The architecture and the goo that binds it

Western philosophical theory does not leave a space for women to speak up for themselves. This is its singularity.

If women are conceptualised at all, the implicit idea of what (rather than "who") they are is the goo that fills in the cracks. Consider men as rigid material of some sort (since rigidity is misconstrued as "strength" in Western metaphysics). This rigid material as such makes up "society". Rigidity is the ideal -- however it is found not to be "enough". The material that is purely rigid has no give in it, so that a mild earthquake or a strong wind can knock it down. Hence the need for "goo". Women are needed as the emotional goo that holds society together when it is under stress. Their putative yieldingness and their putative non-definitional natures, which enable them to take any role or fill any shape in society on an ad hoc basis, have a conservative effective upon society. The role of women in Western society is quite simply that of shock absorbers. Their role is definitively relational, but they are viewed as insubstantial in and of themselves. By contrast, the role of males is to be unyielding, inflexible, stiff.

Thus Western metaphysics itself, to the degree that we have all internalised it, makes it impossible to talk about women in their own rights (or indeed, which was my original point, for women to talk about themselves as separately existing entities).

The logic of Western metaphysics would have it that women are either "goo" or can stand in as men. There is no identity in-between these two.