thesis on hallucinosis by Alan Collier Ostby

Now I am reading about gender in this thesis on hallucinosis by Alan Collier Ostby .

Apparently "Guntrip (1969) traces through the history of Western civilisations the strong pattern of denying human weakness and claims that the field of psychology has followed this pattern by using the depression model, following the Persian Zoroastrian dualism repeated in Plato, Greek intellectual life, St. Paul, Hegel, and Freud. In this model, the best that humans can do is to reign [sic] in our antisocial desires by choosing to follow the rules that many not fulfil us, but at least stop us from hurting others." ( p 144)

A few paragraphs later, the thesis goes on to say: "We would [prefer to] believe that we are bad, but strong, rather than weak."

It then states that "the feminine is the Western scapegoat." ( p 145).

Now what I see about this puzzle which revolves around Western metaphysical constructions, is that psychologically speaking, the "feminine" can function as a scapegoat only to the degree that it is connected to the masculine. It is the scapegoat of the masculine in the sense that it is derivative, practically, from the masculine, as a cast off bit (of the mind) that originates in the metaphysical conceptualisation (and psychological self-conceptualisation) of the masculine. Yet if one denies the connection of femininity to masculinity, if both "aspects" were to become absolute conditions in their own right (that is, if "femininity" were not the casts- off of male unwanted parts), then we would not longer have a unified system of meaning, made up of masculinity and femininity (as patriarchy presupposes), but rather, antinomy. I think this is very interesting, because accepting a status of femininity -- BUT ONLY IF IT IS DEEMED ABSOLUTE -- will logically produce antinomy in the psychological system of gender, causing it to auto-destruct.