Christopher, I am startled by the post of yours to which I'm replying. Your discussion here, and your writing to brees, "You should post your post over there and see what emerges" implies something it's hard for me to credit, that you ally yourself with what brees did. Give it your approval. Think his post should be more widely circulated.
What brees did is to take out of context-- the context was discussion of the symbolism in a piece of 19th century literature about a woman who goes mad under the explicitly described oppressive circumstances of the period-- the following lines:
"I've read what you all have said though, and I agree with the idea of her madness as strength.." (Poet)
I think X is right, that her control is her madness, ...bla..."Sisters, you'll have to creep over him (the patriarchal male) every time!" (E)
"We have the power, maybe not as a class but certainly as individuals, to make them very unhappy, to exploit them, to blame them for our own choices. It is truly not 1899 any more." (Rambi)
I looked for a stream of that conversation that included concern for the children or empathy for the male role in such a tragedy...did I miss it?
and, Where is the NOW coalition for children of psychotic mothers? Madness as strength…harummph.
Christopher, do you not see what he's done? Really? You participated in that literary discussion. Do you not think brees's comment "Madness as strength...harummph" is idiotic? Did you not understand that was meant by that comment -- "Madness as strength" -- was an interpretation of the author's symbolism contained in that story?
The mentality shown in brees's post shows him to be a more primitive being than even I had understood. But your allying yourself with this outrageous distortion and willful stupidity in this way when you were a participant in the discussion, is... unbelievable to me. |
