The Unlovely
Another illustration, I think, of leftism leading the credulous to failure and unhappiness.
Update, via the comments:
As so often with Laurie and her peers, it’s not entirely clear whether this is what she actually believes or it’s just something she feels obliged to say for effect, to appear cleverly non-conformist, and thereby conform with the expectations of her leftist peer group. Though I suppose the level of sincerity barely matters. In either case, she would have to be a fool. Still, you have to marvel at the insistence that one of the most basic and universal of human feelings is merely an elaborate ruse “designed” by some unspecified patriarchal cabal. And you have to wonder how this “systemic lie” might explain the romantic feelings of gay couples.
Dark conspiracies aside, what stands out for me is Laurie’s ostentatious use of the phrase “emotional labour” – a term that generally refers to employees being polite to customers and not having tantrums and meltdowns in the workplace. (One might substitute the word professionalism, but hey.) She implies that this kind of emotional self-possession is not only a form of gendered drudgery, imposed by men, but is also the basis of a loving – sorry, “loving” – relationship. Though this doesn’t remotely match any actual marriage I’m aware of. I was under the impression that one of the benefits of a lifelong loving relationship is that the occasional foul mood can be aired, accommodated and ultimately forgiven precisely because the other person loves you.
But again, I’m not convinced that Laurie actually believes any of the bollocks she mouths. Her pronouncements are reliably dissonant with her own behaviour, which suggests an instinctive hypocrisy on almost every issue she brings up. To take an obvious example, one of many, are we to believe that Laurie is deeply concerned by the “emotional labour” of polite male security staff – the ones who get randomly abused by Laurie’s sister, whom she then congratulates for her radicalism? Or does the “emotional labour” of polite men not count?
Romantic love is a systemic lie designed to manipulate women into lifelong emotional labour
Why does feminism sound like a nutty conspiracy theory? I suppose that ‘systemic lie’ explains all the centuries of men financially and emotionally supporting women then? 🙂
Imagine the “emotional labour” required to endure a lifetime with Laurie Penny.
I thought Love was an invention by Bank Managers to make us all over-drawn.
And no I’m not going to imagine the “emotional labour” required to endure a lifetime of Laurie Penny. I’m already Crazed as it is. I don’t want to be Insane as well.
You have to marvel at the insistence that one of the most basic and universal of human feelings is merely an elaborate ruse “designed” by some unspecified patriarchal cabal. And you have to wonder how this “systemic lie” would explain the romantic feelings of gay couples.
Romantic love is a systemic lie designed to manipulate women into lifelong emotional labour
If my wife and children discover this I’m in serious trouble.
I wonder what caused the butterflies? Watching a hooded thug kick a pensioner half to death in the name of social justice? Or a hefty tax rise?
That woman is a walking retirement plan for psychiatrists.
I’m sorry, I know it’s lazy to doubt your political opponents’ mental health, but come on… “WTFMag” is spot on there.
“You have to marvel at the insistence that one of the most basic and universal of human feelings is merely an elaborate ruse “designed” by some unspecified patriarchal cabal.”
But that’s where Leftism leads you. It’s societal creationism. Leftists can’t seem to conceive of spontaneous order or emergent behaviour in human society.
Which is really odd when you think about it, because that’s where these phenomena were observed first, centuries before Darwin.
all the centuries of men financially and emotionally supporting women
My understanding was that all that support was for the purpose of producing and raising the mens children. “Romantic love” as a justification for pair-bonding was a 17th Century innovation. Prior to that, again AIUI, love was seen as orthogonal to the pair-bond, and generally expected to grow *from*, rather than lead *to*, said bond.
I haven’t investigated the matter deeply though, so if historical citations to the contrary are available, they’d be a welcome addition to the conversation.
That woman is a walking retirement plan for psychiatrists.
Oh, my money would be on the likelihood that this woman, and most like her, is a product of the psychobabble industry. My belief is that we have so much crazy partly because the people in charge of crazy are crazy. Just watch the reaction of such when you use the word “crazy” around them. They go crazy.
So when I married my husband I was only being ‘manipulated into lifelong emotional labour’?
She’s a silly cow.
So when I married my husband I was only being ‘manipulated into lifelong emotional labour’?
Basically, you married an evil genius. Or at least the henchgoon of an evil genius.
Didn’t you know?
It’s a very sad tweet. Her remark of butterflies is indicative of experiencing something special and quintessentially human.
Instead, she tries to banish it. For some reason, I picture Dr. Doom at a control panel being exhorted by someone (probably Susan) to not fire the Death-O-Ray. There’s that moment where Doom considers, then the writers understandably (because he’s evil) explicitly have him re-reject himself, and it’s up to the heroes to be the heroes.
Don’t underestimate it. Emotional Labour is a major voting block, but subject to slippage to the Lib Dems.
As so often with Laurie (and her peers), it’s not entirely clear whether this is what she actually believes or it’s just something she feels obliged to say for effect, to appear cleverly non-conformist, and thereby conform with the expectations of her leftist peer group. Though I suppose the level of sincerity barely matters. In either case, she would have to be a fool.
If the old Carry On movie franchise was still going, there would be very quickly be a ‘Carry On, Idiots.’ Dear sweet Ms Pennyworth could be the Charles Hawtry trans character.
Hypothesis: Every school of leftist theory is a fancy theory to justify a psychological or moral defect.
Report:
Saw the new Star Wars.
Takeaway:
JJ Abrams hated the prequels, too.
Spoiler:
It doesn’t suck.
Hypothesis
There’s an essay by Thomas Sowell on Marx’s personal life, published in The Thomas Sowell Reader. As you dig through Marx’s vanities, tantrums and chronic parasitism, it’s hard not entertain the possibility that much of his “theorising” was an attempt to justify his own exploitative, infantile and deeply unpleasant behaviour.
It doesn’t suck.
I may allow The Other Half to take me to see it over the holidays. Because I’m generous that way.
Chuffing hell, dicentra. Your Pinterest account now has almost 100,000 items, all scrupulously categorised. I’m tempted to sign up for an account just so I can marvel at the full extent of it.
Romantic love is a systemic lie designed to manipulate women into lifelong emotional labour.
A lie is an intentional untruth. Systems cannot tell lies because systems don’t have intentions. And what agent is designing this system – the one that manipulates women into lifelong emotional labour?
Don’t worry, Laurie. I think your personality works well as a natural contraceptive.
“Still get butterflies”? Like that time she practically swooned into Ryan Gosling’s arms as he swept her out of oncoming traffic.
In writing after the remarkable Gosling affair, Penny called for “a little self awareness” on the issue and its repercussions. Well, she has as little self awareness as anyone I’ve ever come acoss or heard of.
WTP,
My belief is that we have so much crazy partly because the people in charge of crazy are crazy.
My BIL is a licensed vocational nurse who works at the local County mental health clinic. He has said more than once that most of the doctors are crazier than the patients.
Back to arranged marriages, then. Maybe it’s for the best.
And you have to wonder how this “systemic lie” would explain the romantic feelings of gay couples.
What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
A moving truck.
He has said more than once that most of the doctors are crazier than the patients.
A) I know a, so to speak, mid level shrink who just recently changed job locations. Her rather emphatic observation is that in both locations, the bosses are more bonkers than the patients.
B) Mount Misery
—Just on general principles, see also The House of God, albeit noting that THOG is about medical doctors being bonkers, where thirty years later, it remained such a 2400 lb gorilla of recommended reading that it got it’s own collection of supporting essays.
Romantic love is a systemic lie designed to manipulate women into lifelong emotional labour
I’m still processing Laurie’s ostentatious use of the phrase “emotional labour” – a term that generally refers to employees being polite to customers and not having tantrums and meltdowns in the workplace. (One might substitute the word professionalism, but hey.) She implies that this kind of emotional self-possession is not only a form of gendered drudgery but is also the basis of a loving – sorry, “loving” – relationship. Though this doesn’t remotely match any actual relationship I’m aware of. I was under the impression that one of the benefits of a lifelong loving relationship is that the occasional foul mood can be aired, accommodated and ultimately forgiven precisely because the other person loves you.
And note that, once again, Laurie has decided not to respond to the barrage of questions and criticism. She has signalled her piety and self-imagined status, and that’s all that matters.
I was under the impression that one of the benefits of a lifelong loving relationship is that the occasional foul mood can be aired, accommodated and ultimately forgiven . . . . .
A recurring comment I’ve run into over time is I married my best friend, and . . .
What I’m more particularly reminded of is a comment of a friend of mine regarding another friend of mine, her husband. She told me one time of going to one of his company parties and having a very puzzled co-worker tell her that some people kept complaining about the husband, but the co-worker never had any problems at all. And his wife replied something to the effect of Oh, so you’re intelligent, competent, and capable, and you do your job and do it well, so that someone else doesn’t have to do your job for you . . . . and this is speaking of someone where my knowing him hardly even began to approach being as involved with him as his wife, and he would also matter-of-factly comment to me of having to deal with idiots that needed to be nuked from orbit . . . .
Rather by contrast, there was the ex of mine who vehemently attempted to insist that the paying of bills, our then shared rent, etc., was emphatically to be considered an option, not a parameter . . . . In time, she was the one who moved out, I’m the one the landlord was fond of while I was living there . . .
“Emotional labour” means [url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/08/women-gender-roles-sexism-emotional-labor-feminism%5Dsome women think they should get paid for remembering birthdays[/url] (Guardian link, surprisingly enough).
Oops, messed up that link.
Romantic love is one of the most glorious feelings ever, perhaps only eclipsed by love for a child. Penny is right to note such emotions involve a degree of commitment and giving – this is known as being a caring feeling person; something Penny clearly is not. I suspect when it comes to relationships she focusses more on the taking.
Sad really – her “it’s all about victimised ME” approach to life means she misses out on much joy that be found in relationships.
Sad really
Well, it’s the kind of presumptuous, dogmatic assertion that a pretentious teenager might air in the hope of scandalising elderly relatives.
Theo: “A lie is an intentional untruth.” An unsupported assertion of fact is also a lie – and the far more prevalent and pernicious sort, I’d say. For example: “Theophrastus is just a small-minded suburbanite.”
OK, so perhaps I’m the last to discover this but there’s a Laura Penny who seems to be Penny Red’s exact opposite. She’s even an expert on bullshit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Penny
I was under the impression that one of the benefits of a lifelong loving relationship is that the occasional foul mood can be aired, accommodated and ultimately forgiven precisely because the other person loves you.
That.
Feminism was started by fat and or ugly women, some lesbian. Since ugly is the majority, it didn’t take long to bully many hot, but left leaning babes into the insanity.
Conservative women are still sane and decent, many are hot …. check them out before you get a Walmart special.
That.
In terms of so-called “emotional labour,” Laurie has things the wrong way round, at least from where I stand. For instance, from time to time The Other Half gets to see me indulge in tedious venting and general stroppiness – things that I wouldn’t presume to inflict on acquaintances, neighbours or random passers-by. Luckily, he puts up with it (and luckily for him, I generally reciprocate). It doesn’t feel restrictive; quite the opposite. The “emotional labour,” such as it is, is the restraint I often show towards strangers and people I don’t know well. Which is to say, people I don’t love.
OK, upon further reading it appears I was very mistaken. Cannadian LP is essentially a Cannadian version of UK LP. The title of her book about how awful our colleges are, along with her association with Harry Frankfurt, indicated to me something much different.
Sound psychology speaks of the idealization inherent in the greatest of abstracts, love. A narcissist, however, ultimately devalues others because the supply inevitably runs short – the Narc’s reflection is not served by others and so they are discarded – they are devalued where no idealization had or could occur.
This isn’t rare out in social traffic, but you’d certainly expect the opposite from any healthy, functional, personal interaction with any healthy, functional psyche.
Funny, because the dismal, classical conformity of ancient, spiritual ethics that proggs hate with such a vengeance has already been replaced with a new enlightenment, stating: Love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself.
In other words, idealize a higher power and choose to idealize others. But no and a thousand times no. That we cannot have. You hillbillies.
So butterflies? My arse. If you do not idealize, you are not conscious.
it doesn’t suck
Thanks, di … got tickets to the 9:20 am show today.
btw … I don’t believe Penny is insane, she’s evil.
Getting rid of romantic love is to isolate people and make the state their only significant relationship. Her little bon mots, butterflies notwithstanding, are part of what she loves most.
Controlling other people.
Given that as a result of the Patriarchy’s nefarious deception about romantic love, I have agreed within the last two weeks to remodel the bathroom and buy new living room furniture for my wife of thirty years, I would say the Patriarchy is doing it wrong.
I think this should be discussed at the Patriarchy’s annual New Year’s Eve smoker to be held at the AMVETS Hall in Benkelmann,Nebraska. (BTW, someone needs to sign up to bring the always-loved crockpot of cocktail weenies in BBQ sauce.)
Next week the butterflies will be gone and she’ll be blaming climate change.
btw … I don’t believe Penny is insane, she’s evil
The sum of her ideas is certainly evil.
A few times I flicked through her twitter entries, for a laugh. Unfortunately the effect of such exposure time is after some time is not laughter, but despair.
I would like to think that her utterings are the narcissism of youth- but I suspect not.
“Hypothesis: Every school of leftist theory is a fancy theory to justify a psychological or moral defect.”
Bingo.
Nemo:
An unsupported assertion of fact is also a lie
No, by definition, a lie involves the intention to deceive.
“Theophrastus is just a small-minded suburbanite” uttered without the intention to deceive is (a) true or (b) fair comment (even if untrue) or abuse or a mistake (you have got the name wrong and are thinking of someone else. It’s only a lie when uttered with the intention to deceive.
I’m new here. David refers to “The Other Half” with a masculine pronoun. Pray tell.
I’m new here. David refers to “The Other Half” with a masculine pronoun. Pray tell.
Give it a minute. You’ll figure it out. 🙂