jeffbuck@swcp.com
Date: 08/29/02-10:55:14 AM Z
The historical consequences and devilish details of Freudianism you mention
aren't much disputed, as far as I'm aware. However, Freud's theory of the
unconscious was a huge turning point in Western post-enlightenment thinking.
He's a giant. So is Karl Marx, no matter how badly things may have gone in
the actual nation-states purporting to be Marxist. -jb
Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com> said:
> ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Just a thought, but isn't it possible that the power relationships between
> > men and women are dictated by the "natural order of things"?
>
> Short answer: No, it's not.
>
> Longer answer:
>
> "O come and be my mate!" said the Eagle to the Hen;
> I love to soar, but then
> I want my mate to rest forever in the nest!"
> Said the Hen, "I cannot fly,
> I have no wish to try
> But I joy to see my mate careering through the sky!"
> They wed, and cried, "Ah, this is Love, my own!"
> The Hen sat, the Eagle soared, alone.
>
> "O come and be my mate!" said the Lion to the Sheep;
> "My love for you is deep;
> I slay, a Lion should,
> But you are mild and good!"
> Said the Sheep, "I do no ill,
> Could not, had I the will--
> But I joy to see my mate pursue, devour and kill."
> They wed and cried, "Ah, this is Love, my own!"
> And the Sheep browsed, the Lion prowled, alone.
>
> "O come and be my mate!" said the Salmon to the Clam
> You are not wise, but I am.
> I know sea and stream as well;
> You know nothing but your shell."
> Said the Clam, "I am slow of motion
> But my love is all devotion
> And I joy to have my mate traverse lake and stream and ocean!"
> They wed, and cried, "Ah, this is Love, my own!"
> And the Clam sucked, the Salmon swam, alone.
> ---Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 1899.
>
> I suppose for the literal-minded and historically uneducated I should
> add that Charlotte Perkins Gilman was a famous feminist of her time,
> and that the poem was meant to be ironic.
>
> By the way, what year IS this, anyway? When we've got people arguing
> that the "natural order of things" dictates a power inequality between
> men and women, and other people defending Freud, who not only was
> debunked but was debunked DECADES ago, I have to wonder if I somehow
> woke up in the wrong century this morning. Freud hasn't been mentioned
> in psychology graduate programs, except as a cautionary tale of theory
> unsupported by data, since the 50s. The only people who still take Freud
> seriously are lit crit and art crit types, except for small holdout
> enclaves of psychoanalysts that have no importance or influence in the
> larger world. In addition, evaluations of therapeutic interventions have
> found no appreciable improvement for people undergoing psychoanalysis,
> even after years upon years of psychoanalytic treatment, (how much has
> all his years of psychoanalysis helped Woody Allen, for example?) so in
> my opinion it doesn't make any sense to give credence to Freud and his
> notions. At worst they've done great harm (for example when women who
> were being brutally assaulted by their husbands sought law enforcement
> help but instead of the husband being brought up on charges the women
> were sent to psychiatrists who told them that they were "castrating"
> their husbands by defying the husbands' rightful authority over them and
> going to the police, and that they should go back home and stop being
> masculine and castrating and upsetting the rightful balance of power);
> at best they've created a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>
>
> Katharine Thayer
>
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:51 AM Z CST