What does this mean? That marriage was a girl’s career was the
all-around understanding in the days when the wife-mother was the
center of a home that was a hive of industry and a swarm of children.
And now we are asked to believe that girls still brought up with such
ideas are social parasites. Was woman a parasite when she occupied the
throne which some now have abdicated? This argument has gone insane.
Girls must be brought up as social parasites or sent to schools for
prostitutes. Are we in a woman-made world now, or in a man-made world?
I confess that I do not know where we are. But I read on: “Many a
mother nearly ‘dies of shame’ when Mamie bobs her hair and marches off
in the garb of a girl scout. ‘Girls didn’t do such outlandish things
in my day!’ They did not.” The jackstone-hating mother thus comes once
more to the fore, and she believes that her girls are going to the
devil in boy scout’s clothes with bobbed hair to the old swimming-hole.
I hope those schools for prostitutes are not hard by.
The girls, too, come in for their meed of shame. For after saying
harsh things of Freud, Dorsey first writes, “It is natural for the
boy to pattern his reactions towards his mother after his father; for
the girl to prefer her father,”--which seems to have been taken from
The Complete Freudian--and then clenches the matter by adding: “These
innocent tendencies may be shamed into permanent attachments, making
it difficult for the boy or girl later to make perfect substitutions.”
Did Dr. Watson really read this chapter (it is the last in the book)
and pass without remark the statement that a seeking-motion reflex
like the foregoing may have a substituted stimulus built into it by
_shame_? Or do he and Dorsey consider shame a pleasant emotion? No; we
are here plainly in the presence of mother and father fixations, of the
Œdipus complex--an innocent thing made dangerous and eternal by being
driven into the unconscious mind by shame. And Dorsey believes in no
unconscious mind, or in any other sort of mind. Usually he encloses the
hateful word in quotation marks. But he says (on page 11), “We do not
use the brains we have.” Is that the solution?
These are deep waters, so let us get back to our girl scouts. “For
we have to learn anew what our stone-ax ancestors knew. Girls can be
as ‘outlandish’ as boys! The girls themselves are just beginning to
discover it.” Are they? Bless their hearts! Everybody else has always
known it. What follows, however, is news. “Marriage behavior is in for
further conditioning. The sex-complex may become simple again.”[148]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account