I appreciate the sophistication and aptness of your argument.
This last week has been phantasmagoric. Trump's nominations are not normal. Attempts to explain them are attempts to move "the line" as to how we perceive the world. My line is not moving.
“Phantasmagoric” captures it perfectly. It’s why Descartes seemed so apt, despite the centuries that separate us. I know so many people that feel crazy, depressed, out-of-balance, disbelieving even though events tell us what happened. I wanted to write a post that would speak to that shared experience.
I’ve had a somewhat delayed reaction. Perhaps it was the slew of nominations that made it finally sink in. I’m really quite sad about what’s going on. Grief is not too strong of a word.
For me, this is one of your best posts, or maybe it's just what I needed now. Since the election I have felt completely unanchored in time, and fearful of writing my usual technical subject matter because of so many parallels I see with social engineering in my service field and all the dark "political technology" we are witnessing. The cultures of abuse have too much in common.
Thank you Kevin! I wanted to capture what people are feeling, but through a “back door,” so it wouldn’t just repeat what has been said elsewhere. So a comment like yours makes me feel I accomplished that—at least for you. Thanks again!
It was a tonic, a healthy-but-heavy-on the green juice smoothie to read these three points laid out....How quickly we forget that facts took a hit quite a while ago, that gender is a beast that hangs around our houses looking for table scraps and conflict, that no one reads Simone deBeauvoir anymore. Oh! and the "pseudo-event!" And the media's crocodile tears! Please keep remembering for the rest of us whose brains are turning to mush....
Your brain is hardly mush. But I do appreciate your encouragement for me to keep doing what I do. Sometimes I wonder if it has a place in our culture anymore. And hey—can’t wait for you to start posting yourself. Other commentators: be on the look out for Binnie’s new substack, coming soon!
Oh my god, you have no idea what this means to me. I really did write it with exactly these goals in mind. But nowadays, you never know what will hurt rather than help. Thanks so much for telling me it helped you. It helped me to write it, too.
Thank you so much for this post. I especially loved your distinction between discussing ideas as mental gyrations or ends in-and-of themselves versus trying to understand why some ideas catch on in the popular imagination. The ground has somehow previously been seeded — or stripped. And I guess that’s where sociology and psychology enter the picture. I’m a fairly new subscriber and I’m glad I’ve found my way to your substack.
I’m glad you found your way here too. And that you get the fact that we can’t do history of ideas without looking to sociology and psychology. Looking forward to your participation in conversations here!
Watching the shadows dancing on the walls of the cave…how does the human animal crawl out of the cave and look into the light? By following Donald Trump? Great post, Susan. I also resonated with your discussion of Simone. Her famous male gaze/looking through a keyhole in the door…the intensity of the pain and disgust women must be feeling after the unimaginable happened in the White House must be indescribable. Thank you for sharing this.
You’re welcome, Terry. It’s such an awful time, for a while I wondered if I could still write about it. But then, overnight—as it often happens—the idea for this one came to me. It’s not a “happy” stack, but I believe it’s always worth it when people feel their experience is being captured in some way.
Finally. I’m finally seeing someone again publicly writing what a few of us outside the halls of academia and journalistic recognition have been talking with each other about after reading in our youth Jerry Mander’s _Four Arguments For the Elimination of Television_ and Neal Postman’s _Amusing Ourselves to Death_.
Thanks! I’ve been doing it for many years. But (not surprisingly) the corporate media hasn’t wanted to hear from me. They were great “friends” when I wrote about eating disorders and masculinity and Anne Boleyn—reviewed my books, interviewed me, etc.—but my books criticizing THEM have been ignored. Nice to have gotten some recognition here for what I’ve been writing about since the mid-nineties. Thanks!!
Incidentally, I’m personally very bothered by Woman as Other (going back in Western history at least as far the early Classical era), and resist that manner of thinking in every way I can.
We find many good arguments that patriarchy is as bad for men as it is for women.
Just reading your mention of "a bit of high-school" even in its deprecating context lifts my spirit. Memories aside, your explanation brought me to appreciate the pedagogical strategy that you explain here.
Yeah, Weequahic really did provide a shared experience that’s shaped and stuck with lots of us. Re. My pedagogical strategy: I loved bridging the gap between the “great ideas” and students’ experience. It’s what kept me teaching for long after others had retired. But things started to change during my last couple of years: students much less open to even discussing anything on the list of “sexist, racist, classist, homophobic” etc. writers. But that’s a whole other story!
It’s always interesting to me to read someone who is obviously quite bright and learned, yet comes to an absurd conclusion. To me it seems obvious Harris was the worst major party presidential candidate in generations. She spent $1 billion very poorly and could not articulate a convincing positive agenda. She went on a podcast hosted by a Muslim and raved about the wonders of bacon. She couldn’t handle even the softest of softball questions from friendly media. At a time when 79% of the public feels we’re on the wrong track, she couldn’t think of anything she’d do differently from Biden.
Perhaps her defeat had something to do with her being female, but it’s silly to think that was the main reason for her loss.
Susan,
I appreciate the sophistication and aptness of your argument.
This last week has been phantasmagoric. Trump's nominations are not normal. Attempts to explain them are attempts to move "the line" as to how we perceive the world. My line is not moving.
“Phantasmagoric” captures it perfectly. It’s why Descartes seemed so apt, despite the centuries that separate us. I know so many people that feel crazy, depressed, out-of-balance, disbelieving even though events tell us what happened. I wanted to write a post that would speak to that shared experience.
I’ve had a somewhat delayed reaction. Perhaps it was the slew of nominations that made it finally sink in. I’m really quite sad about what’s going on. Grief is not too strong of a word.
Not too strong at all. It does feel like a death.
Maybe time for us to do a co-authored post?
Would love that. Will send you an email about connecting.
For me, this is one of your best posts, or maybe it's just what I needed now. Since the election I have felt completely unanchored in time, and fearful of writing my usual technical subject matter because of so many parallels I see with social engineering in my service field and all the dark "political technology" we are witnessing. The cultures of abuse have too much in common.
Thank you Kevin! I wanted to capture what people are feeling, but through a “back door,” so it wouldn’t just repeat what has been said elsewhere. So a comment like yours makes me feel I accomplished that—at least for you. Thanks again!
It was a tonic, a healthy-but-heavy-on the green juice smoothie to read these three points laid out....How quickly we forget that facts took a hit quite a while ago, that gender is a beast that hangs around our houses looking for table scraps and conflict, that no one reads Simone deBeauvoir anymore. Oh! and the "pseudo-event!" And the media's crocodile tears! Please keep remembering for the rest of us whose brains are turning to mush....
Your brain is hardly mush. But I do appreciate your encouragement for me to keep doing what I do. Sometimes I wonder if it has a place in our culture anymore. And hey—can’t wait for you to start posting yourself. Other commentators: be on the look out for Binnie’s new substack, coming soon!
Susan, your incisive analysis is a delight to read. 💕🌺
Thank you so much!! “Incisive” and “delight” are words that warm my heart.
Thank you. Amazing writing that puts the world in perspective, really helps my anxiety levels right now.
Oh my god, you have no idea what this means to me. I really did write it with exactly these goals in mind. But nowadays, you never know what will hurt rather than help. Thanks so much for telling me it helped you. It helped me to write it, too.
Thank you so much for this post. I especially loved your distinction between discussing ideas as mental gyrations or ends in-and-of themselves versus trying to understand why some ideas catch on in the popular imagination. The ground has somehow previously been seeded — or stripped. And I guess that’s where sociology and psychology enter the picture. I’m a fairly new subscriber and I’m glad I’ve found my way to your substack.
I’m glad you found your way here too. And that you get the fact that we can’t do history of ideas without looking to sociology and psychology. Looking forward to your participation in conversations here!
Watching the shadows dancing on the walls of the cave…how does the human animal crawl out of the cave and look into the light? By following Donald Trump? Great post, Susan. I also resonated with your discussion of Simone. Her famous male gaze/looking through a keyhole in the door…the intensity of the pain and disgust women must be feeling after the unimaginable happened in the White House must be indescribable. Thank you for sharing this.
You’re welcome, Terry. It’s such an awful time, for a while I wondered if I could still write about it. But then, overnight—as it often happens—the idea for this one came to me. It’s not a “happy” stack, but I believe it’s always worth it when people feel their experience is being captured in some way.
Excellent article!
Thank you Elwood!! Great to see your participation here.
Finally. I’m finally seeing someone again publicly writing what a few of us outside the halls of academia and journalistic recognition have been talking with each other about after reading in our youth Jerry Mander’s _Four Arguments For the Elimination of Television_ and Neal Postman’s _Amusing Ourselves to Death_.
Thanks! I’ve been doing it for many years. But (not surprisingly) the corporate media hasn’t wanted to hear from me. They were great “friends” when I wrote about eating disorders and masculinity and Anne Boleyn—reviewed my books, interviewed me, etc.—but my books criticizing THEM have been ignored. Nice to have gotten some recognition here for what I’ve been writing about since the mid-nineties. Thanks!!
Incidentally, I’m personally very bothered by Woman as Other (going back in Western history at least as far the early Classical era), and resist that manner of thinking in every way I can.
We find many good arguments that patriarchy is as bad for men as it is for women.
Just reading your mention of "a bit of high-school" even in its deprecating context lifts my spirit. Memories aside, your explanation brought me to appreciate the pedagogical strategy that you explain here.
Yeah, Weequahic really did provide a shared experience that’s shaped and stuck with lots of us. Re. My pedagogical strategy: I loved bridging the gap between the “great ideas” and students’ experience. It’s what kept me teaching for long after others had retired. But things started to change during my last couple of years: students much less open to even discussing anything on the list of “sexist, racist, classist, homophobic” etc. writers. But that’s a whole other story!
It’s always interesting to me to read someone who is obviously quite bright and learned, yet comes to an absurd conclusion. To me it seems obvious Harris was the worst major party presidential candidate in generations. She spent $1 billion very poorly and could not articulate a convincing positive agenda. She went on a podcast hosted by a Muslim and raved about the wonders of bacon. She couldn’t handle even the softest of softball questions from friendly media. At a time when 79% of the public feels we’re on the wrong track, she couldn’t think of anything she’d do differently from Biden.
Perhaps her defeat had something to do with her being female, but it’s silly to think that was the main reason for her loss.