Clocking at barely 130 pages this was, surprisingly, a very little and short read for such a deep topic! Nevertheless, Patricia Robert-Miller, professClocking at barely 130 pages this was, surprisingly, a very little and short read for such a deep topic! Nevertheless, Patricia Robert-Miller, professor of rhetoric at the University of Texas, managed here to nail the most important, key features of demagoguery. What about it?
There is a common misconception indeed according to which demagoguery, like populism, is merely about charismatic and bombastic leaders, sprouting prejudices by tapping into emotionalism over rationalism, and from the top of their pedestals. As the author insists, nothing can be further from the truth. Demagoguery, on the contrary, is not about some political leaders (who merely exploit it when it has already gone mainstream), but about us or, rather, how we debate certain issues, based on our own prejudices and unconscious biases.
This is a very important book, not only because of what it reminds us about demagoguery (e.g. a 'they vs us' mindset, with 'they' being not only stereotyped but, also, not held to the same standard as 'us') but, also, for its outlines of the most common claptraps serving a demagogist thinking (e.g. the commonest fallacies when it comes to prejudice; how language is key into determining whether a discourse is merely part of a democratic debate or, on the contrary, dangerously demagogist...). The examples used are mostly from the USA (e.g. the anti-abolitionist movement; the treatment of Japanese citizens during WWII...) but are enough to illustrate the key points being made.
Again: surprisingly short, but very incisive... and very important! ...more
Oh boy! I have read my fair share of nonsense, but this one tops the lot! Here's what second wave feminist haven't stopped praising as being a visionaOh boy! I have read my fair share of nonsense, but this one tops the lot! Here's what second wave feminist haven't stopped praising as being a visionary work, a supposedly remarkable mix of Freudian psychoanalysis and dialectical materialism acting as a key manifesto in their canon. Believe it or not, they love it so much that it's actually mandatory reading in women's studies programs, where it's lauded as being a work of profound intellectual brilliance! Well, second wave feminism ought to check its moral compass: racist, misandrist, and, above all, condoning of child abuse as being supposedly 'liberating', here's nothing but pseudo-intellectual junk, as prejudicial as it is disgustingly criminal. Where do I start?
Firestone starts by telling us that sexism is a matter of far greater concern than... the racism endured by African Americans! Now if, already, such astounding premise smacks you as being a shocking ignorance of racial issues that's because, of course, it is. Sorry/not sorry, but to heighten the fate of women like her above that of a demographics having suffered from the uniqueness of the Atlantic slave trade up to the racial segregation of Jim Crow laws, and still battling it all at the time when she was writing (1969-1970), is but a false equivalence which is downright idiotic. Her racism, in fact, is absolutely shocking. She rehashes all the most poisonous, racist clichés one can possibly think of! The view that black men are lusting after white women? Checked! The view that white women's racism has always been 'inauthentic' because women can't be as toxic and abusive as men? Checked! (Black men having been victims of mob violence and lynching following false allegations of rape by white women will appreciate, no doubt, having their fate called the product of 'inauthentic racism'...). The view that if black women are stronger, more resilient than white women it's because they look up to white men and unconsciously despise black men too? Checked! At this point, of course, you could be excused to throw the book away in disgust, and I wouldn't blame you. Well, I personally didn't and so carried on. What's next?
We are then told that the root cause of women's oppression is their biology: they get pregnant, give birth, nurse infants, hence are rendered weak and dependent upon men when becoming mothers. Sexual reproduction and the dependence upon men that comes with it, then, must be discarded if women ought to ever be free. How? She advocates for technological means of reproduction to replace sexual reproduction (what she calls cybernetics technologies; looking forward to a future when being pregnant would have become, as she put it, a 'tongue-in-cheek archaism'). She, also, advocates for open relationships (what she calls 'households') where women will be free to have sex with different men (a household, to her, is anything ranging from 7 to 10 partners, under a license). This, here, is not about mere sexual liberation (she was writing in the wake of the swinging sixties, after all) but in order for men to don't know about their paternity when a woman gets pregnant, hence for men to don't be able to claim "patriarchal possession" of her and her child. If, this too, smacks you as being nothing but misandrist gibberish (e.g. her depicting of men as being unable to be any other than dreadful husbands and abusive fathers is no less idiotic than her internalised racism) that's because, of course too, it is. But... that's not it!
We are then told that children are no less oppressed by the patriarchy (read: the biological family, where kids -God forbid!- know who their fathers are...) and, so, that they therefore ought to be liberated from men too, especially their dads! The liberating, here, goes beyond (way beyond!) letting them be raised equally by the many adults forming her 'households' (for motherhood doesn't get it any better in this feminist Brave New World, as she advocates for mothers to don't have a special bond with their child as opposed to others -'the blood tie of the mother to the child would eventually be severed'). The liberating is, also, about letting them having a sex life as free as possible; including with adults; and including with their own parents! I will, here, quote at length because, quite frankly, as a liberal feminist considering second wave feminism to be nothing but victimhood jeremiads, misandrist trash, and divisive demagoguery, I have become fed up of the useful idiots out there celebrating this neo-feminist canon while, clearly, having never bothered to read some of its most applauded theoreticians:
‘the incest taboo is (…) necessary only to preserve the family’
‘if male/female-adult/child cultural distinctions are destroyed, we will no longer need the sexual repression that maintains these unequal classes, uncovering for the first time natural sexual freedom. Thus we arrive at: The sexual freedom of all women and children. Now they can do whatever they wish to do sexually. There will no longer able any reason not to.’
'With the disappearance of motherhood, and the obstructing incest taboo, sexuality would be re-integrated, allowing love to flow unimpeded’
About boys especially (whom, she claims, were being abused by their fathers in being expected to abide to the violent and controlling mindset underpinning patriarchal oppression) she write:
'if he should choose to relate sexuality to adults, even if he should happen to pick his own genetic mother, there would be no a priori reasons for her to reject his sexual advances, because the incest taboo would have lost its function.'
For those still not getting the point:
'Relations with children would include as much genital sex as the child was capable of’
I could go ad nauseam, but I think it's quite enough. The back cover of my copy says it all: Germaine Greer called this 'a nuggetty book... unanswerable'; Susan Faludi praised it as 'a landmark manifesto'; and Naomi Wolf (to name but only a tiny few) celebrated it as an 'inflammatory second-wave landmark'. There you go: if you're still not convinced that second wave feminism has never been about equality and equity in rights with men but, on the contrary, has always been but a full-on attack on men, the family, and, especially, paternity and the role of fathers (let alone the condoning of abuse perpetrated by women as being, from 'inauthentic' to liberating), then you need to read this. Again: this is nothing but victimhood peddled through false equivalencies; racism; misandry; and a sickening apologetics of paedophilia and incest. Yeeeuk!
A book specifically focusing on Kipling's time in India was long over-due! India was not only where Kipling made his crucial apprenticeship in journalA book specifically focusing on Kipling's time in India was long over-due! India was not only where Kipling made his crucial apprenticeship in journalism and emerged as a very accomplished writer indeed (and at a relatively young age too!) but, also, had been the cradle of most his opinions on Britain, from its ruling elites and establishment to its supposed role to play in the world. Did Allen succeeded in shedding some light into this impactful period? Well...
First of all, when it comes to his life back-and-forth over there (e.g. his childhood in Bombay; his stays in Lahore, Allahabad, Simla and else; his travelling in Asia before settling in the USA for a while, and then go back etc.) I haven't learned very much here. It's not the author's fault: Kipling and his relatives have done their outmost to erase as much evidence as could be from this period of his life, and so there's not much material left to begin with. That said, it doesn't mean that, as a biography, this book is uninteresting.
Where it gets fascinating, for instance, is when Allen tries and explains how Kipling became the Kipling whom we know: the admirer of foreign cultures, yet who could be highly prejudiced when not downright patronising; the Jingoist in full support of colonial conquests, yet despising the ruling Establishment which was the backbone of the Empire; the Conservatives who sneered at Liberals and upheld obedience and traditions, while being quite the misfit and maverick himself; the massive celebrity using his fame as a drumbeat to his ideas, yet who was obsessed with privacy and otherwise quietness... His was a complicated personality (to say the least!) so how did the author managed to assess it all?
I understand that Allen is rather sympathetic to the man, especially given that he brilliantly succeeds in putting him back into the context of his time and, of course, place. Kipling's indeed owed a great deal to his Anglo-Indian heritage and background; and here was a microcosm whose views could align with Imperial England as much as its lifestyle could be completely alien to Victorian expectations. The picture offered of the Anglo-Indian world is, by the way, very detailed and engaging. It's fair enough. The thing is, I was left with the impression that he was too sympathetic. Was that an issue?
'The White Man's Burden'? Allen acknowledges that it's appalling from our vantage point, but stresses that Kipling was at a low point in his life when he wrote it and so that we shouldn't let it obscure the rest of his work. His support for Cecil Rhodes? Well, it was merely because he thought that the Dutch Boers were far worse colonialists than the British, and so eh! Don't hold it too much against him either. I could go on, but you get the gist. Now, it's not that Allen is completely blind to some of the appalling views otherwise entertained by Kipling. He, for example, reminds us of the meanings one can give to 'The Jungle Book', like he doesn't shy away from exposing his prejudices towards, especially, Hindus. He also refuses to call him an Orientalists, something that others have been rather blunt to do otherwise. It's just that he wants us to like the man as much as we like the writer, whereas, as far as I am concerned, I admire the writer but deeply dislike the man. As it is, then, the way you will receive this will depend entirely on what you think of Kipling's views in the first place (the mere product of his time? Or, on the contrary, on the wrong side of history even back then?).
All in all, here's a very engrossing portrayal of Anglo-Indian society and how it may have contributed into shaping Kipling's views and persona, no matter how complicated the subject matter. The thing is, because material are sparse to start with there is not much to learn further than what Kipling's readers would already know, if not for biographical details associated with his family and associates at the time. Was I interested in that? Quite frankly: no; and so because it ends by being a book dealing more about personalities around Kipling than about Kipling himself (e.g. his father's career; his social circles then; the people behind the newspapers he worked for...) I felt kind of cheated. It's great when it comes to portray British India, and it does a good job at showing Kipling morphing from an awkward boy to the man that (we think) we know. Sadly, I didn't find it any more deepening than that....more
How on earth do you retrace the life of Francois Villon (1431-?) when everything about him has been mostly lost and/ or the only sources that we have How on earth do you retrace the life of Francois Villon (1431-?) when everything about him has been mostly lost and/ or the only sources that we have are meagrily scarce... to say the least!? Well, like Jean Favier does here: by relying on conjectures. A daring gamble? Not really.
Jean Favier, of course, was no average historian. One of the most eminent and brilliant specialists of the medieval era (e.g he directed the National Archives of France; taught at the Sorbonne; wrote countless books on the period and that embraced no less countless sub-specialised subjects etc.) the author clearly knows his stuff. His is a vast and deep knowledge upon which he fully relies, in fact, to try and sketch Villon's biography, no matter how skeletic. For instance, if we don't know anything about the chaplain who raised him as his son, we know, however, how chaplains used to live then, and so Jean Favier just draws on these other sources to attempt parallels. Sketchy it might be, but it nevertheless offers a wide picture of 15th century Paris which is as engrossing as it can be, from our vantage point, alien.
This, though, is not an history book about medieval Paris, but the biography of a poet living on the margin, a clerc who graduated in arts yet would be dragged down into a life of delinquency and petty criminality, a man who will be sent to jail numerous time, before disappearing from history following a death penalty (by hanging) which was commuted into banishment. What about it?
There is Villon the man. Jean Favier, here, is quick to remind us that, contrary to some later legends and other myths would suggest, he was far from being an hardened criminal or, as was suggested at times, part of the Coquillards, one of these most notorious and infamous gangs of the era. He surely was found guilty of murder at barely 26, and it's his involvement in another murder that would lead to his death penalty commuted into banishment in his later life (his accomplices weren't so lucky...). But, stabbing during fights and scuffles were not uncommon back then, as most people used to carry daggers to walk streets that were everything but entirely safe. Villon, a regular of shaddy taverns, merely got unlucky -so to speak.
There is, then and most importantly, Villon the poet. Jean Favier's passion, here, transpires at every page. If the topics that Villon dealt with (e.g. poverty, death, many unfortunate love, and ridiculing -in his case, virulent- of some contemporaries) and the imageries that he used (relying widely on the literature of the time) were everything but original, what demarcated Villon indeed was his language: the reliance on puns, innuendos, double-entendre, a constant and smart dancing between the 15th century French of the common people and the slang of the then underworld. This, of course, is what makes Villon still difficult 'to get', as most of his in-jokes can only fly past modern readers. Nevertheless, Favier offers some very enlightening explanations, clarifying otherwise obscure allusions when any.
Clocking at 500 pages, needless to say, this is not for the faint-hearted! Having said that, it being an engrossing portrait of medieval Paris as much as an inquisitive biography of a controversial poet, a man who had a life as mysterious and shadowy as the urban legends that will later tail his name, it's an absolute must read for anyone interested in Villon's work and, beyond, French medieval poetry. ...more
What a wonderful little book! If you intent to grow your own fruits, vegs, and herbs yet are completely new to gardening (read: have absolutely no ideWhat a wonderful little book! If you intent to grow your own fruits, vegs, and herbs yet are completely new to gardening (read: have absolutely no idea of how to go about it!) this small treasure trove will be ideal for you!
I've been growing flowers on my balcony for the past couple of years or so. It's easy enough, but me and my wife now want to upgrade and start growing our own food whenever possible. We're short (very short!) in skills and knowledge, let alone short of space. This book was therefore perfect for us, as an introduction.
Of course, it's mostly about what to grow and how based on your particular needs and constraints. But not only. As the title suggests, it's also very (very!) eco-friendly. Hence, we've also picked up a few great tips about composting (e.g. I had never heard of Kobashi bins before...); DIY fertilising; and, even, pest control! I remember buying ladybugs against aphids in the past... What a stupid idea that was! I could have made my own bug hotel specifically to attract them. Another great tips we got is how to attract more butterflies than by growing flowers relying on their pollinating alone.
Dr Jennifer Harman is an Associate Professor of Psychology; Dr Zeynep Biringen a child psychologist and professor of Human Development and Family StudDr Jennifer Harman is an Associate Professor of Psychology; Dr Zeynep Biringen a child psychologist and professor of Human Development and Family Studies. They both work at Colorado State University, and both have a close interest in parental alienation -Dr Harman because she has been a victim of it; Dr Biringen because she developed the Emotional Availability (EA) Scales, a tool to evaluate parent-child interactions. The book itself was born out of a collaboration between the two of them, and when they worked on one of the largest qualitative studies on the topic to date and to gather experiences from victims.
Now, because parental alienation, as a phenomenon, clearly expose that men too can, not only be victims of domestic abuse and post-separation abuse, but, also and above all, be victims as much (if not more) as women are, it existence has obviously been staunchly denied by certain radical feminists campaigners and their lobbying groups. In Britain, for example (where I live) Women's Aid still claim that there is no robust evidence as to such a thing happening, and so successfully managed to have it excluded from the updating of our Domestic Abuse Bill back in 2021. Quite frankly: as shockingly absurd as the claims of such ideologues and their dogmatic lobbies are on the topic, I personally have no time for their nonsense, and so was pleased to see that the authors (who, it must be stressed, identify as feminist otherwise -that is, liberal feminist; not radical) don't waste such time either. What they do is not to try and prove whether parental alienation exists or not, or whether fathers can be affected or not (is the Earth flat?) but to show how it operates in effect.
This is a surprisingly short read (200 pages or so) but clearly structured and powerfully argued. Most importantly, it will offer a few pointers to those unfamiliar with the topic.
What is parental alienation exactly, and how is it different from other forms of negative co-parenting? How does it impact children, both in the short term and in the long term? How does it impact the targeted parents and those in their circle of support (new partner, extended family etc.)? Why would some parents alienate a child against the other? Is there any difference between the experiences of alienated fathers and that of alienated mothers; and, if so, why would that be? More to the point, how are we, all of us as a society (from the functioning of our family courts to our sexist unconscious biases and prejudices -let alone gender stereotyping!- or, even, the working practices of schools and other institutions involved with children) contributing to feed the problem?
Anyone having an understanding of the issue already won't learn anything quite new here. The book deserves to be read, though, for at least two reasons. First, because, again, the authors are responsible for one of the largest surveys on the topic to date. It's an endeavour that has provided them with a solid, in depth understanding of how complex alienating strategies and their impact can be -both on men and women (for, again, unlike some lobbying groups they don't do gendered demagoguery...). Then, because their non-gendered approach truly brings to the fore some of the reasons why so many so-called 'feminist' would deny its existence in the first place, or, at least, deny that it happens to dads too. I don't want to spoil it, but their reflexions on how gender roles have been evolving over the past few decades and what it means for some of us (again: never underestimate the latent power of sexist unconscious biases and gender stereotyping...) were thought provoking, and, in my opinion, right on spot.
All in all, then, here's a must read if you're unfamiliar with the topic, or are going through it/ have been through it and want to make sense of your experience. It's just too bad that the very people who need to read this (parental alienation deniers and those part of what has become a very profitable industry) probably won't bother....more
