But bliss in love is barely the case: for every successful contemporary love experience, there are ten destructive love experiences, positive 'downs' of much longer duration -- often resulting in the destruction of the individual, or at least an emotional cynicism that makes it difficult or impossible ever to love again. Why should this be so, if it is not actually inherent in the love process itself? Theodora Reik notes that love is a reaction formation, a cycle of envy, hostility, and possessiveness; -love is preceded by dissatisfaction with oneself, created by a discrepancy between the ego and the ego-ideal; -the bliss love produces is due to the resolution of this tension by: -the substitution, in place of one's own ego-ideal, of the other; and -love fades 'because the other can't live up to your high ego-ideal any more than you could, and -the judgment will be the harsher the higher are the claims on oneself' =love wears down just as it wound up: dissatisfaction with oneself leads to to astonishment at the other person's self-containment; to envy; to hostility; to possessive love "...that love is a much simpler phenomenon -- it become complicated, corrupted, or obstructed by an unequal balance of power...love demands a mutual vulnerability it turns destructive; the destructive effects of love occur inlay in a context of inequality. But because sexual inequality has remained a constant...the corruption 'romantic' love became characteristic of love between the sexes. "How does the sex class system based on the unequal power distribution of the biological family affect love between the sexes? -the interdependence of the mother/child relationship forces both male and female children into anxiety about losing the mother's love, on which they depend for physical survival. -when the child learns that the mother's love is conditional, the child's anxiety turns into desperation. -coinciding with the sexual rejection of the male child by the mother cause a schizophrenia in the boy between the emotional and the physical -- for the girl, the mother's rejection produces an insecurity about her identity in general, creating a lifelong need for approval -later her lover replaces her Father as granter of the necessary surrogate identity -here originates the hunger for love that later sends both sexes searching gin one person after another for a state of ego security **Men and women desire love for the same reason - ego security. How does each sex go about this?** -romantic idealization: -particularly for men, is responsible for the 'falling' in love - a change takes in the lover almost independently of the character of the love object -he sees the one he love's isn't worth all this blind devotion. -but he is helpless; 'a slave to love' -this means that man must idealize one woman over the rest to justify his descent to a lower class -though women to be inauthentic, this male 'falling in love' -all women require proof from men before they can allow themselves to love -this idealization process acts to equalize artificially the two parties - the minimum precondition for development of an uncorrected love -it requires a mutual vulnerability that is impossible to achieve in an unequal power situation -'falling in love' is no more than men idealizing, mystifying, and glorifying (which alters the male vision) that renders void the woman's class inferiority **men need to idealize woman to 'fall in love' to cope with the descent into a lower sex caste, which renders him unable to understand the woman's class inferiority HOWEVER: woman knows this idealization is a lie, one she worked so hard to produce. It is only a matter of time before he finds out. -she vacillates between an consuming need for male love and approval (to raise he from class subjection) to persistent feelings of inauthenticity when she does achieve his love --Her whole identity hangs in the balance of her love life: she is only to love herself if only a man finds her worthy of love **What if we remove the political context of love?** Some degree of idealization remains in the love process -the same process occurs - lover 'opens up' to the other - egos fuse, in which each sees and cares about the other as a new self (the beauty of the beloved, perhaps hidden to outsiders, is revealed). -'I wonder what she sees in him' does not only mean 'She is a fool, blinded with romanticism' but rather 'Her love has lent her x-ray vision. Perhaps we are missing something' -increased sensitivity to the real values of the other is not 'blindness' or 'idealization' but is a deeper vision. -it is only the false idealization described above the is responsible for the destruction ~~~~it is not the process of love itself that is at fault, but the political (the unequal power context)~~~~ II let's look more concretely at the corrupted form of love: [[see: quotes from the "Reikian Confessional" (is this a real work or just Firestone's tongue and cheek description?)] -Simone de Beauvoir "The word love has by no means the same sense for both sexes, and this is one cause of the serious misunderstanding, which divide them." -'double standard' - women are monogamous, better at loving, possessive, 'clinging', more interested in (highly evolved) 'relationships' than in sex -the confused affection with sexual desire - men are interested in nothing but the screw, or else romanticize the woman so ridiculously, that once sure of her, they become philanderers, never satisfied -they mistake sex for emotion ^^^^^^Three Conclusions^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (1) That men can't love (2) The woman's 'clinging' behavior is necessitated by their objective social situation; and (3) That this objective social situation has not changed significantly from what it ever was. (1)Men Can't Love: -men may love, but they usually 'fall in love' (with their own projected image) -pounding down her door one day, and thoroughly disillusioned with her the next -for ample reasons, it is rarer for women to leave men. - one case when we can feel sorry for our oppressor: Love it hell. -as soon as the man feels any pressure from the other partner to commit himself he panics and may react in several different ways: (1) He may rush out and sleep with multiple other women - to prove the first woman had no hold over him -these other women verify his (false) freedom - periodic arguments between him and the first woman, about the other women keep his panic at bay -but the other women are a paper tiger - nothing deep -he is balancing them against each other, to spare himself -women recognize this as a safety valve on their man's anxiety ('a long leash') - the real issue is not the other women, but his inability to commit himself, to any woman. ############################################################################################################################ (2) Unpredictable behavior: standing her up, being indefinite about the next date, 'my work comes first', or any other excuse -he senses her anxiety but refuses to assure, or even recognize, her anxiety as legitimate. -he needs her anxiety as a reminder that he is still free, the door is not entirely closed ############################################################################################################################# (3) When he is forced into a commitment, he makes her pay for it: -ogling other women, comparing her to past girlfriends, snide reminders that she is his 'ball and chain', or by suggesting that he would be better off as a bachelor -his ambivalence about woman's oppression (inferiority) comes out: -by committing to a woman, he has made the hated female identification, which he must deny if he to maintain respect in the male community. -he can't help feeling he missed something, suddenly every other girl does in fact look better. -naturally, his woman is to blame, for he has never never given up the search for the ideal: -she has forced him to resign from it. -he will go to his grave feeling cheated: -never realizing that there isn't much difference between one woman and the other, that it is the loving the creates the difference. -many men go from one casual thing to another, getting out every time it begins to get hot *****and yet to live without love proves intolerable to men just as it does to women******** )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) -the question for every normal male: how do I get someone to love me with her demanding equal commitment in return???? (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (2)Women's 'clinging' behavior is required by the objective social situation -Women develop methods of manipulation as a response to the male hysteria at any prospect of mutual commitment -these methods are strategies for survival - exhausting -it takes major energy during the best portion of one's creative years to 'make a good catch' and the rest of ones life is spent 'holding' that catch -Women who choose to not engage with these methods are choosing a life without love - something that most men don't have the courage to do -The class reality produced by the male inability to love in the first place -defines women as an inferior and parasitical class -a woman who does not achieve male approval is, in some form, doomed -women must legitimize their existence - must be more than a woman - and only men are the ones in the position to bestow this. -the difficulty for women to realize themselves in the larger (male) society cause them to try for the recognition of one man than the many -love, however good in itself, is corrupted by its class context - women must have love not only for healthy reasons but to also validate their existence. -the economic dependence of women makes this healthy love between equal impossible -women live under a system of patronage - they have the choice between being either public or private property (opposed to the more commonly express "freedom or marriage" -women who merge with the ruling class can hope for some privilege -but women without men are in the same situation as orphans - a helpless subclass lacking the protection of the powerful -this is the antithesis of freedom women are in a situation of magnified vulnerability -to participate in one's own subjection by choosing one's master gives the illusion of free choice - in reality woman is never free to choose love without ulterior motives -love and status are extricable intertwined -if a woman is aware of these fundamental factors of her condition when she loves, she ill never love gratuitously, but only in exchange for security: (1) emotional security - which she is justified in demanding (2) emotional identity - she should be able to find this through work and recognition, but she is denied - forcing her to seek her definition through a man. (3) economic class security - which is attached to her ability to 'find' a man ~~~2/3 of these demands are invalid conditions for love, but are still imposed on it, weighing it down - women cannot afford the luxury of spontaneous love due to their precarious political situation ######################################################################################### if she should show a man she loved him, he would consider her inferior and leave her for once a woman plunges in emotionally she will be helpless to playing the necessary games to pretend a coolness and restrain her emotions to guarantee a commitment ######################################################################################## -men will not commit themselves to openness and vulnerability until they are forced to -How does a woman force commitment from the male? (1) sex - she can work him up: deny his need, tease it, giving and taking back, jealousy -a women seldom love a man for his individual traits, but rather what he has to offer - Women use sex to gain (class) -What happens now that a woman has 'hooked' her man? -New set of problems: she can open her net and examine her catch -she is disappointed: it is below her level. If she were a man she wouldn't have bothered with it (but she wants liberated, but can only be though class, though man) -She can now drop the act (the manipulation) since it now safe to love, a male committed to her. -but she must work hard to catch up emotionally to really mean what she has said all along (self-subjection) -she worries he may find out that it was all a lie. -he probably doesn't love the "real" her. -Women then discover that love and marriage have different means between men and women -She was elevated above other women not in recognition of her real value, but only because she matched nicely with a man's store-bought pedestal -He does not genuinely love her, she just played into his preconcieved fantasies well enough. -she has been named Most Versatile Actress for her multi-role as: -Alter Ego -Mother of My Children -Housekeeper -Cook -Companion - all in his play -She knew his love was false, since she engineered it, but she can't help feeling contempt for him -She is afraid, at first, to reveal her true self because she may even lose that false love -She is an appendage of a member of the higher class -he will only associate with her if she is a part of his class, so he must raise her to it. -She has only been elevated to be used in a different way -She got no love and recognition, but possessorship and control -This is how a woman changes from Blushing Bride to Bitch -a universal and predictable change that still leaves the husband perplexed ('You're not the girl I married) (3) The objective social situation of women has not changed significantly from what it ever was. -Women have been in a double blind about love under the guise of the 'sexual revolution': women have been persuaded to shed their armor -The modern woman is in horror of being thought of as a bitch, whereas her grandmother expected that to happen as the natural course of things. -Men her grandmother's time also expected that any self-respecting woman would keep THEM waiting, would play all the right games without shame -If a woman did not guard her own interests in this way was not respected - it was known -The sexual revolution did not bring women any improvements, but it proved to have great value for men -The sexual revolution convinced women that the usual female games and demands were prudish, unfair, old-fashioned, puritanical - no 'groovy' -this limited women, if they still played the games and demanded they would not be chosen by a man -a woman has to give up the little protection they so painfully acquired through: denying his need, teasing, giving and taking back. ********04/15 ended - pick up at second paragraph on 128******************* ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A good quote from Faulkner's Mosquitoes: She has always had trouble with her men ... Sooner or later they always ran out on her ... Men she recognized as having potentialities all passed through a violent but but temporary period of interest which ceased as abruptly as it began, without leaving even the lingering threads of mutually remembered incidence, like those brief thunderstorms of August that threatened and dissolved for no apparent reason without producing any rain. At time she speculated with the almost masculine detachment on the reason for this.. She always tried to keep their relationships on the plane which the men themselves seemed to prefer - certainly no woman would, and few woman could, demand less of their men than she did. She never made arbitrary demands on their time, never caused them to wait for her nor to see her home at inconvenient house, never made them fetch and carry for her; she feed them and flattered herself that she was a good listener. and yet - She thought of the women she knew; how all of them had at least one obviously entranced male; she thought of the women she had observed; how they seemed to acquire a man at will, and if he has failed to stay acquired, how readily they replaced him.