shakahislop
Well-known member
something about the psychic infrastructure you have to work with
Do you think maybe it wasn't a coincidence that Victorian hysteria overlaps with the height of the British empire? IDK spitballing butsomething about the psychic infrastructure you have to work with
Gin damage, opium withdrawals, soot inhalation, tertiary syphilis.Do you think maybe it wasn't a coincidence that Victorian hysteria overlaps with the height of the British empire? IDK spitballing but
The above is my best answer to the below, with the additional guess that models of what a woman can and should be are way more incoherent and self contradictory than mens
It's not that this demographic demands that its members be unhappy with their lot individually but it does demand that they be unhappy with the world around them for myriad reasons, and the personal unhappiness is an inevitable side effect. And also makes sense because if one is cognisant of the world being plemmirrulate with injustices and unfairnesses and unhappinesses then, being nonetheless content, makes you look a complete simpleton, even dumber than if you weren't aware of all these suboptimalities in the first place.It is a specific type of woman, to be fair. It's not all women. It's mostly middle-class American women who lean liberal/progressive.
i don't know anything about victorian hysteria, sounds like a 19th century hipster londoner thing to meDo you think maybe it wasn't a coincidence that Victorian hysteria overlaps with the height of the British empire? IDK spitballing but
https://useful_english.en-academic.com/736438/plemmirrulateplemmirrulate
There doesn't seem to be a definition there - not that useful a dictionary!https://useful_english.en-academic.com/736438/plemmirrulate
Which prompts the question of whether female unhappiness is somehow fundamentally different from male unhappiness, and whether one can be addressed without exacerbating the other.I think this Emily Gould piece is sort of downstream of Wollen's Sad Girl Theory. The case being made is that unhappiness in a woman is itself evidence of some sort of injustice or ill, and probably a structural one. Just don't expect Gould to explain what kind of ill it is.
Which prompts the question of whether women are somehow fundamentally different from men
Chauvinism involves an assumption that one group of people are better than another, doesn't it?Has Biscuits just revealed Tea to be a raging chauvinist?
That ought to spice up the relationship.
As to whether there are inherent psychological differences between men and women, I'd say it would be extremely strange if humans were the only sexually dimorphic animal species with no behavioural differences between the sexes.
Is bullying someone by agreeing with them a known trolling technique? I feel like it should be.