🦋🤖 Robo-Spun by IBF 🦋🤖

🪞⚔️👁️ Post-Feminizm 🪞⚔️👁️
⏳⛰️🛡️ Süreç Heval ⏳⛰️🛡️

(Turkish)

Jineology emerged on the scene with the claim of establishing a woman-centered regime of knowledge; however, this initiative quickly transformed into an ideological mechanism fundamentally focused on producing a surplus of jouissance. Initially claiming to critique male-centered epistemologies, this approach gradually evolved into a kind of eroticized discourse of political pleasure. The problem here does not lie in producing women’s knowledge, but rather in fetishizing the “female experience” and turning it into an object of pleasure. Thus, Jineology shifted its epistemic orientation not toward “knowledge belonging to women,” but toward the production of a feminine jouissance-substance.

At this point, Jineology exhibits precisely the kind of perversion described in Žižek’s conceptualization of “surplus enjoyment”: instead of emancipating the group it claims to represent, it becomes an apparatus that recodes them through arbitrary positions of jouissance. The female body, female discourse, female experience… each of these becomes raw material for a theoretical libido economy. The core issue is not knowledge production but the production of pleasure. Femininity is no longer an ontology; it becomes a libidinal position.

The practical reflection of this can be observed in the “covert castration” operations that take place within collectives. Jineological discourses are often woven with the mythology of “emotional intelligence” that substitutes for leadership. This differs from male domination; for it does not dominate directly, but instead guides, suppresses, and excludes through emotion and intuition. Here, the arbitrary nature sanctifies the telepathic sisterhood that replaces the leader figure.

Jineology must be read not only as a political-epistemological deviation but also as a profound psychoanalytic deviation. Jineology deviates from the Freudian-Lacanian-Žižekian line and relies on a Jungian epistemology. This approach, operating with concepts such as the collective unconscious, the feminine archetype, and sacred feminine wisdom, prefers to define women not through symbolic lack but through mystical plenitude. This brings it into intersection with the critique of the Phallic Woman in the IPA/FLŽ tradition: the woman ceases to be a subject and instead becomes a completed, intuitive, all-knowing figure. She is not presented as lacking, but as if she were complete. This reproduces femininity not as subjectivity but as mythological power.

And it is precisely here that the maternal phallus structure diagnosed by Freudian Post-Feminism comes into play: the woman, no longer the object of desire, is presented as the source of everything, and becomes an aesthetic totality shaped not by the unconscious but by excess in signification and visibility. In this structure, there is no lack—and therefore, desire collapses.

What is Jineology? (Theoretical Background)

Jineology (in Kurdish “jin” = woman, “logos” = knowledge) has been introduced as a woman-centered system of knowledge. It was officially conceptualized and began to be institutionalized for the first time in 2011.

Its fundamental aim is to replace the positivist, male-centered scientific understanding with a woman-centered epistemology of knowledge; in this context, it seeks to reconstruct fields such as history, sociology, politics, and ecology through the lens of female experience. However, what exactly constitutes “women’s knowledge” in this approach is often ambiguous. No clear distinction is made between local experiences, mythological figures, archaic narratives, and contemporary feminist theories. Thus, Jineology often elevates emotional intuition, collective memory, and mythological imagery to the same level as scientific standards.

It is at this very point that Jineology reveals itself as fundamentally following a Jungian program. In contrast to Freud’s structural theory, which defines the subject through “lack,” Jineology, based on Jung’s model of “archetypal wholeness,” portrays the subject not as a structure of deficiency but as a potential open to completion. The woman is no longer lacking, but the bearer of a hidden truth. This transforms knowledge from a critical and contradictory production into a form of “revelation” that emerges through inner discovery and intuition.

For this reason, despite all its discourse of “scientificity,” Jineology is, in fact, the reproduction of Jungian essentialism and the feminine archetype. It allies not with modern feminism but with an ancient tradition of mystification. And this directly generates an updated form of the Phallic Woman myth. Just as defined by Freudian Post-Feminism, this is no longer a desiring subject, but a fetish of mystical wholeness reinforced by digital aesthetics.

The Transformation of Perverse Jouissance: More Pleasure than Knowledge, More Suggestion than Truth

Jineology’s fundamental mistake lies in its claim to represent knowledge while systematically drowning knowledge in rhetoric, emotional suggestion, and symbolic narrative. The central concern is not the liberation of women as political subjects, but the endless interpretability of the “state of being a woman,” and its transformation into an object of pleasure. This is a regime of jouissance in the Lacanian sense: an ideological gratification presented in the guise of knowledge but in essence nothing more than pleasure.

At this point, the Jungian foundation becomes even more pronounced. Jineology renders the woman both the subject of intuitive knowledge and the object of transcendent feminine wholeness. This dual positioning transforms the subject not into a desiring subject lacking the phallus, but into a symbol of phallic wholeness. The Phallic Woman here both imparts knowledge and heals, leads, and becomes the conscience of the collective. But she is never lacking. That is why she does not speak—she declares. She does not debate—she reveals.

What replaces desire in this structure is now an aestheticized excess of the Other: jouissance, care, knowledge, and visibility are all presented simultaneously; yet lack, deficiency, and rupture are never experienced. Thus, it becomes impossible to take place within the symbolic order; existence is encouraged only as an image put into circulation. Just as stated in the Post-Feminist Manifesto: In this structure, “there is no longer lack; and where there is no lack, there is no desire.”

What Remains? Repressed Masculinity or Repressed Truth?

The real harm of jineological practice goes far beyond repressing masculinity: it represses truth itself. It is not the male subject that is repressed, but symbolic contradiction. Not knowledge, but a fetish of emotion is glorified. From this perspective, Jineology becomes not merely an ideology of women’s liberation, but a machine of jouissance—arbitrary, irrational, and authoritarian.

And this machine of jouissance becomes not only political, but a cultural-psychic religion. The Phallic Woman here is not just a figure, but a pathological structure of identification. Her completeness represses everyone’s lack. Her wholeness denies everyone’s fragmentation. Therefore, unmasking Jineology is not only to demystify femininity, but to expose the entire structure of symbolic repression.

And this exposure is not only theoretical but also political: it proposes a Freudian rupture against maternal totalitarianism, algorithmic gaze, the dictatorship of the image, and symbolic repression. The second schism that Yersiz Şeyler is passing through—a turn toward surplus information—is not merely theoretical, but the result of an ontological necessity. It is the re-establishment of truth against perverse jouissance, of knowledge against the fiction of pleasure, of explicit meaning against symbolic insinuation.

Within this framework, the danger contained in Jineology is not merely a deviation from within feminism; it is a prototype of how contemporary regimes of knowledge can transform into an “economy of jouissance.” And its particular reliance on Jungian archetypalism transforms it not into a feminist critique, but into a fantasy of mystical wholeness and a religion of the Phallic Woman.

To understand and expose it is not only a political but also an ethical and ontological task. And this task requires not demonization, but rupture: the Phallic Woman must fall—not as a woman, but as a fantasy. She must be replaced by a femininity that is lacking yet speaks, fragmented yet remains a subject.

Just as the manifesto states:
“Lack must be reclaimed. The Father must be restored. Long live the unconscious!”