Those who are wholly healed view current feminism as evil?

Patrick McEvoy-Halston shared a link.

January 25 at 9:57am

The Women's March was full of the most embracing people on earth, but if one came out of a family environment that wasn't so good, one will see it as full of the most self-centred and spoiled people on earth who really have no sense of self-restraint, as this person does. This comes close to being a post that could have been posted on Breitbart. Not the stuff about how the March is launching subsequent activitism, sure, but absolutely the "look at these spoiled, self-regarding and hypocritical mean girls, indulging in their selfies whilst wholly indifferent to the pains of those not considered their worth." Catch the set-up of them as "proudly wearing their pussyhats," followed by their quailing at saying a thing when black women around them are being accosted as ISIS. There is no way that most people on this march wouldn't have said something in that situation, and yet this person paints the whole movement as full of people Gandalf might cast aside in irritation as wholly fallen from once ennobled origins... people whom surely Sauron would breeze through in a jiff.
Also catch the bit about "legs spread exuberantly wide." This is a complaint out of childrearing, where "you" were told you were bad if you wandered around and spoke out of turn, while others apparently were allowed to wander freely as the wind, as if they owned the whole damn place. It's a complaint of the broken, complaining of those who got to have some. The impetus behind Trump.

Who Didn’t Go to the Women’s March Matters More Than Who Did

Millions of women turned out to march last Saturday. But were they marching for everyone?

NYTIMES.COM|BY JENNA WORTHAM

Like

Like

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

Comments

David Chayes One can't look at an evolving movement like feminism and simplistically equate the entire movement, with all it's factions past and present--as an undivided, unequivocal "location of innovation and growth in society." A more nuanced view would recognize that some very important growth and individual liberation was achieved in the early feminism--but after many decades, the mainstream movement of feminism has become extremely regressive and manipulative.

Like · Reply · 13 hrs

Patrick McEvoy-Halston Well, I do. There are factions within feminism I don't think are progressive, but I've never seen a movement where that faction is large enough to determine the overall "colouring"... to determine the gestalt of the movement at its time. If I had to check myself on this, I'd probably explore 30s feminism, which like so many movements of the time, probably carried some of the era's unfortunate dismal of Flapper extravagance, and were de facto an anti-pleasure movement, but I don't know if this is the case. We'll see what happens in these Trump years. If the feminists who emerge to power, if the wave of feminism that develops, distinguishes itself from "white entitled feminism" -- people like Lena Dunham and Gloria Steinem -- then, yes, here would be a feminism which has become owned by regressives. It turned on the best, and saw only overwhelming women. 

I don't agree that the mainstream movement of feminism has become regressive and manipulative. It's still pushing women towards self-actualization, which is feminism at its best. I DO agree with DeMause's point that after periods of war and major sacrifice, everyone can keep up with the advances that progressives are leading (so whatever gen of feminism that was), but that this lags with time, and the lagging psychoclass soon see what actually still REMAINS good and progressive, as somehow having lapsed into self-indulgent evil. Your nuanced view I take as simply a lapsarian's view, associated with those intent to take down aggressive female power -- i.e., the Terrifying Mother.

Like · Reply · 5 hrs

Write a reply...

David Chayes The cycles of violence and growth do, still happen, but they are not synchronized throughout society in such a way that one can simplistically say, for example: "now war is coming." The cycles are overlapping, as manifested in different areas of society, and the outcome on the macro-scale is not certain. And even while the cycles continue, there is also a trend of improvement, through the centuries, as the phenomenon of child abuse is becoming less and less severe, and more people are becoming engaged with personal growth.

Like · Reply · 13 hrs

Patrick McEvoy-Halston With Trump getting in... with all these Phallic Leaders getting in, I think this would be a fair time to suggest WE CAN sometimes say, "now, war/hell is forthcoming... all over the blinkin' place." Don't we have today a war between psychoclasses, straight up? The lagging classes have finally reached the point where everywhere across the globe they've reached the point where they need to bond with the Terrifying Mother, split off their "bad selves" into others, and deliver "justice" against the ostensibly manipulative and self-serving? And this is why China, the U.S., most of Europe... and I'm guessing, everywhere you look, you're seeing a part of the DeMausian cycle which emerges after groups of people can no longer stand the sense of abandonment that comes from growth, after the Innovative Phase. 

Your take is different from Lloyds'. Maybe you do have excellent counter-proof, or a truly more accurate sense of what is happening today, but my sense is that while it always seems right to make an argument emphasizing complexity (in comparison to the opponent's "simplicity") -- this is the standard historian' take -- it doesn't make it ACTUALLY right. To anyone who's read much DeMause, sizing up an argument as "too simple" or "lacking complexity," reads instantly as the angle used by the opposition to eliminate all consideration of his work, and would be careful to characterize arguments so for fear they'll be thereby dismissed before fair consideration. Saying that there's a pattern one sees through time, is usually a take argued by self-inflating historians to distance themselves from yokels who ostensibly can't see past their nostrils. It sounds right, even if it isn't, because it is the lord's take. 

This said, I agree that childrearing has been improving, and the result of this is that there are more people self-actualizing... if this is what "personal growth" is to you. "Personal growth" sometimes means people self-renunciating, followed by their being superior to others' ongoing self-interestedness, which is a kind of closet narcissism... and that's why I'm not always sure if it's the real article.