Kristeva mentions on pages 14-15 of her essay two "methods" that allow women to gain power; the first involves women gaining power within a society and assimilating to that power structure, and the second seems more related to women creating a parallel countersociety where feminism has the potential to become inverted and sexist itself. When women assimilate to a system's power structure and essentially become part of the patriarchy, it seems to me a sign that they cannot escape the system because of how ingrained those patriarchal views are within it. In the second example, where women form their own counterpower, can they be said to have escaped the system? I'm personally inclined to say no, as she then goes on to say that "the very logic of counterpower and of countersociety necessarily generates, by its very structure, its essence as a simulacrum of the combated society or of power." [16] So if neither can be entirely divorced from a patriarchal society, what does that say about the nature of the system--does it support the belief that it springs fully formed at once, and its origin is impossible to trace? What does this mean for Freud, Lacan, and Irigaray? How does this idea (if accurate, but perhaps it isn't) mesh with their theories?