Recent comments at (Nov.16 2014)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014 3:56 PM
If the nation starts to have qualms about abortions, if the nation as a whole tilts that way, it'll be because they sense women being burdened by mouths they cannot feed, and like the image. 

That is, they'll want them to have children so to be properly overwhelmed and depressed -- what we expect of people in this time of sacrifice, of self-flagellation, of purging ourselves so to be worthy of love once again. We'll take photos of them, their blank faces, barely surviving in the inner city or out on the plains, with children wandering about them everywhere, in true Walker Evans-style, and, say, "what noble sufferers!"

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014 3:08 PM
gerryquinn The_Pragmatist Not amongst human beings. When a woman has a child she is in a sense branching off from her own mother -- her love, in future, will be towards her own children rather than her mother. As such, it can arose powerful feelings of being rejected, of allowing yourself something unallowed. The result is that women often switch into their own angry mothers, find themselves possessed -- a phenomenon we call post-partum -- where they can end up killing their children. No accident; deliberate. 

The worse the childrearing, the more infanticidal -- child-hating -- the culture:

Our brains form in the company of our mothers, by the nature of our attachment to her. Doesn't it seem strange to be asked to prove how later behaviour towards women might be largely determined by the nature of your relationship with her? Wouldn't you be wondering what is going on with this person that they could doubt this?... indeed that they find it so unlikely that when no one else brings it up as a possibility in later violence towards women, this doesn't bother them at all?

Wouldn't you be guessing that you're probably dealing with someone who is being determined by their own mother's wish/insistence that she not see her straight, that she would be punished, abandoned for doing so? Wouldn't you suspect that you're dealing with someone largely under the control of their superego, or rather, the terrifying maternal alter they've implanted in their right hemisphere specifically to ensure they do not repeat behaviour that earned them rejection from their mothers in early infancy? 

You're not dealing with someone who's going to let  scientific proof have any real chance in this matter, because what's at issue is one's own brain turning against itself -- to see your mother adversely, would make you a terribly bad child, once again worth being abandoned. You don't have the psychic makeup for truth when along with it will be a rejection that will degenerate your whole sense of worth; make you want to suicide yourself.

So what you do is wait for those who accept the common sense aspect of what you're saying ... as if the task, obviously, would be to prove the highly likely thing you're asserting isn't true. Such a person had a less punitive mother, a more permissive mother, and though seeing her mother fully straight-on would still be understand as a no-no, it'd be something that could be born by the fact that "you" knew she loved you enough that she'd want you to move past even her own allowances, and by the fact that outside courage could buoy you past the pain of her rejection. 

 They're being intellectually dishonest is saying they need evidence, because no amount of evidence is going to convince them. If I'd offered it, they'd of refuted it regardless ... and finished with a heckle: because if they don't the internal representation of their own mothers they keep in their heads wouldn't be sufficiently persuaded that "you'd" allied sufficiently against seeing the damage she deliberately did to you straight.  

If there was some register that what I was saying seemed like common sense -- neglected and abused women make for terrible mothers; and being the "all" for infants and young children, their imprint will determine them for life -- I'd recognize that I was dealing with someone who'd shaken the commandment -- do not be aware! -- and might put forth a study of some kind, or link to someone who's assembled them. 

But really, that person, having broken through, would realize the issue is that too many people don't dare raise the ire of those they were most dependent upon as infants for love and support. Doing so, they'll feel they've lost their claim to it forever, and be hopelessly abandoned.  

I repeat, because the war being fought is people's willingness to admit to themselves the damage owing to unloved mothers. Some people hearing it put forward enough times, will pledge fidelity to that part of themselves that won't be broken from truth. 

Bill Maher seems to think that the Muslim religion is at fault for acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. But, in fact, it’s the radical Imams who are “cajoling, pressuring and bribing” young disaffected men to commit violence in the name of Islam — which is not all that different from what the FBI is doing, is it? It’s not the idea or the book or the religion that’s encouraging them to make these bad decisions — it’s older men in authority manipulating younger men to carry out their plans.

So the book doesn't influence because these older men play a much larger part in these boys' lives -- it's ephemeral, in a way. Well, no one plays a larger part than do their mothers and grandmothers -- they grow up mostly before them (in the women's quarters), not the men. And these brutally treated women re-inflict their own tortures upon their children, and abandon them when they try and self-activate, because this means their no longer serving and instead their (ostensibly deliberate) abandoning them. 

They may well be cajoled (but also by the women?), but these boys don't really need to be cajoled into terrorism. Terrorists kill those they've projected their own "bad boy" status onto -- those who are enjoying unallowed freedoms and personal pleasures. Thereby these often young adults who, owing to tasting adult independence, we're feeling completely abandoned of their mother's approval and love, once again feel pure and accepted. 

goeswithness We can handle ideas, but no way should we put up with hate speech and threats.  Meet us with ideas, not insults.  Is it that hard to understand the difference?

I think this is mostly right; right-thinking women are being projected upon. But when I argue that male hatred towards women, men's "irrational" fear of domineering women, owes to their having had mothers who were thoroughly abused and neglected in the patriarchal cultures they grew up in but who did dominate and abandon their children, I usually don't feel I'm being met by people eager to engage with ideas but by those launching dismissive insults. 

AmusedAmused Hopeful Cynic I agree with you about mansplaining -- it's worked to back off some gross behaviour. But in feminist circles (discussed in the Nation's piece, "Feminism's Toxic Twitter Wars"), white feminists are being charged with whitesplaining, and are complaining that the corrosive effects of this is having them disengage from online feminism: 

Now, it’s true that white people need to make an effort not to be racist. And there are countless examples of white feminists failing women of color and then hiding behind their good intentions....

But the expectation that feminists should always be ready to berate themselves for even the most minor transgressions ...creates an environment of perpetual psychodrama, particularly when coupled with the refusal to ever question the expression of an oppressed person’s anger. 

My point being, we have to always do a double-check to make sure that we're supporting the more emotionally evolved side. Many of the white feminists that are being charged as racists and are dropping out of the discussion (i.e., are "stopping), are going to count amongst them some of the more evolved people alive. 

Shivas Andrew Sullivan: Or is it simply that WAM believes that women cannot possibly handle the rough-and-tumble of uninhibited online speech?

You: I for one wish that women would shelve the delicate flower form of feminism as it may seem to accomplish incremental goals but it does so at the expense of a lot of other potential gains. Women cannot achieve equality by presenting themselves as frozen in fear, unable to make intelligent choices, incapable of expressing themselves, and unwilling to stand up for themselves.

The rough-and-tumble world is one boys know as children owing to greater abuse and distancing by adults and being subject to demands to "grow up," "be manly," and "not be a cry-baby" and not need attachments. In this early environment what they are is frozen in fear, entirely powerless, and so through life they crave environments where they defensively prove they are not powerless in these situations. 

That is, these rough-and-tumble worlds might feel like they enable quality, extensions by the proven into a new future; but what they mostly enable is bravado, re-staging/repeats of the past by those afflicted by childhood terrors.

What we need are not more women warriors, unafraid of the blasting storm, but more men permitted to know more affection in their delicate, past, boyhood forms, without feeling shame.   

MBMorris Woody Brown Greywolf Borealis The movement is good. It'll be lead by some of the progressive types that are the exact opposite of the personality types described by Woody Brown. I agree with Katie that this will be about expanding the conversation not shutting it down.

But his, or, sorry, the "daft male's" fear he was (merely) illustrating, that lingering behind "the female" is someone irrational and domineering comes out of experience. Women who were abused through life and who become mothers, will be this to their children. 

Their girls will be dominated, but their boys will be mostly abandoned -- which is far worse for the psyche (and the origins of the male "instinct" towards bravado -- defensive disprove of fears ... all alone on the battlefield). Plus, irrationally but understandably, the boys will represent the sex that abused her through life, and will be partly hated/rejected for this. 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2014 12:43 PM
This isn’t the dawn of the age of “creeping misandry” or a “censorship field day,” it’s the embryonic stage of a conversation about abuse, accountability and free speech that’s been long overdue.

This conversation has been a thrill to see arise. But again, if so many men owe this desire to humiliate women owing to having been damaged, abandoned and abused by their insufficiently loved mothers -- who don't, regardless of how they are treated in life, magically turn loving once with children -- this too is something that needs more air without being crushed by being called creeping/lingering mother-hate. 

Those films we're seeing bringing awareness to how much harassment women endure on the streets ... we need to exposure to more video showing how young boys are raised in comparison to how girls are. Mothers look at them less, and attack them more. The result is male autism (defensive shells), and rage against the perpetrator -- male violence against women. 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2014 10:00 PM
AmusedAmused Geministorm So fathers who make sure they don't go off on long trips, effectively abandoning their children, are heroes. 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2014 9:57 PM
AmusedAmused Geministorm Heroes are people who give their children more love than they themselves received. The mother and father spending more time with their children, talking with not hitting them, respecting their differences and helping them become whomever they want to be, are on the way to create a generation that will have no psychic need to project all their "badness" onto others and obliterate them in war. 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2014 7:41 PM
We may want to reconsider the importance of careers. What I mean is, if careers are about making a world better, the best way of doing that is making sure the next generation of children are better treated than the previous. 

This may be the reason that the worst-reared children in Europe, the Germans who became the good boys and girls they always wanted to be by projecting all their "badness" onto others during the 1930s and 40s, apparently managed a dramatic improvement afterwards, with no repeat required: a huge generation gap between pre-war and post-war, all owing to more love in childrearing. 

As a society, if we somehow decided to make our number one priority to put most of our resources into helping families, enabling lengthy periods of maternal and paternal leave and such, declaring this our concern more than anything else, our national product resulting out of this would be the one Lawrence Krauss thinks is possible: a generation that'd outgrown the need for war, religion, nationalism -- all the evils that are the derivatives of lack of love in childhood. 

Maybe we should stop asking people what they do. What they might primarily do is simply in the way they're relating to people, which may occur in their careers or perhaps mostly outside of them -- as good parents, or as engaged neighbours; decent people on the streets. 


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Review of "the Snowman"