"there is no universal experience of womanhood or manhood," says Penny.
This is like saying that there is no universal experience of being a human being, which sounds profound until someone points out that the universal experience of being a human being is that every human experiences the world as a human being, rather than, say, a bird or an elephant.
Time and again, I'm struck by this ideology's inability to perceive I don't even know what you would call it differences between things on a higher level than the individual instance? Maybe the term would be grander classifications? Meta-classifications?
And I can't help noticing it is a view that seems very specific to the English-speaking world. It is as though meaning is entirely subjective, but, by return, a particular individual's subjective perception must be treated as omniscient.
As an example, Penny claims that there is no universal experience of womanhood, but then everyone else has to accept that her subjective experience of "womanhood" is correct: i.e. there is no universal experience, except the one Penny says is the universal experience, which is that there isn't one.
This is a bit like saying "there are no metanarratives, but everyone needs to accept my metanarrative."
And it is so weird because postmodernity. as it was practised in the literary field, was that one could discern truth by almost 'overlaying' subjective perceptions to get to the "total phenomenon" of a concept, or a kind of Platonic blueprint: the Form, in other words.
I think the issue is here that Penny's understanding of universality is rather surface-level.