Violacion de ingrid betancur

Efter dét her blev sagt, vil de have os til at tro at sandgaard efter DENNE live, ringede og gik amok på frøken fordi hun havde læst hvad der var blevet skrevet med Ingrid. Men på det tidspunkt hun siger dette, havde hun jo læst det🤔

2024.05.14 19:27 No_name4568 Efter dét her blev sagt, vil de have os til at tro at sandgaard efter DENNE live, ringede og gik amok på frøken fordi hun havde læst hvad der var blevet skrevet med Ingrid. Men på det tidspunkt hun siger dette, havde hun jo læst det🤔

Efter dét her blev sagt, vil de have os til at tro at sandgaard efter DENNE live, ringede og gik amok på frøken fordi hun havde læst hvad der var blevet skrevet med Ingrid. Men på det tidspunkt hun siger dette, havde hun jo læst det🤔
Jeg tror det er fake, og at de tester hvem der nu slikker røv på frøken, efter hun er færdig med sandgaard. Sandgaard går nok ud og ‘udstiller’ frøken i aften, eller bare siger de ikke længere snakker. Og så om nogle dage går sandgaard og frk ud og siger at SOM OM FRØKEN NOGENSINDE VILLE VÆRE VENNER MED INGRID! Det hele var en test. Ligenu leger frøken venner med Ingrid på lives osv… Det er skuespil hele lortet.
submitted by No_name4568 to Rediot [link] [comments]

2024.05.13 19:36 glatureae Congreso español votará resolución de condena a violaciones de DDHH en Cuba

Congreso español votará resolución de condena a violaciones de DDHH en Cuba submitted by glatureae to CubaOnReddit [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 22:53 Lord_Autumnbottom Limitarianism!

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
- Honore de Balzac
What if someone wrote an entire non-fiction book based on that quote? But what if instead of a blistering takedown of a particular business empire and its origins, a mostly humorless & judgmental schoolmarm give you a drab and somewhat unfocused moralizing guilt-trip of a lecture that seemed burdened with more irrelevant examples than those germane to its central thesis? Tragically, the latter description is much more descriptive of "Limitarianism" by Ingrid Robeyns.
I'll start with my bias: I was really excited to read this book so perhaps my disappointment is amplified by my high hopes. I'd read a couple of reviews in the usual places a middle-brow person like myself finds them. I should have noticed that the reviews mostly presented the *idea* of limitarianism rather than this actual book. And I will be clear: I thought this book was not good. It is flabby and shallow, judgmental and moralizing (though I suspect she would consider those compliments), naive in the extreme and as guilty of being as unaware of the reality in another segment of society as it accuses its super-rich class of being. It wastes far too many pages to hold forth on how basically every fortune is (more or less) ill-gotten while also conflating *corporate* and individual wealth. And after reading the entire thing, it's not at all clear to me that she understands there can be a difference between a publicly traded company held primarily by institutional shareholders like Boeing and a company like Koch Industries, which truly is a wealth engine for its founders. It's sloppy and undercuts her argument that there should be a limit on *individual* wealth accumulation.
Along the way, there is an astonishing level of political naivete apparent. The breezy way she implies that the newly bulging treasuries of the EU, US and other rich countries would simply send large percentages of that money to the Global South is almost literally unbelievable. But probably the most wild proposal is *where* she draws the "riches line": 10 million euros/pounds/dollars and she further argues that *ethically* nobody should ever have more than 1 million of any currency. It makes for a nice round number, I'll grant her that.(Sorry Canadians!)
Perhaps this should be expected from someone that would have us believe that her totally normal 12 year old son, upon seeing a homeless person supposedly for the first time in his life, spontaneously proclaims, "I’m ashamed that as a society we treat people this way." Either this is the most empathetic and precocious 12 year old I've ever heard of or she made this up. The only other alternative is she spoon fed her child this line and encouraged him to regurgitate it just like kids are encouraged/compelled to do at school board meetings, interviews, etc.
But her implied proposal of confiscating fortunes >$10M from the EU and US and then giving a massive share of the resulting pot of money to the Global South is something out of a stoned anthropology students dorm room conversation. It's simply a non-starter.
She also confuses or conflates - it's not really clear her intent - *corporate* fortunes with personal fortunes. While there are cases of publicly traded companies with individual majority shareholders, typically they are held by institutional investors via mutual funds, ETFs and so on.
The most tragic thing about this book is that the *idea* is very, very intriguing. Unfortunately, the book as executed is deeply unserious - typically resorting to the liberal fallback of guilt trips, soaring ideals and woefully short on detail.
Nevertheless... I was intrigued by the concept. After I read the initial reviews but before I read the book itself, I spent some time pondering where I would draw the upper limit on individual wealth. I quizzed my significant other who came up with $50M more or less on the spur of the moment. I did some veeeerrry quick & dirty looking at US household wealth statistics and distribution and came up with $150M. Both of these values represent sort of a "feeling" of a point that balances the motivating force of capitalism to get super rich with a cap that limits how much damage the current 0.01% really can do to the political system. I will hopefully add some comments with my messing about on some stats from the US on wealth distribution, #s of households, thinking about actual effects of my own "riches line", etc. Devil in the details and all that
submitted by Lord_Autumnbottom to UnfinishedThoughts [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 13:37 xiaolii [H] Lots of Games [W] Trade for Games or Paypal (EU)

Last Updated List: 12/05/2024
 
I'm primarily looking to trade for games from my wishlist, otherwise I am also open to selling them. I am not interested in games I already have and all games I'm getting are for me and activated on my own account. Other than that feel free to offer your list of Steam games and something I may not have and fulfills my criteria I could/would be willing to trade for it/them.
If you're either trading or buying please state the game(s) you are interested in and your offer (game(s)/list/price).
 
Info:
 
I kindly ask of you is to be reasonable when making offers to make it a fair trade for both of us.
Let's have a good exchange/trade!
 
List of games:
submitted by xiaolii to indiegameswap [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 13:37 xiaolii [H] Lots of Games [W] Trade for Games or Paypal (EU)

Last Updated List: 12/05/2024
 
I'm primarily looking to trade for games from my wishlist, otherwise I am also open to selling them. I am not interested in games I already have and all games I'm getting are for me and activated on my own account. Other than that feel free to offer your list of Steam games and something I may not have and fulfills my criteria I could/would be willing to trade for it/them.
If you're either trading or buying please state the game(s) you are interested in and your offer (game(s)/list/price).
 
Info:
 
I kindly ask of you is to be reasonable when making offers to make it a fair trade for both of us.
Let's have a good exchange/trade!
 
List of games:
submitted by xiaolii to GameTrade [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 06:16 Able_Firefighter_515 Creadores de contenido panameños que les caigan mal / les den una vibra horrible

No hay nada peor que sentir una vibra horrible cuando ves a un creador de contenido subiendo cosas como “Se positivo, más amor y menos odio” y no sé cuántas idioteces más…
Las personas que puse en esta lista, son gente que literal las veo y hay algo en ellos que simplemente no puedo tragar…
Para mí, los creadores que PEOR vibra me dan son:
Valeria Retally
Miguel Melfi
Aliah Maurette
Nicky Gab (Que de ella he escuchado TANTAS historias malas que Dios mío)
Barceló
Mayer Mizrachi
Bettina Romina
Diego De Obaldia (Tuve la “bonita experiencia” de conocerlo en persona un día y pues… jajaj)
Ingrid de Ycaza
Limberth Cortes
Erik Rodríguez
Me gustaría saber los de ustedes…
submitted by Able_Firefighter_515 to Panama [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 05:26 leo-santos_locutor Ingrid Soares, esposa do cantor Zé Vaqueiro, compartilha momento de agonia ao ver filho de 3 anos engasgado com bolinha e alerta sobre cuidados com brinquedos pequenos.

Ingrid Soares, esposa do cantor Zé Vaqueiro, compartilha momento de agonia ao ver filho de 3 anos engasgado com bolinha e alerta sobre cuidados com brinquedos pequenos. submitted by leo-santos_locutor to PublicidadGratis [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 21:34 Mongoaurelius Violacion de seguridad en Binance?

A algunos de ustedes que usa Binance le llegó hoy una incorporación no solicitada a un grupo de WhatsApp sobre inversiones en crypto haciendo referencia a Binance? Éramos un montón y todos sorprendidos como obtuvieron nuestro número de teléfono. Habrán tomado la información del exchange o de algun ente nacional que Binance le brinda información? Cuando le contesté a uno del grupo que preguntaba lo mismo que las listas de teléfonos se compran me borraron del grupo.
submitted by Mongoaurelius to merval [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 19:07 Compa_Sata Me involucre a las apps de montadeudas desde hace un mes

Cómo dice el título, descargue estás apps por un problema que tuvimos en familia, pero me di cuenta ya muy tarde sobre el fraude de estás. He recibido amenazas de boletinaje, muerte y de acusación falsa de violaciones, me he asesorado y muchos me recomiendan cambiar de equipo y/o formatearlo de fábrica, también, que no les pague. Estuve al bordo del su1c1d10 por meterme en eso, pero gracias a Dios y a quienes me asesoraron recuperé mi tranquilidad. Se que muchas de estas apps fraudulentas operan en lugares escondidos en el país e incluso hay algunas que lo hacen desde fuera del país. Actualmente y gracias a mi patrón, familia y amigos he podido pagar a algunas de estas.
submitted by Compa_Sata to MexicoFinanciero [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 14:34 TazExprez I received some campaign propaganda and I do not believe that I am registered to vote. Is this legit? Thanks for any help.

I received some campaign propaganda and I do not believe that I am registered to vote. Is this legit? Thanks for any help.
https://preview.redd.it/fhmo2svgkszc1.jpg?width=2250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=76bf77f1054b485ec111ead3e067d5c42ba0feb5
submitted by TazExprez to Dominican [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 10:21 Individual_Leg_7028 ¿Porque las mujeres están más opcecionadas que los hombres con lo del hombre y el oso?

Estos dias me han aparecidos varios videos sobre mujeres discutiendo que es mejor estar en un bosque con un oso porque el hombre mata viola etc etc y asen ver al hombre como un monstruo y es algo estúpido por que hay hombres que matan a hombre y mujeres y mujeres que matan hombres y mujeres hacen ver al hombre como un cancer del mundo cuando no es así si hubiera un mundo de mujeres todavia habría feminicidios violaciones etc etc y lo mismo pasaria con un mundo de hombres dejen de ver quien es peor el hombre o mujer al final todos estamos echo de lo mismo todos tenemos emociones todos tenemos órganos si talvez los hombres tienen mas fuerza pero dudo que un hombre pueda pelear con otro hombre que tiene una navaja o una pistola a los 2 generos nos pueden violar matar etc etc somos iguales fin
submitted by Individual_Leg_7028 to DebateLikeAEnglishman [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 09:54 Individual_Leg_7028 ¿Porque las mujeres están más opcecionadas que los hombres con lo del hombre y el oso?

Estos dias me han aparecidos varios videos sobre mujeres discutiendo que es mejor estar en un bosque con un oso porque el hombre mata viola etc etc y asen ver al hombre como un monstruo y es algo estúpido por que hay hombres que matan a hombre y mujeres y mujeres que matan hombres y mujeres hacen ver al hombre como un cancer del mundo cuando no es así si hubiera un mundo de mujeres todavia habría feminicidios violaciones etc etc y lo mismo pasaria con un mundo de hombres dejen de ver quien es peor el hombre o mujer al final todos estamos echo de lo mismo todos tenemos emociones todos tenemos órganos si talvez los hombres tienen mas fuerza pero dudo que un hombre pueda pelear con otro hombre que tiene una navaja o una pistola a los 2 generos nos pueden violar matar etc etc somos iguales fin
submitted by Individual_Leg_7028 to u/Individual_Leg_7028 [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 04:05 Apprehensive-Work841 Le pregunta a la IA que pasaria si del Caño es presidente y solo duro 7 meses

Mes: Diciembre 2023
Razonamiento: Nicolás del Caño asume la presidencia con la firme convicción de implementar un programa de transformaciones radicales para construir un modelo socialista en Argentina. Considera que el sistema capitalista ha fracasado y que es necesario tomar medidas drásticas para redistribuir la riqueza y el poder a favor de la clase trabajadora.
Medidas:
Sociedad:
Países:
Mes: Enero 2024
Razonamiento: Del Caño busca consolidar su proyecto de transformaciones estructurales y responder a las demandas de los sectores populares que lo llevaron al poder. Sin embargo, enfrenta crecientes resistencias internas y presiones externas.
Medidas:
Sociedad:
Países:
Mes: Febrero 2024
Razonamiento: A solo dos meses de haber asumido, Del Caño se ve obligado a profundizar las medidas drásticas ante el creciente descontento empresarial, la fuga de capitales y la escasez de productos básicos. Decide avanzar hacia un control más férreo de la economía y los precios.
Medidas:
Sociedad:
Países:
Mes: Marzo 2024
Razonamiento: Tras las drásticas medidas de febrero para controlar la economía y los precios, Del Caño se encuentra ante un punto de no retorno. La oposición interna se ha radicalizado y el país enfrenta un virtual aislamiento internacional. El presidente decide apostar por una vía de colectivización total para "defender la revolución".
Medidas:
Sociedad:
Países:
Mes: Abril 2024
Razonamiento: Tras los violentos hechos de marzo, Del Caño se ve obligado a dar un nuevo viraje radical en su estrategia, buscando asegurar su supervivencia en el poder. Decide aferrarse al control militar y reprimir sin contemplaciones a la disidencia interna.
Medidas:
Sociedad:
Países:
Mes: Mayo 2024
Razonamiento: Tras el giro totalitario de abril, Del Caño se ha convertido en un líder cuasi-dictatorial que sólo se mantiene en el poder a fuerza de una feroz represión militar. Sin embargo, la resistencia interna no cesa de crecer y el país se encamina hacia una guerra civil a gran escala.
Medidas:
Sociedad:
Países:
Mes: Junio 2024
Razonamiento: Después de meses de caos, violencia desmedida y un creciente aislamiento internacional, el régimen de Nicolás Del Caño se encuentra acorralado. La guerra civil se ha extendido por gran parte del país y las fuerzas rebeldes avanzan inexorablemente hacia la capital para derrocarlo.
Medidas:
Sociedad:
Países:
Mes: Julio 2024
Razonamiento: Luego de meses de violentos combates, el régimen totalitario de Nicolás Del Caño se derrumba finalmente ante el empuje arrollador de las fuerzas rebeldes. El líder máximo se ve obligado a huir del país, mientras sus últimos reductos de resistencia son aplastados.
Medidas:
Sociedad:
Países:
submitted by Apprehensive-Work841 to argentina [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 00:04 valtermetal Siegrid Ingrid está de volta

Siegrid Ingrid está de volta submitted by valtermetal to u/valtermetal [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 00:03 valtermetal Siegrid Ingrid está de volta

Siegrid Ingrid está de volta
https://preview.redd.it/5prb6q2w8ozc1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=982b4f6d1df5ca99ad60cdde95fa4da600a8e01e
Prepare-se para uma avalanche sonora devastadora! A lendária banda brasileira de Thrash/Death Metal, SIEGRID INGRID, está de volta com força total após um hiato de 17 anos!
Siegrid Ingrid está de volta

SIEGRIDINGRID

ThrashMetal

DeathMetal

MetalBrasileiro

NovoÁlbum

BackFromHell

Retorno

MetalExtremo

MúsicaPesada

Underground

Brasil

Brutal

Intenso

Agressivo

LetrasFortes

MensagemSocial

CríticaSocial

Volta

RetornoTriunfal

Sucesso

Popularidade

Fama

Reconhecimento

Legado

História

Trajetória

Discografia

Músicas

Faixas

Clipes

Shows

Turnês

Fãs

Comunidade

Metalhead

Headbanger

Underground

CenaExtrema

HeavyMetal

RockPesado

MúsicaAutoral

Original

Autêntica

Brasileira

Nacional

Representatividade

CenaMusical

MercadoFonográfico

IndústriaFonográfica

Streaming

PlataformasDigitais

YouTube

Spotify

Deezer

AppleMusic

GooglePlayMusic

AmazonMusic

Tidal

Soundcloud

Bandcamp

LojaVirtual

Merchandising

RedesSociais

Facebook

Instagram

Twitter

YouTubeChannel

FãClube

ComunidadeOnline

Fórum

Discussão

Debate

Opinião

ThrashMetal

DeathMetal

MetalBrasileiro

NovoAlbum

BackFromHell

Retorno

MetalExtremo

MusicaPesada

Underground

Brasil

Brutal

Intenso

Agressivo

submitted by valtermetal to bandasbrasileiras [link] [comments]

2024.05.10 22:43 Gatopizza999 PNC: Una institución que fracasó antes de ser creada... No. 2

Está segunda parte toma un giro un poco diferente, debido a las ideas.
Los Acuerdos de Paz no llegaron a Guatemala por que se necesitara la paz por sí misma, la guerrilla no era el ejército vietnamita, no había ganado casi nada, no iba a ganar, la idea de tomar el Palacio y la presidencia tan solo eran un sueño...
Al concluir la Guerra Fría, EE.UU. tenía que relajar sus políticas, y evidenciar que ellos, en conjunto con sus aliados, eran mejores que la U.R.S.S. y el Pacto de Varsovia, que ya habían fracasado; había que hacerles creer a las guerrillas que habían logrado ganar, para vender la idea de sociedades más civilizadas, que no buscaban exterminar al enemigo, sino aceptarlo como "hijos pródigos".
Esta idea no fue bien recibida por el Ejército de Guatemala, aceptar una derrota en papel les era humillante, pero había un gran premio de consolación, muchos beneficios, ya que EE.UU. Suecia, España y otros, estaban dispuestos a "apoyar" con recursos al país, más porque se celebraría la firma; para la sociedad era el inicio de una nueva etapa, para la administración de Álvaro Arzú era el recibir donaciones millonarias, volverse una "rockstar" y tener más libertad para ganar espacio en el proceso de privatización de los bienes del estado y ser socio en las nuevas empresas, usando fondos públicos, si al fin que, ya Salinas de Gortari lo había hecho en México y había salido bien, sumado a que el pueblo estaría feliz con el dinero que ingresaría por 5 años, mientras que las ONG y activistas por la paz siguieran apoyando y donando.
Este dinero realmente era para construir la plataforma de desarrollo para proyectos que el Estado tendría que absorber a largo plazo, y que tendría que mantener, uno de estos proyectos era el de PNC, el cual sí recibió equipo, capacitación y hasta trajes, pero que se dejaba el factor del sueldo de los policías, una realidad que hasta el día de hoy se viene arrastrando, y es que se tenía que hacer este contexto para evidenciar el poco valor que se da al capital humano de la PNC, más allá de que tenga tantos vicios, como ya se mencionó anteriormente.
¿Quién quiere recibir una bala por Q4500 al mes?
Y es que la pregunta es tonta, nadie, y menos por ese salario, sumado a todas las precariedades que sufre el personal, y los castigos que se montan a los agentes; de primera mano tienes que prestar servicio una semana si y otra no, estar dispuesto las 24 horas del día, dependiendo en donde te ubiquen, un puesto administrativo recibe la menor presión, el ser guardia de un edificio público da pauta a que puedas descansar, pero si estas en estación o subestación, la situación se pone fea, tienes que responder a robos, asesinatos, violaciones, sumado a responder por el cerote que anda haciendo clavos en carro o moto, o el que se pone a gritar a todo pulmón y bien borracho a las 3 am, y todo esto por lo básico, sin tomar en cuenta que una bala te pueda afectar.
Sumado, si no hay dinero para alimento por parte del Estado, tienes que contribuir, dormir en colchonetas en el suelo, si, de esas que venden en la Avenida Bolívar y que con tres usos ya no sirven para nada, pero que se siguen usando tres años después y con el sudor de 10 agentes anteriores.
Te medio capacitan en la Academia de zona 6, pero no te son claros cuando puedes o no usar tu arma, incluso si te está lloviendo disparos, y más, si usas el arma, tienes que pagar hasta las balas usadas.
Y, aunque todo esto suene más a desahogo, estas líneas tan aburridas son lo que viven los agentes, y no es por justificarlos, pero vivir en esas condiciones es ya difícil.
Muchos de los agentes de la PNC son personas que han venido desde el interior, buscando un espacio laboral, ya que la realidad de los pueblos es miserable, casi como en todo el país, y solo queda buscar cómo vivir lo más honradamente posible y no morir en el intento, conozco agentes que trabajan una semana en su pueblo y otras en la capital como agentes, uno me comentaba que su vida es difícil, cuando está en el interior, cortar leña y venderla es la prioridad para la familia, cuando está en la capital, quedarse una semana encerrado en un edificio es pesado, más por las noches, cuando hace falta algo de la tienda, y tener que esperar a que pase el inspector para tomar lista de que esta en sus obligaciones, y luego salir a buscar que comer, esperando que la tienda no haya cerrado.
Pero todo esto tiene una raíz, no puede ser que alguien arriesgue tanto, tenga una vida miserable, y sea una mala paga. Claro, si vemos, el Ministerio de Gobernación tiene harta responsabilidad, con solo consultar los salarios de ministros y viceministros, encontramos unos sueldos ridículos, los viejos gordos y bien pagados, que tendrían que generar los planes nacionales para disminuir el crimen, hacer una sociedad más segura y todo eso, pero al final fallan, no por incompetentes, sino porque les vale, han llegado por favores políticos, otros por familiaridad, otros y otras a base de sentones, y unos cuantos por ser los que sí saben, pero están encerrados en oficinas donde no pueden hacer nada relevante.
En este punto caemos en el problema típico del Estado al momento de elegir por meritocracia, o escojo al viejo zorro que sabe todas las mañanas del Estado y es corrupto, pero que sabe sacar adelante la agenda, o pongo a aquel que va a aprender, pero en lo que aprende, comete errores y sale adelante, ya se fue un año de gobierno, esto en los altos cargos bien pagados, para abajo, o se escoge a la hija de aquel compadre y dueño de la empresa que pagó la campaña, la que buenas nalgas y siempre anda en minifalda, al sobrino gay del diputado X, que tiene un semestre en la universidad Y, pero que va a director de la oficina Z; la amiga o amigo de la casera, que sacó 3 doctorados en España, pero que no sabe nada de seguridad y criminalidad, ya que siempre vivió en Guatemala en una colonia cerrada, y tenía un guardia para él, desde niño, sumado a tener un vehículo propio para que se transporte.
¿Realmente creemos que esa gente le interesa el bienestar de la población? para ellos, la vida de nosotros es un número, que, si sube mucho, conllevara a un jalón de orejas en las reuniones con los jefes, una humillación más o en el peor caso, no permitirles el subir de puesto para comprar el nuevo Ferrari, ya que el otro lo chocó...
Sumado a esto, recuerdo una situación particular, durante el gobierno de Jimmy, me llamarón del Ministerio de Gobernación, necesitaban entrevistar a especialistas en mi ramo, para unos procesos (por seguridad omito los detalles) que necesitaban de urgencia, ya que contratarían a dos personas, siendo mi gremio bastante pequeño, con otros profesionales nos enteramos del listado de a quienes habían llamado en su mayoría; volviendo al momento de la llamada, la persona del otro lado de la línea era la Maestra en Psicología doña Perica (omito nombre), quien dice ser la 4ta asesora del viceministro tercero, que necesita entrevistarme tal día a tal hora, si en caso estoy interesado, mi respuesta es positiva, solo le hago la pregunta que marcaría todo: ¿Qué requisitos piden para ingresar al MINGOB?, unos segundos de silencio, y la respuesta más simple y burda: "como esto es un proceso de seguridad para la institución, no se realizará en las instalaciones, sumado a que mi puesto es 029, lo tendremos que hacer en el McDonald’s enfrente del parque Concordia", mala espina deja una respuesta así, si se contratará personal, ¿por qué hacerlo a escondidas?, voy a la entrevista, me mandan a las pruebas psicosomáticas, esperando que no sea vinculado a las maras o que sea una persona de "fiar"; con el paso de los días, contacto con los colegas profesionales, todos habían ido a la prueba, pero al pasar un mes, a nadie habían llamado, con el paso del tiempo, pido información pública y salen a relucir dos nombres, investigando un poco logró ubicar a las dos personas, ninguna profesional en el ramo, uno con título militar ya retirado, la otra, familiar de alguien de adentro, con pagos mayores a los que nos habían comentado, ninguno con experiencia o conocimiento profesional, obviamente se había hecho todo el show para decir que se había contactado personal, recordando la entrevista, se hicieron ciertas preguntas y uno respondía con criterios técnicos, no dudo que al anotar la asesora todo, les daría al final un resumen de las ideas generales a estas dos personas, para que hicieran lo que pudieran y no lo que un profesional debería hacer.
Si esto pasa con grupos profesionales muy especializados, imaginemos como se llevan los planes de seguridad nacional, y la relevancia que le dan a la PNC y población.
Nota: Quizás este extracto no es el más fuerte o que haga pensar, pero es necesario comprender varias situaciones, en especial como el MINGOB es un botín para dinero y posición social, económica y política, al igual que muchas otras instituciones, donde se ubica a gente que no tiene capacidad, y para tapar eso, se paran contratando patojos chispudos pero calladitos, y así tenemos una administración pública que tira dinero por millones, pero que funciona bastardamente gracias a los que están abajo y se la sudan, mientras que los de arriba, se preocupan en sus nuevos pares de zapatos, el color de su nuevo IPhone o si van a España o Italia en sus vacaciones.
¿Realmente hay desarrollo en los niveles de seguridad y fortalecimiento de la PNC con estas posturas?
submitted by Gatopizza999 to guatemala [link] [comments]

2024.05.10 01:53 NaTrave [Post-Match Thread] Taça Conmebol Libertadores: Liverpool-URU 0 x 5 Palmeiras

[Encerrado] Liverpool-URU 0 x 5 Palmeiras

Gols Liverpool-URU: N/D Gols Palmeiras: Raphael Veiga (43/1T, 25/2T), Endrick (36/2T), Rony (45/2T), Gustavo Gómez (50/2T)
Escalações:
Liverpool-URU (3-4-3) Palmeiras (4-3-3)
Sebastián Lentinelly, Enzo Martínez, Matías De los Santos, Jean Rosso, Agustín Cayetano, Kevin Amaro (Franco Nicola), Martín Barrios (Matías Silva), Lucas Lemos (Renzo Machado), Diego García (Diego Rodriguez), Matías Ocampo (Agustín González), Luciano Rodríguez Weverton, Joaquin Piquerez, Murilo Cerqueira, Gustavo Gómez, Marcos Rocha, Anibal Moreno (Zé Rafael), Gabriel Menino, Lázaro (Rony), Raphael Veiga (Flaco López), Estêvão (Luis Guilherme), Endrick (Mayke)
Suplentes: Suplentes:
Francisco Bregante, Gastón Guruceaga, Yordi Lopez, Tomas Pastorino, Ignacio Rodriguez, Hebert Vergara, Lucas Wasilewsky Rômulo, Vanderlan, Luan, Marcelo Lomba, Richard Rios, Fabinho, Caio Paulista
Técnico: Emiliano Alfaro Técnico: Abel Ferreira
Arbitragem: Andrés Rojas (Árbitro Principal), Jhon Gallego (Assistente 1), Roberto Padilla (Assistente 2), Carlos Betancur (Quarto Árbitro)
Estatísticas
Liverpool Montevideo Estatística Palmeiras
45% Posse de Bola 55%
0.3 Gols Esperados (xG) 3.08
3/9 (33%) Finalizações Certas/Total 11/22 (50%)
5 Finalizações Erradas 7
0 Finalizações na Trave 1
1 Chutes Bloqueados 4
6 Defesas de Goleiro 3
0 Chances Claras 7
260/346 (75%) Passes Certos/Total 351/432 (81%)
5 Escanteios 3
14 Cruzamentos 15
2 Impedimentos 2
10 Tiro Livre 8
16 Arremessos Laterais 26
35 Ataques 85
10 Ataques Perigosos 22
8 Faltas 10
13 Desarmes 19
6 Tiro de Meta 7
1 Cartões Amarelos 2
0 Cartões Vermelhos 0

Vídeos

Match Thread: https://www.reddit.com/palmeiras/comments/1co7vhx/match_thread_taça_conmebol_libertadores/
submitted by NaTrave to palmeiras [link] [comments]

2024.05.10 01:52 NaTrave [Post-Match Thread] Taça Conmebol Libertadores: Liverpool-URU 0 x 5 Palmeiras

[Encerrado] Liverpool-URU 0 x 5 Palmeiras

Gols Liverpool-URU: N/D Gols Palmeiras: Raphael Veiga (43/1T, 25/2T), Endrick (36/2T), Rony (45/2T), Gustavo Gómez (50/2T)
Escalações:
Liverpool-URU (3-4-3) Palmeiras (4-3-3)
Sebastián Lentinelly, Enzo Martínez, Matías De los Santos, Jean Rosso, Agustín Cayetano, Kevin Amaro (Franco Nicola), Martín Barrios (Matías Silva), Lucas Lemos (Renzo Machado), Diego García (Diego Rodriguez), Matías Ocampo (Agustín González), Luciano Rodríguez Weverton, Joaquin Piquerez, Murilo Cerqueira, Gustavo Gómez, Marcos Rocha, Anibal Moreno (Zé Rafael), Gabriel Menino, Lázaro (Rony), Raphael Veiga (Flaco López), Estêvão (Luis Guilherme), Endrick (Mayke)
Suplentes: Suplentes:
Francisco Bregante, Gastón Guruceaga, Yordi Lopez, Tomas Pastorino, Ignacio Rodriguez, Hebert Vergara, Lucas Wasilewsky Rômulo, Vanderlan, Luan, Marcelo Lomba, Richard Rios, Fabinho, Caio Paulista
Técnico: Emiliano Alfaro Técnico: Abel Ferreira
Arbitragem: Andrés Rojas (Árbitro Principal), Jhon Gallego (Assistente 1), Roberto Padilla (Assistente 2), Carlos Betancur (Quarto Árbitro)
Estatísticas
Liverpool Montevideo Estatística Palmeiras
45% Posse de Bola 55%
0.3 Gols Esperados (xG) 3.08
3/9 (33%) Finalizações Certas/Total 11/22 (50%)
5 Finalizações Erradas 7
0 Finalizações na Trave 1
1 Chutes Bloqueados 4
6 Defesas de Goleiro 3
0 Chances Claras 7
260/346 (75%) Passes Certos/Total 351/432 (81%)
5 Escanteios 3
14 Cruzamentos 15
2 Impedimentos 2
10 Tiro Livre 8
16 Arremessos Laterais 26
35 Ataques 85
10 Ataques Perigosos 22
8 Faltas 10
13 Desarmes 19
6 Tiro de Meta 7
1 Cartões Amarelos 2
0 Cartões Vermelhos 0

Vídeos

Match Thread: https://www.reddit.com/futebol/comments/1co7vgg/match_thread_taça_conmebol_libertadores/
submitted by NaTrave to futebol [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 23:00 NaTrave [Match Thread] Taça Conmebol Libertadores: Liverpool-URU x Palmeiras

[Encerrado] Liverpool-URU 0 x 5 Palmeiras

Gols Liverpool-URU: N/D Gols Palmeiras: Raphael Veiga (43/1T, 25/2T), Endrick (36/2T), Rony (45/2T), Gustavo Gómez (50/2T)
Taça Conmebol Libertadores - Fase de grupos Estádio: Centenario Data: 9 de Maio de 2024, 19:00 Transmissão: STAR+, Paramount+ Link para Live Match Thread Post-Match Thread: https://www.reddit.com/palmeiras/comments/1cobs82/postmatch_thread_taça_conmebol_libertadores/
Escalações:
Liverpool-URU (3-4-3) Palmeiras (4-3-3)
Sebastián Lentinelly, Enzo Martínez, Matías De los Santos, Jean Rosso, Agustín Cayetano, Kevin Amaro (Franco Nicola), Martín Barrios (Matías Silva), Lucas Lemos (Renzo Machado), Diego García (Diego Rodriguez), Matías Ocampo (Agustín González), Luciano Rodríguez Weverton, Joaquin Piquerez, Murilo Cerqueira, Gustavo Gómez, Marcos Rocha, Anibal Moreno (Zé Rafael), Gabriel Menino, Lázaro (Rony), Raphael Veiga (Flaco López), Estêvão (Luis Guilherme), Endrick (Mayke)
Suplentes: Suplentes:
Francisco Bregante, Gastón Guruceaga, Yordi Lopez, Tomas Pastorino, Ignacio Rodriguez, Hebert Vergara, Lucas Wasilewsky Rômulo, Vanderlan, Luan, Marcelo Lomba, Richard Rios, Fabinho, Caio Paulista
Técnico: Emiliano Alfaro Técnico: Abel Ferreira
Arbitragem: Andrés Rojas (Árbitro Principal), Jhon Gallego (Assistente 1), Roberto Padilla (Assistente 2), Carlos Betancur (Quarto Árbitro)

Lances

Começa o Primeiro Tempo! 00/1T Apita o árbitro! Começã a partida no estádio Centenário! 02/1T Impedido! Barrios lança para Ocampo na área do Palmeiras, ele domina e finaliza para marcar o gol do Liverpool, mas o lance é anulado por impedimento. 16/1T No travessão! Raphael Veiga pega a sobra na entrada da área, chuta forte de primeira, e a bola explode no travessão da meta do Liverpool! 17/1T Agora saiu fraco. Raphael Veiga chuta mais, esta mascada, e o goleiro Lentinelly defende no meio do gol sem sustos. 18/1T Posse de bola. Liverpool 33% x 67% Palmeiras. 19/1T Weverton! Barrios recebe de longa distância e arrisca o chute. Weverton defende no centro do gol, sem dar rebote. 21/1T Quase! Gabriel Menino lança para Endrick, que se antecipa ao goleiro Lentinelly, mas acaba mandando a bola pela linha de fundo. O atacante reclamou bastante de um contato do arqueiro na jogada. 27/1T Pegou mal. Estêvão finaliza de fora da área e manda sem perigo, por cima do gol do Liverpool. 29/1T Finalizações. Liverpool 2 x 6 Palmeiras. 33/1T Escanteio! Ocampo aproveita o contra-ataque do Liverpool, parte em direção à área do Palmeiras e chuta com desvio. Escanteio para o time da casa. 34/1T Por cima. Diego Garcia cobra escanteio por baixo, a defesa afasta, e Barrios chuta finalizando de fora da área, sobre o gol de Weverton. Tiro de meta. 35/1T Weverton! Diego Garcia finaliza de dentro da área, e Weverton defende sem problemas. 38/1T Seria um golaço! Lentinelly sai jogando mal, Estêvão vê o goleiro fora da meta e tenta de cobertura. Seria um golaço, mas a bola passou por cima da meta. 42/1T Foi direto! Piquerez recebe na ponta esquerda, cruza fechado demais no gol e Lentinelly defende. 43/1T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Raphael Veiga faz um bonito gol! Marcos Rocha lança com precisão para o meia, que invade a área e solta a bomba de pé direito! A bola acerta o travessão e entra! O Verdão sai na frente no Centenário. 45/1T +1. O jogo vai até os 46. 46/1T Apita o árbitro! Fim do primeiro tempo! 47/1T ⏱️ Termina o Primeiro Tempo!   Começa o Segundo Tempo! 00/2T Apita o árbitro! Recomeça o jogo! 03/2T 🟨 Cartão amarelo para Gabriel Menino, após falta em Ocampo. 04/2T Espalma, Weverton! Luciano Rodríguez chuta forte de longa distância, e Weverton espalma. 14/2T Vai precisar sair! Aníbal Moreno cai no gramado e por conta da falta que sofreu há alguns minutos e precisará sair. 15/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Aníbal Moreno, ENTROU: Zé Rafael. 16/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Estêvão, ENTROU: Luis Guilherme. 16/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Lázaro, ENTROU: Rony. 19/2T Em cima do goleiro! Raphael Veiga faz lançamento preciso para Endrick, que cara a cara com Lentinelly acabou chutando em cima do goleiro do Liverpool! 22/2T 🔃 Substituição no Liverpool-URU: SAIU: Ocampo, ENTROU: Agustín González. 22/2T 🔃 Substituição no Liverpool-URU: SAIU: Amaro, ENTROU: Franco Nicola. 25/2T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Raphael Veiga amplia! Endrick carrega para o ataque e toca na medida para o meia, que finaliza cruzado e manda para o fundo das redes. O Verdão faz 2 a 0 em Montevidéu! 27/2T Como fica o grupo. O Palmeiras está indo a 10 pontos e se isola na liderança do Grupo F, enquanto Del Valle, San Lorenzo e Liverpool estão empatados com quatro cada um. 30/2T Pênalti para o Liverpool! Em jogada na área do Palmeiras, a bola bate na mão de Murilo, e o árbitro marca pênalti para o time da casa! 32/2T Lance checado pelo VAR. É possível que tenha um impedimento no início da jogada. O lance está sendo checado. 33/2T Pênalti anulado! Após checagem do VAR, foi pego impedimento na origem da jogada que deu o pênalti para o Liverpool. Marcação anulada. O cartão amarelo de Murilo foi retirado, também. 35/2T Que defesa! Zé Rafael rouba a bola, Endrick parte para o contra-ataque e faz o passe preciso para Luis Guilherme. O camisa 31 ajeitou o corpo, finalizou cruzado, e Lentinelly faz belíssima defesa para evitar o terceiro! 36/2T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Endrick amplia! Em cobrança de escanteio de Raphael Veiga, Rony desvia na primeira trave, e o camisa 9 completa! O Verdão faz o terceiro no Uruguai! 38/2T Teve confusão! Endrick saiu comemorando bastante, imitou o King Kong por conta do filme, bateu no peito, e os reservas do Liverpool entenderam que houve provocação. Os atletas da casa foram para cima do centroavante, e o tempo fechou no Centenário. 39/2T 🟨 Cartão amarelo para Endrick, depois de tudo que aconteceu. 39/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Endrick, ENTROU: Flaco López. 39/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Raphael Veiga, ENTROU: Mayke. 40/2T 🔃 Substituição no Liverpool-URU: SAIU: Diego García, ENTROU: Diego Rodríguez. 40/2T 🔃 Substituição no Liverpool-URU: SAIU: Lucas Lemos, ENTROU: Renzo Machado. 42/2T Defendeu! Luis Guilherme finaliza sem ângulo, e o goleiro Lentinelly faz a defesa. 43/2T 🟨 Cartão amarelo para Agustín González, pela falta em Zé Rafael. 45/2T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Virou goleada! Contra-ataque do Palmeiras, Flaco López cruza com precisão para Rony, que mata no peito e finaliza com firmeza para marcar o quarto. 48/2T +4. O jogo vai até os 49. 49/2T Pênalti para o Palmeiras! Rosso derruba Rony na área, e o Palmeiras tem pênalti a seu favor. 50/2T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Gustavo Gómez cobra no canto esquerdo, Lentinelly cai do outro lado, e o Palmeiras faz o quinto! 51/2T Apita o árbitro! Fim de jogo! Vitória do Verdão e classificação encaminhada! 51/2T ⏱️ Termina o Segundo Tempo!   Fim de Jogo!
submitted by NaTrave to palmeiras [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 23:00 NaTrave [Match Thread] Taça Conmebol Libertadores: Liverpool-URU x Palmeiras

[Encerrado] Liverpool-URU 0 x 5 Palmeiras

Gols Liverpool-URU: N/D Gols Palmeiras: Raphael Veiga (43/1T, 25/2T), Endrick (36/2T), Rony (45/2T), Gustavo Gómez (50/2T)
Taça Conmebol Libertadores - Fase de grupos Estádio: Centenario Data: 9 de Maio de 2024, 19:00 Transmissão: STAR+, Paramount+ Link para Live Match Thread Post-Match Thread: https://www.reddit.com/futebol/comments/1cobs6h/postmatch_thread_taça_conmebol_libertadores/
Escalações:
Liverpool-URU (3-4-3) Palmeiras (4-3-3)
Sebastián Lentinelly, Enzo Martínez, Matías De los Santos, Jean Rosso, Agustín Cayetano, Kevin Amaro (Franco Nicola), Martín Barrios (Matías Silva), Lucas Lemos (Renzo Machado), Diego García (Diego Rodriguez), Matías Ocampo (Agustín González), Luciano Rodríguez Weverton, Joaquin Piquerez, Murilo Cerqueira, Gustavo Gómez, Marcos Rocha, Anibal Moreno (Zé Rafael), Gabriel Menino, Lázaro (Rony), Raphael Veiga (Flaco López), Estêvão (Luis Guilherme), Endrick (Mayke)
Suplentes: Suplentes:
Francisco Bregante, Gastón Guruceaga, Yordi Lopez, Tomas Pastorino, Ignacio Rodriguez, Hebert Vergara, Lucas Wasilewsky Rômulo, Vanderlan, Luan, Marcelo Lomba, Richard Rios, Fabinho, Caio Paulista
Técnico: Emiliano Alfaro Técnico: Abel Ferreira
Arbitragem: Andrés Rojas (Árbitro Principal), Jhon Gallego (Assistente 1), Roberto Padilla (Assistente 2), Carlos Betancur (Quarto Árbitro)

Lances

Começa o Primeiro Tempo! 00/1T Apita o árbitro! Começã a partida no estádio Centenário! 02/1T Impedido! Barrios lança para Ocampo na área do Palmeiras, ele domina e finaliza para marcar o gol do Liverpool, mas o lance é anulado por impedimento. 16/1T No travessão! Raphael Veiga pega a sobra na entrada da área, chuta forte de primeira, e a bola explode no travessão da meta do Liverpool! 17/1T Agora saiu fraco. Raphael Veiga chuta mais, esta mascada, e o goleiro Lentinelly defende no meio do gol sem sustos. 18/1T Posse de bola. Liverpool 33% x 67% Palmeiras. 19/1T Weverton! Barrios recebe de longa distância e arrisca o chute. Weverton defende no centro do gol, sem dar rebote. 21/1T Quase! Gabriel Menino lança para Endrick, que se antecipa ao goleiro Lentinelly, mas acaba mandando a bola pela linha de fundo. O atacante reclamou bastante de um contato do arqueiro na jogada. 27/1T Pegou mal. Estêvão finaliza de fora da área e manda sem perigo, por cima do gol do Liverpool. 29/1T Finalizações. Liverpool 2 x 6 Palmeiras. 33/1T Escanteio! Ocampo aproveita o contra-ataque do Liverpool, parte em direção à área do Palmeiras e chuta com desvio. Escanteio para o time da casa. 34/1T Por cima. Diego Garcia cobra escanteio por baixo, a defesa afasta, e Barrios chuta finalizando de fora da área, sobre o gol de Weverton. Tiro de meta. 35/1T Weverton! Diego Garcia finaliza de dentro da área, e Weverton defende sem problemas. 38/1T Seria um golaço! Lentinelly sai jogando mal, Estêvão vê o goleiro fora da meta e tenta de cobertura. Seria um golaço, mas a bola passou por cima da meta. 42/1T Foi direto! Piquerez recebe na ponta esquerda, cruza fechado demais no gol e Lentinelly defende. 43/1T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Raphael Veiga faz um bonito gol! Marcos Rocha lança com precisão para o meia, que invade a área e solta a bomba de pé direito! A bola acerta o travessão e entra! O Verdão sai na frente no Centenário. 45/1T +1. O jogo vai até os 46. 46/1T Apita o árbitro! Fim do primeiro tempo! 47/1T ⏱️ Termina o Primeiro Tempo!   Começa o Segundo Tempo! 00/2T Apita o árbitro! Recomeça o jogo! 03/2T 🟨 Cartão amarelo para Gabriel Menino, após falta em Ocampo. 04/2T Espalma, Weverton! Luciano Rodríguez chuta forte de longa distância, e Weverton espalma. 14/2T Vai precisar sair! Aníbal Moreno cai no gramado e por conta da falta que sofreu há alguns minutos e precisará sair. 15/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Aníbal Moreno, ENTROU: Zé Rafael. 16/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Estêvão, ENTROU: Luis Guilherme. 16/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Lázaro, ENTROU: Rony. 19/2T Em cima do goleiro! Raphael Veiga faz lançamento preciso para Endrick, que cara a cara com Lentinelly acabou chutando em cima do goleiro do Liverpool! 22/2T 🔃 Substituição no Liverpool-URU: SAIU: Ocampo, ENTROU: Agustín González. 22/2T 🔃 Substituição no Liverpool-URU: SAIU: Amaro, ENTROU: Franco Nicola. 25/2T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Raphael Veiga amplia! Endrick carrega para o ataque e toca na medida para o meia, que finaliza cruzado e manda para o fundo das redes. O Verdão faz 2 a 0 em Montevidéu! 27/2T Como fica o grupo. O Palmeiras está indo a 10 pontos e se isola na liderança do Grupo F, enquanto Del Valle, San Lorenzo e Liverpool estão empatados com quatro cada um. 30/2T Pênalti para o Liverpool! Em jogada na área do Palmeiras, a bola bate na mão de Murilo, e o árbitro marca pênalti para o time da casa! 32/2T Lance checado pelo VAR. É possível que tenha um impedimento no início da jogada. O lance está sendo checado. 33/2T Pênalti anulado! Após checagem do VAR, foi pego impedimento na origem da jogada que deu o pênalti para o Liverpool. Marcação anulada. O cartão amarelo de Murilo foi retirado, também. 35/2T Que defesa! Zé Rafael rouba a bola, Endrick parte para o contra-ataque e faz o passe preciso para Luis Guilherme. O camisa 31 ajeitou o corpo, finalizou cruzado, e Lentinelly faz belíssima defesa para evitar o terceiro! 36/2T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Endrick amplia! Em cobrança de escanteio de Raphael Veiga, Rony desvia na primeira trave, e o camisa 9 completa! O Verdão faz o terceiro no Uruguai! 38/2T Teve confusão! Endrick saiu comemorando bastante, imitou o King Kong por conta do filme, bateu no peito, e os reservas do Liverpool entenderam que houve provocação. Os atletas da casa foram para cima do centroavante, e o tempo fechou no Centenário. 39/2T 🟨 Cartão amarelo para Endrick, depois de tudo que aconteceu. 39/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Endrick, ENTROU: Flaco López. 39/2T 🔃 Substituição no Palmeiras: SAIU: Raphael Veiga, ENTROU: Mayke. 40/2T 🔃 Substituição no Liverpool-URU: SAIU: Diego García, ENTROU: Diego Rodríguez. 40/2T 🔃 Substituição no Liverpool-URU: SAIU: Lucas Lemos, ENTROU: Renzo Machado. 42/2T Defendeu! Luis Guilherme finaliza sem ângulo, e o goleiro Lentinelly faz a defesa. 43/2T 🟨 Cartão amarelo para Agustín González, pela falta em Zé Rafael. 45/2T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Virou goleada! Contra-ataque do Palmeiras, Flaco López cruza com precisão para Rony, que mata no peito e finaliza com firmeza para marcar o quarto. 48/2T +4. O jogo vai até os 49. 49/2T Pênalti para o Palmeiras! Rosso derruba Rony na área, e o Palmeiras tem pênalti a seu favor. 50/2T ⚽ Gol do Palmeiras! Gustavo Gómez cobra no canto esquerdo, Lentinelly cai do outro lado, e o Palmeiras faz o quinto! 51/2T Apita o árbitro! Fim de jogo! Vitória do Verdão e classificação encaminhada! 51/2T ⏱️ Termina o Segundo Tempo!   Fim de Jogo!
submitted by NaTrave to futebol [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 15:36 NuggetBitchPotato All the titles I've dropped

All the titles I've dropped
if you have valid reasons why I should undrop a title convince me (there are some that are hard nos though)
submitted by NuggetBitchPotato to OtomeIsekai [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 03:52 MirkWorks Excerpt from The Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch (The Flight from Feeling: Sociopsychology of the Sex War)

VIII: The Flight from Feeling: Sociopsychology of the Sex War
The Trivialization of Personal Relations
Bertrand Russell once predicted that the socialization of reproduction - the supersession of the family by the state - would “make sex love itself more trivial,” encourage “a certain triviality in all personal relations,” and “make it far more difficult to take an interest in anything after one’s own death.” At first glance, recent developments appear to have refuted the first part of this prediction. Americans today invest personal relations, particularly the relations between men and women, with undiminished emotional importance. The decline of childrearing as a major preoccupation has freed sex from its bondage to procreation and made it possible for people to value erotic life for its own sake. As the family shrinks to the marital unit, it can be argued that men and women respond more readily to each other’s emotional needs, instead of living vicariously through their offspring. The marriage contract having lost its binding character, couples now find it possible, according to many observers, to ground sexual relations in something more solid than legal compulsion. In short, the growing determination to live for the moment, whatever it may have done to the relations between parents and children, appears to have established the preconditions of a new intimacy between men and women.
This appearance is an illusion. The cult of intimacy conceals a growing despair of finding it. Personal relations crumble under the emotional weight with which they are burdened. The inability “to take an interest in anything after one’s own death,” which gives such urgency to the pursuit of close personal encounters in the present, makes intimacy more elusive than ever. The same developments that have weakened the tie between parents and children have also undermined relations between men and women. Indeed the deterioration of marriage contributes in its own right to the deterioration of care for the young.
This last point is so obvious that only a strenuous propaganda on behalf of “open marriage” and “creative divorce” prevents us from grasping it. It is clear, for example, that the growing incidence of divorce, together with the ever present possibility that any given marriage will end in collapse, adds to the instability of family life and deprives the child of a measure of emotional security. Enlightened opinion diverts attention from this general fact by insisting that in specific cases, parents may do more harm to their children by holding a marriage together than by dissolving it. It is true that many couples preserve their marriage, in one form or another, at the expense of the child. Sometimes they embark on a life full of distractions that shield them against daily emotional involvements with their offspring. Sometimes one parent acquiesces in the neurosis of the other (as in the family configuration that produces so many schizophrenic patients) for fear of disturbing the precarious peace of the household. More often the husband abandons his children to the wife whose company he finds unbearable, and the wife smothers the children with incessant yet perfunctory attentions. This particular solution to the problem of marital strain has become so common that the absence of the father impresses many observers as the most striking fact about the contemporary family. Under these conditions, a divorce in which the mother retains custody of her children merely ratifies the existing state of affairs - the effective emotional desertion of his family by the father. But the reflection that divorce often does no more damage to children than marriage itself hardly inspires rejoicing.
Battle of the Sexes: Its Social History
While the escalating war between men and women have psychological roots in the disintegration of the marital relation, and more broadly in the changing patterns of socialization outlined in the preceding chapter, much of this tension can be explained without reference to psychology. The battle of the sexes also constitutes a social phenomena with a history of its own. The reasons for the recent intensification of sexual combat lie in the transformation of capitalism from its paternalistic and familial form to a managerial, corporate, bureaucratic system of almost total control: more specifically, in the collapse of “chivalry”; the liberation of sex from many of its former constraints; the pursuit of sexual pleasure as an end in itself; the emotional overloading of personal relations; and most important of all, the irrational male response to the emergence of the liberated woman.
It has been clear for some time that “chivalry is dead.” The tradition of gallantry formerly masked and to some degree mitigated the organized oppression of women. While males monopolized political and economic power, they made their domination of women more palatable by surrounding it with an elaborate ritual of deference and politesse. They set themselves up as protectors of the weaker sex, and this cloying but useful fiction set limits to their capacity to exploit women through sheer physical force. The counterconvention of droit de seigneur, which justified the predatory exploits of the privileged classes against women socially inferior to themselves, nevertheless showed that the male sex at no time ceased to regard most women as fair game. The long history of rape and seduction, moreover, served as a reminder that animal strength remained the basis of masculine ascendancy, manifested here in its most direct and brutal form. Yet polite conventions, even when they were no more than a façade, provided women with ideological leverage in their struggle to domesticate the wildness and savagery of men. They surrounded essentially exploitive relationships with a network of reciprocal obligations, which if nothing else made exploitation easier to bear.
The symbiotic interdependence of exploiters and exploited, so characteristic of paternalism in all ages, survived in male-female relations long after the collapse of patriarchal authority in other areas. Because the convention of deference to the fair sex was so closely bound up with paternalism, however, it lived on borrowed time once the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had destroyed the last foundations of feudalism. The decline of paternalism, and of the rich public ceremonial formerly associated with it, spelled the end of gallantry. Women themselves began to perceive the connection between their debasement and their sentimental exaltation, rejected their confining position on the pedestal of masculine adoration, and demanded the demystification of female sexuality.
Democracy and feminism have now stripped the veil of courtly convention from the subordination of women, revealing the sexual antagonisms formerly concealed by the “feminine mystique.” Denied illusions of comity, men and women find it more difficult than before to confront each other as friends and lovers, let alone as equals. As male supremacy becomes ideologically untenable, incapable of justifying itself as protection, men assert their domination more directly, in fantasies and occasionally in acts of raw violence. Thus the treatment of women in movies, according to one study, has shifted “from reverence to rape.”
Women who abandon the security of well-defined though restrictive social roles have always exposed themselves to sexual exploitation, having surrendered the usual claims of respectability. Mary Wollstonecraft, attempting to live as a free woman, found herself brutally deserted by Gilbert Imlay. Later feminists forfeited the privileges of sex and middle-class origin when they campaigned for women’s rights. Men reviled them publicly as sexless “she-men” and approached them privately as loose women. A Cincinnati brewer, expecting to be admitted to Emma Goldman’s hotel room when he found her alone, became alarmed when she threatened to wake the whole establishment. He protested, “I thought you believed in free love.” Ingrid Bengis reports that when she hitchhiked across the country, men expected her to pay for rides with sexual favors. Her refusal elicited the predictable reply: “Well, girls shouldn’t hitchhike in the first place.”
What distinguishes the present time from the past is that defiance of sexual conventions less and less presents itself as a matter of individual choice, as it was for the pioneers of feminism. Since most of those conventions have already collapsed, even a woman who lays no claim to her rights nevertheless finds it difficult to claim the traditional privileges of her sex. All women find themselves identified with “women’s lib” merely by virtue of their sex, unless by strenuous disavowals they identify themselves with its enemies. All women share in the burdens as well as the benefits of “liberation,” both of which can be summarized by saying that men no longer treat women as ladies.
The Sexual “Revolution”
The demystification of womanhood goes hand in hand with the desublimation of sexuality. The “repeal of reticence” has dispelled the aura of mystery surrounding sex and removed most of the obstacles to its public display. Institutionalized sexual segregation has given way to arrangements that promote the intermingling of the sexes at every stage of life. Efficient contraceptives, legalized abortion, and a “realistic” and “healthy” acceptance of the body have weakened the links that once tied sex to love, marriage, and procreation. Men and women now pursue sexual pleasure as an end in itself, unmediated even by the conventional trappings of romance.
Sex valued purely for its own sake loses all reference to the future and brings no hope of permanent relationships. Sexual liaisons, including marriage, can be terminated at pleasure. This means, as Willard Waller demonstrated a long time ago, that lovers forfeit the right to be jealous or to insist on fidelity as a condition of erotic union. In his sociological satire of the recently divorced, Waller pointed out that the bohemians of the 1920s attempted to avoid emotional commitments while eliciting them from others.
Since the bohemian was “not ready to answer with his whole personality for the consequences of the affair, nor to give any assurance of its continuance,” he lost the right to demand such an assurance from others. “To show jealousy,” under these conditions, became “nothing short of a crime…. So if one falls in love in Bohemia, he conceals it from his friends as best he can.” In similar studies of the “rating and dating complex” on college campuses, Waller found that students who fell in love invited the ridicule of their peers. Exclusive attachments have way to an easygoing promiscuity as the normal pattern of sexual relations. Popularity replaced purity as the measure of a woman’s social value; the sentimental cult of virginity gave way to “playful woman-sharing,” which had “no negative effect,” as Wolfenstein and Leites pointed out in their study of movies, “on the friendly relations between the men.”(*) In the thirties and forties, the cinematic fantasy in which a beautiful girl dances with a chorus of men, favoring one no more than the others, expressed an ideal to which reality more and more closely conformed. In Elmtown’s Youth, August Hollingshead described a freshman girl who violated conventional taboos against drinking, smoking, and “fast” behavior and still retained her standing in the school’s most prominent clique, partly carefully calibrated promiscuity. “To be seen with her adds to a boy’s prestige in the elite peer group…. she pets with her dates discreetly never goes too far, just far enough to make them come back again.” In high school as in college, the peer group attempts through conventional ridicule and vituperation to prevent its members from falling in love with the wrong people, indeed from falling in love at all; for as Hollingshead noted, lovers “are lost to the adolescent world with its quixotic enthusiasms and varied group activities.”
These studies show that the main features of the contemporary sexual scene had already established themselves well before the celebrated “sexual revolution” of the sixties and seventies: casual promiscuity, a wary avoidance of emotional commitments, an attack on jealousy and possessiveness. Recent developments, however, have introduced a new source of tension: the modern woman’s increasingly insistent demand for sexual fulfillment. In the 1920s and 1930s, many women still approached sexual encounters with a hesitance that combined prudery and a realistic fear of consequences. Superficially seductive, they took little pleasure in sex even when they spoke the jargon of sexual liberation and professed to live for pleasure and thrills. Doctors worried about female frigidity, and psychiatrists had no trouble in recognizing among their female patients the classic patterns of hysteria described by Freud, in which a coquettish display of sexuality often coexists with powerful repression and a rigid, puritanical morality.
Today women have dropped much of their sexual reserve. In the eyes of men, this makes them more accessible as sexual partners but also more threatening. Formerly men complained about women’s lack of sexual response; now they find this response intimidating and agonize about their capacity to satisfy it. “I’m sorry they ever found out they could have orgasms too,” Heller’s Bob Slocum says. The famous Masters-Johnson report on female sexuality added to these anxieties by depicting women as sexually insatiable, inexhaustible in their capacity to experience orgasm after orgasm. Some feminists have used the Masters report to attack the “myth of vaginal orgasm,” to assert women’s independence of men, or to taunt men with their sexual inferiority. “Theoretically, a woman could go on having orgasms indefinitely if physical exhaustion did not intervene,” writes Mary Jane Sherfey. According to Kate Millett, “While the male’s sexual potential is limited, the female’s appears to be biologically nearly inexhaustible.” Sexual “performance” thus becomes another weapon in the war between men and women; social inhibitions no longer prevent women from exploiting the tactical advantage which the current obsession with sexual measurement has given them. Whereas the hysterical woman, even when she fell in love and longed to let herself go, seldom conquered her underlying aversion to sex, the pseudoliberated woman of Cosmopolitan exploits her sexuality in a more deliberate and calculating way, not only because she has fewer reservations about sex but because she manages more successfully to avoid emotional entanglements. “Women with narcissistic personalities,” writes Otto Kernberg, “may appear quite ‘hysterical’ on the surface, with their extreme coquettishness and exhibitionism but the cold, shrewdly calculating quality of their seductiveness is in marked contrast to the much warmer, emotionally involved quality of hysterical pseudo-hypersexuality.”
[*. The transition in American movies from the vamp to the “good-bad girl,” according to Wolfenstein and Leites, illustrates the decline of jealousy and the displacement of sexual passion by sexiness. “The dangerousness of the vamp was associated with the man’s intolerance for sharing her with other men. Her seductive appearance and readiness for love carried a strong suggestion that there has been and might be other men in her life…. The good-bad girl is associated with a greater tolerance for sharing the woman…. In effect, the woman’s attraction is enhanced by her association with other men. All that is needed to eliminate unpleasantness is the assurance that those relations were not serious.”]
Togetherness
Both men and women have come to approach personal relations with a heightened appreciation of their emotional risks. Determined to manipulate the emotions of others while protecting themselves against emotional injury, both sexes cultivate a protective shallowness, a cynical detachment they do not altogether feel but which soon becomes habitual and in any case embitters personal relations merely through its repeated profession. At the same time, people demand from personal relations the richness and intensity of a religious experience. Although in some ways men and women have had to modify their demands on each other, especially in their inability to exact commitments of lifelong sexual fidelity, in other ways they demand more than ever. In the American middle class, moreover, men and women see too much of each other and find it hard to put their relations in proper perspective. The degradation of work and the impoverishment of communal life force people to turn to sexual excitement to satisfy all their emotional needs. Formerly sexual antagonism was tempered not only by chivalric, paternalistic, conventions but by a more relaxed acceptance of the limitations of the other sex. Men and women acknowledged each other’s shortcomings without making them the basis of a comprehensive indictment. Partly because they found more satisfaction than is currently available in casual relations with their own sex, they did not have to raise friendship itself into a political program, an ideological alternative to love. An easygoing, everyday contempt for the weaknesses of the other sex, institutionalized as folk wisdom concerning the emotional incompetence of men or the brainlessness of women, kept sexual enmity within bounds and prevented it from becoming an obsession.
Feminism and the ideology of intimacy have discredited the sexual stereotypes which kept women in their place but which also made it possible to acknowledge sexual antagonism without raising it to the level of all-out warfare. Today the folklore of sexual differences and the acceptance of sexual friction survive only in the working class. Middle-class feminists envy the ability of working-class women to acknowledge that men get in their way without becoming man-haters. “These women are less angry at their men because they don’t spend that much time with them,” according to one observer. “Middle-class women are the ones who were told men had to be their companions.”
…
Strategies of Accommodation
Because the contradiction exposed (and exacerbated) by feminism are so painful, the feminist movement has always found it tempting to renounce its own insights and program and to retreat into some kind of accommodation with the existing order, often disguised as embattled militancy. In the nineteenth century, American feminists edged away from their original programs, which envisioned not only economic equality but a sweeping reform of marriage and sexual relations, into a protracted campaign for woman suffrage. Today many feminists argue, once again in the name of political realism, that women need to establish their influence within the two-party system, as a kind of loyal opposition, before they can raise broader issues. Such tactics merely serve to postpone the discussion of broader issues indefinitely. Just as the women’s rights movement of the nineteenth century drew back from discussions of love and marriage when they met with public hostility, so strong forces in the National Organization for Women today propose to improve woman’s image, to show that feminism in no way threatens men, and to blame “social conditions” or bad attitudes, not male supremacy, for the subordination of the female sex.
More subtle forms of accommodation pose as radical challenges to mainstream feminism and the status quo. Some militants have revived discredited theories of matriarchal origins or myths of the moral superiority of women, thereby consoling themselves for this lack of power. They appear to the illusory solidarity of sisterhood in order to avoid arguments about the proper goals of the feminist movement. By institutionalizing women’s activities as “alternatives to the male death-culture,” they avoid challenging that culture and protect women from the need to compete with men for jobs, political power, and public attention. What began as a tactical realization that women have to win their rights without waiting for men to grant them has degenerated into the fantasy of a world without men. As one critic has noted, the movement’s “apparent vigor turns out to be mere busyness with self-perpetuating make-work: much of it serving in the short run to provide its more worldly experts with prestige, book contracts, and grants, its dreamers with an illusory matriarchal utopia.”
“Radical lesbians” carry the logic of separation to its ultimate futility, withdrawing at every level from the struggle against male domination while directing a steady stream of abuse against men and against women who refuse to acknowledge their homosexual proclivities. Proclaiming their independence from men, militant lesbians in fact envision a protected enclave for themselves within a male-dominated society. Yet this form of surrender - the dream of an island secure against male intrusion - remains attractive to women who repeatedly fail to find a union of sexuality and tenderness in their relations with men. As such disappointments become more and more common, sexual separatism commends itself as the most plausible substitute for liberation.
All these strategies of accommodation derive their emotional energy from an impulse much more prevalent than feminism: the flight from feeling. For many reasons, personal relations have become increasingly risky - most obviously, because they no longer carry any assurance of permanence. Men and women make extravagant demands on each other and experience irrational rage and hatred when their demands are not met. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that more and more people long for emotional detachment or “enjoy sex,” as Hendin writes, “only in situations where they can define and limit the intensity of the relationship.” A lesbian confesses: “The only men I’ve ever been able to enjoy sex with were men I didn’t give a shit about. Then I could let go, because I didn’t feel vulnerable.”
Sexual separatism is only one of many strategies for controlling or escaping from strong feeling. Many prefer the escape of drugs, which dissolve anger and desire in a glow of good feeling and create the illusion of intense experience without emotion. Others simply undertake to live alone, repudiating connections with either sex. The reported increase in single-member households undoubtedly reflects a new taste for personal independence, but it also expresses a revulsion against close emotional attachments of any kind. The rising rate of suicide among young people can be attributed, in part, to the same flight from emotional entanglements. Suicide, in Hendin’s words, represents the “ultimate numbness.”
The most prevalent form of escape from emotional complexity is promiscuity: the attempt to achieve a strict separation between sex and feeling. Here again, escape masquerades as liberation, regression as progress. The progressive ideology of “nonbiding commitments” and “cool sex” makes a virtue of disengagement, while purporting to criticize the depersonalization of sex. Enlightened authorities like Alex Comfort, Nena and George O’Neill, Robert and Anna Francoeur insist on the need to humanize sex by making it into a “total experience” instead of a mechanical performance; yet in the same breath they condemn the human emotions of jealousy and possessiveness and decry “romantic illusions.” “Radical” therapeutic wisdom urges men and women to express their needs and wishes without reserve - since all needs and wishes have equal legitimacy - but warns them not to expect a single mate to satisfy them. This program seeks to allay emotional tensions, in effect, by reducing the demands men and women make on each other, instead of making men and women better able to meet them. The promotion of sex as a “healthy,” “normal” part of life masks a desire to divest it of the emotional intensity that unavoidably clings to it: the reminders of earlier entanglements with parents, the “unhealthy” inclination to re-create those relations in relation with lovers. The enlightened insistence that sex is not “dirty” expresses a wish to sanitize it by washing away its unconscious associations.
The humanistic critique of sexual “depersonalization” thus sticks to the surface of the problem. Even while preaching the need to combine sex with feeling, it gives ideological legitimacy to the protective withdrawal from strong emotions. It condemns the overemphasis on technique while extolling sexual relations that are hermetically free of affect. It exhorts men and women to “get in touch with their feelings” but encourages them to make “resolutions about freedom and ‘non-possessiveness,’” as Ingrid Bengis writes, which “tear the very heart out of intimacy.” It satirizes the crude pornographic fantasies sold by the mass media, which idealize hairless women with inflated mammaries, but it does so out of an aversion to fantasy itself, which so rarely conforms to social definition of what is healthy minded. The critics of dehumanized sex, like the critics of sport, hope to abolish spectatorship and to turn everyone into a participant, hoping that vigorous exercise will drive away unwholesome thoughts. They attack pornography, not because they wish to promote more complicated and satisfying fantasies about sex, but because, on the contrary, they wish to win acceptance for a realistic view of womanhood and of the reduced demands that men and women have a right to make of each other.
The Castrating Woman of Male Fantasy
The flight from feeling, whether or not it tries to justify itself under an ideology of nonbinding commitments, takes the form above all of a flight from fantasy. This shows that it represents more than defensive reaction to external disappointments. Today men and women seek escape from emotion not only because they have suffered too many wounds in the wars of love but because they experience their own inner impulses as intolerably urgent and menacing. The flight from feeling originates not only in the sociology of the sex war but in the psychology that accompanies it. If “many of us,” as Ingrid Bengis observes of women and as others have observed of men as well, “have had to anesthetize ourselves to [our] needs,” it is the very character of those needs (and of the defenses erected against them) which gives rise to the belief that they cannot be satisfied in heterosexual relations - perhaps should not be satisfied in any form - and which therefore prompts people to withdraw from intense emotional encounters.
Instinctual desires always threaten psychic equilibrium and for this reason can never be given direct expression. In our society, however, they present themselves as intolerably menacing, in part because the collapse of authority has removed so many of the external prohibitions against the expression of dangerous impulses. The superego can no longer ally itself, in its battle against impulse, with outside authorities. It has to rely almost entirely on its own resources, and these too have diminished in their effectiveness. Not only have the social agents of repression lost much of their force, but their internal representations in the superego have suffered a similar decline. The ego ideal, which cooperates in the work of repression by making socially acceptable behavior itself an object of libidinal cathexis, has become increasingly pallid and ineffective in the absence of compelling moral models outside the self. This means, as we have seen, that the superego has to rely more and more on harsh, punitive dictation, drawing on the aggressive impulses in the id and directing them against the ego.
The narcissist feels consumed by his own appetites. The intensity of his oral hunger leads him to make inordinate demands on his friends and sexual partners; yet in the same breath he repudiates those demands asks only a causal connection without promise of permanence on either side. He longs to free himself from his own hunger and rage, to achieve a calm detachment beyond emotion, and to outgrow his dependence on others. He longs for the indifference to human relationships and to life itself that would enable him to acknowledge its passing in Kurt Vonnegut’s laconic phrase, “So it goes,” which so aptly expresses the ultimate aspiration of the psychiatric seeker. <“Western” Buddhism>
But although the psychological man of our times frightens himself with the intensity of his inner needs, the needs of others appall him no less than his own. One reason the demands he inadvertently imposes on others make him uneasy is that they may justify other in making demands on himself. Men especially fear the demands of women, not only because women no longer hesitate to press them but because men find it so difficult to imagine an emotional need that does not wish to consume whatever it seizes on.
Women today ask for two things in their relations with men: sexual satisfaction and tenderness. Whether separately or in combination, both demands seem to convey to many males the same message - that women are voracious, insatiable. Why should men respond in this fashion to demands that reason tells them have obvious legitimacy? Rational arguments notoriously falter in the face of unconscious anxieties; women’s sexual demands terrify men because they reverberate at such deep layers of the masculine mind, calling up early fantasies of a possessive, suffocating, devouring, and castrating mother. The persistence of such fantasies in later life intensifies and brings into the open the secret terror that has always been an important part of the male image of womanhood. The strength of these pre-Oedipal fantasies, in the narcissistic type of personality, makes it likely that men will approach women with hopelessly divided feelings, dependent and demanding in their fixation on the breast but terrified of the vagina which threatens to eat them alive; of the legs with which popular imagination endows the American heroine, legs which can presumably strangle or scissor victims to death; of the dangerous, phallic breast itself, encased in unyielding armor, which in unconscious terror more nearly resembles an implement of destruction that a source of nourishment. The sexually voracious female, long a stock figure of masculine pornography, in the twentieth century has emerged into the daylight of literary respectability. Similarly the cruel, destructive, domineering woman, la belle dame sans merci, has moved from the periphery of literature and the other arts to a position close to the center. Formerly a source of delicious titillation, of sadomasochistic gratification tinged with horrified fascination, she now inspires unambiguous loathing and dread. Heartless, domineering, burning (as Leslie Fiedler has said) with “a lust of the nerves rather than of the flesh,” she unmans every man who falls under her spell. In American fiction, she assumes a variety of guides, all of them variations on the same theme: the bitchy heroine of Hemingway, Faulkner, and Fitzegerald; Nathanael West’s Faye Greener, whose “invitation wasn’t to pleasure but to struggle, hard and sharp, closer to murder than to love”; Tennessee Williams’s Maggie Tolliver, edgy as a cat on a hot tin roof; the domineering wife whose mastery of her husband, as in the joyless humor of James Thurber, recalls the mastery of the castrating mother over her son; the man-eating Mom denounced in the shrill falsetto of Philip Wylie’s Generation of Vipers, Wright Morris’s Man and Boy, Edward Albee’s The American Dream; the suffocating Jewish mother, Mrs. Portnoy; the Hollywood vampire (Theda Bara), scheming seductress (Marlene Dietrich), or bad blonde (Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield); the precocious female killer of William March’s The Bad Seed.
Child or woman, wife or mother, this female cuts men to ribbons or swallows them whole. She travels accompanied by eunuchs, by damaged men suffering from nameless wounds, or by a few strong men brought low by their misguided attempts to turn her into a real woman. Whether or not the actual incidence of impotence has increased in American males - and there is no reason to doubt reports that it has - the specter of impotence haunts the contemporary imagination, not least because it focuses the fear that a played-out Anglo-Saxon culture is about to fall before the advance of hardier races. The nature of impotence, moreover, has undergone an important historical shift. In the nineteenth century, respectable men sometimes experienced embarrassing sexual failures with women of their own class, or else suffered from what Freud called “psychic impotence” - the characteristic Victorian split between sensuality and affection. Although most of these men dutifully had intercourse with their wives, they derived sexual satisfaction only from intercourse with prostitutes or with women otherwise degraded. As Freud explained, this psychic syndrome - “the most prevalent form of degradation” in the erotic life of his time - originated in the Oedipus complex. After the painful renunciation of the mother, sensuality seeks only those objects that evoke no reminder of her, while the mother herself, together with other “pure” (socially respectable) women, is idealized beyond reach of the sensual.
Today, impotence typically seems to originate not in renunciation of the mother but in earlier experiences, often reactivated by the apparently aggressive overtures of sexually liberated women. Fear of the devouring mother of pre-Oedipal fantasy gives rise to a generalized fear of women that has little resemblance to the sentimental adoration men once granted to women who made them sexually uncomfortable. The fear of women, closely associated with a fear of the consuming desires within, reveals itself not only as impotence but as a boundless rage against the female sex. This blind and impotent rage, which seems so prevalent at the present time, only superficially represents a defensive male reaction against feminism. It is only because the recent revival of feminism stirs up such deeply rooted memories that it gives rise to such primitive emotions. Men’s fear of women, moreover, exceeds the actual threat to their sexual privileges. Whereas the resentment of women against men for the most part has solid roots in the discrimination and sexual danger to which women are constantly exposed, the resentment of men against women, when men still control most of the power and wealth in society yet feel themselves threatened on every hand - intimidated, emasculated - appears deeply irrational, and for that reason not likely to be appeased by changes in feminist tactics designed to reassure men that liberated women threaten no one. When even Mom is a menace, there is not much that feminists can say to soften the sex war or to assure their adversaries that men and women will live happily together when it is over.
submitted by MirkWorks to u/MirkWorks [link] [comments]

http://swiebodzin.info