Her basic message is, she cannot find a man strong enough to stand up to her; to dominate her emotionally and sexually. She is a powerful artist, with a strong voice, but ultimately she wants to be with her femininity and her submissiveness -- in a relationship. But he don't seem to come her way. (Instead, someone she's smitten with is more interested in writing computer code than in her.)
For most it's a futile search. I am good with companionship, sexual resonance and some ability to collaborate. I have seen so many ways that the "special relationship" leads to one disaster after the next.
Lots to say about this, but probably too much for a comment thread, so the main points:
For starters, I think it depends on where you look and through what lens. Two worlds I inhabit (tech and pro audio) are still predominantly male, and it's not changing very fast, though there are some shifts occurring. Last I checked (been a minute) there were also still lots of discrepancies like pay scale differences present in most places, as well as differences in treatment in the workplace, etc.
Also, most of the shifts I've seen have been here in America. Still many, very heavily populated countries in the world that have not made such changes and where the leadership structures and such still tend to be male dominated.
That said, I do also think there's a historical aspect to this dialogue that's a bit stuck and not acknowledging change. And I also think there are some oddities in how I see it applied overall, where the stated expectation is equality, but where that is either not fully realistic for some reason (literal physical differences between genders, for instance) or where it seems to not be being pursued in the areas where it is beneficial (it seems to be downright taboo for men to display any traits that embody dominance in any form these days, but that is not at all true in reverse as far as I've seen) so there seems to also be a bit of an overcorrection "pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction" thing at play, as well.
Sex roles does not equal patriarchy. Some jobs are better suited to men and others to women; and there are exceptions but most of your underwater demolitions teams are going to be comprised of guys.
Yes they are conflated for political effect and perpetual victimhood. It's not enough that a woman is VP and president pro tem of the Senate, and that a woman was speaker of the house for much of a generation. No, the pussy to cock ratio must be 50/50. But I would ask: how has having women more involved in formerly mens' business improved the world (except to give jobs and collect taxes on women)? The idea of feminism is that it's supposed to make the world better -- not just the lives of individual female people. And in that regard, self-esteem is no better. Women were more confident in 1950. At least they could handle being asked on a date.
One other quick point: I've also had this dialogue impact relationships with folks who were about as far away from caring about mainstream media and political messages as possible. In particular a sex worker friend who eventually cut literally all men out of her life, feeling they were useless to her. That was ten years ago, and to my knowledge, she holds that opinion still to this day.
My point is only that this conversation is heavily entrenched, and isn't only being reenforced by political agendas and the like. It seems to be present in all corners of our existence in various ways.
I feel as though the separation between physical and digital is growing wider, and so my immediate reaction to that is "How much influence do those roles actually even have in an immediate, day-to-day way?" Governance over slow, procedural changes, yes, but the things everyone reacts to, and that drives stuff of confidence and the like, seems to be mostly presented on the devices they're holding in their hands, not in official proceedings anywhere. So to that end I might argue that the impact there is perhaps more ambiguous and hard to quantify than that.
Also, the lack of confidence seems to go in both directions with younger folk these days. Somehow the current younger generations (at least from what I see and what I've been told by coworkers/parents of teens/twenty-somethings... my daughter is 4, jury's still out on her leanings) is that most seem relatively unwilling to be proactive and aren't particularly confident in the skills they possess (something I've definitely seen when hiring for my teams at work). I think that's more a product of media and the smaller entities driving that than leadership bodies, but I'm also not a good judge as my perspective is skewed since I intentionally avoid most of the mainstream information that's out there (tv, radio, etc).
If anything, I wonder if that has as much to do with the complete saturation of people presenting their thoughts and creations to others (YouTube, the Spotify's of the world, etc, platforms where people can present their creations rather easily and cheaply and therefore the flood of content that results) and how hard it is to stand out in the broader sense anymore. Perhaps most younger folks feel more insignificant than even folks like me (a child of the 80's) did growing up?
I am perhaps wandering off-topic with this speculation, though.
Aurora is wearing the chains and looking for the 'conqueror' One commenter to this video is saying: ""This video is for the little boy who couldn't find the conqueror in himself. The conqueror is within you."" But of course the whole message of the music video/song lyrics is layer upon layer of complexity matrix.
dear Eric, you know i continue to support you and your work even tho i am sometimes angry with what you write. It is important to me to learn from those i disagree with, as i know it is for you. Your observations about women in media are quite true, i notice that a lot watching various venues, platforms. However, in the workplace, in the U.S. Congress, in Wall Street, in the board rooms of corporations, i beg to differ. The insidiousness of patriarchy and its weapon of dominance and violence is still very very present, so much so that i will not go out at night or be alone among men if i feel vulnerable, which is more, as i age. Yes we shared the tutelage of Betty Dodson which was a glorious experience, to be sure. I encouraged more dialogue between those that disagree, which, i think, is one of your aims. I also hate the watering down of conflict into "gender violence," as if that were a phenomena which can be flung about without explanation and i don't want female identity erased, nor am i supporting TERF-itude, yet i also listen to their complaints, cause i learn from a lot of people, including those screaming loudest sometimes. However there is a lot of trauma put on display and so raw.
Can we also talk about mercy and compassion and morality? As part of how we create beloved communities of the present and future?
I would appreciate if you quote something you don't "agree" with. And why is agreement so important? I get a lot of people making up what they think I mean, which often does not "stick to the text" as they said in grad school. So let's stick to the text. No, I am no longer buying the feminist rap sheet. But it was a Pulitzer winning feminist who woke me to that — Susan Faludi.
BTW you mention Congress. We had a woman as Speaker of the House for much of a generation, and a woman is presently President Pro Tem of the U.S. Senate. Many Ivy Leagues are headed by women. But you seen to think that having a pussy makes a difference in anyone's attitudes and values. I would love to see a shred of evidence of that. The women who get to the top usually get there by abandoning all that would, other than mere anatomy, make them a woman.
I came upon Marge Piercy via Woman At the Edge of Time, some aspects of which i love, a few i find quite disturbing (test-tube babies), have leaned more about, definitely overall a good influence.
There is a legacy of patriarchy. But things are changing. Denying either fact makes little sense.
Woman on the Edge of Time does not hold up well, sadly, but it has some great moments. As for the legacy of matriarchy during the Old Religion, we're just not told about it. And if there is a legacy of patriarchy, we don't hear about the ways women benefit from it, nor the ways men suffer from it. That discussion is verboten.
"Woman on the Edge of Time does not hold up well, sadly, but it has some great moments." Here, here. I personally prefer Dance the Eagle to Sleep.
"As for the legacy of matriarchy during the Old Religion, we're just not told about it." Which period are you talking about? Everything i've read (particularly Marija Gimbutas) points to the society before patriarchy not being a matriarchy but a partnership society, remarkably free of hierarchy.
It's been over 40 years since i've read it, but i'm pretty sure it was endorsing such a practice, i even mentioned it in a review of it which i ran in a zine my then partner Pam and i did, '82-3, called "Commie Rag."
i don't understand. To depict and describe is not an endorsement, even if a society in a novel says that it is. Dune does not endorse the use of a telepathy-inducing drug for space navigation.
Again, it's been a while since i read it, but if my memory serves me well, this was presented in a positive way, as a means to overcome differences between sexes. It even endorsed men being fed with hormones which made them capable of nursing babies, to the same end. Not sure this is viable, as nursing requires more than hormones.
This is an easy song to understand, if you don't read too much into it. Her message is right there.
[Verse 1]
Broken mornings, broken nights and
Broken days in between
Open ground, the sky is open
Makes an open scene (Oh, oh)
[Pre-Chorus]
Just like in fiction, in every addiction (Oh, oh)
Oh, fantasy's taking over, awake me
[Chorus]
I've been looking for the conqueror
But you don't seem to come my way
I've been looking for the only one
But you don't seem to come my way
[Verse 2]
Broken me and broken them, and
You are broken too
Open ears, their eyes are open
Makes me call for you (Oh, oh)
[Pre-Chorus]
But there's no seduction, only destruction (Oh, oh)
Oh, fantasy, take me over and break me
[Chorus]
I've been looking for the conqueror
But you don't seem to come my way
I've been looking for the only one
But you don't seem to come my way
edited
Her basic message is, she cannot find a man strong enough to stand up to her; to dominate her emotionally and sexually. She is a powerful artist, with a strong voice, but ultimately she wants to be with her femininity and her submissiveness -- in a relationship. But he don't seem to come her way. (Instead, someone she's smitten with is more interested in writing computer code than in her.)
I am not endorsing her viewpoint, though I understand it.
For most it's a futile search. I am good with companionship, sexual resonance and some ability to collaborate. I have seen so many ways that the "special relationship" leads to one disaster after the next.
Lots to say about this, but probably too much for a comment thread, so the main points:
For starters, I think it depends on where you look and through what lens. Two worlds I inhabit (tech and pro audio) are still predominantly male, and it's not changing very fast, though there are some shifts occurring. Last I checked (been a minute) there were also still lots of discrepancies like pay scale differences present in most places, as well as differences in treatment in the workplace, etc.
Also, most of the shifts I've seen have been here in America. Still many, very heavily populated countries in the world that have not made such changes and where the leadership structures and such still tend to be male dominated.
That said, I do also think there's a historical aspect to this dialogue that's a bit stuck and not acknowledging change. And I also think there are some oddities in how I see it applied overall, where the stated expectation is equality, but where that is either not fully realistic for some reason (literal physical differences between genders, for instance) or where it seems to not be being pursued in the areas where it is beneficial (it seems to be downright taboo for men to display any traits that embody dominance in any form these days, but that is not at all true in reverse as far as I've seen) so there seems to also be a bit of an overcorrection "pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction" thing at play, as well.
Again, very complex topic. Hard to be succinct.
Sex roles does not equal patriarchy. Some jobs are better suited to men and others to women; and there are exceptions but most of your underwater demolitions teams are going to be comprised of guys.
Well, right, but I think the two are often conflated in this context. (which I think is part of the problem)
Yes they are conflated for political effect and perpetual victimhood. It's not enough that a woman is VP and president pro tem of the Senate, and that a woman was speaker of the house for much of a generation. No, the pussy to cock ratio must be 50/50. But I would ask: how has having women more involved in formerly mens' business improved the world (except to give jobs and collect taxes on women)? The idea of feminism is that it's supposed to make the world better -- not just the lives of individual female people. And in that regard, self-esteem is no better. Women were more confident in 1950. At least they could handle being asked on a date.
One other quick point: I've also had this dialogue impact relationships with folks who were about as far away from caring about mainstream media and political messages as possible. In particular a sex worker friend who eventually cut literally all men out of her life, feeling they were useless to her. That was ten years ago, and to my knowledge, she holds that opinion still to this day.
My point is only that this conversation is heavily entrenched, and isn't only being reenforced by political agendas and the like. It seems to be present in all corners of our existence in various ways.
I feel as though the separation between physical and digital is growing wider, and so my immediate reaction to that is "How much influence do those roles actually even have in an immediate, day-to-day way?" Governance over slow, procedural changes, yes, but the things everyone reacts to, and that drives stuff of confidence and the like, seems to be mostly presented on the devices they're holding in their hands, not in official proceedings anywhere. So to that end I might argue that the impact there is perhaps more ambiguous and hard to quantify than that.
Also, the lack of confidence seems to go in both directions with younger folk these days. Somehow the current younger generations (at least from what I see and what I've been told by coworkers/parents of teens/twenty-somethings... my daughter is 4, jury's still out on her leanings) is that most seem relatively unwilling to be proactive and aren't particularly confident in the skills they possess (something I've definitely seen when hiring for my teams at work). I think that's more a product of media and the smaller entities driving that than leadership bodies, but I'm also not a good judge as my perspective is skewed since I intentionally avoid most of the mainstream information that's out there (tv, radio, etc).
If anything, I wonder if that has as much to do with the complete saturation of people presenting their thoughts and creations to others (YouTube, the Spotify's of the world, etc, platforms where people can present their creations rather easily and cheaply and therefore the flood of content that results) and how hard it is to stand out in the broader sense anymore. Perhaps most younger folks feel more insignificant than even folks like me (a child of the 80's) did growing up?
I am perhaps wandering off-topic with this speculation, though.
this is right on point.
(wish I had proofread that a bit better... I swear I know the difference between to and too....)
you can edit.
Thanks. That option is more hidden than the others. :)
always click on the three dots. :-)
Aurora is wearing the chains and looking for the 'conqueror' One commenter to this video is saying: ""This video is for the little boy who couldn't find the conqueror in himself. The conqueror is within you."" But of course the whole message of the music video/song lyrics is layer upon layer of complexity matrix.
who is the conqueror? The one who put her in chains, or someone else?
dear Eric, you know i continue to support you and your work even tho i am sometimes angry with what you write. It is important to me to learn from those i disagree with, as i know it is for you. Your observations about women in media are quite true, i notice that a lot watching various venues, platforms. However, in the workplace, in the U.S. Congress, in Wall Street, in the board rooms of corporations, i beg to differ. The insidiousness of patriarchy and its weapon of dominance and violence is still very very present, so much so that i will not go out at night or be alone among men if i feel vulnerable, which is more, as i age. Yes we shared the tutelage of Betty Dodson which was a glorious experience, to be sure. I encouraged more dialogue between those that disagree, which, i think, is one of your aims. I also hate the watering down of conflict into "gender violence," as if that were a phenomena which can be flung about without explanation and i don't want female identity erased, nor am i supporting TERF-itude, yet i also listen to their complaints, cause i learn from a lot of people, including those screaming loudest sometimes. However there is a lot of trauma put on display and so raw.
Can we also talk about mercy and compassion and morality? As part of how we create beloved communities of the present and future?
I would appreciate if you quote something you don't "agree" with. And why is agreement so important? I get a lot of people making up what they think I mean, which often does not "stick to the text" as they said in grad school. So let's stick to the text. No, I am no longer buying the feminist rap sheet. But it was a Pulitzer winning feminist who woke me to that — Susan Faludi.
Yes, I would love to have a long talk with feminist leaders about mercy, compassion and morality.
And do you really think Wall Street would be better with women in charge? I don't see much difference anyplace else.
BTW you mention Congress. We had a woman as Speaker of the House for much of a generation, and a woman is presently President Pro Tem of the U.S. Senate. Many Ivy Leagues are headed by women. But you seen to think that having a pussy makes a difference in anyone's attitudes and values. I would love to see a shred of evidence of that. The women who get to the top usually get there by abandoning all that would, other than mere anatomy, make them a woman.
I came upon Marge Piercy via Woman At the Edge of Time, some aspects of which i love, a few i find quite disturbing (test-tube babies), have leaned more about, definitely overall a good influence.
There is a legacy of patriarchy. But things are changing. Denying either fact makes little sense.
Woman on the Edge of Time does not hold up well, sadly, but it has some great moments. As for the legacy of matriarchy during the Old Religion, we're just not told about it. And if there is a legacy of patriarchy, we don't hear about the ways women benefit from it, nor the ways men suffer from it. That discussion is verboten.
"Woman on the Edge of Time does not hold up well, sadly, but it has some great moments." Here, here. I personally prefer Dance the Eagle to Sleep.
"As for the legacy of matriarchy during the Old Religion, we're just not told about it." Which period are you talking about? Everything i've read (particularly Marija Gimbutas) points to the society before patriarchy not being a matriarchy but a partnership society, remarkably free of hierarchy.
I am talking about the first millennium CE, and maybe later, as what was called the Old Religion was slowly being extinguished by the Catholics.
Some of the Old Religion's holidays were kept, with names changed to hide their origins.
and some of their practices were kept, like infant sacrifice.
??? Do you they were kept for a while?
also I was referring to her poetry.
I don't think she was endorsing baby farms, but that is the direction we are headed.
It's been over 40 years since i've read it, but i'm pretty sure it was endorsing such a practice, i even mentioned it in a review of it which i ran in a zine my then partner Pam and i did, '82-3, called "Commie Rag."
i don't understand. To depict and describe is not an endorsement, even if a society in a novel says that it is. Dune does not endorse the use of a telepathy-inducing drug for space navigation.
Again, it's been a while since i read it, but if my memory serves me well, this was presented in a positive way, as a means to overcome differences between sexes. It even endorsed men being fed with hormones which made them capable of nursing babies, to the same end. Not sure this is viable, as nursing requires more than hormones.
Thank you for your thoughtful and on-topic response, Lady.