• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Barbara Walters

I have always admired marving missiles. Now, at last, I have given birth to a marving thread.

But why the POLITICS of Derrida. The business on forgiveness has nothing to do with politics (unless you are trying to forgive and your name is Hillary, in which case it become political).

But, were it political, then we could not discuss it under forum rules.
 
Sitaram said:
I have always admired marving missiles. Now, at last, I have given birth to a marving thread.

But why the POLITICS of Derrida. The business on forgiveness has nothing to do with politics (unless you are trying to forgive and your name is Hillary, in which case it become political).

But, were it political, then we could not discuss it under forum rules.
Click to expand...

Er, I guess because of the Hiroshima ref below, but, well, never mind. It's gone up in a puff of smoke. Besides, isn't everything political, even (or especially) philosophy? Now that Moto has turned the deep-fried turkey thread into a battleground for the sexes I'm watching my back everywhere. Politics can arise at any moment from the most unlikely sources. (How big a deep-fryer do you need to fit Hillary in?)

The only real Derrida joke I know is the one about the chicken crossing the road, but that's pretty lame.
 
A psychiatrist once remarked to a yogi that all religion is repressed sexuality. The yogi retorted that all sexuality is repressed religion. But since everything is ultimately political, including anarchy, then I suppose both the psychiatrist and the yogi were mistaken.

And since everything is ultimately political, therefore we should all be bound, gagged, and banned.
 
Sitaram said:
And since everything is ultimately political, therefore we should all be bound, gagged, and banned.
Click to expand...

Since everything is ultimately sexual, we should all be bound, gagged, and flogged. Unless it's religious, in which case we can be bound, gagged and self-flaggellated, like in Opus Dei, that very exclusive sexual-political-religious-masochists' club. But let's not get into Dan Brown, that's really controversial. Or Michael Brown, that's really controversial. Or John Brown, he's really political. Charlie Brown, however, is okay and literary. As Charlie Brown so often says, "Ugh." :)
 
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! All this talk of bondage is making me horney, (and I don't mean Dr. Karen Horney, pronounced horn-eye, with the stress on the final syllable.)

(thought bubble....) I must find some level on which to communicate. My next post shall broach the subject of flatulence... ah the tragic efforts of a pedant to "fit in"
 
Rest assured, there's more than one kind of hot air. :p

I wouldn't worry about fitting in too much, Sitty.

Do you have any opinion on The Bell Curve or the latest musings by Charles Murray? (How's that for pot-stirring?)
 
huh?

- Sitaram you posted a joke?
- people got upset about the joke
- sarcastic/dry posts
-politics, philosophy and religion
- a link to deep fryers
- Sitaram got horney

all this and more in a thread entitled Barbara Walters..is this for real or is it all a coffee induced hallucination? How'd I manage to miss all this??

Oh and Sitaram I'm sure i'll be able to post something deep and meaningful if you ever get that flatulence thread going :D
 
Gem said:
huh?

- Sitaram you posted a joke?
- people got upset about the joke
- sarcastic/dry posts
-politics, philosophy and religion
- a link to deep fryers
- Sitaram got horney

all this and more in a thread entitled Barbara Walters..is this for real or is it all a coffee induced hallucination? How'd I manage to miss all this??

Oh and Sitaram I'm sure i'll be able to post something deep and meaningful if you ever get that flatulence thread going :D
Click to expand...


Gem, you are confused. If you read between the lines of my double entendre, I was trying to find a clever way to introduce the topic of Dr. Karen Horney, one of Freuds many disciples who deserted, and supposedly the first woman in German to earn an M.D., but I would need to research that. Karen Horney came to America and observed that neurosis can develop in a shy person surrounded by a sexualized society just as readily as an highly sexual person in the surroundings of a sexually repressed Victorian society.

As I search on google just now, I begin to suspect that I was mistaken about Horney being the first M.D. in Germany. Apparently she was the first woman ever to present a paper at a Psychoanalytic Conference.

http://womanthismonth.com/mar_womenachieve.htm

And here is what Dr. Horney said about "womb envy".

Is not the tremendous strength in men of the impulse to creative work in every field precisely due to their feeling of playing a relatively small part in the creation of living beings, which constantly impels them to overcompensation in achievement?


You know how, sometimes, Mums (I'm trying to be more British here), will hide the bitter medicine in something sweet and appealing, like applesauce.
 
th_popcorn.gif
 
Karen Horney posits every natural impulse and desire as a pathology, some kind of neurosis with varying degrees of debillitation. I just don't buy any of that. The womb envy thing is a good example. As a counterpart to penis envy, the assumption is that anyone of any gender has no self acceptance or satisfaction in that gender, biologically or socially. That's really a load of bull.

Further, all the impulses of normal life--to find a mate, to be liked, to perform well--are not neuroses (as Horney proposed), but some of the most healthy and natural desires of human life.

What's good about her theories, Sitty?
 
She is the only one with a last name like "horney" which lends itself to double entendre.


As I mentioned previously, I feel the real potential for discussion in this thread is why this woman in Kuala Lumpur takes an interest in the email which she forwards. I suspect it has to do with the manner in which women are marginalized. Karen Horney was apparently humiliated by Freud, who did not feel comfortable working with women who take a role of leadership. So, whether Karen Horney is correct or not in her theories, she does represent a first of sorts in the history of women in quest of hegemony.


I am always trying to strike up something interesting and half-way intelligent, without resorting to ad hominem. I think mine is a rather positive approach. Anyone can throw spitballs and pick nits. The challenge is to go way out on a limb, risk criticism and failure, but attempt something substantial, something of significance.
 
Sitaram said:
I am always trying to strike up something interesting and half-way intelligent, without resorting to ad hominem. I think mine is a rather positive approach. Anyone can throw spitballs and pick nits. The challenge is to go way out on a limb, risk criticism and failure, but attempt something substantial, something of significance.
Click to expand...

But you're not doing that. You pose questions that you decline to offer answers to and introduce topics that you decline to discuss. As I said previously, you deflect and retreat, as you are doing here.

Perhaps the woman in Kuala Lumpur thought that you might enjoy the email and she wanted to please you. Maybe she herself is so marginalized that her foremost wish was to send you something for your enjoyment. Maybe she doesn't know who Barbara Walters is. The problem with this question is that only you and she have any insight into your friend's unique position vis-a-vis her society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top