Skip to main content

Recent comments at Salon.com (July 29 2016). I am Emporium.

Aunt Messy Emporium turney333 Jayne Cullen Just for you, Aunt Messy:
The fact that Hillary and Chelsea wore different color dresses intrigues me as well. They weren't unified, part of one-another -- all white. It was a white and red "split". Maybe not a priming of good-and-bad-witch, pure-and-bad-blood split... something which will soon be displaced onto Trump, as he gets portrayed as a foreign Russian devil, with noticeable female attributes. But I wonder if they were encouraging us to see Chelsea as the blood on Hillary's hands: that with Hillary elected, the future of the young would be a sacrifice of blood. 
A subconscious communication: if you're tired of pushy, uppity, disrespectful youth -- you don't need to go Trump Republican... Hillary will make sure they'll be targeted and killed in other countries. 
Dienne77 I'm fairly certain she's gloated over a Slytherin or Malfoy defeat somewhere along the line... and I can't remember her reminding everyone all the time that we should have empathy for Voldemort because he was a neglected orphan, and that this is what happens to children born of abuse. This is the problem: our not seeing other people as themselves, as always human, as they actually are -- always worthy of empathy -- but in possession of dark traits we've projected onto them. When we war against others, we can't be persuaded from seeing a dark Voldemort within them... someone who actually truly really deserves our hate.
Hillary's not immune to this. But she's better than most.  
DinahMoeHum wejahnke VictoryRider2005 PeekieClassic I agree with this. 
agrippina minor Jayne Cullen ifthethunderdontgetya They all should have stayed in England?
turney333 Jayne Cullen But it's a solid point. If Hillary gets in, we'll split off our good mommy -- or the good witch -- onto her, and our bad one onto some other. If she's our Hermione Granger, some other "sap" will start bearing the dark, vampiric visage of Ursula the Sea Witch, and through her we'll take our revenge. Children will die, and they'll represent our child selves, who we also blame for the abuse.
Michael Pullmann Emporium If Hillary doesn't get in, it'll owe to people's collective mommy issues. Enough people will remain cognizant that Trump's mind is more hornet's nest than an actual brain (credit to Andrew O'Hehir, who said something like this), and still vote for him, for he'll be their agent for matricide. 
I wonder even if this "Hermione Granger" bit is not just about emphasizing how hard she works, but de-emphasizing her as the Dangerous Mother... it's possible that even the Clinton campaign might be considering their candidate's problem is people's projecting their childhood issues onto her, might attempt to "resolve" them through her, and are working against it by promoting her sans dangerous witch qualities, sans older women qualities. 
Aunt Messy @Emporium Right, it's this bit: 
"He was abused," Clinton told Franks. "When a mother does what she does, it affects you forever."
Clinton continued: "I am not going into it, but I'll say that when this happens in children, it scars you. You keep looking in all the wrong places for the parent who abused you."
Aunt Messy Emporium I'm not falling in line for her. She can still say very interesting things, and deserves credit for it. Amanda was a bit like that yesterday, and we should support the brave. If it helps, I think Hillary is brave and will make a great president. I preferred her over Bernie. 
Didn't Hillary herself once remark upon Bill's relationship with his mother as explaining his promiscuity... there was some interview once, I remember, where she said something like this. I'll look it up. 
agrippina minor Emporium In 2008, reporters could barely look Hillary in the eye. Obama barely could. What is the origin of this? Just societal stereotypes? Or something quite massive, like childhood abuse, like mommy issues?
There's more Steinem behind this than Paglia. She's the one who explained the aversion to Hillary Clinton as owing to people's difficulties with their mothers. 
She revives childhood memories of being bullied and manipulated by our love-denied mothers, who are the ones who mostly attend to us in childhood, not our fathers. This is what Gloria Steinem was getting at. This is what's going on with Bernie Bros, and this is the origin of the witch stereotype: its basis is actual experience. It's not a sign of intrinsic male awfulness towards women. It gets dropped when more societal resources are devoted to assists mothers as caregivers. We need to be much more Scandinavia. We won't get there until we get further past needing to revenge ourselves upon them, and as well their defenceless children -- representatives of ourselves, who we also blame for the abuse. 
Those who were lucky enough to have had mothers who were well loved enough to be much more genuinely nurturing, to not use the child to make up for love not given to her, won't be attracted to this stereotype, no matter if they grew up in a 16th-century Puritan household. 
Hermione Granger is a teenager. She's the sort older men who've suffered abuse from their mothers turn to when they're fleeing the power of the dominating mother. I'm not sure we should hold her out as bait. 
"We are all aware, on some level, that it's anonymous but hard-working women that make the world run, who do all the thankless and unglamorous organizing, cleaning, planning and detail-sweating..."
Camille Paglia gave us this speech too, but credited those "Gloria Steinem" feminists disparage -- men... the ones who built bridges, civilization... all that. My point is that it's more Bernie rhetoric, not Hillary, who's been accused of being oriented almost entirely to members of the professional class; those who leave the house-cleaning to others. 
62Fender Yeah, it was an interesting perspective; a useful contribution. 
Does it strike anyone that we have been guilty of doing a lot of projection onto the Obamas, at the expense of those who are actually more interesting. I've always found both Clintons much more alive and vibrant... much more of what I tend to think of when I think Democratic. The Obamas seem just so controlled, like the latest incarnation of British monarchy... much more like how Republicans like normally to have things.
I think we wanted someone like him in office because for a good long while we wanted a more detached relationship with the presidency... some sense that the presidency was kept apart form all the emotional turmoil in our own lives. A statue. Some rebuff. Why, I'm not sure. Maybe it's because we needed a time where we could predict for certain an unchanging social/political/cultural environment... the next 8 yrs will be for--.  And we couldn't as easily do that if someone who registered our own emotional unevenness was at the helm. Anyway, just my best guess right now. 
sjlee Marcotte assumes they became friends. Gauging at least by what was happening to Hillary supporters like Ferraro and Walsh, Obama was getting ready to absolutely destroy her reputation in 2008... get really, really nasty. Fortunately Hillary relented in time, and all that was happening and was about to happen could be displaced in mind as we all joined "Hope".
It's possible he felt -- and still feels -- the same aversion to her as most reporters did in 2008... preferring to look at his feet or to the side rather than square in the eye (as SNL finally made a skit about). In natural aversion to her, maybe he actually shares some similarity with the Bros portion of Bernie's supporters?
Perhaps out of this democrats might conclude that conventions ... these stadiums of crowds and anticipation, belong to a mindset we might be evolving beyond. I like Andrew's appreciation of raucous conventions of yesteryear, but what if over the last 50 yrs what's happened to many democrats is that they by temperament have become more Scandinavian... that is, more subdued... less in need of theatre politics, owing to being in possession of less excitatory, less damaged, less traumatized amygdala brain systems. We might be losing this desire to move into what Stanley Milgram called, an "agentic state"

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more