Wednesday 13 June 2018
Asclepius
" Zeus killed Asclepius with a thunderbolt because he brought Hippolytus back from The Dead and accepted GOLD for it.
Other stories say that Asclepius was killed because, after bringing people back from The Dead, Hades thought that no more dead spirits would come to the underworld.
Because of this, he asked his brother Zeus to stop him.
This angered Apollo who in turn killed the Cyclopes who made the thunderbolts for Zeus.
For this act, Zeus suspended Apollo from the night sky and commanded Apollo to serve
Admetus, King of Thessaly
for a year.
Once the year had passed, Zeus brought Apollo back to Mount Olympus and revived the Cyclopes that made his thunderbolts.
After Asclepius’s death, Zeus placed his body among the stars as the constellation Ophiuchus (“the Serpent Holder”)."
Some sources also stated that Asclepius was later resurrected as a god by Zeus to prevent any further feuds with Apollo.
[ His Apotheosis is unearned... ]
It was also claimed that Asclepius was instructed by Zeus to never revive The Dead without his approval again.
Tuesday 12 June 2018
Virtue Signalling
"But, Credits, •HAND-WAVE• Will Do Fine."
"No, They Won't."
June 21, 1995|JOHN DART | TIMES STAFF WRITER
The Southern Baptist Convention, born of a North-South split over slavery, on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a resolution lamenting its pro-slave-owner roots and repenting for lingering racism.
The resolution was approved by a show of hands at the denomination's annual meeting in Atlanta, a gathering of nearly 15,000 voting clergy and lay people. It is the largest mass expression of regret and repentance so far in a wave of contrition for historical wrongs voiced by church leaders from the Pope to evangelical Christian groups.
The 15.6-million-member denomination--the largest in U.S. Protestantism--has made strides in racial and ethnic diversity in recent years. The 39,000 Southern Baptist churches include about 1,900 black congregations and, in California, many Latino and Asian American churches.
But the resolution "to repudiate historic acts of evil, such as slavery, from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest" was deemed a needed prerequisite to improved relations with African Americans. The Southern Baptist Convention broke with Baptists in the North in 1845, in part, over whether slaveholders could serve as missionaries.
"We apologize to all African Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime, and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously," said the statement, which also asked for forgiveness from African Americans.
Richard Land, director of the denomination's Christian Life Commission, whose biracial task force drafted the statement, said Tuesday that while he cannot repent for his great-great-great-grandfather, who was a slave owner, he is "eager to apologize and express remorse for that."
In November, Pope John Paul II declared that the Roman Catholic Church cannot enter the third Christian millennium without purifying itself through repentance of past errors. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America last year confessed that its founder, Martin Luther, engaged in anti-Jewish diatribes, which in turn were employed by anti-Semites over the centuries.
At the Georgia Dome on Tuesday, the Southern Baptists stood and applauded when the resolution passed after only 12 minutes of discussion and little dissension. The Rev. Gary Frost of Youngstown, Ohio, the denomination's second vice president and the first African American to reach that post, accepted the apology on behalf "of [ALL] my black brothers and sisters."
"But, Credits, •HAND-WAVE• Will Do Fine."
"No, They Won't."
Ooh, I Struck a Nerve
Ooh, I Struck a Nerve.
Meant to.
Maybe that's how you become strong...
King Lear is a Helluva Play.
Monday 11 June 2018
Technology
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology
Ain't got time to make no apology
Soul radiation in the dead of night
Love in the middle of a fire fight
Honey, gotta strike me blind
Somebody gotta save my soul
Baby, penetrate my mind
And I'm The World's Forgotten Boy
The one who's searchin', searchin' to destroy
(The Doctor leads the way up a spiral staircase.)
ACE:
This is a spaceship?
More than that.
It's a craft for travelling between dimensions.
ACE:
It's more like being in some huge animal. Who built it?
It wasn't built, it was grown.
ACE:
Who grows spaceships?
Very advanced bioengineers.
ACE:
Ask a stupid question.
Well, if they're grown, how do they fly?
Magick.
ACE:
Oh, be feasible, Professor.
What is Clarke's law?
ACE:
"Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magick. "
Well,
THE REVERSE IS •ALSO• TRUE
ACE:
"Any advanced form of magick is indistinguishable...
(They arrive at the chamber with the knight and the sword in the stone.)
...from technology."
British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated three adages that are known as Clarke’s three laws, of which the third law is the best known and most widely cited:
1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
technology (n.)
1610s, "a discourse or treatise on an art or the arts," from Greek tekhnologia "systematic treatment of an art, craft, or technique," originally referring to grammar, from tekhno- (see techno-) + -logy.
The meaning "study of mechanical and industrial arts" (Century Dictionary, 1902, gives examples of "spinning, metal-working, or brewing") is first recorded 1859. High technology attested from 1964; short form high-tech is from 1972.
evolve (v.)
1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from Latin evolvere "to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll," from PIE root *wel- (3) "to turn, revolve."
Meaning "to develop by natural processes to a higher state" is from 1832.
Related: Evolved; evolving.
Those Who Have Swords, and Know How to Use Them
The Meek shall inherit The Earth -
Not what you think it means
The Button
Well, now...
Everyone's talking to me.
No one's talking to each other.
Someone isn't
here.
Button, button... who's got the button?
My money's on :
The Witch.
Red's a Bad Girl...
 |
| The Man Behind The Winkies is a Woman. |
It's Her.
She's The Man Behind The Winkies.
She's The One Who's Doing It.
When I started working on this problem - or I guess when when it started working on me - was probably really in the mid 80s.
And I found myself suffering from two things one was a very lengthy sequence of nightmares about nuclear destruction
and they're very affecting dreams, I guess you could say.
And associated with that was a sense of amazement that a dream that was that awful could reflect a reality that could
be that awful, and an additional amazement out the fact that despite the
production of thousands and tens and thousands of weapons of unimaginable
destruction and that qualitative
qualitative change in human capacity
that represented that people could go
about their day-to-day lives without
acting as if anything fundamental
whatsoever had changed now I've never
really been able to figure out why that
disturbed me so much when it seemed to
not disturb to any profound degree most
of the people I knew.
SYCORAX: Who exactly are you?
Perfect-10:
Well, that's The Question.
SYCORAX:
I demand to know who you are!
Perfect-10:
I don't know!
See, there's the thing. I'm The Doctor, but beyond that, I just don't know. I literally do not know who I am. It's all untested.
Am I funny? Am I sarcastic? Sexy? Right old misery? Life and soul? Right handed? Left handed? A gambler? A fighter? A coward? A traitor? A liar? A nervous wreck? I mean, judging by the evidence, I've certainly got a gob.
And how am I going to react when I see this, a great big threatening button.
A great big threatening button which must not be pressed under any circumstances, am I right?
Let me guess. It's some sort of control matrix, hmm? Hold on, what's feeding it?
(The Doctor opens the base of the pillar under the button.)
And what've we got here? Blood? Yeah, definitely blood. Human blood. A Positive, with just a dash of iron. Ah, but that means blood control. Blood control! Oh, I haven't seen blood control for years. You're controlling all the A Positives. Which leaves us with a great big stinking problem.
Because I really don't know who I am.
I don't know when to stop.
So if I see a great big threatening button which should never, ever, ever be pressed, then I just want to do this.
(He hits the button.)
ROSE + HARRIET: No!
The Next Lion
HARVEY:
It's The Law of The Jungle now, mate, innit?
LEN:
Hmm. There are these two blokes, right?
In a tent, in the jungle.
HARVEY:
You got another one for me, ain't you? Go on, then, go on.
LEN:
It's really dark, and they hear this terrible noise outside the tent.
This terrible roaring noise.
And one bloke turns to the other bloke and he says,
' Do you hear that? '
HARVEY:
What?
LEN:
I said, 'Did you hear that? '
HARVEY:
Oh, right, yeah.
LEN:
' That was a lion. '
(The Doctor starts to pay attention to the anecdote.)
LEN:
And the other bloke, he doesn't say anything.
He just starts putting on his running shoes.
And the other bloke turns to him and says,
' What are you doing?
You can't outrun a lion!! '
The bloke turns to him and says,
' I don't have to outrun the lion. '
HARVEY: (feeble laugh)
Don't get it.
Time's Champion :
He doesn't have to outrun the lion, only his friend.
Then the lion catches up with his friend and eats him.
The Strong survive, The Weak are killed.
The Law of the Jungle.
HARVEY:
Oh yeah. Very clever.
Time's Champion :
Yes, very clever — if you don't mind losing your friend.
But what happens when The Next Lion turns up...?
(The cat is watching The Doctor.)
LEN:
What next lion?
(The black cat burst out from behind the shelf of cat food and runs out of the shop.)
Time's Champion :
I think you'd better get your running shoes on, gentlemen.
Peterson:
So I got a story to tell you that you might like because I’ve thought a lot about that Use of Language.
Because language can be used as camouflage,
and so here’s the story :
I think I got this from Robert Sapolsky.
So he was talking about zebras,
and zebras of course have stripes.
And hypothetically that’s associated with camouflage.
But it’s not a straightforward association because
zebras are black and white,
and they’re on the veldt
along with The Lions.
The Lions are camouflaged because they’re grass colored, but the bloody zebras are black and white.
You can see them like 15 miles away.
So biologists go out to study zebras,
and they’re making notes on a zebra.
And they watch it, then they look down
at their notes, and then they look up.
But they think, ‘Uh oh, I don’t know
which zebra I was looking at.’
The camouflage is actually against the herd because
a zebra is a herd animal, not an individual.
So the black and white stripes break up
the animal against the herd,
so you can’t identify it.
So this was a quandary for the biologists,
so they did one of two things.
One was drive a jeep up to the zebra herd,
and use a dab of red paint
and dab the haunch of the zebra,
or tag it with an ear tag
like you use for cattle.
The Lions would kill it.
So as soon as it became identifiable
the predators could organize their hunt
around that identifiable animal.
That’s why there’s the old idea that lions and predators take down the weak animals, but they don’t.
They take down the identifiable animals.
So that’s the thing: if you stick your damn head up, you get picked off by the predators.
One of the things that academics seem to do is congregate together in herd-like entities, and then they share a language. And the language unites them.
As long as they share the same set of linguistic tools among themselves, they know that there isn’t anybody in the coterie that’s going to attack them or destabilize the entire herd.
And that seems to me to account for that impenetrable use of language.
It’s group protection strategy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for. . . It’s the search for security within a system and not the desire to expand The System.
Paglia: So true. To me it’s blatantly careerist because it was about advancement, and it was also about the claim that somehow they have like special expertise.
This is a special technical language.
"No one else can understand it. Only we can."
A Parent is Not a Sponsor
RIKER: (to the empty chair)
What would you do..?
(doorbell)
Cmdr. RIKER:
Come.
GUINAN:
May I speak to you, Captain?
Cmdr. RIKER:
Actually, Guinan, I...
GUINAN:
You know, Picard and I used to talk every now and again, when one of us needed to.
I guess I'm just used to having the Captain's ear.
(She sits in Picard's chair)
Cmdr. RIKER:
What's on your mind?
GUINAN:
I've heard a lot of people talking down in Ten Forward.
They expect to be dead in the next day or so.
They Trust You.
They Like you.
They Like you.
But they don't believe anyone can save them.
Cmdr. RIKER:
I'm not sure anyone can.
GUINAN:
When a man is convinced he's going to die tomorrow,
he'll probably find a way to make it happen.
he'll probably find a way to make it happen.
The only one who can turn is around is you.
Cmdr. RIKER:
I'll do the best I can.
GUINAN:
You're going have to do something you don't want to —
You have to let go of Picard.
Cmdr. RIKER:
Maybe you haven't heard.
I tried to kill him yesterday.
GUINAN:
You tried to kill whatever that is on the Borg ship. Not Picard.
Picard is still here with us in this room.
If he had died, it would be easier.
But he didn't.
They took him from us a piece at a time.
Did he ever tell you why we're so close?
Cmdr. RIKER:
No.
GUINAN:
Well, then let me just say that
Our relationship is beyond friendship,
Our relationship is beyond friendship,
Beyond Family.
And I will let him go.
And you must do the same.
There can only be one Captain.
Capt. RIKER:
It's not that simple.
This was his crew.
He wrote the book on this ship.
GUINAN:
And the Borg know everything he knows.
It's time to throw that book away.
It's time to throw that book away.
You must let him go, Riker.
It's the only way to beat him.
The only way to save him.
And that is now your chair.
Captain.
(Riker sits)
WESLEY:
We're approaching the Wolf system, Captain.
RIKER:
On my way.
These are Dark Musings.
"You know, I’ve thought for a while that
We’re living in The Delusional Fantasy
of a Naive Thirteen Year-old Girl.
That basically sums up
Our Culture."
Peterson : . . These are dark musings.
And I would say, how much of the antipathy towards Men that’s being generated by, say, college-age women is deep repugnance for the role that they’ve been designed, and a disappointment with the men. . .
You know, you think of those. . .
I can’t remember the culture —
The basic marital routine was to
Ride into The Village
and grab The Bride
and run away with her
on a horse.
[ And then send represenatives to agree a price! ]
It’s like The Motorcycle Gang Member
who rips the too-naive girl
out of the bosom of Her Family.
Paglia:
Yeah, there used to be Bride Stealing.
[ Still Is. ]
It was quite widespread.
[ Still Is. ]
Peterson: Right, so I kind of wonder if part of the reason that modern university women aren’t so angry is because that fundamental feminine role is actually being denied to them.
And they’re objecting to that at a really, really fundamental level.
Like a level of primitive outrage.
Paglia: Well, what’s happened is the chaos that my generation of the 1960s bequeathed through the sexual revolution.
When I arrived in college in 1964 the colleges were still acting in loco parentis, in place of a parent, so my dormitory, all women’s dormitory, we women had to sign in at eleven o’clock at night.
The men could run free the entire night.
So it was my generation of women that rose up and said, ‘Give us the same freedom as men have,’ and the colleges replied,
‘No. The World is dangerous. You could be raped.
We have to protect you against rape.’
And what we said was,
‘Give us the freedom to risk rape.’
What today’s women don’t understand: it’s the freedom that you want.
It’s the same freedom that gay men have when they go and they pick up a stranger some place.
They know it’s dangerous, they know they could end up beaten up or killed, but they find it hot.
If you want freedom, if you want equality, then you have to start behaving like a man.
[ Well, Yes and No... ]
So what we did is we gave freedom to these young women for several generations, but my generation had been raised in a far more resilient and robust culture.
We had the strength to know what we wanted and to fight for what we wanted.
These young women have been raised in this terribly protected way. So I think in some strange fashion that all these demands for intrusion from these Stalinist committees, investigating dates and so on - it’s a way to reinstitute The Rules that My Generation threw out the window.
So I think these young women are desperate.
Not only that, but I have spoken very strongly in a piece I wrote for Time Magazine.
It was in my recent book that raising the drinking age in this country from 18 to 21 has had a direct result in these disasters of binge drinking fraternity parties.
Let college students, the way we could, go out as freshmen, have a beer, sit in a protected adult environment, learn how to discourse with the opposite sex in a safe environment.
And now today, because of this stupid rule that young people can’t even buy a drink in a bar until they’re 21, we have these fraternity parties that are like it’s The Caveman Era.
Well of course in this modern age this advantages men.
Men want to hook up.
Men want to have sex.
Women don’t understand what men want.
Women put out
because they’re hoping
the man will continue
to be interested in them.
The man just wants experience.
The hormones drive toward. . . To me, I theorize that the sex drive in men is intertwined with hunt and pursuit. This is what women don’t understand. And if women understood what I understand from my transgender perspective. . .
These women on the streets. . . You know, I am, obviously, a Madonna admirer, and I support pornography and prostitution, so I don’t want what I’m about to say to seem conservative because it isn’t.
What I’m saying is, that women on the streets.
Young Women who are jogging
with no bra on, short-shorts,
and have earbuds in their ears,
just jogging along.
These women do not understand
The Nature of The Human Mind.
They do not understand
The Nature of Psychosis.
[ Even The Psychotic Ones. ]
And this intertwining that I’m talking about of The Hunt and Pursuit thing.
They’re triggering a hunt thing. . . Just what you have talked about in terms of the zebra herd.
They are triggering the hunt impulse in psychotic men.
There goes a very appetizing and totally oblivious animal, bouncing along here.
And we’re in a period now where psychosis is not understood at all.
Young women have had no exposure to movies like Psycho.
You know, the kind of rapists, serial murderer thing and so on.
The kind of strange dynamic which has to do with assault on the ‘mother imago’ in the mind of a psychotic. I think there’s an incredible naïveté.
These young women are emerging and going to college in this like incredible Dionysian environment of orgiastic sexual experience in fraternity houses. They’re completely unprepared for it.
And so you’re getting all this outrage.
So feminist rhetoric has gotten more and more extreme in its portrayal of men as evil.
But in fact what we have is a chaos.
It’s a chaos in the sexual realm.
The girls have not been told anything real in terms of biological substratum to sexual activity.
Peterson: No, there’s full of lies about what constitutes consent, too.
And it’s become something that’s essentially portrayed linguistically as a sequence of progressive contracts, which is. . .
You know, I’ve thought for a while that we’re living in the delusional fantasy of a naive thirteen year old girl.
That basically sums up our culture.
And I look at all these sexual rules that permeate the academia, and I think two things.
The first thing I think is, well. . . I know because I was an alcohol researcher for a long time, and you know that 50% of violent crimes are directly contributed to alcohol.
So if you’re murdered, there’s about a 50% chance that you’re drunk and about a 50% chance that the person who kills you is drunk. And alcohol is the only drug that we know that actually amplifies aggression.
It does that in laboratory situations. Plus it’s a great disinhibitor.
So what alcohol does is. . . It doesn’t make you oblivious to the future consequences of your actions, because if you ask someone who’s drunk about the consequences of something stupid, they can tell you what the consequences are.
But it makes you not care.
And it does that because it’s technically an anxiolytic like barbiturates or like benzodiazepines.
And it also has an activating property for many people who drink, so it’s a stimulant and an anxiolytic at the same time. And a very, very potent. . . It’s very potent for both of them. You know, we put young people together and douse them in alcohol at the binge drinking level - which also interferes with memory consolidation, which of course makes things much more complex - and then we’re surprised when there are sexual misadventures.
And then it’s also attributed almost purely to the predatory element that’s part and parcel of Masculinity, but a tremendous amount of that is also naivety and stupidity.
Because we expect. . . 18 year old guys, especially the ones that aren’t, that haven’t been successful with girls, which is like 85% of them because the successful men are a very small percentage of men.
The 85% who haven’t been successful with men or with women - they don’t know what the hell they’re doing at all.
And part of the reason they’re getting drunk is to garner up enough courage to actually make an advance.
Because another thing I think women don’t understand, especially with regards to young men, is just exactly how petrifying an attractive woman who’s of, say, somewhat higher status actually is to a young guy.
There’s lots of guys that write me constantly, and people that I’ve worked with, that are so terrified of women they can’t even talk to them.
It’s very, very common.
Paglia: I take a very firm position, which is that I want college administrations to stay totally out of the social lives of the students.
If a crime is committed, it should be reported to The Police.
I’ve been writing that for twenty-five years now. But it’s not the business of any college administration to take any notice of what the students say to each other - say to each other - as well as do with each other. I want it totally stopped.
It is Fascism of the worst kind.
Peterson: I agree. And I think it’s fascism of the worst kind because it’s a new kind of Fascism.
It’s partly generated by legislation, like the Title 9 memo that was written in 2011. I recently got a copy of that goddamn thing. That was one polluting bit of legislation.
That memo basically told universities that unless they set up a parallel court system, they were going to be denied federal funding.
It is absolutely unbelievable.
Paglia: Incredible. And the leftists are supporting this? This shows there is no authentic campus leftism. I’m sorry, it’s a fraud. The faculty should be fighting the administration on this. Federal regulation of how we’re supposed to behave on campus?
Peterson: Well how can you be so naive and foolish to think that taking an organization like the university, which already has plenty to do, and forcing it to become a pseudo legal system that parallels the legal system could possibly be anything but utterly catastrophic..?
It would mean you have to know absolutely nothing about the legal system and about the tremendous period of evolution that produced what’s actually a stellar system and an adversarial system that protects the rights of the accused and of the victim.
And to replace that with an ad-hoc bureaucracy that has pretty much the same degree of power as the court system with absolutely none of the training and none of the guarantees.
Paglia: Kangaroo courts.
That piece that I wrote about date rape - it was in January, 1991 Newsday - was the most controversial thing I ever wrote in my entire career.
I attacked the entire thing, and demanded that colleges stand back and get out of the social lives of the students. The reaction. People tried to call. . . They called the president of my university, tried to get me fired. You can’t believe the hysteria.
Peterson: I can believe it...!
Paglia: Yeah, you can believe it.
Anything that says to women that they should be responsible for their own choices is regarded as reactionary? Are they kidding me?
This is such a betrayal of authentic feminism in my view.
Peterson: Well it’s The Ultimate Betrayal of authentic Feminism because it’s an invitation of all the things that you might be paranoid about with regards to The Patriarchy back into Your Life.
It’s an insistence that the most intrusive part of The Tyrannical King come and Take Control of the most intimate details of your life.
Paglia: Incredible. Absolutely incredible.
Peterson: And the assumption is that that’s going to make Your Life better rather than worse.
Paglia: And not to mention this idea of the stages of verbal consent, as if your impulses based in The Body have anything to do with words.
That’s the whole point of sex is to abandon that part of the brain that’s so trammeled with words.
Peterson: It’s actually a marker of lack of social ability to have to do that.
Because if you’re sophisticated. . . It’s not like if you’re dancing with someone, it’s not like you call out the moves. If you have to do that, well then you’re worse than a neophyte. You’re an awkward neophyte, and anyone with any sense should get the hell away from you.
So if you’re reduced to the point where you have to verbally negotiate every element of intimate interaction. . .
Paglia: What a downer.
Peterson: Yes, but what an unbelievably naive and pathological view of the manner in which human beings interact. There’s no sophistication in that.
Paglia: What I’m worried about also, in this age of social media. . .
I’ve noticed that as a teacher in the classroom that the young people are so used to communicating now by cellphone, by iPhone, that they’re losing body language and facial expressions, which I think is going to compound the problem with these dating encounters.
Because the ability to read the human face and to read little tiny inflections of emotion.. .
I think my generation got that from looking at great foreign films with their long takes. So you’d have Jeanne Moreau and Catherine Deneuve in like potential romantic encounters, and you could see the tiniest little inflections that signal communication or sexual readiness or irony or skepticism or distance or whatever.
The inability to read other people’s intentions. . .
I think this is going to be a disaster.
I just notice how year by year the students are becoming much more flat affect. And they themselves complain that they’ll sit in the same room with someone and be texting to each other.
Peterson:
Yeah, well there’s a piece of evidence, too,
that supports that to some degree --
Women with brothers are
less likely to get raped.
And the reason for that is that
they’ve learned that
nonverbal language deeply.
Paglia:
Not only that but I have noticed in my career that
women who have many brothers
are very good as administrators
and as business people, because
they don’t take men seriously.
They saw their brothers.
They think their brothers are jokes.
But they know How to Control Men
while they still like men.
They admire men.
This is something
I have seen repeatedly.
Peterson:
So that would be also reflective
of the problem of fewer and fewer siblings.
Paglia: Yes, that’s right. I’ve noticed this in publishing. The women who have the job of publicist and rise to the top as manager of publicity - their ability to take charge of men and their humor with men.
They have great relationships with men, because they don’t have a sense of resentment and worry and anxiety. They don’t see men as aggressors.
And I think that’s another thing, too.
As Feminism moved into
its present System of Ideology
it has tended to
denigrate Motherhood
as a lesser order
of Human Experience,
and to enshrine, of course, abortion.
Now I am a hundred percent for abortion rights. I belonged to Planned Parenthood for years until I finally rejected it as a branch of the Democratic Party, my own party.
But as Motherhood became excluded,
as Feminism became obsessed
with The Professional Woman,
I feel that the lessons that Mothers learn
have been lost to Feminism.
The Mothers who bear Boy-children understand The Fragility of Men, The Fragility of Boys --
They understand it.
They don’t see Boys and Nen
as a menace.
They understand
the greater strength of women.
So there’s this Tenderness and Connectedness between The Mother and The Boy Child when Motherhood is part of the experience of women who are discussing gender.
So what we have today is that this gender ideology has risen up on campuses where all... None of the girls, none of the students have married. None of them have had children.
And you have women, some of whom have had children. . .
But a lot of them are like lesbians or like professional women and so on.
So this whole Tenderness and Forgivingness and Encouragement that Women do to Boys. . .
This Hypersensitivity of Boys is not understood.
Instead, boys are seen as somehow more privileged. And somehow their energy level is interpreted as aggression, potential violence, and so on.
We would do better if would have. . . I have proposed that colleges should allow. . .
The moment a woman has entered, she has entered that college for life and that she should be free to leave to have babies when her body wants that baby, when it’s healthy to have them.
And then return, have the occasional course, and build up credits. And Fathers might be able to do it as well.
To get married women and women with children into the classroom. The moment that happens, as happened after Word War II where you had a lot of married guys in the classroom. . . Not that many women. The experience of a married person with a family talking about gender. . . Most of the gender stuff would be laughed out of the room if you had a real mother in there who had experienced childbirth and was raising boys.
So I think that’s also something that has led to this incredible artificiality and hysteria of feminist rhetoric.
Peterson: There’s another strange element to that, which is that on the one hand the radical feminist types, the neo-Marxists, postmodernists, are very much opposed to The Patriarchy, let’s say, and that’s that uni-dimensional, ideological representation of Our Culture.
Paglia: That has never existed. Perhaps the word could be applied to Republican Rome and that’s it.
Peterson: Maybe it could be applied usefully to certain kinds of tyranny, but not to A Society that’s actually functional.
Paglia: Victoria England, arguably. But other than that, to use the word ‘Patriarchy’ in a slapdash way, so amateurish. It just shows people know nothing about history whatever,
have done no reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)