Skip to main content

Undifferentiated blurred bed of snow

I don't agree with this take. I think the only problem about current feminism is that the people within it have not yet reached their best potential, which means specifically that they have not yet reached the point where they possess no interest, at all, in displacing their own childhood vulnerabilities onto other people -- and thus this contemporary situation where they to some extent tolerate that a class exists under them over which they have power and whom must to some extent suffer. What is an example of this? Well, if they were at their potential they wouldn't take pleasure in being served by people to some extent inferior in their abilities and ambition, which they still to some extent do. They'd rather ask themselves more truly is this IS ACTUALLY THE CASE, or if the nervous nature of trying to self-actualize at a time outside of an overtly youth-favouring age like the 1960s, means it can only be done in a very calibrated way, and those who haven't finessed this art, those who aren't as adept at reading the landscape for evidence of the critical, scrutinizing eye and adapting oneself so you "pass," aren't exactly going to be thriving now. And if it is, see themselves only as those who came out of better childrearing circumstances, not only as those WHO DID when others failed in courage.

I think, though, they were actually getting there, and that what we're seeing here are people preying on this weakness as means only to take away all of their public influence, to discredit them entirely, leaving in charge a brand of feminism which is not actually 1960s/1970s radical and diverse, as claimed, but actually much more timid in that it would squelch every "narcissistic" "special snowflake" out there into an undifferentiated blurred bed of snow. It's a riot against 1960s feminism and all its legacies, to re-install the 1930s hard left, which frowned on the idea that life is about self-actualization... about fun and self-celebration. This is just about scolding. And bringing back to leadership those who'll jealously sit on anyone out there that differentiates from the horde. It makes it seem opposite to this, but this is its intent, in my judgment.

Since November 9th, two main arguments against contemporary feminism have emerged in near-exact opposition to each other.


Popular posts from this blog

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…

"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 …