Category: male/female relationship

why people should be able to pick the bathroom they want to use

by Andrea Elizabeth

  1. the women’s bathroom lines can be too long.
  2. urinals do not provide enough privacy and there aren’t enough stalls.
  3. men in the men’s room should not be subjected to the eyes of gay, female identifying men.
  4. women in the women’s room should not be subjected to the eyes of gay, male identifying women.
  5. if a straight female identifying man is in the women’s bathroom, the girls should be able to flee to the men’s.
  6. vice versa.
  7. if there is a fleeing woman in the men’s bathroom, the men should be able to go to the women’s bathroom that has a straight female identifying man in it.
  8. vice versa.

if this is feminism, I’m not in

by Andrea Elizabeth

*contains spoilers*

On the plane home last night they played The Intern. I did not purchase the headphones, so I just watched the body language and filled in the gaps with the plot on wikipedia. So they pick the most sympathetic actress to play a successful entrepreneur, a dumpy guy to play her husband who gave up his career to watch the kids, and a cool, prestigious old guy to play her fairy god-father intern. Her whole problem is that she’s got the success, but has lost touch with her family, and her husband had an affair, and so she is unhappy. DeNiro, and conveniently, her husband, convince her to keep control of the company so as to be fulfilled creatively. She decides to forgive her husband and deal with her losses with tai chi.

The worst thing was how everyone’s attention is only on Anne Hathaway. The writer must be a narcissist who thinks everything revolves around her. This is very obvious with the body language, even though Anne is interested in other people. She has to give them permission to have other interests. She is in control that way. This reminds me of the end of Gladiator when Maximus is dying and the queen, who is in love with him, gives him permission to go to his wife. But maybe this is the way of alpha people. They have so much gravity that they do have to give others permission not to be totally sucked into it.

The second is how DeNiro is self-serving in his servileness. He is too focused on her and her problems. She even texts someone early on that he is “too observant”. He systematically removes her defenses and wins her trust to make her a devoted follower converted to tai chi with him as the master. Mutual, platonic narcissism. They both want all the power and I do believe feminists want it to be a partnership whereas men seem more to want to be the only one. Sports couples surprise me where there is a male coach and a female star athlete. There apparently is a component of maleness to want to be the creator of a star woman. Like Phantom of the Opera. Like the doctor in another movie based on a true story of a female sex-addict narcissist over-comer who became her speaking engagement cheerleader. Maybe some dads are also like that.

A more positive review is here, called, “De Niro and Hathaway’s chemistry is a sheer delight, but Nancy Meyers’ distracted screenplay in the second hour undercuts an otherwise genuinely entertaining start”

But what about the feminists’ idea of self-actualization? Is it just my individual goal to be fulfilled as a mother first? Or is it innate? Women do have other potentials, but I think they are best gone after in early adult-hood and then sprinkle one’s life after having children like dessert. When there has to be a decision I have gone for maximalized motherhood, not that I’ve achieved it or been completely faithful to it.

Back to dads, if a daughter is not nurtured early on, or feels a lack of support from her parents, who are the ones to revolve around children, then she will probably look for it from other people later in life. I think she will be disappointed though in some ways forever, and will have to find a positive, healthy way to relax.

Why women don’t like Kierkegaard

by Andrea Elizabeth

Inspired by yesterday’s article, this morning I again, after a long hiatus, picked up Either/Or Part II. Part I was from the point of view of the aesthete, and Part II is from the point of view of the ethicist. Aesthetics by nature are more interesting than ethics. Do is more interesting than don’t. Do opens the realms of possibilities, don’t closes the door. This is probably why Part I is a lot thicker than Part II. I think I must have quit reading after this: “but there is one thing for which I thank God with my whole soul, and that is that she is the only I have ever loved, the first, and there is one thing for which I pray to God with my whole heart, that he will give me the strength never to want o love any other.” (page 9)

To all who find themselves in this ideal arrangement, good for you. Preach on against those of us who did not. Club us over the head for our instability, recklessness, waywardness, dangerousness, immorality, and deservedness of being shunned. There, that was a self-indulgent pity party.

The third reason I’ve put this book at arms’ length is that Kierkegaard was never married. He courted Regina for four years, finally proposed, then dropped her immediately after she accepted. How can he preach about marriage?

But, he is a complicated fellow and deserves more query. Maybe he’s chastising himself as the aesthete? Maybe Part I is his loving himself and Part II is his hating himself? If that’s so, I can be more sympathetic. But this goal, “But now to the subject. There are two things that I must regard as my particular task: to show the esthetic meaning of marriage and to show how the esthetic in it may be retained despite life’s numerous hindrances.” (page 8) Have your cake and eat it too? Sounds like a women’s magazine cover article on keeping your marriage sparkly. So did he break off his own engagement because he didn’t think the aesthetic immediacy of attraction could really be retained? Was this next part himself?:

“You, however, actually live by plundering; unnoticed, you creep up on people, steal from them their happy moment, their most beautiful moment, stick this shadow picture in your pocket as the tall man did in Schlemiel and take it out whenever you wish. You no doubt say that those involved lose nothing by this, that often they themselves perhaps do not know which is their most beautiful moment. You believe that they should rather be indebted to you , because with your study of lighting, which magic formulas, you permitted them to stand forth transfigured in the supernatural amplitude of the rare moments…. If one dared to hope that the energy that kindles you in such moments could take shape in you, distribute itself coherently over your life, well, then something great would certainly come of you , for you yourself are transfigured in such moments.” (page 10-11)

My current theory is that Kierkegaard did try to sustain the transfigured energy – but he chose to do it through philosophical writing, not marriage. I don’t think he liked the physical as much as the intellectual, thus his decision not to marry her, but to devote himself to his work. But he did have an emotional bond to her, which he found that he could sustain without marriage. He believed in constant transfiguration, and for a while had the patience for it. But eventually he fulfilled this prophecy, “you who once wrote to me that patience to bear life’s burdens must indeed be an extraordinary virtue, that you did not even have the patience to want to live. Your life disintegrates into nothing but interesting details like these.” And this is why he died so young after getting more and more negative. Why do the brightest lights die so young? I do like Kierkegaard.


Love all men equally

by Andrea Elizabeth

How does Jane fit with the following?

From St. Maximus’ 400 Chapters on Love

13. The person who loves God cannot help loving every man as himself, even though he is grieved by the passions of those who are not yet purified. But when they amend their lives, his delight is in­describable and knows no bounds”.

14. A soul filled with thoughts of sensual desire and hatred is unpurified.

15. If we detect any trace of hatred in our hearts against any man whatsoever for committing any fault, we are utterly estranged from love for God, since love for God absolutely precludes us from hating any man.

16. He who loves Me, says the Lord, will keep My commandments (cf. John 14: 15, 23); and ‘this is My commandment, that you love one another’ (John 15:12). Thus he who does not love his neighbour fails to keep the commandment, and so cannot love the Lord.

17. Blessed is he who can love all men equally.

18. Blessed is he who is not attached to anything transitory or corruptible.

19. Blessed is the intellect that transcends all sensible objects and ceaselessly delights in divine beauty.

Besides the criticisms in the previous posts, she does wait for Rochester to repent of his flirtation with Blanche and his deception and rule-breaking with his wife. She also works very hard to forgive and not hate Mrs. Reed and Mr. Brocklehurst and to see Lowood school as part of the shaping her character. She does resist Rochester’s sensual advances. I think she still has a ways to go in loving all equally and delighting in divine beauty. But there are developmental steps it seems where one does need to love and be loved uniquely by a parent or a spouse or perhaps someone else so that they can progress to loving others correctly and dispassionately. Until then it is hard not to vilify those who seem to stand in the way of this love. Hence Blanche is banal and Mrs. Rochester is crazy and cruel.

Was Rochester’s questioning untoward?

by Andrea Elizabeth

He would try to bring her out and set her free with his questions and was upset when she would silently pass by “as if we were strangers”. I have heard some people decry the existence of soul mates, but people can feel a unique connection.

Perhaps something I just heard about autism applies. Autistic people don’t believe other people think or have feelings. That they are the only one. What if people like Jane and Rochester are moderately autistic and believe that each other are the only ones who think and have feelings. Special connections are felt when a person is believed to be one of the only ones who thinks and feels as you do. And perhaps narcissism added to the mix makes that connection become romantic and passionate. Someone attracted to him or herself is attracted to someone perceived to be uniquely like him or herself.

Not that this is entirely bad or to be completely avoided, but maybe it is better to acknowledge why the feelings are there so as not to exalt them so high or act on them to one and the other’s detriment.

Perhaps Rochester’s probing was healthy, and if Jane had been more self-aware, they could have come to a more angelic relationship.

According to Ashley Madison, women are obsessed with passion

by Andrea Elizabeth

I just rewatched Jane Eyre with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. It was hard to step outside of the storm and look critically at Jane’s emotional journey. What does pain make you deserve? Rochester thought it was pleasure and escape from banal people. He said he loved Jane’s purity. But was she? Leaving him because he was technically married, conveniently to a crazy cruel woman, is supposed to prove it. But her pride had been stoked by his untoward attention to her for being above banal. She said she was just like any other governess, but when Blanche comes to visit, she is obviously very jealous of their flirting because she thinks it is owed to her alone. She does not criticize his flirtatiousness, especially when directed at her. She later calls him on being deceitful about his wife, but he was deceitful to Blanche and herself as well.

This desire for his exclusive attention is stoked by her extreme loneliness. Mrs. Reed had hated her for being of a passionate nature. This nature did seem to set her apart. She was shunned because of it by everyone she had been entrusted to. She could not take being shunned by Rochester when he insisted she watch his attention being directed elsewhere. But why was romantic attention all that could ease, or if directed elsewhere, cause her pain?

I can’t find an icon I used to use as a profile picture elsewhere of a female Saint, I thought her name was Elizabeth, but not one of the famous ones. I think it was Russian. She is in the midst of a storm, clouds and her dress swirling about her, but in the corner is Christ and that is where her attention is directed. The Church gives examples of women with such a nature who went in seclusion because all the men they encountered were attracted to it. Jane loved St. John like a brother, but he desired her and would not consent to not loving/possessing her fully. She said it would kill her to live with him like that, so she follows Rochester’s voice across the stormy moors instead. I’ve heard Charlotte Bronte originally ended the story with Jane going to India with St. John as a brother. Who knows why it was changed, but it is dissatisfying. Sort of like how relieved you are in The African Queen when Katherine Hepburn doesn’t have to live with her brother anymore and finds Humphrey Bogart. Or when C.S. Lewis finds Joy after Malcolm. But Jane’s going to India as a sister does let her keep the pure reputation, instead of the convenience of the wife being mad, murderous and at last suicidal, which Rochester nobly tries to prevent. What if she had been sweet and innocent? Maybe Rochester wouldn’t have been so needy. Or maybe he would have anyway, because saintliness, in he or his wife, is hard to come by. I bet she would have had faults. But these are not excuses for where the heart goes. The heart goes places anyway. And no one wants to kill their heart. Some women, like St. Katherine, naturally and exclusively loved Jesus more than anyone.

The three eunuchs come to mind. Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

home sweet home

by Andrea Elizabeth

Punchline with Tom Hanks and Sally Field is a blast from 1988. We believed in our heterosexual racist liberated narcissism. And there is a smart, if not as funny as they thought it was, way to do it. But Tom Hanks is still brilliant and Sally Field still gets you lost in the moment. White culture was brilliant if unnatural. And I guess that’s why I’m sad the Confederate flag has been hijacked to represent racism and not a culture that is home. I am at home in the south and not in the north. It is a different place. You don’t have to be racist to love it, but I think you have to be a self-hating person to want it desecrated. And since I don’t believe in total depravity, I think they’re wrong to hate where they come from. And I’m also a quarter German and don’t think I have to disavow that just because of one guy who hijacked a few nations.

Orthodoxy and Feminism

by Andrea Elizabeth

This is a really good article: Orthodoxy and Feminism


Imagine how many rabbits there would be without predators

by Andrea Elizabeth

“Of the 102 passengers of the Mayflower, 24 males produced children to carry on their surnames. And although approximately half of the Mayflower passengers died at the plantation during the harsh winter of 1620-21 (one passenger had died at sea while another was born before landing), today, a staggering 35 million people claim an ancestral lineage that runs all the way back – sometimes through fifteen generations – to the original 24 males. That number represents 12 percent of the American population.” http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/

To see if my estimate yesterday works I’ll use yesterday’s table which says that a person has 32,768 potential 13th great grandparents (15 generations), though less given the ancestral repetition that occurs after going back 10 generations. Yesterday I gave a projection that if ancestors average 2 children each, which would give the original couple of that generation 4 children, each person would have the same number of descendants after 15 generations. So then multiply each of the 24 Mayflower males x 2 (because they had mates and it’s easier that way than figuring 4 children because the backwards projection is based on couples) then that by 32,758 (assuming non-repetition) and you get 1,572,864. That means each couple averaged way more than 4 children to get to the claimed 35 million descendants.

Myles Standish and his wives had 7 children and 19 grandchildren. I quit counting at 500 when my scrollbar was in the middle of the page, so in the 5 generations listed, there are at least 1000 Standish descendants. The page links say some of the grandchildren are unknown. It’s all also complicated when you figure in the wives who not only bring in different surnames, but mess up the math because you can’t just divide or multiply by 1 or even 2 as couples make individuals who may or may not get married. Only 3 of Myles’ children got married and only 2 of those had kids, but all 7 count. So even with infant mortality and lack of mates for the Pilgrims, population boomed.



the sound of silence

by Andrea Elizabeth

(cont. from previous post) Alfred Hitchcock’s 1929 Blackmail is the second movie reviewed in Chapter 4 of Echo and Narcissus. Here, this is the basic complaint,

Norah’s inability to “remember” or to say what actually happened represents the common experience of women in patriarchy—that of feeling unable to reason well because the terms in which the culture thinks are male and alien.

Women in patriarchy do not function competently at the level of external public articulation and thus may appear “stupid” and “uncertain.”
(Kaplan 1978b, p. 85; italics added)

Again, I don’t think this is because of patriarchy, but because of alphaarchy, male or female. The women in these two movies are muted by their sense of powerlessness to a stronger system. Even the man feels this at the end of the review:

In Blackmail , maturity comes at the cost of innocence. Alice resumes her place in patriarchy, but has to acknowledge that she is neither innocent nor free. Frank succeeds in containing Alice, but is forced to compromise his duty and any idealism in favor of maintaining appearances. Frank and Alice are painfully aware of the price of socialization. The recognition of the workings of patriarchy and language precludes a romantically happy ending. Alice and Frank are fragmented and must confront that what society holds they should be is actually very far from what they are. The end only increases their disintegration. Their images are false and they are struck dumb.[4]