Nausea.

www.desiringgod.org/articles/behold-your-queen

I should know better by now, but when I come across it I can’t help but be astonished.

yet- Perhaps I misread the linked post.

But

It appears to me that the author is saying that women should not, and need not be strong, that being strong is an inherently masculine trait and that men have failed in their caring for women as evidenced by the characters such as Captain Marvel.

Judge for you self.

I’m pretty sure he is saying that it is unnatural and basically unethical to have brought women to a place where they have to exhibit strength and power. That is it men’s responsibility to make sure women don’t have to be powerful.

⭐️

Such an opinion makes me nauseous.

19 Comments

      1. Hahhaha true. On a serious note, i think you will have a total different perspective on mental health since you working in it. I would love to read that

      2. For sure. I have plenty to say so far!

        And I read your post about oral and eating. But there’s just so much to say. 😫

        In short, after my first few days with schizophrenic and bi-polar one patents, I have some preliminary speculations:

        I am more convinced that humans are primarily bio-machanical creatures. That mental issues arise mainly due to physiological variances. Behavior is a manifestation of bio-environmental factors. I am not sure that the exact configuration can be known though, as to a “cure”. I ponder that humans vary with no corrlational constant. That the constant is a part of the variable measure, like a calculus, such that any application is necessarily partial and that the universe will always negatively adapt in the longer run; that is, give rise to a new random occurrence of adaptation.

        All we can do is make the attempt that is involved with knowing toward being.

        But this is just one tiny speculation.

        Tentatively; presently biology must be center in any consideration of mental health. Maybe Nietzsche was onto something with his “existence is the gut” thing. 🙂

        There is no mental health without physical health; however, this is to say that one indeed can be mentally healthy without attending to their physical health, but that any mental disorder often seems best to look to look first to the physical body component. Yet, often we must deal first with the mental in order to get to the consideration of the body. 🤣

        But I think the significant issue is that mental health perhaps occurs through an “opening” that the body lays a ground for, but once this ground is opened, there is no basis for an absolute physical health which equates to mental health.

        Is that making sense?

        *

        I think Freud was answering to the eras philosophical attitude which was accompanying the beginnings of human beings knowledge of itself as a universal creature. I think Hegel and Kant and such represented a kind of advanced knowledge which had limited access to the human body. So his theory maybe represents a sort of “in-between” philosophy.

        James Hillman critiques Frued and then Explains Jung by showing us how he was really more of a creative fiction author Than a true physician or psychologist as we know of it today. But Hillman was suggesting more that through “fiction” is how psychotherapy actually functions best.

      3. I dont understand what Hillman means by fiction: we tell ourselves stories we believe in?
        All in all it is very interesting what you say. Mind and body are intertwined and they are the same, so no wonder mental health is linked to physical health

      4. Well, I kind a mix together a couple things with Freud and then Hillman.

        Hillman Was a Youngisn therapist. But it seems he’s really more associated with what we call the postmodern therapist approach, or narrative approach.

        The postmodern narrative approach to therapy, as you might guess, is that everything is a narrative. That there is nothing that exist outside of narrative, but in the context of being a psychologist or a counselor or a therapist, this is really saying that everything occurs in the present, and what the therapist is looking for in a session with a client is aspects of narrative. For example, the protagonist, the antagonist, rising tension, plot line, themes, characters, etc. pretty much anything that you could think of so far as if someone’s telling you a story.

        In this sense everything is a fiction because ultimately all that is happening is everyone is just telling stories about themselves in a world.

        But he does do an analysis of Freud so far as Freud does a lot of case studies. Anna o, For example, it was a woman who had neuosis/hysteria that his mentor, can’t remember his name, found the “talking cure” around. He discovered that if he just let this woman come into his office and talk about whatever she felt like talking about with no interruptions that after not too long her neurosis was cured, his her hysteria was relieved. That’s where Freud got the idea for “psychoanalysis”.

        And I guess if we look back at Freud he bases all his psychoanalytic theory off of various case studies. Anna o being A primary one’s

        Hellman’s point is that these case studies, for all their presumption of scientific rigor, are really just narratives. They’re really just fictions that Freud wrote around what this patient was doing at Cetra and his theories about what might be going on inside the mind.

        His point is that case studies while may be centered around a patient’s particular mental experiences are really just stories that the doctors are telling about this person. And he goes on to show how a lot of Freud‘s ideas are very fictional, in the sense that they are just different terms for aspects of a narrative. They are terms that were placed into a different context called science, but if you analyze the structure of them they really are just another story.

        With the ego, I’d, the super ego and stuff like that, these are all fictional tropes, creative inventions that Freud’s thought could be used to describe what he was seeing. that then Jung , Using his creative mind, saw as indicating something even more than what Freud saw.

        But then we see that because of the presumption of science, the people who came after Freud started looking at the actual people that this suppose it psychoanalytical theory is supposed to be based on so far as a model of how the mind works or how it’s structured but then we see that because of the presumption of science, the people who came after Freud started looking at the actual people that this suppose it psychoanalytical theory is supposed to be based on so far as a model of how the mind works or how it’s structured, And they proceeded to find out that the things that Freud was talking about really made no sense, or had great difficulty in making sense un less you kind of shape to them or you kind of worked them around what the patient was actually doing or presenting.

        In short, the reason why Freud has largely fallen out of favor except maybe in philosophical circles is because it really doesn’t describe what is actually occurring with mental illness and mental health. That is, if you’re really concerned with helping these people.

        And, I think the reason why Freud is so popular with philosophers is because Freud’s conceptions really a rose out of his era and the people just prior to him, their philosophical ideas about the human being in the universe, for example Hegel and whoever all those German Europeans lol . Freud was taking what was considered as the forefront of intellectual scientific knowledge, which was hugely philosophical and it’s leanings, and then trying to apply the idea upon what these people, these patients which were mostly women probably and then really insane people, seemed to be presenting to what they already logically understood as making ideal sense.

        I think that’s why philosophy likes Freud because Freud represents the transition between pure philosophy as the peak of intellectual knowledge, and the beginnings of what we understand now as science, which is based more upon what you observe and then drawing conclusions from what you observe rather than sitting in your mind and coming up with logical things that should make sense, and then trying to get what you observed to fit into them.

        Anyways . ..

      5. Literally, pure psycho analysis is the patient coming into the psychotherapist office and laying on a couch and then talking for two hours or so. The psychotherapist does not offer any sort of intervention or explanation or anything to help the person. Pure psycho analysis is just the person coming in and talking, and the theory is that if a person is allowed to talk about whatever they want with no judgment that they will come to their own solutions and they will relieve whatever mental problem is going on with them by that sheer activity.

        “Psychoanalysis“ from the Freudian standpoint is basically the theory that Freud came up with in listening to these people talk. He would listen to people talk and he would read case studies by other neurologists and he would try to come to a theory about how the mind is actually structured.

      6. Thank you for this analysis. I am not a big fan of psychoanalysis but it is an interesting field to explore. How u describe things, especially mentioning hellman, sounds like the lacanian theory and analysis. Anyway u mentioned that he is postructuralist so no wonder he and lacan have a lot in common.
        Anyway keep on bringing these posts to light 😉

      7. I think Hillman ( sorry I’ve been misspelling ). Is a half generation after Lacan.

        Yes. I think they are similar. But Lacan was much more formalized in structure. I think Hillman is more about noticing clues in how the person talks about themselves and thier world, and then working in such a way to allow the person to notice the story they tell with reference to why they might be coming to therapy for help. Thus to help people take control of thier lives by helping them to begin to tell of different story of themselves.

        Lacan is think was more focused on a “therapeutic philosophical truth” that the story itself is what one is supposed to realize has no substance. That the story tells itself despite what one would want to identify with. That the identification is really the problem.

        Zizek merges Hegel and others to exemplify his his-story (her-story?) and discourse actually present and also function. How, maybe like a rainbow, the object of discourse is always withheld at every moment, not just some moments. What is important is thus thus view and not the substance, the material over the idea. The act as opposed to the Being, Becuase the Being is really the act. Capitalism in this way is the present ideology of merging the act to substance , the current way of keeping out of sight the true story of the self.

        Perhaps.

        🌈

        Like X. Seems X might be a way to “hold on to” the Idea that we are something substantial in Being One. That nothing still is something —and yet what is it?

        😁

      8. Even more interesting here. So to put it simply, one has to think differently to begin tell themselves a different story. Then come a change of perspective followed by a change of actions etc. This is very useful but I think one needs an outer voice or thing to push them to do it. The encounter with an outer person or a phenomenon can trigger the change in thinking. What I mean by outer person is the other person, a therapist or even any inspiring person. It takes a lot of will of change for a person to do this without any experience with the other / outer phenomenon

      9. Part significant of therapy is just having a witness. For sure. And someone who is not judging. There is something to “the talking cure”. But not. everything.

  1. I think to have a heroin saving the world instead of a hero is not a bad idea after all. I watched all marvel’s movies but I’m not a huge fan. Anyway why the nausea?
    Hello there, been a while, how are u?

    1. I’m good. Yes I was just thinking that very same thing that I hadn’t heard from you in a little bit. 🙂

      Yeah, I haven’t seen the movie yet but that article is morning tough women, as though women have to become strong because of a failure of Christian men or something like that. It’s kind of disgusting kind of makes me nauseous.
      At least the way I read it is that men are supposed to protect their women and women are supposed to be dainty and frail and women- like.

      1. I am very busy too. I just got a great job at a mental health hospital and I’m going to school to be a ultra compassionate humble genius therapist. 😁
        🍄

    2. The article is saying that characters like Captain Marvel have come about because of a failure of ethics. The author is exhibiting a pity for strong women, like something is wrong Becuase they have to be strong and courageous.

      That is nauseating to me. ⭐️

      1. I can see where all this comes from, turning women into superheroes to hide some kind of a flaw they have. Well i didnt see it this way but that is nauseating like you say

      2. How did you read the link post ?

        No. I don’t think he is saying that the female super hero is hiding a flaw of men; I think the author is saying that the proper order of the universe is that men are strong and need to protect their women. Their women. That, if men were strong in their Christian faith then women would not feel compelled to have strength of to have to exhibit that kind of superhero kind of fortitude. I think the author is saying that women are supposed to be frail and meek and humble and subservient, and the reason why they are not is because men are failing at their duty to God.

        But the author is voicing it in such a way as to sound as though he is being extremely humble by his opinion. He’s making it sound like it is so sad that women have to be strong. That he is so humble and his Christian faith and his duty to God that it saddens him to see these feminist type of figures on the movie screen.

        Like, he is not offended and he is not angry, but he is sad he’s having pity on this women who have to exhibit such strength.

        That is what is making me nauseous.

      3. Somehow the lack of equality and respect of the other one, whether a man or a woman, led us to an imbalance between genders. Therefore one is constantly in need to show one’s power all the time. Religion played a huge role in this imbalance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s