#metoo is being used in France to target those who ultimately are for the furtherance of victims' rights. That is, against cause.
The only time I've ever seen deMause come into play over the last ten years is when rightwingers make use of him (and a little bit with Pinker, whom I also do not trust)... in the states, with Stefan Molyneux. It is the funny thing that I've noted several times here, if one is a deMausian in his deepest intent -- which is to enable better childrearing; to work against growth panic and spread good -- you don't really want to see him emerge as an intellectual figure to be taken seriously in this upcoming period, because liberalism is sort of fixed at a state where it cannot but romanticize and enable its own societal poison containers; it's flawed, but it's the best we're going to get until we get another generation flip and a more emotionally healthy populace. Considering that means that if you want to participate in scholarly/the common conversation you have to try and sneak deMausian thought in somehow innocuously... be sidelines the whole time, that's pretty frustrating. But if we're entering a period of collective growth panic where part of the mechanics of enabling nativism and the idea of national borders and projecting all of our own bad boy/bad girlness into others outside our borders will be to very quickly derail those who stand in the way of this catastrophe, then deMausianism will surface to make liberals seem continentally apart from the realm of actual fact; as not even really meaning what they stand for, because the worst perpetrators of the crimes they loathe are those they defend with vigilant insistence (in deMause's accounts of childrearing, the Islamic world does not fair well... nor does any culture which, for example, still routinely spanks their children... and then as well with him and Charles W. Socarides being essentially on the same page in regards to the sexual perversions...). This article gets at that; at what happens when liberals no longer command the narrative, so what they start owing to the force of their defiance of abuse, become initiatives a vile, ultimately stronger power co-opts for its own purposes.
 |
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
|
Dec 1
|
The other way, incidentally, where, if it's getting half its lift from being something a population that wants to nip individualization in the bud and re-bond with a mother projected onto a nation can use for its own purposes, #metoo gets turned into something opposite its intention, is if the population agrees that the explosive reveal of the number of male predators out there means that men must be essentially aggressive -- under certain situations, built-in sexists -- and that curbing it means conservative measures like covering up, keeping the sexes apart, have merit. We're already seeing some of this. It could also be used against itself in, as I've articulated here before, a populace deciding to undergo a kind of Promise Keeper's transformation, where they admit overtly to the extent of their predations but demonstrate in astonishing ways that they have self-castrated themselves in dedication to a movement which ultimately is AGAINST individuated women and for the overall production of many more societal victims. That is, they could become akin to what became to felt regarding the Bernie Bros... individuals, once individuated, merged into a movement where they mean to be understood as absolutely selflessly dedicated to some larger entity, the nation, the people. Men like that, who are way ahead in the game in not being defensive in the accounting of their sins, and who will dedicate themselves -- unlike Weinstein -- to movements more in sync with the times, in calling for people to regressively join folk/populist movements, will in a sense serve to spell a lesson for many of the accusers: namely, yes, you were victimized, but about where you could been lead to if you hadn't been victimized: now is no longer the time where people need to think of being fully self-actualized, but rather how to dedicate oneself more selflessly. In a nutshell, you're aren't to try and be feminist, but to take your emboldened self and, in a sense, once again submerge it, else be caught out in a position where society once again thinks you deserve a taking down.
 |
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
|
Dec 1
|
And this article, btw, points the way at what I'm getting at: a concern that the leftist populism (think Bernie Bros) that has been emerging actually elides "the world of women." Leah Finnegan (of NYT and Gawker), the article writer, wrote of her hopes that with #metoo we might finally see a change:
Some have characterized the current pan-partisan reckoning around sexual assault as too extreme, as a witch hunt. I agree that it is extreme, but in the best possible way. My hope is that it leads to a change in conventional thinking: Those who have been used to seeing the world in a certain, absolute way are now being forced to see it in another, or risk drowning in denial.
What I am concerned will happen is that leftist populists of the kind she directs of to think of, like Hamilton Nolan (of Gawker), who wrote "that in the run-up to the election, only two issues mattered: economic inequality and climate change. 'The important things should be prioritized. The hardest things should be done first. Economic inequality and climate change are our most important problems, and our hardest ones,' won't change much through #metoo because in a sense they're already acting at the behest of a woman, namely, their angry internal maternal alters, who actually applauds their exclusion of "women matters" when what this means is denying furthering their self-actualization... for she's imagined as angry at all of her children's attempts to individuate themselves from her, boys, girls... everyone's.
Article from Outline magazine: If women are not safe, a nation is not safe
Comments
Post a Comment