You’re Doing It All Wrong
If you are only attracted to able, ‘mentally well’, cis, normatively beautiful people, from class privileged backgrounds, then you are upholding violent norms.
Attention, husbands, wives, lovers, seekers of amour, and the partnered of the world. Student activist and avowed “feminist killjoy” Josefin Hedlund wishes to correct your desires in a totally non-dogmatic, non-presumptuous way:
This myth [of love, marriage and monogamy] still has a powerful hold in today’s Western neoliberal societies. Its most important message is that love is magical and apolitical. However, at a closer look, it is obvious that love actually works to uphold hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society.
Better stow your luggage and strap yourselves in. The ride may be bumpy.
Test yourself: write down the gender, race, class, social, political, educational, and geographical background of everyone you have been attracted to. Do you see a pattern?
Maleness aside, can’t say I do. In fact, I doubt I could recall everyone who’s ever caught my eye. And it occurs to me that if even momentary attraction requires a thorough preemptive vetting of each person’s geographic and educational background, and knowledge of their bank balance and socio-political views, then something’s gone horribly wrong. I should think few of us have time to maintain what sounds like a hugely impractical academic sorting fetish.
If you are only attracted to able, ‘mentally well’, successful (by society’s standards), cisgender, normatively beautiful, slim people, from class privileged backgrounds… you cannot just declare that who you are attracted to is a personal preference.
I feel there ought to have been some kind of explanation here, to pad out the assertion. I’m still waiting for some elaboration on that “upholding violent norms” thing. And it’s not entirely clear to me how my own lifelong coupling, with a chap, is “upholding hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society.” Perhaps we’re supposed to enjoy the air of mystery. Still, there’s lots of boilerplate and rote regurgitation:
Instead, we should actively resist these norms by challenging who and what we find un-attractive and un-interesting. This can be done through art, culture, porn, but also of course through changing who we interact with and who our communities are made up of.
Ah. Apparently, we should be cultivating politically correct romantic and erotic attractions to unappealing people – say, overweight bores with borderline personalities. Because, says Ms Hedlund, love and sex are unequally “distributed,” with an unfair amount of both going to people who are deemed lovable and attractive by the people loving them, and not insufferable sociopaths with horrific disfigurements. Or, one suspects, self-styled “feminist killjoys.” And this is because of capitalism. It’s “obvious,” you see. And so we’re told,
Rejecting standard notions of love… goes hand in hand with rejecting capitalism.
Though I’m not convinced that staring intently at chubby amputee porn is going to do much for me, or will recalibrate my preferences, so hopelessly entrenched are my capitalistic, neoliberal tendencies. Readers are of course invited to try it anyway and report back on how it goes. I promise we won’t judge.
Via Tom Owolade.
I disliked my Whiteness, but I disliked the Whiteness of other White people more. I felt like the way to really end racism was to feel guilty for it, and to make other White people feel guilty for it too.
Right, that does it. I’m going out for a birthday dinner with my mother-in-law.
Right, that does it.
‘I know those feels’ as I believe the young people say these days.
Enjoy your evening.
and I’m SURE Ms. Michael is not encouraging her students to violate the civil rights of ANY of their future K-12 kids, right? RIGHT?
By the way, I find the SJW tendency to not know the difference between Capitalism and The Free Market to be a bit annoying.
Why is everything Capitalism’s fault, huh? Spread the love, dudes and dudettes!
Rejecting standard notions of love… goes hand in hand with rejecting capitalism.
Like Hedgehog, except I’m not just happy with, but positively for Capitalism.
This myth [of love, marriage and monogamy] still has a powerful hold in today’s Western neoliberal societies.
Could someone explain how it is a “myth”?
I’m coming up to my 20th year of happy monogomous marriage, and am in love with my wife as I have ever been. My Mum and Dad have past their 50th year of similar wedded happiness.
What part is supposed to be mythical?
Imagine the fun she and Ms. Hedlund could have together – I imagine they would get along absolutely famously.
I’m sure they’d have a great time dreaming of a future making white children feel guilty simply for being white.
I know it’s wrong to wish for bad things to happen to others, but sometimes I do.
“…it is obvious that love actually works to uphold hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society.”
She(?) never considered the possibility that it is hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society that work to uphold love.
Judging from Josefin Hedlund’s online CV, she’s a fan-girl of Jacques Derrida.
Speaking for myself, Jacques Derrida is the reason why I fervently believe the lowest level of Hell is reserved for philosophers.
I read recently that in capitalism the rich get powerful, while in socialism the powerful get rich. I am guessing that purveyors of victimhood are seeking (and all too often obtaining) power, with the goal of riches.
What part is supposed to be mythical?
“Myth” is Newspeak for “stuff that is hard for (certain) proles to do”. If it’s a myth, there is no use putting any effort in to trying to do it and those people who are successful are simply suffering from a false consciousness. Applies to all things valued by traditional western civilization. Marriage, health, career success…the usual suspects.
I’m attracted to redheads, so I guess “mentally well” isn’t really a criterion for me. (See Hot/Crazy matrix – I’m in the “Danger Zone”)
I’d do her. Except I make a rule never to mess with bats**t crazy broads.
. . . she says will involve students carrying “a few thousand non-phallic sex toys to accurately reflect the ‘concealed carry’ aspect of this law, [and] about 500 very dick-like toys too.”
. . . . I just hope if the campus police crack down on this protest . . . .
Um.
I expect that the odds are more likely that A) if there actually are enough participants that anyone actually notices, and that B) if the local police are sufficiently bored at that moment, then C) there might be the publication of a memo announcing that Yes, assorted local police have observed that other locals have discovered free expression. Oh, and D) should anyone have any actual questions about actual issues, the police can note those as well . . .
Because, says Ms Hedlund, love and sex are unequally “distributed,” with an unfair amount of both going to people who are deemed lovable and attractive by the people loving them
And yet, if this were nerdy “Mr. Smith” saying this, Ms. Hedlund, Ms. Penny, etc., would be excoriating him for being a near-rapist who thinks he’s entitled to sex.
I think all porn searches should henceforth be tempered with an additional, less normative term. For instance, “chiselled abs, bad teeth.” Or, “huge knockers, eczema.”
Henceforth?
*shifts uncomfortably in chair*
“Instead, we should actively resist these norms by challenging who and what we find un-attractive and un-interesting.”
After you, cupcake. You’re just resentful that those with whom you fancy a screw don’t want to screw you back.
Isn’t this just the femiloon analogue of sad, neck-bearded losers complaining that girls only date bad boys, and that ‘nice guys’ don’t get a look-in?
He Wei Jin – I do believe that is the wrong one, this is the droid you are looking for.
Is there nothing too stupid for liberals to say? Are liberals methodically searching every corner of the human experience to find the stupidest idea wedged there?
They’ve already mined the easy ones, so extraordinary measures are now required.
I’m gonna start closing my convos with “and Rule 34, amirite?”
Is there nothing too stupid for liberals to say?
Um, no. There isn’t.
Are liberals methodically searching every corner of the human experience…
No again. Liberals, or at least the liberals we are talking about here, are incapable of doing anything methodically.
…to find the stupidest idea wedged there?
And for the third time, no. The stupid ideas find them.
Like Hedgehog, except I’m not just happy with, but positively for Capitalism.
Well, yeah, me too. That was just my attempt at British understatement. You know, when in Rome…
Atempdog, To smash capitalism, you must choose the poorly constructed item because of the virtue of the people who made who’s virtue consists of being too oppressed to make a good product
I could almost swear this was taken from Atlas Shrugged; you’ve paraphrased the “you mean, you didn’t want me to love you for your accomplishments, you wanted us to be two beggars chained together” speech quite succinctly.
When I read that book, 40 years back, I thought it was sloppily thought out, heavy handed, incredibly poorly edited, and filled will wildly unrealistic characters, and postulated a dreary and depressing worldview.
These past few years have convinced me that unrealistic or not, the characters of the book (the villains, at least) actually exist in real life.
everyone deserves to desire, reject, be desired, and be rejected
Well, no. No more than everyone deserves a pony. There are some simply batshit crazy and/or evil bastiches out there who are not worthy, due to being barking mad.
Projection, much?
Then there are those who simply don’t give a damn, god bless them.
love can work as a radical force for social change
If you find yourself attracted to a member of the opposite/same sex and something like this comes out of their mouths, run in the opposite direction as quickly as possible. You aren’t a potential partner that they’re considering dating, you’re a research subject who has just been labelled. If you flee, you can escape dissection, and will probably only suffer a few flaming social network posts (which are inevitable when in the orbit of such a person anyway).
@Jonathon:
Sounds like a fun night out.
I believe the approved term is “movies to slash your wrists by”.
I believe the approved term is “movies to slash your wrists by”.
A few years back when one of the attempts at a British Avengers movie was . . . extruded, or something, I and a friend went to see if there was anything there, and another friend asked what we thought of it.
My reply was something to the effect that yes, we had been present in the theatre during the showtime.
there are truths about the nature of human beings
And one of them is that capitalism is the only system fit for us, because it’s based on the principles of freedom and justice.
everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors
The purpose of this “white privilege” swill is to induce unearned guilt, after which they have the victim by the short and curlies. Here apparently is an example of it having worked.
we should actively resist these norms by challenging who and what we find un-attractive and un-interesting. This can be done through art, culture, porn,
So I should send David lots of pictures of naked women to straighten him out? That is what she meant, isn’t it?
Morning, all.
Judging from Josefin Hedlund’s online CV, she’s a fan-girl of Jacques Derrida.
Of course she is.
That is what she meant, isn’t it?
Heh. It does have that air about it. But I’m sure someone else could put photos of naked women to much better use.
I’m attracted to redheads, so I guess “mentally well” isn’t really a criterion for me.
I find the combination of ginger hair and a Yorkshire accent can be especially beguiling.
Thanks–I guess–for reminding me of the Guertin piece from 2007. I think that’s the first entry I read on these pages.
My only advice for those on a night out looking for an assignation is if you are going to go ugly, go ugly early, at least you’ll get the pick of the litter.
Of course she is.
Read through your post at that link, the comments, etc. Starting with Franklin’s comment of June 11, 2007 at 13:03:
Arguing the specific form itself…well, I’m not really sure that is possible to do. Does nebulous describe a form? The linked post was from 9 years ago which itself was 8 years beyond the 1999 referenced. As JH shows in this post today, it does perpetuate. What seems to be dying out, or at least much on the wane, is rational thought expressed through language. The abuse of such, much as cautioned by Orwell. Words have become so meaningless that I’ve often thought one could write a very convincing play or at least skit, in which two people speak in sufficiently meaningless, or meaning-shifted terms that, depending on the inflection and such, they could be seen as being in total agreement yet consciously be attempting to express significantly opposing views…I get these ideas for plays, skits, etc. but as I can’t string together more than three paragraphs without getting distracted…anyway…
And David’s comment from that link as well…
That. Plus a decade or two or three. Hell, I even remember doing “science” experiments in school that are now refuted as invalid. Taste/tongue mapping, supposed proofs of the Coriolis force. I had a statistics professor in college who didn’t understand the Monty Hall problem, yet if we wanted to get credit for the “correct” answer on the test, we had to put down his approved answer. And that was math from back in the day when language was much less corrupted than it is today.
Hopefully making my point, but given the subject matter, much less coherence has been sufficient for a philosophy degree.
Sorry if this already came up, but have the rest of you heard about Rohini Sethi, forced to attend a diversity workshop, fined, etc, because she said that which can not be said.
I disliked my Whiteness, but I disliked the Whiteness of other White people more.
Yep, that’s a person with a sunny disposition right there.
I disliked my Whiteness, but I disliked the Whiteness of other White people more.
Or put another way, “I ostentatiously abase myself, but at least I get to scold other people and attempt to damage them psychologically.”
Now imagine the kind of person to whom that might appeal.
I have enjoyed my attractions to other people, and I’m not about to abandon them because of the rants of some screechy jezebel who hates her life.
What seems to be dying out, or at least much on the wane, is rational thought expressed through language.
Indeed, the whole thing rather brings this to mind.
Meanwhile, speaking of “whiteness”, our old friend, “badass lady knight” the alluring Miss Lindy West, is back at it in the pages of the Guardian (of course) bewailing that some obscure author has no black friends. Let us join Miss West beginning with some boilerplate…
Moving on…
“Deeply segregated”. Yes, I suspect Miss West doesn’t travel far from her hipster douchbag enclaves of Seattle (black population a whopping 7.9%) much.
OK, nothing to do with not completing an education, 72% single motherhood, or gangbanging. Blacks, to her, it appears can only move upward with the help of white friends. Not very condescending there.
Indeed, only white cracker-ass honkey mofos self segregate.
“I ostentatiously abase myself, but at least I get to scold other people and attempt to damage them psychologically.”
Bingo – and with some fine pomo frontier gibberish.
The logical consequence of these sort of feminist brain-farts is arranged marriage.
Which I thought they were opposed to.
forced to attend a diversity workshop, fined, etc, because she said that which can not be said.
I’m guessing you’re referring to this.
And if anyone’s looking for an employee, you could do a lot worse than this young lady.
I say, what a lovely lass. I would be proud to have her as a daughter, or more likely, granddaughter!
As the above study shows, self-segregation is business as usual in white America.
Actually, its the business of the Leftist Identitarians. I am aware of a parochial high school which has a student body that covers all racial and socio-economic bases. After Ferguson, the worthies decided to convene a grand diversity assembly for the students to give vent to their oppression, even though there had not been a whiff of problems at the school. The assembly didn’t last long, as a young, black senior lady stood up and directed the following at the administration and faculty: “I’m not a ‘black’ [St. Margaret’s*] student; I’m a St. Margaret’s student. We all get that. Why don’t you?”
She received a standing ovation from the rest of the students and the assembly was adjourned.
*Not its real name, of course, to spare my informant.
“Everybody wants to save the world but nobody wants to help mom with the dishes.”
– P.J. O’Rourke
And if anyone’s looking for an employee, you could do a lot worse than this young lady.
It’s almost as if challenging oneself leads to personal growth.
I would be proud to have her as a daughter,
And as Ms Ligaspi says, expecting your own feelings to be indulged, to always come first, sounds an awful lot like “privilege.”
forced to attend a diversity workshop, fined, etc, because she said that which can not be said.
linked to above by david at 18:12
Read the whole article. The list of sanctions imposed is chilling evidence that history is not taught anymore – it’s right out of the “public confession of sins” and “self-examination sessions” that any escapee from the Chinese cultural revolution can tell you about. Disgusting. Vile.
of course, as many note, perhaps it’s more likely that these folks HAVE learned their history and are planning, on purpose, to repeat it.
in the pages of the Guardian (of course)
I long ago came to the conclusion that the Guardian newspaper is actually a honeypot operation secretly run by the Ayn Rand institute to posthumously validate her worldview. That newspaper is like flypaper for Ayn Rand villains.