This is excellent, Cormac Jones, I really appreciate you writing this, a topic very important to me personally and I think describes a lot going on today which I have wished to say half as clearly. I'm particularly struck by how much of the power of this "epithymetic violence" (a new term to me) lies in its concealing itself, resisting being named, addressed, opposed - even hiding behind the thymic violence, which I think I have always been careful not to downplay.
The whole first paragraph under the header "Epithymetic violence" just about sums it all up to me. It is more or less what I was trying to say in my last piece: "'Lost boys' and the shame of naming the shame": https://njadadetrans.substack.com/p/lost-boys-and-the-shame-of-naming
I'm really not sure how successful I am yet at explaining these things though.
I find myself wondering if it's even possible for society to collectively recognize these dynamics; I sometimes feel a bit despairing about it simply being the stubborn way of the world, that it's very nature is to stay hidden and to thrive off of being hidden. But I'm noticing: Isn't it obvious why feminists reserve the harshest insults for anyone who starts approaching the things you're pointing out in this piece? I don't know if these dynamics will or won't change, but either way I've realized how much I need to detach, for my own sake, from the fear that this or that woman might ridicule me or accuse me, to know more intuitively and immediately that she's not automatically better than me, and to not let the fear put me on guard as if women in general are feminists (or that, of course, all feminists are equally immersed in this mindset). Relatively few women feel bold to speak against something proposed as feminist, but I don't blame them; I don't feel bold yet either. I have to be able to keep things in perspective first, not get shaken out of my wits and feeling obligated to agree with women if something I think upsets them. That's what most important, being able to hold my own perspective on things, not figuring out how to change how others see things, especially not feminists. But that doesn't mean going it all alone, but to be close to others who already can get it, instead of trying to make people get it.
And again this quote:
"Weaponized anger, violence as it is conventionally understood, is easily recognized and condemned. As such, however, it is often used as a foil protecting epithymetic violence from criticism, even presenting it as virtuous."
But it's this impulse to detract, marginalize, alienate, etc., that can be deadly, and far from most women are like this, but there are these dynamics that make men more vulnerable to social types of attacks that we cannot as easily defend ourselves from, that makes it a murderous kind of impulse. Cutting a person off from community cuts them off from a livable life. It cuts off in many cases all hope of resolving personal struggles, no matter how big or small; small problems, if completely irresolvable, become big problems.
Especially when this impulse is taken out on young boys in anticipation of their becoming grown men, it's like condemning them to a living death, possibly even living believing it was necessary, feeling it was deserved or thinking it was their own idea (being "one of the good ones"). And I can already hear the feminist in the my conscience going: "How dare you try to liken that to murder!" but I have to leave that be.
And now that I connect the Atwood quote with this alienating attack, yes, it's much more meaningful than it looks at first. It seems to show how morally superior women are, or that they can only do so much harm, whereas men's harm goes to the very limits. But as you say, the aphorism "represents the limits of feminist understanding" and not the limits of women's understanding. And this reminds me not to take feminist criticisms as so authoritative, they just one voice among many, they'll have their points, but they so often thrive by passing themselves off as immediately obvious and just any decent person would surely agree, and I have to not get shaken up by that and just recognize it for what it is. I just gradually become more aware of this kinda stuff over time.
Thank you NJada, for your heartfelt response. I’m honored that you’ve found such meaning and inspiration from the piece. I was uncertain myself how well the thing came together, so I’m encouraged by how enthusiastically you’ve received it.
Well I definitely doubt myself quite a bit too and yet I feel I have to say something eventually, even if it's not perfect, so I guess we're all just taking a swing at things and it helps to compare
This is excellent, Cormac Jones, I really appreciate you writing this, a topic very important to me personally and I think describes a lot going on today which I have wished to say half as clearly. I'm particularly struck by how much of the power of this "epithymetic violence" (a new term to me) lies in its concealing itself, resisting being named, addressed, opposed - even hiding behind the thymic violence, which I think I have always been careful not to downplay.
The whole first paragraph under the header "Epithymetic violence" just about sums it all up to me. It is more or less what I was trying to say in my last piece: "'Lost boys' and the shame of naming the shame": https://njadadetrans.substack.com/p/lost-boys-and-the-shame-of-naming
I'm really not sure how successful I am yet at explaining these things though.
I find myself wondering if it's even possible for society to collectively recognize these dynamics; I sometimes feel a bit despairing about it simply being the stubborn way of the world, that it's very nature is to stay hidden and to thrive off of being hidden. But I'm noticing: Isn't it obvious why feminists reserve the harshest insults for anyone who starts approaching the things you're pointing out in this piece? I don't know if these dynamics will or won't change, but either way I've realized how much I need to detach, for my own sake, from the fear that this or that woman might ridicule me or accuse me, to know more intuitively and immediately that she's not automatically better than me, and to not let the fear put me on guard as if women in general are feminists (or that, of course, all feminists are equally immersed in this mindset). Relatively few women feel bold to speak against something proposed as feminist, but I don't blame them; I don't feel bold yet either. I have to be able to keep things in perspective first, not get shaken out of my wits and feeling obligated to agree with women if something I think upsets them. That's what most important, being able to hold my own perspective on things, not figuring out how to change how others see things, especially not feminists. But that doesn't mean going it all alone, but to be close to others who already can get it, instead of trying to make people get it.
And again this quote:
"Weaponized anger, violence as it is conventionally understood, is easily recognized and condemned. As such, however, it is often used as a foil protecting epithymetic violence from criticism, even presenting it as virtuous."
But it's this impulse to detract, marginalize, alienate, etc., that can be deadly, and far from most women are like this, but there are these dynamics that make men more vulnerable to social types of attacks that we cannot as easily defend ourselves from, that makes it a murderous kind of impulse. Cutting a person off from community cuts them off from a livable life. It cuts off in many cases all hope of resolving personal struggles, no matter how big or small; small problems, if completely irresolvable, become big problems.
Especially when this impulse is taken out on young boys in anticipation of their becoming grown men, it's like condemning them to a living death, possibly even living believing it was necessary, feeling it was deserved or thinking it was their own idea (being "one of the good ones"). And I can already hear the feminist in the my conscience going: "How dare you try to liken that to murder!" but I have to leave that be.
And now that I connect the Atwood quote with this alienating attack, yes, it's much more meaningful than it looks at first. It seems to show how morally superior women are, or that they can only do so much harm, whereas men's harm goes to the very limits. But as you say, the aphorism "represents the limits of feminist understanding" and not the limits of women's understanding. And this reminds me not to take feminist criticisms as so authoritative, they just one voice among many, they'll have their points, but they so often thrive by passing themselves off as immediately obvious and just any decent person would surely agree, and I have to not get shaken up by that and just recognize it for what it is. I just gradually become more aware of this kinda stuff over time.
Thank you NJada, for your heartfelt response. I’m honored that you’ve found such meaning and inspiration from the piece. I was uncertain myself how well the thing came together, so I’m encouraged by how enthusiastically you’ve received it.
Well I definitely doubt myself quite a bit too and yet I feel I have to say something eventually, even if it's not perfect, so I guess we're all just taking a swing at things and it helps to compare