A diseased patriarchy is in a battle to the death with women

[0_0]

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.

https://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_ ... 81117.html

[Project Willow]

It's strange to find myself in disagreement with Robin Morgan. No, fascism has not "come to the republic", it has been here all along, incubated by the very same circle of elites who've nurtured Hillary's career, a number of them notorious rapists.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton is hardly perfect, but her flaws are those of a sane human being and a politician." Tell that to the thousands of women and children around the planet who are dead thanks to Hillary Clinton's policies and actions. Imperialist regime change, and international pay to play in service of a globalist oligarchy are not "flaws". Does misogyny make it easier to push dissent into outright hatred? Absolutely, but witnessing that process shouldn't blind us to a point where we find ourselves defending sociopathy and criminal behavior.

The world has gone mad, truly.

As to the general topic of this thread, where has patriarchy brought humanity and the planet today? The most destructive impulses in this brutal system of human social organization, having successfully proliferated our species around the globe and arguably gained dominion over most of its natural systems, are continuing unchecked and now constitute an existential threat. There is no other obstacle to this hurtling juggernaut than a great unbinding and flowering of the human feminine into all relations, structures, and cultural edifices, a soft but impenetrable monolith forming into an ever deafening chorus of NO!

In other words, we are doomed.

[brekin]

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.

https://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_ ... 81117.html

I'd say getting killed, killing, maiming and maimed, wounded, traumatized, tortured, imprisoned, raped, etc. on the battlefield would make you a primary victim of war. Dealing with that person or their loss would make you a secondary. Its like air crash victims and then their grieving families.
Not to say non-combatant women aren't hugely victimized by war and its aftermath, but lets keep things in perspective.

So it seems to me we have several potentially emotional elevating topics on board right now. Many gender, race, class issues. Many highly charged. Many feel like disunity. Most feel like debate instead of diologue. I'm curious why this is? Diologue connotes discussion to me, where debate conveys hints of antagonist ego driven rivalry i.e, competition. Anyone else feel it?
As a side note, WWGD?*
What would Gurdjieff do? ..lol

Yes, feeling it. I've been reading David Bohm lately so one trap I think is "necessity" often creating conflict and derailing dialogue. I think issues get so polarized and specific now that there is a built in urgency and supposed solution that if you aren't for or anti the issue you are immediately one of "them". Even seeking to explore an issue is often seen as criticizing, obstructing, being part of the "ism" itself. The internet has made people expect immediate results with everything, even human progress, which they take for granted they know what needs fixin. Also, from Bohm again, since we identify viscerally with our "ideas" when they are attacked we feel we are attacked (because we have internalized them). I think this is doubly, trebly, true for "identity" politics as the whole supposed issue is how one defines themself, our ideas are even more supposed ourselves (but not really). So every exchange is a purported conflict or aggression if one isn't in line with the other person 100%.

Gurdjieff wasn't a beacon of openness in all matters from what I remember reading some bios. Some of this could have been just to be consistently inconsistent and testing for his followers, but he seems to have had a pretty set system not open to rejiggering by others, so I think the new identity politics would have had to mesh with his system or it would be an immediate no-go. Like two operating systems that would not be compatible from the start. But who knows maybe Caitlin Jenner is the Fifth Way, the way of the very sly, foxy, trans man.

"Why are women emotionally and spiritually so much stronger than men?"

Well that's because men lie. Starting with that Adam's rib bit. Eve was created by Ellie through parthenogenesis, Eve birthed Adam. All her female offspring had this ability and that why we all worshiped a female deity back then. Eventually, and most unfortunately, long ago women lost this marvelous ability. And that's when men saw their opportunity to turn the tables on women and take control and it's been bloody this or bloody that ever since.

You can't deny someone their own experiences, brekin. This is what her observation is as drawn from her experience and she's entitled to feel as she does without "it didn't work out for her" judgment. I daresay she's not alone with such sentiments. Trump is probably thought of as just below average, all things considered.
...

I'm not denying her experiences. I am challenging her conclusion from her experiences. I'd even give her the benefit of the doubt that many of the primary men in her life were possibly worthy of hate for her at times. But that doesn't mean all men are, or should be based on that. You really can't get more primitive guilt by association categorizing than what she is proposing. I'm not telling her what to feel. I'm telling her thinking is bunk. Its not my job to revalidate what she feels or thinks and as she herself basically says "it didn't work out for her" that is what driving her conclusion. Because obviously if it did work out for her all hunky dory, based on her logic, then she'd probably be writing the equally silly piece; "I love all men! Why doesn't everyone else?".

[Iamwhomiam]

Well, all I can say brekin, is that you're projecting what you imagine her experience was, and have little idea of it from what she's shared. Her opinion has importance and validity for her and it doesn't matter at all to her what you or I or anyone else might have to say about it, as though we had some inherent right to challenge her perspective, which could be entirely unique to her alone among all women, but feel sure it's not.

You're really stuck on "how it worked out for her." Seems to me she's doing fine

[brekin]

Well, all I can say brekin, is that you're projecting what you imagine her experience was, and have little idea of it from what she's shared. Her opinion has importance and validity for her and it doesn't matter at all to her what you or I or anyone else might have to say about it, as though we had some inherent right to challenge her perspective, which could be entirely unique to her alone among all women, but feel sure it's not.
You're really stuck on "how it worked out for her." Seems to me she's doing fine

Are we talking about the same article?
How am I projecting/imagine what her experience was when it is pretty plain, as in she tells us?
She tells us she use not hate all men as a class, but because of herown experiences with some men she thinks all women should now.
She's herself says she is no longer reasonable (logical, rational) on the matter.
And because she failed (Having tried to live with various mishaps, I realise that this is not for me and it never will be.) half the world is responsible for her failure and should be punished. Her essay is almost a caricature of the feminism that is used as the bogeyman of the right (Even after afforded institutional equal opportunity her personal failures will somehow be the patriarchies fault.)

Her whole essay can be boiled down to this sentence:
I used to think, “I don’t hate all men.” I had therapy and everything. Now, I think that any intelligent woman hates men.
An intelligent woman is going to be able and not deduce gross generalizations from her own limited experience.
Or create rank deductive fallacies.
Frank, Hank and Bernard were jerks.
Frank, Hank and Bernard are men.
Therefor all men are jerks.
I think the "therapy and everything" she had was seriously flawed.
If hating half the world is your criteria for doing fine than there really isn't much more to say.

Suzanne Moore: Why I was wrong about men
You can't hate them all, can you? Actually, I can.
By
Suzanne Moore

Men. You can’t live with them. You can’t shoot them. Well, you can, but this is the New Statesman. And modern feminism spends most of its life not just bending over backwards, but in the doggy position, saying how much it likes men. “I’m a feminist but . . . I love men.” Obviously I’m being a bit binary here, and when I write “men”, I mean women, blokes, anyone fluid enough basically to be in charge.
I once adhered to this. I didn’t want to put anyone off. I used to call feminism “sexual politics”, because that sounded way more sexy. Hey, I’m no man-hater – on the contrary. Look at me. Men? Can’t get enough of them, the poor, damaged critters. It’s not their fault. They’re as screwed up by the patriarchy as ordinary women, probably even more so.
All the special boys. What about the ones who were abused at public school and now run everything but can’t express their emotions properly? All the man victims, trapped by masculinity. Who could hate them? Their oppression is structural. You can’t hate them individually, can you?

You know what? I can. Please don’t confuse that with bitterness. I am in touch with my emotions enough to know the difference between personal hurt and class hatred. As a class, I hate men. I’ve changed my mind. I am no longer reasonable.
I want to see this class broken. There can’t be even basic equality for women without taking away the power of men – and by that I don’t mean feeling sorry for them because they have no friends or suggesting that they have small genitals. I mean the removal of their power.
When I used to give men the benefit of the doubt, that doubt was suffused with my desire for sex, babies, the whole shebang. It wasn’t difficult to get any of this, although the way in which women are encouraged to do so is stultifying.
Marriage, monogamy – a prison where you build your own walls. Familiarity breeds contempt, but this is the aftermath of romance. If you want to fetishise proximity, domesticity, and storage solutions from Ikea, why not go all the way and be a lesbian? If you want to service someone, have a baby. And if you want to rescue someone, get a dog.
Sure, there can be equitable relationships between men and women, in which one turns into the other’s carer. This is the ­optimal compromise, the prospectus that no one really gets until it’s too late.

Having tried to live with various mishaps, I realise that this is not for me and it never will be. But then, nor will the kind of reasonable feminism in which we make allowances for men. Because they are men. I have had it all my life: pro-choice marches in which men insist that they walk at the front. A left-wing party that cannot deal with a female leader. The continuing pushing back of women’s rights.
If you are interested in the liberation of women, you’ll find that the biggest barrier to this is men: men as a class. I used to think, “I don’t hate all men.” I had therapy and everything. Now, I think that any intelligent woman hates men. There are very few problems in the world that don’t have, at the root of them, male violence and woman-hating.
The more I hate men (#YesAllMen), the more I don’t mind individual ones, actually, as it is clear that some can be entertaining for a while. Before you even bother whingeing that my hatred of the taskmasters of patriarchy is somehow equivalent to systematic misogyny, to the ongoing killing, rape and torture and erasure of women, know this: I once made exceptions. I was wrong.
Suzanne Moore is a writer for the Guardian and the New Statesman. She writes the weekly “Telling Tales” column in the NS.

[LilyPatToo]

This Chris Hedges piece isn't just for trauma survivors, but since the current dumpster fire that is consuming Washington DC will soon make many (most?) of us members of that group, I figure everyone can benefit from it. You'll have to cope with the fall-out, even if you're so clueless that you fail to notice the mental and emotional rape you're receiving. And for people like me, damn--it was spot on. This shit works:

[excerpt]
...We are entering a period of national psychological trauma. We are stalked by lunatics. We are, as Judith Herman writes about trauma victims in her book “Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror,” being “rendered helpless by overwhelming force.” This trauma, like all traumas, overwhelms “the ordinary systems of care that give people a sense of control, connection, and meaning.”

To recover our mental balance we must respond to Trump the way victims of trauma respond to abuse. We must build communities where we can find understanding and solidarity. We must allow ourselves to mourn. We must name the psychosis that afflicts us. We must carry out acts of civil disobedience and steadfast defiance to re-empower others and ourselves. We must fend off the madness and engage in dialogues based on truth, literacy, empathy and reality. We must invest more time in activities such as finding solace in nature, or focusing on music, theater, literature, art and even worship—activities that hold the capacity for renewal and transcendence. This is the only way we will remain psychologically whole. Building an outer shell or attempting to hide will exacerbate our psychological distress and depression. We may not win, but we will have, if we create small, like-minded cells of defiance, the capacity not to go insane.

American Psychosis

Posted on Jan 29, 2017

By Chris Hedges

I hope you'll read the whole article: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/american_psychosis_20170129

LilyPat

[brekin]

This Chris Hedges piece isn't just for trauma survivors, but since the current dumpster fire that is consuming Washington DC will soon make many (most?) of us members of that group, I figure everyone can benefit from it. You'll have to cope with the fall-out, even if you're so clueless that you fail to notice the mental and emotional rape you're receiving. And for people like me, damn--it was spot on. This shit works:

[excerpt]
...We are entering a period of national psychological trauma. We are stalked by lunatics. We are, as Judith Herman writes about trauma victims in her book “Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror,” being “rendered helpless by overwhelming force.” This trauma, like all traumas, overwhelms “the ordinary systems of care that give people a sense of control, connection, and meaning.”

To recover our mental balance we must respond to Trump the way victims of trauma respond to abuse. We must build communities where we can find understanding and solidarity. We must allow ourselves to mourn. We must name the psychosis that afflicts us. We must carry out acts of civil disobedience and steadfast defiance to re-empower others and ourselves. We must fend off the madness and engage in dialogues based on truth, literacy, empathy and reality. We must invest more time in activities such as finding solace in nature, or focusing on music, theater, literature, art and even worship—activities that hold the capacity for renewal and transcendence. This is the only way we will remain psychologically whole. Building an outer shell or attempting to hide will exacerbate our psychological distress and depression. We may not win, but we will have, if we create small, like-minded cells of defiance, the capacity not to go insane.

American Psychosis
Posted on Jan 29, 2017
By Chris Hedges
I hope you'll read the whole article: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/american_psychosis_20170129
LilyPat

Well I'm a big fan of Albert Ellis, REBT, and the danger of "mustaboratory thinking" causing psychological problems.
The above is a good example of setting absolute conditions (musts) to maintain or recover mental health.
Which can and often does create more mental troubles or exacerbates existing ones.
The above actually goes a step farther saying this is the only way.
I'd say its a prescription for living the next 4 years in acute stress and unhappiness, if not a lifetime, as there is no way of accomplishing and meeting all or most of the musts, all the time or even ever, setting oneself up for failure of the single solution provided.

The Three Majors Musts
We all express ourselves differently, but the irrational beliefs that upset us can be placed under three major headings. Each of these core beliefs contains an absolutistic must or demand.
...

http://www.rebtnetwork.org/library/musts.html

[0_0]

Why we should close women's prisons and treat their crimes more fairly
Mirko Bagaric

Sentencing systems around the world should be radically reformed to start with the assumption that women should not be sent to prison for their crimes

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ore-fairly

[liminalOyster]

This Chris Hedges piece isn't just for trauma survivors, but since the current dumpster fire that is consuming Washington DC will soon make many (most?) of us members of that group, I figure everyone can benefit from it. You'll have to cope with the fall-out, even if you're so clueless that you fail to notice the mental and emotional rape you're receiving. And for people like me, damn--it was spot on. This shit works:

[excerpt]
...We are entering a period of national psychological trauma. We are stalked by lunatics. We are, as Judith Herman writes about trauma victims in her book “Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror,” being “rendered helpless by overwhelming force.” This trauma, like all traumas, overwhelms “the ordinary systems of care that give people a sense of control, connection, and meaning.”

To recover our mental balance we must respond to Trump the way victims of trauma respond to abuse. We must build communities where we can find understanding and solidarity. We must allow ourselves to mourn. We must name the psychosis that afflicts us. We must carry out acts of civil disobedience and steadfast defiance to re-empower others and ourselves. We must fend off the madness and engage in dialogues based on truth, literacy, empathy and reality. We must invest more time in activities such as finding solace in nature, or focusing on music, theater, literature, art and even worship—activities that hold the capacity for renewal and transcendence. This is the only way we will remain psychologically whole. Building an outer shell or attempting to hide will exacerbate our psychological distress and depression. We may not win, but we will have, if we create small, like-minded cells of defiance, the capacity not to go insane.

American Psychosis

Posted on Jan 29, 2017

By Chris Hedges

I hope you'll read the whole article: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/american_psychosis_20170129

LilyPat

I like Hedges very much and I like this piece. But it gives me a bit of pause or curiosity because of how he extends the trauma metaphor from the body to the body politic. I like the message and the call to action but I don't feel it's an entirely responsible use of what we know about trauma. Mostly, because one of the central most aspects of healing from trauma is about re-inhabiting the body whereas action and solidarity-building, although important, are secondary (maybe concurrent temporally but not equivalent in terms of importance to healing.) I felt this way about 9/11 too when I heard the APA speculating that children in the midwest could develop PTSD simply by watching footage of the towers on TV. It seems somehow insulting to people all over the world, most of whom (arguably) throughout time have lived with far greater and more pervasive calamity.

[Morty]

The Hedges piece fell a little bit flat with me, mainly because yesterday I finally got around to reading an essay Wombaticus posted an excerpt from a few days ago, and I liked this essay a lot. Very novel. Maybe others might find it interesting:

https://medium.com/deep-code/situationa ... .3eoxqejhx

[Heaven Swan]

Thanks for the article LilyPatToo,

On one hand I consider Chris Hedges to be a national treasure. His writing is insightful and chock full of great metaphors--BTW you got a good one in there too Lily-- the current dumpster fire consuming Washington DC haha-- but I often sense an underlying depression or defeat under Chris's words.

Maybe, and this ties in with your comment LO, Chris needs to do some trauma healing of his own. A low level, underlying sense of despair can be a feature of PTSD and he spent many years in war zones...

[liminalOyster]

Maybe, and this ties in with your comment LO, Chris needs to do some trauma healing of his own. A low level, underlying sense of despair can be a feature of PTSD and he spent many years in war zones...

I had the same thought, HS. Maybe war is a force that gives us meaning even when we're fighting on the side of good, liberation, or the wretched of the earth.

[Luther Blissett]

Agreed with both of you about Hedges's own state and the underlying current through his work. I would like to see him organize with others on some kind of positive project - or just something influenced by that thinking.

[brekin]

Chris Hedges is a plagiarist, creates war propaganda (penned a series after 9/11 that won a pulitizer at the NYT which was used as fodder to attack Iraq, which turned out to be completely baseless), a war voyeur, a professional agitator and cage rattler, and now it appears with that last excerpt trying to create a "traumatized class" of the body politic in perpetual recovery. So now he can add "Shock programmer" to his resume.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34179&start=150

[Iamwhomiam]

I was wrong above, you know. The only chastening device should be a male-worn appliance.