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.


The Case Against Contemporary Feminism
Since November 9th, two main arguments against contemporary feminism have emerged in near-exact opposition to each other.
NEWYORKER.COM|BY JIA TOLENTINO




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