Predatory Explanation And Utopia

If oppression is inconvenient and unpleasant, anything inconvenient and unpleasant must be oppression. We all know, for example, that the rich think it intolerable oppression to be asked to pay their taxes. In the same way, Sixties youngsters defined Fascism in terms of having to tidy their room.

The Predatory Explainer likes to define male oppression as the difference between how she lives and how she would like to live, who she is and who she would like to be. Liberation language serves to avoid the question of what the nature of the universe will actually allow us.

Napoleon said it best: “the conqueror is a man of peace – he seeks to enter his enemy’s capital unopposed.” Any resistance to our private interests is therefore resistance to peace in the sense of shalom. In this the gynocracy is like the plutocracy: there are more words to reprobate the resistance than to reprobate the state of affairs resisted.

The female Predatory Explainer therefore recognises only two kinds of interest, the interest of her sex, which is the same as the happiness of the human race as a whole, and the interest of the male sex, which is viciously sectional. Male goals are illusory; even in their own terms, a sexist does not know what is best for him. The true interest of men is for women, and women alone, to perceive, define and work for. Even should anyone catch the Predatory Explainer at this, they will be unable to verbalise it, as the sole available word for this top-down attitude is “paternalistic”.

In this way utopia and gynocracy, the perfect world and the rule of women, can be made identical by definition. If all social evils are attributed to the male sex, it follows that a world without their influence would be free of these evils. Such a society would then be perfect. The absence of a perfect society today is therefore due to male power. Which means that the Predatory Explainer can attribute all social evils to the male sex, which is where we came in.

Let us look at this circular argument in a little more detail. All cultures seem to yearn for a lost paradise or Golden Age. Our sense of fall or loss may be a result of the birth-trauma that ended our cosy life in the womb, or an echo of the agricultural revolution that brought hard work into the world, or both. The primal Eden has also been projected into a millennial future, as the second reign of Saturn, the return of Balder, the New Jerusalem, the classless society and so forth.

All the Predatory Explainer then has to do is to name some past society – whether real, embroidered or entirely fictitious – and describe it as both matriarchal and virtually perfect. She should imagine, write about and praise this Utopia until it is generally believed that it really existed in the past and so could exist again, provided only that the feminist cause triumph – meaning, that the Predatory Explainer get her own way.

The more emotional power can be poured into this great work of the imagination, the better. The Predatory Explainer should mine all humankind’s yearnings for its lost paradise. The once and future matriarchy is therefore peaceful, non-violent, creative, civilised, harmonious, egalitarian, just, non-exploitative, compassionate, loving, and blessed. Present society is demonstrably not so. Ergo, the only thing preventing society from being peaceful, non-violent, creative, civilised, harmonious, egalitarian, just, non-exploitative, compassionate, loving, and blessed must be men. More particularly, any man who displeases her.

Gynocratic utopias are not confined to the ideal past and the ideal future; they have been alleged to survive in obscure corners of the globe. The Predatory Explainer may employ these in one of two ways: either she can describe them as perfect, in the hope that no one has actually been there, or else she can admit their imperfections, but attribute these to the incompleteness of the matriarchal order.

This brings us to a second circular argument. The word “enough” and its synonyms lend themselves admirably to tautologies. If you eat enough cake, you will be sick; anyone who is not sick has not yet eaten enough cake. Similarly, the proposition that “if society is sufficiently gynocratic then it will be perfect” is formally unfalsifiable. (And unfalsifiable propositions are worthless, but never mind.) Any imperfection cannot damage the proposition, but demonstrates only that society is not yet sufficiently gynocratic.

When considering any bad thing, the Predatory Explainer should argue that women have been excluded from any role in it, that they have had no power at all and are exclusively victims. When considering any good thing, however, she should argue that it is due to the influence of women, who must consequently be credited with considerable power as independent actors. The formula is “potent for good, but impotent when evil is being done, and not benefiting from it either.”

The idea of a gynocratic Utopia has a practical application. By virtue of her sex the Predatory Explainer can consider herself a partaker in that perfection and can therefore employ this ex officio superiority to reinforce her belief in her inherent righteousness and superiority. A little piece of the glory of the perfect matriarchy can be brought to earth here and now, incarnate in the Predatory Explainer herself. Like the Treasury of Merit in pre-Reformation Catholic theology, this account is available for individual withdrawals.

The Predatory Explainer may therefore proceed in the secure knowledge that she is acting not only for herself, but for all women and ultimately for all humanity. That a female-run world would be better than this one does not in strict logic mean that an individual woman should achieve all her aims or that any objection to her acts or wishes postpones Utopia, but it can easily be made to seem so.

Leave a Reply