Sounds like another man trying to blame the attacks on women's uniqueness and attempted erasure of women on women. He fails to acknowledge that women have been in the forefront of the pushback against this toxic male supremacist transgender ideology. Psychology and psychiatry have never been hard sciences. Many of it's cherished beliefs grew out of the fervid minds of testosterone soaked misogynists like Freud, Jung and the like. Once this effort to expose trans fraud is taken over by the Jordan Peterson's, Ben Sharpiro's, Charlie Kirk's and their likes, women will be at just as great a risk of losing our identity to the same narrow stereotypes; instead of the hypersexual femme, it will be the submissive traditional wife ever loyal to the patriarchy. A choice between a rock and a hard place, or more likely, the devil and the deep blue sea.
I might add that this idea is more than a half-century old by now. R D Laing (interestingly who started out in Tavistock) introduced the idea of depathologizing pathologies like schizophrenia, a “reaction to crazy society”. He sort of epitomized turning inside out the concept of helping people to function.
People seem to discover this direction very 15 years or so, but assigning the problem to femininity is a new swing of the pendulum. Someone needs to be the scapegoat.
It couldn’t be that the conceptual underpinnings are problematic a priori, but by now they are more a posteriori.
The feminization of academia is real. Even military history has been affected. Conferences call for papers that de-prioritize "hierarchy" -- i.e. rank and order of battle -- for "self care" narratives and other such flimflam. Sex difference has been recognized as a key driver of human conflict since Herodotus, but even tenured professors risk cancellation if they dare to talk about it. All the older, male professors I know are talking about the flattening of department hierarchies by the women in charge.
how interesting that interview was. I can't claim to have understood it fully. But his 'hyper-feminised group of people' was a striking idea. I didn't know if he was including real women in this group or not. It does seem that there is a fashion for certain actual women in certain cultures and situations to create that hyper-feminised image of themselves through different forms of plastic surgery, and likewise for men who'd like to be women, to do the same. But, these images of human females, whether highjacked by men, or utilised by women, are blatantly and with no shame, about male desire. So does that not mean in the end that the whole thing is about the human organ called the penis?
Sounds like another man trying to blame the attacks on women's uniqueness and attempted erasure of women on women. He fails to acknowledge that women have been in the forefront of the pushback against this toxic male supremacist transgender ideology. Psychology and psychiatry have never been hard sciences. Many of it's cherished beliefs grew out of the fervid minds of testosterone soaked misogynists like Freud, Jung and the like. Once this effort to expose trans fraud is taken over by the Jordan Peterson's, Ben Sharpiro's, Charlie Kirk's and their likes, women will be at just as great a risk of losing our identity to the same narrow stereotypes; instead of the hypersexual femme, it will be the submissive traditional wife ever loyal to the patriarchy. A choice between a rock and a hard place, or more likely, the devil and the deep blue sea.
I might add that this idea is more than a half-century old by now. R D Laing (interestingly who started out in Tavistock) introduced the idea of depathologizing pathologies like schizophrenia, a “reaction to crazy society”. He sort of epitomized turning inside out the concept of helping people to function.
People seem to discover this direction very 15 years or so, but assigning the problem to femininity is a new swing of the pendulum. Someone needs to be the scapegoat.
It couldn’t be that the conceptual underpinnings are problematic a priori, but by now they are more a posteriori.
The feminization of academia is real. Even military history has been affected. Conferences call for papers that de-prioritize "hierarchy" -- i.e. rank and order of battle -- for "self care" narratives and other such flimflam. Sex difference has been recognized as a key driver of human conflict since Herodotus, but even tenured professors risk cancellation if they dare to talk about it. All the older, male professors I know are talking about the flattening of department hierarchies by the women in charge.
how interesting that interview was. I can't claim to have understood it fully. But his 'hyper-feminised group of people' was a striking idea. I didn't know if he was including real women in this group or not. It does seem that there is a fashion for certain actual women in certain cultures and situations to create that hyper-feminised image of themselves through different forms of plastic surgery, and likewise for men who'd like to be women, to do the same. But, these images of human females, whether highjacked by men, or utilised by women, are blatantly and with no shame, about male desire. So does that not mean in the end that the whole thing is about the human organ called the penis?