Re Nuts and lust
----------------

 You are being far too hard on Becky--she was a cruel mother but she had
it tough growing up and the society she had to cope with was not benign to women. Now Amelia Sedley*!
There was a sad case--helpless, passive, waiting for rescue.

Was it a dictionary or a bible Beckey tossed out the window?

"Nuts" you say. Are you being asked to surrender?


Norm Rosenblood


*Fielding's Amelia it is said was the model for Thackeray's Amelia. Both
quite insipid. I've always wondered why Fielding gave Amelia a mangled
nose. Now noses were a fascinating symbol in 18th Century fiction.
Still are.












Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst
Co-director, Hamilton Centre for Psychoanalysis
8 Mayfair Place
Hamilton, Ontario
L8S 4G1

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Katherine Bahr wrote:

> Moll Flanders and Becky Sharp were sophisticated lustmongers, not dumb
> broads.  This doesn't sound like a course in feminism, it sounds nuts.  In
> several senses of the word.
>
> Kathy Bahr
>
>
>
> On 9/15/13 5:53 PM, "Norm Rosenblood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >  Re persisting of dumb broads
> >  ----------------------------
> >
> >This stereotypical umbrage about dumb broads should be referred on to
> >Sarah
> >Palin and Michelle Bauchman (sp?).
> >
> >And besides, what would SNL and Jon Stewart do if the stenotype is
> >expunged from that bad old canon of dirty old dead white males of English
> >literature?
> >
> >Anyhow, who would want to date Lady Macbeth, Portia or Goneril and
> >Regan. Now Corinna--there was a dish. Moll Flanders and Becky Sharp were
> >hotties too.
> >
> >This post is beginning to sound like a prospectus for a Woman's Studies
> >graduate course.
> >
> >**A kiss on the hand might be quite continental........**
> >**Let there be no mourning when I cross the bar**
> >
> >
> >Norm Rosenblood
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst
> >Co-director, Hamilton Centre for Psychoanalysis
> >8 Mayfair Place
> >Hamilton, Ontario
> >L8S 4G1
> >
> >On Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Katherine Bahr wrote:
> >
> >> Well, nobody denied the persistence of lust and hope. Just the
> >>persistence
> >> of the stereotype of the dumb broad.   I thought hope would be for
> >>sexual
> >> sophistication, not dopy ignorance.  My bad.
> >>
> >> Kathy Bahr
> >>
> >> On 9/14/13 10:50 AM, "Norm Rosenblood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Re no holds barred
> >> >------------------
> >> >
> >> > Sure! Guys no longer nurture the hope that seduction will be a piece
> >>of
> >> >cake! Everybody sees through the old stereotypes! My eye! Such insight
> >> >does not negate their longevity. Lust is still lampooned because it
> >>still
> >> >lives--just as cliches still contain clout.
> >> >
> >> >The unconscious sexual desires of olden days are obsolete?!!!! Pshaw!
> >>And
> >> >what does "face value" really mean? The irony is really a piece of
> >> >negation and
> >> >negation, as every wise man's son knows, is really affirmation.
> >> >
> >> >LOL and TD (think deeply)
> >> >
> >> >Norm Rosenblood
> >> >
> >> >"For once I would agree..." Labor (does) omnia vincit--Sisyphus is
> >>finally
> >> >free.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst
> >> >Co-director, Hamilton Centre for Psychoanalysis
> >> >8 Mayfair Place
> >> >Hamilton, Ontario
> >> >L8S 4G1
> >> >
> >> >On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Katherine Bahr wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> For once, I would agree with Norm Rosenblood "if" the cartoon were
> >>meant
> >> >> to be taken at face value.  These days, such cartoons appear on
> >>coffee
> >> >> mugs, greeting cards and t-shirts as pieces of irony.  They are used
> >>in
> >> >> the context of a culture that finds those nineteen-fiftiesish
> >> >> representations absurd in the way Norm points out.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it had appeared in an old Playboy Magazine, it would have been the
> >> >> subject of feminist critique.  Now we use those representations
> >> >>ironically
> >> >> as presents for our girlfriends.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kathy Bahr
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 9/13/13 8:27 AM, "Norm Rosenblood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >This depiction of the male is surely sexist! What sort of man could
> >> >> >be fooled into thinking such a high degree of naivete could
> >> >> >ever exist. Only a fool and horses. Granted, that such a scenario
> >> >>might
> >> >> >possibly be the phantasy of an untold number of men, but then if so
> >> >>that
> >> >> >too avers that man is a lust driven exploiter of  guiless females.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It is also sexist in that it depicts the female as manipulative and
> >> >> >exploitive, using sexuality and vacuousness for any number of
> >>reasons.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Also implicit in the humor is the  assumption that such social
> >> >> >interactions are indeed rare and if found should be cherished.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Or perhaps the cartoon depicts what Chaucer called a dance. I
> >> >> >imagine the cartoon would be of use in culture and gender studies
> >> >>classes.
> >> >> >Also, in Business schools for marketing purposes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Norm Rosenblood
> >> >> >.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst
> >> >> >Co-director, Hamilton Centre for Psychoanalysis
> >> >> >8 Mayfair Place
> >> >> >Hamilton, Ontario
> >> >> >L8S 4G1
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Norman Holland wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> FYI, Norm
> >> >> >> -
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>