Freud_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS believed_VVD that_CST women_NN2 had_VHD less_DAR sense_NN1 of_IO justice_NN1 than_CSN men_NN2 and_CC are_VBR more_RGR often_RR influenced_VVN in_II their_APPGE judgements_NN2 by_II feelings_NN2 of_IO affection_NN1 or_CC hostility_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 conforms_VVZ ,_, too_RR ,_, to_II some_DD more_DAR recent_JJ observations_NN2 of_IO Piaget_NP1 ,_, Kohlberg_NP1 and_CC Gilligan_NP1 ._. 
Lawrence_NP1 Kohlberg_NP1 's_GE empirical_JJ work_NN1 on_II moral_JJ development_NN1 follows_VVZ ,_, as_CS31 far_CS32 as_CS33 its_APPGE basic_JJ stance_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ ,_, the_AT structure_NN1 and_CC assumptions_NN2 of_IO Jean_NP1 Piaget_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS has_VHZ demonstrated_VVN apparently_RR invariant_JJ sequences_NN2 of_IO change_NN1 ,_, not_XX only_RR in_II relation_NN1 to_II moral_JJ development_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II other_JJ areas_NN2 ,_, too_RR ._. 
The_AT underlying_JJ assumption_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 necessary_JJ maturation_NN1 of_IO cognitive_JJ processes_NN2 ,_, just_RR as_CSA there_EX is_VBZ of_IO physical_JJ and_CC motor_NN1 processes_NN2 ._. 
Just_RR as_II every_AT1 normal_JJ human_JJ child_NN1 first_MD learns_VVZ to_TO crawl_VVI ,_, then_RT to_TO stand_VVI and_CC then_RT to_TO walk_VVI and_CC the_AT motivation_NN1 and_CC capacity_NN1 to_TO do_VDI these_DD2 things_NN2 comes_VVZ from_II within_II the_AT child_NN1 ,_, and_CC is_VBZ not_XX artificially_RR imposed_VVN from_II outside_RL so_RR ,_, the_AT moral_JJ development_NN1 theorists_NN2 hold_VV0 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 necessary_JJ sequence_NN1 of_IO stages_NN2 of_IO emerging_VVG moral_JJ judgement_NN1 ._. 
Their_APPGE empirical_JJ research_NN1 is_VBZ directed_VVN to_II establishing_VVG what_DDQ these_DD2 stages_NN2 are_VBR ,_, and_CC to_II describing_VVG the_AT circumstances_NN2 surrounding_VVG the_AT transitions_NN2 ._. 
Kohlberg_NP1 's_GE stages_NN2 of_IO moral_JJ development_NN1 are_VBR usually_RR described_VVN as_II a_AT1 progression_NN1 from_II lower_JJR to_II higher_JJR itself_PPX1 an_AT1 inbuilt_JJ and_CC at_RR21 first_RR22 unrecognised_JJ value-judgement_NN1 ._. 
The_AT early_JJ or_CC lower_JJR stages_NN2 that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ identified_VVN are_VBR first_MD ,_, a_AT1 stage_NN1 in_II which_DDQ children_NN2 's_GE thinking_NN1 is_VBZ rooted_VVN in_II obedience_NN1 to_II adults_NN2 ,_, fear_NN1 of_IO punishment_NN1 and_CC acceptance_NN1 of_IO authority_NN1 ;_; then_RT a_AT1 stage_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 essentially_RR self-interested_JJ acceptance_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT sake_NN1 of_IO reciprocity_NN1 ,_, of_IO a_AT1 principle_NN1 of_IO fairness_NN1 between_II peers_NN2 ;_; and_CC then_RT a_AT1 further_JJR stage_NN1 of_IO seeking_VVG approval_NN1 and_CC desiring_VVG to_TO be_VBI well_RR thought_VVN of_IO by_II one_PN1 's_GE community_NN1 or_CC group_NN1 ._. 
Later_RRR comes_VVZ a_AT1 stage_NN1 of_IO respect_NN1 for_IF justice_NN1 :_: recognition_NN1 of_IO the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO rules_NN2 for_IF community_NN1 living_NN1 ,_, followed_VVN by_II an_AT1 awareness_NN1 of_IO the_AT universality_NN1 of_IO some_DD of_IO these_DD2 rules_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE embodiment_NN1 in_II principles_NN2 of_IO individual_JJ human_JJ rights_NN2 applying_VVG across_II varying_JJ cultures_NN2 and_CC societies_NN2 ._. 
Kohlberg_NP1 has_VHZ speculated_VVN on_II the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 seventh_MD stage_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT universal_JJ human_JJ perspective_NN1 is_VBZ replaced_VVN by_II a_AT1 holistic_JJ cosmic_JJ perspective_NN1 which_DDQ might_VM have_VHI a_AT1 religious_JJ or_CC even_RR a_AT1 pantheistic_JJ orientation_NN1 ._. 
All_DB this_DD1 is_VBZ framed_VVN in_II gender-neutral_JJ terms_NN2 ,_, but_CCB researchers_NN2 have_VH0 become_VVN aware_JJ of_IO difficulties_NN2 in_II finding_VVG women_NN2 who_PNQS can_VM be_VBI placed_VVN by_II this_DD1 classification_NN1 in_II the_AT '_GE higher_JJR stages_NN2 '_GE of_IO moral_JJ development_NN1 ._. 
Women_NN2 's_GE answers_NN2 to_II the_AT questionnaires_NN2 by_II which_DDQ assignments_NN2 to_II '_GE stages_NN2 '_GE are_VBR made_VVN show_VVI them_PPHO2 to_TO be_VBI more_RGR heavily_RR represented_VVN in_II the_AT early_JJ stages_NN2 of_IO development_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 the_AT later_JJR ._. 
Women_NN2 desire_VV0 to_TO please_VVI ._. 
Women_NN2 rebel_VV0 against_II impersonal_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO morality_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, when_CS rigorously_RR applied_VVN ,_, ignore_VV0 individual_JJ pleas_NN2 for_IF sympathetic_JJ concessions_NN2 ,_, for_IF mercy_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 justice_NN1 ._. 
Carol_NP1 Gilligan_NP1 's_GE research_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ focused_VVD on_II the_AT distinctively_RR female_JJ moral_JJ dilemma_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 abortion-decision_NN1 ,_, suggested_VVD that_CST what_DDQ was_VBDZ emerging_VVG here_RL was_VBDZ not_XX a_AT1 moral_JJ deficiency_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 but_CCB a_AT1 '_GE different_JJ voice_NN1 '_GE on_II morality_NN1 ._. 
The_AT findings_NN2 of_IO the_AT male_JJ researchers_NN2 ,_, she_PPHS1 claims_VVZ ,_, are_VBR dogged_VVN by_II what_DDQ she_PPHS1 calls_VVZ the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 '_GE whose_DDQGE sexuality_NN1 remains_VVZ more_RGR diffuse_JJ ,_, whose_DDQGE perception_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 is_VBZ so_RG much_DA1 more_DAR tenaciously_RR embedded_VVN in_II relationships_NN2 with_IW others_NN2 and_CC whose_DDQGE moral_JJ dilemmas_NN2 hold_VV0 them_PPHO2 in_II a_AT1 mode_NN1 of_IO judgment_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ insistently_RR contextual_JJ '_GE ._. 
While_CS she_PPHS1 concedes_VVZ the_AT broad_JJ outline_NN1 of_IO the_AT developmental_JJ model_NN1 a_AT1 model_NN1 which_DDQ proceeds_VVZ from_II an_AT1 egocentric_JJ through_II a_AT1 societal_JJ to_II a_AT1 universal_JJ perspective_NN1 she_PPHS1 sees_VVZ this_DD1 development_NN1 as_CSA taking_VVG place_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 ,_, within_II a_AT1 special_JJ moral_JJ conception_NN1 ._. 
The_AT nature_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 moral_JJ conception_NN1 is_VBZ recognised_VVN by_II a_AT1 distinctive_JJ use_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 particular_JJ vocabulary_NN1 :_: a_AT1 vocabulary_NN1 of_IO selfishness_NN1 and_CC responsibility_NN1 ;_; or_CC morality_NN1 as_II an_AT1 obligation_NN1 to_TO exercise_VVI care_NN1 and_CC avoid_VVI hurt_JJ ._. 
The_AT particular_JJ sequence_NN1 of_IO moral_JJ development_NN1 revealed_VVN by_II Gilligan_NP1 's_GE research_NN1 is_VBZ described_VVN by_II her_PPHO1 in_II this_DD1 way_NN1 :_: first_MD ,_, as_CSA in_II Kohlberg_NP1 's_GE findings_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 stage_NN1 of_IO focus_NN1 on_II the_AT self_NN1 ;_; then_RT ,_, a_AT1 second_MD level_NN1 of_IO development_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 is_VBZ used_VVN to_TO balance_VVI the_AT claims_NN2 of_IO self_NN1 against_II the_AT claims_NN2 of_IO other_JJ people_NN ;_; this_DD1 stage_NN1 brings_VVZ a_AT1 notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT good_JJ as_CSA caring_VVG for_IF others_NN2 ;_; it_PPH1 involves_VVZ a_AT1 protective_JJ care_NN1 for_IF the_AT dependent_JJ and_CC unequal_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ succeeded_VVN by_II a_AT1 third_MD stage_NN1 at_II which_DDQ the_AT tension_NN1 between_II conformity_NN1 and_CC care_NN1 ,_, selfishness_NN1 and_CC responsibility_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ dissipated_VVN by_II a_AT1 self_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, in_II Gilligan_NP1 's_GE words_NN2 '_GE becomes_VVZ the_AT arbiter_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 independent_JJ judgment_NN1 that_CST now_RT subsumes_VVZ both_RR conventions_NN2 and_CC individual_JJ needs_NN2 under_II the_AT moral_JJ principle_NN1 of_IO non-violence_NN1 '_GE (_( Gilligan_NP1 ,_, 1977_MC ,_, p._NN1 492_MC )_) ._. 
Gilligan_NP1 sees_VVZ this_DD1 as_II a_AT1 morality_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 that_CST stands_VVZ apart_II21 from_II22 the_AT morality_NN1 of_IO rights_NN2 underlying_VVG Kohlberg_NP1 's_GE conception_NN1 ._. 
In_II it_PPH1 ,_, a_AT1 positive_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO caring_JJ contrasts_NN2 with_IW the_AT purely_RR negative_JJ policy_NN1 of_IO non-interference_NN1 suggested_VVN by_II an_AT1 emphasis_NN1 on_II rights_NN2 ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ missing_VVG from_II the_AT latter_DA ,_, and_CC its_APPGE omission_NN1 is_VBZ deliberate_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 accidental_JJ ,_, is_VBZ the_AT detail_NN1 and_CC texture_NN1 that_CST comes_VVZ with_IW knowledge_NN1 of_IO particular_JJ people_NN and_CC particular_JJ circumstances_NN2 ._. 
Kohlberg_NP1 's_GE research_NN1 is_VBZ based_VVN on_II questionnaires_NN2 which_DDQ demand_VV0 a_AT1 response_NN1 to_II hypothetical_JJ and_CC imaginary_JJ situations_NN2 in_II which_DDQ concrete_JJ detail_NN1 is_VBZ necessarily_RR omitted_VVN ._. 
Gilligan_NP1 points_VVZ out_RP that_CST Kohlberg_NP1 thus_RR divests_VVZ his_APPGE moral_JJ actors_NN2 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 and_CC psychology_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE individual_JJ lives_NN2 ._. 
Many_DA2 women_NN2 ,_, confronted_VVN by_II Kohlbergian_JJ questionnaires_NN2 ,_, ask_VV0 for_IF ,_, or_CC contribute_VV0 out_II21 of_II22 their_APPGE own_DA imagination_NN1 ,_, concrete_JJ detail_NN1 which_DDQ might_VM help_VVI them_PPHO2 resolve_VVI the_AT moral_JJ dilemma_NN1 with_IW which_DDQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR presented_VVN ._. 
They_PPHS2 are_VBR told_VVN that_CST this_DD1 sort_NN1 of_IO question_NN1 or_CC embellishment_NN1 is_VBZ inappropriate_JJ ._. 
Kohlberg_NP1 's_GE dilemmas_NN2 are_VBR not_XX about_II real_JJ people_NN they_PPHS2 ca_VM n't_XX be_VBI if_CSW the_AT aim_NN1 of_IO the_AT research_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO discover_VVI objective_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO justice_NN1 ._. 
Gilligan_NP1 mentions_VVZ here_RL the_AT anonymous_JJ woman_NN1 whose_DDQGE nonlegalistic_JJ thinking_NN1 enabled_VVD Solomon_NP1 to_TO display_VVI his_APPGE legendary_JJ wisdom_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 contrasts_VVZ that_DD1 woman_NN1 's_GE sacrifice_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 and_CC principle_NN1 for_IF the_AT life_NN1 of_IO her_APPGE child_NN1 with_IW the_AT willingness_NN1 of_IO Abraham_NP1 to_TO sacrifice_VVI his_APPGE son_NN1 for_IF principle_NN1 and_CC personal_JJ integrity_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ both_DB2 of_IO these_DD2 examples_NN2 demonstrate_VV0 is_VBZ the_AT concreteness_NN1 and_CC particularity_NN1 of_IO real_JJ life_NN1 situations_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ interesting_JJ to_TO compare_VVI Gilligan_NP1 's_GE criticisms_NN2 of_IO Kohlberg_NP1 on_II this_DD1 point_NN1 with_IW Robert_NP1 Nozick_NP1 's_GE parallel_NN1 and_CC equally_RR cogent_JJ criticisms_NN2 of_IO Rawls_NN2 ._. 
John_NP1 Rawls_NP1 ,_, in_II A_AT1 Theory_NN1 of_IO Justice_NN1 ,_, seeks_VVZ to_TO arrive_VVI at_II abstract_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO justice_NN1 by_II31 means_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 device_NN1 which_DDQ strips_VVZ the_AT procedure_NN1 of_IO arriving_VVG at_II principles_NN2 bare_JJ of_IO all_DB reference_NN1 to_II the_AT particular_JJ and_CC concrete_NN1 ._. 
His_APPGE principles_NN2 are_VBR chosen_VVN by_II people_NN behind_II a_AT1 hypothetical_JJ '_GE veil_NN1 of_IO ignorance_NN1 '_GE ,_, where_CS they_PPHS2 know_VV0 nothing_PN1 of_IO their_APPGE social_JJ position_NN1 in_II society_NN1 ,_, their_APPGE sex_NN1 ,_, race_NN1 ,_, abilities_NN2 or_CC conceptions_NN2 of_IO the_AT good_JJ (_( Rawls_NP1 ,_, 1972_MC ,_, in_RR21 particular_RR22 pt_NNU ._. 
I_PPIS1 ,_, ch._NNU 3_MC )_) ._. 
Nozick_NN1 points_VVZ out_RP that_CST the_AT very_JJ nature_NN1 of_IO Rawls_NP1 's_GE thought-experiments_NN2 guarantees_VVZ the_AT type_NN1 of_IO principles_NN2 that_CST will_VM be_VBI chosen_VVN :_: that_CST they_PPHS2 will_VM be_VBI impersonal_JJ and_CC grounded_VVN in_II future-oriented_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO distribution_NN1 ,_, rather_II21 than_II22 being_VBG personal_JJ and_CC grounded_VVN in_II current_JJ or_CC past_JJ circumstances_NN2 (_( Nozick_NP1 ,_, 1974_MC ,_, in_RR21 particular_RR22 pt_NNU ._. 
II_MC ,_, ch._NNU 7_MC )_) ._. 
To_TO accept_VVI Nozick_NP1 's_GE criticism_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX to_TO judge_VVI in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 Nozick_NP1 's_GE conception_NN1 of_IO justice_NN1 against_II Rawls_NP1 ,_, any_DD more_DAR than_CSN acceptance_NN1 of_IO Gilligan_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 involves_VVZ rejection_NN1 of_IO Kohlberg_NP1 's_GE abstract_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO justice_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ simply_RR to_TO recognise_VVI that_CST the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE proof_NN1 '_GE in_II both_DB2 cases_NN2 ,_, in_II Rawls_NP1 's_GE case_NN1 an_AT1 a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 proof_NN1 ,_, in_II Kohlberg_NP1 's_GE case_NN1 an_AT1 experimental_JJ one_PN1 ,_, actually_RR presupposes_VVZ what_DDQ it_PPH1 sets_VVZ out_RP to_TO establish_VVI ._. 
The_AT outcome_NN1 is_VBZ guaranteed_VVN before_II the_AT procedure_NN1 ,_, whether_CSW logical_JJ or_CC empirical_JJ ,_, is_VBZ embarked_VVN upon_II ._. 
But_CCB Gilligan_NP1 does_VDZ not_XX ,_, in_II fact_NN1 ,_, reject_VV0 the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 rights-based_JJ morality_NN1 ._. 
Instead_RR ,_, she_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT feminine_JJ strand_NN1 should_VM contribute_VVI to_II an_AT1 enlarged_JJ and_CC revised_JJ universal_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO morality_NN1 ,_, in_II which_DDQ the_AT ideals_NN2 of_IO compassion_NN1 and_CC care_NN1 are_VBR added_VVN to_II the_AT more_RGR impersonal_JJ ideals_NN2 of_IO autonomous_JJ judgement_NN1 and_CC action_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 believes_VVZ ,_, then_RT ,_, that_CST a_AT1 morality_NN1 of_IO rights_NN2 can_VM be_VBI integrated_VVN with_IW a_AT1 morality_NN1 of_IO responsibilities_NN2 that_CST the_AT two_MC conceptions_NN2 are_VBR essentially_RR complementary_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 coincides_VVZ with_IW the_AT views_NN2 of_IO some_DD other_JJ feminist_JJ writers_NN2 who_PNQS have_VH0 been_VBN impressed_VVN by_II this_DD1 distinctively_RR '_GE female_NN1 '_GE contribution_NN1 to_II morality_NN1 ._. 
Hester_NP1 Eisenstein_NP1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, looks_VVZ forward_RL to_II women_NN2 transforming_VVG the_AT world_NN1 in_II the_AT image_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ she_PPHS1 calls_NN2 '_GE the_AT woman-centered_JJ values_NN2 at_II the_AT core_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ ,_, she_PPHS1 believes_VVZ ,_, associating_VVG feminism_NN1 with_IW the_AT liberating_JJ traditions_NN2 of_IO Western_JJ thought_NN1 ,_, from_II Locke_NP1 and_CC Rousseau_NP1 to_II Marx_NP1 and_CC Engels_NP2 ,_, tending_VVG in_II the_AT direction_NN1 of_IO greater_JJR equality_NN1 ,_, shared_JJ decision-making_NN1 and_CC justice_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 means_VVZ ,_, too_RR ,_, transforming_VVG these_DD2 traditions_NN2 ,_, by_II imbuing_VVG them_PPHO2 with_IW the_AT woman-centered_JJ values_NN2 of_IO nurturance_NN1 and_CC intimacy_NN1 ,_, as_CSA necessary_JJ and_CC legitimate_JJ goals_NN2 of_IO political_JJ life_NN1 ._. 
(_( Eisenstein_NN1 ,_, 1984_MC ,_, pp._NNU2 144_MC 5_MC )_) Reflecting_VVG on_II the_AT same_DA contrast_NN1 ,_, Carol_NP1 McMillan_NP1 refers_VVZ to_II Hegel_NP1 's_GE view_NN1 of_IO the_AT family_NN1 as_II an_AT1 inferior_JJ organisation_NN1 to_II the_AT state_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ based_VVN on_II love_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 points_VVZ out_RP that_RG much_DA1 of_IO a_AT1 woman_NN1 's_GE life_NN1 is_VBZ based_VVN on_II a_AT1 spontaneity_NN1 of_IO moral_JJ response_NN1 that_CST many_DA2 philosophers_NN2 ,_, in_RR21 particular_RR22 Hegel_NP1 and_CC Kant_NP1 ,_, would_VM say_VVI had_VHD no_AT moral_JJ worth_NN1 (_( McMillan_NP1 ,_, 1982_MC )_) ._. 
The_AT idea_NN1 that_CST acts_NN2 of_IO love_NN1 are_VBR inferior_JJ to_II principled_JJ acts_NN2 is_VBZ a_AT1 deep-rooted_JJ philosophical_JJ tradition_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 area_NN1 of_IO love_NN1 ,_, care_NN1 and_CC spontaneous_JJ response_NN1 which_DDQ ignores_VVZ ,_, or_CC deliberately_RR flouts_VVZ ,_, principle_NN1 and_CC convention_NN1 is_VBZ one_PN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, where_CS an_AT1 initial_JJ impressionistic_JJ guess_NN1 about_II male_NN1 and_CC female_JJ differences_NN2 can_VM be_VBI given_VVN an_AT1 impressive_JJ weight_NN1 of_IO support_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 second_MD impressionist_JJ guess_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ harder_JJR to_TO document_VVI ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ women_NN2 's_GE moral_JJ perceptions_NN2 are_VBR tied_VVN to_II the_AT aesthetic_JJ ._. 
The_AT link_NN1 between_II awareness_NN1 of_IO beauty_NN1 and_CC recognition_NN1 of_IO the_AT moral_JJ good_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 fundamental_JJ aspect_NN1 of_IO Plato_NP1 's_GE ethical_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, but_CCB few_DA2 writers_NN2 since_CS Plato_NP1 have_VH0 tied_VVN awareness_NN1 of_IO beauty_NN1 in_II nature_NN1 so_RG closely_RR to_II a_AT1 deeper_JJR notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT good_JJ ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 striking_JJ observation_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 's_GE moral_JJ sensibilities_NN2 are_VBR ,_, more_RGR often_RR than_CSN men_NN2 's_GE ,_, triggered_VVN by_II an_AT1 awareness_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ essentially_RR aesthetic_JJ ._. 
The_AT following_JJ account_NN1 is_VBZ given_VVN by_II Helen_NP1 Weinreich-Haste_NP1 of_IO a_AT1 response_NN1 to_II a_AT1 question_NN1 designed_VVN ,_, not_XX to_TO explore_VVI this_DD1 point_NN1 ,_, but_CCB simply_RR to_TO discover_VVI more_RRR about_II significant_JJ changing_JJ points_NN2 in_II people_NN 's_GE lives_NN2 :_: I_PPIS1 was_VBDZ driving_VVG on_II my_APPGE way_NN1 through_II beautiful_JJ scenery_NN1 in_II Wales_NP1 where_RRQ I_PPIS1 live_VV0 and_CC it_PPH1 suddenly_RR occurred_VVD to_II me_PPIO1 how_RRQ this_DD1 would_VM all_DB be_VBI altered_VVN in_II a_AT1 nuclear_JJ war_NN1 ._. 
And_CC it_PPH1 just_RR stopped_VVD me_PPIO1 dead_JJ in_II my_APPGE tracks_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 could_VM n't_XX keep_VVI driving_JJ ._. 
I_PPIS1 had_VHD to_TO stop_VVI and_CC I_PPIS1 felt_VVD really_RR physically_RR very_RG unwell_JJ ._. 
And_CC I_PPIS1 was_VBDZ crying_VVG ._. 
I_PPIS1 sat_VVD for_IF about_RG three_MC quarters_NN2 of_IO an_AT1 hour_NNT1 before_CS I_PPIS1 could_VM continue_VVI the_AT journey._NNU (_( quoted_VVN in_II Weinreich-Haste_NP1 ,_, 1987_MC )_) The_AT woman_NN1 who_PNQS gave_VVD this_DD1 account_NN1 thereafter_RT changed_VVD her_APPGE established_JJ way_NN1 of_IO life_NN1 to_TO become_VVI an_AT1 activist_NN1 in_II the_AT Greenham_NP1 Common_JJ protest_NN1 against_II the_AT siting_NN1 there_RL of_IO cruise_NN1 missiles_NN2 ._. 
To_TO cite_VVI a_AT1 personal_JJ response_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 comparable_JJ nature_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 find_VV0 in_II myself_PPX1 an_AT1 apparently_RR irrational_JJ extra_JJ revulsion_NN1 at_II the_AT occurrence_NN1 of_IO bombings_NN2 or_CC murders_NN2 that_CST take_VV0 place_NN1 in_II beautiful_JJ places_NN2 on_II beautiful_JJ days_NNT2 ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI absurd_JJ to_TO approve_VVI of_IO such_DA events_NN2 taking_VVG place_NN1 on_II grey_JJ ,_, sunless_JJ days_NNT2 in_II dark_NN1 ,_, depressing_JJ places_NN2 ._. 
Nevertheless_RR ,_, there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 sense_NN1 of_IO incongruity_NN1 and_CC inappropriateness_NN1 about_II an_AT1 ugly_JJ act_NN1 which_DDQ involves_VVZ the_AT destruction_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ was_VBDZ ,_, in_II some_DD wider_JJR and_CC more_RGR general_JJ sense_NN1 ,_, previously_RR beautiful_JJ ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 ,_, even_RR more_DAR than_CSN the_AT previous_JJ example_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ not_XX ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, an_AT1 attitude_NN1 confined_VVN to_II women_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI something_PN1 of_IO the_AT sentiment_NN1 that_CST inspired_VVD the_AT war_NN1 poets_NN2 ,_, enduring_VVG indescribable_JJ ugliness_NN1 the_AT mutilation_NN1 and_CC destruction_NN1 of_IO people_NN and_CC places_NN2 amongst_II the_AT fragile_JJ flowers_NN2 that_CST nature_NN1 silently_RR but_CCB abundantly_RR proffered_VVD in_II the_AT stench_NN1 ,_, decay_NN1 and_CC squalor_NN1 of_IO the_AT trenches_NN2 ._. 
The_AT sentiment_NN1 was_VBDZ expressed_VVN many_DA2 times_NNT2 over_RP ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ succinctly_RR put_VVN in_II the_AT following_JJ lines_NN2 by_II R._NP1 E._NP1 Vernede_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS was_VBDZ killed_VVN in_II action_NN1 in_II 1917_MC :_: The_AT sun_NN1 's_VBZ a_AT1 red_JJ ball_NN1 in_II the_AT oak_NN1 And_CC all_DB the_AT grass_NN1 is_VBZ grey_JJ with_IW dew_NN1 ,_, A_ZZ1 while_NNT1 ago_RA a_AT1 blackbird_NN1 spoke_VVD He_PPHS1 did_VDD n't_XX know_VVI the_AT world_NN1 's_GE askew_JJ ..._... 
Strange_JJ that_CST this_DD1 bird_NN1 sits_VVZ there_RL and_CC sings_VVZ While_CS we_PPIS2 must_VM only_RR sit_VVI and_CC plan_VVI Who_PNQS are_VBR so_RG much_RR the_AT higher_JJR things_NN2 The_AT murder_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE fellow_JJ man_NN1 ..._... 
Or_CC ,_, as_CSA Edmund_NP1 Blunden_NP1 put_VVD it_PPH1 :_: Bold_JJ great_JJ daisies_NN2 '_GE golden_JJ lights_NN2 ,_, Bubbling_VVG roses_NN2 '_GE pinks_NN2 and_CC whites_NN2 Such_DA a_AT1 gay_JJ carpet_NN1 !_! poppies_NN2 by_II the_AT million_NNO ;_; Such_DA damask_NN1 !_! such_DA vermilion_NN1 !_! 
But_CCB if_CS you_PPY ask_VV0 me_PPIO1 ,_, mate_NN1 ,_, the_AT choice_NN1 of_IO colour_NN1 Is_VBZ scarcely_RR right_JJ ;_; this_DD1 red_NN1 should_VM have_VHI been_VBN duller_JJR ._. 
The_AT early_JJ war_NN1 poems_NN2 had_VHD promoted_VVN patriotism_NN1 ,_, justice_NN1 and_CC principle_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ striking_VVG that_CST there_EX was_VBDZ this_DD1 shift_NN1 from_II principle_NN1 to_II aesthetic_JJ response_NN1 as_II the_AT war_NN1 progressed_VVD ._. 
It_PPH1 might_VM be_VBI that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ the_AT incessant_JJ closeness_NN1 to_II blood_NN1 ,_, death_NN1 and_CC suffering_VVG that_CST brought_VVD out_RP these_DD2 sentiments_NN2 in_II men_NN2 who_PNQS had_VHD ,_, on_II the_AT whole_NN1 ,_, been_VBN raised_VVN in_II an_AT1 education_NN1 system_NN1 that_CST rejected_VVD such_DA responses_NN2 as_CSA feminine_JJ and_CC unmasculine_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST promoted_VVD an_AT1 abstract_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO justice_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 stern_JJ morality_NN1 of_IO obedience_NN1 to_II rules_NN2 ._. 
If_CS so_RR ,_, it_PPH1 could_VM be_VBI that_CST the_AT impact_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 experience_NN1 parallels_VVZ in_II a_AT1 sharpened_JJ and_CC intensified_JJ form_NN1 the_AT impact_NN1 on_II women_NN2 of_IO the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO child-bearing_NN1 a_AT1 potent_JJ ,_, personal_JJ experience_NN1 that_CST ,_, however_RGQV sanitised_JJ ,_, brings_VVZ a_AT1 woman_NN1 face-to-face_JJ with_IW these_DD2 three_MC realities_NN2 ._. 
Again_RT ,_, as_CSA in_II the_AT previous_JJ case_NN1 ,_, if_CS this_DD1 aesthetic_JJ response_NN1 is_VBZ accepted_VVN as_CSA especially_RR characteristic_JJ of_IO women_NN2 's_GE moral_JJ awareness_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI argued_VVN that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ an_AT1 important_JJ element_NN1 to_TO incorporate_VVI in_II any_DD full_JJ account_NN1 of_IO the_AT moral_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 should_VM be_VBI encompassed_VVN within_RL ,_, rather_II21 than_II22 competing_VVG against_II ,_, any_DD universal_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO morality_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 are_VBR ,_, then_RT ,_, two_MC ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 may_VM ,_, and_CC probably_RR do_VD0 ,_, see_VV0 morality_NN1 in_II a_AT1 different_JJ light_NN1 from_II the_AT way_NN1 men_NN2 typically_RR see_VV0 it_PPH1 ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ that_CST the_AT first_MD set_NN1 of_IO questions_NN2 about_II facts_NN2 mentioned_VVN at_II the_AT outset_NN1 can_VM now_RT be_VBI answered_VVN ._. 
Male_NN1 and_CC female_NN1 do_VD0 appear_VVI to_TO diverge_VVI in_II certain_JJ identifiable_JJ and_CC significant_JJ ways_NN2 ._. 
The_AT moral_JJ outlook_NN1 a_AT1 person_NN1 has_VHZ may_VM though_RR this_DD1 is_VBZ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, only_RR a_AT1 statistical_JJ or_CC average_JJ truth_NN1 depend_VV0 on_II whether_CSW that_DD1 person_NN1 is_VBZ male_JJ or_CC female_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB these_DD2 ideals_NN2 are_VBR not_XX necessarily_RR gender-relative_JJ ._. 
And_CC indeed_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT potential_JJ complementarity_NN1 of_IO the_AT views_NN2 that_CST is_VBZ their_APPGE most_RGT striking_JJ feature_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB before_II turning_VVG to_II the_AT central_JJ question_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ ideals_NN2 men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 should_VM adopt_VVI ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ worth_II speculating_VVG a_RR21 little_RR22 about_II what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ that_CST causes_VVZ these_DD2 observable_JJ differences_NN2 of_IO moral_JJ outlook_NN1 ._. 
Answering_VVG this_DD1 question_NN1 involves_VVZ reference_NN1 to_II the_AT second_MD group_NN1 of_IO facts_NN2 which_DDQ were_VBDR mentioned_VVN at_II the_AT beginning_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 discussion_NN1 facts_NN2 about_II the_AT systematic_JJ differences_NN2 in_II the_AT life-experience_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 and_CC men_NN2 ._. 
Two_MC main_JJ types_NN2 of_IO explanation_NN1 are_VBR offered_VVN as_CSA accounting_VVG in_II these_DD2 terms_NN2 for_IF the_AT distinctive_JJ ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 and_CC men_NN2 approach_VV0 moral_JJ questions_NN2 :_: these_DD2 are_VBR ,_, first_MD ,_, predominantly_RR biological_JJ explanations_NN2 ,_, and_CC ,_, second_NNT1 ,_, predominantly_RR social_JJ or_CC cultural_JJ explanations_NN2 ._. 
Differences_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN ,_, must_VM either_RR be_VBI biologically_RR based_VVN ,_, or_CC they_PPHS2 must_VM be_VBI culturally_RR induced_VVN ,_, the_AT result_NN1 of_IO education_NN1 ,_, upbringing_NN1 and_CC social_JJ pressure_NN1 ._. 
One_MC1 important_JJ aspect_NN1 of_IO attributing_VVG differences_NN2 to_II biology_NN1 as_II31 opposed_II32 to_II33 attributing_VVG them_PPHO2 to_II culture_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT second_MD type_NN1 of_IO explanation_NN1 leaves_VVZ room_NN1 for_IF views_NN2 to_TO change_VVI ,_, while_CS the_AT former_DA appears_VVZ to_TO rule_VVI this_DD1 out_RP ._. 
This_DD1 contrast_NN1 may_VM be_VBI more_RGR apparent_JJ than_CSN real_JJ ,_, however_RR ,_, for_IF new_JJ technologies_NN2 of_IO birth_NN1 and_CC reproduction_NN1 may_VM alter_VVI the_AT biologically_RR given_VVN so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO make_VVI possible_JJ a_AT1 changed_JJ perspective_NN1 that_CST would_VM have_VHI been_VBN inconceivable_JJ in_II the_AT past_NN1 ._. 
Anti-patriarchal_JJ utopias_NN2 in_II which_DDQ male_JJ power_NN1 ,_, if_CS not_XX man_NN1 himself_PPX1 ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN eliminated_VVN ,_, and_CC in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 have_VH0 created_VVN a_AT1 new_JJ social_JJ structure_NN1 ,_, are_VBR convincingly_RR depicted_VVN in_II feminist_JJ science-fiction_NN1 ,_, and_CC advocated_VVN as_RG social_JJ policy_NN1 by_II some_DD radical_JJ feminist_JJ writers_NN2 (_( see_VV0 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 Firestone_NP1 ,_, 1971_MC )_) ._. 
Both_RR biological_JJ and_CC cultural_JJ explanations_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, have_VH0 sceptical_JJ implications_NN2 as_CS31 far_CS32 as_CS33 morality_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ ._. 
If_CS moral_JJ scepticism_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI avoided_VVN ,_, then_RT ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ important_JJ to_TO appreciate_VVI both_DB2 the_AT scope_NN1 and_CC the_AT limits_NN2 of_IO these_DD2 sorts_NN2 of_IO explanation_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Biological_JJ Thesis_NN1 This_DD1 ,_, which_DDQ may_VM also_RR be_VBI called_VVN the_AT socio-biological_JJ or_CC '_GE geneticist_NN1 '_GE thesis_NN1 ,_, asserts_VVZ that_CST innate_JJ biological_JJ factors_NN2 determine_VV0 a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE morality_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT sexes_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 sees_VVZ different_JJ moral_JJ qualities_NN2 as_II part_NN1 of_IO male_NN1 or_CC female_NN1 '_GE nature_NN1 '_GE qualities_NN2 and_CC contrasts_VVZ such_II21 as_II22 aggressiveness_NN1 or_CC docility_NN1 ;_; kindness_NN1 or_CC cruelty_NN1 ;_; selfishness_NN1 or_CC unselfishness_NN1 ;_; conscientiousness_NN1 or_CC carelessness_NN1 ._. 
The_AT thesis_NN1 is_VBZ essentially_RR deterministic_JJ :_: we_PPIS2 can_VM not_XX escape_VVI from_II what_DDQ our_APPGE genes_NN2 make_VV0 of_IO us_PPIO2 ._. 
And_CC so_RR it_PPH1 considerably_RR curtails_VVZ the_AT scope_NN1 for_IF morality_NN1 ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 leads_VVZ to_II such_DA questions_NN2 as_CSA :_: Why_RRQ ,_, if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ genetic_JJ factors_NN2 that_CST make_VV0 people_NN what_DDQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR ,_, praise_NN1 or_CC blame_VV0 them_PPHO2 for_IF what_DDQ they_PPHS2 do_VD0 ?_? 
Why_RRQ not_XX simply_RR accept_VV0 the_AT way_NN1 they_PPHS2 men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 behave_VV0 ?_? 
The_AT Sociological_JJ Thesis_NN1 This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT thesis_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ social_JJ or_CC cultural_JJ factors_NN2 that_CST determine_VV0 a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE moral_JJ view-factors_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 environment_NN1 ,_, upbringing_NN1 and_CC social_JJ context_NN1 ._. 
Coupled_VVN with_IW this_DD1 factual_JJ thesis_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT full-blooded_JJ relativist_NN1 view_NN1 that_CST there_EX are_VBR only_RR these_DD2 different_JJ views_NN2 ;_; that_DD1 to_TO talk_VVI about_II morality_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO make_VVI reference_NN1 to_II them_PPHO2 ;_; and_CC that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_AT fact-of-the-matter_NN1 ;_; no_AT independent_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO right_NN1 and_CC wrong_JJ ;_; of_IO good_JJ and_CC bad_JJ ;_; of_IO duty_NN1 or_CC responsibility_NN1 ._. 
Within_II this_DD1 second_NNT1 type_NN1 of_IO explanation_NN1 ,_, two_MC very_RG different_JJ theses_NN2 may_VM be_VBI distinguished_VVN :_: (_( i_ZZ1 )_) the_AT view_NN1 that_CST dominating_VVG differences_NN2 are_VBR related_VVN to_II non-gender-related_JJ contrasts_NN2 :_: for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, social_JJ class_NN1 ,_, economic_JJ structure_NN1 ,_, and_CC a_AT1 broad_JJ range_NN1 of_IO cultural_JJ factors._NNU (_( ii_MC )_) the_AT view_NN1 that_CST the_AT salient_JJ and_CC overriding_JJ cultural_JJ phenomenon_NN1 is_VBZ gender_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 view_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, may_VM be_VBI distinguished_VVN from_II the_AT '_GE orthodox_JJ '_GE sociological_JJ view_NN1 for_IF separate_JJ consideration_NN1 :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT patriarchy_NN1 thesis_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Patriarchy_NN1 Thesis_NN1 This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT thesis_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 's_GE morality_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ in_II certain_JJ vital_JJ respects_NN2 ,_, particularly_RR in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 sexual_JJ behaviour_NN1 ,_, often_RR differs_VVZ from_II men_NN2 's_GE ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN imposed_VVN on_II them_PPHO2 by_II centuries_NNT2 of_IO conditioning_NN1 by_II men_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 differs_VVZ from_II the_AT standard_JJ sociological_JJ thesis_NN1 in_II that_DD1 it_PPH1 regards_VVZ the_AT gender_NN1 difference_NN1 as_II the_AT most_RGT fundamental_JJ and_CC most_RGT fully_RR explanatory_JJ division_NN1 in_II human_JJ society_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 holds_VVZ that_CST across_II all_DB cultures_NN2 and_CC forms_NN2 of_IO social_JJ arrangement_NN1 women_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN kept_VVN in_II subservience_NN1 to_II men_NN2 ._. 
In_CS41 so_CS42 far_CS43 as_CS44 there_EX is_VBZ this_DD1 domination_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI acknowledged_VVN that_CST men_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN aided_VVN in_II their_APPGE domination_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 by_II women_NN2 themselves_PPX2 sometimes_RT older_JJR women_NN2 ,_, whose_DDQGE own_DA conditioning_NN1 has_VHZ matured_VVN in_II conformity_NN1 with_IW that_DD1 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, men_NN2 's_GE moral_JJ requirements_NN2 may_VM not_XX be_VBI imposed_VVN directly_RR on_II women_NN2 ,_, but_CCB indirectly_RR through_II the_AT filter_NN1 of_IO female_JJ complicity_NN1 ._. 
Recognising_VVG this_DD1 paradox_NN1 lends_VVZ weight_NN1 to_II the_AT patriarchy_NN1 thesis_NN1 ,_, explaining_VVG away_RL many_DA2 apparent_JJ counter-examples_NN2 ._. 
For_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, if_CS clitorectomy_NN1 often_RR known_VVN as_II female_JJ circumcision_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 '_GE moral_NN1 '_GE requirement_NN1 to_TO serve_VVI male_JJ interests_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ nevertheless_RR women_NN2 who_PNQS carry_VV0 out_RP ,_, maintain_VV0 and_CC insist_VV0 upon_II the_AT practice_NN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ women_NN2 who_PNQS express_VV0 their_APPGE moral_JJ offence_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX carried_VVN out_RP ._. 
This_DD1 may_VM lead_VVI those_DD2 who_PNQS would_VM otherwise_RR oppose_VVI the_AT practice_NN1 to_TO defend_VVI it_PPH1 on_II cultural_JJ grounds_NN2 ._. 
Because_II21 of_II22 its_APPGE far-reaching_JJ effects_NN2 on_II individual_JJ women_NN2 's_GE lives_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ difficult_JJ not_XX to_TO see_VVI it_PPH1 as_CSA ,_, on_II the_AT contrary_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 potent_JJ example_NN1 of_IO the_AT weakness_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 orthodox_JJ relativist_NN1 view_NN1 a_AT1 view_NN1 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, which_DDQ attempts_VVZ ,_, incoherently_RR ,_, to_TO maintain_VVI the_AT equal_JJ validity_NN1 of_IO all_DB moral_JJ perspectives_NN2 ._. 
For_IF many_DA2 feminists_NN2 resist_VV0 the_AT relativist_NN1 conclusion_NN1 in_II this_DD1 case_NN1 to_TO demand_VVI that_CST both_RR women_NN2 and_CC men_NN2 shake_VV0 themselves_PPX2 free_JJ of_IO their_APPGE conditioning_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 reveals_VVZ a_AT1 fundamental_JJ contrast_NN1 between_II either_RR biological_JJ or_CC sociological_JJ determinism_NN1 and_CC the_AT patriarchy_NN1 thesis_NN1 ._. 
Characteristically_RR ,_, the_AT patriarchy_NN1 thesis_NN1 generates_VVZ a_AT1 revolutionary_JJ ideology_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 a_AT1 fatalistic_JJ acceptance_NN1 of_IO determinism_NN1 and_CC relativism_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 rejects_VVZ the_AT tyranny_NN1 of_IO local_JJ culture_NN1 and_CC regards_VVZ even_RR biological_JJ '_GE necessity_NN1 '_GE as_RG manipulable_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 results_VVZ in_II an_AT1 appeal_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 call_NN1 ,_, to_II women_NN2 to_TO throw_VVI off_II the_AT bonds_NN2 of_IO conditioning_NN1 ,_, to_TO take_VVI freedom_NN1 to_TO control_VVI their_APPGE own_DA lives_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI asked_VVN how_RGQ far_RR such_DA autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 realistic_JJ possibility_NN1 ._. 
If_CS there_EX are_VBR some_DD brute_NN1 facts_NN2 ,_, perhaps_RR social_JJ ,_, but_CCB founded_VVD in_II biological_JJ difference_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ separate_VV0 the_AT lives_NN2 and_CC experience_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 from_II those_DD2 of_IO men_NN2 ,_, may_VM these_DD2 not_XX continue_VVI ineluctably_RR to_TO affect_VVI the_AT moral_JJ ideals_NN2 they_PPHS2 may_VM hold_VVI ?_? 
Is_VBZ there_EX something_PN1 about_II woman_NN1 's_GE experience_NN1 as_II a_AT1 biological_JJ and_CC social_JJ being_NN1 that_CST gives_VVZ her_PPHO1 a_AT1 common_JJ identity_NN1 and_CC differentiates_VVZ her_PPHO1 forever_RT from_II the_AT male_NN1 ?_? 
Or_CC are_VBR differences_NN2 only_RR superficially_RR cultural_JJ ?_? 
Was_VBDZ Margaret_NP1 Mead_NN1 (_( 1935_MC )_) right_RR to_TO see_VVI woman_NN1 as_58 '_GE an_AT1 infinitely_RR malleable_JJ clay_NN1 figure_NN1 upon_II which_DDQ mankind_NN1 has_VHZ draped_VVN ever_RR varying_JJ period-costumes_NN2 '_GE ?_? 
And_CC was_VBDZ Simone_NP1 de_NP1 Beauvoir_NP1 (_( 1972_MC )_) justified_VVN in_II believing_VVG that_CST ,_, because_CS women_NN2 '_GE live_JJ dispersed_JJ among_II the_AT males_NN2 ,_, attached_VVN through_II residence_NN1 ,_, housework_NN1 ,_, economic_JJ condition_NN1 ,_, and_CC social_JJ standing_NN1 to_II certain_JJ men_NN2 fathers_NN2 or_CC husbands_NN2 more_RGR firmly_RR than_CSN they_PPHS2 are_VBR to_II other_JJ women_NN2 '_GE ,_, they_PPHS2 can_VM have_VHI no_AT common_JJ identity_NN1 or_CC history_NN1 ?_? 
I_PPIS1 want_VV0 to_TO suggest_VVI that_CST whatever_DDQV anthropological_JJ and_CC economic_JJ truths_NN2 are_VBR embodied_VVN in_II these_DD2 and_CC similar_JJ statements_NN2 ,_, the_AT fact_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST there_EX are_VBR indeed_RR certain_JJ systematic_JJ differences_NN2 in_II the_AT lives_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 and_CC of_IO men_NN2 ,_, and_CC that_CST this_DD1 fundamental_JJ contrast_NN1 in_II life-experience_NN1 does_VDZ indeed_RR account_VVI for_IF and_CC to_II some_DD extent_NN1 also_RR justify_VVI a_AT1 difference_NN1 in_II their_APPGE moral_JJ outlook_NN1 and_CC assumptions_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX simply_RR a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO those_DD2 aspects_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE sexual_JJ lives_NN2 that_CST are_VBR so_RG often_RR cited_VVN in_II evidence_NN1 as_CSA disqualifying_VVG women_NN2 from_II running_VVG the_AT affairs_NN2 of_IO nations_NN2 ,_, or_CC even_RR from_II running_VVG a_AT1 small_JJ business_NN1 :_: menstruation_NN1 and_CC premenstrual_JJ tension_NN1 ;_; conception_NN1 ,_, pregnancy_NN1 and_CC childbirth_NN1 ;_; lactation_NN1 and_CC child-care_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 are_VBR important_JJ ,_, but_CCB they_PPHS2 are_VBR surface_NN1 phenomena_NN2 ,_, overtly_RR physical_JJ ._. 
What_DDQ they_PPHS2 connect_VV0 with_IW is_VBZ a_AT1 much_RR deeper_RRR and_CC more_RGR significant_JJ fact_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 central_JJ fact_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT fact_NN1 of_IO change_NN1 ,_, together_RL with_IW the_AT problems_NN2 of_IO identity_NN1 and_CC self-concept_NN1 that_CST this_DD1 generates_VVZ ._. 
For_IF women_NN2 characteristically_RR experience_VV0 change_NN1 in_II their_APPGE lives_NN2 in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ only_RR experienced_VVN by_II a_AT1 man_NN1 if_CS he_PPHS1 is_VBZ unfortunate_JJ enough_RR to_TO be_VBI the_AT victim_NN1 of_IO some_DD mutilating_JJ accident_NN1 or_CC illness_NN1 ._. 
The_AT horror_NN1 depicted_VVN in_II Kafka_NP1 's_GE Metamorphosis_NN1 ,_, in_II which_DDQ a_AT1 man_NN1 awakens_VVZ to_TO discover_VVI that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ become_VVN a_AT1 large_JJ insect_NN1 ,_, invites_VVZ comparison_NN1 with_IW the_AT norms_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE existence_NN1 her_APPGE passages_NN2 from_II childhood_NN1 to_II puberty_NN1 ,_, from_II mature_JJ womanhood_NN1 to_II menopause_NN1 and_CC old_JJ age_NN1 ;_; her_APPGE experience_NN1 of_IO pregnancy_NN1 ._. 
Kafka_NP1 's_GE Metamorphosis_NN1 begins_VVZ with_IW the_AT following_JJ passage_NN1 :_: As_CSA Gregor_NP1 Samsa_NP1 awoke_VVD one_MC1 morning_NNT1 from_II uneasy_JJ dreams_NN2 he_PPHS1 found_VVD himself_PPX1 transformed_VVN in_II his_APPGE bed_NN1 into_II a_AT1 gigantic_JJ insect_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 was_VBDZ lying_VVG on_II his_APPGE hard_JJ ,_, as_RR31 it_RR32 were_RR33 armour-plated_JJ ,_, back_NN1 and_CC when_RRQ he_PPHS1 lifted_VVD his_APPGE head_NN1 a_RR21 little_RR22 he_PPHS1 could_VM see_VVI his_APPGE domelike_JJ brown_JJ belly_NN1 divided_VVN into_II stiff_JJ arched_JJ segments_NN2 on_II31 top_II32 of_II33 which_DDQ the_AT bed_NN1 quilt_NN1 could_VM hardly_RR keep_VVI in_II position_NN1 and_CC was_VBDZ about_RPK to_TO slide_VVI off_RP completely_RR ._. 
His_APPGE numerous_JJ legs_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ were_VBDR pitifully_RR thin_JJ compared_VVN to_II the_AT rest_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE bulk_NN1 ,_, waved_VVD helplessly_RR before_II his_APPGE eyes_NN2 ._. 
What_DDQ has_VHZ happened_VVN to_II me_PPIO1 ?_? he_PPHS1 thought_VVD ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ no_AT dream_NN1 ._. 
His_APPGE room_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 regular_JJ human_JJ bedroom_NN1 ,_, only_RR rather_RG too_RG small_JJ ,_, lay_VVD quiet_JJ between_II the_AT four_MC familiar_JJ walls_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ interesting_JJ to_TO compare_VVI this_DD1 with_IW Sylvia_NP1 Plath_NP1 's_GE poem_NN1 about_II her_APPGE own_DA experience_NN1 of_IO pregnancy_NN1 and_CC child-bearing_NN1 :_: I_PPIS1 am_VBM a_AT1 mountain_NN1 now_RT ,_, among_II mountainy_JJ women_NN2 ._. 
The_AT doctors_NN2 move_VV0 among_II us_PPIO2 as_CS21 if_CS22 our_APPGE bigness_NN1 Frightened_VVN the_AT mind_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 smile_VV0 like_II fools_NN2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 are_VBR to_TO blame_VVI for_IF what_DDQ I_PPIS1 am_VBM ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 know_VV0 it_PPH1 They_PPHS2 hug_VV0 their_APPGE flatness_NN1 like_II a_AT1 kind_NN1 of_IO health_NN1 ._. 
And_CC what_DDQ if_CS they_PPHS2 found_VVD themselves_PPX2 surprised_JJ ,_, as_CSA I_PPIS1 did_VDD ?_? 
They_PPHS2 would_VM go_VVI mad_JJ with_IW it_PPH1 ._. 
Pregnancy_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ a_AT1 relatively_RR brief_JJ and_CC dramatic_JJ bodily_JJ change_NN1 ,_, succeeded_VVN by_II reversion_NN1 to_II something_PN1 like_II the_AT former_DA state_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Plath_NP1 later_RRR continues_VVZ :_: I_PPIS1 am_VBM not_XX ugly_JJ ._. 
I_PPIS1 am_VBM even_RR beautiful_JJ ._. 
The_AT mirror_NN1 gives_VVZ back_RP a_AT1 woman_NN1 without_IW deformity_NN1 ._. 
The_AT nurses_NN2 give_VV0 back_RP my_APPGE clothes_NN2 ,_, and_CC an_AT1 identity_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 contrasts_VVZ with_IW the_AT two_MC major_JJ irreversible_JJ shifts_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 woman_NN1 's_GE life_NN1 ,_, first_MD to_II puberty_NN1 ,_, then_RT to_II menopause_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 not_XX only_RR cause_VV0 a_AT1 change_NN1 in_II self-concept_NN1 the_AT way_NN1 a_AT1 woman_NN1 sees_VVZ herself_PPX1 but_CCB ,_, more_RGR important_JJ ,_, a_AT1 change_NN1 in_II the_AT way_NN1 she_PPHS1 is_VBZ perceived_VVN by_II other_JJ people_NN ._. 
In_RR21 vain_RR22 she_PPHS1 may_VM cry_VVI ,_, as_CSA Gregor_NP1 Samsa_NP1 does_VDZ to_II his_APPGE parents_NN2 ,_, sister_NN1 and_CC employer_NN1 ,_, that_CST the_AT same_DA person_NN1 is_VBZ there_RL inside_RL ,_, looking_VVG out_RP in_II the_AT same_DA way_NN1 at_II the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
The_AT world_NN1 sees_VVZ a_AT1 woman_NN1 ,_, in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX see_VVI a_AT1 man_NN1 ,_, as_CSA old_JJ or_CC young_JJ ,_, sexual_JJ or_CC non-sexual_JJ ,_, defining_VVG her_PPHO1 frequently_RR by_II nothing_PN1 other_II21 than_II22 her_APPGE biological_JJ role_NN1 :_: mother_NN1 ,_, spouse_NN1 ,_, grandmother_NN1 ,_, widow_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX surprising_JJ ,_, then_RT ,_, that_CST both_DB2 the_AT phases_NN2 of_IO major_JJ transition_NN1 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO pregnancy_NN1 and_CC childbirth_NN1 can_VM bring_VVI mental_JJ disturbance_NN1 and_CC breakdown_NN1 in_II their_APPGE wake_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 are_VBR rightly_RR described_VVN as_II pressure-points_NN2 in_II the_AT lives_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM not_XX be_VBI surprising_JJ ,_, either_RR ,_, if_CS this_DD1 flux_NN1 and_CC change_VV0 in_II the_AT self_NN1 were_VBDR to_TO generate_VVI a_AT1 more_RGR flexible_JJ response_NN1 to_II morality_NN1 ,_, and_CC one_PN1 that_CST is_VBZ peculiarly_RR sensitive_JJ to_II the_AT aesthetic_JJ dimension_NN1 ._. 
Women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 continually_RR forces_VVZ them_PPHO2 to_TO react_VVI to_II situations_NN2 in_II which_DDQ all_DB the_AT parameters_NN2 have_VH0 shifted_VVN ._. 
If_CS one_PN1 adds_VVZ to_II this_DD1 one_MC1 other_JJ incontrovertible_JJ fact_NN1 that_CST the_AT overwhelming_JJ majority_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 have_VH0 lived_VVN their_APPGE lives_NN2 without_IW economic_JJ freedom_NN1 or_CC autonomy_NN1 ,_, but_CCB as_CSA dependants_NN2 or_CC chattels_NN2 lacking_VVG control_NN1 over_II the_AT crucial_JJ fixed_JJ aspects_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE own_DA lives_NN2 then_RT it_PPH1 becomes_VVZ clear_JJ that_CST the_AT chameleon_NN1 nature_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 is_VBZ their_APPGE necessary_JJ self-protection_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 animal_NN1 ,_, their_APPGE clothes_NN2 must_VM fit_VVI their_APPGE habitat_NN1 ,_, changing_VVG in_II31 response_II32 to_II33 external_JJ change_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 respect_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 famously_RR offensive_JJ passage_NN1 by_II Rousseau_NP1 on_II the_AT education_NN1 of_IO girls_NN2 may_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA ,_, after_II all_DB ,_, no_AT more_DAR than_CSN realistic_JJ for_IF period_NN1 and_CC place_VV0 :_: recommending_VVG that_CST girls_NN2 be_VBI taught_VVN to_TO break_VVI off_RP games_NN2 they_PPHS2 are_VBR enjoying_VVG to_TO return_VVI to_II work_NN1 without_IW complaint_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 writes_VVZ :_: This_DD1 habitual_JJ restraint_NN1 produces_VVZ a_AT1 docility_NN1 which_DDQ woman_NN1 requires_VVZ all_DB her_APPGE life_NN1 long_RR ,_, for_CS she_PPHS1 will_VM always_RR be_VBI in_II subjection_NN1 to_II a_AT1 man_NN1 ,_, or_CC to_II man_NN1 's_GE judgment_NN1 ,_, and_CC she_PPHS1 will_VM never_RR be_VBI free_JJ to_TO set_VVI her_APPGE own_DA opinion_NN1 above_II his_PPGE ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ most_RRT wanted_VVN in_II a_AT1 woman_NN1 is_VBZ gentleness_NN1 ;_; formed_VVD to_TO obey_VVI a_AT1 creature_NN1 so_RG imperfect_JJ as_CSA man_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 creature_NN1 often_RR vicious_JJ and_CC always_RR faulty_JJ ,_, she_PPHS1 should_VM early_RR learn_VVI to_TO submit_VVI to_II injustice_NN1 and_CC to_TO suffer_VVI the_AT wrongs_NN2 inflicted_VVN on_II her_PPHO1 by_II her_APPGE husband_NN1 without_IW complaint_NN1 ._. 
(_( Rousseau_NP1 ,_, 1762_MC ,_, trans._NNU ,_, p._NN1 333_MC )_) The_AT '_GE masculine_NN1 '_GE goal_NN1 of_IO moral_JJ autonomy_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN no_AT more_DAR in_II woman_NN1 's_GE grasp_NN1 than_CSN it_PPH1 was_VBDZ within_II the_AT grasp_NN1 of_IO the_AT Stoic_JJ slave_NN1 of_IO ancient_JJ times_NNT2 ._. 
And_CC just_RR as_CSA the_AT ethical_JJ perspective_NN1 of_IO Stoicism_NN1 was_VBDZ shaped_VVN by_II the_AT slave-status_NN1 of_IO some_DD of_IO its_APPGE principal_JJ proponents_NN2 ,_, so_CS the_AT ethical_JJ perspective_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 has_VHZ evolved_VVN within_II a_AT1 framework_NN1 of_IO powerlessness_NN1 to_TO affect_VVI external_JJ events_NN2 even_RR the_AT lives_NN2 of_IO her_APPGE own_DA children_NN2 within_II the_AT family_NN1 structure_NN1 and_CC powerlessness_NN1 to_TO resist_VVI the_AT inexorable_JJ internal_JJ cycle_NN1 of_IO obtrusive_JJ biological_JJ change_NN1 ,_, with_IW the_AT social_JJ and_CC economic_JJ concomitants_NN2 of_IO that_DD1 change_NN1 that_CST are_VBR absent_JJ in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT more_RGR modulated_JJ maturing_JJ and_CC ageing_JJ processes_NN2 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
The_AT conclusion_NN1 to_TO be_VBI drawn_VVN from_II these_DD2 reflections_NN2 is_VBZ ,_, I_PPIS1 believe_VV0 ,_, that_CST the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 's_GE lives_NN2 differ_VV0 from_II those_DD2 of_IO men_NN2 are_VBR indeed_RR morally_RR significant_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI that_CST the_AT effects_NN2 of_IO those_DD2 significant_JJ differences_NN2 can_VM be_VBI mitigated_VVN by_II social_JJ change_NN1 ,_, and_CC by_II education_NN1 for_IF mutual_JJ understanding_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB because_CS the_AT weight_NN1 of_IO explanation_NN1 is_VBZ preponderantly_RR biological_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 cultural_JJ or_CC social_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI that_CST women_NN2 's_GE moral_JJ perspective_NN1 will_VM continue_VVI to_TO be_VBI one_PN1 which_DDQ reflects_VVZ a_AT1 distinctive_JJ range_NN1 of_IO values_NN2 ._. 
The_AT feminist_JJ goal_NN1 must_VM be_VBI the_AT interweaving_NN1 of_IO those_DD2 values_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ have_VH0 a_AT1 richness_NN1 ,_, complexity_NN1 and_CC spontaneity_NN1 lacking_VVG in_II more_RGR abstract_JJ conceptions_NN2 ,_, with_IW the_AT universalistic_JJ goals_NN2 of_IO traditional_JJ moral_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
In_II practice_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 may_VM mean_VVI as_RG little_DA1 as_CSA insisting_VVG on_II modest_JJ changes_NN2 in_II decision-making_JJ procedures_NN2 and_CC modes_NN2 of_IO academic_JJ debate_NN1 ;_; or_CC it_PPH1 may_VM mean_VVI as_RG much_DA1 as_CSA the_AT sacrifice_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 whole_JJ way_NN1 of_IO life_NN1 for_IF activism_NN1 in_II some_DD major_JJ political_JJ cause_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB if_CS there_EX is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 new_JJ morality_NN1 new_JJ values_NN2 for_IF the_AT new_JJ situation_NN1 resulting_VVG from_II technological_JJ and_CC political_JJ change_NN1 in_II the_AT closing_JJ years_NNT2 of_IO the_AT twentieth_MD century_NNT1 then_RT the_AT creation_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 new_JJ morality_NN1 must_VM in_II the_AT end_NN1 be_VBI a_AT1 joint_JJ enterprise_NN1 of_IO both_RR women_NN2 and_CC men._NNU 4_MC Autonomy_NN1 and_CC Pornography_NP1 Alison_NP1 Assiter_NN1 There_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 implicit_JJ in_II some_DD philosophical_JJ writing_NN1 and_CC including_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Rousseau_NP1 ,_, Kant_NP1 ,_, Hegel_NP1 and_CC Marx_NP1 ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 this_DD1 conception_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ autonomous_JJ if_CS he_PPHS1 or_CC she_PPHS1 subscribes_VVZ to_II principles_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 been_VBN formed_VVN by_II his_APPGE or_CC her_APPGE own_DA moral_JJ scrutiny_NN1 ._. 
Integral_JJ to_TO at_RR21 least_RR22 some_DD of_IO the_AT philosophers_NN2 '_GE thinking_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT idea_NN1 that_CST the_AT individual_NN1 is_VBZ part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 collective_NN1 ;_; a_AT1 member_NN1 of_IO society_NN1 ._. 
For_IF me_PPIO1 to_TO be_VBI autonomous_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX sufficient_JJ that_CST you_PPY leave_VV0 me_PPIO1 alone_JJ ;_; rather_RR the_AT way_NN1 I_PPIS1 am_VBM treated_VVN by_II you_PPY has_VHZ a_AT1 bearing_NN1 on_II my_APPGE autonomy_NN1 ,_, and_CC reciprocally_RR for_IF you_PPY ._. 
In_II this_DD1 paper_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 shall_VM defend_VVI a_AT1 qualified_JJ version_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 along_II Kantian_JJ lines_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 shall_VM then_RT show_VVI ,_, by_II reference_NN1 to_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Kant_NP1 and_CC Hegel_NP1 ,_, how_RRQ autonomy_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN excluded_VVN from_II the_AT private_JJ realm_NN1 ._. 
Even_RR Hegel_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS apparently_RR extends_VVZ the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 to_II the_AT private_JJ domain_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX really_RR do_VDI so_RR ._. 
Indeed_RR ,_, ironically_RR ,_, the_AT relation_NN1 between_II lovers_NN2 turns_VVZ out_RP ,_, for_IF him_PPHO1 ,_, to_TO involve_VVI the_AT most_RGT extreme_JJ possible_JJ violation_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ;_; in_II fact_NN1 ,_, the_AT relation_NN1 between_II lovers_NN2 turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO fit_VVI a_AT1 relation_NN1 Hegel_NP1 argues_VVZ must_VM be_VBI transcended_VVN that_CST between_II Master_NN1 and_CC Slave_NN1 ._. 
Against_II the_AT thinking_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 philosophers_NN2 ,_, I_PPIS1 propose_VV0 to_TO defend_VVI the_AT view_NN1 that_CST the_AT individual_NN1 should_VM be_VBI treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 rational_JJ ,_, autonomous_JJ being_NN1 in_II perhaps_RR the_AT most_RGT private_JJ of_IO all_DB domains_NN2 that_DD1 of_IO love-making_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 shall_VM support_VVI the_AT view_NN1 by_II31 means_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 criticism_NN1 of_IO pornographic_JJ eroticism_NN1 ._. 
Pornographic_JJ eroticism_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 will_VM argue_VVI ,_, is_VBZ ,_, therefore_RR ,_, to_TO be_VBI condemned_VVN ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX function_VVI in_RP quite_RG the_AT way_NN1 some_DD feminists_NN2 have_VH0 argued_VVN that_CST it_PPH1 does_VDZ ._. 
Andrea_NP1 Dworkin_NP1 ,_, in_II her_APPGE book_NN1 Pornography_NP1 :_: Men_NN2 Possessing_VVG Women_NN2 (_( 1981_MC )_) ,_, argues_VVZ that_CST porn_VV0 lies_NN2 at_II the_AT heart_NN1 of_IO male_JJ supremacy_NN1 ,_, of_IO the_AT oppression_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 believe_VV0 that_CST this_DD1 view_NN1 is_VBZ too_RG strong_JJ ,_, that_DD1 ,_, although_CS porn_NN1 does_VDZ reinforce_VVI certain_JJ attitudes_NN2 towards_II women_NN2 ,_, in_RR31 the_RR32 main_RR33 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ rather_RG a_AT1 symptom_NN1 ,_, and_CC not_XX a_AT1 major_JJ part_NN1 of_IO the_AT cause_NN1 ,_, of_IO power_NN1 relations_NN2 that_CST exist_VV0 outside_II the_AT pages_NN2 of_IO Penthouse_NP1 ,_, Playboy_NP1 ,_, etc._RA ,_, and_CC outside_II the_AT cinemas_NN2 in_II Soho_NP1 or_CC Amsterdam_NP1 (_( see_VV0 Moye_NP1 ,_, 1985_MC )_) ._. 
A_AT1 DEFENCE_NN1 OF_IO AUTONOMY_NN1 An_AT1 autonomous_JJ person_NN1 is_VBZ one_PN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ self-legislating_JJ and_CC self-determining_NN1 ._. 
The_AT most_RGT common_JJ sort_NN1 of_IO violation_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ paternalism_NN1 where_CS the_AT person_NN1 is_VBZ coerced_VVN into_II giving_VVG up_RP some_DD or_CC all_DB of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
At_II its_APPGE most_RGT extreme_JJ ,_, someone_PN1 's_GE capacity_NN1 to_TO choose_VVI which_DDQ course_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 to_TO perform_VVI is_VBZ removed_VVN from_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, if_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ given_VVN a_AT1 drug_NN1 which_DDQ gets_VVZ rid_VVN of_IO any_DD resistance_NN1 he/she_PPHS1 might_VM have_VHI had_VHN to_TO being_VBG taken_VVN into_II captivity_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, in_II a_AT1 very_RG strong_JJ sense_NN1 ,_, his/her_APPGE autonomy_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN violated_VVN ._. 
But_CCB ,_, in_II a_AT1 slightly_RR weaker_JJR sense_NN1 ,_, someone_PN1 may_VM lose_VVI their_APPGE autonomy_NN1 if_CS the_AT opportunity_NN1 for_IF them_PPHO2 to_TO exercise_VVI their_APPGE capacity_NN1 to_TO choose_VVI is_VBZ removed_VVN ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS becomes_VVZ a_AT1 slave_NN1 loses_VVZ this_DD1 opportunity_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 particular_JJ sort_NN1 of_IO slavery_NN1 ,_, what_DDQ we_PPIS2 might_VM call_VVI moral_JJ slavery_NN1 ,_, occurs_VVZ if_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ forced_VVN to_TO act_VVI according_II21 to_II22 someone_PN1 else_RR 's_VBZ moral_JJ values_NN2 ._. 
All_DB the_AT above_JJ types_NN2 of_IO violation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE autonomy_NN1 involve_VV0 what_DDQ Kant_NP1 described_VVD as_II treating_VVG the_AT person_NN1 as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II someone_PN1 else_RR 's_GE end_NN1 ,_, and_CC not_XX as_II an_AT1 end_NN1 in_II themselves_PPX2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 ought_VMK ,_, he_PPHS1 said_VVD ,_, to_TO '_" treat_VVI humanity_NN1 whether_CSW in_II your_APPGE own_DA person_NN1 ,_, or_CC in_II the_AT person_NN1 of_IO any_DD other_JJ ,_, never_RR simply_RR as_II a_AT1 means_NN ,_, but_CCB always_RR at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 as_CSA an_AT1 end_NN1 '_GE (_( Kant_NP1 ,_, 1948_MC ,_, para_NN1 ._. 
429_MC )_) ._. 
Intuitively_RR ,_, we_PPIS2 would_VM judge_VVI these_DD2 violations_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE autonomy_NN1 as_CSA wrong_JJ ._. 
Why_RRQ ?_? 
Kant_NP1 argued_VVD that_CST no_PN121 one_PN122 could_VM voluntarily_RR relinquish_VVI their_APPGE autonomy_NN1 without_IW giving_VVG up_RP their_APPGE personhood_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ logically_RR impossible_JJ ,_, he_PPHS1 argued_VVD ,_, to_TO contract_VVI to_TO give_VVI up_RP all_DB one_PN1 's_GE rights_NN2 ,_, since_CS such_DA a_AT1 contract_NN1 would_VM deprive_VVI the_AT person_NN1 of_IO the_AT ability_NN1 to_TO make_VVI any_DD agreements_NN2 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
This_DD1 argument_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN questioned_VVN ._. 
One_MC1 person_NN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ done_VDN so_RG recently_RR is_VBZ Arthur_NP1 Kulfik_NP1 (_( 1984_MC )_) ._. 
He_PPHS1 says_VVZ :_: the_AT argument_NN1 falters_VVZ on_II a_AT1 temporal_JJ equivocation_NN1 ._. 
Up_II21 to_II22 the_AT moment_NN1 that_CST the_AT contract_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN ,_, or_CC more_RGR accurately_RR is_VBZ to_TO take_VVI effect_NN1 ,_, the_AT agent_NN1 retains_VVZ both_RR his_APPGE status_NN1 as_II a_AT1 person_NN1 and_CC whatever_DDQV rights_NN2 this_DD1 entails_VVZ ,_, including_II the_AT right_NN1 to_TO make_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 ._. 
Only_RR after_II the_AT contract_NN1 takes_VVZ effect_NN1 does_VDZ the_AT agent_NN1 (_( putatively_RR )_) '_GE cease_VV0 to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 person_NN1 '._GE (_( p._NNU 283_MC )_) I_PPIS1 agree_VV0 with_IW Kuflik_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX actually_RR impossible_JJ to_TO contract_VVI to_TO give_VVI up_RP one_PN1 's_GE autonomy_NN1 ,_, but_CCB I_PPIS1 do_VD0 not_XX think_VVI ,_, however_RR ,_, that_CST Kant_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 can_VM be_VBI so_RG easily_RR disposed_VVN of_IO ._. 
Who_PNQS ,_, in_II their_APPGE right_JJ mind_NN1 ,_, would_VM voluntarily_RR relinquish_VVI something_PN1 that_CST has_VHZ as_II a_AT1 consequence_NN1 the_AT loss_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE personhood_NN1 ?_? 
Who_PNQS ,_, if_CS they_PPHS2 recognised_VVD and_CC understood_VVD the_AT consequences_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE actions_NN2 ,_, would_VM choose_VVI such_DA a_AT1 course_NN1 ?_? 
Perhaps_RR only_RR those_DD2 for_IF whom_PNQO life_NN1 itself_PPX1 had_VHD ceased_VVN to_TO be_VBI worth_II living_NN1 ._. 
Of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, if_CS they_PPHS2 did_VDD n't_XX recognise_VVI the_AT consequences_NN2 ,_, they_PPHS2 might_VM choose_VVI to_TO do_VDI it_PPH1 ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 illustrates_VVZ Kant_NP1 's_GE point_NN1 ._. 
Even_CS21 if_CS22 a_AT1 person_NN1 did_VDD not_XX know_VVI the_AT consequences_NN2 of_IO giving_VVG up_RP their_APPGE autonomy_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II fact_NN1 these_DD2 consequences_NN2 which_DDQ make_VV0 the_AT relinquishing_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 wrong_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN argued_VVN recently_RR ,_, however_RR ,_, (_( see_VV0 Graham_NP1 ,_, 1982_MC )_) that_CST it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI rational_JJ for_IF a_AT1 person_NN1 to_TO give_VVI up_RP their_APPGE autonomy_NN1 sometimes_RT ._. 
One_MC1 case_NN1 often_RR cited_VVN is_VBZ that_CST ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ rational_JJ to_TO take_VVI orders_NN2 from_II a_AT1 competent_JJ doctor_NN1 in_II a_AT1 course_NN1 of_IO treatment_NN1 ._. 
Another_DD1 is_VBZ that_CST two_MC people_NN may_VM have_VHI conflicting_JJ beliefs_NN2 about_II which_DDQ course_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 to_TO perform_VVI ._. 
Since_CS it_PPH1 may_VM not_XX be_VBI possible_JJ for_IF both_DB2 sets_NN2 of_IO belief_NN1 to_TO be_VBI realised_VVN in_II action_NN1 ,_, if_CS the_AT courses_NN2 of_IO action_NN1 are_VBR incompatible_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI rational_JJ for_IF one_MC1 person_NN1 to_TO give_VVI up_RP his/her_APPGE autonomy_NN1 ._. 
As_CS31 far_CS32 as_CS33 the_AT first_MD case_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ ,_, I_PPIS1 take_VV0 it_PPH1 that_DD1 part_NN1 of_IO the_AT process_NN1 of_IO rational_JJ reflection_NN1 on_II a_AT1 set_NN1 of_IO moral_JJ principles_NN2 and_CC courses_NN2 of_IO action_NN1 for_IF myself_PPX1 would_VM involve_VVI consulting_JJ others_NN2 (_( the_AT experts_NN2 ,_, if_CS you_PPY like_VV0 )_) ._. 
Deferring_VVG to_II a_AT1 doctor_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX in_II itself_PPX1 being_VBG coerced_VVN into_II accepting_VVG a_AT1 view_NN1 against_II one_PN1 's_GE will_NN1 ,_, thus_RR this_DD1 need_VM not_XX involve_VVI the_AT loss_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ._. 
As_II21 for_II22 the_AT second_MD type_NN1 of_IO case_NN1 ,_, something_PN1 that_CST Kant_NP1 had_VHD to_TO say_VVI may_VM again_RT be_VBI relevant_JJ ._. 
He_PPHS1 argued_VVD that_CST I_PPIS1 should_VM treat_VVI other_JJ people_NN 's_GE wants_NN2 and_CC needs_NN2 as_CSA constraints_NN2 upon_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO my_APPGE own_DA ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, the_AT rational_JJ being_VBG who_PNQS is_VBZ autonomously_RR evaluating_VVG the_AT most_RGT appropriate_JJ courses_NN2 of_IO action_NN1 for_CS him/herself_FU must_VM consider_VVI the_AT wants_NN2 ,_, needs_NN2 and_CC interests_NN2 of_IO others_NN2 ._. 
The_AT non-satisfaction_NN1 of_IO my_APPGE wants_NN2 ,_, needs_NN2 etc._RA ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ not_XX always_RR a_AT1 violation_NN1 of_IO my_APPGE autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Autonomy_NN1 involves_VVZ the_AT right_NN1 and_CC the_AT capacity_NN1 to_TO exercise_VVI choice_NN1 and_CC to_TO make_VVI reasoned_JJ judgements_NN2 ,_, and_CC not_XX the_AT capacity_NN1 to_TO have_VHI those_DD2 judgements_NN2 invariably_RR realised_VVN in_II action_NN1 ._. 
The_AT dictator_NN1 (_( to_TO look_VVI at_II one_MC1 of_IO Keith_NP1 Graham_NP1 's_GE examples_NN2 )_) who_PNQS allowed_VVD everyone_PN1 to_TO decide_VVI for_IF themselves_PPX2 what_DDQ they_PPHS2 wanted_VVD and_CC then_RT told_VVD them_PPHO2 what_DDQ they_PPHS2 must_VM do_VDI ,_, is_VBZ violating_VVG their_APPGE autonomy_NN1 not_XX because_CS their_APPGE wants_NN2 and_CC needs_NN2 are_VBR not_XX realised_VVN in_II action_NN1 ,_, but_CCB because_CS they_PPHS2 have_VH0 been_VBN coerced_VVN into_II doing_VDG something_PN1 they_PPHS2 do_VD0 not_XX want_VVI ._. 
Thus_RR autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ lost_VVN or_CC renounced_VVD either_RR if_CS someone_PN1 is_VBZ coerced_VVN into_II thinking/acting_VVG against_II their_APPGE will_NN1 ,_, or_CC if_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ treated_VVN perhaps_RR willingly_RR as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO someone_PN1 else_RR 's_GE desires_NN2 or_CC ends_NN2 ._. 
There_EX may_VM conceivably_RR be_VBI cases_NN2 where_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ all_RR21 right_RR22 for_IF someone_PN1 willingly_RR to_TO allow_VVI themselves_PPX2 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN ._. 
If_CS ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, I_PPIS1 volunteered_VVD to_TO give_VVI up_RP some_DD of_IO my_APPGE bone_NN1 marrow_NN1 to_TO save_VVI a_AT1 person_NN1 suffering_VVG from_II leukaemia_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, so_RG long_RR as_CSA my_APPGE own_DA health_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX in_II danger_NN1 ,_, there_EX would_VM seem_VVI to_TO be_VBI nothing_PN1 wrong_JJ with_IW my_APPGE momentarily_RR relinquishing_VVG my_APPGE autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Perhaps_RR ,_, therefore_RR ,_, a_AT1 distinction_NN1 should_VM be_VBI drawn_VVN between_II allowing_VVG oneself_PNX1 voluntarily_RR ,_, and_CC where_CS there_EX is_VBZ no_AT danger_NN1 to_II oneself_PNX1 ,_, to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO someone_PN1 else_RR 's_GE needs_NN2 ,_, and_CC being_VBG treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO someone_PN1 else_RR 's_GE desires_NN2 ._. 
Only_RR in_II the_AT former_DA case_NN1 could_VM a_AT1 violation_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 conceivably_RR be_VBI justified_VVN ._. 
Again_RT ,_, it_PPH1 might_VM be_VBI argued_VVN that_CST there_EX can_VM be_VBI nothing_PN1 wrong_JJ for_IF a_AT1 person_NN1 voluntarily_RR to_TO allow_VVI themselves_PPX2 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO someone_PN1 else_RR 's_GE desires_NN2 ._. 
If_CS Justine_NP1 ,_, in_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO the_AT eighteenth-century_JJ '_GE pornographer_NN1 '_GE ,_, the_AT Marquis_NN1 de_NP1 Sade_NP1 ,_, willingly_RR submitted_VVN ,_, what_DDQ is_VBZ wrong_JJ with_IW her_PPHO1 allowing_VVG herself_PPX1 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN in_II whatever_DDQV fashion_NN1 her_APPGE persecutors_NN2 wanted_VVD ?_? 
I_PPIS1 shall_VM argue_VVI ,_, later_RRR ,_, that_DD1 such_DA treatment_NN1 is_VBZ wrong_JJ ,_, not_XX necessarily_RR per_RR21 se_RR22 ,_, but_II21 for_II22 other_JJ reasons_NN2 ._. 
HEGEL_NP1 AND_CC LOVE-MAKING_NN1 Most_DAT philosophers_NN2 who_PNQS have_VH0 defended_VVN autonomy_NN1 have_VH0 exempted_VVN the_AT private_JJ realm_NN1 from_II the_AT domain_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE operation_NN1 ._. 
Kant_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, quite_RG explicitly_RR did_VDD this_DD1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 reduced_VVD wives_NN2 ,_, children_NN2 and_CC servants_NN2 to_II the_AT status_NN1 of_IO '_GE things_NN2 '_GE so_RG far_RR as_CSA their_APPGE relation_NN1 to_TO husband/father_VVI in_II the_AT family_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ ._. 
He_PPHS1 argued_VVD that_CST the_AT husband/father_NN1 has_VHZ the_AT right_NN1 to_II the_AT possession_NN1 of_IO wife/children_FU as_58 '_GE things_NN2 '_GE ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, wives_NN2 ,_, in_II their_APPGE marital_JJ relation_NN1 to_II their_APPGE husbands_NN2 ,_, were_VBDR quite_RG specifically_RR treated_VVN by_II Kant_JJ as_CSA not_XX autonomous_JJ ._. 
In_II their_APPGE role_NN1 as_CSA wives_NN2 and_CC lovers_NN2 ,_, then_RT ,_, women_NN2 ,_, for_IF Kant_NP1 ,_, were_VBDR viewed_VVN as_CSA means_VVZ to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO the_AT man_NN1 's_GE needs_NN2 and_CC wants_VVZ ._. 
Ostensibly_RR Hegel_NP1 's_GE view_NN1 is_VBZ different_JJ ._. 
In_II The_AT Philosophy_NN1 of_IO Right_NN1 he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, against_II Kant_NP1 ,_, and_CC others_NN2 ,_, that_CST the_AT sphere_NN1 of_IO operation_NN1 of_IO contractual_JJ relations_NN2 is_VBZ limited_VVN ._. 
Family_NN1 life_NN1 lies_VVZ quite_RR outside_II its_APPGE domain_NN1 ._. 
Hegel_NN1 is_VBZ adamant_JJ than_CSN human_JJ beings_NN2 can_VM not_XX be_VBI reduced_VVN to_II the_AT status_NN1 of_IO '_GE things_NN2 '_GE ._. 
He_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, against_II Kant_NP1 ,_, that_CST no_PN121 one_PN122 has_VHZ the_AT right_NN1 to_TO alienate_VVI their_APPGE entire_JJ '_GE person_NN1 '_GE through_II a_AT1 contract_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 claims_VVZ that_CST rights_NN2 arising_VVG from_II contract_NN1 are_VBR never_RR rights_NN2 over_II a_AT1 person_NN1 ,_, but_CCB only_JJ rights_NN2 over_II something_PN1 external_JJ to_II the_AT person_NN1 for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, that_DD1 person_NN1 's_GE body_NN1 ._. 
Kant_NN1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Hegel_NP1 ,_, forgets_VVZ that_CST there_EX are_VBR some_DD aspects_NN2 of_IO personality_NN1 that_CST can_VM not_XX be_VBI alienated_VVN :_: for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, '_" my_APPGE universal_JJ freedom_NN1 of_IO will_NN1 ,_, my_APPGE ethical_JJ life_NN1 ,_, my_APPGE religion_NN1 '_GE (_( para_NN1 ._. 
66_MC )_) ._. 
In_II marriage_NN1 ,_, Hegel_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, neither_RR husband_NN1 nor_CC wife_NN1 treats_VVZ the_AT other_JJ as_CSA his/her_APPGE property_NN1 ._. 
Family_NN1 members_NN2 are_VBR linked_VVN through_II love_NN1 ._. 
Morality_NN1 ,_, at_II this_DD1 level_NN1 ,_, appears_VVZ as_CSA something_PN1 natural_JJ ._. 
Through_II love_NN1 ,_, the_AT individual_NN1 renounces_VVZ his/her_APPGE egoistic_JJ standpoint_NN1 ,_, and_CC becomes_VVZ united_JJ with_IW the_AT loved_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
Individuals_NN2 ,_, through_II love_NN1 ,_, become_VV0 real_JJ social_JJ beings_NN2 ,_, each_DD1 identifying_VVG with_IW and_CC loving_VVG through_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
The_AT love_NN1 between_II man_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, apparently_RR presupposes_VVZ man_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 treating_VVG one_PPX121 another_PPX122 as_CSA equal_JJ ,_, autonomous_JJ beings_NN2 ._. 
Each_DD1 has_VHZ to_TO find_VVI him/herself_FU partly_RR through_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
In_II love_NN1 ,_, men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 are_VBR '_GE living_JJ subjects_NN2 who_PNQS are_VBR alike_RR in_II power_NN1 and_CC thus_RR in_II one_PPX121 another_PPX122 's_GE eyes_NN2 '_GE (_( para_NN1 ._. 
62_MC )_) ._. 
Apparently_RR ,_, then_RT ,_, Hegel_NP1 is_VBZ extending_VVG a_AT1 notion_NN1 of_IO full_JJ autonomy_NN1 to_II the_AT sphere_NN1 of_IO love-making_NN1 ._. 
Yet_RR ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_II tension_NN1 with_IW the_AT foregoing_JJ ,_, Hegel_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST ,_, although_CS the_AT male_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX '_GE own_DA '_GE wife_NN1 or_CC children_NN2 ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ in_II control_NN1 of_IO family_NN1 property_NN1 ._. 
For_IF legal_JJ purposes_NN2 ,_, the_AT family_NN1 is_VBZ represented_VVN by_II its_APPGE head_NN1 :_: the_AT father/husband_NN1 ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR the_AT father/husband_NN1 's_GE role_NN1 in_II modern_JJ industrial_JJ society_NN1 to_TO go_VVI '_" out_RP '_" to_TO work_VVI in_II the_AT world_NN1 outside_RL ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR the_AT man_NN1 who_PNQS enters_VVZ civil_JJ society_NN1 (_( the_AT '_GE public_NN1 '_GE sphere_NN1 )_) and_CC ,_, in_II that_DD1 world_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 represents_VVZ the_AT other_JJ family_NN1 members_NN2 ._. 
Daughters_NN2 and_CC wives_NN2 ,_, by_II contrast_NN1 ,_, are_VBR expected_VVN to_TO remain_VVI ,_, throughout_II their_APPGE lives_NN2 ,_, in_II the_AT family_NN1 network_NN1 ._. 
Their_APPGE activities_NN2 have_VH0 no_AT direct_JJ economic_JJ significance_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, although_CS ostensibly_RR the_AT relation_NN1 between_II husband_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 in_II love-making_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 relation_NN1 between_II equals_NN2 ,_, in_II fact_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX ._. 
The_AT power_NN1 of_IO the_AT father_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX quite_RR like_II that_DD1 of_IO the_AT '_GE patriarch_NN1 '_GE in_II Filmer_NP1 's_GE Patriarcha_NP1 (_( 1680_MC )_) ,_, yet_RR his_APPGE activities_NN2 outside_II the_AT home_NN1 invest_VV0 him_PPHO1 with_IW an_AT1 importance_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT wife_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX have_VHI ._. 
These_DD2 powers_NN2 will_VM limit_VVI the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 can_VM be_VBI autonomous_JJ and_CC equal_JJ in_II love-making_NN1 ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, Hegel_NP1 explicitly_RR distinguishes_VVZ the_AT '_GE natures_NN2 '_GE of_IO the_AT two_MC sexes_NN2 ._. 
Man_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 creature_NN1 of_IO '_GE reason_NN1 '_GE ,_, woman_NN1 is_VBZ intuitive_JJ ;_; man_NN1 is_58 '_GE powerful_JJ and_CC active_JJ '_GE ,_, woman_NN1 passive_NN1 and_CC subjective_JJ (_( para_NN1 ._. 
166_MC )_) ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, Hegel_NP1 elevates_VVZ some_DD of_IO the_AT traits_NN2 which_DDQ characterise_VV0 men_NN2 as_CSA powerful_JJ masculine_JJ beings_NN2 ,_, women_NN2 as_CSA feminine_JJ ,_, to_II the_AT status_NN1 of_IO differences_NN2 in_II their_APPGE natures_NN2 ._. 
Therefore_RR ,_, the_AT appearance_NN1 that_CST the_AT relation_NN1 between_II husband_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 in_II love-making_NN1 is_VBZ one_PN1 between_II equal_JJ autonomous_JJ partners_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ an_AT1 appearance_NN1 only_RR ._. 
In_II losing_VVG themselves_PPX2 in_II their_APPGE partners_NN2 ,_, men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 are_VBR renouncing_VVG unequal_JJ qualities_NN2 ._. 
The_AT man_NN1 has_VHZ to_TO give_VVI up_RP some_DD of_IO his_APPGE power_NN1 ;_; the_AT woman_NN1 must_VM gain_VVI some_DD ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 suggests_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ actually_RR impossible_JJ for_IF Hegel_NP1 to_TO realise_VVI what_DDQ appears_VVZ to_TO be_VBI an_AT1 ideal_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT relationship_NN1 between_II lovers_NN2 ._. 
Losing_VVG oneself_PNX1 in_II the_AT other_JJ when_CS one_MC1 party_NN1 is_VBZ more_RGR powerful_JJ than_CSN the_AT other_NN1 can_VM only_RR mean_VVI the_AT one_PN1 submitting_VVG to_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
Two_MC wills_NN2 becoming_VVG one_MC1 ,_, when_CS the_AT two_MC wills_NN2 were_VBDR initially_RR unequal_JJ can_VM surely_RR only_RR mean_VVI the_AT one_MC1 will_NN1 subordinating_VVG itself_PPX1 to_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, in_II the_AT end_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 looks_VVZ as_CS21 though_CS22 Hegel_NP1 's_GE view_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 between_II husband_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 in_II marriage_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX very_RG different_JJ from_II Kant_NP1 's_GE ._. 
Indeed_RR ,_, although_CS Hegel_NP1 does_VDZ not_XX admit_VVI quite_RG what_DDQ I_PPIS1 am_VBM now_RT suggesting_VVG ,_, he_PPHS1 effectively_RR concedes_VVZ that_CST ,_, given_VVN the_AT difference_NN1 between_II the_AT sexes_NN2 ,_, unity_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 is_VBZ impossible_JJ ._. 
'_GE Man_NN1 has_VHZ his_58 '_GE substantive_JJ life_NN1 '_GE in_II the_AT State_NN1 ,_, in_II learning_VVG and_RR31 so_RR32 forth_RR33 ,_, whereas_CS the_AT '_GE substantive_JJ destiny_NN1 '_GE of_IO woman_NN1 lies_VVZ in_II the_AT family_NN1 '_GE (_( para_NN1 ._. 
166_MC again_RT )_) ._. 
In_RR21 addition_RR22 ,_, Hegel_NP1 restricts_VVZ his_APPGE discussion_NN1 of_IO love_NN1 to_II that_DD1 between_II husband_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 in_II marriage_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR inside_II what_DDQ is_VBZ ,_, in_II the_AT end_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 contractual_JJ relation_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 '_VBZ love_NN1 '_GE can_NN1 prevail_VVI ._. 
'_GE Love_NN1 '_GE therefore_RR between_II a_AT1 non-married_JJ man_NN1 and_CC woman_NN1 ,_, or_CC between_II two_MC men_NN2 or_CC two_MC women_NN2 would_VM be_VBI impossible_JJ ._. 
Rather_II21 than_II22 describing_VVG a_AT1 relation_NN1 between_II equals_NN2 ,_, Hegel_NP1 's_GE picture_NN1 of_IO love-making_NN1 is_VBZ very_RG like_II his_APPGE account_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 between_II Master_NN1 and_CC Slave_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT Master-Slave_NP1 dialectic_NN1 ,_, described_VVN in_II his_APPGE Phenomenology_NN1 of_IO Spirit_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 relation_NN1 in_II fact_NN1 ,_, for_IF Hegel_NP1 ,_, represents_VVZ a_AT1 stage_NN1 to_TO be_VBI overcome_VVN ,_, in_II the_AT evolution_NN1 of_IO spirit_NN1 towards_II rational_JJ self-awareness_NN1 ._. 
Indeed_RR ,_, Kant_NP1 and_CC Hegel_NP1 's_GE accounts_NN2 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 between_II man_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 in_II love-making_NN1 are_VBR actually_RR not_XX far_RR removed_VVN from_II a_AT1 description_NN1 of_IO pornographic_JJ eroticism_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Master-Slave_NP1 dialectic_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 apt_JJ metaphor_NN1 for_IF the_AT latter_DA ._. 
Let_VV0 us_PPIO2 have_VHI a_AT1 look_NN1 at_II the_AT passage_NN1 to_TO see_VVI how_RRQ this_DD1 might_VM be_VBI ._. 
THE_AT MASTER-SLAVE_JJ RELATION_NN1 In_II this_DD1 passage_NN1 Hegel_NP1 is_VBZ asking_VVG the_AT question_NN1 :_: How_RRQ do_VD0 I_PPIS1 become_VVI aware_JJ of_IO myself_PPX1 as_II a_AT1 self_NN1 ?_? 
He_PPHS1 believes_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ desires_NN2 '_GE are_VBR important_JJ to_II the_AT consciousness_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE own_DA existence_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA people_NN act_VV0 on_II things_NN2 because_CS they_PPHS2 want_VV0 them_PPHO2 the_AT child_NN1 wants_VVZ a_AT1 teddy_NN1 bear_NN1 ,_, or_CC wants_VVZ something_PN1 to_TO eat_VVI they_PPHS2 begin_VV0 to_TO gain_VVI a_AT1 sense_NN1 of_IO themselves_PPX2 as_CSA distinct_JJ from_II those_DD2 objects_NN2 ._. 
Hegel_VV0 ,_, however_RR ,_, argues_VVZ that_CST we_PPIS2 can_VM not_XX be_VBI fully_RR aware_JJ of_IO ourselves_PPX2 ,_, as_CSA selves_NN2 ,_, unless_CS we_PPIS2 are_VBR conscious_JJ of_IO other_JJ people_NN ._. 
Here_RL he_PPHS1 is_VBZ on_II the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO the_AT view_NN1 of_IO '_GE the_AT other_NN1 '_GE to_II one_PN1 's_GE sense_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 :_: '_GE Self_NN1 consciousness_NN1 exists_VVZ in_RP and_CC for_IF itself_PPX1 ,_, when_RRQ ,_, and_CC by_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST ,_, it_PPH1 so_RR exists_VVZ for_IF another_DD1 ;_; that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, it_PPH1 exists_VVZ only_RR in_II being_VBG acknowledged_JJ '_GE (_( Hegel_NP1 ,_, 1979_MC ,_, p._NN1 111_MC )_) ._. 
Hegel_NN1 suggests_VVZ that_CST we_PPIS2 all_DB aim_VV0 to_TO be_VBI recognised_VVN by_II others_NN2 wanting_VVG to_TO be_VBI noticed_VVN by_II others_NN2 ,_, to_TO be_VBI deemed_VVN worthy_JJ by_II others_NN2 are_VBR traits_NN2 we_PPIS2 all_DB have_VH0 ._. 
Sometimes_RT ,_, indeed_RR ,_, we_PPIS2 identify_VV0 with_IW another_DD1 instead_II21 of_II22 seeing_VVG ourselves_PPX2 as_CSA independent_JJ autonomous_JJ subjects_NN2 ,_, we_PPIS2 identify_VV0 with_IW Lady_NNB Diana_NP1 ,_, our_APPGE headmistress_NN1 or_CC somebody_PN1 at_II work_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB ,_, says_VVZ Hegel_NP1 ,_, if_CS my_APPGE identity_NN1 lies_VVZ outside_II myself_PPX1 in_II my_APPGE head_NN1 of_IO department_NN1 ,_, in_II my_APPGE father_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ outside_II my_APPGE control_NN1 ._. 
Therefore_RR ,_, Hegel_NP1 suggests_VVZ ,_, I_PPIS1 the_AT jealous_JJ one_PN1 may_VM set_VVI out_RP to_TO destroy_VVI the_AT person_NN1 in_II whom_PNQO my_APPGE '_GE self-hood_NN1 '_GE resides_VVZ ._. 
Of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, few_DA2 of_IO us_PPIO2 really_RR set_VVN out_RP to_TO destroy_VVI someone_PN1 of_IO whom_PNQO we_PPIS2 are_VBR jealous_JJ ;_; none_RR31 the_RR32 less_RR33 Hegel_NP1 is_VBZ describing_VVG an_AT1 extreme_JJ form_NN1 of_IO such_DA a_AT1 feeling_NN1 ._. 
Taking_VVG it_PPH1 as_CSA far_RR as_CSA it_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI taken_VVN ,_, Hegel_NP1 suggests_VVZ that_CST the_AT conflict_NN1 between_II myself_PPX1 and_CC the_AT person_NN1 in_II whom_PNQO my_APPGE identity_NN1 resides_VVZ will_VM become_VVI a_AT1 struggle_NN1 between_II life_NN1 and_CC death_NN1 ,_, because_CS ,_, he_PPHS1 says_VVZ ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR by_II risking_VVG one_PN1 's_GE life_NN1 that_CST one_PN1 becomes_VVZ fully_RR aware_JJ of_IO oneself_PNX1 as_II a_AT1 free_JJ ,_, autonomous_JJ individual_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR when_CS I_PPIS1 realise_VV0 how_RGQ fragile_JJ my_APPGE life_NN1 as_II a_AT1 human_JJ being_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, by_II becoming_VVG aware_JJ of_IO its_APPGE limits_NN2 ,_, that_CST I_PPIS1 can_VM become_VVI a_AT1 fully_RR free_JJ person_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, we_PPIS2 must_VM remember_VVI what_DDQ we_PPIS2 earlier_RRR quoted_VVD Hegel_NP1 as_CSA saying_VVG :_: that_CST the_AT other_JJ person_NN1 's_GE attitude_NN1 towards_II me_PPIO1 is_VBZ important_JJ for_IF my_APPGE sense_NN1 of_IO self-identity_NN1 ._. 
So_RR I_PPIS1 must_VM neither_RR die_VVI myself_PPX1 ,_, nor_CC must_VM I_PPIS1 destroy_VVI the_AT individual_NN1 in_II whom_PNQO my_APPGE identity_NN1 resides_VVZ ._. 
Since_CS we_PPIS2 can_VM not_XX go_VVI on_RP struggling_VVG with_IW one_PPX121 another_PPX122 indefinitely_RR ,_, Hegel_NP1 says_VVZ that_CST one_PN1 must_VM submit_VVI to_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
The_AT one_PN1 who_PNQS submits_VVZ he_PPHS1 calls_VVZ the_AT '_GE slave_NN1 '_GE and_CC the_AT one_PN1 to_II whom_PNQO that_DD1 person_NN1 submits_VVZ him/herself_FU becomes_VVZ the_AT '_GE master_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Thus_RR we_PPIS2 get_VV0 Dependence_NN1 and_CC Independence_NN1 of_IO Self_NN1 Consciousness_NN1 :_: Master_NN1 and_CC Slave_NN1 ._. 
Hegel_NN1 believes_VVZ that_CST the_AT '_GE Master-Slave_NP1 dialectic_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ a_AT1 phase_NN1 in_II the_AT development_NN1 of_IO world_NN1 history_NN1 in_II the_AT progression_NN1 towards_II freedom_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE Spirit_NN1 '_GE that_DD1 controls_VVZ historical_JJ change_NN1 ._. 
In_II fact_NN1 ,_, the_AT relation_NN1 is_VBZ disadvantageous_JJ both_RR for_IF the_AT slave_NN1 and_CC for_IF the_AT master_NN1 ._. 
Indeed_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 thinks_VVZ that_CST whereas_CS the_AT master_NN1 fails_VVZ to_TO gain_VVI a_AT1 proper_JJ sense_NN1 of_IO himself_PPX1 from_II the_AT slave_NN1 ,_, because_CS the_AT slave_NN1 merely_RR carries_VVZ out_RP his_APPGE (_( the_AT master_NN1 's_GE )_) will_VM ,_, the_AT slave_NN1 does_VDZ gain_VVI a_AT1 certain_JJ degree_NN1 of_IO self-consciousness_NN1 by_II31 means_II32 of_II33 the_AT work_NN1 he_PPHS1 performs_VVZ for_IF the_AT master_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 seems_VVZ to_II me_PPIO1 that_CST this_DD1 passage_NN1 describes_VVZ the_AT way_NN1 loving_VVG relationships_NN2 turn_VV0 out_RP to_TO be_VBI for_IF Hegel_NP1 ._. 
Ostensibly_RR ,_, the_AT relation_NN1 between_II man_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 ,_, where_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR linked_VVN by_II love_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST between_II Master_NN1 and_CC Slave_NN1 ,_, are_VBR very_RG different_JJ ._. 
Yet_RR ,_, as_CSA I_PPIS1 argued_VVD earlier_RRR ,_, giving_VVG up_RP one_PN1 's_GE identity_NN1 to_II another_DD1 who_PNQS is_VBZ more_RGR powerful_JJ can_VM only_RR mean_VVI submitting_VVG oneself_PNX1 to_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
In_II the_AT end_NN1 ,_, the_AT role_NN1 of_IO the_AT wife_NN1 in_II marriage_NN1 is_VBZ very_RG like_II that_DD1 of_IO the_AT Slave_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT Master-Slave_NP1 dialectic_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO capture_VVI the_AT relation_NN1 between_II people_NN in_II pornographic_JJ eroticism_NN1 ._. 
In_II much_DA1 pornography_NN1 ,_, people_NN ,_, usually_RR women_NN2 ,_, become_VV0 objects_NN2 for_IF another_DD1 ._. 
The_AT philosopher_NN1 Sartre_NP1 believed_VVD that_CST ,_, in_II the_AT act_NN1 of_IO love-making_NN1 ,_, the_AT lover_NN1 becomes_VVZ at_RR21 once_RR22 subject_NN1 and_CC object_VV0 for_CS she_PPHS1 sees_VVZ herself_PPX1 partly_RR as_CSA the_AT body_NN1 desired_VVN by_II the_AT lover_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB then_RT her_APPGE identity_NN1 is_VBZ partly_RR outside_II her_APPGE control_NN1 ,_, so_CS she_PPHS1 tries_VVZ to_TO turn_VVI her_APPGE lover_NN1 into_II an_AT1 object_NN1 as_RR21 well_RR22 (_( Sartre_NP1 ,_, 1957_MC ,_, pt_NNU ._. 
III_MC ,_, ch._NNU 3_MC )_) ._. 
In_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO pornography_NN1 ,_, what_DDQ happens_VVZ is_VBZ that_CST the_AT one_MC1 person_NN1 becomes_VVZ a_AT1 body_NN1 desired_VVN by_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX reciprocated_VVN ._. 
In_II much_DA1 porn_NN1 ,_, the_AT woman_NN1 becomes_VVZ the_AT '_GE object_NN1 '_GE of_IO male_JJ desire_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 either_RR involuntarily_RR submits_VVZ in_II this_DD1 role_NN1 (_( as_CSA does_VDZ the_AT woman_NN1 on_II the_AT pages_NN2 of_IO Penthouse_NP1 )_) or_CC she_PPHS1 does_VDZ it_PPH1 voluntarily_RR ,_, like_II de_NP1 Sade_NP1 's_GE Justine_NP1 or_CC '_GE O_NP1 '_GE in_II the_AT pornographic_JJ novel_NN1 by_II Pauline_NP1 Reage_NP1 ,_, The_AT Story_NN1 of_IO O._NP1 In_II that_DD1 story_NN1 women_NN2 are_VBR taken_VVN to_II a_AT1 castle_NN1 ,_, where_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR abused_VVN and_CC tormented_VVN by_II men_NN2 ._. 
'_GE O_NP1 '_GE is_VBZ enslaved_VVN by_II her_APPGE lover_NN1 Rene_NP1 ,_, yet_RR she_PPHS1 voluntarily_RR submits_VVZ ;_; she_PPHS1 is_VBZ represented_VVN as_CSA desiring_VVG subordination_NN1 ._. 
Since_CS the_AT identity_NN1 of_IO the_AT lover_NN1 the_AT woman_NN1 becomes_VVZ submerged_JJ in_II the_AT other_JJ lover_NN1 's_GE desire_NN1 for_IF her/his_APPGE body_NN1 ,_, one_MC1 of_IO the_AT two_MC may_VM become_VVI afraid_JJ and_CC want_VVI to_TO kill_VVI the_AT other_JJ ._. 
In_II a_AT1 recent_JJ hard-core_JJ pornographic_JJ film_NN1 from_II Denmark_NP1 ,_, the_AT woman_NN1 ends_VVZ up_RP killing_VVG the_AT man_NN1 ._. 
Throughout_II the_AT film_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN the_AT man_NN1 ,_, the_AT dominant_JJ male_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS got_VVD the_AT woman_NN1 to_TO act_VVI out_RP his_APPGE wishes_NN2 and_CC fantasies_NN2 ._. 
The_AT woman_NN1 's_VBZ killing_VVG the_AT man_NN1 seems_VVZ metaphorical_JJ only_RR ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 fits_VVZ the_AT present_JJ idea_NN1 that_CST the_AT one_PN1 whose_DDQGE identity_NN1 becomes_VVZ submerged_JJ may_VM want_VVI to_TO kill_VVI the_AT other_JJ ._. 
But_CCB sometimes_RT ,_, in_II porn_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT dominant_JJ man_NN1 who_PNQS takes_VVZ his_APPGE domination_NN1 to_II the_AT extreme_JJ and_CC kills_VVZ the_AT woman_NN1 :_: in_II Norman_NP1 Mailer_NP1 's_GE The_AT American_JJ Dream_NN1 ,_, the_AT woman_NN1 the_AT slave_NN1 dies_VVZ ._. 
De_NP1 Sade_NP1 said_VVD that_CST if_CS one_PN1 wants_VVZ to_TO know_VVI about_II death_NN1 one_PN1 should_VM look_VVI at_II sexual_JJ excitement_NN1 ._. 
And_CC Sigmund_NP1 Freud_NP1 ,_, in_RP Beyond_II the_AT Pleasure_NN1 Principle_NN1 ,_, described_VVD the_AT '_GE drive_NN1 to_II inorganicism_NN1 '_GE as_58 '_GE the_AT most_RGT radical_JJ form_NN1 of_IO the_AT pleasure_NN1 principle_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Sexuality_NN1 affords_VVZ us_PPIO2 the_AT opportunity_NN1 of_IO transgressing_VVG the_AT barrier_NN1 separating_JJ life_NN1 from_II death_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB mostly_RR ,_, even_RR in_II porn_NN1 ,_, the_AT taboo_NN1 against_II killing_NN1 is_VBZ upheld_VVN ._. 
Instead_RR we_PPIS2 have_VH0 the_AT Master-Slave_NP1 relation_NN1 :_: one_MC1 person_NN1 partly_RR being_VBG seen_VVN as_II the_AT body_NN1 desired_VVN by_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, but_CCB where_RRQ this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX reciprocated_VVN ._. 
Unlike_II Hegel_NP1 's_GE slave_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, who_PNQS loses_VVZ his_APPGE subjectivity_NN1 to_II the_AT Master_NN1 ,_, the_AT '_GE slave_NN1 '_GE in_II porn_NN1 must_VM retain_VVI some_DD subjectivity_NN1 or_CC she_PPHS1 will_VM cease_VVI being_VBG desirable_JJ to_II the_AT master_NN1 ._. 
The_AT subjectivity_NN1 she_PPHS1 has_VHZ is_VBZ as_II a_AT1 subject_NN1 who_PNQS desires_VVZ to_TO be_VBI objecta_NN1 subject_NN1 who_PNQS wants_VVZ only_RR to_TO satisfy_VVI the_AT wants_NN2 of_IO the_AT Master_NN1 ._. 
Things_NN2 ought_VMK not_XX to_TO be_VBI this_DD1 way_NN1 ,_, in_II love-making_NN1 ,_, however_RR ._. 
People_NN ought_VMK to_TO treat_VVI one_PPX121 another_PPX122 as_CSA people_NN ,_, as_CSA autonomous_JJ beings_NN2 ,_, in_II love-making_NN1 ,_, as_CSA elsewhere_RL ._. 
One_MC1 of_IO the_AT things_NN2 wrong_JJ with_IW porn_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ that_DD1 someone_PN1 's_VBZ usually_RR the_AT woman_NN1 's_GE autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ violated_VVN ._. 
PORN_NP1 AND_CC FANTASY_NN1 Porn_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, involves_VVZ fantasy_NN1 ._. 
Often_RR ,_, in_II pornographic_JJ eroticism_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT real_JJ love-making_NN1 between_II people_NN ._. 
One_MC1 writer_NN1 claims_VVZ that_CST the_AT use_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT most_RGT heavily_RR read_VV0 porn_NN1 Penthouse_NN1 ,_, Playboy_NP1 ,_, Men_NN2 Only_RR and_CC Mayfair_NP1 is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO be_VBI put_VVN ,_, is_VBZ as_RG material_JJ for_IF masturbatory_JJ fantasies_NN2 (_( Moye_NP1 ,_, 1985_MC ,_, p._NN1 53_MC )_) ._. 
What_DDQ can_VM be_VBI wrong_JJ with_IW this_DD1 ?_? 
Let_VV0 us_PPIO2 imagine_VVI ourselves_PPX2 as_II a_AT1 reader_NN1 of_IO Penthouse_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO answer_VVI this_DD1 question_NN1 ._. 
In_II one_MC1 picture_NN1 in_II the_AT centre_NN1 pages_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 copy_NN1 of_IO the_AT magazine_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 woman_NN1 is_VBZ smiling_VVG ,_, relaxed_VVD ;_; she_PPHS1 stares_VVZ erotically_RR at_II her_APPGE viewer_NN1 ._. 
The_AT viewer_NN1 can_VM lay_VVI aside_RL ,_, in_II his_APPGE fantasy_NN1 relation_NN1 to_II this_DD1 woman_NN1 ,_, the_AT difficult_JJ ,_, complex_JJ emotions_NN2 he_PPHS1 will_VM experience_VVI in_II any_DD actual_JJ relationship_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 real_JJ woman_NN1 ,_, and_CC concentrate_VV0 upon_II his_APPGE own_DA desire_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 can_VM picture_VVI the_AT woman_NN1 to_II whom_PNQO he_PPHS1 is_VBZ relating_VVG ,_, as_CSA uncomplicatedly_RR wanting_VVG him_PPHO1 ,_, her_APPGE desire_NN1 being_VBG to_TO satisfy_VVI his_PPGE ._. 
Thus_RR to_TO use_VVI the_AT contemporary_JJ philosopher_NN1 Richard_NP1 Wollheim_NP1 's_GE (_( 1985_MC )_) analogy_NN1 of_IO the_AT mind_NN1 as_II a_AT1 theatre_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ ,_, in_II his_APPGE fantasy_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 actor_NN1 in_II a_AT1 play_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ written_VVN ,_, and_CC she_PPHS1 the_AT woman_NN1 on_II the_AT page_NN1 is_VBZ in_II it_PPH1 too_RR ,_, as_CSA his_APPGE adoring_JJ lover_NN1 ,_, his_APPGE woman_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ totally_RR fixated_VVN upon_II him_PPHO1 ._. 
The_AT woman_NN1 represented_VVN on_II the_AT pages_NN2 of_IO Penthouse_NN1 is_VBZ depicted_VVN ,_, as_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 said_VVN ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 subject_NN1 who_PNQS desires_VVZ to_TO be_VBI object_NN1 :_: she_PPHS1 appears_VVZ to_TO want_VVI just_RR to_TO satisfy_VVI the_AT desire_NN1 of_IO the_AT man_NN1 who_PNQS gazes_VVZ at_II her_PPHO1 as_CSA he_PPHS1 masturbates_VVZ ._. 
What_DDQ can_VM be_VBI wrong_JJ ,_, however_RR ,_, with_IW fantasising_VVG ,_, treating_VVG a_AT1 woman_NN1 as_II an_AT1 object_NN1 ,_, if_CS there_EX is_VBZ no_AT connection_NN1 between_II the_AT fantasy_NN1 and_CC real_JJ life_NN1 and_CC if_CS she_PPHS1 is_VBZ depicted_VVN as_CSA wanting_VVG to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN this_DD1 way_NN1 ?_? 
Wollheim_NP1 ,_, as_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 mentioned_VVN ,_, depicts_VVZ the_AT mind_NN1 as_II a_AT1 theatre_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT theatre_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, there_EX is_VBZ (_( a_ZZ1 )_) an_AT1 internal_JJ dramatist_NN1 who_PNQS makes_VVZ up_RP the_AT characters_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE actions_NN2 ;_; (_( b_ZZ1 )_) an_AT1 internal_JJ actor_NN1 who_PNQS represents_VVZ to_II the_AT reader_NN1 for_IF his_APPGE benefit_NN1 the_AT actions_NN2 he_PPHS1 has_VHZ made_VVN up_RP as_CSA dramatist_NN1 ;_; and_CC ,_, finally_RR ,_, (_( c_ZZ1 )_) an_AT1 internal_JJ audience_NN1 ._. 
After_CS the_AT fantasy_NN1 performance_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 ,_, the_AT individuals_NN2 doing_VDG the_AT fantasising_NN1 ,_, are_VBR left_VVN with_IW some_DD reactions_NN2 to_II our_APPGE fantasy_NN1 ._. 
The_AT first_MD type_NN1 of_IO link_NN1 between_II the_AT fantasy_NN1 representation_NN1 and_CC the_AT world_NN1 outside_RL is_VBZ that_CST the_AT fantasy_NN1 materials_NN2 the_AT characters_NN2 in_II the_AT play_NN1 and_CC their_APPGE actions_NN2 are_VBR drawn_VVN from_II real_JJ life_NN1 ._. 
Even_RR novels_NN2 which_DDQ appear_VV0 to_TO be_VBI furthest_RRT removed_VVN from_II the_AT lives_NN2 of_IO those_DD2 who_PNQS wrote_VVD them_PPHO2 the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Kafka_NP1 ,_, of_IO Lewis_NP1 Carroll_NP1 ,_, of_IO the_AT contemporary_JJ feminist_JJ writer_NN1 Marge_NP1 Piercy_NP1 have_VH0 drawn_VVN on_II the_AT real_JJ life_NN1 surroundings_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE authors_NN2 ._. 
And_CC there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 particularly_RR close_JJ connection_NN1 in_II the_AT case_NN1 we_PPIS2 are_VBR considering_VVG ._. 
The_AT fantasy_NN1 relation_NN1 between_II reader_NN1 and_CC text_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 man_NN1 reading_NN1 Playboy_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ more_RRR like_II the_AT relation_NN1 between_II consumer_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 realist_NN1 novel_NN1 than_CSN it_PPH1 is_VBZ like_II that_DD1 between_II reader_NN1 and_CC the_AT text_NN1 of_IO Kafka_NP1 ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ obviously_RR not_XX sufficient_JJ reason_NN1 for_IF us_PPIO2 to_TO condemn_VVI the_AT porn_NN1 ._. 
The_AT fantasy_NN1 had_VHD by_II the_AT reader_NN1 of_IO Penthouse_NN1 may_VM not_XX involve_VVI any_DD beliefs_NN2 that_CST real_JJ women_NN2 behave_VV0 as_CSA he_PPHS1 imagines_VVZ the_AT woman_NN1 on_II the_AT page_NN1 does_VDZ ._. 
So_RR what_DDQ grounds_NN2 are_VBR there_RL for_IF condemning_VVG the_AT porn_NN1 ?_? 
Part_NN1 of_IO the_AT grounds_NN2 are_VBR the_AT following_JJ ._. 
The_AT evidence_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 causal_JJ connection_NN1 between_II reading_VVG pornographic_JJ material_NN1 and_CC committing_VVG violent_JJ acts_NN2 against_II women_NN2 is_VBZ inconclusive_JJ (_( Williams_NP1 ,_, 1979_MC )_) ._. 
But_CCB even_CS21 if_CS22 there_EX is_VBZ not_XX this_DD1 causal_JJ connection_NN1 ,_, the_AT fantasy_NN1 does_VDZ have_VHI a_AT1 causal_JJ effect_NN1 ._. 
Returning_VVG to_II Wollheim_NP1 's_GE analogy_NN1 :_: when_RRQ the_AT reader_NN1 of_IO the_AT porn_NN1 performs_VVZ ,_, as_CSA internal_JJ actor_NN1 ,_, his_APPGE fantasy_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ left_VVN ,_, as_CSA internal_JJ audience_NN1 ,_, in_II a_AT1 state_NN1 that_CST simulates_VVZ the_AT state_NN1 he_PPHS1 would_VM be_VBI in_RP if_CS he_PPHS1 had_VHD actually_RR had_VHN a_AT1 relationship_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 woman_NN1 like_II the_AT imagined_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
The_AT reader_NN1 of_IO Penthouse_NN1 is_VBZ left_JJ feeling_NN1 pleasure_NN1 ._. 
And_CC this_DD1 ,_, as_CSA once_RR21 again_RR22 Wollheim_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, though_CS it_PPH1 may_VM not_XX lead_VVI to_II action_NN1 like_II that_DD1 in_II the_AT representation_NN1 ,_, acts_VVZ as_II a_AT1 lure_NN1 to_II the_AT formation_NN1 of_IO fresh_JJ dispositions_NN2 to_TO act_VVI of_IO fresh_JJ desires_NN2 ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, the_AT representation_NN1 of_IO the_AT desire_NN1 as_CSA pleasurably_RR satisfied_JJ ,_, reinforces_VVZ the_AT desire_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR pornographic_JJ representations_NN2 are_VBR to_TO be_VBI condemned_VVN because_CS they_PPHS2 reinforce_VV0 the_AT desires_NN2 to_TO treat_VVI people_NN ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ usually_RR women_NN2 ,_, i_ZZ1 n_ZZ1 the_AT way_NN1 I_PPIS1 have_VH0 been_VBN arguing_VVG they_PPHS2 are_VBR treated_VVN ._. 
The_AT fantasy_NN1 desire_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 a_AT1 man_NN1 ,_, to_TO have_VHI a_AT1 woman_NN1 adoring_VVG him_PPHO1 ,_, and_CC to_TO have_VHI her_APPGE interested_JJ only_RR in_II satisfying_VVG his_APPGE desires_NN2 ,_, reinforces_VVZ such_DA desires_NN2 in_II him_PPHO1 ._. 
And_CC such_DA desires_NN2 ,_, as_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 argued_VVN ,_, involve_VV0 treating_VVG women_NN2 as_CSA means_VVZ ,_, and_CC not_XX as_CSA ends_VVZ in_II themselves_PPX2 ._. 
Such_DA desires_NN2 may_VM involve_VVI coercing_VVG the_AT woman_NN1 into_II behaving_VVG in_II the_AT way_NN1 the_AT man_NN1 wants_VVZ her_PPHO1 to_II ._. 
Even_CS21 if_CS22 the_AT desire_NN1 is_VBZ never_RR satisfied_VVN in_II any_DD but_CCB the_AT fantasy_NN1 way_NN1 ,_, the_AT man_NN1 who_PNQS constantly_RR has_VHZ such_DA desires_NN2 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI condemned_VVN ,_, for_CS he_PPHS1 is_VBZ gaining_VVG satisfaction_NN1 from_II a_AT1 person_NN1 whom_PNQO he_PPHS1 has_VHZ divested_VVN of_IO personhood_NN1 and_CC turned_VVN into_II a_AT1 slave_NN1 ._. 
Because_CS he_PPHS1 is_VBZ constantly_RR having_VHG desires_NN2 for_IF these_DD2 partial_JJ relationships_NN2 satisfied_VVD ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ less_RGR likely_JJ to_TO seek_VVI out_RP non-distorting_NN1 ,_, non-partial_JJ relationships_NN2 in_II the_AT rest_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE life_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR a_AT1 full_JJ description_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ wrong_JJ with_IW pornography_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 reinforces_VVZ desires_NN2 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 men_NN2 to_TO treat_VVI women_NN2 as_CSA objects_NN2 ,_, as_CSA means_VVZ ,_, and_CC thus_RR ,_, indirectly_RR ,_, it_PPH1 reinforces_VVZ male_JJ power_NN1 ._. 
Though_CS the_AT woman_NN1 depicted_VVN on_II the_AT pages_NN2 of_IO the_AT magazines_NN2 may_VM be_VBI represented_VVN as_CSA wanting_VVG to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN ,_, this_DD1 type_NN1 of_IO depiction_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 is_VBZ commonplace_JJ ,_, and_CC is_VBZ one_MC1 of_IO the_AT major_JJ expressions_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE oppression_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, no_PN121 one_PN122 should_VM be_VBI treated_VVN purely_RR as_II a_AT1 means_NN anyway_RR ._. 
But_CCB ,_, additionally_RR in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO porn_NN1 ,_, treating_VVG women_NN2 this_DD1 way_NN1 has_VHZ the_AT consequence_NN1 of_IO reinforcing_VVG male_JJ power_NN1 ._. 
Not_XX treating_VVG women_NN2 as_CSA autonomous_JJ ,_, in_II pornographic_JJ love-making_NN1 ,_, has_VHZ the_AT consequence_NN1 of_IO reinforcing_VVG women_NN2 's_GE subordination_NN1 ._. 
Pornography_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX ,_, as_CSA Dworkin_NP1 (_( 1981_MC )_) suggests_VVZ it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, the_AT main_JJ causal_JJ agent_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE subordination_NN1 ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ merely_RR one_MC1 case_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 phenomenon_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ commonplace_JJ :_: women_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN treated_VVN as_CSA objects_NN2 throughout_II history_NN1 ._. 
In_II much_RR Greek_JJ thought_NN1 ,_, women_NN2 were_VBDR represented_VVN as_CSA being_VBG closer_JJR to_II nature_NN1 than_CSN men_NN2 ;_; their_APPGE role_NN1 in_II reproduction_NN1 connected_VVN them_PPHO2 to_II nature_NN1 's_GE fertility_NN1 ._. 
Being_VBG closer_JJR to_II nature_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR more_RGR like_JJ objects_NN2 than_CSN human_JJ beings_NN2 ._. 
In_II the_AT courtly_JJ love_NN1 tradition_NN1 ,_, the_AT woman_NN1 was_VBDZ put_VVN on_II a_AT1 pedestal_NN1 objectified_VVD ._. 
Such_DA a_AT1 conception_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 has_VHZ continued_VVN down_RP the_AT centuries_NNT2 ._. 
If_CS fantasy_NN1 depictions_NN2 of_IO others_NN2 are_VBR likely_JJ to_TO have_VHI consequences_NN2 for_IF one_PN1 's_GE behaviour_NN1 outside_II the_AT fantasy_NN1 ,_, then_RT so_RR are_VBR real_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO treating_VVG the_AT other_JJ in_II love-making_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, a_AT1 man_NN1 's_VBZ not_XX treating_VVG a_AT1 woman_NN1 as_CSA autonomous_JJ in_II love-making_NN1 is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO have_VHI consequences_NN2 for_IF the_AT way_NN1 he_PPHS1 treats_VVZ her_PPHO1 elsewhere_RL ._. 
Before_II concluding_VVG ,_, I_PPIS1 would_VM like_VVI to_TO raise_VVI a_AT1 couple_NN1 of_IO objections_NN2 to_II the_AT view_NN1 I_PPIS1 am_VBM advocating_VVG ._. 
SOME_DD OBJECTIONS_NN2 CONSIDERED_VVN First_MD of_IO all_DB ,_, it_PPH1 might_VM be_VBI argued_VVN that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_AT reason_NN1 why_RRQ the_AT man_NN1 should_VM treat_VVI the_AT woman_NN1 ,_, in_II fantasy_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT way_NN1 that_CST I_PPIS1 've_VH0 described_VVN ._. 
Why_RRQ should_VM he_PPHS1 not_XX view_VVI her_PPHO1 as_II a_AT1 fully_RR rounded_JJ subject_NN1 ,_, with_IW wants_NN2 and_CC desires_NN2 of_IO her_APPGE own_DA ?_? 
Part_NN1 of_IO the_AT answer_NN1 is_VBZ surely_RR just_RR the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT woman_NN1 on_II the_AT page_NN1 is_VBZ presented_VVN ._. 
She_PPHS1 appears_VVZ ,_, somehow_RR ,_, just_RR as_II a_AT1 woman_NN1 whose_DDQGE main_JJ desire_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO satisfy_VVI the_AT wants_NN2 of_IO the_AT one_PN1 who_PNQS gazes_VVZ at_II her_PPHO1 ._. 
But_CCB ,_, additionally_RR ,_, pornographic_JJ magazines_NN2 are_VBR bought_VVN and_CC sold_VVN ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, once_CS the_AT magazine_NN1 has_VHZ come_VVN into_II his_APPGE possession_NN1 ,_, the_AT man_NN1 as_RR31 it_RR32 were_RR33 acquires_VVZ the_AT right_NN1 to_TO treat_VVI the_AT images_NN2 on_II its_APPGE pages_NN2 in_II whichever_DDQV way_NN1 he_PPHS1 chooses_VVZ ._. 
Thus_RR he_PPHS1 is_VBZ able_JK to_TO treat_VVI the_AT woman_NN1 as_CSA infinitely_RR desirous_JJ of_IO sex_NN1 ,_, as_CSA wanting_VVG nothing_PN1 so_RR31 much_RR32 as_RR33 to_TO satisfy_VVI his_APPGE desires_NN2 ._. 
A_AT1 second_MD objection_NN1 that_CST will_VM be_VBI brought_VVN is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ odd_JJ to_TO treat_VVI another_DD1 as_II a_AT1 rational_JJ being_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT Kantian_JJ sense_NN1 ,_, in_II erotic_JJ relations_NN2 ,_, of_IO all_DB places_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 will_VM be_VBI objected_VVN that_DD1 love-making_NN1 necessarily_RR includes_VVZ an_AT1 irrational_JJ ,_, a_AT1 Dionysian_JJ ,_, element_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ obscured_VVN by_II what_DDQ I_PPIS1 am_VBM saying_VVG at_II the_AT moment_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 would_VM argue_VVI ,_, however_RR ,_, that_DD1 love-making_NN1 ought_VMK not_XX to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_CSA drawing_VVG only_RR on_II the_AT irrational_JJ side_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE nature_NN1 ._. 
Part_NN1 of_IO the_AT process_NN1 of_IO treating_VVG another_DD1 well_RR ,_, in_II love-making_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ attempting_VVG to_TO satisfy_VVI her/his_APPGE desires_NN2 ,_, and_CC this_DD1 ,_, of_IO necessity_NN1 ,_, involves_VVZ the_AT ability_NN1 to_TO recognise_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
In_II turn_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 presupposes_VVZ treating_VVG the_AT other_JJ as_II a_AT1 person_NN1 ,_, as_CSA ,_, at_RR21 least_RR22 partly_RR ,_, a_AT1 rational_JJ being_NN1 ._. 
So_RR ,_, although_CS there_EX is_VBZ an_AT1 irrational_JJ element_NN1 to_II eroticism_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 ought_VMK ,_, I_PPIS1 am_VBM arguing_VVG ,_, not_XX to_TO be_VBI so_RG irrational_JJ a_AT1 process_NN1 as_II21 to_II22 violate_NN1 the_AT other_NN1 's_GE autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Thirdly_RR ,_, the_AT criticism_NN1 might_VM be_VBI made_VVN that_CST the_AT distinction_NN1 I_PPIS1 earlier_RRR drew_VVD (_( in_II the_AT section_NN1 on_II '_GE Autonomy_NN1 '_GE )_) between_II someone_PN1 voluntarily_RR being_VBG treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 's_GE needs_NN2 ,_, and_CC their_APPGE being_VBG treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 's_GE desires_NN2 is_VBZ not_XX adequate_JJ here_RL ._. 
The_AT man_NN1 reading_NN1 Playboy_NN1 will_VM argue_VVI that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ a_AT1 need_NN1 for_IF it_PPH1 ._. 
This_DD1 suggests_VVZ ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, that_CST I_PPIS1 must_VM refine_VVI my_APPGE earlier_JJR criterion_NN1 in_II the_AT following_JJ way_NN1 :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ wrong_JJ for_IF a_AT1 person_NN1 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 's_VBZ desire_NN1 ,_, and_CC only_RR allowable_JJ for_IF them_PPHO2 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN ,_, with_IW their_APPGE consent_NN1 ,_, as_II a_AT1 means_NN to_II the_AT satisfaction_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 's_GE needs_NN2 ,_, if_CS no_AT other_JJ means_NN for_IF their_APPGE satisfaction_NN1 can_VM be_VBI made_VVN available_JJ ._. 
The_AT need_NN1 to_TO read_VVI Playboy_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO a_AT1 different_JJ order_NN1 from_II the_AT need_NN1 for_IF my_APPGE bone_NN1 marrow_NN1 in_II the_AT latter_DA case_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN ,_, at_II the_AT present_JJ level_NN1 of_IO development_NN1 of_IO medicine_NN1 ,_, that_CST no_AT alternative_NN1 is_VBZ possible_JJ while_NNT1 ,_, in_II the_AT former_DA ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ much_RR easier_JJR to_TO produce_VVI alternative_JJ means_NN (_( including_II other_JJ sorts_NN2 of_IO magazines_NN2 )_) ._. 
Indeed_RR the_AT former_DA is_VBZ a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO life_NN1 and_CC death_NN1 ,_, while_CS the_AT latter_DA is_VBZ not_XX ._. 
CONCLUSION_NN1 In_II this_DD1 paper_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 have_VH0 argued_VVN that_CST ,_, contrary_II21 to_II22 the_AT thinking_NN1 of_IO some_DD of_IO the_AT major_JJ representatives_NN2 of_IO the_AT tradition_NN1 which_DDQ distinguishes_VVZ the_AT public_JJ world_NN1 from_II the_AT private_JJ one_PN1 ,_, the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI extended_VVN to_II the_AT private_JJ sphere_NN1 ._. 
Part_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ wrong_JJ with_IW pornographic_JJ eroticism_NN1 ,_, where_RRQ people_NN are_VBR not_XX treated_VVN as_CSA autonomous_JJ ,_, is_VBZ that_DD1 it_PPH1 reinforces_VVZ men_NN2 's_GE desires_NN2 to_TO treat_VVI women_NN2 as_CSA means_VVZ ,_, as_CSA objects_NN2 ,_, in_II areas_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE lives_NN2 other_II21 than_II22 the_AT erotic_JJ ._. 
By_II excluding_VVG love-making_NN1 from_II the_AT sphere_NN1 of_IO operation_NN1 of_IO the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ,_, Kant_NP1 and_CC Hegel_NP1 were_VBDR limiting_VVG its_APPGE scope_NN1 in_II the_AT '_GE public_NN1 '_GE realm_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ goes_VVZ on_RP inside_II the_AT family_NN1 ,_, even_RR in_II the_AT most_RGT private_JJ of_IO all_DB relations_NN2 between_II human_JJ beings_NN2 ,_, has_VHZ effects_NN2 outside_II the_AT family._NNU 5_MC The_AT Philosopher_NN1 's_GE Child_NN1 Judith_NP1 Hughes_NP1 SOME_DD OF_IO OUR_APPGE CHILDREN_NN2 ARE_VBR MISSING_JJ Children_NN2 have_VH0 served_VVN philosophy_NN1 very_RG well_RR ._. 
That_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT first_MD thing_NN1 which_DDQ anyone_PN1 surveying_VVG the_AT literature_NN1 would_VM notice_VVI ._. 
Along_II21 with_II22 a_AT1 selection_NN1 from_II a_AT1 list_NN1 including_II women_NN2 ,_, animals_NN2 ,_, madmen_NN2 ,_, foreigners_NN2 ,_, slaves_NN2 ,_, patients_NN2 and_CC imbeciles_NN2 ,_, children_NN2 have_VH0 served_VVN in_II that_DD1 great_JJ class_NN1 of_IO beings_NN2 ,_, the_AT '_GE not-men_NN2 '_GE ,_, in_II contrast_NN1 with_IW which_DDQ male_JJ philosophers_NN2 have_VH0 defined_VVN and_CC valued_VVN themselves_PPX2 ._. 
Unlike_II the_AT others_NN2 who_PNQS appear_VV0 and_CC disappear_VV0 as_CSA fashion_NN1 and_CC progress_NN1 dictate_VV0 ,_, children_NN2 occupy_VV0 a_AT1 permanent_JJ place_NN1 in_II the_AT list_NN1 partly_RR because_II21 of_II22 their_APPGE continuing_JJ presence_NN1 as_II a_AT1 potential_JJ sub-class_JJ ,_, partly_RR because_CS they_PPHS2 have_VH0 never_RR protested_VVN and_CC mainly_RR because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN that_CST in_II favourable_JJ circumstances_NN2 they_PPHS2 will_VM become_VVI men_NN2 and_CC therefore_RR require_VVI attention_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 have_VH0 received_VVN it_PPH1 in_II the_AT shape_NN1 of_IO detailed_JJ educational_JJ theory_NN1 carefully_RR worked_VVN out_RP to_TO see_VVI them_PPHO2 through_II the_AT maturation_NN1 process_NN1 from_II infancy_NN1 to_II adulthood_NN1 ._. 
Generations_NN2 of_IO philosophers_NN2 have_VH0 documented_VVN this_DD1 process_NN1 ._. 
Perhaps_RR the_AT best_RRT known_VVN version_NN1 is_VBZ Shakespeare_NP1 's_GE seven_MC ages_NN2 of_IO man_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ a_AT1 poetic_JJ statement_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ had_VHD already_RR been_VBN received_VVN wisdom_NN1 for_IF centuries_NNT2 and_CC was_VBDZ to_TO remain_VVI so_RR for_IF centuries_NNT2 to_TO come_VVI ._. 
Education_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO guide_VVI the_AT infant_NN1 through_II the_AT transition_NN1 to_II manhood_NN1 including_II such_DA stages_NN2 as_CSA childhood_NN1 ,_, boyhood_NN1 and_CC youth_NN1 ._. 
That_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT second_MD thing_NN1 to_TO notice_VVI ;_; the_AT philosopher_NN1 's_GE children_NN2 are_VBR boys_NN2 ._. 
The_AT fact_NN1 that_CST at_RR21 least_RR22 half_DB of_IO the_AT world_NN1 's_GE children_NN2 would_VM not_XX actually_RR go_VVI through_II this_DD1 process_NN1 beyond_II the_AT first_MD two_MC stages_NN2 is_VBZ conveniently_RR forgotten_VVN or_CC ignored_VVD and_CC ,_, no_RR21 doubt_RR22 ,_, the_AT reasons_NN2 for_IF this_DD1 were_VBDR largely_RR social_JJ ._. 
But_CCB the_AT neglect_NN1 of_IO girl_NN1 children_NN2 through_II the_AT centuries_NNT2 of_IO theorising_VVG is_VBZ more_DAR than_CSN a_AT1 social_JJ injustice_NN1 ,_, though_CS many_DA2 might_VM think_VVI this_DD1 real_JJ and_CC bad_JJ enough_RR ._. 
Education_NN1 has_VHZ an_AT1 end_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ fashionable_JJ to_TO talk_VVI about_II its_APPGE value_NN1 '_GE for_IF its_APPGE own_DA sake_NN1 '_GE ,_, what_DDQ prompts_VVZ the_AT theorising_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT strong_JJ and_CC well-founded_JJ belief_NN1 that_CST the_AT experiences_NN2 of_IO childhood_NN1 affect_VV0 the_AT kind_NN1 of_IO adult_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT child_NN1 turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO be_VBI ._. 
Where_CS the_AT end_NN1 is_VBZ person-_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 role-oriented_JJ that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, where_CS the_AT end_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT development_NN1 of_IO the_AT human_JJ mind_NN1 and_CC spirit_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 the_AT production_NN1 of_IO ,_, say_VV0 ,_, information_NN1 technologists_NN2 then_RT education_NN1 is_VBZ valued_VVN in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 some_DD conception_NN1 of_IO worthwhile_JJ human_JJ existence_NN1 which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ meant_VVN to_TO serve_VVI ._. 
Such_DA an_AT1 ideal_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX stand_VVI isolated_VVN from_II the_AT practices_NN2 which_DDQ strive_VV0 towards_II it_PPH1 but_CCB interacts_VVZ with_IW those_DD2 practices_NN2 ,_, helps_VVZ to_TO construct_VVI them_PPHO2 ,_, and_CC is_VBZ in_II turn_NN1 constructed_VVN by_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
The_AT great_JJ philosophers_NN2 have_VH0 always_RR produced_VVN such_DA a_AT1 person-oriented_JJ account_NN1 at_RR21 least_RR22 for_IF those_DD2 whose_DDQGE education_NN1 was_VBDZ thought_VVN to_TO matter_VVI ._. 
Education_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN directed_VVN at_II the_AT production_NN1 of_IO the_AT rational_JJ ,_, the_AT free_JJ ,_, the_AT independent_NN1 of_IO mind_NN1 ,_, the_AT dignified_JJ ,_, in_RR21 short_RR22 ,_, the_AT autonomous_JJ human_JJ being_NN1 ._. 
Yet_RR because_CS the_AT philosopher_NN1 's_GE adult_NN1 has_VHZ traditionally_RR been_VBN male_JJ ,_, his_APPGE children_NN2 boy_NN1 children_NN2 ,_, and_CC his_APPGE educational_JJ programmes_NN2 designed_VVN to_TO facilitate_VVI the_AT transition_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 ,_, the_AT ideal_NN1 of_IO the_AT fully_RR human_JJ person_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN masculinised_VVN to_II the_AT point_NN1 where_RRQ otherwise_RR thoughtful_JJ and_CC sometimes_RT good_JJ and_CC wise_JJ men_NN2 have_VH0 unashamedly_RR admitted_VVN that_CST this_DD1 defining_JJ ideal_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX applicable_JJ to_II half_DB the_AT species_NN ._. 
Rationality_NN1 turns_VVZ into_II narrow_JJ intellectualism_NN1 ,_, freedom_NN1 into_II licence_NN1 ,_, independence_NN1 into_II isolationism_NN1 ,_, dignity_NN1 into_II selfish_JJ pride_NN1 ;_; the_AT autonomous_JJ human_JJ being_NN1 turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO be_VBI no_AT more_DAR than_CSN a_AT1 social_JJ atom_NN1 after_II all_DB ._. 
The_AT degeneration_NN1 occurs_VVZ ,_, not_XX because_CS men_NN2 are_VBR congenitally_RR or_CC even_RR incorrigibly_RR narrow_JJ ,_, libertine_NN1 ,_, isolated_JJ or_CC selfish_JJ ,_, but_CCB because_CS in_II defining_VVG themselves_PPX2 as_CSA autonomous_JJ beings_NN2 in_II opposition_NN1 to_II other_JJ human_JJ beings_NN2 they_PPHS2 have_VH0 had_VHN to_TO seek_VVI what_DDQ separates_VVZ them_PPHO2 as_II a_AT1 group_NN1 from_II others_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 curiously_RR paradoxical_JJ foundation_NN1 upon_II which_DDQ to_TO build_VVI a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Moral_JJ autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ with_IW individuals_NN2 not_XX with_IW groups_NN2 ;_; a_AT1 conception_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 which_DDQ depends_VVZ upon_II group_NN1 membership_NN1 displays_VVZ its_APPGE own_DA contradiction_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 paper_NN1 is_VBZ partly_RR about_II the_AT rejection_NN1 of_IO certain_JJ accounts_NN2 of_IO autonomy_NN1 though_CS not_XX with_IW the_AT rejection_NN1 of_IO the_AT ideal_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR about_II children_NN2 ._. 
WOMEN_NN2 PHILOSOPHERS_NN2 AND_CC GIRL_NN1 CHILDREN_NN2 Why_RRQ should_VM women_NN2 in_RR21 general_RR22 and_CC women_NN2 philosophers_NN2 in_RR21 particular_RR22 be_VBI specially_RR interested_JJ in_II the_AT nature_NN1 and_CC status_NN1 of_IO children_NN2 ?_? 
There_EX are_VBR ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, the_AT familiar_JJ and_CC obvious_JJ reasons_NN2 connected_VVN with_IW women_NN2 's_GE traditional_JJ role_NN1 in_II child-rearing_NN1 but_CCB there_EX are_VBR less_RGR obvious_JJ reasons_NN2 too_RR ._. 
When_RRQ philosophers_NN2 dismiss_VV0 women_NN2 as_58 '_GE not-men_NN2 '_GE they_PPHS2 frequently_RR do_VD0 more_DAR than_CSN simply_RR lump_VV0 them_PPHO2 together_RL with_IW children_NN2 or_CC lunatics_NN2 ._. 
Explicitly_RR or_CC implicitly_RR the_AT suggestion_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST women_NN2 are_VBR children_NN2 or_CC lunatics_NN2 or_CC whichever_DDQV other_JJ company_NN1 they_PPHS2 keep_VV0 ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI well_JJ to_TO know_VVI just_RR what_DDQ this_DD1 entails_VVZ ._. 
Schopenhauer_NP1 said_VVD that_CST women_NN2 remain_VV0 big_JJ children_NN2 all_DB their_APPGE lives_NN2 ;_; it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI interesting_JJ to_TO know_VVI what_DDQ he_PPHS1 thought_VVD children_NN2 were_VBDR like_II ._. 
A_AT1 common_JJ result_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 is_VBZ that_CST when_CS the_AT philosophers_NN2 deny_VV0 autonomy_NN1 to_II women_NN2 ,_, they_PPHS2 do_VD0 so_RR for_IF the_AT same_DA sorts_NN2 of_IO reason_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 deny_VV0 it_PPH1 to_II children_NN2 and_CC cite_VV0 lack_NN1 of_IO rationality_NN1 ,_, capriciousness_NN1 and_CC vulnerability_NN1 among_II their_APPGE characteristics_NN2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 can_VM do_VDI more_DAR than_CSN to_TO reject_VVI such_DA descriptions_NN2 of_IO ourselves_PPX2 ;_; we_PPIS2 can_VM ask_VVI further_JJR questions_NN2 :_: are_VBR children_NN2 like_II this_DD1 ?_? is_VBZ this_DD1 why_RRQ children_NN2 are_VBR not_XX autonomous_JJ ?_? 
Again_RT ,_, women_NN2 well_RR know_VV0 what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ like_JJ to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_CSA children_NN2 and_CC they_PPHS2 find_VV0 it_PPH1 offensive_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM therefore_RR be_VBI reasonable_JJ to_TO consider_VVI whether_CSW children_NN2 find_VV0 it_PPH1 offensive_JJ to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN like_II children_NN2 ._. 
Is_VBZ being_VBG treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 child_NN1 an_AT1 intrinsically_RR humiliating_JJ and_CC self-denying_JJ experience_NN1 ?_? 
What_DDQ is_VBZ it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 child_NN1 ?_? 
Women_NN2 philosophers_NN2 are_VBR in_II a_AT1 special_JJ position_NN1 to_TO consider_VVI such_DA questions_NN2 for_IF in_II the_AT image_NN1 of_IO the_AT philosopher_NN1 's_GE child_NN1 they_PPHS2 see_VV0 themselves_PPX2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ no_AT accident_NN1 that_CST the_AT liberation_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, should_VM form_VVI part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 wider_JJR movement_NN1 of_IO liberation_NN1 in_RR21 general_RR22 ;_; liberation_NN1 for_IF one_MC1 part_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE not-men_NN2 '_GE is_VBZ bound_VVNK to_TO have_VHI a_AT1 knock-on_JJ effect_NN1 when_CS your_APPGE fellow_JJ groups_NN2 are_VBR sometimes_RT quite_RG literally_RR identified_VVN with_IW you_PPY ._. 
The_AT assumption_NN1 that_CST all_DB groups_NN2 in_II the_AT '_GE not-men_NN2 '_GE class_NN1 are_VBR identical_JJ with_IW each_PPX221 other_PPX222 is_VBZ so_RG firmly_RR rooted_VVN that_CST ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 shall_VM see_VVI in_II the_AT fourth_MD section_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ readily_RR assumed_VVN even_RR by_II modern_JJ libertarian_JJ thinkers_NN2 that_CST showing_VVG that_CST ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, some_DD ground_NN1 for_IF distinguishing_VVG between_II men_NN2 and_CC women_NN2 is_VBZ false_JJ or_CC irrelevant_JJ ,_, immediately_RR commits_VVZ us_PPIO2 to_II the_AT view_NN1 that_CST the_AT same_DA ground_NN1 is_VBZ irrelevant_JJ in_II distinguishing_JJ men_NN2 from_II children_NN2 ._. 
'_" That_DD1 's_VBZ what_DDQ they_PPHS2 used_VMK to_TO say_VVI about_II women_NN2 '_GE is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 proof_NN1 that_CST saying_VVG it_PPH1 about_II a_AT1 child_NN1 is_VBZ false_JJ ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 should_VM make_VVI us_PPIO2 very_RG suspicious_JJ ._. 
That_DD1 when_CS women_NN2 are_VBR given_VVN the_AT vote_NN1 it_PPH1 follows_VVZ that_CST children_NN2 should_VM be_VBI given_VVN it_PPH1 too_RR is_VBZ no_AT argument_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ,_, but_CCB a_AT1 version_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 occurs_VVZ in_II modern_JJ debates_NN2 over_II the_AT justice_NN1 or_CC injustice_NN1 of_IO Mill_NN1 's_GE famous_JJ disclaimer_NN1 in_II his_APPGE essay_NN1 On_II Liberty_NN1 ._. 
Having_VHG denied_VVN that_CST we_PPIS2 may_VM ever_RR legitimately_RR interfere_VVI with_IW the_AT liberty_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 except_CS on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 of_IO self-protection_NN1 ,_, Mill_NP1 (_( 1910_MC )_) asserts_VVZ :_: this_DD1 principle_NN1 is_VBZ meant_VVN to_TO apply_VVI only_RR to_II human_JJ beings_NN2 in_II the_AT maturity_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE faculties_NN2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 are_VBR not_XX speaking_VVG of_IO children_NN2 or_CC of_IO young_JJ persons_NN2 below_II the_AT age_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT law_NN1 may_VM fix_VVI as_CSA that_DD1 of_IO manhood_NN1 or_CC womanhood_NN1 ._. 
Those_DD2 who_PNQS are_VBR still_RR in_II a_AT1 state_NN1 to_TO require_VVI being_VBG taken_VVN care_NN1 of_IO by_II others_NN2 must_VM be_VBI protected_VVN against_II their_APPGE own_DA actions_NN2 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 against_II external_JJ injury._NNU (_( p.73_FO )_) This_DD1 view_NN1 ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 shall_VM see_VVI ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN attacked_VVN on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 that_CST it_PPH1 rests_VVZ on_II the_AT false_JJ assumption_NN1 that_CST the_AT distinction_NN1 between_II adults_NN2 and_CC children_NN2 is_VBZ identical_JJ with_IW the_AT distinction_NN1 between_II rational_JJ and_CC non-rational_JJ beings_NN2 ._. 
The_AT attacks_NN2 are_VBR based_VVN on_II empirical_JJ observation_NN1 ;_; most_DAT women_NN2 and_CC older_JJR children_NN2 are_VBR actually_RR quite_RG as_RG rational_JJ as_CSA most_DAT men_NN2 while_CS some_DD men_NN2 are_VBR actually_RR less_RGR rational_JJ ._. 
If_CS we_PPIS2 agree_VV0 that_CST in_II that_DD1 case_NN1 women_NN2 should_VM be_VBI embraced_VVN by_II the_AT liberty_NN1 principle_NN1 then_RT so_RR should_VM children_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 shall_VM suggest_VVI that_CST this_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX follow_VVI because_CS rationality_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX in_II fact_NN1 the_AT grounds_NN2 for_IF the_AT distinction_NN1 in_II the_AT first_MD place_NN1 ._. 
Partly_RR to_TO redress_VVI the_AT balance_NN1 and_CC partly_RR because_CS talking_VVG about_II '_GE children_NN2 '_GE covers_NN2 such_DA a_AT1 wide_JJ range_NN1 of_IO potential_JJ images_NN2 ,_, I_PPIS1 shall_VM try_VVI to_TO keep_VVI before_II my_APPGE mind_NN1 an_AT1 ordinary_JJ 10-year-old_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE society_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 is_VBZ the_AT child_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 paper_NN1 unless_CS I_PPIS1 indicate_VV0 otherwise_RR ._. 
Throughout_RL we_PPIS2 should_VM ask_VVI ourselves_PPX2 ,_, does_VDZ this_DD1 (_( whatever_DDQV is_VBZ being_VBG said_VVN )_) apply_VV0 to_II her_PPHO1 ?_? 
First_MD of_IO all_DB ,_, let_VV0 us_PPIO2 remind_VVI ourselves_PPX2 of_IO the_AT traditional_JJ picture_NN1 of_IO children_NN2 drawn_VVN for_IF us_PPIO2 by_II some_DD great_JJ philosophers_NN2 of_IO the_AT past_NN1 ._. 
One_MC1 thing_NN1 they_PPHS2 are_VBR all_DB quite_RG sure_JJ about_RP is_VBZ that_CST children_NN2 are_VBR not_XX like_JJ adults_NN2 ;_; in_RR21 particular_RR22 they_PPHS2 agree_VV0 that_CST children_NN2 lack_VV0 some_DD capacity_NN1 for_IF rational_JJ thought_NN1 which_DDQ adults_NN2 have_VH0 ._. 
NOW_RT WE_PPIS2 ARE_VBR 6_MC OR_CC 10_MC OR_CC 18_MC ...._... the_AT slave_NN1 has_VHZ absolutely_RR no_AT deliberative_JJ faculty_NN1 ;_; the_AT woman_NN1 has_VHZ but_CCB its_APPGE authority_NN1 is_VBZ imperfect_JJ ;_; so_RR has_VHZ the_AT child_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II this_DD1 case_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ immature_JJ ._. 
(_( Aristotle_NP1 ,_, 1959,1260A_FO )_) Children_NN2 ..._... are_VBR not_XX endued_VVN with_IW Reason_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ,_, till_CS they_PPHS2 have_VH0 attained_VVN the_AT use_NN1 of_IO speech_NN1 but_CCB are_VBR called_VVN Reasonable_JJ Creatures_NN2 for_IF the_AT possibility_NN1 apparent_JJ of_IO having_VHG the_AT use_NN1 of_IO Reason_NN1 in_II time_NNT1 to_TO come_VVI ._. 
(_( Hobbes_NP1 ,_, 1914_MC ,_, p._NN1 21_MC )_) &lsqb;_( Children_NN2 &rsqb;_) ..._... love_VV0 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_CSA Rational_JJ Creatures_NN2 sooner_RRR than_CSN is_VBZ imagined_VVN ..._... &lsqb;_( by_II which_DDQ &rsqb;_) ..._... 
I_PPIS1 mean_VV0 ,_, that_CST you_PPY should_VM make_VVI them_PPHO2 sensible_JJ by_II the_AT Mildness_NN1 of_IO your_APPGE carriage_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT composure_NN1 even_RR in_II your_APPGE correction_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 ,_, that_DD1 what_DDQ you_PPY do_VD0 is_VBZ reasonable_JJ in_II you_PPY and_CC useful_JJ and_CC necessary_JJ for_IF them_PPHO2 ._. 
(_( Locke_NP1 ,_, 1968_MC ,_, p._NN1 181_MC )_) In_II training_NN1 for_IF youth_NN1 ,_, the_AT child_NN1 must_VM be_VBI given_VVN reasons_NN2 ;_; in_II the_AT training_NN1 of_IO the_AT infant_NN1 for_IF childhood_NN1 this_DD1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI done_VDN ._. 
Young_JJ children_NN2 ought_VMK merely_RR to_TO have_VHI things_NN2 shown_VVN to_II them_PPHO2 as_CSA they_PPHS2 are_VBR ,_, or_CC they_PPHS2 get_VV0 puzzled_JJ and_CC ask_VV0 question_NN1 after_II question_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB as_CSA we_PPIS2 approach_VV0 the_AT age_NN1 of_IO youth_NN1 reason_NN1 appears_VVZ ._. 
At_II what_DDQ age_NN1 ought_VMK the_AT education_NN1 for_IF youth_NN1 to_TO begin_VVI ?_? 
Roughly_RR at_II the_AT age_NN1 of_IO ten_MC years_NNT2 ,_, when_CS by_II nature_NN1 the_AT child_NN1 enters_VVZ the_AT stage_NN1 of_IO youth_NN1 and_CC begins_VVZ to_TO reflect_VVI ..._... 
The_AT youth_NN1 ..._... is_VBZ capable_JJ of_IO having_VHG principles_NN2 ;_; his_APPGE religious_JJ and_CC moral_JJ ideas_NN2 can_VM be_VBI cultivated_VVN ,_, and_CC he_PPHS1 is_VBZ able_JK to_TO attend_VVI to_II his_APPGE own_DA refinement_NN1 ._. 
(_( Kant_NN1 ,_, 1930_MC ,_, pp._NNU2 2501_MC )_) If_CS a_AT1 society_NN1 lets_VVZ any_DD considerable_JJ number_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE members_NN2 grow_VV0 up_RP mere_JJ children_NN2 ,_, incapable_JJ of_IO being_VBG acted_VVN on_RP by_II rational_JJ consideration_NN1 of_IO distant_JJ motives_NN2 ,_, society_NN1 has_VHZ itself_PPX1 to_TO blame_VVI for_IF the_AT consequences_NN2 ._. 
(_( Mill_NN1 ,_, 1910_MC ,_, p._NN1 139_MC )_) What_DDQ are_VBR the_AT philosophers_NN2 '_GE children_NN2 like_VV0 ?_? 
They_PPHS2 have_VH0 an_AT1 '_GE immature_JJ '_GE deliberative_JJ faculty_NN1 (_( Aristotle_NP1 )_) ,_, are_VBR not_XX '_GE endued_JJ with_IW Reason_NN1 '_GE (_( Hobbes_NP1 )_) ,_, until_CS roughly_RR the_AT age_NN1 of_IO 10_MC (_( Kant_NP1 )_) and_CC are_VBR '_GE incapable_JJ of_IO being_VBG acted_VVN upon_II by_II rational_JJ consideration_NN1 of_IO distant_JJ motives_NN2 '_GE (_( Mill_NP1 )_) ._. 
But_CCB they_PPHS2 are_VBR not_XX completely_RR lost_VVN causes_NN2 ._. 
The_AT immature_JJ deliberative_JJ faculty_NN1 will_VM mature_VVI ;_; children_NN2 have_VH0 the_AT '_GE possibility_NN1 apparent_JJ '_GE of_IO turning_VVG into_II rational_JJ beings_NN2 (_( Hobbes_NP1 )_) ;_; they_PPHS2 love_VV0 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_CS21 though_CS22 they_PPHS2 were_VBDR rational_JJ though_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR not_XX so_RG yet_RR (_( Locke_NP1 )_) ;_; you_PPY can_VM give_VVI the_AT prerational_JJ child_NN1 reasons_NN2 for_IF acting_VVG in_II certain_JJ ways_NN2 and_CC he_PPHS1 will_VM turn_VVI into_II the_AT youth_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ capable_JJ of_IO having_VHG principles_NN2 (_( Kant_NP1 )_) ._. 
Until_CS the_AT time_NNT1 when_RRQ these_DD2 things_NN2 happen_VV0 then_RT Mill_NP1 's_GE disclaimer_NN1 comes_VVZ into_II operation_NN1 ._. 
Children_NN2 must_VM be_VBI taken_VVN care_NN1 of_IO by_II others_NN2 and_CC protected_VVN from_II external_JJ injury_NN1 and_CC against_II their_APPGE own_DA actions_NN2 ._. 
The_AT traditional_JJ view_NN1 is_VBZ encapsulated_VVN in_II the_AT claim_NN1 that_CST children_NN2 are_VBR not_XX autonomous_JJ ;_; that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, on_II a_AT1 standard_JJ interpretation_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 lack_VV0 the_AT capacity_NN1 to_TO act_VVI rationally_RR in_II31 pursuit_II32 of_II33 their_APPGE own_DA self-chosen_JJ goals_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ then_RT a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO preference_NN1 whether_CSW you_PPY say_VV0 that_CST they_PPHS2 can_VM not_XX choose_VVI the_AT goals_NN2 or_CC that_CST they_PPHS2 can_VM not_XX form_VVI strategies_NN2 to_TO achieve_VVI them_PPHO2 or_CC both_DB2 ._. 
In_II either_DD1 case_NN1 ,_, the_AT political_JJ implication_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST denying_VVG rights_NN2 to_II children_NN2 is_VBZ entirely_RR justified_VVN ,_, and_CC there_RL the_AT matter_NN1 rests_NN2 ._. 
In_II all_DB this_DD1 ,_, there_EX are_VBR perhaps_RR a_AT1 couple_NN1 of_IO things_NN2 which_DDQ look_VV0 plausible_JJ when_CS we_PPIS2 compare_VV0 the_AT philosopher_NN1 's_GE child_NN1 with_IW our_APPGE mental_JJ picture_NN1 ;_; Aristotle_NP1 's_GE observation_NN1 that_CST children_NN2 are_VBR immature_JJ and_CC Mill_NN1 's_GE suggestion_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 might_VM need_VVI protection_NN1 ._. 
Beyond_II that_DD1 ,_, the_AT similarities_NN2 seem_VV0 remote_JJ ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ obviously_RR something_PN1 wrong_JJ with_IW a_AT1 portrayal_NN1 of_IO children_NN2 as_CSA totally_RR lacking_VVG in_II reason_NN1 until_CS they_PPHS2 leap_VV0 out_II21 of_II22 bed_NN1 on_II their_APPGE tenth_MD birthday_NN1 announcing_VVG that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR now_RT able_JK to_TO act_VVI on_II principle_NN1 ._. 
Apart_II21 from_II22 being_VBG false_JJ ,_, such_DA an_AT1 account_NN1 leaves_VVZ no_AT room_NN1 in_II our_APPGE thinking_NN1 about_II children_NN2 for_IF things_NN2 like_II teaching_NN1 and_CC learning_NN1 ,_, or_CC development_NN1 in_II understanding_NN1 and_CC character_NN1 and_CC all_DB those_DD2 other_JJ concepts_NN2 which_DDQ refer_VV0 to_II processes_NN2 and_CC not_XX to_II states_NN2 ._. 
The_AT tension_NN1 between_II these_DD2 theoretical_JJ views_NN2 of_IO children_NN2 as_CSA non-rational_JJ ,_, non-autonomous_JJ beings_NN2 and_CC the_AT practical_JJ knowledge_NN1 of_IO real_JJ children_NN2 is_VBZ evident_JJ in_II those_DD2 quotations_NN2 from_II Hobbes_NP1 and_CC Locke_NP1 and_CC Kant_NP1 and_CC Mill_NN1 ._. 
Children_NN2 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Hobbes_NP1 ,_, have_VH0 the_AT '_GE possibility_NN1 apparent_JJ '_GE of_IO becoming_VVG reasonable_JJ ._. 
In_II what_DDQ does_VDZ the_AT possibility_NN1 consist_VVI ?_? 
Hobbes_NP1 is_VBZ not_XX using_VVG an_AT1 inductive_JJ argument_NN1 here_RL ;_; the_AT '_GE possibility_NN1 apparent_JJ '_GE is_VBZ not_XX an_AT1 inductive_JJ argument_NN1 from_II observations_NN2 about_II past_JJ children_NN2 but_CCB is_VBZ meant_VVN to_TO refer_VVI to_II some_DD discernible_JJ feature_NN1 of_IO present_JJ ones_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB what_DDQ ?_? 
Hobbes_NP1 does_VDZ not_XX tell_VVI us_PPIO2 ,_, but_CCB whatever_DDQV it_PPH1 is_VBZ it_PPH1 had_VHD better_RRR be_VBI something_PN1 which_DDQ a_AT1 monkey_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX have_VHI ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX language_NN1 since_CS Hobbes_NP1 is_VBZ here_RL talking_VVG about_II the_AT prelinguistic_JJ child_NN1 ._. 
Perhaps_RR it_PPH1 consists_VVZ in_II the_AT ability_NN1 to_TO respond_VVI intelligently_RR to_II the_AT language_NN1 of_IO others_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB then_RT ,_, either_RR Hobbes_NP1 has_VHZ failed_VVN to_TO distinguish_VVI the_AT child_NN1 from_II at_RR21 least_RR22 the_AT higher_JJR and_CC domesticated_JJ animals_NN2 or_CC the_AT force_NN1 of_IO '_GE intelligently_RR '_" must_VM be_VBI explained_VVN in_II such_DA a_AT1 way_NN1 as_CSA to_TO exclude_VVI animals_NN2 ._. 
In_II any_DD case_NN1 ,_, if_CS such_DA a_AT1 qualification_NN1 is_VBZ called_VVN for_IF it_PPH1 is_VBZ hard_JJ to_TO see_VVI how_RRQ a_AT1 creature_NN1 with_IW no_AT rationality_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 could_VM possess_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
Locke_NP1 's_GE remarks_NN2 are_VBR just_RR as_RG puzzling_JJ ._. 
Children_NN2 are_VBR definitely_RR not_XX rational_JJ but_CCB love_VV0 to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_CS21 if_CS22 they_PPHS2 were_VBDR ._. 
How_RRQ is_VBZ this_DD1 possible_JJ ?_? 
Apparently_RR they_PPHS2 like_VV0 having_VHG things_NN2 explained_VVN to_II them_PPHO2 without_IW understanding_VVG either_RR the_AT explanation_NN1 or_CC even_RR what_DDQ an_AT1 explanation_NN1 is_VBZ ._. 
Perhaps_RR he_PPHS1 just_RR means_VVZ that_CST they_PPHS2 like_VV0 the_AT sound_NN1 of_IO my_APPGE voice_NN1 ?_? 
Well_RR ,_, maybe_RR they_PPHS2 do_VD0 ,_, but_CCB making_VVG any_DD old_JJ noises_NN2 is_VBZ clearly_RR not_XX sufficient_JJ to_TO enter_VVI the_AT rationality_NN1 stakes_NN2 ;_; I_PPIS1 must_VM at_RR21 least_RR22 say_VVI something_PN1 ._. 
Is_VBZ it_PPH1 just_RR that_CST I_PPIS1 talk_VV0 to_II them_PPHO2 that_CST they_PPHS2 love_VV0 ?_? 
Maybe_RR ,_, but_CCB I_PPIS1 can_VM also_RR ,_, if_CS I_PPIS1 like_VV0 ,_, talk_VV0 to_II my_APPGE car_NN1 ,_, but_CCB yelling_VVG at_II it_PPH1 in_II the_AT approved_JJ Basil_NP1 Fawlty_NP1 manner_NN1 is_VBZ hardly_RR treating_VVG it_PPH1 as_RG rational_JJ ._. 
Lockean_JJ children_NN2 have_VH0 the_AT added_JJ amazing_JJ ability_NN1 to_TO recognise_VVI reason_NN1 in_II you_PPY without_IW possessing_VVG any_DD themselves_PPX2 ,_, while_CS Kantian_JJ kids_NN2 ,_, two_MC stages_NN2 back_RP from_II rationality_NN1 ,_, have_VH0 the_AT disconcerting_JJ habit_NN1 of_IO getting_VVG puzzled_JJ and_CC asking_VVG questions_NN2 ._. 
Mill_NN1 's_GE minors_NN2 are_VBR a_RR21 little_RR22 more_RGR complicated_JJ ._. 
Part_NN1 of_IO the_AT time_NNT1 he_PPHS1 sees_VVZ them_PPHO2 in_II the_AT familiar_JJ way_NN1 as_CSA creatures_NN2 who_PNQS lack_VV0 rationality_NN1 to_II at_RR21 least_RR22 some_DD degree_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB in_II the_AT disclaimer_NN1 his_APPGE children_NN2 need_VV0 above_II all_DB to_TO be_VBI protected_VVN from_II the_AT ghastly_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE own_DA actions_NN2 ._. 
Their_APPGE problem_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI not_XX one_MC1 of_IO the_AT inability_NN1 to_TO choose_VVI goals_NN2 or_CC to_TO form_VVI strategies_NN2 for_IF achieving_VVG them_PPHO2 ,_, but_CCB an_AT1 incorrigible_JJ propensity_NN1 to_TO choose_VVI the_AT wrong_JJ ones_NN2 and_CC an_AT1 awesome_JJ efficiency_NN1 in_II achieving_VVG them_PPHO2 unless_CS adults_NN2 intervene_VV0 ._. 
All_DB in_II all_DB ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 pretty_RG unconvincing_JJ picture_NN1 ._. 
If_CS you_PPY say_VV0 that_CST children_NN2 are_VBR completely_RR non-rational_JJ then_RT you_PPY have_VH0 to_TO account_VVI for_IF the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 become_VV0 rational_JJ ,_, and_CC to_TO do_VDI that_DD1 it_PPH1 appears_VVZ from_II these_DD2 examples_NN2 that_CST you_PPY have_VH0 to_TO assume_VVI that_CST they_PPHS2 already_RR are_VBR ._. 
If_CS ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, you_PPY allow_VV0 rationality_NN1 to_II children_NN2 ,_, then_RT you_PPY can_VM not_XX use_VVI their_APPGE lack_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 as_II a_AT1 criterion_NN1 to_TO distinguish_VVI them_PPHO2 from_II adults_NN2 ._. 
Hobbes_NP1 et_RA21 al._RA22 are_VBR not_XX aware_JJ of_IO the_AT unreality_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE original_JJ pictures_NN2 which_DDQ is_VBZ why_RRQ ,_, often_RR in_II the_AT same_DA sentence_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 produce_VV0 these_DD2 contradictions_NN2 ._. 
The_AT one_MC1 thing_NN1 they_PPHS2 do_VD0 not_XX do_VDI is_VBZ to_TO re-examine_VVI the_AT original_JJ for_IF the_AT tell-tale_JJ signs_NN2 of_IO forgery_NN1 ._. 
ILLEGITIMATE_JJ INFERENCES_NN2 The_AT recognition_NN1 that_CST children_NN2 can_VM not_XX simply_RR be_VBI written_VVN off_RP in_II the_AT rationality_NN1 stakes_NN2 and_CC can_VM not_XX therefore_RR be_VBI denied_VVN autonomy_NN1 on_II this_DD1 account_NN1 has_VHZ led_VVN some_DD writers_NN2 to_TO conclude_VVI that_CST they_PPHS2 can_VM not_XX ,_, therefore_RR ,_, be_VBI denied_VVN it_PPH1 on_II any_DD account_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 should_VM notice_VVI that_CST this_DD1 view_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX just_RR a_AT1 flight_NN1 of_IO fancy_NN1 from_II the_AT loony_NN1 left_VVD ,_, the_AT pederast_NN1 lobby_NN1 or_CC children_NN2 themselves_PPX2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR to_TO be_VBI found_VVN in_II stronger_JJR or_CC weaker_JJR versions_NN2 of_IO more_RGR cautious_JJ academic_JJ thought_NN1 ._. 
In_II Escape_NN1 from_II Childhood_NN1 (_( 1974_MC )_) ,_, John_NP1 Holt_NP1 notes_VVZ that_CST children_NN2 are_VBR ,_, in_II fact_NN1 ,_, capable_JJ of_IO a_RR31 great_RR32 deal_RR33 more_DAR than_CSN modern_JJ society_NN1 allows_VVZ them_PPHO2 to_TO be_VBI ._. 
He_PPHS1 sees_VVZ childhood_NN1 as_II a_AT1 fairly_RR modern_JJ invention_NN1 designed_VVN to_TO fit_VVI adult_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 children_NN2 's_GE needs_NN2 ,_, and_CC an_AT1 oppressive_JJ invention_NN1 at_II that_DD1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ that_CST children_NN2 should_VM be_VBI given_VVN a_AT1 comprehensive_JJ range_NN1 of_IO civil_JJ and_CC legal_JJ rights_NN2 including_II the_AT right_NN1 to_TO vote_VVI ,_, to_TO manage_VVI their_APPGE own_DA financial_JJ affairs_NN2 ,_, to_TO direct_VVI and_CC manage_VVI their_APPGE own_DA education_NN1 and_CC to_TO control_VVI their_APPGE own_DA sex_NN1 lives_NN2 and_CC to_TO make_VVI and_CC enter_VVI into_II ,_, on_II a_AT1 basis_NN1 of_IO mutual_JJ consent_NN1 ,_, quasifamilial_JJ relationships_NN2 outside_II one_PN1 's_GE immediate_JJ family_NN1 i.e._REX the_AT right_NN1 to_TO seek_VVI and_CC choose_VVI guardians_NN2 other_II21 than_II22 one_PN1 's_GE own_DA parents_NN2 and_CC to_TO be_VBI legally_RR dependent_JJ on_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
(_( Holt_NP1 ,_, 1974_MC ,_, p._NN1 16_MC )_) This_DD1 is_VBZ also_RR the_AT view_NN1 put_VVN forward_RL by_II John_NP1 Harris_NP1 ,_, though_CS in_II less_RGR specific_JJ terms_NN2 ._. 
Like_II Holt_NP1 ,_, Harris_NP1 believes_VVZ that_CST the_AT so-called_JJ incompetence_NN1 of_IO children_NN2 is_VBZ an_AT1 adult_NN1 invention_NN1 imposed_VVN on_II children_NN2 for_IF adults_NN2 '_GE convenience_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 makes_VVZ a_AT1 firm_JJ proposal_NN1 that_CST the_AT age_NN1 of_IO majority_NN1 should_VM be_VBI gradually_RR reduced_VVN to_II 10_MC years_NNT2 ,_, and_CC remarks_VVZ :_: We_PPIS2 must_VM remember_VVI that_DD1 to_TO deny_VVI someone_PN1 control_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE own_DA lives_NN2 is_VBZ to_TO offer_VVI them_PPHO2 a_AT1 most_RGT profound_JJ insult_NN1 ,_, not_XX to_TO mention_VVI the_AT injury_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT frustration_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE wishes_NN2 and_CC the_AT setting_NN1 at_II naught_PN1 of_IO their_APPGE own_DA plans_NN2 for_IF themselves_PPX2 will_VM add_VVI ._. 
Perhaps_RR we_PPIS2 should_VM conduct_VVI annual_JJ examinations_NN2 from_II an_AT1 early_JJ age_NN1 to_TO be_VBI sure_JJ that_CST we_PPIS2 do_VD0 as_II little_DA1 of_IO this_DD1 sort_NN1 of_IO damage_NN1 as_CSA possible_JJ ?_? 
(_( Harris_NP1 ,_, 1982_MC ,_, p._NN1 49_MC )_) Now_RT Holt_NP1 and_CC Harris_NP1 both_DB2 have_VH0 many_DA2 wise_JJ ,_, enlightened_JJ and_CC humane_JJ observations_NN2 to_TO make_VVI about_II some_DD of_IO the_AT injustices_NN2 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 inflict_VV0 upon_II children_NN2 ,_, but_CCB as_CSA these_DD2 remarks_NN2 show_VV0 ,_, putting_VVG them_PPHO2 right_RR without_IW inflicting_VVG equally_RR grave_JJ injustice_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT easy_JJ matter_NN1 ._. 
Both_DB2 of_IO them_PPHO2 appear_VV0 to_TO suffer_VVI from_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO mental_JJ myopia_NN1 in_II imagining_VVG the_AT consequences_NN2 of_IO such_DA proposals_NN2 ,_, and_CC I_PPIS1 am_VBM not_XX here_RL referring_VVG only_RR to_II Mill-type_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO harm_NN1 brought_VVN about_RP by_II unwise_JJ decisions_NN2 ._. 
What_DDQ ,_, we_PPIS2 may_VM ask_VVI Holt_NP1 ,_, happens_VVZ to_II the_AT child_NN1 who_PNQS ,_, dissatisfied_JJ at_II home_NN1 ,_, seeks_VVZ in_RR21 vain_RR22 for_IF guardians_NN2 who_PNQS would_VM suit_VVI him_PPHO1 ?_? 
What_DDQ if_CS no_PN121 one_PN122 wants_VVZ him_PPHO1 ?_? 
Our_APPGE papers_NN2 are_VBR currently_RR full_JJ of_IO '_GE hard-to-place_NN1 '_GE children_NN2 in_II local_JJ authority_NN1 care_NN1 advertising_NN1 for_IF foster_JJ or_CC adoptive_JJ parents_NN2 ._. 
In_II such_DA a_AT1 situation_NN1 the_AT skilled_JJ care_NN1 of_IO social_JJ workers_NN2 is_VBZ crucial_JJ to_II ensuring_VVG that_CST an_AT1 unwanted_JJ by-product_NN1 of_IO success_NN1 for_IF some_DD children_NN2 is_VBZ not_XX the_AT total_JJ destruction_NN1 of_IO self-esteem_NN1 for_IF others_NN2 ._. 
What_DDQ ,_, we_PPIS2 may_VM ask_VVI Harris_NP1 ,_, happens_VVZ to_II the_AT child_NN1 who_PNQS repeatedly_RR fails_VVZ his_APPGE annual_JJ examination_NN1 ?_? 
To_TO impose_VVI such_DA a_AT1 test_NN1 on_II children_NN2 would_VM be_VBI a_AT1 particularly_RR invidious_JJ way_NN1 of_IO discriminating_VVG against_II them_PPHO2 ,_, unless_CS Harris_NP1 has_VHZ in_II mind_NN1 that_CST we_PPIS2 should_VM all_DB undergo_VVI such_DA examination_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 might_VM then_RT be_VBI open_JJ to_II bitter_JJ objections_NN2 from_II many_DA2 adults_NN2 ._. 
These_DD2 two_MC suggestions_NN2 ,_, far_RR from_II being_VBG enlightened_JJ liberation_NN1 of_IO all_DB children_NN2 ,_, are_VBR actually_RR oppression_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 deeply_RR damaging_JJ kind_NN1 to_II at_RR21 least_RR22 some_DD ,_, and_CC Harris_NP1 's_GE suggestion_NN1 contains_VVZ a_AT1 capacity_NN1 criterion_NN1 in_II disguise_NN1 ._. 
In_II any_DD case_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI dishonest_JJ to_TO pretend_VVI that_DD1 Mill-type_JJ consequences_NN2 are_VBR not_XX relevant_JJ here_RL ._. 
Suppose_VV0 Holt_NP1 's_GE 6-year-old_NN1 does_VDZ opt_VVI out_II21 of_II22 school_NN1 ?_? 
What_DDQ happens_VVZ to_II her_PPHO1 then_RT ?_? 
What_DDQ happens_VVZ if_CS her_APPGE father_NN1 is_VBZ unwilling_JJ or_CC unable_JK to_TO stay_VVI at_II home_NN1 with_IW her_PPHO1 ?_? 
Is_VBZ it_PPH1 any_DD better_JJR to_TO oblige_VVI her_PPHO1 to_TO go_VVI abseiling_VVG or_CC butterfly-catching_NN1 instead_RR ?_? 
However_RGQV much_RR she_PPHS1 may_VM enjoy_VVI such_DA pursuits_NN2 ,_, there_EX will_VM be_VBI times_II when_RRQ she_PPHS1 would_VM actually_RR rather_RR wander_VVI the_AT streets_NN2 unaccompanied_JJ ._. 
Given_CS21 that_CS22 Holt_NP1 is_VBZ presumably_RR not_XX volunteering_VVG himself_PPX1 to_TO take_VVI care_NN1 of_IO her_PPHO1 ,_, who_PNQS will_VM ?_? 
His_APPGE view_NN1 that_CST letting_VVG children_NN2 run_VVI in_RP and_CC out_II21 of_II22 busy_JJ airports_NN2 smartly_RR avoiding_VVG the_AT traffic_NN1 is_VBZ perfectly_RR reasonable_RR depends_VVZ upon_II a_AT1 conception_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 child_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ far_RG narrower_JJR than_CSN even_RR the_AT sex_NN1 divide_NN1 ._. 
Holt_NP1 's_GE child_NN1 is_VBZ actually_RR the_AT Artful_JJ Dodger_NN1 ;_; mercifully_RR ,_, not_XX all_DB children_NN2 are_VBR ._. 
There_EX are_VBR other_JJ difficulties_NN2 too_RR ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX clear_JJ whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 Harris_NP1 thinks_VVZ that_CST children_NN2 of_IO 10_MC should_VM be_VBI obliged_VVN to_TO take_VVI on_RP full_JJ political_JJ status_NN1 whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 they_PPHS2 want_VV0 to_TO ,_, but_CCB Holt_NP1 clearly_RR does_VDZ not_XX ._. 
He_PPHS1 proposes_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ the_AT rights_NN2 ,_, privileges_NN2 ,_, duties_NN2 ,_, responsibilities_NN2 of_IO adult_NN1 citizens_NN2 be_VBI made_VVN available_JJ to_II any_DD young_JJ person_NN1 ,_, of_IO whatever_DDQV age_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS wants_VVZ to_TO make_VVI use_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 '_GE (_( Holt_NP1 ,_, 1974_MC ,_, p._NN1 15_MC )_) ._. 
If_CS Holt_NP1 thinks_VVZ that_CST this_DD1 proposal_NN1 would_VM remove_VVI an_AT1 arbitrary_JJ boundary_NN1 line_NN1 between_II adults_NN2 and_CC children_NN2 ,_, then_RT he_PPHS1 is_VBZ mistaken_VVN ._. 
The_AT point_NN1 about_II an_AT1 adult_NN1 citizen_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ these_DD2 rights_NN2 ,_, privileges_NN2 ,_, duties_NN2 and_CC responsibilities_NN2 whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 he_PPHS1 wants_VVZ them_PPHO2 ._. 
He_PPHS1 may_VM not_XX exercise_VVI his_APPGE rights_NN2 or_CC he_PPHS1 may_VM shirk_VVI his_APPGE duties_NN2 ,_, but_CCB he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX forgo_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 are_VBR not_XX just_RR available_JJ to_II him_PPHO1 ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR his_PPGE ._. 
That_DD1 is_VBZ what_DDQ being_VBG a_AT1 citizen_NN1 involves_VVZ ._. 
Rights_NN2 and_CC privileges_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX pose_VVI any_DD particular_JJ problems_NN2 in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO children_NN2 ._. 
Holt_NP1 can_VM and_CC does_VDZ believe_VVI that_CST children_NN2 should_VM have_VHI them_PPHO2 as_CSA adults_NN2 do_VD0 ,_, and_CC then_RT leaves_VVZ it_PPH1 up_II21 to_II22 the_AT child_NN1 to_TO decide_VVI whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 to_TO exercise_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT same_DA can_VM not_XX be_VBI said_VVN for_IF duties_NN2 and_CC responsibilities_NN2 ._. 
Failure_NN1 to_TO exercise_VVI one_PN1 's_GE rights_NN2 may_VM be_VBI morally_RR neutral_JJ ;_; failure_NN1 to_TO carry_VVI out_RP one_PN1 's_GE duties_NN2 is_VBZ not_XX ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI perfectly_RR possible_JJ to_TO give_VVI the_AT rights_NN2 to_II children_NN2 without_IW imposing_VVG the_AT duties_NN2 on_II them_PPHO2 ,_, the_AT one_PN1 does_VDZ not_XX entail_VVI the_AT other_JJ ,_, but_CCB we_PPIS2 would_VM then_RT still_RR be_VBI distinguishing_VVG between_II adults_NN2 and_CC children_NN2 as_CSA citizens_NN2 ._. 
Children_NN2 still_RR would_VM not_XX have_VHI full_JJ political_JJ status_NN1 ._. 
Duties_NN2 and_CC responsibilities_NN2 are_VBR not_XX merely_RR available_JJ to_II a_AT1 citizen_NN1 ;_; they_PPHS2 are_VBR an_AT1 integral_JJ part_NN1 of_IO being_VBG a_AT1 citizen_NN1 ._. 
Holt_NP1 does_VDZ not_XX want_VVI children_NN2 to_TO be_VBI obliged_VVN to_TO take_VVI on_RP any_DD of_IO these_DD2 responsibilities_NN2 and_CC he_PPHS1 manages_VVZ to_TO make_VVI his_APPGE point_NN1 by_II concentrating_VVG solely_RR on_II the_AT rights_NN2 so_CS21 that_CS22 he_PPHS1 can_VM remark_VVI :_: I_PPIS1 do_VD0 not_XX say_VVI ,_, either_RR ,_, that_CST these_DD2 rights_NN2 and_CC duties_NN2 should_VM be_VBI tied_VVN into_II one_MC1 package_NN1 ,_, that_CST if_CS a_AT1 young_JJ person_NN1 wants_VVZ to_TO assume_VVI any_DD of_IO them_PPHO2 ,_, he_PPHS1 must_VM assume_VVI them_PPHO2 all_DB ._. 
He_PPHS1 should_VM be_VBI able_JK to_TO pick_VVI and_CC choose_VVI ._. 
(_( Holt_NP1 ,_, 1974_MC ,_, p._NN1 16_MC )_) If_CS he_PPHS1 can_VM '_GE pick_NN1 and_CC choose_VV0 '_GE ,_, I_PPIS1 suggest_VV0 ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 citizen_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 does_VDZ not_XX have_VHI full_JJ political_JJ status_NN1 and_CC he_PPHS1 is_VBZ quite_RG distinguishable_JJ on_II these_DD2 grounds_NN2 alone_RR from_II the_AT adults_NN2 around_II him_PPHO1 who_PNQS do_VD0 not_XX have_VHI this_DD1 option_NN1 ._. 
Holt_NP1 and_CC Harris_NP1 both_RR ,_, in_II the_AT end_NN1 ,_, face_VV0 the_AT same_DA problem_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 attack_VV0 the_AT status_NN121 quo_NN122 by_II pointing_VVG out_RP that_CST the_AT reasons_NN2 given_VVN for_IF denying_VVG rights_NN2 to_II children_NN2 are_VBR bad_JJ reasons_NN2 ,_, and_CC then_RT explicitly_RR or_CC implicitly_RR deny_VV0 them_PPHO2 duties_NN2 for_IF no_AT reason_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
Whatever_DDQV else_RR such_DA a_AT1 strategy_NN1 may_VM achieve_VVI ,_, it_PPH1 certainly_RR does_VDZ not_XX manage_VVI to_TO produce_VVI a_AT1 situation_NN1 in_II which_DDQ children_NN2 are_VBR politically_RR indistinguishable_JJ from_II adults_NN2 and_CC it_PPH1 rests_VVZ on_II premises_NN2 which_DDQ ,_, unless_CS they_PPHS2 can_VM be_VBI defended_VVN ,_, gain_VV0 nothing_PN1 for_IF any_DD defence_NN1 to_II the_AT charge_NN1 of_IO arbitrariness_NN1 ._. 
WHEN_CS IN_II DOUBT_NN1 ,_, GO_VV0 BACK_RP TO_II ARISTOTLE_NP1 The_AT trouble_NN1 with_IW all_DB the_AT views_NN2 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 have_VH0 looked_VVN at_II is_VBZ that_CST they_PPHS2 tie_VV0 the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 firmly_RR and_CC solely_RR to_II that_DD1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 interpreted_VVD in_RP either_RR a_AT1 broad_JJ or_CC narrow_JJ sense_NN1 ._. 
That_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ firmly_RR tied_VVN must_VM be_VBI correct_JJ ;_; the_AT inhabitants_NN2 of_IO Brave_JJ New_JJ World_NN1 are_VBR not_XX autonomous_JJ precisely_RR because_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR denied_VVN access_NN1 to_II relevant_JJ information_NN1 ._. 
Relevant_JJ knowledge_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 precondition_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX synonymous_JJ with_IW it_PPH1 ._. 
Aristotle_NP1 said_VVD something_PN1 very_RG interesting_JJ in_II that_DD1 extract_NN1 from_II the_AT Politics_NN1 which_DDQ I_PPIS1 quoted_VVD earlier_RRR ;_; he_PPHS1 said_VVD that_CST women_NN2 have_VH0 a_AT1 deliberative_JJ faculty_NN1 but_CCB that_CST it_PPH1 lacks_VVZ full_JJ authority_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ did_VDD he_PPHS1 mean_VVI ?_? 
What_DDQ he_PPHS1 did_VDD not_XX mean_VVI is_VBZ that_CST women_NN2 lack_VV0 rationality_NN1 ;_; they_PPHS2 can_VM and_CC do_VD0 deliberate_VVI ._. 
At_II first_MD sight_NN1 what_DDQ he_PPHS1 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI saying_VVG is_VBZ simply_RR that_CST no_PN121 one_PN122 is_VBZ going_VVGK to_TO take_VVI any_DD notice_NN1 of_IO the_AT conclusions_NN2 which_DDQ a_AT1 rational_JJ woman_NN1 reaches_VVZ after_II deliberation_NN1 ._. 
On_II further_JJR reflection_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 this_DD1 is_VBZ exactly_RR what_DDQ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ saying_VVG ,_, and_CC its_APPGE significance_NN1 is_VBZ immense_JJ ._. 
His_APPGE view_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT judgements_NN2 which_DDQ women_NN2 make_VV0 have_VHI no_AT standing_NN1 ._. 
Keeping_VVG to_II the_AT domestic_JJ front_NN1 for_IF the_AT moment_NN1 ,_, what_DDQ this_DD1 means_VVZ is_VBZ that_CST the_AT conclusions_NN2 which_DDQ women_NN2 reach_VV0 ,_, no_RGQV31 matter_RGQV32 how_RGQV33 carefully_RR and_CC intelligently_RR they_PPHS2 are_VBR worked_VVN out_RP ,_, can_VM never_RR have_VHI the_AT status_NN1 of_IO decisions_NN2 ._. 
You_PPY can_VM not_XX decide_VVI ,_, though_CS you_PPY may_VM desire_VVI ,_, to_TO divorce_VVI your_APPGE husband_NN1 if_CS the_AT law_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX allow_VVI ;_; you_PPY can_VM not_XX order_VVI the_AT wine_NN1 if_CS only_RR his_APPGE signature_NN1 makes_VVZ the_AT order_NN1 legitimate_JJ ._. 
And_CC your_APPGE inability_NN1 to_TO decide_VVI or_CC to_TO order_VVI has_VHZ nothing_PN1 to_TO do_VDI with_IW your_APPGE mental_JJ powers_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB Aristotle_NP1 is_VBZ not_XX just_RR making_VVG a_AT1 sociological_JJ point_NN1 about_II what_DDQ is_VBZ and_CC is_VBZ not_XX permitted_VVN to_II women_NN2 in_II his_APPGE society_NN1 ._. 
His_APPGE remark_NN1 goes_VVZ deeper_JJR than_CSN that_DD1 ._. 
It_PPH1 refers_VVZ not_XX to_II power_NN1 but_CCB to_II authority_NN1 ,_, and_CC what_DDQ I_PPIS1 think_VV0 he_PPHS1 means_VVZ is_VBZ that_CST although_CS a_AT1 woman_NN1 can_VM make_VVI good_JJ and_CC wise_JJ judgements_NN2 ,_, she_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI the_AT arbiter_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 goodness_NN1 or_CC wisdom_NN1 ._. 
For_IF that_DD1 she_PPHS1 needs_VVZ the_AT ratification_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 ,_, and_CC that_DD1 is_VBZ enough_DD to_TO conclude_VVI that_CST her_APPGE judgements_NN2 lack_VV0 authority_NN1 ._. 
Now_CS21 that_CS22 is_VBZ quite_RG different_JJ from_II saying_VVG that_CST women_NN2 always_RR make_VV0 bad_JJ judgements_NN2 ,_, that_REX41 is_REX42 to_REX43 say_REX44 ,_, that_CST they_PPHS2 suffer_VV0 from_II some_DD deficiency_NN1 of_IO rationality_NN1 ._. 
Aristotle_NP1 only_RR produces_VVZ spurious_JJ suggestions_NN2 about_II a_AT1 woman_NN1 's_GE incapacity_NN1 to_TO think_VVI or_CC to_TO stick_VVI to_II principles_NN2 when_RRQ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ obliged_VVN to_TO say_VVI something_PN1 about_II why_RRQ their_APPGE judgements_NN2 lack_VV0 authority_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 then_RT looks_VVZ as_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT argument_NN1 runs_VVZ :_: (_( 1_MC1 )_) Women_NN2 lack_VV0 some_DD moral_JJ or_CC cognitive_JJ capacity_NN1 therefore_RR (_( 2_MC )_) Women_NN2 (_( must_VM )_) lack_NN1 authority_NN1 ._. 
In_II truth_NN1 this_DD1 version_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT argument_NN1 on_II its_APPGE head_NN1 ;_; its_APPGE real_JJ form_NN1 is_VBZ :_: (_( 1_MC1 )_) Women_NN2 lack_VV0 authority_NN1 therefore_RR (_( 2_MC )_) Women_NN2 (_( must_VM )_) lack_VV0 some_DD moral_JJ or_CC cognitive_JJ capacity_NN1 ._. 
The_AT important_JJ point_NN1 here_RL is_VBZ that_CST Aristotle_NP1 's_GE women_NN2 are_VBR not_XX autonomous_JJ ,_, not_XX because_CS they_PPHS2 lack_VV0 abilities_NN2 or_CC capacities_NN2 but_CCB because_CS they_PPHS2 lack_VV0 authority_NN1 ;_; that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, their_APPGE right_NN1 to_TO make_VVI decisions_NN2 ,_, to_TO speak_VVI for_IF themselves_PPX2 is_VBZ not_XX acknowledged_VVN ._. 
This_DD1 acknowledgement_NN1 is_VBZ absolutely_RR essential_JJ ,_, for_IF without_IW it_PPH1 no_AT mental_JJ act_NN1 which_DDQ they_PPHS2 perform_VV0 ,_, however_RGQV well_RR ,_, will_VM count_VVI as_II a_AT1 decision_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
The_AT point_NN1 I_PPIS1 am_VBM making_VVG here_RL is_VBZ based_VVN on_II an_AT1 observation_NN1 by_II Stanley_NP1 Cavell_NP1 (_( 1979_MC ,_, p._NN1 460_MC )_) and_CC repeated_VVN by_II him_PPHO1 in_II many_DA2 contexts_NN2 :_: '_GE a_AT1 human_JJ being_NN1 could_VM not_XX fail_VVI to_TO know_VVI ,_, confronting_VVG me_PPIO1 ,_, that_CST I_PPIS1 am_VBM a_AT1 human_JJ being_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Why_RRQ not_XX ?_? 
Because_CS to_TO see_VVI someone_PN1 is_VBZ to_TO see_VVI them_PPHO2 as_II a_AT1 human_JJ being_NN1 and_CC to_TO see_VVI them_PPHO2 as_II a_AT1 human_JJ being_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO acknowledge_VVI them_PPHO2 as_II such_DA ._. 
This_DD1 acknowledgement_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX derived_VVN from_II a_AT1 prior_JJ knowledge_NN1 of_IO facts_NN2 ,_, rather_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 precondition_NN1 of_IO there_EX being_VBG any_RR facts_NN2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 do_VD0 not_XX ,_, on_II the_AT Cavell_NP1 model_NN1 ,_, first_MD discover_VV0 certain_JJ truths_NN2 about_II an_AT1 object_NN1 and_CC then_RT conclude_VV0 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 person_NN1 ;_; we_PPIS2 first_MD acknowledge_VV0 the_AT person_NN1 and_CC only_RR inquire_VV0 into_II facts_NN2 later_RRR if_CS necessary_JJ ._. 
The_AT point_NN1 was_VBDZ put_VVN graphically_RR by_II my_APPGE colleague_NN1 ,_, Ian_NP1 Ground_NN1 ._. 
Faced_VVN with_IW a_AT1 row_NN1 of_IO objects_NN2 we_PPIS2 do_VD0 not_XX ,_, he_PPHS1 said_VVD ,_, lampooning_VVG Wittgenstein_NP1 ,_, perform_VV0 appropriately_RR by_II pointing_VVG to_II one_PN1 after_II the_AT other_NN1 saying_VVG that_DD1 's_VBZ a_AT1 tree_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 's_VBZ a_AT1 tree_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 's_VBZ a_AT1 man_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 's_VBZ a_AT1 tree_NN1 ._. 
Rather_RR we_PPIS2 will_VM say_VVI (_( pointing_VVG )_) that_DD1 's_VBZ a_AT1 tree_NN1 ,_, (_( pointing_VVG )_) that_DD1 's_VBZ a_AT1 tree_NN1 ,_, (_( waving_VVG )_) hello_UH !_! (_( pointing_VVG )_) that_DD1 's_VBZ a_AT1 tree_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ makes_VVZ us_PPIO2 greet_VVI the_AT man_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX an_AT1 albeit_CS swift_JJ chain_NN1 of_IO inference_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ his_APPGE presence_NN1 which_DDQ commands_VVZ the_AT acknowledgement_NN1 while_CS the_AT presence_NN1 of_IO the_AT tree_NN1 does_VDZ no_AT such_DA thing_NN1 ._. 
Of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, if_CS the_AT man_NN1 is_VBZ clearly_RR carved_VVN from_II stone_NN1 then_RT pointing_VVG is_VBZ in_II order_NN1 ,_, and_CC if_CS we_PPIS2 subsequently_RR discover_VV0 that_CST '_" he_PPHS1 '_VBZ is_VBZ an_AT1 inflatable_JJ rubber_JJ doll_NN1 we_PPIS2 are_VBR suitably_RR embarrassed_JJ ._. 
But_CCB we_PPIS2 are_VBR embarrassed_JJ because_CS we_PPIS2 got_VVD it_PPH1 wrong_RR when_CS usually_RR we_PPIS2 do_VD0 not_XX ._. 
In_II our_APPGE viewing_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ we_PPIS2 see_VV0 ourselves_PPX2 being_VBG viewed_VVN ;_; the_AT recognition_NN1 is_VBZ mutual_JJ ._. 
How_RRQ then_RT is_VBZ it_PPH1 possible_JJ to_TO withhold_VVI acknowledgement_NN1 ?_? 
Cavell_NP1 's_GE answer_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT way_NN1 of_IO seeing_VVG another_DD1 human_JJ being_NN1 except_CS as_CSA another_DD1 human_JJ being_NN1 ._. 
In_II a_AT1 poignant_JJ discussion_NN1 of_IO the_AT hypothesis_NN1 that_CST Southern_JJ slave_NN1 owners_NN2 did_VDD not_XX see_VVI their_APPGE slaves_NN2 as_CSA human_JJ beings_NN2 he_PPHS1 disagrees_VVZ :_: When_RRQ he_PPHS1 wants_VVZ to_TO be_VBI served_VVN at_II table_NN1 by_II a_AT1 black_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 would_VM not_XX be_VBI satisfied_VVN to_TO be_VBI served_VVN by_II a_AT1 black_JJ paw_NN1 ..._... 
Everything_PN1 in_II his_APPGE relation_NN1 to_II his_APPGE slaves_NN2 shows_VVZ that_CST he_PPHS1 treats_VVZ them_PPHO2 as_RG more_RGR or_CC less_RGR human_JJ his_APPGE humiliations_NN2 of_IO them_PPHO2 ,_, his_APPGE disappointments_NN2 ,_, his_APPGE jealousies_NN2 ,_, his_APPGE fears_NN2 ,_, his_APPGE punishments_NN2 ,_, his_APPGE attachments_NN2 ._. 
(_( Cavell_NP1 ,_, 1979_MC ,_, p._NN1 376_MC )_) Treating_VVG people_NN as_CS21 if_CS22 they_PPHS2 were_VBDR not_XX people_NN is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 possibility_NN1 ;_; to_TO try_VVI to_TO do_VDI so_RR requires_VVZ all_DB the_AT resources_NN2 of_IO evil_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT human_JJ mind_NN1 can_VM muster_VVI ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 always_RR breaks_VVZ down_RP ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ possible_JJ is_VBZ to_TO treat_VVI people_NN as_RG more_RGR or_CC less_RGR human_JJ ._. 
We_PPIS2 can_VM withhold_VVI acknowledgement_NN1 from_II them_PPHO2 on_II limited_JJ or_CC selective_JJ fronts_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 may_VM not_XX be_VBI downright_JJ evil_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO potential_JJ disbarments_NN2 (_( like_VV0 possibly_RR being_VBG a_AT1 rubber_JJ doll_NN1 )_) it_PPH1 requires_VVZ a_AT1 considerable_JJ amount_NN1 of_IO bad_JJ faith_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ very_RG hard_JJ to_TO do_VDI ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ what_DDQ Aristotle_NP1 appears_VVZ to_TO do_VDI to_II his_APPGE women_NN2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 are_VBR human_JJ ,_, and_CC are_VBR acknowledged_VVN to_TO be_VBI ,_, they_PPHS2 can_VM think_VVI but_CCB they_PPHS2 are_VBR not_XX to_TO be_VBI acknowledged_VVN as_CSA authoritative_JJ ,_, and_CC if_CS their_APPGE presence_NN1 demands_VVZ such_DA acknowledgement_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR bad_JJ women_NN2 who_PNQS should_VM have_VHI been_VBN taught_VVN to_TO hide_VVI or_CC repress_VVI such_DA demands_NN2 ._. 
Rousseau_NP1 's_GE blueprint_NN1 for_IF the_AT education_NN1 of_IO Sophie_NP1 is_VBZ directed_VVN at_II this_DD1 end_NN1 ,_, and_CC if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ truly_RR successful_JJ ,_, she_PPHS1 will_VM internalise_VVI the_AT lesson_NN1 until_CS neither_RR her_APPGE behaviour_NN1 nor_CC her_APPGE demeanour_NN1 will_VM demand_VVI the_AT acknowledgement_NN1 ._. 
Then_RT she_PPHS1 has_VHZ been_VBN infantilised_VVN and_CC she_PPHS1 is_VBZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 autonomous_JJ ._. 
But_CCB Rousseau_NP1 's_GE blueprint_NN1 contains_VVZ its_APPGE own_DA contradiction_NN1 ._. 
If_CS you_PPY need_VV0 to_TO teach_VVI people_NN or_CC compel_VV0 them_PPHO2 in_II some_DD other_JJ way_NN1 to_TO repress_VVI their_APPGE natural_JJ demand_NN1 for_IF acknowledgement_NN1 as_CSA rational_JJ ,_, competent_JJ ,_, authoritative_JJ human_JJ beings_NN2 then_RT you_PPY have_VH0 no_AT answer_NN1 to_II the_AT charge_NN1 of_IO some_DD malefaction_NN1 between_II bad_JJ faith_NN1 and_CC dreadful_JJ wickedness_NN1 ._. 
Is_VBZ this_DD1 unfair_JJ to_II children_NN2 ?_? 
When_CS we_PPIS2 deny_VV0 autonomy_NN1 to_II our_APPGE 10-year-old_JJ ,_, are_VBR we_PPIS2 too_RG guilty_JJ of_IO bad_JJ faith_NN1 ?_? 
What_DDQ reason_NN1 could_VM we_PPIS2 produce_VVI to_TO allow_VVI that_CST she_PPHS1 may_VM have_VHI the_AT capacity_NN1 to_TO act_VVI autonomously_RR while_CS denying_VVG her_PPHO1 the_AT ?_? 
Whatever_DDQV it_PPH1 is_VBZ we_PPIS2 should_VM first_MD notice_VVI that_CST while_CS the_AT capacity_NN1 to_TO act_VVI autonomously_RR is_VBZ construed_VVN as_II a_AT1 psychological_JJ capacity_NN1 ,_, the_AT is_VBZ not_XX ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 social_JJ capacity_NN1 which_DDQ depends_VVZ upon_II the_AT acknowledgement_NN1 of_IO others_NN2 ._. 
What_DDQ we_PPIS2 need_VV0 to_TO do_VDI is_VBZ to_TO show_VVI that_CST withholding_VVG this_DD1 acknowledgement_NN1 is_VBZ neither_RR arbitrary_JJ nor_CC unjust_JJ ;_; we_PPIS2 have_VH0 to_TO ask_VVI ,_, does_VDZ her_APPGE being_NN1 demand_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
CARRYING_VVG THE_AT CAN_VM To_TO do_VDI this_DD1 we_PPIS2 need_VV0 to_TO consider_VVI another_DD1 element_NN1 in_II the_AT picture_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 which_DDQ was_VBDZ so_RG meticulously_RR side-stepped_VVN by_II Holt_NP1 ._. 
That_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, the_AT matter_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 ._. 
In_II Freedom_NN1 and_CC Resentment_NN1 (_( 1974_MC ,_, p._NN1 19_MC )_) Strawson_NP1 talks_VVZ not_XX of_IO a_AT1 child_NN1 's_GE emerging_JJ autonomy_NN1 but_CCB of_IO '_GE the_AT progressive_JJ emergence_NN1 of_IO the_AT child_NN1 as_II a_AT1 responsible_JJ being_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Responsibility_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 aspect_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 to_II which_DDQ lip-service_NN1 is_VBZ commonly_RR paid_VVN but_CCB which_DDQ takes_VVZ a_AT1 back_RP seat_NN1 in_II most_DAT discussions_NN2 about_II children_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 believe_VV0 it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI central_JJ ._. 
In_II his_APPGE essay_NN1 ,_, '_GE In_II Defense_NN1 of_IO Anarchism_NN1 '_GE (_( 1970_MC )_) ,_, R._NP1 P._NP1 Wolff_NP1 does_VDZ give_VVI responsibility_NN1 a_AT1 central_JJ place_NN1 in_II his_APPGE brief_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_DD1 freedom_NN1 of_IO choice_NN1 makes_VVZ a_AT1 man_NN1 responsible_JJ for_IF his_APPGE actions_NN2 while_CS the_AT capacity_NN1 to_TO reason_VVI about_II those_DD2 choices_NN2 places_VVZ him_PPHO1 under_II a_AT1 continuing_JJ obligation_NN1 to_TO take_VVI responsibility_NN1 for_IF those_DD2 actions_NN2 ._. 
To_TO take_VVI responsibility_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO accept_VVI the_AT duty_NN1 of_IO deciding_VVG for_IF oneself_PNX1 what_DDQ is_VBZ right_JJ ._. 
A_AT1 man_NN1 ,_, Wolff_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, can_VM forfeit_VVI his_APPGE autonomy_NN1 by_II not_XX taking_VVG the_AT responsibility_NN1 on_II himself_PPX1 ;_; by_II ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, obeying_VVG commands_NN2 blindly_RR ;_; but_CCB he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX abnegate_VVI the_AT responsibility_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO choice_NN1 confers_VVZ upon_II him_PPHO1 ._. 
Since_II being_VBG autonomous_JJ includes_VVZ both_RR freedom_NN1 of_IO choice_NN1 and_CC the_AT capacity_NN1 to_TO reason_VVI about_II those_DD2 choices_NN2 ,_, the_AT impairment_NN1 of_IO either_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 bar_NN1 to_II autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Against_II this_DD1 background_NN1 he_PPHS1 makes_VVZ two_MC remarks_NN2 about_II children_NN2 :_: It_PPH1 is_VBZ quite_RG appropriate_JJ that_CST moral_JJ philosophers_NN2 should_VM group_NN1 together_RL children_NN2 and_CC madmen_NN2 as_CSA beings_NN2 not_XX fully_RR responsible_JJ for_IF their_APPGE actions_NN2 ,_, for_CS as_CSA madmen_NN2 are_VBR thought_VVN to_TO lack_VVI freedom_NN1 of_IO choice_NN1 ,_, so_CS children_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX yet_RR possess_VVI the_AT power_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 in_II a_AT1 developed_JJ form_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ even_RR just_RR that_CST we_PPIS2 should_VM assign_VVI a_AT1 greater_JJR degree_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 to_II children_NN2 ,_, for_IF madmen_NN2 ,_, by_II virtue_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE lack_NN1 of_IO free_JJ will_NN1 ,_, are_VBR completely_RR without_IW responsibility_NN1 ,_, while_CS children_NN2 ,_, insofar_CS21 as_CS22 they_PPHS2 possess_VV0 reason_NN1 in_II a_AT1 partially_RR developed_JJ form_NN1 ,_, can_VM be_VBI held_VVN responsible_JJ (_( i.e._REX can_VM be_VBI required_VVN to_TO take_VVI responsibility_NN1 )_) to_II a_AT1 corresponding_JJ degree_NN1 ._. 
(_( Wolff_NP1 ,_, 1970_MC ,_, pp._NNU2 1213_MC )_) All_DB men_NN2 refuse_VV0 to_TO take_VVI responsibility_NN1 for_IF their_APPGE actions_NN2 at_II some_DD time_NNT1 or_CC other_JJ during_II their_APPGE lives_NN2 ,_, and_CC some_DD men_NN2 so_RG consistently_RR shirk_VV0 their_APPGE duty_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 present_VV0 more_RRR the_AT appearance_NN1 of_IO overgrown_JJ children_NN2 than_CSN of_IO adults_NN2 ._. 
(_( Ibid._RR ,_, p._NN1 14_MC )_) There_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 striking_JJ similarity_NN1 between_II Wolff_NP1 's_GE way_NN1 of_IO talking_VVG about_II children_NN2 and_CC the_AT views_NN2 we_PPIS2 saw_VVD put_VVN forward_RL by_II Hobbes_NP1 ,_, Locke_NP1 and_CC Kant_NP1 ._. 
Wolff_NP1 begins_VVZ with_IW the_AT assurance_NN1 that_CST children_NN2 are_VBR not_XX rational_JJ and_CC then_RT immediately_RR back-pedals_NN2 to_TO say_VVI that_CST actually_RR they_PPHS2 are_VBR ,_, partially_RR at_RR21 least_RR22 ._. 
Four_MC paragraphs_NN2 later_RRR where_CS the_AT second_MD quotation_NN1 appears_VVZ ,_, the_AT child_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX unable_JK to_TO take_VVI responsibility_NN1 but_CCB is_VBZ refusing_VVG to_TO take_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 is_VBZ not_XX an_AT1 incompetent_JJ but_CCB a_AT1 degenerate_JJ ._. 
Having_VHG denied_VVN that_CST she_PPHS1 is_VBZ incompetent_JJ ,_, I_PPIS1 am_VBM certainly_RR not_XX going_VVGK to_TO concede_VVI that_CST the_AT only_JJ alternative_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO make_VVI her_PPHO1 a_AT1 degenerate_JJ ;_; there_EX must_VM be_VBI another_DD1 choice_NN1 available_JJ ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ missing_VVG from_II Wolff_NP1 's_GE analysis_NN1 ,_, though_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ present_JJ in_II his_APPGE terminology_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT recognition_NN1 of_IO the_AT public_JJ face_NN1 ,_, the_AT mutuality_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 talks_VVZ of_IO assigning_VVG responsibility_NN1 to_II children_NN2 ,_, holding_VVG them_PPHO2 responsible_JJ ,_, requiring_VVG them_PPHO2 to_TO take_VVI responsibility_NN1 and_CC these_DD2 are_VBR natural_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO speaking_VVG ._. 
What_DDQ they_PPHS2 do_VD0 is_VBZ to_TO introduce_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ element_NN1 into_II the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 which_DDQ involves_VVZ more_DAR than_CSN free_JJ will_NN1 and_CC reason_NN1 ;_; now_RT a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 is_VBZ present_JJ and_CC is_VBZ an_AT1 active_JJ participant_NN1 in_II the_AT language_NN1 game_NN1 in_II which_DDQ responsibility_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 role_NN1 ._. 
People_NN are_VBR not_XX only_RR responsible_JJ for_IF something_PN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR responsible_JJ to_II God_NP1 ,_, other_JJ individuals_NN2 ,_, society_NN1 or_CC themselves_PPX2 ,_, and_CC this_DD1 latter_DA Kantian_JJ notion_NN1 is_VBZ derived_VVN from_II the_AT primary_JJ social_JJ context_NN1 in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 makes_VVZ sense_NN1 for_IF the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 to_TO be_VBI invoked_VVN ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ just_RR what_DDQ I_PPIS1 was_VBDZ claiming_VVG for_IF authority_NN1 ._. 
To_TO say_VVI either_RR that_CST someone_PN1 acts_VVZ authoritatively_RR or_CC that_CST someone_PN1 is_VBZ responsible_JJ for_IF his_APPGE actions_NN2 may_VM depend_VVI upon_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO ascribing_VVG mental_JJ states_NN2 or_CC capacities_NN2 but_CCB neither_DD1 is_VBZ merely_RR a_AT1 shorthand_NN1 way_NN1 of_IO ascribing_VVG them_PPHO2 ._. 
In_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT fully_RR autonomous_JJ person_NN1 ,_, authority_NN1 and_CC responsibility_NN1 go_VV0 hand_NN1 in_II hand_NN1 ._. 
The_AT is_VBZ the_AT coming_VVG together_RL of_IO the_AT two_MC ._. 
If_CS both_DB2 or_CC either_DD1 is_VBZ impaired_VVN then_RT so_RR is_VBZ this_DD1 capacity_NN1 ,_, and_CC both_DB2 depend_VV0 upon_II the_AT psychological_JJ capacities_NN2 of_IO the_AT agent_NN1 plus_II the_AT recognition_NN1 of_IO other_JJ members_NN2 of_IO the_AT moral_JJ and_CC political_JJ community_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 raises_VVZ a_AT1 difficulty_NN1 ._. 
PASSING_VVG THE_AT BUCK_NN The_AT problem_NN1 here_RL seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI this_DD1 :_: am_VBM I_PPIS1 saying_VVG that_CST a_AT1 child_NN1 is_VBZ responsible_JJ if_CS and_CC only_RR if_CS we_PPIS2 declare_VV0 her_PPHO1 to_TO be_VBI so_RR ,_, given_CS21 that_CS22 she_PPHS1 knows_VVZ what_DDQ she_PPHS1 is_VBZ doing_VDG ?_? 
This_DD1 view_NN1 has_VHZ some_DD historical_JJ clout_NN1 ._. 
Given_VVN the_AT knowledge_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ always_RR possible_JJ to_TO hold_VVI someone_PN1 responsible_JJ for_IF their_APPGE actions_NN2 ._. 
Children_NN2 were_VBDR still_RR being_VBG imprisoned_VVN and_CC deported_VVN when_RRQ Mill_NP1 wrote_VVD that_DD1 disclaimer_NN1 ._. 
Is_VBZ it_PPH1 then_RT just_RR a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO fashion_NN1 ,_, of_IO the_AT times_NNT2 in_II which_DDQ we_PPIS2 live_VV0 ?_? 
Not_XX entirely_RR ;_; to_TO begin_VVI with_IW we_PPIS2 might_VM take_VVI a_AT1 pragmatic_JJ line_NN1 in_II41 the_II42 light_II43 of_II44 new_JJ knowledge_NN1 about_II the_AT long-term_JJ effects_NN2 of_IO such_DA treatment_NN1 on_II a_AT1 child_NN1 's_GE subsequent_JJ development_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 might_VM argue_VVI that_CST while_CS we_PPIS2 can_VM hold_VVI her_APPGE responsible_JJ ,_, the_AT consequences_NN2 of_IO so_RR doing_VDG turn_NN1 out_RP to_TO be_VBI unacceptable_JJ ._. 
But_CCB the_AT horror_NN1 which_DDQ writers_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 Dickens_NP1 expressed_VVD at_II the_AT cruelty_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE times_NNT2 was_VBDZ prompted_VVN by_II no_AT such_DA knowledge_NN1 ._. 
Dickensian_JJ child_NN1 victims_NN2 grow_VV0 into_II upright_JJ citizens_NN2 if_CS they_PPHS2 grow_VV0 up_RP at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
What_DDQ Dickens_NP1 saw_VVD was_VBDZ what_DDQ most_DAT of_IO us_PPIO2 see_VV0 ,_, the_AT inhumanity_NN1 of_IO treating_VVG a_AT1 child_NN1 in_II certain_JJ ways_NN2 ._. 
In_II what_DDQ does_VDZ the_AT inhumanity_NN1 consist_VVI ?_? 
Not_XX just_RR in_II harsh_JJ action_NN1 ;_; increased_JJ concern_NN1 about_II children_NN2 is_VBZ almost_RR always_RR part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 larger_JJR concern_NN1 about_II people_NN in_RR21 general_RR22 ,_, but_CCB when_RRQ horrible_JJ things_NN2 are_VBR happening_VVG to_II people_NN it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX unusual_JJ to_TO focus_VVI on_II children_NN2 and_CC try_VVI special_JJ pleading_NN1 on_II their_APPGE behalf_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 special_JJ pleading_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, no_RR21 doubt_RR22 ,_, partly_RR emotional_JJ but_CCB it_PPH1 might_VM very_RG well_RR include_VVI reference_NN1 to_II children_NN2 's_GE lack_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 and_CC understanding_NN1 ._. 
Yet_RR the_AT inhumanity_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX consist_VVI in_II the_AT ascription_NN1 of_IO certain_JJ cognitive_JJ states_NN2 either_RR ._. 
We_PPIS2 may_VM be_VBI quite_RG right_JJ to_TO ascribe_VVI agency_NN1 to_II a_AT1 child_NN1 for_IF his_APPGE acts_NN2 ._. 
The_AT inhumanity_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO lie_VVI in_II allowing_VVG the_AT full_JJ weight_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 to_TO fall_VVI on_II the_AT child_NN1 ._. 
Responsibility_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX only_RR about_II agency_NN1 ._. 
'_" When_RRQ we_PPIS2 say_VV0 a_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ responsible_JJ for_IF what_DDQ he_PPHS1 does_VDZ we_PPIS2 mean_VVI not_XX just_RR that_CST he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ the_AT agent_NN1 ..._... we_PPIS2 also_RR say_VV0 that_CST the_AT act_NN1 reflects_VVZ (_( back_NN1 )_) on_II the_AT agent_NN1 ,_, '_" writes_VVZ David_NP1 Wood_NP1 (_( 1973_MC ,_, p._NN1 191_MC )_) ._. 
How_RGQ much_DA1 reflecting_VVG goes_VVZ on_RP depends_VVZ upon_II the_AT reflective_JJ capabilities_NN2 of_IO the_AT child_NN1 and_CC also_RR on_II the_AT strength_NN1 and_CC direction_NN1 of_IO the_AT beam_NN1 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 ,_, the_AT adults_NN2 ,_, determine_VV0 ._. 
Perhaps_RR now_RT we_PPIS2 can_VM take_VVI Mill_NN1 's_GE insight_NN1 on_RL21 board_RL22 without_IW opening_VVG ourselves_PPX2 to_II the_AT charge_NN1 of_IO arbitrariness_NN1 ._. 
Mill_NN1 wanted_VVD to_TO protect_VVI children_NN2 against_II the_AT harm_NN1 which_DDQ they_PPHS2 might_VM do_VDI themselves_PPX2 ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 which_DDQ was_VBDZ supposed_JJ to_TO bring_VVI liberal_JJ theory_NN1 crashing_VVG to_II the_AT ground_NN1 was_VBDZ that_CST we_PPIS2 do_VD0 not_XX wish_VVI to_TO justify_VVI interfering_VVG with_IW adult_NN1 liberties_NN2 on_II these_DD2 grounds_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI that_DD1 what_DDQ we_PPIS2 are_VBR protecting_VVG children_NN2 from_II is_VBZ not_XX so_RG much_RR the_AT awful_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE ignorant_JJ decisions_NN2 but_CCB of_IO the_AT burden_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 for_IF those_DD2 decisions_NN2 which_DDQ children_NN2 are_VBR not_XX yet_RR ready_JJ to_TO bear_VVI and_CC which_DDQ ,_, for_IF entirely_RR non-political_JJ reasons_NN2 ,_, we_PPIS2 can_VM not_XX choose_VVI to_TO impose_VVI upon_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
If_CS giving_VVG or_CC withholding_VVG this_DD1 responsibility_NN1 were_VBDR possible_JJ options_NN2 in_II a_AT1 one-person_JJ game_NN1 ,_, then_RT this_DD1 criterion_NN1 would_VM do_VDI nothing_PN1 to_TO counter_VVI the_AT charge_NN1 of_IO arbitrariness_NN1 but_CCB I_PPIS1 have_VH0 already_RR argued_VVN that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR not_XX and_CC could_VM not_XX be_VBI ._. 
We_PPIS2 can_VM only_RR play_VVI at_II ascribing_VVG responsibility_NN1 outside_II this_DD1 mutual_JJ interaction_NN1 ;_; making_VVG the_AT horse_NN1 a_AT1 senator_NN1 ,_, blaming_VVG the_AT toy_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT child_NN1 trips_VVZ over_RP are_VBR games_NN2 which_DDQ do_VD0 not_XX fool_VVI the_AT horse_NN1 or_CC the_AT toy_NN1 ._. 
Growing_VVG up_RP ,_, maturing_VVG ,_, emerging_VVG into_II autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT process_NN1 of_IO the_AT child_NN1 taking_VVG from_II the_AT adult_NN1 more_RRR and_CC more_DAR of_IO the_AT responsibility_NN1 for_IF those_DD2 actions_NN2 which_DDQ she_PPHS1 does_VDZ knowingly_RR ._. 
Respect_NN1 for_IF the_AT dignity_NN1 and_CC freedom_NN1 of_IO the_AT child_NN1 consists_VVZ in_II the_AT recognition_NN1 that_CST the_AT burden_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 shifts_VVZ from_II the_AT adult_NN1 to_II the_AT child_NN1 as_CSA she_PPHS1 herself_PPX1 demands_VVZ it_PPH1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 leave_VV0 unhappy_JJ teenagers_NN2 who_PNQS '_" do_VD0 n't_XX want_VVI to_TO talk_VVI about_II it_PPH1 '_VBZ alone_JJ ;_; the_AT tearful_JJ 5-year-old_NN1 comes_VVZ and_CC dumps_NN2 the_AT problem_NN1 in_II your_APPGE lap_NN1 ._. 
In_RL21 between_RL22 ,_, we_PPIS2 say_VV0 ,_, we_PPIS2 '_GE play_NN1 it_PPH1 by_II ear_NN1 '_GE and_CC what_DDQ we_PPIS2 listen_VV0 for_IF is_VBZ the_AT child_NN1 's_GE own_DA claim_NN1 to_TO have_VHI its_APPGE decisions_NN2 treated_VVN as_CSA authoritative_JJ and_CC to_TO be_VBI ready_JJ to_TO bear_VVI the_AT responsibility_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 claim_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 conscious_JJ ,_, spoken_JJ claim_NN1 ;_; if_CS it_PPH1 gets_VVZ to_II that_DD1 stage_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 have_VH0 already_RR left_VVN it_PPH1 too_RG late_JJ ._. 
The_AT claim_NN1 is_VBZ implicit_JJ in_II the_AT child_NN1 's_GE own_DA social_JJ interactions_NN2 and_CC unless_CS we_PPIS2 are_VBR blind_JJ or_CC acting_VVG in_II chronic_JJ bad_JJ faith_NN1 we_PPIS2 can_VM do_VDI no_RR other_II21 than_II22 acknowledge_VV0 it_PPH1 ._. 
But_CCB neither_DD1 can_VM we_PPIS2 impose_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
Holding_VVG a_AT1 child_NN1 responsible_JJ is_VBZ not_XX the_AT same_DA as_CSA making_VVG her_APPGE responsible_JJ ;_; we_PPIS2 may_VM succeed_VVI in_II the_AT former_DA ,_, without_IW her_APPGE cooperation_NN1 we_PPIS2 can_VM never_RR succeed_VVI in_II the_AT latter_DA ._. 
Now_RT it_PPH1 can_VM still_RR be_VBI objected_VVN that_CST this_DD1 is_VBZ also_RR true_JJ of_IO adults_NN2 and_CC that_CST I_PPIS1 have_VH0 still_RR ,_, therefore_RR ,_, failed_VVD to_TO distinguish_VVI them_PPHO2 from_II children_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 difference_NN1 ._. 
With_IW children_NN2 ,_, the_AT presupposition_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST we_PPIS2 take_VV0 the_AT responsibility_NN1 until_CS they_PPHS2 show_VV0 us_PPIO2 that_CST they_PPHS2 want_VV0 it_PPH1 ;_; with_IW adults_NN2 we_PPIS2 assume_VV0 that_CST they_PPHS2 take_VV0 the_AT responsibility_NN1 unless_CS they_PPHS2 show_VV0 us_PPIO2 that_CST they_PPHS2 do_VD0 n't_XX ._. 
(_( We_PPIS2 are_VBR surprised_JJ when_CS the_AT '_GE man_NN1 '_GE turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 robot_NN1 ._. )_) 
That_DD1 is_VBZ what_DDQ membership_NN1 of_IO the_AT moral_JJ and_CC political_JJ community_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 serious_JJ business_NN1 which_DDQ deserves_VVZ more_DAR attention_NN1 than_CSN I_PPIS1 can_VM give_VVI here_RL ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ quite_RG correct_JJ that_CST children_NN2 's_GE application_NN1 for_IF membership_NN1 should_VM be_VBI taken_VVN seriously_RR ;_; once_RR accepted_VVN there_RL is_VBZ no_AT turning_NN1 back_NN1 ,_, resignation_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX an_AT1 option_NN1 ._. 
To_TO end_VVI ,_, a_AT1 word_NN1 about_II voting_NN1 ._. 
Voting_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX just_RR a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO knowing_VVG how_RRQ to_TO put_VVI a_AT1 cross_NN1 on_II a_AT1 piece_NN1 of_IO paper_NN1 ,_, nor_CC of_IO having_VHG a_AT1 rough_JJ or_CC even_RR quite_RG refined_JJ view_NN1 of_IO the_AT policies_NN2 of_IO the_AT major_JJ political_JJ parties_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 also_RR ,_, in_II a_AT1 democracy_NN1 ,_, involves_VVZ being_VBG responsible_JJ to_II some_DD degree_NN1 for_IF the_AT society_NN1 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 have_VH0 ._. 
Maybe_RR '_GE I_PPIS1 did_VDD n't_XX vote_VVI Tory_NN1 '_GE ,_, but_CCB even_RR that_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX enable_VVI me_PPIO1 to_TO opt_VVI out_II21 of_II22 that_DD1 responsibility_NN1 entirely_RR ._. 
Why_RRQ else_RR would_VM I_PPIS1 buy_VVI the_AT sticker_NN1 ?_? 
Let_VV0 us_PPIO2 ask_VVI our_APPGE 10-year-old_NN1 's_GE mother_NN1 if_CS her_APPGE daughter_NN1 is_VBZ ready_JJ to_TO take_VVI that_DD1 responsibility_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ would_VM she_PPHS1 say_VVI ?_? 
Perhaps_RR that_DD1 ,_, yes_UH ,_, her_APPGE child_NN1 is_VBZ intelligent_JJ and_CC thoughtful_JJ and_CC even_RR knowledgeable_JJ ;_; yes_UH ,_, she_PPHS1 would_VM be_VBI as_RG competent_JJ as_CSA many_DA2 adults_NN2 in_II coming_VVG to_II sensible_JJ conclusions_NN2 ._. 
Also_RR ,_, perhaps_RR ,_, that_DD1 sometimes_RT at_II night_NNT1 ,_, she_PPHS1 finds_VVZ her_APPGE crying_NN1 for_IF the_AT starving_JJ of_IO Africa_NP1 or_CC unable_JK to_TO sleep_VVI with_IW the_AT terror_NN1 of_IO the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO nuclear_JJ war_NN1 or_CC desperately_RR seeking_VVG a_AT1 denial_NN1 of_IO the_AT reality_NN1 of_IO the_AT horror_NN1 of_IO the_AT Holocaust_NP1 ._. 
Perhaps_RR she_PPHS1 would_VM be_VBI angry_JJ if_CS ,_, by_II trying_VVG to_TO impose_VVI responsibility_NN1 on_II her_APPGE daughter_NN1 by_II giving_VVG her_PPHO1 the_AT vote_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 were_VBDR also_RR taking_VVG from_II her_PPHO1 the_AT only_JJ comfort_NN1 which_DDQ she_PPHS1 has_VHZ ,_, namely_REX that_CST when_CS she_PPHS1 is_VBZ older_JJR she_PPHS1 will_VM change_VVI all_DB that_DD1 ._. 
Or_CC perhaps_RR she_PPHS1 would_VM just_RR tell_VVI us_PPIO2 that_CST her_APPGE child_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX yet_RR ready_JJ ;_; she_PPHS1 would_VM be_VBI right_JJ ._. 
Denying_VVG the_AT vote_NN1 to_II children_NN2 is_VBZ not_XX based_VVN on_II some_DD false_JJ assumption_NN1 about_II 10-year-olds_NN2 '_GE political_JJ knowledge_NN1 ,_, nor_CC to_TO deny_VVI that_CST they_PPHS2 have_VH0 interests_NN2 ,_, nor_CC to_TO protect_VVI them_PPHO2 from_II the_AT harm_NN1 their_APPGE votes_NN2 might_VM do_VDI ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO take_VVI responsibility_NN1 to_II ourselves_PPX2 for_IF the_AT way_NN1 the_AT world_NN1 is_VBZ ._. 
And_CC that_CST really_RR does_VDZ belong_VVI to_II us._NNU 6_MC Autonomy_NN1 and_CC Identity_NN1 in_II Feminist_JJ Thinking_NN1 Jean_NP1 Grimshaw_NP1 Issues_NN2 about_II women_NN2 's_GE autonomy_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN central_JJ to_II feminist_JJ thinking_NN1 and_CC action_NN1 ._. 
Women_NN2 have_VH0 so_RG often_RR been_VBN in_II situations_NN2 of_IO powerlessness_NN1 and_CC dependence_NN1 that_CST any_DD system_NN1 of_IO belief_NN1 or_CC programme_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 that_CST could_VM count_VVI as_58 '_GE feminist_NN1 '_GE must_VM in_II some_DD way_NN1 see_VV0 this_DD1 as_II a_AT1 central_JJ concern_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB what_DDQ is_VBZ meant_VVN by_II '_GE autonomy_NN1 '_GE and_CC under_II what_DDQ conditions_NN2 is_VBZ it_PPH1 possible_JJ ?_? 
This_DD1 has_VHZ been_VBN an_AT1 important_JJ and_CC contentious_JJ question_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB questions_NN2 about_II autonomy_NN1 ,_, and_CC related_JJ questions_NN2 about_II self_NN1 and_CC identity_NN1 have_VH0 also_RR been_VBN important_JJ to_II feminism_NN1 ,_, and_CC within_II feminist_NN1 thinking_VVG it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ to_TO find_VVI radically_RR different_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO thinking_VVG about_II these_DD2 things_NN2 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 paper_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 want_VV0 to_TO look_VVI at_II one_MC1 kind_NN1 of_IO way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ some_DD feminists_NN2 have_VH0 tried_VVN to_TO conceptualise_VVI what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ for_IF a_AT1 woman_NN1 to_TO be_VBI '_" autonomous_58 '_GE ,_, and_CC at_II the_AT implications_NN2 this_DD1 has_VHZ for_IF ways_NN2 of_IO thinking_VVG about_II the_AT human_JJ self_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 shall_VM argue_VVI that_CST this_DD1 conception_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX only_RR philosophically_RR problematic_JJ ,_, but_CCB also_RR has_VHZ an_AT1 implicit_JJ politics_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ potentially_RR damaging_VVG ._. 
And_CC I_PPIS1 shall_VM try_VVI to_TO suggest_VVI some_DD ways_NN2 of_IO beginning_VVG to_TO think_VVI about_II '_GE autonomy_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ seem_VV0 to_II me_PPIO1 to_TO be_VBI more_RGR fruitful_JJ and_CC adequate_JJ ,_, and_CC to_TO draw_VVI on_II different_JJ traditions_NN2 of_IO thinking_VVG about_II the_AT self_NN1 which_DDQ have_VH0 become_VVN influential_JJ in_II some_DD recent_JJ feminist_JJ thinking_NN1 ._. 
Feminist_JJ thinking_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, exist_VV0 in_II a_AT1 vacuum_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_II thinking_VVG about_II women_NN2 's_GE autonomy_NN1 ,_, feminists_NN2 have_VH0 drawn_VVN on_II different_JJ (_( and_CC conflicting_JJ )_) approaches_VVZ to_II questions_NN2 about_II the_AT human_JJ self_NN1 ,_, some_DD of_IO which_DDQ have_VH0 a_AT1 long_JJ history_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 want_VV0 to_TO begin_VVI by_II going_VVG back_RP to_II an_AT1 argument_NN1 that_CST Aristotle_NP1 put_VVD forward_RL in_II the_AT Ethics_NN ,_, since_CS I_PPIS1 think_VV0 that_CST the_AT point_NN1 at_II which_DDQ his_APPGE argument_NN1 breaks_VVZ down_RP can_VM illuminate_VVI the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT problem_NN1 some_DD feminist_JJ thinking_NN1 has_VHZ faced_VVN ._. 
Aristotle_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 concerns_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ that_CST makes_VVZ an_AT1 action_NN1 '_GE voluntary_JJ '_GE ,_, done_VDN of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE own_DA free_JJ will_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO answer_VVI this_DD1 question_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 distinguished_VVD between_II actions_NN2 whose_DDQGE origin_NN1 was_58 '_GE inside_NN1 '_GE a_AT1 person_NN1 ,_, and_CC those_DD2 whose_DDQGE origin_NN1 was_58 '_GE outside_NN1 '_GE ,_, which_DDQ resulted_VVD from_II external_JJ influences_NN2 or_CC pressure_NN1 or_CC compulsion_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 discussed_VVD at_II some_DD length_NN1 the_AT problems_NN2 that_CST arise_VV0 over_RP trying_VVG to_TO define_VVI ideas_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 '_GE compulsion_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC in_II estimating_VVG the_AT degree_NN1 of_IO severity_NN1 of_IO pressure_NN1 that_CST could_VM make_VVI an_AT1 action_NN1 not_XX voluntary_JJ ._. 
But_CCB in_II this_DD1 sort_NN1 of_IO model_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ,_, what_DDQ defines_VVZ an_AT1 action_NN1 as_CSA autonomous_JJ is_VBZ seen_VVN as_CSA its_APPGE point_NN1 of_IO origin_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 must_VM have_VHI an_AT1 '_GE immaculate_JJ conception_NN1 '_GE ,_, as_RR31 it_RR32 were_RR33 ,_, from_II within_II the_AT self_NN1 ._. 
Now_RT ultimately_RR I_PPIS1 think_VV0 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ this_DD1 definition_NN1 of_IO '_GE autonomy_NN1 '_GE in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 origin_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT associated_JJ distinction_NN1 between_II an_AT1 '_GE inner_JJ '_GE self_NN1 which_DDQ can_VM in_II some_DD way_NN1 spontaneously_RR generate_VV0 its_58 '_GE own_DA '_GE actions_NN2 ,_, and_CC '_GE external_JJ '_GE influences_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX '_GE part_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT self_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 will_VM need_VVI challenging_JJ ._. 
But_CCB I_PPIS1 think_VV0 it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ to_TO defend_VVI the_AT Aristotelian_JJ version_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 up_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 point_NN1 ,_, provided_CS notions_NN2 of_IO '_GE inside_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE outside_NN1 '_GE the_AT self_NN1 are_VBR defined_VVN in_II a_AT1 certain_JJ way_NN1 ._. 
If_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ prevented_VVN from_II doing_VDG what_DDQ they_PPHS2 would_VM otherwise_RR intend_VVI or_CC desire_VVI to_TO do_VDI ,_, or_CC if_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR coerced_VVN into_II doing_VDG what_DDQ they_PPHS2 would_VM not_XX otherwise_RR want_VVI or_CC desire_VVI to_TO do_VDI ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR not_XX acting_VVG autonomously_RR ._. 
Under_II this_DD1 interpretation_NN1 ,_, actions_NN2 which_DDQ originate_VV0 from_II '_GE inside_NN1 '_GE the_AT self_NN1 are_VBR those_DD2 which_DDQ are_VBR seen_VVN as_CSA in_II31 accordance_II32 with_II33 conscious_JJ desires_NN2 or_CC intentions_NN2 ,_, and_CC those_DD2 which_DDQ originate_VV0 from_II '_GE outside_NN1 '_GE the_AT self_NN1 are_VBR those_DD2 which_DDQ one_PN1 would_VM not_XX do_VDI if_CS one_PN1 were_VBDR not_XX coerced_VVN ._. 
The_AT pressure_NN1 here_RL is_VBZ to_TO consider_VVI the_AT sorts_NN2 of_IO circumstances_NN2 which_DDQ do_VD0 ,_, in_II fact_NN1 ,_, coerce_VV0 people_NN in_II these_DD2 sorts_NN2 of_IO ways_NN2 ._. 
And_CC ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, a_AT1 central_JJ concern_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN to_TO identify_VVI and_CC fight_VVI against_II the_AT kinds_NN2 of_IO coercion_NN1 to_II which_DDQ women_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN subjected_VVN ,_, including_II things_NN2 like_II physical_JJ violence_NN1 and_CC economic_JJ dependence_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ at_II this_DD1 point_NN1 that_CST an_AT1 Aristotelian-type_JJ argument_NN1 fails_VVZ to_TO be_VBI able_JK to_TO deal_VVI with_IW the_AT most_RGT difficult_JJ questions_NN2 about_II autonomy_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Aristotelian_JJ view_NN1 ,_, as_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 interpreted_VVN it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE works_NN '_GE only_RR to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_AT problem_NN1 about_II what_DDQ I_PPIS1 shall_VM call_VVI '_GE the_AT autonomy_NN1 of_IO desires_NN2 '_GE ._. 
Autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ defined_VVN as_CSA acting_VVG in_II31 accordance_II32 with_II33 desire_NN1 (_( or_CC intention_NN1 )_) ._. 
But_CCB what_DDQ of_IO the_AT desires_NN2 themselves_PPX2 ?_? 
Are_VBR there_EX desires_VVZ (_( or_CC intentions_NN2 )_) which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX '_" autonomous_58 '_GE ,_, which_DDQ do_VD0 not_XX originate_VVI from_II '_" within_RL '_GE the_AT self_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX authentic_JJ ,_, not_XX really_RR '_GE one_MC1 's_GE own_DA '_GE ?_? 
Feminist_JJ writers_NN2 have_VH0 wanted_VVN ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, to_TO indict_VVI the_AT various_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO brutality_NN1 and_CC coercion_NN1 from_II which_DDQ women_NN2 have_VH0 suffered_VVN ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 brutality_NN1 and_CC coercion_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN seen_VVN not_XX merely_RR as_II a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO physical_JJ or_CC '_GE external_JJ '_GE coercion_NN1 or_CC constraint_NN1 ;_; the_AT force_NN1 of_IO subjection_NN1 has_VHZ also_RR been_VBN seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 psychic_JJ one_PN1 ,_, invading_VVG women_NN2 's_GE very_JJ selves_NN2 ._. 
The_AT language_NN1 of_IO '_GE conditioning_NN1 '_GE ,_, '_GE brainwashing_NN1 '_GE ,_, '_GE indoctrination_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_RR31 so_RR32 forth_RR33 ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN used_VVN to_TO describe_VVI this_DD1 force_NN1 ._. 
The_AT female_JJ self_NN1 ,_, under_II male_JJ domination_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ riddled_VVN through_RP and_CC through_RP with_IW false_JJ or_CC conditioned_JJ desires_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB set_VV0 against_II this_DD1 conditioned_JJ ,_, non-autonomous_JJ female_JJ self_NN1 are_VBR various_JJ images_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 female_JJ self_NN1 that_CST would_VM be_VBI authentic_JJ ,_, that_DD1 would_VM transcend_VVI or_CC shatter_VVI this_DD1 conditioning_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 want_VV0 now_RT to_TO look_VVI at_II some_DD of_IO these_DD2 images_NN2 of_IO the_AT female_JJ self_NN1 in_II feminist_JJ discourse_NN1 :_: my_APPGE particular_JJ examples_NN2 are_VBR from_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Mary_NP1 Daly_NP1 ,_, Marilyn_NP1 Frye_NP1 and_CC Kate_NP1 Millett_NP1 ._. 
Daly_NP1 ,_, Frye_NP1 and_CC Millett_NP1 all_DB stress_VV0 the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN subject_II21 to_II22 the_AT power_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
Much_DA1 of_IO Daly_NP1 's_GE book_NN1 ,_, Gyn/Ecology_FU (_( 1979_MC )_) ,_, is_VBZ an_AT1 account_NN1 of_IO the_AT barbarities_NN2 inflicted_VVN on_II women_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 suttee_NN1 ,_, clitorectomy_NN1 ,_, foot-binding_JJ and_CC other_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO mutilation_NN1 ._. 
Millett_NP1 ,_, in_II Sexual_JJ Politics_NN1 (_( 1977_MC )_) ,_, sees_VVZ patriarchal_JJ power_NN1 as_CSA something_PN1 so_RG historically_RR all-embracing_JJ that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ totally_RR dominated_VVN women_NN2 's_GE lives_NN2 ._. 
Frye_VV0 ,_, in_II The_AT Politics_NN1 of_IO Reality_NN1 (_( 1983_MC )_) ,_, uses_VVZ the_AT situation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 young_JJ girl_NN1 sold_VVN into_II sexual_JJ slavery_NN1 and_CC then_RT systematically_RR brutalised_VVN and_CC brainwashed_VVN into_II a_AT1 life_NN1 of_IO service_NN1 to_II her_APPGE captors_NN2 as_II an_AT1 analogy_NN1 for_IF the_AT situation_NN1 of_IO all_DB women_NN2 ._. 
And_CC all_DB three_MC writers_NN2 stress_VV0 the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 see_VV0 the_AT female_JJ self_NN1 as_58 '_GE invaded_JJ '_GE by_II patriarchal_JJ conditioning_NN1 ._. 
Millett_NP1 writes_VVZ :_: When_RRQ ,_, in_II any_DD group_NN1 of_IO persons_NN2 ,_, the_AT ego_NN1 is_VBZ subjected_VVN to_II such_DA invidious_JJ versions_NN2 of_IO itself_PPX1 through_II social_JJ beliefs_NN2 ,_, ideology_NN1 and_CC tradition_NN1 ,_, the_AT effect_NN1 is_VBZ bound_VVNK to_TO be_VBI pernicious_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 should_VM make_VVI it_PPH1 no_UH very_RG special_JJ cause_NN1 for_IF surprise_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 develop_VV0 group_NN1 characteristics_NN2 common_JJ to_II those_DD2 who_PNQS suffer_VV0 minority_NN1 status_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 marginal_JJ existence_NN1 ._. 
(_( Millett_NP1 ,_, 1977_MC ,_, p._NN1 55_MC )_) Women_NN2 ,_, she_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, are_VBR deprived_VVN of_IO all_DB but_II the_AT most_RGT trivial_JJ sources_NN2 of_IO dignity_NN1 or_CC self-respect_NN1 ._. 
In_II her_APPGE discussion_NN1 of_IO Lawrence_NP1 's_GE depiction_NN1 of_IO Connie_NP1 in_II Lady_NNB Chatterley_NP1 's_GE Lover_NN1 ,_, what_DDQ she_PPHS1 sees_VVZ Connie_NP1 as_CSA relinquishing_VVG is_58 '_GE self_NN1 ,_, ego_NN1 ,_, will_VM ,_, individuality_NN1 '_GE (_( p._NNU 243_MC )_) ;_; all_DB those_DD2 things_NN2 which_DDQ ,_, Millett_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, women_NN2 had_VHD but_CCB recently_RR achieved_VVN ,_, (_( and_CC for_IF which_DDQ Lawrence_NP1 had_VHD a_AT1 profound_JJ distaste_NN1 )_) ._. 
Mary_NP1 Daly_NP1 's_GE picture_NN1 of_IO the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 's_GE selves_NN2 are_VBR invaded_VVN by_II patriarchal_JJ conditioning_NN1 is_VBZ even_RR more_RGR striking_JJ ._. 
She_PPHS1 describes_VVZ women_NN2 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, as_58 '_GE moronised_JJ '_GE ,_, '_GE robotised_JJ '_GE ,_, '_GE lobotomised_JJ '_GE ,_, as_58 '_GE the_AT puppets_NN2 of_IO Papa_NN1 '_GE ._. 
At_II times_NNT2 she_PPHS1 seems_VVZ to_TO see_VVI women_NN2 as_CSA so_RR '_GE brainwashed_JJ '_" that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR scarcely_RR human_JJ ;_; thus_RR she_PPHS1 describes_VVZ them_PPHO2 as_II '_GE fembots_NN2 '_GE ,_, even_VV0 as_58 '_GE mutants_NN2 '_GE ._. 
In_II Millett_NP1 ,_, Daly_NP1 and_CC Frye_NP1 ,_, women_NN2 are_VBR seen_VVN primarily_RR as_CSA victims_NN2 :_: the_AT monolithic_JJ brutality_NN1 and_CC psychological_JJ pressures_NN2 of_IO male_JJ power_NN1 have_VH0 reduced_VVN women_NN2 almost_RR to_II the_AT state_NN1 of_IO being_NN1 '_GE non-persons_NN2 '_GE ._. 
And_CC indeed_RR ,_, as_CSA Daly_NP1 sees_VVZ women_NN2 as_CSA having_VHG become_VVN '_GE mutants_NN2 '_GE or_CC '_GE fembots_NN2 '_GE ,_, so_CS Millett_NP1 sees_VVZ them_PPHO2 as_CSA not_XX having_VHG been_VBN allowed_VVN to_TO participate_VVI in_RP fully_RR '_GE human_NN1 '_GE activities_NN2 (_( which_DDQ she_PPHS1 characterises_VVZ as_CSA those_DD2 that_CST are_VBR most_RGT remote_JJ from_II the_AT biological_JJ contingencies_NN2 of_IO life_NN1 )_) ,_, and_CC Frye_NP1 sees_VVZ them_PPHO2 as_CSA simply_RR '_GE broken_JJ '_GE and_CC then_RT '_GE remade_VVD '_GE in_II the_AT way_NN1 that_CST suits_VVZ their_APPGE masters_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB behind_II this_DD1 victimised_JJ female_JJ self_NN1 ,_, whose_DDQGE actions_NN2 and_CC desires_NN2 are_VBR assumed_VVN to_TO be_VBI not_XX truly_RR '_GE her_APPGE own_DA '_GE ,_, since_CS they_PPHS2 derive_VV0 from_II processes_NN2 of_IO force_NN1 ,_, conditioning_JJ or_CC psychological_JJ manipulation_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ seen_VVN to_TO be_VBI an_AT1 authentic_JJ female_JJ self_NN1 ,_, whose_DDQGE recovery_NN1 or_CC discovery_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ one_MC1 of_IO the_AT aims_NN2 of_IO feminism_NN1 to_TO achieve_VVI ._. 
The_AT spatial_JJ metaphor_NN1 implicit_JJ in_II the_AT word_NN1 '_GE behind_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ not_XX accidental_JJ ,_, since_CS this_DD1 model_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 is_VBZ premised_VVN on_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO making_VVG a_AT1 distinction_NN1 between_II an_AT1 '_GE inner_JJ '_GE and_CC an_AT1 '_GE outer_JJ '_GE self_NN1 ._. 
Ibsen_NP1 's_GE Peer_NN1 Gynt_NN1 compared_VVD his_APPGE quest_NN1 for_IF identity_NN1 to_II the_AT process_NN1 of_IO peeling_VVG layers_NN2 off_II an_AT1 onion_NN1 ;_; but_CCB after_II shedding_VVG all_DB the_AT '_GE false_JJ selves_NN2 '_GE ,_, he_PPHS1 found_VVD that_CST there_EX was_VBDZ nothing_PN1 inside_RL ,_, no_NN1 '_GE core_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT sort_NN1 of_IO spatial_JJ metaphor_NN1 implicit_JJ in_II Peer_NN1 Gynt_NP1 's_GE account_NN1 of_IO himself_PPX1 is_VBZ also_RR apt_JJ in_II the_AT accounts_NN2 of_IO self_NN1 given_VVN by_II Daly_NP1 ,_, Millett_NP1 and_CC Frye_NP1 ,_, except_CS21 that_CS22 there_EX is_VBZ assumed_VVN to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 '_GE core_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ clearest_JJT in_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Daly_NP1 ._. 
In_II GynlEcology_NP1 ,_, discovering_VVG or_CC recovering_VVG one_PN1 's_GE own_DA self_NN1 is_VBZ seen_VVN as_CSA akin_JJ to_II a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO salvation_NN1 or_CC religious_JJ rebirth_NN1 ,_, and_CC Daly_NP1 writes_VVZ of_IO what_DDQ she_PPHS1 calls_VVZ the_AT unveiling_VVG or_CC unwinding_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE shrouds_NN2 '_GE of_IO patriarchy_NN1 to_TO reveal_VVI the_AT authentic_JJ female_NN1 Spirit-Self_NP1 underneath_RL ._. 
And_CC this_DD1 Self_NN1 is_VBZ seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 unitary_JJ and_CC harmonious_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
Splits_NN2 and_CC barriers_NN2 within_II the_AT psyche_NN1 ,_, she_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 those_DD2 between_II Selves_NN2 ,_, are_VBR the_AT result_NN1 of_IO patriarchal_JJ conditioning_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT unitary_JJ and_CC harmonious_JJ female_NN1 Spirit-Self_NP1 there_EX will_VM be_VBI no_AT such_DA splits_NN2 ._. 
Millett_NP1 's_GE picture_NN1 of_IO the_AT authentic_JJ female_JJ self_NN1 is_VBZ rather_RG different_JJ from_II that_DD1 of_IO Daly_NP1 ._. 
It_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX draw_VVI ,_, as_CSA Daly_NP1 's_GE does_VDZ ,_, on_II religious_JJ metaphors_NN2 of_IO salvation_NN1 and_CC rebirth_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 derives_VVZ ,_, rather_RR ,_, from_II a_AT1 picture_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 as_CSA fundamentally_RR a_AT1 unitary_JJ ,_, conscious_JJ and_CC rational_JJ thing_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 picture_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, in_II Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, can_VM be_VBI traced_VVN back_RP to_II Descartes_NP1 ._. 
It_PPH1 emerges_VVZ most_RGT clearly_RR in_II her_APPGE discussion_NN1 of_IO Freud_NP1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 describes_VVZ Freud_NP1 's_GE theory_NN1 of_IO the_AT Unconscious_JJ as_II a_AT1 major_JJ contribution_NN1 to_II human_JJ understanding_NN1 ,_, but_CCB her_APPGE account_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 owes_VVZ ,_, in_II fact_NN1 ,_, scarcely_RR anything_PN1 to_II Freud_NP1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 is_VBZ scathingly_RR critical_JJ of_IO Freud_NP1 's_GE theory_NN1 of_IO penis_NN1 envy_NN1 :_: Freud_NP1 ,_, she_PPHS1 argued_VVD ,_, '_" did_VDD not_XX accept_VVI his_APPGE patient_NN1 's_GE symptoms_NN2 as_CSA evidence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 justified_JJ dissatisfaction_NN1 with_IW the_AT limiting_JJ circumstances_NN2 imposed_VVN on_II them_PPHO2 by_II society_NN1 ,_, but_CCB as_CSA symptomatic_JJ of_IO an_AT1 independent_JJ and_CC universal_JJ feminine_JJ tendency_NN1 '_GE (_( Millett_NP1 ,_, 1977_MC ,_, p._NN1 179_MC )_) ._. 
He_PPHS1 made_VVD a_AT1 major_JJ (_( and_CC foolish_JJ )_) confusion_NN1 between_II biology_NN1 and_CC culture_NN1 ._. 
Girls_NN2 ,_, Millett_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, are_VBR fully_RR cognisant_JJ of_IO male_JJ supremacy_NN1 long_RR before_CS they_PPHS2 see_VV0 their_APPGE brother_NN1 's_GE penis_NN1 ;_; and_CC what_DDQ they_PPHS2 envy_VV0 is_VBZ not_XX the_AT penis_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT things_NN2 to_II which_DDQ having_VHG a_AT1 penis_NN1 gives_VVZ the_AT boy_NN1 access_NN1 power_NN1 ,_, status_NN1 and_CC rewards_NN2 ._. 
Freud_NP1 ignored_VVD the_AT more_RGR likely_JJ '_GE social_JJ '_GE hypothesis_NN1 for_IF feminine_JJ dissatisfaction_NN1 ,_, preferring_VVG to_TO ascribe_VVI it_PPH1 to_II a_AT1 biologically_RR based_VVN female_JJ nature_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ we_PPIS2 should_VM be_VBI studying_VVG ,_, Millett_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, are_VBR the_AT effects_NN2 of_IO male-supremacist_JJ culture_NN1 on_II the_AT female_JJ ego_NN1 ._. 
And_CC what_DDQ will_VM undo_VVI these_DD2 effects_NN2 ,_, she_PPHS1 writes_VVZ in_II the_AT Postscript_NP1 ,_, is_VBZ altered_JJ consciousness_NN1 ,_, and_CC a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO '_GE human_JJ growth_NN1 and_CC tru_NN1 The_AT '_GE social_JJ '_GE factors_NN2 of_IO which_DDQ Millett_NP1 writes_VVZ are_VBR here_RL seen_VVN as_CSA pressures_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR '_GE external_JJ '_GE to_II the_AT self_NN1 ,_, and_CC which_DDQ have_VH0 the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO thwarting_VVG the_AT conscious_JJ and_CC unitary_JJ rationality_NN1 of_IO female_JJ individuality_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT female_JJ ego_NN1 ._. 
And_CC the_AT task_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 of_IO removing_VVG their_APPGE influence_NN1 ._. 
If_CS ,_, in_II Lady_NNB Chatterley_NP1 's_GE Lover_NN1 ,_, the_AT scales_NN2 were_VBDR to_TO fall_VVI from_II Connie_NP1 's_GE eyes_NN2 and_CC she_PPHS1 were_VBDR to_TO see_VVI the_AT worship_NN1 of_IO Mellor_NP1 's_GE phallus_NN1 for_IF what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, a_AT1 means_NN of_IO subordinating_VVG and_CC oppressing_VVG women_NN2 ,_, she_PPHS1 could_VM free_VVI herself_PPX1 and_CC develop_VVI her_APPGE authentic_JJ will_NN1 ,_, ego_NN1 and_CC individuality_NN1 ._. 
The_AT paradigm_NN1 of_IO coercion_NN1 ,_, writes_VVZ Frye_NP1 ,_, is_VBZ not_XX the_AT direct_JJ application_NN1 of_IO physical_JJ force_NN1 ._. 
Rather_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 situation_NN1 in_II which_DDQ choice_NN1 and_CC action_NN1 do_VD0 take_VVI place_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_II which_DDQ the_AT victim_NN1 acts_VVZ under_II her_APPGE own_DA perception_NN1 and_CC judgement_NN1 ._. 
Hence_RR ,_, what_DDQ the_AT exploiter_NN1 needs_NN2 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT will_NN1 and_CC intelligence_NN1 of_IO the_AT victim_NN1 be_VBI disengaged_VVN from_II the_AT projects_NN2 of_IO resistance_NN1 and_CC escape_NN1 but_CCB that_DD1 they_PPHS2 not_XX be_VBI simply_RR broken_VVN or_CC destroyed_VVD ._. 
Ideally_RR ,_, the_AT disintegration_NN1 and_CC misintegration_NN1 of_IO the_AT victim_NN1 should_VM accomplish_VVI the_AT detachment_NN1 of_IO the_AT victim_NN1 's_GE will_NN1 and_CC intelligence_NN1 from_II the_AT victim_NN1 's_GE own_DA interests_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE attachment_NN1 to_II the_AT interests_NN2 of_IO the_AT exploiter_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 will_VM effect_VVI a_AT1 displacement_NN1 or_CC dissolution_NN1 of_IO self-respect_NN1 and_CC will_VM undermine_VVI the_AT victim_NN1 's_GE intolerance_NN1 of_IO coercion_NN1 ._. 
With_IW that_DD1 ,_, the_AT situation_NN1 transcends_VVZ the_AT initial_JJ paradigmatic_JJ form_NN1 or_CC structure_NN1 of_IO coercion_NN1 ;_; for_IF if_CS people_NN do_VD0 n't_XX mind_VVI doing_VDG what_DDQ you_PPY want_VV0 them_PPHO2 to_TO do_VDI ,_, you_PPY ca_VM n't_XX really_RR be_VBI making_VVG them_PPHO2 do_VDI it_PPH1 ._. 
(_( Frye_VV0 ,_, 1983_MC ,_, p._NN1 60_MC )_) And_CC ,_, she_PPHS1 writes_VVZ :_: The_AT health_NN1 and_CC integrity_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 organism_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE being_VBG organised_VVN largely_RR towards_II its_APPGE own_DA interests_NN2 and_CC welfare_NN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 is_VBZ healthy_JJ and_CC '_GE working_JJ right_NN1 '_GE when_CS her_APPGE substance_NN1 is_VBZ organised_VVN primarily_RR on_II principles_NN2 which_DDQ align_VV0 it_PPH1 to_II her_APPGE interests_NN2 and_CC welfare_NN1 ._. 
Co-operation_NN1 is_VBZ essential_JJ of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 will_VM not_XX do_VDI that_DD1 I_PPIS1 arrange_VV0 everything_PN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 you_PPY get_VV0 enough_DD exercise_NN1 :_: for_IF me_PPIO1 to_TO be_VBI healthy_JJ ,_, I_PPIS1 must_VM get_VVI enough_DD exercise_NN1 ._. 
My_APPGE being_VBG adequately_RR exercised_VVN is_VBZ logically_RR independent_JJ of_IO your_APPGE being_VBG so_RR ._. 
(_( Ibid._RR ,_, p._NN1 70_MC )_) Frye_NN1 is_VBZ writing_VVG here_RL as_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 were_VBDR possible_JJ to_TO distinguish_VVI the_AT interests_NN2 of_IO one_MC1 self_NN1 sharply_RR from_II those_DD2 of_IO another_DD1 ,_, and_CC as_CS21 if_CS22 ,_, were_VBDR the_AT effects_NN2 of_IO male_JJ domination_NN1 to_TO be_VBI undone_VVN ,_, it_PPH1 would_VM not_XX be_VBI too_RG much_DA1 of_IO a_AT1 problem_NN1 for_IF the_AT self_NN1 to_TO know_VVI what_DDQ its_APPGE interests_NN2 were_VBDR ._. 
In_II various_JJ ways_NN2 then_RT ,_, underlying_VVG much_DA1 of_IO the_AT work_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 three_MC writers_NN2 is_VBZ a_AT1 set_NN1 of_IO assumptions_NN2 about_II the_AT self_NN1 ._. 
First_MD ,_, that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, at_RR21 least_RR22 potentially_RR ,_, a_AT1 unitary_JJ ,_, rational_JJ thing_NN1 ,_, aware_JJ of_IO its_APPGE interests_NN2 ._. 
Second_MD ,_, that_DD1 '_VBZ splits_NN2 '_GE within_II the_AT psyche_NN1 should_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA resulting_VVG from_II the_AT interference_NN1 of_IO patriarchal_JJ or_CC male-dominated_JJ socialisation_NN1 or_CC conditioning_NN1 ._. 
Third_MD ,_, that_CST the_AT task_NN1 of_IO undoing_VVG this_DD1 conditioning_NN1 is_VBZ one_PN1 that_CST can_VM be_VBI achieved_VVN solely_RR by_II a_AT1 rational_JJ process_NN1 of_IO learning_VVG to_TO understand_VVI and_CC fight_VVI against_II the_AT social_JJ and_CC institutional_JJ effects_NN2 of_IO male_JJ domination_NN1 ._. 
And_CC implicit_JJ in_II these_DD2 assumptions_NN2 about_II the_AT self_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, is_VBZ a_AT1 conception_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Frye_NN1 writes_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ left_JJ to_II themselves_58 '_GE women_NN2 would_VM not_XX want_VVI to_TO serve_VVI men_NN2 ._. 
Daly_NP1 writes_VVZ of_IO unveiling_VVG or_CC unwinding_VVG the_AT '_GE shrouds_NN2 '_GE of_IO patriarchy_NN1 ._. 
Millett_NP1 writes_VVZ of_IO the_AT individuality_NN1 and_CC ego_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 can_VM discover_VVI in_II themselves_PPX2 once_CS they_PPHS2 recognise_VV0 the_AT effects_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE patriarchal_JJ socialisation_NN1 ._. 
And_CC in_II all_DB three_MC ,_, what_DDQ is_VBZ autonomous_JJ (_( or_CC authentic_JJ )_) is_VBZ what_DDQ is_VBZ seen_VVN as_CSA originating_VVG in_II some_DD way_NN1 from_II within_II the_AT self_NN1 ;_; what_DDQ is_VBZ in_II some_DD way_NN1 untainted_JJ by_II the_AT conditioning_NN1 or_CC manipulation_NN1 to_II which_DDQ a_AT1 woman_NN1 has_VHZ previously_RR been_VBN subjected_VVN ._. 
Before_CS I_PPIS1 come_VV0 to_TO discuss_VVI the_AT philosophical_JJ problems_NN2 that_CST are_VBR raised_VVN by_II this_DD1 sort_NN1 of_IO account_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 and_CC autonomy_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 want_VV0 to_TO look_VVI at_II what_DDQ I_PPIS1 have_VH0 called_VVN its_APPGE implicit_JJ politics_NN1 ;_; and_CC what_DDQ I_PPIS1 mean_VV0 by_II this_DD1 primarily_RR is_VBZ its_APPGE possible_JJ consequences_NN2 for_IF the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 might_VM think_VVI about_II their_APPGE relationships_NN2 to_II each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ,_, and_CC the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 might_VM think_VVI about_II themselves_PPX2 ._. 
The_AT first_MD consequence_NN1 seems_VVZ to_II me_PPIO1 to_TO be_VBI this_DD1 ._. 
Any_DD view_NN1 which_DDQ sees_VVZ self-affirmation_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 an_AT1 '_GE authentic_JJ '_GE inner_JJ self_NN1 arising_VVG from_II the_AT smashing_JJ of_IO a_AT1 socially_RR conditioned_JJ '_GE false_JJ self_NN1 '_GE ,_, or_CC which_DDQ sees_VVZ autonomy_NN1 as_II a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO the_AT origin_NN1 of_IO actions_NN2 from_II '_GE inside_NN1 '_GE rather_II21 than_II22 '_GE outside_NN1 '_GE ,_, is_VBZ almost_RR bound_VVNK to_TO adopt_VVI ,_, however_RGQV implicitly_RR ,_, a_AT1 derogatory_JJ attitude_NN1 towards_II those_DD2 who_PNQS are_VBR not_XX yet_RR '_GE authentic_JJ '_GE ._. 
The_AT precise_JJ nature_NN1 and_CC tone_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 attitude_NN1 may_VM vary_VVI ._. 
But_CCB Mary_NP1 Daly_NP1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, in_II GynlEcology_NP1 ,_, sometimes_RT writes_VVZ as_CS21 if_CS22 most_DAT women_NN2 were_VBDR really_RR little_DA1 more_DAR than_CSN the_AT programmed_JJ ,_, robotic_JJ puppets_NN2 to_II which_DDQ women_NN2 were_VBDR reduced_VVN in_II Ira_NP1 Levin_NP1 's_GE novel_NN1 The_AT Stepford_NP1 Wives_NN2 ;_; the_AT language_NN1 of_IO '_GE fembots_NN2 '_GE and_CC '_GE mutants_NN2 '_GE and_CC '_GE puppets_NN2 '_GE ,_, whilst_CS intended_VVN ,_, I_PPIS1 am_VBM sure_JJ ,_, to_TO enunciate_VVI a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE oppressors_NN2 ,_, veers_VVZ perilously_RR near_II21 to_II22 sounding_VVG like_II contempt_NN1 for_IF those_DD2 who_PNQS are_VBR subject_II21 to_II22 that_DD1 oppression_NN1 ._. 
And_CC this_DD1 is_VBZ related_VVN ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, to_II Daly_NP1 's_GE scorn_NN1 for_IF '_GE tokenism_NN1 '_GE for_IF those_DD2 women_NN2 who_PNQS participate_VV0 in_II what_DDQ are_VBR seen_VVN as_CSA patriarchal_JJ institutions_NN2 ._. 
Kate_NP1 Millett_NP1 's_GE language_NN1 is_VBZ less_RGR obviously_RR extreme_JJ ._. 
But_CCB the_AT picture_NN1 she_PPHS1 paints_VVZ of_IO women_NN2 is_VBZ nevertheless_RR often_RR a_AT1 derogatory_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
She_PPHS1 describes_VVZ them_PPHO2 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, as_58 '_GE infantilised_JJ '_GE ;_; she_PPHS1 accepts_VVZ without_IW question_NN1 research_NN1 which_DDQ purported_VVD to_TO show_VVI that_CST most_DAT women_NN2 despised_VVD each_PPX221 other_PPX222 (_( Millett_NP1 ,_, 1977_MC ,_, p._NN1 55_MC )_) ;_; she_PPHS1 sees_VVZ women_NN2 as_CSA having_VHG little_RR '_GE self-respect_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC as_CSA devoting_VVG almost_RR all_DB their_APPGE time_NNT1 and_CC attention_NN1 to_II pleasing_JJ and_CC flattering_JJ men_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 implicitly_RR derogatory_JJ attitude_NN1 to_II women_NN2 is_VBZ linked_VVN both_RR to_II an_AT1 overmonolithic_JJ account_NN1 of_IO male_JJ power_NN1 ,_, and_CC to_II a_AT1 failure_NN1 to_TO give_VVI much_DA1 attention_NN1 to_II the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 have_VH0 ,_, in_II fact_NN1 ,_, often_RR spent_VVN much_DA1 of_IO their_APPGE lives_NN2 ,_, and_CC to_II the_AT activities_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 been_VBN particularly_RR theirs_PPGE (_( such_II21 as_II22 the_AT rearing_JJ of_IO children_NN2 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 )_) ._. 
Sometimes_RT women_NN2 are_VBR depicted_VVN almost_RR as_II a_AT1 caricature_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 male_JJ stereotype_NN1 of_IO themselves_PPX2 they_PPHS2 are_VBR servile_JJ ,_, weak_JJ ,_, powerless_JJ etc_RA ._. 
(_( Millett_NP1 even_RR suggests_VVZ (_( p._NNU 56_MC )_) that_CST the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST women_NN2 commit_VV0 less_58 '_GE crime_NN1 '_GE than_CSN men_NN2 is_VBZ due_II21 to_II22 their_APPGE patriarchal_JJ conditioning_NN1 in_II passivity_NN1 ._. )_) 
Millett_NP1 basically_RR dismisses_VVZ the_AT activities_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 tended_VVN to_TO dominate_VVI women_NN2 's_GE lives_NN2 as_58 '_GE infantilising_NN1 '_GE ,_, because_CS they_PPHS2 restrict_VV0 women_NN2 to_II the_AT level_NN1 ,_, she_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, of_IO the_AT merely_RR biological_JJ ,_, and_CC do_VD0 not_XX allow_VVI them_PPHO2 to_TO enter_VVI upon_II the_AT '_GE fully_RR human_NN1 '_GE activities_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 been_VBN the_AT province_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 ._. 
And_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ interesting_JJ ,_, as_CSA Toril_NP1 Moi_FW (_( 1985_MC )_) points_VVZ out_RP ,_, that_CST in_II her_APPGE discussion_NN1 of_IO literature_NN1 ,_, Millett_NP1 concentrates_VVZ almost_RR wholly_RR on_II male_JJ authors_NN2 ,_, with_IW the_AT exception_NN1 of_IO Charlotte_NP1 Bronte_NP1 ,_, of_IO whose_DDQGE work_NN1 she_PPHS1 tends_VVZ to_TO be_VBI very_RG dismissive_JJ ._. 
Furthermore_RR ,_, as_II Moi_FW suggests_VVZ ,_, she_PPHS1 seems_VVZ to_TO avoid_VVI much_RR in_II the_AT way_NN1 of_IO recognition_NN1 or_CC acknowledgement_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ work_NN1 prior_II21 to_II22 her_APPGE own_DA ,_, or_CC of_IO the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO female_JJ traditions_NN2 and_CC strengths_NN2 which_DDQ might_VM have_VHI tended_VVN to_TO challenge_VVI or_CC subvert_VVI the_AT supposedly_RR monolithic_JJ nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT male_JJ power_NN1 which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT main_JJ aim_NN1 of_IO her_APPGE book_NN1 to_TO describe_VVI ._. 
Mary_NP1 Daly_NP1 's_GE indictment_NN1 of_IO male_JJ power_NN1 and_CC brutality_NN1 similarly_RR allows_VVZ little_DA1 space_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 consideration_NN1 of_IO the_AT patterns_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE lives_NN2 ,_, or_CC the_AT strengths_NN2 and_CC capacities_NN2 that_CST these_DD2 might_VM have_VHI enabled_VVN them_PPHO2 to_TO develop_VVI ._. 
Her_APPGE female_JJ Spirit-Self_NP1 simply_RR seems_VVZ to_TO rise_VVI mysteriously_RR like_II a_AT1 phoenix_NN1 from_II the_AT ashes_NN2 of_IO patriarchal_JJ conditioning_NN1 ._. 
And_CC Frye_NN1 is_VBZ sceptical_JJ about_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 looking_VVG to_II their_APPGE foremothers_NN2 as_II a_AT1 source_NN1 of_IO inspiration_NN1 ;_; of_IO seeing_VVG some_DD women_NN2 ,_, at_RR21 least_RR22 ,_, as_CSA having_VHG led_VVN lives_NN2 that_CST were_VBDR not_XX wholly_RR male-mediated_JJ ._. 
Feminist_JJ vision_NN1 or_CC imagination_NN1 has_VHZ no_AT real_JJ resource_NN1 to_TO turn_VVI to_II ._. 
Now_RT these_DD2 kinds_NN2 of_IO accounts_NN2 (_( or_CC perhaps_RR one_PN1 might_VM say_VVI failures_NN2 to_TO give_VVI an_AT1 adequate_JJ account_NN1 ?_? )_) of_IO women_NN2 's_GE lives_NN2 are_VBR implicitly_RR divisive_JJ and_CC threatening_VVG ._. 
They_PPHS2 are_VBR divisive_JJ because_CS they_PPHS2 have_VH0 a_AT1 tendency_NN1 to_TO divide_VVI women_NN2 into_II two_MC camps_NN2 ;_; those_DD2 who_PNQS have_VH0 and_CC those_DD2 who_PNQS have_VH0 not_XX shaken_VVN the_AT dust_NN1 of_IO patriarchal_JJ conditioning_NN1 from_II their_APPGE feet_NN2 ._. 
And_CC they_PPHS2 are_VBR threatening_VVG ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ offensive_JJ and_CC undermining_VVG to_TO be_VBI told_VVN that_CST the_AT life_NN1 one_PN1 has_VHZ led_VVN has_VHZ merely_RR been_VBN one_MC1 of_IO servility_NN1 ,_, that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ not_XX been_VBN of_IO truly_RR '_GE human_NN1 '_GE value_NN1 ,_, that_CST one_PN1 has_VHZ been_VBN a_AT1 '_GE fembot_NN1 '_GE or_CC a_AT1 '_GE puppet_NN1 '_GE ._. 
I_PPIS1 think_VV0 that_CST one_MC1 important_JJ strand_NN1 in_II the_AT rejection_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 by_II many_DA2 women_NN2 has_VHZ been_VBN a_AT1 feeling_NN1 that_CST feminists_NN2 are_VBR saying_VVG that_CST their_APPGE lives_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN of_IO no_AT value_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST their_APPGE activities_NN2 and_CC concerns_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN trivial_JJ ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 image_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 and_CC of_IO the_AT self_NN1 can_VM be_VBI threatening_VVG ,_, too_RR ,_, to_II women_NN2 who_PNQS do_VD0 have_VHI a_AT1 strong_JJ allegiance_NN1 to_II feminism_NN1 ;_; and_CC the_AT threat_NN1 intersects_VVZ with_IW assumptions_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 been_VBN made_VVN in_II some_DD feminist_JJ discourse_NN1 about_II who_PNQS is_VBZ or_CC is_VBZ not_XX '_GE really_RR '_GE a_AT1 feminist_NN1 ._. 
The_AT threat_NN1 arises_VVZ because_CS this_DD1 account_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ in_II fact_NN1 often_RR a_AT1 strongly_RR normative_JJ one_PN1 ;_; it_PPH1 presents_VVZ an_AT1 image_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ a_AT1 '_GE feminist_JJ self_NN1 '_GE should_VM be_VBI like_II ._. 
To_TO be_VBI autonomous_JJ or_CC authentic_JJ one_PN1 should_VM be_VBI strong_JJ ,_, independent_JJ ,_, rational_JJ ,_, coherent_JJ or_CC consistent_JJ ,_, able_JK to_TO distinguish_VVI clearly_RR those_DD2 aspects_NN2 of_IO one_PN1 's_GE previous_JJ self_NN1 which_DDQ derive_VV0 from_II male-dominated_JJ conditioning_NN1 and_CC reject_VV0 them_PPHO2 ._. 
If_CS one_PN1 is_VBZ ambivalent_JJ ,_, conflicted_VVD ,_, uncertain_JJ ,_, confused_VVN ,_, unwilling_JJ to_TO make_VVI wholesale_JJ rejections_NN2 ,_, one_PN1 stands_VVZ to_TO be_VBI accused_VVN ,_, whether_CSW by_II oneself_PNX1 or_CC by_II others_NN2 ,_, of_IO bad_JJ faith_NN1 ,_, of_IO lack_NN1 of_IO courage_NN1 ,_, of_IO '_GE selling_VVG out_RP '_GE ,_, of_IO tokenism_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 am_VBM here_RL giving_VVG an_AT1 account_NN1 of_IO just_RR one_MC1 (_( influential_JJ )_) strand_NN1 in_II feminist_JJ discourse_NN1 ._. 
There_EX are_VBR other_JJ strands_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 rejected_VVN this_DD1 account_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 and_CC autonomy_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 said_VVN before_RT ,_, a_AT1 picture_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 as_CSA conscious_JJ ,_, unitary_JJ and_CC rational_JJ can_VM be_VBI traced_VVN back_RP ,_, in_II Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, to_II Descartes_NP1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 do_VD0 not_XX have_VHI space_NN1 here_RL to_TO discuss_VVI the_AT various_JJ ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ versions_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 conception_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN influential_JJ ,_, in_II philosophy_NN1 and_CC psychology_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT major_JJ tradition_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ queried_VVN this_DD1 view_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN that_DD1 which_DDQ derives_VVZ from_II psychoanalysis_NN1 ._. 
Feminism_NN1 has_VHZ had_VHN a_AT1 complex_JJ relation_NN1 to_II psychoanalysis_NN1 ._. 
Freud_NP1 's_GE theories_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN the_AT target_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 great_JJ deal_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ criticism_NN1 ._. 
In_II Sexual_JJ Politics_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, Kate_NP1 Millett_NP1 sees_VVZ Freud_NP1 simply_RR as_CSA the_AT proponent_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 biologistic_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO male_JJ supremacy_NN1 ,_, and_CC as_CSA one_MC1 of_IO the_AT arch-villains_NN2 in_II the_AT male_JJ plot_NN1 of_IO patriarchy_NN1 ._. 
Other_JJ feminist_JJ writers_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, have_VH0 tried_VVN to_TO reevaluate_VVI the_AT significance_NN1 of_IO psychoanalytic_JJ theory_NN1 for_IF feminism_NN1 ._. 
And_CC they_PPHS2 have_VH0 argued_VVN that_CST ,_, whilst_CS feminism_NN1 should_VM indeed_RR always_RR have_VHI a_AT1 critical_JJ relationship_NN1 to_II psychoanalytic_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, the_AT latter_DA has_VHZ within_II it_PPH1 the_AT potential_NN1 for_IF allowing_VVG a_AT1 better_JJR understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT complexities_NN2 of_IO human_JJ desires_NN2 and_CC of_IO the_AT psychological_JJ construction_NN1 of_IO '_GE masculinity_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE femininity_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Now_RT any_DD adequate_JJ account_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 needs_VVZ to_TO be_VBI able_JJ ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, to_TO encompass_VVI and_CC try_VVI to_TO make_VVI intelligible_JJ the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ women_NN2 and_CC men_NN2 experience_VV0 themselves_PPX2 ._. 
And_CC the_AT central_JJ reasons_NN2 for_IF rejecting_VVG the_AT '_GE humanist_NN1 '_GE paradigm_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 as_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 outlined_VVN it_PPH1 above_RL are_VBR ,_, firstly_RR ,_, that_CST there_EX may_VM be_VBI aspects_NN2 of_IO the_AT development_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX easily_RR accessible_JJ to_II consciousness_NN1 ,_, and_CC secondly_RR ,_, that_CST there_EX are_VBR conscious_JJ experiences_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX easy_JJ to_TO make_VVI intelligible_JJ within_II the_AT humanist_JJ paradigm_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 want_VV0 now_RT to_TO look_VVI at_II some_DD aspects_NN2 of_IO self-experience_NN1 that_CST I_PPIS1 think_VV0 should_VM be_VBI central_JJ to_II any_DD theory_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 ,_, and_CC hence_RR to_II any_DD discussion_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE autonomy_NN1 ._. 
Fantasy_NN1 The_AT dream_NN1 (_( on_II which_DDQ we_PPIS2 may_VM try_VVI hard_JJ to_TO impose_VVI a_AT1 narrative_JJ structure_NN1 ,_, to_TO make_VVI sense_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 )_) is_VBZ unlike_JJ much_DA1 fantasy_NN1 in_II that_DD1 it_PPH1 often_RR does_VDZ n't_XX ,_, of_IO itself_PPX1 ,_, contain_VV0 any_DD such_DA structure_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT '_GE story_NN1 '_GE ,_, if_CS it_PPH1 tells_VVZ one_PN1 ,_, may_VM be_VBI deeply_RR unintelligible_JJ to_II us_PPIO2 ._. 
Much_RR conscious_JJ fantasy_NN1 is_VBZ different_JJ ;_; we_PPIS2 may_VM '_GE tell_VV0 a_AT1 story_NN1 '_GE to_II ourselves_PPX2 (_( or_CC listen_VV0 to_II a_AT1 story_NN1 and_CC fantasise_VV0 it_PPH1 as_CSA about_II ourselves_PPX2 )_) ;_; and_CC sometimes_RT we_PPIS2 may_VM attempt_VVI an_AT1 imagined_JJ resolution_NN1 ,_, through_II fantasy_NN1 ,_, of_IO some_DD aspect_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE social_JJ situation_NN1 ._. 
One_PN1 might_VM ,_, thus_RR ,_, fantasise_VVI the_AT death_NN1 of_IO someone_PN1 seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 threat_NN1 ,_, or_CC imagine_VV0 oneself_PNX1 as_II possessing_VVG enormous_JJ fame_NN1 or_CC wealth_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB fantasies_NN2 ,_, not_XX always_RR in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 coherent_JJ narrative_NN1 ,_, may_VM irrupt_VVI or_CC intervene_VVI ;_; one_PN1 can_VM be_VBI plagued_VVN ,_, dominated_VVN or_CC obsessed_JJ by_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
Freud_NP1 wrote_VVD of_IO the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ fantasies_NN2 or_CC desires_NN2 ,_, often_RR seen_VVN as_CSA evil_JJ or_CC dangerous_JJ ,_, could_VM come_VVI to_TO dominate_VVI a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE life_NN1 ._. 
Fantasy_NN1 may_VM be_VBI a_AT1 threat_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI inexplicable_JJ ,_, bizarre_JJ and_CC intrusive_JJ ._. 
Discovering_VVG the_AT fantasies_NN2 of_IO others_NN2 ,_, too_RR ,_, may_VM be_VBI threatening_VVG ;_; the_AT discovery_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, as_CSA Rosalind_NP1 Coward_NP1 (_( 1984_MC )_) suggests_VVZ ,_, that_CST the_AT '_GE mild_NN1 '_GE man_NN1 one_PN1 lives_VVZ with_IW is_VBZ a_AT1 secret_JJ addict_NN1 of_IO sadomasochistic_JJ pornography_NN1 ._. 
Female_JJ sexual_JJ fantasies_NN2 can_VM be_VBI disturbing_JJ as_RR21 well_RR22 ._. 
Why_RRQ do_VD0 many_DA2 women_NN2 find_VVI The_AT Story_NN1 of_IO O_ZZ1 erotic_JJ ,_, and_CC why_RRQ is_VBZ there_EX a_AT1 '_GE split_NN1 '_GE between_II sexual_JJ fantasy_NN1 and_CC that_DD1 which_DDQ one_PN1 might_VM find_VVI pleasurable_JJ or_CC erotic_JJ in_II real_JJ life_NN1 ?_? 
Fantasy_NN1 may_VM be_VBI experienced_VVN both_RR as_CSA pleasurable_JJ and_CC as_RG dangerous_JJ ._. 
But_CCB sometimes_RT it_PPH1 can_VM just_RR be_VBI pleasurable_JJ ._. 
Coward_NP1 discusses_VVZ ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST one_MC1 of_IO the_AT biggest_JJT growth_NN1 areas_NN2 in_II publishing_VVG in_II recent_JJ years_NNT2 has_VHZ been_VBN women_NN2 's_GE romantic_JJ fiction_NN1 ._. 
Unlike_II the_AT '_GE modern_JJ '_GE women_NN2 's_GE novel_NN1 in_II which_DDQ ,_, usually_RR after_II a_AT1 series_NN of_IO disastrous_JJ sexual_JJ misadventures_NN2 ,_, the_AT female_JJ heroine_NN1 ends_VVZ up_RP (_( more_RRR or_CC less_RRR )_) '_GE her_APPGE own_DA person_NN1 '_GE ,_, romantic_JJ fiction_NN1 is_VBZ stylised_VVN ,_, formulaic_JJ and_CC unrealistic_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 offers_VVZ women_NN2 ,_, Coward_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, the_AT fantasised_JJ pleasure_NN1 (_( and_CC apotheosis_NN1 of_IO sexual_JJ desire_NN1 )_) of_IO finding_VVG security_NN1 in_II the_AT strong_JJ arms_NN2 of_IO the_AT hard-bitten_JJ patriarchal_JJ hero_NN1 ,_, along_II21 with_II22 the_AT pleasure_NN1 of_IO having_VHG '_GE tamed_JJ '_GE him_PPHO1 and_CC domesticated_VVD his_APPGE wild_JJ ways_NN2 by_II the_AT power_NN1 one_PN1 enjoys_VVZ over_II him_PPHO1 in_II being_VBG a_AT1 woman_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 to_TO understand_VVI the_AT pleasure_NN1 there_EX is_VBZ for_IF women_NN2 in_II such_DA fantasies_NN2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 to_TO understand_VVI what_DDQ seems_VVZ often_RR to_TO attract_VVI women_NN2 more_RRR than_CSN men_NN2 to_TO soap_VVI operas_NN2 ,_, or_CC to_II a_AT1 passionate_JJ interest_NN1 in_II the_AT doings_NN2 of_IO the_AT Royal_JJ Family_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 need_VV0 to_TO understand_VVI how_RRQ and_CC why_RRQ male_JJ fantasies_NN2 may_VM commonly_RR differ_VVI from_II female_JJ ones_NN2 ,_, and_CC why_RRQ the_AT sorts_NN2 of_IO fantasies_NN2 I_PPIS1 have_VH0 mentioned_VVN ,_, which_DDQ may_VM in_II some_DD ways_NN2 seem_VV0 antithetical_JJ to_II feminism_NN1 ,_, may_VM still_RR have_VHI a_AT1 strong_JJ appeal_NN1 to_II women_NN2 who_PNQS have_VH0 a_AT1 feminist_JJ allegiance_NN1 ._. 
The_AT '_GE Split_NN1 '_GE Between_II Reason_NN1 and_CC Desire_VV0 I_PPIS1 will_VM suggest_VVI ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 first_MD example_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 ,_, a_AT1 book_NN1 by_II Suzanne_NP1 Lowry_NP1 ,_, on_II Princess_NNB Diana_NP1 ,_, called_VVN The_AT Princess_NN1 in_II the_AT Mirror_NN1 (_( 1985_MC )_) ._. 
The_AT appearance_NN1 of_IO the_AT book_NN1 is_VBZ at_II first_MD glance_NN1 like_II that_DD1 of_IO any_DD other_JJ glossy_JJ book_NN1 about_II the_AT Royals_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 sets_VVZ out_RP ,_, its_APPGE author_NN1 says_VVZ ,_, to_TO deconstruct_VVI the_AT image_NN1 and_CC appeal_NN1 of_IO the_AT Princess_NN1 ._. 
At_II the_AT end_NN1 of_IO the_AT book_NN1 ,_, Lowry_NP1 states_VVZ that_CST the_AT image_NN1 of_IO the_AT Princess_NN1 is_VBZ conformist_NN1 and_CC reactionary_JJ ,_, that_CST it_PPH1 acts_VVZ as_II a_AT1 powerful_JJ form_NN1 of_IO social_JJ control_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST Diana_NP1 is_VBZ an_AT1 unwitting_JJ agent_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 ._. 
Yet_RR the_AT presentation_NN1 of_IO the_AT book_NN1 ,_, and_CC Lowry_NP1 's_GE text_NN1 ,_, often_RR speak_VV0 of_IO a_AT1 fascination_NN1 with_IW the_AT Princess_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ more_DAR than_CSN simply_RR the_AT fascination_NN1 one_PN1 can_VM derive_VVI from_II the_AT exercise_NN1 of_IO deconstructing_VVG an_AT1 image_NN1 ._. 
And_CC this_DD1 fascination_NN1 is_VBZ often_RR in_II tension_NN1 with_IW the_AT attempt_NN1 to_TO articulate_VVI a_AT1 critique_NN1 ._. 
Or_CC think_VV0 about_II the_AT Fonda_NP1 phenomenon_NN1 ._. 
The_AT text_NN1 of_IO Fonda_NP1 's_GE book_NN1 ,_, Women_NN2 Coming_VVG of_IO Age_NN1 (_( 1984_MC )_) ,_, exhorts_VVZ women_NN2 not_XX to_TO '_" think_VVI thin'_NN1 ,_, and_CC its_APPGE theme_NN1 is_VBZ mainly_RR that_DD1 of_IO health_NN1 ._. 
Yet_RR the_AT illustrations_NN2 are_VBR nearly_RR all_DB of_IO women_NN2 who_PNQS are_VBR pencil-thin_JJ enough_RR not_XX to_TO be_VBI out_II21 of_II22 place_NN1 on_II the_AT catwalk_NN1 in_II a_AT1 Paris_NP1 fashion_NN1 show_NN1 ._. 
The_AT discourse_NN1 of_IO '_GE health_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ almost_RR inextricably_RR intertwined_VVN ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO women_NN2 ,_, with_IW discourse_NN1 about_II youth_NN1 and_CC beauty_NN1 and_CC sexual_JJ attractiveness_NN1 ._. 
The_AT reasons_NN2 women_NN2 have_VH0 for_IF concern_NN1 about_II fitness_NN1 and_CC health_NN1 are_VBR often_RR multiply_VV0 overdetermined_JJ ._. 
Notions_NN2 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, of_IO Ageless_JJ Ageing_JJ (_( Kenton_NP1 ,_, 1986_MC )_) slide_VV0 between_II discussions_NN2 of_IO how_RRQ to_TO preserve_VVI a_AT1 youthful_JJ skin_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 young-looking_JJ body_NN1 and_CC how_RRQ to_TO stave_VVI off_II the_AT ravages_NN2 of_IO appearing_VVG older_JJR ,_, with_IW discussions_NN2 of_IO mental_JJ vitality_NN1 and_CC energy_NN1 ,_, and_RR31 so_RR32 forth_RR33 ._. 
A_AT1 young-looking_JJ body_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 sign_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 alert_JJ mind_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 type_NN1 of_IO feminist_JJ criticism_NN1 ,_, both_RR in_II literature_NN1 and_CC other_JJ media_NN (_( and_CC in_II fields_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 education_NN1 )_) ,_, which_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN called_VVN '_GE Images_NN2 of_IO Women_NN2 '_GE criticism_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ supposed_VVN that_CST feminist_JJ effort_NN1 should_VM be_VBI devoted_JJ ,_, first_MD ,_, to_II showing_VVG how_RRQ the_AT '_GE images_NN2 '_GE in_II question_NN1 oppress_VV0 or_CC denigrate_JJ women_NN2 ,_, and_CC second_NNT1 ,_, to_II offering_VVG positive_JJ images_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 to_TO replace_VVI these_DD2 ._. 
One_MC1 problem_NN1 with_IW this_DD1 kind_NN1 of_IO criticism_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT '_GE images_NN2 '_GE in_II question_NN1 have_VH0 often_RR been_VBN misinterpreted_VVN ,_, since_CS they_PPHS2 have_VH0 been_VBN discussed_VVN without_IW reference_NN1 to_II the_AT context_NN1 or_CC narrative_JJ structure_NN1 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 may_VM appear_VVI ._. 
But_CCB there_EX are_VBR two_MC other_JJ problems_NN2 with_IW this_DD1 type_NN1 of_IO criticism_NN1 which_DDQ I_PPIS1 want_VV0 to_TO focus_VVI on_RP here_RL ._. 
First_MD ,_, what_DDQ this_DD1 approach_NN1 often_RR fails_VVZ to_TO recognise_VVI is_VBZ the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO understanding_VVG the_AT appeal_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE images_NN2 '_GE that_DD1 are_VBR criticised_VVN ;_; the_AT relations_NN2 they_PPHS2 may_VM have_VHI to_II women_NN2 's_GE pleasures_NN2 ,_, desires_NN2 ,_, fantasies_NN2 ,_, fears_NN2 and_CC conceptions_NN2 of_IO themselves_PPX2 ._. 
Second_MD ,_, it_PPH1 fails_VVZ to_TO recognise_VVI what_DDQ is_VBZ signally_RR obvious_JJ in_II the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO many_DA2 women_NN2 ,_, myself_PPX1 of_RR21 course_RR22 included_VVN ,_, namely_REX that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ perfectly_RR possible_JJ to_TO agree_VVI '_GE in_II one_PN1 's_GE head_NN1 '_GE that_DD1 certain_JJ images_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 might_VM be_VBI reactionary_JJ or_CC damaging_JJ or_CC oppressive_JJ ,_, while_CS remaining_VVG committed_JJ to_II them_PPHO2 in_II emotion_NN1 and_CC desire_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 suspect_VV0 that_DD1 this_58 '_GE split_NN1 '_GE happens_VVZ at_II times_NNT2 in_II all_DB women_NN2 ,_, and_CC perhaps_RR particularly_RR in_II those_DD2 who_PNQS have_VH0 some_DD commitment_NN1 to_II feminism_NN1 ._. 
And_CC what_DDQ it_PPH1 suggests_VVZ is_VBZ that_CST structures_NN2 of_IO desire_NN1 ,_, emotion_NN1 and_CC fantasy_NN1 have_VH0 deep_JJ roots_NN2 of_IO some_DD sort_NN1 in_II the_AT self_NN1 which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX necessarily_RR amenable_JJ in_II any_DD simple_JJ way_NN1 to_II processes_NN2 of_IO conscious_JJ rational_JJ argument_NN1 ._. 
An_AT1 adequate_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO subjectivity_NN1 has_VHZ to_TO recognise_VVI and_CC try_VVI to_TO understand_VVI these_DD2 roots_NN2 ._. 
Contradictions_NN2 I_PPIS1 have_VH0 already_RR identified_VVN more_DAR than_CSN one_MC1 type_NN1 of_IO contradiction_NN1 ;_; those_DD2 that_CST can_VM exist_VVI between_II one_PN1 's_GE fantasies_NN2 and_CC what_DDQ one_PN1 would_VM actually_RR do_VDI or_CC enjoy_VVI in_II real_JJ life_NN1 ,_, and_CC those_DD2 that_CST can_VM exist_VVI between_II one_PN1 's_GE understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT oppressive_JJ nature_NN1 of_IO some_DD discourse_NN1 or_CC practice_NN1 and_CC one_PN1 's_GE continuing_JJ investment_NN1 of_IO desire_NN1 and_CC finding_NN1 of_IO pleasure_NN1 in_II it_PPH1 ._. 
In_II his_APPGE Introductory_JJ Lectures_NN2 on_II Psychoanalysis_NN1 (_( 1973_MC )_) ,_, Freud_NP1 discussed_VVD the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ symptoms_NN2 are_VBR experienced_VVN in_II certain_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO obsessional_JJ neurosis_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 wrote_VVD :_: Obsessional_JJ neurosis_NN1 is_VBZ shown_VVN in_II the_AT patient_NN1 's_VBZ being_VBG occupied_VVN with_IW thoughts_NN2 in_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ in_II fact_NN1 not_XX interested_JJ ,_, in_II his_APPGE being_VBG aware_JJ of_IO impulses_NN2 which_DDQ appear_VV0 very_RG strange_JJ to_II him_PPHO1 and_CC his_APPGE being_VBG led_VVN to_II actions_NN2 the_AT performance_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ give_VV0 him_PPHO1 no_AT enjoyment_NN1 but_CCB which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ quite_RG impossible_JJ for_IF him_PPHO1 to_TO omit_VVI ._. 
The_AT thoughts_NN2 (_( obsessions_NN2 )_) may_VM be_VBI senseless_JJ in_II themselves_PPX2 ,_, or_CC merely_RR a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO indifference_NN1 to_II the_AT subject_NN1 ;_; often_RR they_PPHS2 are_VBR completely_RR silly_JJ ,_, and_CC invariably_RR they_PPHS2 are_VBR the_AT starting-point_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 strenuous_JJ mental_JJ activity_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ exhausts_VVZ the_AT patient_NN1 and_CC to_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 only_RR surrenders_VVZ himself_PPX1 most_DAT unwillingly._NNU (_( p.297_FO )_) Obsessional_JJ neurosis_NN1 is_VBZ characterised_VVN ,_, Freud_NP1 argued_VVD ,_, by_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST the_AT symptoms_NN2 are_VBR not_XX only_RR debilitating_JJ ,_, but_CCB are_VBR experienced_VVN by_II the_AT person_NN1 as_CSA alien_JJ ;_; they_PPHS2 do_VD0 not_XX seem_VVI '_GE part_NN1 '_GE of_IO him_PPHO1 or_CC her_PPHO1 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 seem_VV0 discrepant_NN1 with_IW an_AT1 everyday_JJ or_CC normal_JJ sense_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO many_DA2 of_IO Freud_NP1 's_GE patients_NN2 the_AT disruption_NN1 and_CC debilitation_NN1 caused_VVN by_II the_AT symptoms_NN2 was_VBDZ so_RG extreme_JJ that_CST they_PPHS2 were_VBDR scarcely_RR able_JK to_TO carry_VVI on_II their_APPGE lives_NN2 adequately_RR at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
But_CCB Freud_NP1 insisted_VVD that_CST there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT sharp_JJ dividing_JJ line_NN1 between_RL '_GE normal_JJ '_GE and_CC '_GE neurotic_JJ '_GE people_NN ,_, and_CC would_VM have_VHI argued_VVN that_CST similar_JJ ,_, though_CS less_RGR extreme_JJ ,_, obsessions_NN2 and_CC apparently_RR inexplicable_JJ compulsions_NN2 can_VM be_VBI found_VVN in_II all_DB of_IO us_PPIO2 ._. 
In_II these_DD2 cases_NN2 ,_, the_AT self_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, as_RR31 it_RR32 were_RR33 ,_, split_VVN against_II itself_PPX1 ,_, subject_II21 to_II22 desires_NN2 and_CC impulses_NN2 that_CST seem_VV0 '_GE out_II21 of_II22 character_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB one_PN1 can_VM not_XX assume_VVI that_CST an_AT1 everyday_JJ '_GE coherent_JJ '_GE sense_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 is_VBZ readily_RR available_JJ ._. 
One_MC1 reason_NN1 for_IF this_DD1 is_VBZ that_CST women_NN2 (_( and_CC men_NN2 ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 )_) are_VBR often_RR faced_VVN with_IW the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO negotiating_VVG contradictory_JJ or_CC conflicting_JJ conceptions_NN2 of_IO themselves_PPX2 ._. 
Women_NN2 may_VM ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, be_VBI required_VVN to_TO be_VBI both_RR sexually_RR exciting_JJ and_CC available_JJ ,_, and_CC modest_JJ and_CC chaste_JJ ._. 
And_CC gender_NN1 relationships_NN2 may_VM be_VBI subject_II21 to_II22 the_AT problems_NN2 that_CST can_VM arise_VVI from_II conflicting_JJ discourses_NN2 about_II femininity_NN1 or_CC masculinity_NN1 ._. 
Men_NN2 may_VM ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, both_DB2 see_VV0 themselves_PPX2 as_58 '_GE stronger_JJR '_" than_CSN women_NN2 and_CC tend_VV0 to_TO see_VVI women_NN2 as_RG more_RGR weak_JJ and_CC passive_JJ ,_, but_CCB also_RR see_VV0 women_NN2 as_CSA having_VHG a_AT1 power_NN1 over_II them_PPHO2 that_DD1 can_VM seem_VVI to_TO engulf_VVI the_AT man_NN1 in_II forms_NN2 of_IO emotional_JJ dependence_NN1 by_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 may_VM feel_VVI threatened_VVN ._. 
Discourse_NN1 about_II femininity_NN1 and_CC masculinity_NN1 is_VBZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 a_AT1 homogeneous_JJ or_CC stable_JJ thing_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT twentieth_MD century_NNT1 ,_, the_AT advent_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE consumer_NN1 culture_NN1 '_GE and_CC of_IO mass_JJ communications_NN2 has_VHZ given_VVN questions_NN2 about_II self_NN1 and_CC identity_NN1 a_AT1 peculiar_JJ intensity_NN1 and_CC difficulty_NN1 in_II some_DD respects_NN2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 have_VH0 led_VVN ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, to_II a_AT1 focus_NN1 on_II appearance_NN1 and_CC '_GE style_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ these_DD2 may_VM '_" express_58 '_GE one_MC1 's_GE individuality_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ historically_RR novel_JJ ._. 
The_AT clothes_NN2 one_PN1 wears_VVZ ,_, the_AT '_GE room_NN1 of_IO one_PN1 's_GE own_DA '_GE in_II the_AT Sunday_NPD1 Supplements_NN2 :_: one_PN1 may_VM ,_, apparently_RR ,_, now_RT '_GE try_NN1 on_II '_GE identities_NN2 as_CS21 if_CS22 they_PPHS2 really_RR were_VBDR clothes_NN2 ._. 
And_CC women_NN2 have_VH0 often_RR tended_VVN to_TO be_VBI the_AT main_JJ target_NN1 of_IO fashion_NN1 and_CC '_GE lifestyle_NN1 '_GE talk_NN1 ._. 
For_IF all_DB the_AT rejection_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ was_VBDZ sometimes_RT called_VVN '_GE woman_NN1 garbage_NN1 '_GE by_II American_JJ feminists_NN2 ,_, the_AT issue_NN1 of_IO appearance_NN1 is_VBZ something_PN1 that_CST no_AT woman_NN1 can_VM wholly_RR avoid_VVI ._. 
Feminists_NN2 too_RR ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, have_VH0 used_VVN style_NN1 of_IO dress_NN1 and_CC demeanour_NN1 to_TO express_VVI a_AT1 sense_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 and_CC of_IO political_JJ commitment_NN1 ._. 
(_( Elizabeth_NP1 Wilson_NP1 recorded_VVD once_RR realising_VVG that_CST she_PPHS1 was_VBDZ more_RRR than_CSN usually_RR anxious_JJ about_II the_AT question_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ to_TO wear_VVI when_RRQ she_PPHS1 was_VBDZ going_VVGK to_TO talk_VVI to_II a_AT1 feminist_JJ group_NN1 ._. )_) 
Self-knowledge_NN1 and_CC Self-deception_NN1 The_AT concept_NN1 of_IO self-deception_NN1 is_VBZ one_PN1 that_CST has_VHZ constantly_RR puzzled_VVN philosophers_NN2 ._. 
How_RRQ can_VM one_PN1 both_RR know_VVI and_CC yet_RR not_XX know_VVI something_PN1 about_II oneself_PNX1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 do_VD0 not_XX have_VHI space_NN1 here_RL to_TO discuss_VVI the_AT question_NN1 of_IO self-deception_NN1 in_II detail_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB an_AT1 important_JJ thing_NN1 to_TO recognise_VVI at_II the_AT outset_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST knowing_VVG about_II oneself_PNX1 can_VM never_RR be_VBI a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO '_GE mere_JJ information_NN1 '_GE ._. 
One_PN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI distanced_VVN from_II or_CC emotionally_RR neutral_JJ about_II issues_NN2 of_IO self-knowledge_NN1 ._. 
(_( Freud_NP1 stressed_VVD this_DD1 in_II his_APPGE account_NN1 of_IO the_AT transference_NN1 in_II the_AT analytic_JJ situation_NN1 ._. )_) 
Herbert_NP1 Fingarette_NP1 (_( 1959_MC )_) uses_VVZ the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO '_GE avowal_NN1 '_GE to_TO give_VVI an_AT1 account_NN1 of_IO the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO self-deception_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 do_VD0 not_XX see_VVI everything_PN1 that_CST we_PPIS2 think_VV0 or_CC do_VD0 or_CC fantasise_VV0 or_CC desire_NN1 as_CSA equally_RR '_GE central_JJ '_GE to_II ourselves_PPX2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ quite_RG common_JJ ,_, in_II everyday_JJ discourse_NN1 ,_, to_TO say_VVI things_NN2 like_NN1 '_GE I_PPIS1 was_VBDZ n't_XX really_RR myself_PPX1 '_GE or_CC '_" It_PPH1 was_VBDZ n't_XX like_II me_PPIO1 to_TO do_VDI that_DD1 '_VBZ ._. 
Sometimes_RT this_DD1 process_NN1 of_IO rejection_NN1 ,_, of_IO not_XX avowing_VVG ,_, is_VBZ quite_RG conscious_JJ ._. 
At_II other_JJ times_NNT2 it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI barely_RR admitted_VVN to_II consciousness_NN1 ,_, if_CS whatever_DDQV it_PPH1 was_VBDZ is_VBZ seen_VVN as_CSA threatening_VVG to_II the_AT self_NN1 ._. 
And_CC sometimes_RT it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, not_XX conscious_JJ at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
Psychoanalysts_NN2 have_VH0 talked_VVN ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, about_II the_AT process_NN1 of_IO '_GE projection_NN1 '_GE ,_, in_II which_DDQ aspects_NN2 of_IO oneself_PNX1 of_IO which_DDQ one_PN1 is_VBZ fearful_JJ may_VM be_VBI projected_VVN on_II21 to_II22 other_JJ people_NN ._. 
(_( A_ZZ1 number_NN1 of_IO writers_NN2 have_VH0 seen_VVN '_GE projection_NN1 '_GE as_RG involved_JJ in_II the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO masculinity_NN1 ,_, and_CC have_VH0 suggested_VVN that_CST men_NN2 may_VM sometimes_RT project_VVI their_APPGE own_DA fears_NN2 of_IO such_DA things_NN2 as_CSA emotional_JJ intimacy_NN1 on_II21 to_II22 women_NN2 ,_, who_PNQS are_VBR then_RT seen_VVN as_58 '_GE bad_JJ '_GE because_CS they_PPHS2 cause_VV0 these_DD2 problems_NN2 ._. )_) 
Self-knowledge_NN1 can_VM never_RR be_VBI a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO easy_JJ or_CC immediate_JJ introspection_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ partly_RR because_CS aspects_NN2 of_IO oneself_PNX1 may_VM be_VBI disavowed_VVN ,_, sometimes_RT unconsciously_RR ,_, and_CC partly_RR because_CS the_AT '_GE meaning_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT deliverances_NN2 of_IO introspection_NN1 is_VBZ always_RR dependent_JJ on_II an_AT1 interpretation_NN1 ._. 
One_PN1 may_VM be_VBI aware_JJ of_IO feelings_NN2 ,_, sexual_JJ ones_NN2 for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, that_CST one_PN1 is_VBZ not_XX able_JK to_TO conceptualise_VVI as_RG sexual_JJ at_II the_AT time_NNT1 ._. 
Freud_NP1 believed_VVD that_CST at_II the_AT root_NN1 of_IO all_DB neuroses_NN2 lay_VV0 repressed_JJ sexual_JJ desires_NN2 ,_, but_CCB even_CS21 if_CS22 one_PN1 does_VDZ not_XX follow_VVI him_PPHO1 in_II this_DD1 ,_, it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI hard_JJ to_TO resist_VVI the_AT conclusion_NN1 that_CST this_DD1 was_VBDZ true_JJ of_IO some_DD of_IO his_APPGE patients_NN2 ._. 
Sometimes_RT his_APPGE patients_NN2 lacked_VVD the_AT kind_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 that_CST would_VM have_VHI enabled_VVN them_PPHO2 to_TO interpret_VVI the_AT experience_NN1 as_58 '_GE sexual_JJ '_GE at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
Sometimes_RT they_PPHS2 possessed_VVD knowledge_NN1 about_II sex_NN1 ,_, but_CCB could_VM not_XX admit_VVI that_CST this_DD1 was_VBDZ sexual_JJ ,_, or_CC that_CST they_PPHS2 had_VHD those_DD2 sorts_NN2 of_IO desires_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 have_VH0 outlined_VVN above_RL some_DD of_IO the_AT experiences_NN2 and_CC the_AT problems_NN2 about_II subjectivity_NN1 that_CST any_DD adequate_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 must_VM be_VBI able_JK to_TO encompass_VVI ,_, in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 that_CST the_AT '_GE humanist_NN1 '_GE paradigm_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, unable_JK to_TO do_VDI ._. 
There_EX are_VBR approaches_NN2 to_II understanding_NN1 and_CC theorising_VVG self_NN1 which_DDQ depart_VV0 radically_RR from_II the_AT humanist_JJ paradigm_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 shall_VM not_XX attempt_VVI to_TO enumerate_VVI them_PPHO2 all_DB here_RL ,_, nor_CC do_VD0 I_PPIS1 think_VVI that_DD1 feminism_NN1 should_VM accept_VVI any_DD of_IO them_PPHO2 uncritically_RR ._. 
What_DDQ they_PPHS2 share_VV0 ,_, despite_II their_APPGE differences_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ an_AT1 insistence_NN1 that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_NN1 '_GE original_NN1 '_GE wholeness_NN1 or_CC unity_NN1 in_II the_AT self_NN1 ,_, nor_CC a_AT1 '_GE real_JJ self_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ can_VM be_VBI thought_VVN of_IO as_CSA in_II some_DD way_NN1 underlying_VVG the_AT self_NN1 of_IO everyday_JJ life_NN1 ._. 
The_AT self_NN1 is_VBZ always_RR a_AT1 more_RGR or_CC less_RGR precarious_JJ and_CC conflictual_JJ construction_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 ,_, and_CC compromise_VV0 between_RL ,_, conflicting_JJ and_CC not_XX always_RR conscious_JJ desires_NN2 and_CC experiences_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ are_VBR born_VVN out_II21 of_II22 the_AT ambivalences_NN2 and_CC contradictions_NN2 in_II human_JJ experience_NN1 and_CC relationships_NN2 with_IW others_NN2 ._. 
Accounts_NN2 of_IO the_AT construction_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 vary_VV0 ,_, in_II the_AT degree_NN1 of_IO stress_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, that_CST they_PPHS2 lay_VVD on_II the_AT period_NN1 of_IO infancy_NN1 and_CC early_JJ childhood_NN1 ,_, and_CC on_II the_AT importance_NN1 given_VVN to_II sexuality_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 seems_VVZ to_II me_PPIO1 that_CST the_AT theories_NN2 of_IO Freud_NP1 must_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA centrally_RR important_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ sometimes_RT argued_VVN that_CST Freud_NP1 's_GE theories_NN2 must_VM be_VBI accepted_VVN or_CC rejected_VVD all_DB of_IO a_AT1 piece_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST one_PN1 can_VM not_XX simply_RR accept_VVI or_CC reject_VVI '_GE bits_NN2 '_GE of_IO them_PPHO2 as_CSA one_PN1 fancies_VVZ ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 certain_JJ sort_NN1 of_IO eclecticism_NN1 ,_, practised_JJ for_REX21 example_REX22 by_II some_DD neo-Freudian_JJ writers_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 Erich_NP1 Fromm_NP1 or_CC by_II the_AT American_NN1 '_GE ego_NN1 psychologists_NN2 '_GE ,_, which_DDQ may_VM undermine_VVI anything_PN1 useful_JJ that_CST Freudian_JJ theory_NN1 really_RR has_VHZ to_TO offer_VVI ._. 
But_CCB whatever_DDQV we_PPIS2 may_VM take_VVI or_CC reject_VVI from_II Freud_NP1 ,_, what_DDQ I_PPIS1 think_VV0 we_PPIS2 should_VM not_XX lose_VVI is_VBZ the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 raises_VVZ questions_NN2 and_CC problematises_VVZ things_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR sometimes_RT taken_VVN for_IF granted_VVN ._. 
Freud_NP1 questions_VVZ any_DD easy_JJ (_( or_CC utopian_JJ )_) idea_NN1 or_CC ideal_NN1 of_IO the_AT unity_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 questions_VVZ the_AT idea_NN1 that_CST self-knowledge_NN1 could_VM ever_RR be_VBI a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO simple_JJ introspection_NN1 ,_, and_CC he_PPHS1 sees_VVZ issues_NN2 about_II desire_NN1 and_CC fantasy_NN1 as_CSA central_JJ to_II subjectivity_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 stresses_VVZ the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT acquisition_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 gendered_JJ subjectivity_NN1 is_VBZ necessarily_RR conflictual_JJ and_CC involves_VVZ struggle_NN1 ._. 
And_CC above_II all_DB ,_, perhaps_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 forces_VVZ a_AT1 radical_JJ questioning_NN1 of_IO the_AT concepts_NN2 of_IO the_AT '_GE individual_NN1 '_GE and_CC the_AT '_GE social_JJ '_GE ._. 
Nothing_PN1 could_VM be_VBI further_JJR from_II the_AT truth_NN1 than_CSN Kate_NP1 Millett_NP1 's_GE accusation_NN1 that_CST Freud_NP1 believed_VVD that_CST women_NN2 's_GE destiny_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 simple_JJ outcome_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE biology_NN1 ._. 
In_II Freudian_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 constant_JJ concern_NN1 with_IW the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ entry_NN1 into_II culture_NN1 and_CC human_JJ relationships_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT conflicts_NN2 and_CC struggle_VV0 this_DD1 causes_VVZ ,_, should_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA constitutive_JJ of_IO the_AT human_JJ self_NN1 ._. 
Freud_NP1 's_GE particular_JJ view_NN1 of_IO human_JJ culture_NN1 was_VBDZ problematic_JJ ._. 
He_PPHS1 stressed_VVD that_DD1 psychoanalysis_NN1 was_VBDZ never_RR concerned_JJ solely_RR with_IW desires_NN2 seen_VVN as_CSA arising_VVG unmediated_JJ from_II the_AT body_NN1 ,_, but_CCB always_RR with_IW psychic_JJ representations_NN2 of_IO these_DD2 ._. 
But_CCB he_PPHS1 also_RR believed_VVD in_II a_AT1 sort_NN1 of_IO Lamarckian_JJ view_NN1 of_IO the_AT inheritance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE primal_JJ schema_NN1 '_GE of_IO desires_NN2 and_CC fantasies_NN2 which_DDQ determined_VVD the_AT form_NN1 taken_VVN by_II the_AT Oedipal_JJ situation_NN1 ._. 
The_AT French_JJ psychoanalyst_NN1 ,_, Jacques_NP1 Lacan_NN1 ,_, argued_VVD that_CST Freud_NP1 himself_PPX1 (_( as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 virtually_RR all_DB the_AT psychoanalysts_NN2 who_PNQS revised_VVD Freud_NP1 's_GE theories_NN2 )_) never_RR managed_VVN to_TO escape_VVI fully_RR from_II the_AT assumption_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 already_RR existing_JJ gendered_JJ subjectivity_NN1 which_DDQ entered_VVD into_II the_AT Oedipal_JJ situation_NN1 ._. 
And_CC Lacan_NN1 argued_VVD that_CST the_AT human_JJ subject_NN1 must_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA constituted_VVN through_II language_NN1 ,_, through_II entry_NN1 into_II the_AT Symbolic_JJ Order_NN1 ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 Lacan_NN1 ,_, the_AT aim_NN1 of_IO psychoanalysis_NN1 should_VM be_VBI rigorously_RR to_TO deconstruct_VVI and_CC expose_VVI the_AT contradictions_NN2 and_CC radical_JJ fissues_NN2 in_II which_DDQ human_JJ subjectivity_NN1 is_VBZ born_VVN ._. 
Feminism_NN1 ,_, as_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 said_VVN ,_, needs_VVZ to_TO preserve_VVI a_AT1 critical_JJ distance_NN1 from_II all_DB theories_NN2 of_IO self_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 needs_VVZ also_RR to_TO engage_VVI with_IW those_DD2 theories_NN2 which_DDQ deconstruct_VV0 the_AT distinction_NN1 between_II the_AT '_GE individual_NN1 '_GE and_CC the_AT '_GE social_JJ '_GE ,_, which_DDQ recognise_VV0 the_AT power_NN1 of_IO desire_NN1 and_CC fantasy_NN1 and_CC the_AT problems_NN2 of_IO supposing_VVG any_RR '_GE original_NN1 '_GE unity_NN1 in_II the_AT self_NN1 ,_, while_CS at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 preserving_VVG its_APPGE concern_NN1 with_IW lived_VVD experience_NN1 and_CC the_AT practical_JJ and_CC material_NN1 struggles_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 to_TO achieve_VVI more_DAR autonomy_NN1 and_CC control_VVI over_RP their_APPGE lives_NN2 ._. 
The_AT appeal_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ I_PPIS1 have_VH0 called_VVN the_AT '_GE humanist_JJ paradigm_NN1 '_GE lies_NN2 ,_, I_PPIS1 think_VV0 ,_, in_II the_AT way_NN1 it_PPH1 can_VM seem_VVI to_TO conceptualise_VVI the_AT need_VV0 women_NN2 have_VH0 experienced_VVN for_IF this_DD1 greater_JJR degree_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 and_CC control_NN1 ,_, for_IF overcoming_VVG the_AT fragmentation_NN1 and_CC contradictions_NN2 in_II their_APPGE lives_NN2 ,_, and_CC for_IF a_AT1 capacity_NN1 for_IF self-definition_NN1 ._. 
No_AT theory_NN1 of_IO self_NN1 should_VM lose_VVI sight_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 things_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 have_VH0 argued_VVN ,_, however_RR ,_, that_CST there_EX are_VBR also_RR aspects_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 's_GE experience_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT humanist_JJ paradigm_NN1 is_VBZ unable_JK to_TO conceptualise_VVI adequately_RR ;_; hence_RR the_AT appeal_NN1 of_IO theories_NN2 which_DDQ attempt_VV0 to_TO '_" deconstruct_VVI '_GE the_AT self_NN1 in_II more_RGR radical_JJ ways_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT danger_NN1 in_II some_DD '_GE deconstructionist_NN1 '_GE theories_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ that_CST they_PPHS2 seem_VV0 to_TO leave_VVI no_AT space_NN1 for_IF the_AT material_NN1 struggles_NN2 or_CC ordinary_JJ aspirations_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 ._. 
Thus_RR it_PPH1 seems_VVZ that_CST Lacanian_JJ psychoanalysis_NN1 ,_, both_RR in_II theory_NN1 and_CC practice_NN1 ,_, aims_VVZ merely_RR to_TO show_VVI what_DDQ a_AT1 fragmented_JJ ,_, decentred_VVD thing_NN1 the_AT human_JJ subject_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, and_CC Lacan_NN1 has_VHZ dismissed_VVN all_DB talk_NN1 of_IO '_GE unity_NN1 '_GE or_CC '_GE identity_NN1 '_GE as_II an_AT1 illusion_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI argued_VVN (_( though_CS I_PPIS1 do_VD0 not_XX have_VHI space_NN1 to_TO do_VDI it_PPH1 here_RL )_) ,_, that_CST there_EX is_VBZ an_AT1 incoherence_NN1 in_II a_AT1 view_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 which_DDQ regards_VVZ all_DB notions_NN2 of_IO unity_NN1 as_II an_AT1 illusion_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB there_EX is_VBZ also_RR a_AT1 practical_JJ and_CC political_JJ problem_NN1 ,_, since_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ difficult_JJ to_TO see_VVI how_RRQ such_DA a_AT1 theory_NN1 could_VM speak_VVI in_II any_DD way_NN1 to_II the_AT practical_JJ or_CC material_NN1 concerns_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, is_VBZ not_XX to_TO be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA one_MC1 of_IO whether_CSW we_PPIS2 should_VM continue_VVI to_TO use_VVI concepts_NN2 like_NN1 '_GE identity_NN1 '_GE or_CC '_GE autonomy_NN1 '_GE at_RR21 all_RR22 ,_, or_CC simply_RR reject_VV0 them_PPHO2 out_II21 of_II22 hand_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 problem_NN1 ,_, rather_RR ,_, of_IO how_RRQ to_TO offer_VVI an_AT1 interpretation_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 which_DDQ neither_DD1 assumes_VVZ the_AT original_JJ unitary_JJ self_NN1 of_IO the_AT humanist_JJ paradigm_NN1 ,_, nor_CC ignores_VVZ the_AT needs_NN2 of_IO women_NN2 ._. 
And_CC Freud_NP1 can_VM again_RT provide_VVI a_AT1 useful_JJ starting_NN1 point_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ that_CST Freudian_JJ theory_NN1 questions_NN2 any_DD notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT original_JJ unity_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX true_JJ that_CST Freudian_JJ theory_NN1 has_VHZ no_AT space_NN1 for_IF ideas_NN2 of_IO unity_NN1 or_CC autonomy_NN1 ._. 
The_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO psychoanalytic_JJ therapy_NN1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Freud_NP1 ,_, was_VBDZ to_TO remove_VVI the_AT power_NN1 of_IO the_AT symptom_NN1 by_II making_VVG it_PPH1 intelligible_JJ ,_, by_II showing_VVG the_AT sense_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 had_VHD ._. 
Psychoanalysis_NN1 aimed_VVD to_TO trace_VVI its_APPGE roots_NN2 in_II unconscious_JJ desires_NN2 (_( though_CS this_DD1 was_VBDZ not_XX a_AT1 process_NN1 merely_RR of_IO intellectual_JJ understanding_NN1 )_) ._. 
The_AT unintelligible_JJ ,_, alien_JJ quality_NN1 of_IO the_AT symptom_NN1 will_VM be_VBI removed_VVN ._. 
But_II21 for_II22 this_DD1 to_TO happen_VVI ,_, a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE conception_NN1 of_IO themselves_PPX2 must_VM also_RR be_VBI transformed_VVN ._. 
They_PPHS2 must_VM ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, be_VBI able_JK to_TO think_VVI of_IO themselves_PPX2 as_58 '_GE the_AT sort_NN1 of_IO person_NN1 who_PNQS does_VDZ have_VHI incestuous_JJ sexual_JJ desires_NN2 '_GE ,_, is_VBZ prepared_VVN to_TO avow_VVI them_PPHO2 as_58 '_GE part_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT self_NN1 ,_, and_CC ceases_VVZ to_TO be_VBI so_RR threatened_VVN by_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
Part_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 process_NN1 of_IO change_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 greater_JJR tolerance_NN1 of_IO certain_JJ aspects_NN2 of_IO oneself_PNX1 ,_, and_CC a_AT1 lesser_JJ propensity_NN1 for_IF these_DD2 to_TO cause_VVI guilt_NN1 or_CC anxiety_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB ,_, paradoxically_RR perhaps_RR ,_, this_DD1 greater_JJR tolerance_NN1 may_VM result_VVI in_II less_DAR fragmentation_NN1 ,_, more_DAR coherence_NN1 ,_, and_CC less_DAR subjection_NN1 to_II the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO anxiety_NN1 or_CC guilt_NN1 or_CC compulsive_JJ behaviour_NN1 that_CST may_VM once_RR have_VHI been_VBN so_RG deeply_RR disturbing_JJ or_CC threatening_VVG ._. 
It_PPH1 seems_VVZ to_II me_PPIO1 that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 sort_NN1 of_IO dialectic_NN1 we_PPIS2 need_VV0 to_TO preserve_VVI when_CS thinking_VVG about_II autonomy_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT authentic_JJ or_CC unified_JJ '_GE original_NN1 '_GE self_NN1 which_DDQ can_VM simply_RR be_VBI recovered_VVN or_CC discovered_VVD as_II the_AT source_NN1 of_IO '_" autonomous_58 '_GE actions_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB we_PPIS2 are_VBR often_RR faced_VVN with_IW the_AT experienced_JJ need_NN1 to_TO make_VVI '_GE sense_NN1 '_GE of_IO our_APPGE lives_NN2 and_CC our_APPGE feelings_NN2 and_CC goals_NN2 ,_, to_TO relate_VVI confused_JJ fragments_NN2 of_IO ourselves_PPX2 into_II something_PN1 that_CST seems_VVZ more_RGR coherent_JJ and_CC of_IO which_DDQ we_PPIS2 feel_VV0 more_RRR in_II control_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 are_VBR often_RR also_RR faced_VVN ,_, however_RR ,_, with_IW the_AT need_NN1 to_TO tolerate_VVI contradictions_NN2 ,_, not_XX to_TO strive_VVI for_IF an_AT1 illusory_JJ or_CC impossible_JJ ideal_JJ ,_, and_CC to_TO avoid_VVI self-punishing_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO anxiety_NN1 ,_, defence_NN1 and_CC guilt_NN1 (_( and_CC feminist_JJ guilt_NN1 can_VM be_VBI as_RG punishing_JJ as_CSA any_DD other_JJ kind_NN1 )_) ._. 
The_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO autonomy_NN1 is_VBZ one_PN1 in_II which_DDQ a_AT1 constant_JJ (_( but_CCB never_RR static_JJ or_CC final_JJ )_) search_NN1 for_IF control_NN1 and_CC coherence_NN1 needs_VVZ balancing_VVG against_II a_AT1 realism_NN1 and_CC tolerance_NN1 born_VVN out_II21 of_II22 efforts_NN2 to_TO understand_VVI ourselves_PPX2 (_( and_CC others_NN2 )_) better._NNU 7_MC Luce_NP1 Irigaray_NP1 's_GE Critique_NN1 of_IO Rationality_NN1 Margaret_NP1 Whitford_NP1 This_DD1 paper_NN1 is_VBZ about_II a_AT1 feminist_JJ philosopher_NN1 ,_, Luce_NP1 Irigaray_NP1 ,_, whose_DDQGE work_NN1 raises_VVZ particular_JJ difficulties_NN2 for_IF the_AT Anglo-Saxon_JJ reader_NN1 unfamiliar_JJ with_IW the_AT Continental_JJ tradition_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ._. 
I_MC1 In_II attempting_VVG to_TO elucidate_VVI ,_, with_II31 reference_II32 to_II33 its_APPGE context_NN1 ,_, one_MC1 of_IO the_AT strands_NN2 of_IO her_APPGE critique_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ metaphysics_NN2 ,_, I_PPIS1 hope_VV0 to_TO make_VVI her_APPGE work_NN1 more_RGR accessible_JJ for_IF discussion_NN1 to_II a_AT1 wider_JJR readership_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 must_VM emphasise_VVI that_CST this_DD1 paper_NN1 is_VBZ only_RR attempting_VVG to_TO deal_VVI with_IW one_MC1 aspect_NN1 of_IO Irigaray_NP1 's_GE thought_NN1 and_CC will_VM inevitably_RR touch_VVI on_II issues_NN2 that_CST I_PPIS1 wo_VM n't_XX have_VHI space_NN1 to_TO develop_VVI ._. 
The_AT work_NN1 of_IO Irigaray_NP1 raises_VVZ questions_NN2 about_II the_AT edifice_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ rationality_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 would_VM like_VVI here_RL to_TO approach_VVI these_DD2 questions_NN2 indirectly_RR ,_, to_TO clarify_VVI their_APPGE import_NN1 by_II31 means_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 detour_NN1 through_II the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO the_AT imaginary_JJ ._. 
The_AT term_NN1 imaginary_JJ as_II a_AT1 noun_NN1 is_VBZ current_JJ in_II French_JJ theoretical_JJ work_NN1 ,_, but_CCB not_XX in_II English_NN1 (_( except_CS via_II Lacan_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS gives_VVZ the_AT Imaginary_JJ ,_, with_IW a_AT1 capital_NN1 I_ZZ1 ,_, a_AT1 major_JJ role_NN1 in_II his_APPGE theory_NN1 )_) ._. 
Like_II its_APPGE English_JJ cognate_NN1 ,_, imagination_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ rich_JJ in_II connotations_NN2 and_CC operates_VVZ differently_RR in_II the_AT different_JJ conceptual_JJ frameworks_NN2 of_IO the_AT different_JJ authors_NN2 who_PNQS use_VV0 it_PPH1 (_( authors_NN2 as_RG varied_JJ as_CSA Sartre_NP1 ,_, Bachelard_NP1 ,_, Barthes_NP1 ,_, Lacan_NN1 ,_, Castoriadis_NP1 ,_, Althusser_NP1 )_) ._. 
My_APPGE view_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 Anglo-American_JJ feminists_NN2 have_VH0 tended_VVN to_TO assimilate_VVI ,_, and_CC then_RT dismiss_VVI Irigaray_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 too_RG quickly_RR ,_, in_RR21 part_RR22 because_CS the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO the_AT imaginary_JJ has_VHZ not_XX been_VBN closely_RR examined_VVN ._. 
Either_RR the_AT imaginary_JJ has_VHZ been_VBN ignored_VVN altogether_RR ,_, in_II which_DDQ case_NN1 Irigaray_NN1 is_VBZ mistakenly_RR described_VVN as_II a_AT1 biological_JJ essentialist_NN1 (_( Sayers_NP1 ,_, 1982_MC ,_, p._NN1 131_MC ;_; 1986_MC ,_, pp._NNU2 428_MC )_) ,_, or_CC else_RR it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN interpreted_VVN as_CSA purely_RR and_CC simply_RR a_AT1 Lacanian_JJ concept_NN1 ,_, in_II which_DDQ case_VV0 the_AT conclusion_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 Irigaray_NN1 has_VHZ misunderstood_VVN or_CC misread_VV0 Lacan_NN1 ,_, and_CC has_VHZ not_XX taken_VVN on_II21 board_II22 the_AT implications_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE theory_NN1 (_( see_VV0 Mitchell_NP1 and_CC Rose_NP1 ,_, 1982_MC ,_, pp._NNU2 54_MC 6_MC ;_; Rose_NP1 ,_, 1985_MC ,_, pp._NNU2 136_MC ,_, 140_MC ;_; Ragland-Sullivan_NP1 ,_, 1986_MC ,_, pp._NNU2 27380_MC )_) ._. 
