who would write such a thing though???????????!!!!!!pic.twitter.com/UfhZ64k2QV
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
oh dear she's on twitter
@SuzannaDWalters please Become Good as soon as possible
<3 a friendly robothttps://twitter.com/SuzannaDWalters/status/1005445560730611712 …
If Freud were alive today (hate him or not, he's a useful character in the story I'm about to tell), he would postulate a "signaling drive" (irresistible urge to signal to ingroup), which he would consider to be closely related to "death drive."
Hm? I feel Freud would see claims like "why can't we hate men?" as a manifestation of ego-id conflict regarding the Electra complex: to deny they love men is to refuse to identify as a competitor for their fathers' affection, conflicting with their id's desire to possess him.
I don't see how the two interpretations are incompatible though.
They aren't; a refusal to identify as a competitor (and instead to identify with the mother/"women") is equivalent to a "signaling drive", but it also suggests a psychosexual causal mechanism in addition to describing the behavior. I figure Freud wouldn't invent a new word.
Freud loved inventing drives though (e.g. his death drive is pure invention).
One thing I notice is that all ideologies seem to have some kind of psychosexual underpinning. marxism -- promise of free love after dissolution of families into communes feminism -- leveling of sexual competition monarchism -- tradwives? libertinism?
You know how they say "sex sells"? They weren't talking about consumer goods.
Less pithily: Eric Hoffman's "The True Believer" claims that "the frustrated" are the ones who ultimately take up radical ideologies. What sort of "frustration" might he have meant?
Perhaps there’s no implication here. She’s just writing a piece on why we shouldn’t hate men.
I’ve always found these pieces to be goofy because the ideal world “where men wouldn’t be a problem” would need to incriminate women following social norms that were created under patriarchal institutions in the first place. If you read FemIR this is quite clear
Because they propose for instance that men are inherently more aggressive than women in leadership positions, but said leadership positions wouldn’t need to exist if they somehow reverted the world to said matriarchal standards (according to their assumptions) since there’s no
way to “ban men from top diplomacy and military positions” without allowing this stereotype to be generally accepted among society in the first place.
oh gosh I do not read this literature is there anything worthwhile there or will it just give me nosebleed?
It’s really bad, they once said that the prisoner dilemma doesn’t apply to women because altruism or something.
Opinions: Why can’t we have opinions?
opinions are like ideas but even deadlierhttps://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/946097184750964737 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.