Skip to main content

Those who are wholly healed view current feminism as evil?


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.

Millions of women turned out to march last Saturday. But were they marching for everyone?
NYTIMES.COM|BY JENNA WORTHAM

Like
Comment
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.
LikeReply13 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.
LikeReply5 hrs
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.
LikeReply13 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.

Comments

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

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

When Rose McGowan appears in Asgard: a review of "Thor: Ragnarok"

The best part of this film was when Rose McGowan appeared in Asgard and accosted Odin and his sons for covering up, with a prettified, corporate, outward appearance that's all gay-friendly, feminist, multicultural, absolutely for the rights of the indigenous, etc., centuries of past abuse, where they predated mercilessly upon countless unsuspecting peoples. And the PR department came in and said, okay Weinstein... I mean Odin and Odin' sons, here's what we suggest you do. First, you, Odin, are going to have to die. No extensive therapy; when it comes to predators who are male, especially white and male, this age doesn't believe in therapy. You did what you did because you are, or at least strongly WERE, evil, so that's what we have to work with. Now death doesn't seem like "working with it," I know, but the genius is that we'll do the rehab with your sons, and when they're resurrected as somehow more apart from your regime,