Today you answered what after 30+ years study Freud could not:
What do women want?
And....like many answers to “Freudian questions”... the answer is not pretty. Though, unlike many such answers, it is straightforward and only apparently tangled to satisfy the “needs” of the interlocutor.
As I think I commented on a previous essay, feminism today assumes that a successful woman should be indistinguishable from a successful man. When we talk about seats at the table, we have to acknowledge we just accepted that the seats were all male cognitive and social structures seats.
That those seats were the value. It makes sense for racial and ethnic integration. But male and female, due to the dimorphisms you mentioned, have different seats of value.
Modern feminism views only the masculine structures as valuable and, when they can't compete as well, seek to feminize and attack. Instead of building their own superpowers, they become frustrated that they struggle in the male structured environment.
Nice work- keep it up. The diverse references are a strong indicator of the quality of your reflections and help substantiate your insightful analysis. The source list is a great addition - I dove into it last time, a rewarding exercise. But what is to be done? The deficient persuasive abilities of the pseudo leftists who’ve established the biggest beachhead in corporate media are painfully obvious, apparently even to themselves, hence the weird collective attempt to strong-arm the rest of us. Our would-be puppetmasters are trending beyond obnoxious and getting a bit scary.
Feminists love to say that "Feminism is the radical belief that women are people". However, since "people" is a bipartite category, in practice that means "Feminism is the radical belief that women are men".
Now now---an awful lot of us are horrified by it. That includes most of the Lesbians I know, especially veterans of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. The Trannies spoiled it for everybody.
“To acknowledge the Emancipation Sequence and its successful inclusions is to undermine any division between the moral wonder of the imagined future and the moral perdition of the past or present.”
Also, to acknowledge successful past reform is to acknowledge that reform is possible, an idea that (as I understand it) Critical Theory forbids. Society, theorists claim, has been so corrupted by its past that it cannot be improved, only destroyed and replaced by (as you very aptly put it) the transcendent imagined future.
Materialism doesn’t seem to cut it as a sustained motivator. Witness the chiliastic explosions that periodically convulse Chinese society, even though one can see underlying social dynamics generating them.
“The narratives, norms, expectations we create around sex are indeed socially constructed. But they are socially constructed on a biological base.”
Assertions that this or that institution or norm is a social construct combined with implicit claims that “we” can alter it at will are appearing more frequently. Such claims ignore the fact that, as you observe, many such institutions are grounded in (evolutionary) biology and were not created ex nihilo but evolved over centuries or millennia.
Certainly, our actions can alter such institutions, but the reactions and interactions of others together with the constraints of nature all but guarantee that the results will not be what we intend - witness the increasing unhappiness among women that you report.
There would have been no emancipation sequence without Christianity bringing to fruition Genesis 1.
And second, equality before the law, yes, but when it comes to marriage and children, there is no equality between same sex relationships and male female ones. Society depends on natural marriage. And when it comes to children, not only is there no equality between natural families and same sex couples who adopt or get someone of the opposite sex to provide gametes, it is an act of profound injustice to the child.
The errors here are the assumption that civil rights movement ever did anything positive and that those social roles and discrimination that existed previously didn't have an entirely sound basis.
Today you answered what after 30+ years study Freud could not:
What do women want?
And....like many answers to “Freudian questions”... the answer is not pretty. Though, unlike many such answers, it is straightforward and only apparently tangled to satisfy the “needs” of the interlocutor.
Thank you. Again.
As I think I commented on a previous essay, feminism today assumes that a successful woman should be indistinguishable from a successful man. When we talk about seats at the table, we have to acknowledge we just accepted that the seats were all male cognitive and social structures seats.
That those seats were the value. It makes sense for racial and ethnic integration. But male and female, due to the dimorphisms you mentioned, have different seats of value.
Modern feminism views only the masculine structures as valuable and, when they can't compete as well, seek to feminize and attack. Instead of building their own superpowers, they become frustrated that they struggle in the male structured environment.
Lorenzo is one really smart guy. Love his work. Thanks for sharing his work.
Wounded veteran of the Sexual Revolution here. Thank you for these essays. They put my life in perspective and context.
Lorenzo and I are a pair of aging homosexuals who would have been transed if we were teenagers now.
We hear you.
Me, too. 74 year old Lesbian, tomboy from the get-go.
Let me just join this party with some crab dip and fine crackers. OK lesbians, I made hummus too.
What, no lobster salad??
Sigh. What do women want??
:)
A fair shot. And lobster salad. And a nice, chilled white...
It sounds good. You may have my portion of the wine. I can't hold my liquor.
Mayonnaise-based lobster salad New England style, yes?
Nice work- keep it up. The diverse references are a strong indicator of the quality of your reflections and help substantiate your insightful analysis. The source list is a great addition - I dove into it last time, a rewarding exercise. But what is to be done? The deficient persuasive abilities of the pseudo leftists who’ve established the biggest beachhead in corporate media are painfully obvious, apparently even to themselves, hence the weird collective attempt to strong-arm the rest of us. Our would-be puppetmasters are trending beyond obnoxious and getting a bit scary.
There is an action program at the end of the series.
Trans is the ultimate logical consequence of feminism.
Sadly, I think you are correct. It shares the same roots in blank-slatism.
And the denial of significant gender differences.
Feminists love to say that "Feminism is the radical belief that women are people". However, since "people" is a bipartite category, in practice that means "Feminism is the radical belief that women are men".
Nicely put.
Now now---an awful lot of us are horrified by it. That includes most of the Lesbians I know, especially veterans of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. The Trannies spoiled it for everybody.
I know. You were happy to drive the car off the cliff, but are annoyed about the whole 'crashing into the canyon floor' thing.
You may well think so, but I couldn’t possibly comment. (Sorry, having a Sir Humphrey Appleby moment: 13 years a public servant can leave a mark …)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_Appleby
Great articles, have some catching up to do before the next one! ps Doctor Hammer sent me.
“To acknowledge the Emancipation Sequence and its successful inclusions is to undermine any division between the moral wonder of the imagined future and the moral perdition of the past or present.”
Also, to acknowledge successful past reform is to acknowledge that reform is possible, an idea that (as I understand it) Critical Theory forbids. Society, theorists claim, has been so corrupted by its past that it cannot be improved, only destroyed and replaced by (as you very aptly put it) the transcendent imagined future.
Materialism doesn’t seem to cut it as a sustained motivator. Witness the chiliastic explosions that periodically convulse Chinese society, even though one can see underlying social dynamics generating them.
“The narratives, norms, expectations we create around sex are indeed socially constructed. But they are socially constructed on a biological base.”
Assertions that this or that institution or norm is a social construct combined with implicit claims that “we” can alter it at will are appearing more frequently. Such claims ignore the fact that, as you observe, many such institutions are grounded in (evolutionary) biology and were not created ex nihilo but evolved over centuries or millennia.
Certainly, our actions can alter such institutions, but the reactions and interactions of others together with the constraints of nature all but guarantee that the results will not be what we intend - witness the increasing unhappiness among women that you report.
Just a couple of points:
There would have been no emancipation sequence without Christianity bringing to fruition Genesis 1.
And second, equality before the law, yes, but when it comes to marriage and children, there is no equality between same sex relationships and male female ones. Society depends on natural marriage. And when it comes to children, not only is there no equality between natural families and same sex couples who adopt or get someone of the opposite sex to provide gametes, it is an act of profound injustice to the child.
The errors here are the assumption that civil rights movement ever did anything positive and that those social roles and discrimination that existed previously didn't have an entirely sound basis.