Skip to main content

C.K. Lewis thinks of Hillary as not really a feminist but as our childhood mother we hated but didn't deserve



Sometimes the best arguments come from the most unlikely sources. For example, comedian Louis C.K. delivered the best argument for voting for Hillary Clinton that you will hear from anyone during this election.

C.K said, “I think she’s great. It’s not a lesser of two evils thing. I think she’s great. She’s talented and super-smart. I’d take her over anybody else who would do it, and to me, it’s really exciting to have the first mother in the White House. It’s not about the first woman. It’s about the first mom.”

The comedian later explained that he supports Clinton because she is battle tested and has taken abuse from her critics for decades, “Hillary Clinton can take abuse. She’s been taking it and taking it. We’ve been holding her down and spitting in her mouth… and she just keeps working.”

He later added the country needs a president who can get things done, “I don’t want somebody who is likable or cool and more.”

“We need a two-faced, conniving, crazy –– somebody who’s got a million schemes,” he explained. “And, by the way, all (her) sh*t is out there. Every email she ever wrote is in the newspapers — and she’s not in jail which is amazing. But we need a tough b*tch mother who nobody likes and just does sh*t.”

He had some strong words for the complaining class of liberals who are not going to vote,“If you’re a liberal who’s not going to vote, you’re a piece of sh*t!”

Louis C.K’s summation of this election was perfect, “This is my feeling overall. If you vote for Hillary, you’re a grown-up. If you vote for Trump, you’re a sucker. If you don’t vote for anybody, you’re an assh*le.”

You’d be hard-pressed to find a funnier or more compelling argument for Hillary Clinton anywhere else outside of Michelle Obama. 

Comedians are our great social mirrors. Through their humor, we see ourselves and our country. Louis C.K. explained this election better than the entire class of pundits that litter the cable news landscape.

The 2016 election isn’t an argument over grand ideas. It’s about who can do the job, and on this measure, Hillary Clinton stands head and shoulders above Donald Trump.

[reposted from politicususa; article by Sarah Jones and Jason Easley]

- - - - -
C.K.'s right of course -- voting for Hillary is the adult choice. But I think it is worth our time to think on exactly how "adult" C.K. sounds here, how emotionally sound. 

The image of a mom here sounds about how a narcissistic mother imagines herself. That is, as someone who does everything for anyone but receives nothing for it but disrespect and neglect: our abuse. I wonder if perhaps this was C.K's mother. And the child who complains all the time about a mother who perhaps wasn't there 200% and who actually neglected and abandoned the child, was himself -- his complaints, had basis. And rather than acknowledge his own anger at his mother, he displaces it onto himself and us (the bad child who doesn't deserve his selfless mother), thereby hoping to be worthy of the mother's ongoing provisioning and avoid her medusa gaze. Psychohistorians will note that this is the preamble to an eventual sacrifice of bad children. (Emotional Life of Nations, chapter 2). If it goes this way, Hillary Clinton will be cleaned up, as we split off her "two-faced, crazy bitch" aspects that nobody likes, onto someone else. We'll keep her toughness. 

Regardless, it doesn't sound like he's setting up Hillary Clinton as a candidate who will function in the DeMausian way, that is, as someone who'll take into herself our own inner badness, our own pollution (arising owing to dismay over too much societal growth), and eliminate it; it sounds more like she'll rebuff us, won't pay attention, as she steers on through our idiocy. He actually makes Trump sound more like the leader ("this guy, every time he's criticized, everything stops and he makes everybody pay -- that's not how it works") we might be seeking, someone who's antenna is affixed to our own needs, even if now it's only ostensibly to strike out at us. 

Anyway, Michael Moore has recently been attacked by feminists for ostensible praise of women which actually comes across more as insult: i.e. Moore's tweet that women weren't responsible for wars, the atomic bomb, etc. I would hope some find some of the same here in C.K. saying what we need is not a "first woman" but rather a "first mom." First woman, after all, is a feminist conjuration, and bespeaks our progressive – our adult  --advancement; first mom, adoration and excusing of what sounds like an actual horrible mom, bespeaks ... regression, n'est pas? 

Thanks to Jerrold Atlas (at historical motivations, Yahoo Groups) for the prompt.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

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

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…