Reveal Your Uncool Conservative Beliefs Here

also, i assume you mean the concomitant rejection of that traditionalism to be coming from other posters? i don't think i've expressed much unease or mitigation of traditional attitudes (though like all of us i'm obviously steeped in our cultural discourse which is iconoclastic on this note) and if anything i see my personal project of the last few years being an attempt to reaffirm some of these attitudes that have maybe been unduly dismissed. see also above in this thread where i talk about the declining role of religion and community as being responsible for many of our contemporary ills. a complete return to these cloistered communities (especially in my case where the most traditional of these communities in say williamsburg or lakewood are completely detached from modernity to the pt in both cases of having strong linguistic breaks from anglo america) is anathema to me. this despite the fact that i spent significant years of my younger life in such communities. inevitably i'm attracted to synthesis forms of traditional judaism - particularly modern orthodoxy (which incidentally, as i was discussing w/ nakh the other day, emerges in the figures of ivanka/kushner as this almost platonic contemporary vision of religious american life and i wonder what macdonald or even duke think about them because they seem to avoid them intentionally as major lacunas in their theories?) and even moreso chabad which also includes broad engagement w/ american life but an even stronger fidelity to traditional judaism vis-a-vis a gnostic/chassidic/kabbalistic tradition which in contemporary western world seems particularly resonant.

Peacock, I just read a bunch of the MacDonald piece. It's very interesting + provocative (like much of his work). I think maybe his unfamiliarity with traditional Judaism though (and maybe he addresses this but I haven't gotten to it) leads him to interpret Freud incorrectly. Freud has a mythology about traditional Jewry but it is far removed from actual traditional Judaism and his beliefs about things like Jewish monotheism, Jewish choseness, Biblical exegesis, etc are those of a secular Jew already experiencing a disconnect from his traditions. He reads Jewish texts therefore through a prism of a) his own psychoanalytical theory and b) through the modern crisis that his family is living through and their own alienation from their tradition. I might even argue that his paeans to Jewish superiority are an overcompensation. This is something you can even see today among some Jews where they substitute a kind of Judeosupremecy militantism to compensate for a feeling of lacking a legitimate tradition. I don't want to psychoanalyze Freud or similar figures too much (I mean it's a very superficial sketch I'm drawing here) but merely to point out that I don't think he really understands Judaism or Jewishness very much and consequently to the extent that MacDonald uses him as a proxy for understanding Jewish theology he's working through an unreliable narrator. Certainly Freud's psychosexual analyses would be completely rejected in other Jewish communities.

HOWEVER

The idea of psychoanalysis itself is not anathema to Judaism. Famously one of the early Lubavitcher rebbes supposedly visited Freud to try and deal w/ severe depression and clearly saw some value in the kind of talk therapy work that he was innovating. But I don't think they discussed Judaism very much and I doubt the Rebbe (the Rebbe Rashab, there's an interesting description of their meeting here: https://www.henrymakow.com/Sigmund_Freud_and_the_Lubavitcher_Rebbe.pdf) thought very much of Freud's own work in Jewish theology (such as in Moses and Monotheism). Ultimately though I think this says more of Chabad chassidus which has a strong element from its beginning of "seeing in all things God" including things that may not seem immediately compatible, and also about the character of the Rebbe Rashab who recognized that he was suffering from a physical ailment, not necessarily a spiritual one, and therefore sought medical help from the expert in the field. If anything I think this uncharacteristic meeting only illuminates my point above - that Freud was working outside a traditional Jewish context and inventing his own Judaism.

So does MacDonald have a point? Here's my personal feeling - he recognizes something legitimately perverse in Freud's work that - like I said before - is equally of its time as well as its own force. But I don't know if he recognizes that there was a positive innovation occurring alongside possible negative repercussions of his work. Which is to say that a man like the Rebbe Rashab could visit him and gain relief from his depression and go back and shepherd his community and transmit a traditional line that exists (stronger than ever) until today. He didn't come back talking about penis envy and the oedipus complex and repressed sexuality - he still believed in modesty and traditional conceptions of sex. He was able to extract the value from amid the shtus/nonsense (as he, and I expect MacDonald, would consider the rest of the work). Freud himself is a troubled figure but it's hard to dismiss his contributions to the world even if the best psychoanalysis has ime long jettisoned Freud (and especially his work specific innovations) but kept the kernel of talk therapy and the therapist / patient relationship. nb that I'm personally not a huge talk therapy guy and I have some considerations about the movement as a whole but that's a whole other discussion. There was an interesting article by Daphne Merkin a few years ago called My Life in Therapy that i think articulates some of these broader considerations about the field and its ultimate value: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/magazine/08Psychoanalysis-t.html

Mordy, thank you for your considered responses. (And yes, I was indeed referring to the "concomitant rejection" of other posters.) Though I mostly occasionally lurk here, I have long admired your thoughtfulness. Like you say, I think MacDonald is interesting and provocative, though I don't want to extol his beliefs. I often think he is good at articulating the corrosive effects of the movements that he critiques, but it is where he attributes those movements to the Jews where he goes astray. That said, if "Jewishness" is defined vaguely enough, I can see the argument that he is making, but I'm not sure that it is appropriate to call it "Jewishness," when something like "subversion" would work just as well. Obviously, there is also a flip side to these "corrosive" movements that, as you say, were a product of their time and a result of the failures of traditional societies to actualize everybody and were conceived in the pursuit of justice. You are far more well-versed in Freudianism (and in Judaism) than me, and I very much appreciate your response.

Anyway, sorry if I derailed. I do find it interesting to think that at this point in history, the very idea of this thread is now what is subversive. An invitation to speak heretically, and not be judged.

Children should not be allowed to dress themselves (including shopping for their own clothes) until the age of 12

I recently went through some old photo albums at my Mom's house, and all the photos of me before age 6 i look cute as hell in these tasteful, adorable outfits ma (an adult who understands basic colour theory and fashion) lovingly picked out for me. after that, I look like a shitty nerd, colours clash, t-shirts with dumbass slogans on them, then this whole confused skater-surfer thing going on. It's the only way my parents were too liberal.

i think the '80s and '90s were pretty tough for kids and parents who weren't clued in. these days i feel like there are more checks and balances w/fashion, less room for truly catastrophic decisions.

Except for teenaged boys' hair, which remains a strange land of huge amounts of effort required to give the impression of looking incredibly stupid

Or young men in general.

I recently went through some old photo albums at my Mom's house, and all the photos of me before age 6 i look cute as hell in these tasteful, adorable outfits ma (an adult who understands basic colour theory and fashion) lovingly picked out for me. after that, I look like a shitty nerd, colours clash, t-shirts with dumbass slogans on them, then this whole confused skater-surfer thing going on. It's the only way my parents were too liberal.

― flopson

yeah my mom kept dressing me in sailor suits. bootleg bart simpson t-shirts were a step up for me.

shitty nerd, colours clash, t-shirts with dumbass slogans on them, then this whole confused skater-surfer thing

I posted this on the old photos thread, please note black and yellow Vans, ridiculous long shorts with pictures of what I believe was the Jetsons on them, self-darkening glasses, stupid upturned hat, etc.

http://i42.tinypic.com/11si6x0.jpg

perfect example

colours clash, t-shirts with dumbass slogans on them

last night i browsed page after page of t-shirts with dumbass slogans on them that were aping the aesthetic of my 8 year old self whose favorite item of clothing was a yellow t-shirt that said El Camino Real Running Club (or something like that). I thought about buying one of these shirts. Then I thought it would be stupid to spend 20 dollars on said item.

I like that aesthetic. A few years ago I saw two kids in glorious 90s mallrat regalia -- JNCOs, cat in the hat hat, tiny backpack that is also a teddy bear, hemp jewelry. I think they were part of some double advanced retro subculture at their high school.

Say then, my friend, in what manner does tyranny arise? --that it has a democratic origin is evident.

Clearly.
And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy --I mean, after a sort?

How?
The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth --am I not right?

Yes.
And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?

True.
And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?

What good?
Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State --and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.

Yes; the saying is in everybody's mouth.
I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.

How so?
When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.

Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence.
Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and public. Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit?

Certainly not.
By degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them.

How do you mean?
I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom, and the metic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either.

The Constitution actually does guarantee the individual right to firearm ownership

the second amendment is a run-on sentence with no clear subject

if you're in a committed relationship it's probably a good idea not to spend a lot of alone time w/ someone who shares your spouse's gender

significant other's* gender

lol ok Mordy

Straight people are nuts

http://www.theonion.com/article/mike-pence-asks-waiter-remove-mrs-butterworth-tabl-55661

i work in a field that is over 80% female, i spend most of my time with women!!! if i lived by pence's dumb rule i'd be fucking weirdo

how often do u go to dinners one on one with another woman?

nb i have platonic female friends and in the past i have gone to dinner w/ them but it's extremely rare and i think it's probably best to limit it. but i think i've talked on ilx before about how i don't think ppl should have intimate friendships w ppl of their SO's gender and iirc the vast majority of ilx disagreed w/ me.

"having dinner" "spending a lot of alone time" "intimate friendships" lol the goalposts are driving around on the back of a pickup truck

idk wtf that means but i'm guessing it means that some of those things you agree w/ and some you don't.

Straight people are nuts

― softie (silby), Friday, March 31, 2017 6:37 PM (forty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My wife went out to lunch today with a male colleague, and I know has regularly eaten with or had drinks with other guys in her field at conferences and until the Pence shit yesterday it never even crossed my mind that this would be considered to be controversial or scandalous to anyone.

Still can't really wrap my head around being this distrustful of your partner or assuming everyone is a lecherous asshole.

it's just such a weird and useless thing to make generalizations about and depending on how you frame the relationship you can make it sound completely innocuous or the opposite of that so like what are we doing here

it's neither. it's that ppl bond w/ ppl they spend time with, esp alone, and you probably shouldn't be putting yourself into situations where you could develop romantic feelings - even instantly repressed - with ppl outside your relationship. it's not like humans are exemplars of emotional appropriateness and relationships of all kinds are often complicated by unanticipated feelings. it has nothing to w/ distrusting anyone, or assuming anyone is lecherous. xp

cad, i think probably you see it as a spectrum. you likely draw these lines in different places than other ppl. my impression is that a lot of ppl don't even see a problem w/ having a relationship w/ someone that rivals or even possibly eclipses the emotional intimacy of their relationship w/ their spouse. different conceptions of what a marriage indicates and how to maintain its health. i don't think it's a terrible discussion to have and over the last two days i've seen a lot of ppl acting like they can't even understand where pence might've been coming from. like i said above i don't go anywhere near as far as he does but i find his perspective v comprehensible.

On one hand what emerged about Pence is neanderthal: I would not share if I were the vice president of the Unites States, a personage who has to meet with heads of state who are not going to jump this limp dicked sad-faced asshole's bones. But I know my dad would also never meet with a woman by himself under any circumstance b/c he's terrified that my mom will out, which tells me (a) his line of business doesn't employ many women in charge or whom men like my father regard as equals (b) he doesn't trust himself.

The question changes in office and university settings. I was a grad student in the '90s and already male professors didn't close their office doors when meeting with female students.

i don't go out to dinner very much w/ anyone in my field unless i'm at a conference but one-on-one meetings, coffee, lunch, they happen all the time and are never weird and i never feel like they are a threat to my marriage. sometimes i might be attracted to the person and sometimes i might not be, wholly depends on the person obv and nothing really to do with the scenario of being alone with them.

idk i take it as a given that i will have romantic feelings for people other than my wife at times, sometimes those feelings are deep and real and sometimes they are fleeting, and they might happen whether i am working in an office w/ them in the company of a ton of other people or if i'm alone out to lunch or dinner with them. it's not a big deal imo, i think i became significantly less stressed about the status of my marriage when i accepted that i will be attracted to thousands of other people throughout my lifetime, and being attracted or romantically interested in someone other than my wife does not mean i will be cheat on her or seek to undermine my relationship w/ her

The question changes in office and university settings. I was a grad student in the '90s and already male professors didn't close their office doors when meeting with female students.

lol meanwhile show me a single athletic department who gives two shits

i think there's a spectrum, and then there's some kind of large gulf of nothingness, and then there's the pence viewpoint. i can't understand where he's coming from because i can't imagine a person choosing a highly public life and then setting those kinds of restrictions for themselves. and that's not even getting into where the restrictions are coming from which i think alfred has covered very nicely.

as an aside, i'd be curious where you see evidence for this:

my impression is that a lot of ppl don't even see a problem w/ having a relationship w/ someone that rivals or even possibly eclipses the emotional intimacy of their relationship w/ their spouse.

b/c my anecdotal experience would show few if any examples where this is the case.

lol meanwhile show me a single athletic department who gives two shits

― Not the real Tombot (El Tomboto),

Well, they generate revenue!

The way I boil it down has fuck all to do with people's bad judgement about intimacy and "romance" and a lot to do with professional ethics and trust between adults who work together, as peers, subordinate and superior, contractor and customer, mentor and protege, whatever. The rest is the goddamn marriage vows, for crying out loud.

I have a job that requires that I abide by federal prohibitions on the use of certain substances. Do I need to move to a neighborhood that doesn't have a guy selling weed on the corner on a regular basis? Some people abide by religious prohibitions against drinking alcohol. Must they avoid all establishments that have liquor licenses?

the particular conservative obsession with human weakness is so weird and lopsided and absurd to me

well this one has a lot to do with misogyny

Pence doesn't avoid spending time alone with women who aren't is wife because of his frailty it's because he hates women

Oh I don't give two shits what that moron thinks, I was speaking to the notion in the abstract

Still can't really wrap my head around being this distrustful of your partner or assuming everyone is a lecherous asshole.

lol i remember when i thought this way

idk i take it as a given that i will have romantic feelings for people other than my wife at times, sometimes those feelings are deep and real and sometimes they are fleeting, and they might happen whether i am working in an office w/ them in the company of a ton of other people or if i'm alone out to lunch or dinner with them. it's not a big deal imo

it's not something to make a huge deal out of but it's not fantastic either idk i guess i agree w/ carter here - that he lusted in his heart. and also there's an element of sanctity you're trying to protect as well which means trying to avoid thoughts that could encroach upon it if it can be helped. i'm trying to make a v nuanced argument so plz don't get me wrong - i don't think there's anything wrong with eating w/ someone of the opposite gender who isn't yr spouse, and i don't think there's anything wrong with fleeting meaningless romantic feelings about them. i just don't think it's ideal and i understand where ppl are coming from when they try to avoid it and i personally try to keep it to a minimum in my life if possible.

b/c my anecdotal experience would show few if any examples where this is the case.

unless someone speaks up here i'll just have to go by my memory which is that the last time i brought this conversation up on ilx i got at least one response from someone that was like "i've had many significant others come and go but i have friends who have lasted me my entire lifetime."

What about eating with a man who isn't your wife

http://m5.paperblog.com/i/83/830582/the-fannibal-dinner-party-cooking-like-hannib-L-B18MFv.jpeg

I mean, the number of jobs where one-on-one dinner interactions are a regular part of business is, I'm thinking, relatively low? But the bigger issue here is that if you aren't comfortable with that, maybe don't take a job where it'd be important to be alone in a room with another person

the main issue is that this mindset doesn't just include one-on-one interactions, it carries over into other business. maybe those meetings are essential and women miss out on managerial roles, or maybe the same dynamic carries over to larger groups. it's this essential idea that keeps good ol' boy networks in place, that keeps women off of executive committees or off Wall Street, that somehow having a woman in the room is going to fuck up their success, or that women in that room have to act like "one of the boys"

important government or business meeting rooms shouldn't be safe spaces for old white men talking about golf and tits

Still can't really wrap my head around being this distrustful of your partner or assuming everyone is a lecherous asshole.

lol i remember when i thought this way

― velko, Friday, March 31, 2017 8:51 PM (yesterday)

velko otm

though it's kinda a personal version of nanny state-ism, a drastic means of trying to prevent people from hurting themselves or others, when it's going to happen anyway, because people are human and life is short

*it's = Pence's rules

mordy what if you're bi

just get takeout