There are a couple of things here that I think are inverted----and notably, that folks on 4chan likely also have not notice is inverted.
First, grassroots-left and establishment-liberal aren't equivalent, so it's inaccurate to frame a collective shadow of the two. More, the fighting spirit of grassroots movements (which is especially prevalent right now, but always has been), is pushed out of establishment-liberal politics in favor of incremental change (sometimes this is good and more sustainable, sometimes it isn't). This fighting spirit that is the shadow is held across the political spectrum. Where the difference lies is that the grassroots-left had already directed some of this during the Civil Rights movement (or done some of the shadow work), so it's more difficult for a demagogue to highjack it. And Trump TRIED, his 2000 presidential campaign included pro-gay, universal healthcare, and anti-nazi sentiment. He was not successful at convincing these folks that authoritarian solutions were what they needed, so he gave up and went shadow-right instead, eventually creating MAGA. He does not believe a word out of his own mouth.
Second, western culture has been framing masculinity as a shadow of femininity since at least Victorian London (likely much longer); it predates our current political dynamic. Girls are taught to be women, and boys are taught to not be women. Don't wear women's clothes, don't be gentle, don't be too emotional, don't hug other men, don't bake, don't be submissive, etc. When asked to define masculinity without any negatives, it's difficult to answer.
Here we see grassroots-left may demonize this shadow-masculinity (whether sardonically via the John-ceiling or strictly with no balance between positive heterosocial interactions & objectification). Whereas establishment-liberalism leans more towards rebuilding masculinity and femininity simultaneously. (Let men cry and women make mistakes, reduce violence and loneliness, again, small incremental changes.) While there is a stark difference here in response to masculinity, these are both responses--not the original act of suppression. Men in the past did this to us by introducing policing of femininity to centralize power--->controlling the court behavior of women to control their heirs in England, demonizing women to justify jailing them and giving their land to a landlord during the witch trials, breaking established gender protections to force women to marry in Norway, etc. The more femininity was defined and policed, the more masculinity became a shadow.
If feminity is policed, it is feminity that is the shadow, no? It means feminity is not providing the overarching ideal for the society, something else is, and that means the things that don't fit the ideal become the society's shadow. Feminists say that society is structured in favor of men, that definitely was true in the past, as you were saying. It even seems to me that the old masculine ideal was one of the big causes of World War I: people were just too ready and eager to resolve disputes through war.
I don't think anyone really of any significance or influence claims that men and women are biologically the same. That seems like a strawman, repeated ad nauseum.
Brodski was raised in an apocalyptic Christian cult, I don't know if he's really representative of liberal discourse, or if, considering his anti-woke public positions, is someone who is even worth taking at their word on this particular anecdote.
You describe it as a "white lie" but who is telling this lie? Not anyone I know at least, and that includes some pretty radical lefties. The only people I hear repeating this stuff are people pursuing some kind of anti-woke narrative.
He's reporting his own experience here, and I'm sure he didn't pick up that notion from the cult he grew up in. It's a vibe. Even bringing up the subject of the ways in which men are better than women feels like quite the taboo (which isn't true for the reverse).
Actually, now that you bring it up, I did now a feminist once who thought women could be just as strong as male powerlifters.
"He's reporting his own experience here, and I'm sure he didn't pick up that notion from the cult he grew up in. "
That's my point. I'm skeptical he's being totally on the level on what exactly his prior beliefs were, and how representative that is of the "liberal discourse" in any meaningful way.
"Actually, now that you bring it up, I did now a feminist once who thought women could be just as strong as male powerlifters."
There's some room for nuance you're missing here. There is a difference between a feminist saying that a female powerlifter can be as strong as a male powerlifter, saying that the average female powerlifter is as strong as the average male powerlifter, and saying that a specific female powerlifter is as strong as the strongest male powerlifter.
Please find a reference which describes the nature of our collective Wetiko psychosis, the author of which is steeped in both Tibetan Buddhism and Jungian psychology too;
There are a couple of things here that I think are inverted----and notably, that folks on 4chan likely also have not notice is inverted.
First, grassroots-left and establishment-liberal aren't equivalent, so it's inaccurate to frame a collective shadow of the two. More, the fighting spirit of grassroots movements (which is especially prevalent right now, but always has been), is pushed out of establishment-liberal politics in favor of incremental change (sometimes this is good and more sustainable, sometimes it isn't). This fighting spirit that is the shadow is held across the political spectrum. Where the difference lies is that the grassroots-left had already directed some of this during the Civil Rights movement (or done some of the shadow work), so it's more difficult for a demagogue to highjack it. And Trump TRIED, his 2000 presidential campaign included pro-gay, universal healthcare, and anti-nazi sentiment. He was not successful at convincing these folks that authoritarian solutions were what they needed, so he gave up and went shadow-right instead, eventually creating MAGA. He does not believe a word out of his own mouth.
Second, western culture has been framing masculinity as a shadow of femininity since at least Victorian London (likely much longer); it predates our current political dynamic. Girls are taught to be women, and boys are taught to not be women. Don't wear women's clothes, don't be gentle, don't be too emotional, don't hug other men, don't bake, don't be submissive, etc. When asked to define masculinity without any negatives, it's difficult to answer.
Here we see grassroots-left may demonize this shadow-masculinity (whether sardonically via the John-ceiling or strictly with no balance between positive heterosocial interactions & objectification). Whereas establishment-liberalism leans more towards rebuilding masculinity and femininity simultaneously. (Let men cry and women make mistakes, reduce violence and loneliness, again, small incremental changes.) While there is a stark difference here in response to masculinity, these are both responses--not the original act of suppression. Men in the past did this to us by introducing policing of femininity to centralize power--->controlling the court behavior of women to control their heirs in England, demonizing women to justify jailing them and giving their land to a landlord during the witch trials, breaking established gender protections to force women to marry in Norway, etc. The more femininity was defined and policed, the more masculinity became a shadow.
If feminity is policed, it is feminity that is the shadow, no? It means feminity is not providing the overarching ideal for the society, something else is, and that means the things that don't fit the ideal become the society's shadow. Feminists say that society is structured in favor of men, that definitely was true in the past, as you were saying. It even seems to me that the old masculine ideal was one of the big causes of World War I: people were just too ready and eager to resolve disputes through war.
Appreciate the effortpost!
I don't think anyone really of any significance or influence claims that men and women are biologically the same. That seems like a strawman, repeated ad nauseum.
It's a vibe disseminated through the culture. Some people fall for it, as I quoted.
Brodski was raised in an apocalyptic Christian cult, I don't know if he's really representative of liberal discourse, or if, considering his anti-woke public positions, is someone who is even worth taking at their word on this particular anecdote.
You describe it as a "white lie" but who is telling this lie? Not anyone I know at least, and that includes some pretty radical lefties. The only people I hear repeating this stuff are people pursuing some kind of anti-woke narrative.
He's reporting his own experience here, and I'm sure he didn't pick up that notion from the cult he grew up in. It's a vibe. Even bringing up the subject of the ways in which men are better than women feels like quite the taboo (which isn't true for the reverse).
Actually, now that you bring it up, I did now a feminist once who thought women could be just as strong as male powerlifters.
"He's reporting his own experience here, and I'm sure he didn't pick up that notion from the cult he grew up in. "
That's my point. I'm skeptical he's being totally on the level on what exactly his prior beliefs were, and how representative that is of the "liberal discourse" in any meaningful way.
"Actually, now that you bring it up, I did now a feminist once who thought women could be just as strong as male powerlifters."
There's some room for nuance you're missing here. There is a difference between a feminist saying that a female powerlifter can be as strong as a male powerlifter, saying that the average female powerlifter is as strong as the average male powerlifter, and saying that a specific female powerlifter is as strong as the strongest male powerlifter.
In fact you can find just that sort of nuance when querying perplexity here: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-a-female-powerlifter-be-as-fLhAgBBZTzKyClcZsFl5Dw#0
Collapsing nuance isn't rational. Brodski is fighting culture war beefs.
Very interesting.
Please find a reference which describes the nature of our collective Wetiko psychosis, the author of which is steeped in both Tibetan Buddhism and Jungian psychology too;
http://www.awakeninthedream.com/undreaming-wetiko-introduction
And another set of references re the human situation, especially in the now-time of "2025"
http://beezone.com/current/stresschemistry.html
http://beezone.com/current/frustrationuniverdisease.html
http://beezone.com/adida/quandramamashikhara/thelawofpleasuredomeedit.html The PLEASURE DOME Law
http://beezone.com/latest/death_message.html Death as the Constant Message of Life
http://beezone.com/whats-new
http://fearnomore.vision/human/what-man-represents
Narcissus & the Oedipal Drama
http://beezone.com/adida/narcissus.html
http://beezone.com/current/beyoedip.html
http://beezone.com/adida/transcendyourinvisiblescriptedit.html