Skip to main content

Reponse to Lloyd (1 January 2009)

Lloyd, research does nothing if one is the mood to imagine someone a certain
way. Everything you're saying about Obama's mother could lead to different
conclusions, though. She could have woken up at 4 o'clock every morning in
order help her son become the person he wants to be, but how many mothers
devote themselves to their kids primarily out of their own self-assessment
needs, out of a desire to fashion for themselves their preferred son? Every
hockey mom in Canada wakes up at 4 in the morning ostensibly for their
children, and how many of these kids end up living out their mother's
dreams -- of course, not all, but many, many, many. You write of her
"abandonment by her spouse and [of how she] had to work." Come on, Lloyd,
you're the one who always talks about how put-upon mothers are hardly the
ones to look to for great nurturance. And why narrate it as of her being
"abandoned." You know this type of narrative plays to our desire to protect
the mother and demonize the father, the nasty patriarchal ass, who is
unwilling to show any gratitude for all his wife's love, any sympathy at all for
all her considerable hardships. Further it works against looking at other
motives behind spousal break-ups. Many mothers are primarily interested in
hoarding their children all to themselves, and DIRECT the fathers elsewhere.
Many mothers are masochists who direct their spouses to abandon them. And
what healthy, happy mother ends up marrying someone who "abandons" her,
anyway? If he was that awful, she couldn't have all that great, either
(Seriously, don't like end up marrying like?).
I don't think he had terrible mothering. But I actually don't think either
he or his wife rise even to the level of the Clintons -- and I don't think they're
all that great, either. Right now there's a lot of people who are just so quick to identify Obama as
a good guy. I think this in done in part to demonstrate our own
goodness – for we are progressive/advanced/good enough to cheer the arrival
of the first black president, and recognize both he and his mother’s benevolence. Even Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon, after being an early
holdout, has succumbed to this desire. But watch out!, for Joan was right
to think something terribly amiss about Obama's willingness to allow his
operatives to shut down progressive critiques of his policy goals through
charges of racism. In fact, my guess is that it will be through Obama
that progressive thought -- which won the 60’s cultural war -- is effectively put
on the defensive, as progressives are effectively characterized as white
elitists, as those fundamentally insensitive to the real needs/desires of
those they aim to serve. I will be watching for this to see if I've
guessed right -- hopefully to those willing to believe I might just be right.

patrickmh

Link: RealPsychohistory

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Watch out, liberal extremities!

Watch out, liberal extremities! websmith says: “White people and an increasing number of minorities are tired of being called racists by the true racists and more appalled that this loony bleeding has spread from the heart to the brain." This is what many progressives are going to have to get used to hearing -- that THEY are the true racists! I've said this before but '60's liberalism goes down when enough people have decided that, in sum, it was never truly about what minorities, impoverished people wanted/needed, but instead what certain AFFLUENT WHITE PEOPLE wanted to believe those they ostensibly spoke for wanted/needed. They (progressives) will be made to seem, not the most caring, but the most negligent, most truly self-serving. Of course, most democrats in power will not be too afflicted by this, because they're ready to turn on the ’60s too. Why? Because, sad to say, they're getting in mood to want to see the weak and needy set-up as punishment-worthy a...

Conversation about Agulis at the Gene Wolfe Facebook Appreciation Club

James Pepe New Member  ·  20 hrs I’ve been rereading BotNS (this is my second read of it) and I just finished the part where Sev fights Agulis with the avern. I’m interested to hear what people think of the accusations Agilus levels agains Sevarian. Agilus says Sev has wronged him three times. Are we meant to take these accusations seriously? They're very strange. Is this just a last ditch attempt by Agilus to get out of being killed, or is Sev actually guilty of something, either legal, moral, or cultural. Are the powers that Agilus refers to simply that the avern didn’t kill Sev when it wounded him? Here the quote, “First by entrapment. You carried an heirloom worth a villa about the city without knowing what it was you had. As owner it was your duty to know, and your ignorance threatens to cost me my life tomorrow unless you free me tonight. Secondly, by refusing to entertain any offer to buy. In our commercial society, one may set...

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 ...