Blog Archives
An Open Letter to Bishop Charles “HELLIS THAT HE’S TOUCHING?!”
Dear Bishop Ellis,
I was both angered and disgusted by your reprehensible behavior towards Ariana Grande at Aretha Franklin’s funeral. You grabbed her – clearly against her will – and held her closer when she tried to withdraw from your grip. You verbally humiliated her not only by telling a joke that was both racist and sexist, but also by deliberately fondling her breast in full view of millions of people.
Comparing a woman to a menu item at Taco Bell is insulting on multiple levels.
- It implies you assumed she was Mexican. She isn’t – not that there is anything wrong with that, but you should know during the current administration it isn’t a good time to be a Mexican American.
- Taco bell is “cheap” food, which implies a lack of dignity.
- “Fast” is another way of saying a woman is promiscuous.
- “Food” is a commodity that men consume, which effectively treats her like an object, and also has disturbing sexual connotations
- by saying you didn’t recognize her name, you indicate that she has no professional reputation that you are aware of, implying that she’s essentially a nobody.
Your words were insulting and you physically restrained her while you delivered them. You then added to her humiliation; putting her on the spot by calling her an ‘icon’ at an event meant to honor the iconic Aretha Franklin, thus you also managed to insult the deceased. You claimed to give her “respect” while mauling her and digging your fingers so deep into her breast she may have bruises. The irony is absolutely appalling.
Your actions were extremely disrespectful and harmful not just to Ms. Grande, but also to:
- The late Aretha Franklin, the icon from whom you should have learned (and to whom you should have shown) RESPECT.
- Aretha Franklin’s family and other mourners, by acting inappropriately at a funeral in a way that will tarnish memories of the day.
- The congregation of your church, upon whom you have brought dishonor, scandal and conflict. Imagine feeling stunned and embarrassed by what happened yet thinking loyalty is required despite this abominable behavior.
- Your community, for failing to be a decent role model and for making them wonder how many other women have suffered the same kind of treatment from you, and how you behave when nobody is watching.
- Your wife, for your straying eyes and wandering hands.
- Every misguided man who tries to pull the same stunt on an unsuspecting woman because he saw how easily you got away with it.
- Every woman who was reminded of the painful shame and humiliation she endured when subjected to the exact same kind of abuse, which is to say almost every one of the millions of women who watch that video.
- Every good man who has grown weary of being treated as a potential threat by many of the women who have been victimized by sexual predators.
Your physical and sexual aggression was totally inappropriate in any context and was not just immoral, but also illegal. In the state of Michigan, “criminal sexual conduct in the 4th degree” is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both. You can and perhaps should be arrested and charged by the Detroit Police. You claim that what you did was unintentional, but men all over the world know what it means to “cop a feel” and every adult woman knows how it feels to be touched inappropriately by someone who, if confronted, pretends it was an ‘accident.’
When you were confronted about your behavior, this is what you said:
‘It would never be my intention to touch any woman’s breast. I was, I don’t know I guess I put my arm around her. Maybe I crossed the border, maybe I was too friendly or familiar but again, I apologize.’
No, you did not apologize. You tried to make excuses for inexcusable behavior. “I don’t know,” “I guess,” and “Maybe” are weasel words that try to deflect blame. It does not matter whether you were fully cognizant of the harm you were inflicting in the moment. It does not matter if your apparent lust was subconscious or not. Yours were not actions that any true servant of the Lord would inflict on a woman. A sincere apology would have admitted that you touched her breast and that it caused harm and humiliation.
‘If somebody took it the wrong way, or if they were offended by it, the easiest thing and the right thing for me to do, as a Christian, as a man of God is to apologize, and I sincerely apologize to Ariana again if I offended her in any kind of way.’
When you qualify your remarks with “IF” you are denying the offense instead of taking responsibility for your actions. You used that qualifying “IF” three times in one sentence. That is not an apology.
‘I certainly want to apologize to Ariana and to her fans and to her family and to her entire community if what I said was taken the wrong way. Listen, maybe it’s just a joke that went bad…Listen, it’s not about whether I meant it or didn’t mean it, or whether somebody took it the wrong way, I’m the one that said it and if it was taken to be an offensive statement, I apologize. That’s the easiest thing for me to do, the right thing for me to do and I certainly hope that she will forgive me.’
There’s that “IF” again, with a “MAYBE” thrown in for good measure. Deflecting blame away from yourself by qualifying your words in this way is certainly the easiest thing to do, but it is clearly not the right thing to do. In the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation, absolution doesn’t happen until after confession. If you hope to be forgiven, you must first offer genuine contrition. An honest apology would acknowledge all the harms you caused and take full responsibility for them instead of trying to preserve your own reputation by minimizing your transgression. Your reputation has now been stained by your own words and actions. You cannot atone for this kind of sin without taking up the cross you constructed and bearing it.
I want to be very clear about why I don’t think your congregation should allow you to brush this incident under the rug. Your apology to Ariana Grande was unacceptable because:
- It failed to acknowledge the harms caused: specifically the verbal humiliation, physical aggression and sexual violation you subjected Ms. Grande to, but instead tried to minimize and excuse your behavior.
- It failed to acknowledge the true nature of your transgression which was both immoral and illegal and failed to take full responsibility for your actions.
- It failed to reassure anyone that you would refrain from engaging in such reprehensible behavior in the future.
I will go further to add that if you are in agreement with the sanctimonious folks who judged Ms. Grande’s costume to be inappropriate for a funeral, and tried to make the story about her attire instead of your actions, here are some thoughts to consider:
- Decisions about what performers wear are often made in conjunction with professional stylists and we don’t know who made the decision about what Ms. Grande wore.
- The service was not just for your own congregation, as people of all faiths were invited. Not all churches have the same dress code. That dress would be a non-issue in my church.
- If the church has a specific dress code they should have informed Ms. Grande and/or her manager before she came to perform. If they failed to do so, they have no business complaining after the fact.
I encourage you to do the right thing by making a proper apology, even though it will be difficult and painful for you. I encourage you to accept any legal consequences that arise from your actions. You may need to consider resigning your position as Bishop, whether your congregation demands it or not. I’m sure you find the prospect of public humiliation daunting, but as we sow, so must we reap. I pray that the Lord grants you the strength, courage, humility and wisdom to create something good out of this crisis.
Sincerely,
Just another of the millions of women who have walked a mile in Ariana Grande’s shoes. #MeToo
PS: In closing, here is a selection of wise words from the good book that you may contemplate at your leisure.
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you.” 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28
“And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” Matthew 25:40
“Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.” Proverbs 28:13
“Woe to those who scheme iniquity, Who work out evil on their beds! When morning comes, they do it, For it is in the power of their hands. They covet fields and then seize them, And houses, and take them away They rob a man and his house, A man and his inheritance. Therefore thus says the LORD, “Behold, I am planning against this family a calamity From which you cannot remove your necks; And you will not walk haughtily, For it will be an evil time.” Michah 2:1-3
In Praise of Disagreeable People
Here we go again. The far left is baying for Dr. Jordan Peterson’s head on a platter, but there are compelling reasons they should pipe down and think this through. I’m a left-leaning feminist myself, and when Peterson popped up on the radar last year over the issue of Bill C-61, I did some research before jumping on the bandwagon. Peterson was and is correct in his unpopular assertion that Canadian law can now compel us to use language dictated to us by others. This is fundamentally different from telling us that certain language is unacceptable and cannot be used.
Under Bill-C61, it is possible for unreasonable people to abuse the law and target people unfairly, and it is already happening. As an example, I know a young person with mental health issues who went through a period of gender dysphoria whose gender identity and expression seemed to shift into something new every couple of months. I can tell you that it is possible to weaponize your preferred pronouns and use them to make your family ‘wrong’ for slipping up and referring to you as the gender they have perceived since before you were born. One hopes that adjudicators of the new law will take this into account.
Plenty of people seemed to think that Peterson was a bad person for pointing out a serious flaw in the proposed legislation, and assumed incorrectly that his views were based on bigotry, despite all evidence to the contrary. Those too lazy to think for themselves adopted the flip-side of the view that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” because they assume that someone who is admired by the alt right must be an enemy to anyone on the left. This is ignorant and short-sighted because the conservative views that Peterson holds are based not on prejudice, but on careful thought and sound scientific evidence. Having watched many hours of his classroom lectures and I can’t help but admire the brilliant mind and well constructed arguments behind even the views I don’t share.
It makes no sense to tear down one of the most intelligent people on the right, because his influence can have a positive impact on the extremists and lead them back from the edge. The advice he gives to juvenile, racist, misogynist trolls is to clean your room, sort yourself out and become a better person. In this respect, Dr. Peterson is a positive role model, and considering the available alternatives, it would be daft to knock him down.
The most recent kerfuffle centers on a short video clip extracted from a much longer conversation with Camille Paglia. Peterson, used the term “crazy” in the colloquial when referring to radical feminists with views so extreme they’re unable or unwilling to have a rational debate. He wasn’t referring to women generally, or even those who generally disagree with him, but those who attack without giving any consideration to opposing viewpoints. You would have to be crazy to think that psychologists never use that term in the colloquial.
Peterson, speaking as a man, pointed out something that underlies conflict between men generally: that when having a serious verbal dispute, the “option” of resorting to physical violence lurks under the surface. This possibility can temper a man’s behaviour because he knows if he goes too far, he might get punched in the face. While it is true that a woman who ‘goes too far’ may suffer the same fate, – notwithstanding the depressing facts behind domestic violence statistics even for women minding their own business – Peterson is probably correct that a woman is statistically less likely to be punched in a similar situation. However, critics need to understand the difference between acknowledging violence and endorsing it. I think its worth pointing out to those who enjoy life in safe bubbles, where violence only happens on film, TV or video games, that the direct experience of physical aggression is a daily reality for millions of people – men, women and children. However, some of the women who recoiled at Peterson’s comment about men holding back may have experienced men who didn’t.
Perhaps the statement that was most offensive was the idea that you have absolutely no respect for a man who will not fight you under any circumstances. Although swords or pistols at dawn is no longer considered an acceptable way to settle a disagreement, men still use their fists when they ‘take it outside’ but this usually happens only when they’re drunk. Christians will point out that Jesus refused to fight when they came to arrest him and also refused to let others fight on his behalf, and he seems to get plenty of respect. Pacifists like Ghandi and MLK are certainly worthy of respect, but Peterson’s comments were directed at conflict between two individuals, not the phenomenon of non-violent resistance on a grand scale, which can be an effective method of fighting injustice. People who freak out at any mention of physical aggression need to appreciate that the threat of violence by the state is what creates the safe bubble they live in.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Peterson’s comments was the way he used the word “control” as applied to “crazy women.” This got backs up for pretty obvious reasons. The long history of men exerting control* over women, coupled with more recent memories of men who still try to do so, makes many of us feel hurt and angry. This comment could be considered insensitive, but I would give Peterson the benefit of the doubt and assume he’d reconsider the way he phrased that particular thought. If this was the only thing I’d heard from Peterson, in a hit piece intended to paint him as a monster, I might think he was one, but having listened to the way he talks about his own family, its clear he isn’t. He expresses profound admiration and respect for his wife, loves his family deeply and is very grateful to and for them. Jordan Peterson says lots of things very well, so if he sometimes says something poorly, I’m not going to get my knickers all in a twist. Jordan Peterson has become a public figure who has many, many admirers and a few loud detractors. Those on the far left dislike that he makes reasonable arguments against their most extreme views. It’s fine to attack his ideas, but calling him a ‘nazi’ is unworthy, unhelpful, unkind, and incorrect. On the other hand, calling a critic who calls him a nazi “crazy” is not an entirely unreasonable position. He may be a public figure, but he is also a human being and his critics are no less flawed.
I don’t know Peterson’s big five personality profile, but I suspect he might score below average on the ‘agreeableness’ trait. Agreeable people are nice, and easy to deal with, so its natural that we all want other people to be agreeable. However, I can tell you from personal experience that people who are too agreeable tend to be doormats and others tend to walk all over them. If a couple is having a dispute with a landlord or tradesperson, the partner who is less agreeable is the one who is best suited to handle that conflict. As a society, we prefer agreeable people because they are easier to control**, but we need to understand the dark side of being agreeable, and develop more appreciation for the utility of disagreeableness. If Rosa Parks was more agreeable, she wouldn’t have been arrested.
Its fine to appreciate agreeableness, but those who demand political correctness and seek to police and prohibit disagreeable speech and thought are on a very slippery slope. We already pathologize introversion and celebrate extroverts. Demanding that everyone behave in an agreeable way is very dangerous, and legislating it is far worse. When George Orwell wrote “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” the person under that boot would be an agreeable person, so be very careful what you wish for.
* see reference in next paragraph marked “**”
** see reference in preceeding paragraph marked “*”
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
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
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.
Connect ALL the Dots 