Status Updates From Oglinda care deformează

...relationships. There are economic difficulties, there are class difficulties, there are differences in education that have to be negotiated. Philosophies clash. How else am I supposed to describe that, except as existential?

....I think I need to take another break from this book.

There are plenty of books out there that are about social relationships that feature male protagonists. Just as there are plenty of books that are about existential issues that feature female protagonists. I mean, just look at Katniss Everdeen, a character she's already mentioned. Her story is hardly a merely romantic one. Even the Bronte sisters and Jane Eyre can hardly be brushed aside as being solely about social

"Male protagonists are unhappy because of existential reasons, female protagonists are unhappy because of social reasons."

What does that even mean? First of all, is loneliness, and lack of social acceptance not existential? Second of all, have you read a book? Of course she's read a book, she's read lots of books, she just hasn't read any without putting an interpretation on them already in line with her worldview.

Women also use rape as a plot device.

This is not just a man problem, it's a bad writer's problem.

I...don't know what books she is talking about.

Have you read a book where the main character is a woman who does nothing but cook and clean and take care of her husband all the time?

I can't even think of a classic book like that, let alone a modern one.

I can actually think of a male book like that, practicing the presence of God, because it's literally him just cooking and cleaning and praying.

...and second maybe because you didn't draw the right boundaries?

Also, why is there this complete defense of women as such, as incapable of making mistakes, as utterly stainless, and blameless?

Have you met a human?

Male or female we are pretty talented at pissing off each other and hurting each other, and it pretty much always requires at least two people to result in problems.

I remembered why I stopped listening to this book. I can't get more than 3 minutes without getting irritated at how stupid assertions are just stated so baldly.

The current one is her children and husband 'were a part of her life, but they need not have thought that they could possess her, body and soul.'

Maybe the problem isn't with them, maybe it's with you, first of all assuming you know what they're thinking,

Marriage is not an unmitigated positive, nor is it an unmitigated negative for anyone involved in it.

It is an institution that requires sacrifice on both parties. If you view it as a method of one-upping or putting down your partner, instead of on building them up, then of course it's going to fail.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp, it's the same in any contractual relationship.

"Marriage is a boon for men and a regulatory mechanism for women."

At the same time as she is screaming about how the plotline for women in society is too limiting and ignores the reality of some, she cavalierly does the same thing to men.

Marriage is a boon for men, and it is a boon for women. It is a regulatory mechanism for women, and it is a regulatory mechanism for men.

Just like 'dad' and 'girl dad' don't mean the same thing, it's a descriptor. It's a multiplier, it's an adjective that packs more meaning on. It means more than the sum of its parts! But no. We have to be mad about it for some unknown, never explained reason, simply because there is no male equivalent. No 'boy dad's' or 'boy boss' es.

There is also no male equivalent for cat lady and yet no complaints there.

Gosh, you cannot make a feminist happy.

She's mad now because 'girl boss' isn't totally a female term because it appends the term 'girl' which means that 'boss' is connotated male, and they have to add the 'girl' in order to make it clear that it's not a man.

'the boss' 'da boss' and 'girl boss' do not have the same connotations. I know they share a spelling, but that doesn't mean they mean the same thing.

She just dismisses it, because 'oh, it's actually because it's all about the men's happiness.'

Have you ever heard the cliche happiness shared is happiness doubled? It's true!

What, do you want to be happy while men are miserable? We don't call that healthy, we call that misanthropic or schadenfreude and it's not exactly something that leads to healthy societies.

Happiness is not a zero sum game.

The fact that my happiness also makes my partner happy does not automatically make my happiness somehow lesser.

Yes. Women who get married and have children, and who STAY married, and interact with their children and grandchildren are happier then women who are single and who stay single. This has been demonstrated by every social science study done on the subject.

That or it tells us about the worldview of the author, that the repression of the sexual urge by religion or rules is unhealthy and it results in a) an explosion of unhealthy sexual activity, both by those who have been repressed, and by those being unable to access the sexuality of those who are being repressed, and b) the ultimate suicide of those who have been repressed.

It's how he sees the world, not how it is

The Tale of Genji for instance, while it told us a lot about the sexual mores, court life, and culture of the Heian period in Japan, more accurately told what Murasaki Shikibu wished those things could have been.

The book that this author just described, the lisbon sisters, seems to me to more accurately portray the depravity of the author, rather than being some sort of window into society at large.

Okay.

I am the first person who will agree and argue that literature, fiction in specific, can tell us a lot about humanity. It can even tell us a great deal about the culture in which it was written. Both of those things being true, however, does not mean that you can take a book of fiction and then argue that it accurately reflects reality in its every detail.