Would You Like an Anti-Thought Vaccine?
The problem with vaccines is not just the over-zealous demonization of ‘anti-vax‘ crowd – even though few vaccine skeptics are against all vaccinations – it is the conspicuous lack of debate. The pro-vaccine crowd does not want to have a reasonable conversation about risk reduction because it puts them on the slippery slope of acknowledging that vaccines are not 100% harmless.
We need to have the conversation about how to administer vaccines in such a way that the risk of injury is as low as possible. This may mean administering them spaced out over time or perhaps at later ages, depending on a patient’s vulnerabilities. Parents want to protect their kids from all kinds of harm – from both disease prevention tactics and the deadly diseases they fight – and parents will usually make good choices. However, INFORMED CONSENT demands honesty about legitimate risks, not stubborn refusal to have a reasonable discussion.
The bottom line is that vaccines need to be optional, no matter how highly recommended and preferable to doing nothing. Even if vaccine injury rates or severity are far lower than the harms inflicted by the diseases they prevent, they fail the basic test of “first do no harm.” Legislation that excludes the unvaccinated from public schools is a reasonable alternative to forcibly injecting medicine into someone’s body for the “greater good.” The fundamental right to bodily integrity cannot be violated in any society that calls itself “free.” The vaccine-booster crowd need to come to terms with this uncomfortable truth.
In the social media age, we have a wealth of information available, but separating truth from error remains a challenge. We need to evaluate each issue on its observable, measurable merits, not knee-jerk reactions or flame wars. Let’s talk about it, but let’s not pretend that thinking about vaccine safety is a bad thing.
Cognitive Dissonance is a Killer
Middle-aged white guys are killing themselves at alarming rates and the experts don’t know why. The suicide rate for men in their 50s increased 49% in the decade ending 2010. According to the CBC;
A recent study, co-authored by this year’s winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, Angus Deaton, found that a long-term decline in death rates changed direction in 1999 for middle-aged, non-Hispanic white Americans, especially for the segment of that population with only a high school degree or less.
I don’t think the trend is surprising nor the reasons mysterious and, despite what the “men’s rights” windbags contend, it is not the fault of women or feminism. These men who are failing to thrive were brought up in a kinder, gentler world, where income inequality was considerably less. When they were growing up, the middle class was booming and every generation seemed to be better off than the one before. That is clearly no longer the case. Working class Joe did what society expected him to do, but the rewards that were promised have not been not forthcoming.
The new reality of low economic mobility coupled with extreme income inequality grinds against the deeply entrenched, but now mostly false, belief that the “American Dream” is possible. Millions of Americans have been shoved out of the middle class into poverty, and the depth of that poverty is getting worse. In short, the working class white guy has finally figured out that he’s been lied to, and he feels duped and powerless. He didn’t see it coming, so he feels he’s failed to protect and provide for his family. That is a heavy burden to carry alone, and traditionally, men have been socialized to be stoic and not reach out for help, so they suffer in silence until it becomes too much for some of them to bear.
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. – Wikipedia
If we’ve been lied to all these years about the American Dream, what other core beliefs are just delusions? Here’s a hard one to swallow: America is no longer a democracy. Let that sink in. The ideal that Lincoln put forth in the Gettysburg Address of government of the people, by the people, for the people has indeed perished in the United States of America. The government is now more accurately described as a corporate-controlled Oligarchy. An academic study done by experts at Princeton and Northwestern concluded in September 2014 that policy decisions are driven by the economic elite and the average voter has a level of influence on public policy that is “near zero.” That’s right, the average voter has no power, no influence on the legislative process. Let. that. sink. in. This is a really tough truth to absorb. That uncomfortable feeling – a painful sense of betrayal – is called cognitive dissonance.
It not news that money is power and power is money. What many failed to notice is that there has been a massive transfer of wealth into the pockets of the 1% from the rest of us. The ultra-rich are hoarding vast amounts of capital and passing it down to their children, so the oligarchs at the top of the pyramid are using and abusing inherited wealth to buy influence and control politicians and policy. The game is rigged. The concentration of media ownership means that mainstream media does not distribute truth, but propaganda that shapes public opinion to keep people distracted from the fundamental shift of power into the hands of the economic elite. We could solve the energy crisis by hooking up a generator to George Orwell spinning in his grave.
Middle-aged, working class white guys are now on a level playing field for the first time with millions of others from marginalized groups who can’t help but think “karma’s a bitch, ain’t it?” The powers that be have always used our differences to divide us with the political weapons of fear and anger. Even the poorest white people considered themselves better off (or just ‘better’) than their black neighbours. There is certainly a tradition of dis-empowered men building up their own egos at their wives’ expense. If even the formerly privileged white guy finally realizes he’s just as screwed as everyone else, what is left to divide us with? Many men still cling to the idea that competition is better than cooperation. When a critical mass of people understand that compassion is more likely to lead to happiness, we may see a shift in consciousness that leads to greater social justice, reduced inequality, and greater prosperity for the 99%. However, that isn’t going to happen in an Oligarchy.
The way out of this mess isn’t rocket science. The same forces at play in the U.S. have been at work in Canada, where we finally kicked out a right-wing Prime Minister in favour of one who promises to reform the electoral system to make it more fair to voters. Electoral reform is the key to taking democracy back. In Canada it means getting rid of first-past-the-post so our votes aren’t wasted. In the U.S. the biggest issue is campaign finance. Now that Americans are learning that they don’t live in a democracy anymore, what are they going to do about it?
Edit: Bernie Sanders could have done amazing things. Perhaps people will wake up by 2018.
Here are some links to some other interesting ideas;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/financial-crisis-corporate-power-george-monbiot
The Daily Show nails it again.
The only show on television I will record and regularly watch is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. As a Canadian I love Rick Mercer’s Rants too, but I guess the farce that is U.S. politics is funnier because I don’t live there. Here’s a little photo meme of a recent episode on the US fighting with and against Iran, simultaneously.
I think Trevor Noah will be great, but I will miss Jon Stewart. It will be interesting to see where he goes next.
Until we find out, I’ll keep on enjoying The Daily Show and also former Daily Show correspondent John Oliver who now has a weekly show and does brilliant work.
If you want to pull back the curtain a bit farther on how messed up ‘murica is, check out a recent interview with Noam Chomsky.
If you like seeing enlightening bits of info in your facebook news feed you might like my Connect ALL the DOTS page.
How a Weeping Buddha Works
Many of us have seen wooden carvings of weeping men curled up in a ball carved from a single piece of wood. They can be any size but are often around the size of a fist. It is said to be a good practice piece for apprentice wood carvers because it allows them to learn how to carve the larger, easier features of limbs and musculature without having to create the more difficult features of the face. As for the meaning of the image, some say that there is so much pain and suffering in the world, Buddha weeps so we don’t have to. Others spin a tale about a warrior who fought a masked opponent and only discovered after defeating him that his opponent was his own long-lost son. Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or lack thereof, this sculpted image can be used as a powerful tool.
The weeping yogi can help people who suffer from depression to externalize their crippling pain. Many who suffer from the pain of depressive mental illness have a great deal of difficulty in understanding that their pain is not an integral part of their personality. Developing an awareness that “you are not your feelings” and also that “you are not your thoughts” is crucial in gaining control of your unruly mind. In order to benefit from Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or related treatments, it is important to learn how to take a mental step back and become an observer of your own thoughts and feelings.
By holding this little carving in their hands, conceptualizing the pain that it represents and observing that pain as being outside of themselves, sufferers may be able to take that necessary step back from their own pain. They may imagine that their little wooden buddy is feeling their own negative emotions and they may want to stroke his back in order to comfort him because they know how badly it hurts. This may put them in touch with their own compassion, not for a block of wood, but for themselves. It may even release a flood of cleansing tears that will wash some of that pain away. If used properly, a weeping Buddha isn’t a “magical” talisman but a functional mnemonic device that can help comfort people who are struggling to cope with psychological pain.
If you experiment with this technique, please share your experience or results in the comments.
50 Shades of NOPE
The raging social media debate around 50 Shades of Grey stems from a fundamental misperception. Protesters are picketing screenings, charging the filmmakers with glamorizing domestic violence and women who read and enjoyed the books are feeling insulted and defensive. The two sides are butting heads because they are coming at this from two very different perspectives.
A woman reading about being tied up and whipped is in no danger of physical harm; on the contrary, she’s in complete control of the experience and of course Ana is a fictional character. Fans who feel judged by the critics are saying “no harm, no foul” but if the criticism stings, you might ask yourself why. Denunciations of the franchise are not aimed at women who have the freedom to read or watch what they want and enjoy their own fantasies. I think we all understand that you don’t read romance novels in order to enter into the feminist discourse. The personal experience needs to be separated from the social aspect of this phenomenon.
The valid criticism of the 50 shades franchise comes from thinking critically about the negative impact this franchise will likely have on our society as a whole. The sheer magnitude of the controversy speaks to how many people are thinking about this and connecting it to other important conversations our culture is having about women, sexism, freedom and consent. The problem is that there are lots of people who are too young or inexperienced in relationships to comprehend the significance of this cultural context or protect themselves in a real relationship that crosses the line and becomes abusive. Worse, they may view abusive behaviour is ‘normal’ or acceptable because it is portrayed that way in the media.
Is this just a tempest in a teapot, or has yet another battle been joined in an increasingly loud culture war? I think we’re at a tipping point in the understanding of, and respect for, women’s autonomy and agency. There was a time when white people used the N-word with impunity. An uncomfortable struggle preceded our recognition that people of other races, religions and sexual orientations should not be treated disrespectfully. The incredibly ignorant recent comments from the mouths of Republican lawmakers are a clear indicator that we haven’t yet turned the corner with respect to our cultural recognition of the equality and dignity of women. On the contrary, there is a tiny but loud “mens’ rights movement” hell-bent on resisting any progress towards actual social equality. Sometimes these guys cross the line and engage in threats and hate speech that should be prosecuted. The problem with 50 Shades isn’t that so many women enjoy it, it’s that some men* will use it as a textbook.
*yeah, we know, “not all men”
ps; If you enjoyed this blog, you might like this facebook page:
Kick-that-guy-right-in-the-nuts
When Freud got Schooled by a Woman
Sigmund Freud, venerated master who laid the foundation for psychoanalytical theory, got a couple of things spectacularly wrong. He placed far too much emphasis on libido and unconscious drives as determinants of personality, while underestimating the influence of environmental factors like birth order and interpersonal relationships. Where he really screwed up was in his androcentric view that women were driven by libido just like men, except that they tended to become hysterical for want of a penis.
Karen Horney (I know what you’re thinking , but it’s pronounced horn-eye) never considered herself a feminist, but refused to be held back by traditional gender role expectations. She tore Freud’s penis envy to pieces and explained why a woman really doesn’t have any use for a phallus of her own. Horney pointed out that what women can do physiologically in carrying a pregnancy to term, birthing and suckling infants, is far more enviable than the male ability to pee standing up. The following essay was written for a psychology class but it fits into the blog posts I’ve written lately on feminist topics.
The Feminine Psychology of Karen Horney
Karen Horney was a woman both of her time and ahead of her time. The circumstances of her life allowed her to develop theories of the personality that were far more sophisticated than she was given credit for. Although she achieved significant professional accomplishments, the pervasive androcentrism of that still marks western civilization prevented her work from having the impact it could have otherwise. This essay, after a brief biography, will trace the early development of Horney’s feminine psychology by exploring the series of papers published in 1967 which looked at the feminine personality in its own right, rather than assuming that a woman was just an inferior man. A consideration of Horney’s later life and work shows how she moved beyond the rigid structures of the male/female binary to develop a more holistic, optimistic and universal theory of personality development. Also, it is worth exploring the reasons that Horney’s name rarely appears in academic psychology textbooks today and also to consider how a better appreciation of Horney’s thinking might be beneficial, not just to psychology, but applied to larger issues as well, through consilience.
Early Biography
Born Karen Horney was born in Germany to an upper-middle class family 1885. Her father, a stern Norwegian sea captain, was 17 years older than her more social mother, who was Dutch. Karen’s mother supported her educational ambitions against her father’s resistance (Kerr, 1987). A few years after the university in Freiburg accepted female students, Karen began training to become a doctor (Eckardt, 2005). She continued her studies in Berlin and married Oscar Horney in 1909 (Kelman, 1967). In 1913 Horney demonstrated her remarkable fortitude by nursing her daughter while writing her medical exams. She then began a training analysis with Karl Abraham which she completed in 1915, although she was reportedly disappointed with the results (Kerr, 1987). By the time she had completed her training as a psychoanalyst Horney was also mother to three daughters, which contributed to her insight into the psychology of the female (O’Connell, 1980). By 1920 Horney was on the teaching staff of the new Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute (Kelman, 1967). Berlin between the wars was a vibrant society, alive with new ideas and a thriving arts community (Eckardt, 2005). Although Sigmund Freud was the acknowledged “master” of the discipline, the psychoanalysts in Berlin were less directly influenced by Freud, who trained a loyal following in Vienna, and thus had more freedom to develop their own ideas about psychoanalytical theory (Kelman, 1967).
Horney’s marriage suffered as a result of her husband’s expectations that her family life should take priority over her career and the couple separated in 1926 (O’Connell, 1980), although they didn’t divorce until 1937. Karen Horney left Berlin for the United States in 1932 to become Associate Director of new Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute (Kelman, 1967). Two years later Horney moved to New York where she continued to practice, write and teach until her death in 1952 (Eckhart, 1984).
Early Development of Theory
Although Karen Horney began her career as an orthodox Freudian psychoanalyst, she soon began to deviate from Freud’s understanding of the psyche (Kelman, 1967). Over the course of her career, Horney’s theories of personality moved further from the orthodox, leading to conflict with mainstream psychoanalytical thought (Kelman, 1967). She was so far ahead of her time that her ideas languished, unappreciated by psychoanalysts who nonetheless incorporated her ideas in subsequent development of the discipline (Smith, 2006).
Freud and his theories emerged from nineteenth century Vienna’s sexually repressed Victorian mores. This was in agreement with his Jewish heritage which positioned men at the head of the household, with women in a subordinate role (Kelman, 1967). Freud’s maleness coloured his perceptions of what it meant to be a person and his ideas tended to be mechanistic and deterministic in keeping with the scientific thinking of his time (Lopez, 1984). He viewed the human organism in a materialistic way, as a closed system with a fixed structure (Kelman, 1967). His point of view naturally informed his perspective, and reflected the attitudes toward women which were common in his culture (Kerr, 1987). In Freud’s theory, males were normative, the phallus was central in their psychosexual development and the libido was the primary drive behind human development even in infancy. In this biological determinism, women, lacking a phallus were like defective males, always seeking to replace that missing part. The primary motivation to have a child in Freud’s theory, was to create a substitute penis, hence a male child would be preferred (Kerr, 1987). This “penis envy” was the basis of female neurosis, in Freud’s opinion (Kerr, 1987).
Karen Horney was trained as a psychoanalyst by Karl Abraham, who himself was a devoted Freudian (O’Connell, 1980). Although the theories she developed in later work diverged from those of Freud and Abraham, she always acknowledged that Freud’s theories formed the foundation on which her own concepts were built (Kelman, 1967).
Feminine Psychology
Throughout the 1920’s and early 1930’s Horney published a series of papers that illustrate the development of her thinking about feminine psychology (Kerr, 1987). Many of these papers were collected and published in English in 1967. Kelman’s introduction to Feminine Psychology describes how the uniqueness of Horney’s ideas was evident even in the first paper she published in 1917 in which she asserted that “much that we have regarded as constitutional” could be remedied by removing “a blockage which can be lifted” (Kelman, 1967). This idea never left her, but was expanded and developed in future writings.
Karen Horney published her first paper on feminine psychology in 1922. This was the first of a number of papers on this topic that she published over the next decade (Kerr, 1987). In 1923 Freud published his theory about the importance of the “phallic phase” in psychosexual development. Horney challenged Freud’s thinking not just on a theoretical level, but backed this up with clinical observations from her practice (Smith, 2006). She noted the more practical aspects of penis envy in that a girl might envy the boy his ability to pee standing up, to hold and see his genital organ, but suggested that a girl’s feelings of inferiority stemmed more from cultural issues than from sensing that she is no more than an incomplete male (Lopez, 1984). The messages of inferiority a girl is subjected to come from the messages she receives from her environment and her family, including restrictions and cultural stereotypes (Symonds, 1991) Horney was able to identify the phallus-centred point of view as natural to the male theorist, but challenged the way they applied this viewpoint to theories of the psychosexual development of females (Symonds, 1991). The biological capacities of women should not be ignored, in Horney’s view, as in her therapeutic experience, males were as likely to envy women their capacity to give birth and suckle their infants, as women were to envy the male phallus (O’Connell, 1980). Horney asserted that what women envied was not the penis, but the superiority that males assumed in society, which limited women’s opportunities (O’Connell, 1980). In addition, Horney noted that envy was a pathological condition, regardless of one’s gender (Kerr, 1987; Symonds, 1991).
In “The Flight From Womanhood” published in 1926, Horney makes a number of keen observations about feminine psychology. Still greatly beholden to the ideas of Freud, she elaborates an alternative to his theory of the centrality of the male phallus by suggesting that we “free our minds from this masculine mode of thought” (Horney, 1926). In so doing, it becomes clear that the great biological difference is not the male’s fleshy organ, but the woman’s generative capacity. Horney points out that a baby is far more than a poor substitute for a woman’s missing penis, but represents great fulfillment, “ineffable happiness” and joy (Horney, 1926). She goes further to suggest that male envy of women’s physiological superiority is the cause of the forced subordination of women by men (Lopez, 2005). This obstruction of women’s development and full social and economic participation leads to the view that women are in some way inferior, but it is wrong to assume that inferiority is the cause of the subordination (Horney, 1926). Horney goes on to flesh out feminine perspectives on psychosexual development, genital awareness, castration fantasies, libidinal interest in the opposite sex and rejection of the feminine role, or the “masculinity complex” (Horney, 1926).
An important concept in understanding Horney’s critique of Freud’s theories is androcentrism. She quotes George Simmel’s views on the assumptions of the normative nature of maleness which liken the dynamics to the master and slave relationship. According to Simmel, it is the privilege of the master to be unaware of his superior position, but the slave cannot ever forget his place in this hierarchical relationship (Horney, 1926). This understanding of privilege is still not widely understood or accepted by the dominant culture today as any online discussion of feminism will demonstrate.
Another analogy to the male/female relationship is the parent/child model, which Horney proposes in a later paper on “The Problem of Feminine Masochism.” Horney notes that like penis envy, masochism is a neurotic condition, rather than a universal condition of women, as postulated in Freudian thought (O’Connell, 1980). While masochism occurs more frequently in women, this is an adaptation or coping strategy to deal with the restrictions placed on them by society (Kerr, 1987). Horney refuted Helene Deutsch’s odious assertion that women desired rape and humiliation and countered that women sought safety and satisfaction through being inconspicuous and dependent (Kerr, 1987). It was this need for safety rather than Freud’s pleasure principle (the id) that motivated human activity (Smith, 2006). The basic anxiety that the world was potentially hostile resulted from conditions that made children feel unloved or unsafe and thus helpless (Smith, 2006).
The roles approved for women encouraged them to be dependent on men for care, protection, love and prestige and thus encouraged them to focus on the beauty and charm that will please men, and make men and children the center of their lives (O’Connell, 1980). Over time it became clearer in Horney’s writing that gender roles are so dependent on cultural influences that the biological determinism of Freud could be safely ignored (Smith, 2006). Freud resented her opposition to his theories and went so far as to suggest she failed to understand the ‘intensity of her own desire for a penis’ and failed to appreciate that desire in her patients as well (Kerr, 1987). This unwarranted ad hominem attack indicates the deep roots of the nerve Horney’s sharp observations skewered.
Horney’s Career in America
When Karen Horney was invited to become the Associate Director of a new psychoanalytic training center in Chicago in 1932, she had the approval of Freud himself (Clemmens, 1984). During this period Horney visited Berlin only to find that the Nazi’s had taken control of the institute there, ending any thoughts she may have had about returning to Europe (Kerr, 1987). However, her two-year contract in Chicago was not renewed because of serious differences of opinion between Horney and her superior, which led her to move to New York. The move to a new life on another continent heightened her sense of the importance of cultural influences on human development (O’Connell, 1980).
By 1941, Horney’s shift from a biological approach to an appreciation for cultural influences and psychosocial factors led to a schism from the New York Psychoanalytic Institute which was also in the process of splitting from the international body in Europe (Kerr, 1987). Her theories had moved so far from the foundation of Freudian thought that she was demoted as a training analyst at a dramatic meeting during which almost half of the membership present declined to participate in the vote, and after which Horney and four like-minded colleagues immediately resigned and marched out (Kerr, 1987). The small group soon established The Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis but within a few years there was another split and the American Institute for Psychoanalysis was formed (Kerr, 1987).
Beyond Feminine Psychology
Horney’s theories continued to develop, moving beyond the male/female binary to a more universal idea of human development. From 1937 onwards, Horney wrote several books which developed a more complete conception of human personality development. Rather than human behavior being driven by libido, Horney postulated that a basic anxiety was the foundation of neurosis and that while the coping mechanisms chosen tended to vary by gender, they were not exclusive to each sex (O’Connell, 1980). These mechanisms were grouped into general movement toward, against or away from others in order to reduce one’s level of anxiety (Symonds, 1991) She continued to develop and modify her theories throughout her life, but although Horney’s theories coalesced into a broad understanding of neurosis and the self, she never considered her model of the personality to be complete (Clemmens, 1984).
Another key difference between Horney and Freud was her optimistic view in the face of his belief in a destructive “death instinct.” Horney thought that people were only destructive when their naturally contstructive nature was blocked by negative forces from the environment (Smith, 2006), whereas Freud thought there was an instinctive counterpoint to the the life force, or Eros. The film “A Dangerous Method” suggests that Freud’s theory of a death instinct may have been suggested to him by Sabina Spielrein, another under-appreciated woman psychoanalyst.
The Influence of Horney
Karen Horney was a woman ahead of her time in the challenge she posed to male supremacy in the psychoanalytical establishment. Her thinking helped to reframe the understanding of personality by acknowledging the importance of cultural factors like sexual stereotypes and interpersonal relationships (Ingraham, 2005). This attention to non-biological determinants also provided the basis for a more optimistic evaluation of neurosis and the possibilities for positive change and personal growth (Ingram, 2005). Another of the great contributions of Horney’s work is the holistic nature of her practice, taking in the many causal factors that lead to neurosis (Smith, 2006).
Freud’s tremendous influence on the development of psychoanalytic theory and his rejection of Horney’s challenge to his androcentric views are part of reason that Horney is not better known in the field (Clemmens, 1984). Held in high esteem by her contemporaries, Horney’s ideas were later excluded from mainstream psychoanalytic thought (Kerr, 1987). Although Horney rarely appears in textbooks, her ideas were eventually incorporated in psychoanalytic practice (Smith, 2006). Concepts like compartmentalization, externalization, blind spots, and the “tyranny of the should” have been incorporated into other personality theories, as have the striving for self-realization and the unlimited potential for personal growth (O’Connell, 1980)
The posthumous publication of Horney’s papers on Feminine Psychology in 1967 contributed to the development of feminist thought which grew into “second-wave” feminism in the 1970’s (Buhle, 1998). The challenge to mainstream psychoanalytic thought that Horney represented was not without pushback. Generally speaking, when the soldiers came home from WWII, the women who had kept the munitions plants operating tended to get married and head home to raise families. However a disturbing trend of blaming mothers for everything wrong with their children arose in this period (Buhle, 1998). To this day, an androcentric perspective dominates in psychology, despite specific efforts to ameliorate this bias by, for example, forbidding the use of male pronouns in a generic context (Hegarty & Buechel, 2006).
Conclusion
The psychoanalytical theories have much to contribute, even today, to discourse in a number of fields. The rise of third-wave feminism is underway in reaction to a global spreading awareness of the persistence of casual sexism and “rape culture” (Mansfield, 2014). The mechanistic, reductionist scientific paradigm so deeply entrenched in Freud’s time is still the dominant viewpoint the scientific establishment (Hegarty & Buechel, 2006).
The destructive nature of humankind is more in evidence than ever with respect to the increasingly urgent issue of climate change. Horney would not agree with those who think it’s too late to make a meaningful change to save the biosphere from catastrophic habitat destruction and species loss. The male-dominated capitalist system would benefit from an injection of Horney’s understanding of the pathological nature of envy. Horney’s holistic approach may be able to inform other disciplines and help to move toward the kind of consilience that can bring about the meaningful and significant change that our species now requires.
References
Buhle, M. J. (1998). Feminism and its discontents: A century of struggle with psychoanalysis
Clemmens, E. R. (1984). The work of karen horney. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 44(3), 242-253. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1007/BF01252687
Eckardt, M. H. (1984). Karen horney: Her life and contribution. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 44(3), 236-241. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1007/BF01252686
Eckardt, M. H. (2005). Karen horney: A portrait: The 120th anniversary, karen horney, september 16, 1885. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 65(2), 95-101. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1007/s11231-005-3620-6
Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965-2004. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 377-389. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.4.377
Horney, K. (1926). The flight from womanhood: The masculinity complex in women as viewed by men and by women. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 7, 324.
Ingram, D. H. (1985). Karen horney at 100: Beyond the frontier. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 45(4), 305-309. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1007/BF01252864
Kelman, H. (1967). Karen Horney of feminine psychology. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 27(2), 163-183. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1007/BF01873051
Kerr, N. J. (1987). “Wounded womanhood”: An analysis of karen horney’s theory of feminine psychology. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 24(3-4), 132-141. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1111/j.1744-6163.1987.tb00295.x
Lopez, A. G. (1984). Karen horney’s feminine psychology. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 44(3), 280-289. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1007/BF01252690
Mansfield, H. (2014). Feminism and its discontents; ‘rape culture’ at harvard News America Incorporated.
O’Connell, A. N. (1980). Karen Horney: Theorist in psychoanalysis and feminine psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(1), 81-93. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb01035.x
Smith, W. B. (2007). Karen Horney and psychotherapy in the 21st century. Clinical Social Work Journal, 35(1), 57-66. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1007/s10615-006-0060-6
Symonds, A. (1991). Gender issues and Horney theory. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 51(3), 301-312. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1007/BF01249252
Shirt-Storm
Dr. Matt Taylor, great scientist and all around decent human being, apologised for inadvertently offending women by wearing an inappropriate shirt for a press conference. In a perfect world, that would be the end of the story, but we don’t live in that world. Now the anti-feminists and “men’s rights” activists have their knickers all in a twist about the ‘attacks’ on Dr. Taylor.
I read tweets criticizing the shirt. Tweets by women tended to be civilized and didn’t judge Dr. Taylor as a person, just the choice of shirt. Another article asked why nobody who worked with Dr. Taylor noticed that maybe that shirt wasn’t the best choice for international press exposure. So where did these charges of horrible abuse come from? The first nasty tweet I found was by a man who said “Only a douchbag would wear this shirt.” See the pattern here?
Here’s a quote from Boris Johnson;
I watched that clip of Dr Taylor’s apology – at the moment of his supreme professional triumph – and I felt the red mist come down. It was like something from the show trials of Stalin, or from the sobbing testimony of the enemies of Kim Il-sung, before they were taken away and shot.
Really? Do you really think Dr. Taylor’s situation could be equated with someone about be murdered? The only people told they deserved to die for expressing opinions on this issue in the Twitterverse were WOMEN. See the pattern here? Boris Johnson, blinded by privilege, and all those clever memes about how unfortunate that a person is judged by what he wore, miss the point by a light-year. This is what systemic sexism looks like.
ANATOMY OF A SHIRT-STORM:
Scientist makes poor fashion choice AND makes some sexist comments during a press conference.
Reasonable women: “That shirt would make me feel uncomfortable in a shared workplace.”
‘Professional’ Feminists (also reasonable): “Yes, the Scientist should have worn a different shirt. BTW, why didn’t anyone else who works there notice that shirt was inappropriate for an international press conference?”
Knee-jerk people who don’t share that workplace or know Dr. Taylor personally: “Only a total douchebag would wear a shirt like that, idiot, you clearly hate all women, blah, blah, blah.”
Misogynists and others blinded by privilege: “Its just a shirt. Get over it.”
Scientist: Sorry, I won’t do that again. *sniff, sob* (because he is emotional. because he didn’t ever intend to hurt anyone’s feelings or make them feel unwelcome, and it just never occurred to him that his words or that shirt would cause offense because years of conditioning and male privilege made him blind to the possibility that objectifying half of humanity would make professional colleagues belonging to that other half feel uneasy.)
Women who pointed out the poor fashion choice: “Thank you, I really appreciate that.” (now have huge respect for scientist)
Feminists; … (Moving on, but also have huge respect for scientist who learned and shared.)
Knee jerks and Misogynists: “Hey bitches, how dare you viciously attack that poor man. You forced him to demonstrate emotion in public, thereby humiliating him, because real men don’t do that. What a horrible thing to do, you’re just as bad as a dictator who killed millions of his own people! You feminists should all just die. now.”
Rest of the small-minded world: “Fight! Fight! Fight!”
Sane people: “What the serious f*ck is wrong with you people?”
ps: Dear media who pumped this story through their conflictinator for maximum drama and thereby profit: you deserve a figurative kick in the goolies because you suck at your job.
pps; December 7, 2014. At this point it looks like the gamer-gate contingent of 12-year old trolls are the loudest voices in the online #shirtstorm conversation, as most intelligent people have moved on to more important things. Systemic sexism is still an issue in workplaces, schools, churches and the media. Rape culture is a bigger issue than ever. The whole sordid mess is like a pimple about to pop and I can see the connections between sexism and racism, which has also reached a head in the wake of decisions not to indict cops who kill unarmed blacks. The struggle for justice for women will join and fortify the struggles for justice for blacks, immigrants, the LGBTQ community, the homeless, low-wage workers, indigenous communities and people who live in ‘sacrifice zones’ bearing the brunt of environmental destruction. We are all connected and I continue to believe we can solve all the problems that threaten our biosphere.
Gomeshigate Triggers Memories
Not all the memories triggered by Gomeshigate are awful. I’ve never met Jian Gomeshi, or listened to his show. I feel badly for the legion of sexual assault survivors who have had traumatic memories triggered by the current media circus. In my past I’ve been subjected to relatively “minor” sexual assaults a half a dozen times, including being fondled by a dentist when I was twelve. I didn’t tell my mother because it was so subtle I wasn’t sure what had happened. When I was clueless and 17 a guy in his twenties grabbed me and aggressively French-kissed me without seeking consent. When I finally extricated myself from his bruising grasp I was so offended I would have kicked him in the nuts if he wasn’t sitting down. Instead, I grabbed the nearest stick and walloped his kneecaps. Justice was served.
The Gomeshi stories (sigh) have a whiff of familiarity about them. A man abusing the power that comes with his position. Women choosing to remain silent about it, yet whispering among themselves. In my early 30’s I worked for an engineering firm. One day, over lunch, some female co-workers dropped a hint that my boss was a creep. When I expressed surprise they asked me if he had ever tried anything. I told them no. They were surprised. I said maybe he correctly suspected that if he crossed that line I’d deck him. I was glad to be warned what to watch for, though.
I asked my co-workers to tell me what had happened to them. The whole department had gone to a restaurant where alcohol was served at the annual Christmas lunch. One of the secretaries was ‘hugged’ by one of her superiors as they were all leaving to head back to the office. He managed to slip her the tongue and fondled her breast right there in the restaurant. Too stunned to do anything, and really needing her paycheck, she didn’t complain to HR. Sadly this wasn’t the only incident.
Another woman told me the same man had recently cornered her in an elevator and, as she put it, ‘stuck his tongue down my throat.’ She never made waves because she knew she wouldn’t be believed. She was an outgoing, vivacious woman who didn’t mind a little harmless flirting. She felt that if she embarrassed this man by calling him on his inappropriate behaviour, she’d be accused of instigating and pay for it professionally.
I was so troubled by this abusive behaviour I composed an educational document. It detailed what sort of behaviour (groping) should be avoided and also mentioned that sticking your tongue down co-workers’ throats was definitely a bad idea. I discussed it with the sexual assault victims to make sure they were OK with my doing this. I posted “Office Etiquette for Dummies” in the lunch room. The next day, all hell broke loose.
When the male engineers read this notice that had mysteriously appeared on the bulletin board, they freaked, even though it included the clear ‘not all men’ disclaimers and caveats that fairness demanded. Before the end of the day the dragon lady who was responsible for HR had honed in on a likely suspect. Apparently recycling and garbage bins were searched for drafts. I was called into her office and asked if I was responsible. I said yes, expecting to have an interesting conversation about what had happened. Instead, she said “You’re fired.” I packed up my gear and went home.
The next day I typed up a seven-page letter to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, and copied the president of the company, as well as the president of the multi-national company of which this firm was a subsidiary. By the time my case had been assigned to someone at the tribunal, the firm wanted to settle. I insisted that the company agree to educate their staff about sexual harassment in the workplace, got a small severance cheque and found a job in a less sexist industry. Last I heard, the engineer had been assigned to a job site in eastern Russia, where female workers were probably less fussy about their rights.
That all happened in the 90’s. I thought that professional, Canadian men had evolved to the point where that kind of crap didn’t happen. I was wrong. Engineering was still a boys’ club. The reason we still haven’t put all this kind of crap in the past is that the legal profession was then – and probably still is – another boys’ club. It’s not that they all hate women, but I think it’s fair to say that in workplaces governed by clubby groups of men, an androcentric perspective often prevails. Androcentrism is visible to women who are awake to it, but many would prefer to ignore it because acknowledging a problem you are powerless to solve is frustrating.
A pervasive androcentric atmosphere may be completely invisible to men because of the goldfish problem. An old goldfish swimming past two young goldfish says “How’s the water?” A young goldfish turns to his friend and says “What’s water?” They’re so immersed in it they’ve simply never noticed it. This is what is meant by the phrase ‘check your privilege.’ See the water, Mr. Goldfish. Learn some new vocabulary, like “micro-aggression.”
Now that find myself single at 50 I find there is nothing any man has that I want. As an introvert, I like my alone time too much to give up another minute entertaining a partner. The realization that I don’t ever have to risk my well-being in a relationship again has been a wonderfully liberating experience. Perhaps it also frees me to speak truths more sociable women may not feel comfortable sharing. There are still plenty of men who have a sense of entitlement to women’s bodies and/or women’s attention. They need to learn that we owe them nothing. Not a word, not a glance, not even a thought. If the intense and very useful conversations swirling around Gomeshigate teach this lesson to more men and women, perhaps the cloud of scandal has a silver-ish lining.
I’m sure Gomeshi will be getting plenty of advice, if not from the PR firm that dumped him, then at least from a lawyer. I hope he feels compelled to speak the truth, the whole truth, not just to his lawyer and the police but also a psychiatrist who specializes in paraphilia. Maybe this is ridiculously optimistic, but instead of playing PR games perhaps he will apologize to any and all women he has harmed, make amends, learn, grow and come out of the other side of this a better and wiser person.
Addendum. A friend asked me if I could explain why a woman would go on a second date with a man who abused them on the first one. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility. The cult of celebrity is powerful and is designed to make the rest of us feel small and unimportant. When you consider the kinds of images in the media – Rhianna’s BDSM music video for example – it normalizes things that I was never exposed to at a young and vulnerable age. I like the characters in Criminal Minds but eventually I got really annoyed at the level of sexual horror inflicted on female victims. When you see shit like that all the time, it becomes less shocking, less ‘unthinkable’. Despicable behaviour is becoming normalized through constant depictions in video games, literature, film and television.
My perplexed friend wanted to know: if a woman knew he was a creep and went out with him again, how can she accuse him of a crime? Some women just aren’t street-smart, but their lack of knowledge and experience doesn’t mean we should throw them under the bus. Is there anyone on this planet who doesn’t know a woman who gave the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn’t deserve it? Some women put themselves in harm’s way through their own willful blindness, but ignoring huge red flags is not a crime. Here’s the thing: If a woman permits herself to be alone with a man who previously abused her, that cannot be interpreted as blanket consent for him to abuse her further. The man doesn’t get a free pass to hit someone just because he got away with it the first time. If a woman who ‘let him get away with it’ once goes out with Gomeshi a second time, he still commits a criminal offense by hitting her. Period.
Some Problems GMOs Won’t Solve, and Some that it Will.
The latest article widely shared by the ‘anti-label’ community seeks to simplify the debate and steer it away from the real issue. The one key issue that GMO labels will absolutely address is transparency. There is a reason food producers are obliged to list ingredients and nutrition information on packaging. The consumer needs this information in order to make informed choices, if that is what they wish. Of course, there are plenty of shoppers who look at price tags and ignore ingredients, and they will likely continue to do so. The principle of “Informed Consent” means that withholding information is wrong, even if you believe on the available (however limited) evidence that there is probably no harm in long-term human consumption of a diet high in genetically engineered foods.
The safety issue is a red herring. The pro-GMO lobby often try to trip people up by saying there is no proof of harm when in truth, the types of research that would answer questions of safety with respect to long-term human consumption have not been undertaken. Nor does anyone expect that sort of study to be undertaken by the GMO promoters, as they have nothing to gain by it, but everything to lose in a simple cost/benefit analysis. With respect to the four arguments raised by Nathanael Johnson in Grist;
1. Too much technology in my food
The author correctly raises questions about the process of mutagenesis, in which chemicals or radiation is used to trigger mutations in the target organism. Changes to the genome that emerge from this process are unpredictable and may affect any part of the genome, so why isn’t mutagenesis among the genetic engineering processes that we demand labels for? Good question, and I thank Kevin Folta at the University of Florida who first brought this issue to my attention.
In my opinion, telling us whether or not our food should be labelled is not the job of science. The role of scientists should properly be to help inform policymakers and the public of the differences between various types of genetic engineering and to be clear about what existing research does and does not tell us about the possible repercussions with respect to human health. When considering a hundred billion cows that ate GMO feed for 90-120 days and were still healthy at the end of that period, just before they were slaughtered for food, we cannot draw the conclusion that feeding RoundupReady or BT corn and soy to human children year after year will have no affect on their health. Thus recent headlines asserting that the “GMO Debate is Over” were demonstrably false, and Forbes and/or Jon Entine should have changed that article’s title accordingly. Even if labels don’t reduce the amount of ‘technology’ in the food supply they are essential to uphold the principle of “informed consent” that underlies existing labelling laws.
2. Pesticides
I’m not wading into the whole complex pesticide issue except to say this. I think it would be awesome to know what chemicals are applied to the food in the produce aisle and/or what chemical residues remain on/in the food and in what concentrations. A girl can dream. Even though problems associated with pesticide use won’t be solved by labels, labels are still a good idea.
3. Corporate Control
The premise that this problem won’t be solved by labels is not a valid argument against labeling. The problem of corporate control of food is somewhat overshadowed by corporate control of everything else on this planet including our post-democratic governments. People who came out in droves to protest inaction on climate change are starting to catch on that the solution involves taking back control of the government and regulatory agencies from the corporations that successfully bought them. The revolving door between regulatory agencies and industry needs to be policed to curtail corruption. Regulatory capture has accelerated the capitalist processes of deregulation that have been gathering steam since the 80’s and this trend needs to be reversed. Even though they won’t solve the problem of corporate control, labels are still a good idea.
4. Patents
I can’t think of any impact food labels will have on any issues around patents. If I’m missing something, I’m sure somebody will tell me in the comments, but once again, no matter what you think of patents on GE technology, indicating the use of such technology in the food we buy is still a good idea.
The conclusion Nathanael Johnson reaches is this:
I don’t buy the idea that if we throw lots of information — in the form of labels — on our products, we’ll be able to shop our way out of our problems. Rather than banking on this tenuous market solution, we could be addressing these issues directly.
This is true. Fortunately we are not forced into an either/or situation. The idea that “every problem has a solution” is a truism, but it may be more helpful to notice that most problems have several possible solutions and that we don’t have to pick just one. Labels can’t solve all the problems, but they are still a really good idea.
GMO Apologist Funding and the End of Democracy
I’ve been poking around for information on how the money flows from the GMO Lobby to the relatively small cadre of apologists who defend them. When clicking through links about genetic engineering (GE), the same names keep popping up. If you follow the pro-GMO money it tends to lead back to the very corporations who stand to rake in massive profits by keeping people ignorant about what goes into their food supply.
As a starting point, let’s look at Kellogg’s funding of a recent study suggesting that 100 billion cows were healthy right before they were slaughtered for food after ingesting GE feed for only 90-120 days. The study came out of the University of California at Davis, which gets lots of research funding from ‘industry partners’ .
When I started clicking links to the Kellogg Foundation I found some rather odd data. The branding on their website is all about helping children. Nothing in the mission statement about the quality of cow feed. So I searched their grants page for UC Davis and found a number of awards adding up to over six million dollars, only a pittance of which went to grants that had anything to do with children. I fail to see how grants to livestock feed studies mesh with the stated mission of the Kellogg fund.
This sort of inconsistency leads to accusations of corruption and money laundering akin to what the Grocery Manufacturers Association did during GMO labeling campaigns in California and Washington state. Kellogg’s funnelled money into both of those campaigns due to concerns that GMO labeling will eat further into their profits, down 16% in the 2nd quarter. This setback was attributed to changes in eating habits rather than the boycott of Kellogs products to protest their opposition to labeling their GE foods.
I’m not attacking the scientists involved in pro-GE studies. They probably believe that they’re doing good work for the benefit of mankind. Noam Chomsky explained in Manufacturing Consent how the systemic filters ensure that the people who get ahead in the media are the ones whose outlook meshes with that of their corporate masters. There are similar filters operating in academia.
Let’s turn our attention to the cozy group of GMO cheerleaders who jumped on that feeding study like a duck on a junebug and started sharing the shit out of it. I first found it on a Facebook page and followed the links to an article in Forbes by Jon Entine. He’s head of an outfit called the Genetic Literacy Project. Sourcewatch follows the funding through front groups and networked organizations that are funded by right-wing think tanks and ultimately the Koch Brothers, who also support anti-labeling laws.
When I started sharing my views on Twitter, I got into a lengthy exchange with Kevin Folta at the University of Florida. I didn’t find any links to Kellogg’s there, but I did stumble onto some fascinating reports on how the Koch Brothers bought a department and tried to buy the presidency of another of Florida’s state universities. Of the 12 institutions in Florida’s state system, UFlorida has the largest endowment and enrollment and also appears on the list of recipients of Koch brothers’ largesse. Unfortunately, a lack of transparency makes it impossible to determine how much Koch influence might be exerted at UF. Regardless, it is clear that Folta has solid connections to the Genetic Literacy Project and other GMO cheerleaders who present at the same conferences.
Why should you care who funds whom? It’s not just that a handful of corporations are trying to get a stranglehold on the world’s food supply. You should care that YOU DON’T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY ANYMORE. Let that sink in. This is not just my opinion. Princeton academics have documented this fundamental shift to oligarchy. Predictably, this story received almost no coverage in the mainstream media. Chris Hedges describes what has happened as a corporate coup d’etat. The same kind of stealth tactics that Big Ag pursues have also been used with great success by Big Pharma, Big Oil and Big Tobacco and Wall Street took it to a whole new level. Naomi Klein‘s new book, does a great job of explaining how capitalism is destroying the biosphere.
If the corporations have already won, as Hedges and a great deal of evidence suggests, what are the people to do? Citizens in the U.S. and Canada will have to take back democracy from the ground up, starting at the municipal level. (Take a look at what they’re doing in Seattle if you need some inspiration.) In every election at the provincial/state or federal level the number one issue we need to demand accountability on in Canada is ELECTORAL REFORM. In the U.S., campaign finance needs reform to address the corruption and legal bribery that has quietly robbed the people of their power.
Expect the bullshit machine try to scare you with all manner of reasons to keep the status quo. Don’t drink their kool-aid. An estimated 400,000 people who hit the streets of New York on September 21st to demand action on climate change were just the tip of the iceberg. As more North Americans realize their country has been stolen by the .001%, I predict we will see even larger crowds in the street. The police state cannot prevail against a populist uprising.
Billionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer points out that when economic inequality reaches the record levels we are seeing, the result tends to be an uprising or a police state. Then Ferguson happened and showed America the police state had already arrived. Peace is a good thing. Nobody wants a violent revolution, but maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable option to anyone who values their civil rights or the biosphere we depend on for survival. If you don’t get off your arse and demand your democracy back, you will condemn your children to live as serfs on a poisoned planet, who think they are ‘free’ because the media told them so.
ps; If you found this enlightening, please consider sharing it with others.
Connect ALL the Dots 