when looking at men using evopsych and the naturalistic fallacy to condone whatever abuses they feel they are entitled to, i can see it is wrong on 2 levels. first, the fallacy itself, thinking that something is okay among humans because animals do it (i.e. men being violent and rapey because they are fulfilling their natural instincts, raping and impregnating underaged children when they’ve reached puberty, apes engage in prostitution when currency is introduced, etc.) second, claiming our human gender roles are enforced by nature. if we took it seriously it would be men wearing the makeup and frilly clothes, dancing etc. because in nature the male of the species is the one brightly colored, dancing, showing off to impress the female enough to mate with him. i call bullshit.
Gita Beryl: For a while it was indeed men who wore frilly fashions, during the Baroque era. But yes that is all quackdoodle, biological determinism. If we look to nature, most advanced avian species have prolonged pair bonding and most herd species are lead by the senior female.
they even wore heeled shoes and wigs. can you believe it! that was their sign of virility. how times have changed; that fashion is now women’s which is, ironically enough, predominated by gay designers.
Gita Beryl: I can’t really go on without mentioning Bernays, it was the man himself who spoke of his role, not as an innovator, but a guardian of tradition, i.e. patriarchal tradition. Even as the suffragettes gained the vote and flappers cut off their hair and lost the hobble skirts, Bernays recast our desire for freedom into a desire for cigarettes and stockings, quite literally. Cigarettes became ‘torches of liberty’ and Bernays hired women aviators to go around to ladies’ clubs and speak of how women could ‘express themselves through fashion’.
Is that something he conveniently left out of Propaganda? Maybe I missed it. Like, the first half is his explaining propaganda and the second half is all rehashing of what he said in the first. One of the other things I remember was his saying that PR people work in the people’s best interests or for the good of the people. That in itself is propaganda! So much that it persists to this day when egalitarians and the like say that media representation is based on the majority preferences and not the ruling class.
Oh yeah, very important. The sublimation of our desire to revolt. Somehow I didn’t make the connection until you wrote it. Herbert Marcuse in his Essay on Liberation explains it differently, by saying that the so-called subversion is retained in the sexual sphere to not leak out against the governing fathers. “] It is not a genuine liberation of sexuality that displaces the obscenity of generals and projects it upon naked women, and the essential disease is not affluence in itself. The lifting of taboos on genital sexuality does nothing to liberate from sex roles.” (Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father)
Gita Beryl: That bit was covered in the first part of the BBC documentary Century of Self. War was good for industry of course, and after WWI ended the quarterly profits needed to be kept up. If soldiers didn’t need textiles for uniforms, tents and parachutes then there had to be other markets. Bernays’ talent wasn’t as a writer but his evil little way of making things ‘just happen’.