5 ms·

I'm responding to this: The authors blame the change in language towards feelings on the failure of “neo-liberalism” which seems dubious and without plausible

I'm responding to this: The authors blame the change in language towards feelings on the failure of “neo-liberalism” which seems dubious and without plausible mechanism. If anything, I would put the causality the other way. A more plausible explanation is more female writers and the closely related feminization of culture. Another great outcome of the 70's that I've benefited from is the explosion in interest in the psychological theories of Carl Jung. It seems every therapist in California is a Jungian. To say that there is a feminization of culture is an error in Jungian psychology because within each of us is an anima and animus (masculine/feminine) aspect. The masculine was dominant from WW2 through the 1950's (at least). Returning to a more balanced masculine/feminine culture shouldn't really be called "the feminization of culture" in my opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus

slibhb 5y ago
You wrote: > To say this was bad and blame it on women is an echo of conservative criticism from those days. My point is that the author isn't saying it's bad. He's saying "culture has become more feminized, there are more women writers than ever before, that's why there's more emotion in writing". That does not imply that this so-called feminization is bad. It does imply that women are, on average, more emotional than men which is controversial but seems obviously true to me. > To say that there is a feminization of culture is an error in Jungian psychology because within each of us is an anima and animus (masculine/feminine) aspect. The masculine was dominant from WW2 through the 1950's (at least). Returning to a more balanced masculine/feminine culture shouldn't really be called "the feminization of culture" in my opinion. If culture was masculine through the 1950s then "returning to a more balanced masculine/feminine culture" could reasonably be called "feminization of culture," right? Again, you're assuming that the term "feminization of culture" is negative. I'm saying it isn't, at least not in the context of MR blog posts. In the most literal sense, it's just referring to more women in positions of power and influence, particularly as writers (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/may/16/how-women-conquered-the-world-of-fiction https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/may/16/how-women-conq...).

slibhb 5y ago

You wrote: > To say this was bad and blame it on women is an echo of conservative criticism from those days. My point is that the author isn't saying it's bad. He's saying "culture has become more feminized, there are more women writers than ever before, that's why there's more emotion in writing". That does not imply that this so-called feminization is bad. It does imply that women are, on average, more emotional than men which is controversial but seems obviously true to me. > To say that there is a feminization of culture is an error in Jungian psychology because within each of us is an anima and animus (masculine/feminine) aspect. The masculine was dominant from WW2 through the 1950's (at least). Returning to a more balanced masculine/feminine culture shouldn't really be called "the feminization of culture" in my opinion. If culture was masculine through the 1950s then "returning to a more balanced masculine/feminine culture" could reasonably be called "feminization of culture," right? Again, you're assuming that the term "feminization of culture" is negative. I'm saying it isn't, at least not in the context of MR blog posts. In the most literal sense, it's just referring to more women in positions of power and influence, particularly as writers (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/may/16/how-women-conquered-the-world-of-fiction https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/may/16/how-women-conq...).