Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Time for a Break
The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want?’ –Sigmund Freud
We are all obsessed with events both domestic and foreign, and it’s difficult to maintain one’s clarity. Some of us have friends and relatives that are directly affected by the most recent chaotic events. But if we are to stay engaged, we sometimes need a break that will give us a chance to breathe, relax and re-center.
So I’m sharing this quote by the great Sigmund Freud for your consideration. I can almost predict at least some of the responses to this quotation. Before anyone even answers, the men will roll their eyes and have visions of a dashboard filled with dials and meters. And the women will laugh and insist they aren’t really that complicated.
But since we all can use a temporary lift out of the doldrums of the most recent horrible events, let’s try to show Sigmund that we’ve got this one covered!
[photo by Adi Goldstein from Unsplash.com]
Published in Group Writing
I dig the bolded part, and your earlier point about how we wouldn’t have Jung without Freud seems important and (trusting your expertise) true.
But I don’t understand why we wouldn’t have psychology without Freud. Did William James not count as a psychologist? Was there no school of psychology that Freud displaced that would have continued without him–or perhaps been displaced by someone else?
Have a great Sabbath. :)
Had I world enough and time, I’d like to study some serious Maslow at some point.
LOL, I did not call you a fraud. See my other comment.
So you know so much you think that Jung or Adler don’t have any impact from Freud? IS that that you are saying?
If so, you are just wrong. If not, then, Sir, you do think what I do is bunk because I am sitting at an Adler conference right now.
This is my area of expertise, and it has not been ages since I studied it or engaged in the practice. You really have no leg of expertise to stand on, but hey, Dunning you way to whatever posts you want to make, and cheer yourself you drove an expert from this thread because you are too pigheaded and arrogant to care.
I personally think Freud set back understanding of human psychology. He sent people in the wrong direction. But then he did make it popular. Jung rejected Freud. What does that say? Personally I think Jung is off base too but probably less so than Freud.
Fine. People can feel free to defer to your expertise.
Jung is most certainly not off base. I can say that, having used a Jungian approach with success.
Again, not that you care. You have it all figured out and that, it seems it that. I certainly can’t know anything with 30 years of work in the field, and 25 years as a therapist.
I didn’t come to my assessment of Freud on my own. It’s out there. Many years ago when I looked into this in some depth (personal research, not formal) I realized you could not subscribe to both Freud and Jung and Skinner. They were mutually exclusive. So someone had to be wrong. As I look a modern psychology, albeit not professionally, I don’t see anything that reflects or resembles Freud’s ideas.
Let’s see. What does a woman want?
Perhaps a woman wants someone to give to her whatever she desires in a particular moment, without being asked, while guaranteeing her perpetual security and protection, affirming that she is beautiful and desirable, and simultaneously recognizing that she is completely independent, strong, and self-reliant.
I have some thoughts about the Freud issue. I have not studied his work, and am not particularly knowledgeable about psychiatry or psychology. I am highly skeptical of Freud, who strikes me as a fraud, based on what little I know. I worry that the entire fields of psychiatry and psychology do more harm than good.
My reference for this is Theodore Dalrymple, who is a retired psychiatrist. Here’s a bit from his book Admirable Evasions:
I don’t know whether Dalrymple is correct about this. I’ve listened to several of his talks, and read some of his columns, and he seems to be a quite sensible fellow.
That honor is not mine, sir. Semper Saltwater!
Leaving aside the issue of Freud’s misogyny…
I think a woman wants to be discovered and the discovery to include surprises.
Men settle for applause. Women want affirmation, to be alive in the minds and hearts of people who love her.
Before he met Eve, Adam’s job was to wake up every morning grateful for life, consciousness and personhood then experience and know all of a creation as a gift and find it to be good and wondrous. No guy ever had better prep to know and affirm a woman. And he still kinda blew it– although that first meeting must have been amazing.
A lot of young women seem to resonate between narcissism and self-loathing. To get past that to love the real woman and experience what a real woman does when she grows into herself and acts in response to real love…. Those moments feel like mission-accomplished in being a guy.
Feminism 101.
You ought to be skeptical of Freud but the fields of psychiatry and psychology do immense good. You must not know how many people are aided and helped. Mental illness is a real thing. But it has nothing to do with Freud. In fact the disconnect people have with real psychology and psychiatry probably is a result of the image of Freud. This is what I mean he has set back real psychology.
My take on what a woman wants: she wants the dignity allotted to all human beings.
What book is that?
https://eclalibraries.org/2021/06/17/science-fiction-and-the-abolition-of-man-finding-c-s-lewis-in-sci-fi-film-and-television/
I think that this is what Dalrymple disputes, after a career in the field. I remain agnostic, myself, but skeptical of the field. It seems likely that there are trade-offs, with some people helped and others harmed. Here’s more from his book:
It doesn’t appear in the limited sample of the book that I found online, but from one of Dalrymple’s lectures, it appears that his chief complaint is that psychology treats people as objects, not subjects.
It also seems, to me, that attributing moral failings to illness is counterproductive.
There’s psychology and there’s psychology.
Take a look at Martin Seligman, Jeffrey Schwartz (not strictly speaking a psychologist), and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. And Maslow. And in the days before Freud–William James.
If you want a monster to throw stones at, it’s Skinner.
Love this guy! Couldn’t find it for the longest. The empty box is like the Bene Gesserit’s place they dare not look:
Do you mean psychiatry?
Looks interesting. Too bad it would be wasted on me as I know nothing about the science fiction referred to, with the possible exception of Star Trek. I saw a few episodes back when it was pretty new.
Whatever works (or doesn’t work) for you. But the sci-fi is explained well enough in the different articles. There are still at least three films covered in the book that I haven’t seen. Actually, at least four.
It’s in my Kindle queue now, though I’ve been adding things to my queue at a lot faster rate than I can possibly read them. The Abolition of Man is one of the most influential books I’ve ever read, so I’m pretty sure I’ll get to this one at some point.
Love this.
“I swear, a woman’s breast is the hardest rock the Almighty ever put on this earth and I can find no sign on it ” :)
Now that’s just weird. Softest part I ever touched on a female. Except one.
But I will admit there is normally at least one exception to every rule :)