Excellent column, as usual. I don't need noir want for us all to see things the same way. But for others, dissent is threatening. Dissent challenges their need to believe that the answers are simple, presuming that the answers even exist.
I like this quote: "Both were met, for their troubles, with stunning ingratitude by the objects of their sacrifice, who felt humiliated at having their most-loathed children bail them out." I think progressives really detest Trump because they know, inside themselves, that he is solving the problems that they created.
Though I haven't read the "just be people" article yet, it makes me think of two things. The first, MY article on the burden of maintaining standards. It is easier to keep boys in a perpetual state of toddlerhood when we only supply them with unconditional adoration (the easy part as a mother) and forego the difficult part of teaching them how to provide value to those who will not love them as we do, which is.....every....other.... person. ..in....the...world. Easier said than done but it is one of the reason men's voices (dads or not) in the raising men conversation is so important. That is with the assumption that mothers, consciously or not, are not in the business of raising a man child who will perpetually shine only in the sunlight of his mother's love. But if we insist on doing it ourselves, if we constantly portray a father's desire to push his son in ways that feel difficult for us as default abusive or what we're really saying us, you can't be a hero, and you (father) aren't good enough to show him how to be one besides.
The second was a tweet from Alyssa Milano (saw rob henderson post about it) about not having fathers tell their sons to take care of their mothers when they go out of town on business cause they can take care of themselves. It's totally missing the point and simply communicates to sons "you're useless" while also communicating to daughters "any man who wants to protect you is wrong and degrading you"
For crying out loud, of course all the "heros" are having to overcome self doubt as opposed to a dragon.
I check your rant and raise you a tirade...
Edit: I don't play alot of cards, I think that should be see your rant and raise you a tirade...
It's not ladylike for me to say here how I felt about this column, but let's just say I was screaming Yes! the whole time. 🤭😂
My husbands favorite song is "Cocky" by Kid Rock and the men he used to be in competition with at work hated him for it. It was all good natured ribbing. Still, it's what men do. As they should.
On the main character versus victim point: At work I deal with personal injury lawsuits. I notice that many cases follow a trend: the plaintiff starts on a gradual trajectory of recovery that reverses and becomes a spiral of worsening pain and depression right around the time they retain an attorney...i.e., the point where becoming a victim aligns with their pecuniary interest. Of course, in many cases, the causation could be backwards--reverse trajectory leads to getting a lawyer--but it is a trend I've noticed.
Love them both, for different reasons. Tarentino is post-Catholic opera leavened with Shakespeare, the Coens are like a cross between Camus and Maimonides.
Read very little Camus and long time ago at that. Also, I am not sure what you mean by post-Catholic opera, I am familiar with a more traditional taxonomy, e.g. baroque, classical, romantic, etc.
Leavened with Shakespeare... How so? Shakespearean dialogues and monologues are (mostly) timeless and very human. Tarantino's are ... weird? Although I do see how people might like them.
And Maimonides??
In any case, that's just me going on record that I have no idea what you are talking about and not trying to pretend that I do.
What I love about all of them is that their movies are TOTAL movies. Every little detail is lovingly accounted for. From the screen play, to casting, to music, to camera angles, to lighting, an so forth. I do prefer the Coen brothers, though. And Miller's Crossing score is probably my favorite original score among all of the Hollywood movies I ever watched.
I would also honestly love to see the book (you will hopefully write) that takes a peak inside the mind of one of these men. Getting insights into their moral universe, which we don't have access too, would be fascinating.
I have a six-book series (fiction) in progress that concerns itself with the intersection between that world and the world of normal people. The first installment is called The Briggs Defection, and I am hoping it will finally see publication next year.
I also delve into it, to a limited extent, in Reclaiming Your Mind (currently serializing here for supporters) and The Art of Agency (the follow-up, coming later this year, and the one alluded to early in this article).
Excellent column, as usual. I don't need noir want for us all to see things the same way. But for others, dissent is threatening. Dissent challenges their need to believe that the answers are simple, presuming that the answers even exist.
I like this quote: "Both were met, for their troubles, with stunning ingratitude by the objects of their sacrifice, who felt humiliated at having their most-loathed children bail them out." I think progressives really detest Trump because they know, inside themselves, that he is solving the problems that they created.
"noir" ha!
Unintentional, but I'll just leave it...
Though I haven't read the "just be people" article yet, it makes me think of two things. The first, MY article on the burden of maintaining standards. It is easier to keep boys in a perpetual state of toddlerhood when we only supply them with unconditional adoration (the easy part as a mother) and forego the difficult part of teaching them how to provide value to those who will not love them as we do, which is.....every....other.... person. ..in....the...world. Easier said than done but it is one of the reason men's voices (dads or not) in the raising men conversation is so important. That is with the assumption that mothers, consciously or not, are not in the business of raising a man child who will perpetually shine only in the sunlight of his mother's love. But if we insist on doing it ourselves, if we constantly portray a father's desire to push his son in ways that feel difficult for us as default abusive or what we're really saying us, you can't be a hero, and you (father) aren't good enough to show him how to be one besides.
The second was a tweet from Alyssa Milano (saw rob henderson post about it) about not having fathers tell their sons to take care of their mothers when they go out of town on business cause they can take care of themselves. It's totally missing the point and simply communicates to sons "you're useless" while also communicating to daughters "any man who wants to protect you is wrong and degrading you"
For crying out loud, of course all the "heros" are having to overcome self doubt as opposed to a dragon.
I check your rant and raise you a tirade...
Edit: I don't play alot of cards, I think that should be see your rant and raise you a tirade...
It's not ladylike for me to say here how I felt about this column, but let's just say I was screaming Yes! the whole time. 🤭😂
My husbands favorite song is "Cocky" by Kid Rock and the men he used to be in competition with at work hated him for it. It was all good natured ribbing. Still, it's what men do. As they should.
On the main character versus victim point: At work I deal with personal injury lawsuits. I notice that many cases follow a trend: the plaintiff starts on a gradual trajectory of recovery that reverses and becomes a spiral of worsening pain and depression right around the time they retain an attorney...i.e., the point where becoming a victim aligns with their pecuniary interest. Of course, in many cases, the causation could be backwards--reverse trajectory leads to getting a lawyer--but it is a trend I've noticed.
>Main Character Syndrome
Reminds me of "Each and every person is obligated to say: the world was created for me" from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 37a)
------
Q: Tarantino or the Coen brothers?
Love them both, for different reasons. Tarentino is post-Catholic opera leavened with Shakespeare, the Coens are like a cross between Camus and Maimonides.
Read very little Camus and long time ago at that. Also, I am not sure what you mean by post-Catholic opera, I am familiar with a more traditional taxonomy, e.g. baroque, classical, romantic, etc.
Leavened with Shakespeare... How so? Shakespearean dialogues and monologues are (mostly) timeless and very human. Tarantino's are ... weird? Although I do see how people might like them.
And Maimonides??
In any case, that's just me going on record that I have no idea what you are talking about and not trying to pretend that I do.
What I love about all of them is that their movies are TOTAL movies. Every little detail is lovingly accounted for. From the screen play, to casting, to music, to camera angles, to lighting, an so forth. I do prefer the Coen brothers, though. And Miller's Crossing score is probably my favorite original score among all of the Hollywood movies I ever watched.
I would also honestly love to see the book (you will hopefully write) that takes a peak inside the mind of one of these men. Getting insights into their moral universe, which we don't have access too, would be fascinating.
I have a six-book series (fiction) in progress that concerns itself with the intersection between that world and the world of normal people. The first installment is called The Briggs Defection, and I am hoping it will finally see publication next year.
I also delve into it, to a limited extent, in Reclaiming Your Mind (currently serializing here for supporters) and The Art of Agency (the follow-up, coming later this year, and the one alluded to early in this article).
Welcome aboard!