of “the patriarchy” is an assumption that those who believenin evidence and reasoning do not in fact know the limits ofntheir usefulness, and that they are therefore blind tonanything else. This is the mild implication, and it may evennserve as a useful corrective for those who might forget thenlimits. But underneath it is a more extreme assumption, thatnevidence and reasoning are the classic oppressive tools of thenpatriarchy; and this implication, because of the economynwith which it is packed into the definite article, is normallynimmune to refutation.n• Such a refutation might be: very well, we abandonnevidence and reasoning as the basis for making an assertion.nOn what, then, do we base the assertion that evidence andnreasoning should be abandoned? Easy. On our feelings. Butnthat would mean that anyone who did not have thosenfeelings would be quite justified, indeed, correct, in disbelievingnthe assertion. And to try to argue or persuade thatnperson into a belief that evidence and reasoning should benabandoned would be self-contradictory, as such a personncould only be convinced by using evidence and reasoning,nwhich the believer in feelings has forsworn.nThere is another answer to the question of what wenshould base our beliefs on, if not evidence and reasoning:nthe radical answer, that it is a matter of power. Unlikenfeelings, power shares with evidence and reasoning thenadvantage that it is not private, subjective, and incommunicable,nbut public, intersubjective, and easily demonstrated tonothers. (So goes the argument, though of course feelings arenindeed communicable in poetry and other arts; but we are anlong way from poetry here, alas.) Just as power is the onlynthing that supports the patriarchal rule of evidence andnreasoning, so a transfer of power to those who maintain thenopposite position is the correct method for convincing thosenwho believe in evidence and reasoning that they are wrong.nSo far, so good. But since in this radical view powernjustifies truth and truth justifies morality, wouldn’t thosenwho are in power be morally correct in crushing those whonoppose them? Since it is the assertion of such dissenters thatnthe patriarchy is more powerful than they are, then thendissenters are inviting disaster. When the dissenting side isnweak, it behooves it to give at least lip service to free speech,nreason, tolerance, and so on, even if they are to be discardednonce their task is done. The only protection for dissentersnwho base their morality on power would be the forbearancenof the believers in reason, to withhold the brutal exercise ofnpower that their radical opponents would find perfectlynjustifiable. Perhaps this forbearance might be the Achilles’nheel of the patriarchy; however, such a reflection does not sitnwell with those who would overthrow it because it isntyrannical.nBut the payoffs in the term “the patriarchy” are so richnthat these fine and airy logical ramifications cannexpediently be ignored, especially if they are so crushed upninto the definite article as to be unrecognizable. What arenthose payoffs? The best way to examine them is to enter,nimaginatively, the unconscious monologue of one who wasnmaking the optimal use of its comforts and conveniences —none who had so readjusted his or her personal reward systemnthat the rewards of the term “the patriarchy” would indeednbe rewarding. Thus:n22/CHRONICLESnnn”I am unhappy and unfulfilled. I have not creatednanything that is valuable, because I am so unhappy. In fact,nif I took the effort and the risk to create somethingnvaluable—the years of service and devotion — it would benuseless because I am unhappy, and would achieve nothing. Indon’t even need to try.n”Actually, creativity doesn’t really exist: it’s just a termnpeople use when they approve of something, that is, when itnserves their interests. What is, really valuable — what wouldnmake me happy — is the approval of others. But I wouldn’tnwant to be indebted to them for their approval, and be at thenmercy of charity offered out of the goodness of their hearts.nThey should be compelled to approve. The problem is thatnpeople approve of happy people, and this isn’t fair. Peoplenshould approve of unhappy people, because the unhappynbear the burden of other people’s happiness.n”If my unhappiness were nobody’s fault, it would benunbearable, because nobody could ever make it better.nThere is, as I’ve already realized, no such thing as creativity,nand thus new happiness can’t be created out of nothing.nThose who claim it can be are lying to protect the store ofnhappiness that they themselves have robbed from othernpeople, a store they maintain by getting the approval ofnother happy people, and pay for by approving them in turn.n”If my unhappiness were my own fault, it would likewisenbe unbearable. Because either I would have to do somethingnabout it, which I can’t because I’m so unhappy, or someonenelse would have to do something about it, in which case Inwould feel guilty and indebted to him — since happinessncan’t be created but only taken away from one person to bengiven to another. If I just accepted my unhappiness, whatnwould be left of me? — since what I am is my nonacceptancenof unhappiness. Besides, this talk of my unhappinessnbeing my fault is just ‘blaming the victim.’ And the victim isnalways the good one, the right one, because I am a victim,nand I am right and good.n”My unhappiness, then, is the fault of other people, thosenwho are in power over me. Those people are the Jewishnbankers — no, correction: the bourgeois property owners —nno, correction: the patriarchy. It is the patriarchy that standsnbetween me and the approval of others, between me andnhappiness, between me and power.n”And they can’t deny it. If I feel it, it’s real. What cannthey know? When they imply I’m wrong, that just provesnthat they are the patriarchy; because only a patriarch wouldntell you how you are supposed to feel. If you haven’tnexperienced something, you can’t know anything about it;nall that stuff they preach about ‘imaginative sympathy’ is justnpart of their mutual approval game, their patriarchal hoax.n”People can only understand other people’s experiencesnwhen they have had exactly the same experiences themselves,nexcept that the powerless can always understand whatnit feels like if you’re powerful. (You feel just great.) But thenpowerful can’t understand the feelings of the powerless, andnno attempt at communication can • succeed. We are allnabsolutely alone.n”My unhappiness is something unique, special, mine,nsomething that defies all their efforts to define it. And I cannsee their inability to define it makes them feel unhappy too,nwhich is only fair. Maybe some of the happiness they’renlosing will come my way. Or maybe they’re just pretendingn