Really?

I’m talking about this little tidbit from the “A Room of Our Own” self-styled “radical feminist” website at http://aroomofourown.wordpress.com

“Talking Cure,” A.K.A. “Soft P0rn,” A.K.A. “A Dangerous Method”

Now maybe I’m partial this this particularly ignorant post because I’m a fan of psychoanalysis; maybe it’s because I’m looking forward to the movie; maybe all of the above.  But this couldn’t be passed up; it’s a classic example of how most people on the internet don’t give a shit about thinking through the things they say and attempting a coherent argument.

Leaving aside the fact that “The Fabulously Mean Mutineer Queen of Power Kitty Glendower” bases her review on a trailer; this must be pointed out as an object lesson of the glaringly obvious: that 1) “radical feminists” don’t necessarily know shit about psychoanalysis, and 2) “radical feminism” can be used as an excuse for vapid stupidity and hypocrisy like so many other movements out there.  To wit – the contradiction that is the object of this post (and which was, surprise surprise, not accepted for AROO’s blog…snif)…

The poster writes:

Hollywood (a generic term for almost everyone making contemporary films) is determined to revise history. There seems to be something particularly sinister about revising history in film. Thus, we have Keira Knightley mucking up the Edwardian era with present day BD$M sensibilities in A Dangerous Method.

 Yah-huh, Miss Glendower.  The Edwardian period was….what?  Clean and pure?  And this isn’t even considering the fact that the “Edwardian Era” is derived from a period in English history – so you’re really just making a thoroughly anglocentric categorization of A Dangerous Method, which is a film about the psychoanalysts Freud (who was a German Jew) and Jung (who was a Swiss Catholic) and their careers (which unfolded predominantly on the European continent).1  So sorry milady, but despite your quaint infatuation with movie costumes you won’t find your favourite Edwardian Heroine in the film (or in the book, which you apparently should have looked at first).2

But let’s keep in mind Glendower’s blank incomprehension of the focal point of the film – psychoanalysis – and move on to her description of Knightley – “Nothing like a woman portraying a woman who wants to be beaten and fucked at the same time.”  Not even Freud For Dummies would risk such an inane categorization of psychoanalysis or Sabina Spielrein, whose noteworthy contributions to psychoanalysis – had you bothered to check – would have made a much more interesting blog topic than your self-flattery.  Miss Glendower…time to clean those prudish little feminist lenses and move on to..I dunno…reading the book instead of just watching the movie?  In reducing the productive complexities of psychoanalysis to simple quips designed to net you admiration from your e-friends, what you do in fact is commit the same rewriting of history (again, through your distorted “radical feminist” lenses) you purport to avoid and critique in Hollywood.  Ahh..nothing like vulgar feminism!  Like vulgar Marxism or vulgar capitalism, it’s always good for a laugh or three…

 But I guess Miss Glendower can always convince herself I’m a male and safely discount anything I say as “suspect”…kinda like the heavy hand of Oprah who smacks down into prime-time damnation anyone who disagrees with her or questions her logic, except here there’s way more feminist poseurism.  Womens’ “spanking and fucking” might be in for criticism at AROO, but draw any attention to the radical feminist self-masturbation there and boom!  You’re safely relegated to some sort of misogynist out-bin and ignored.  Put differently: you get “dicked and kicked.”

 

  1. But even this needs clarification; Jung would later (~1913) call his discipline analytical psychology against psychoanalysis.
  2. John Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, & Sabina Spielrein (New York: Vintage, 1994).