I strongly object to your equating the 'elimination of one' and the loss of sole vision (and therefore, I presume, a sense of authorial agency and direction) with the feminine.
(((i'm sure you do...however: in my experience (purely anecdotal, of course) my view is sound)))
(((in other words: barring some startling event that flies in the face of my observations, 'that's my story and i'm sticking to it'...
)))
Frankly your argument would fit rather nicely in my current area of research: 18th and 19th century gender constructions.
(((and your view (the tiny bit i discern from your post) fits in nicely with my view that many women -- for a variety of self-serving reasons -- desperately want men and women to be interchangeable...this, of course, is an error...verifiably, demonstrably, men and women are NOT interchangeable)))
(((again, anecdotally: women 'cooperate'; men 'compete'...this is the heart of my distaste for the 'unbook'...a textbook compilation may be served well by 'cooperation' (or not...i don't write textbooks, so, i don't 'know' for sure)...i do 'know' a piece fiction can only be watered down into nothingness by the 'unbook' method...and i can think of no better example of 'cooperation' than the hen house)))
(((your objection, however, is noted...
)))