As I see it, Edward, suggesting that Marxism is the root behind feminism just moves the problem back one stage. One must then explain why Marxism and Communism have been so seductive to their followers, when they, like feminism, are false-to-fact in their foundations. I didn't have room to expound this in the dialogue, but I believe that the Matrisensus, the shadow of the family archetype, is the psychological source of Communism as well as identity politics, which is why they resemble each other.
Basic evidence for this thesis is found in the fact that communists create a pseudo-family by calling each other comrade, and that the communist slogan, "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities," describes exactly how to be in a family, but not how to be in a society. Communes organized along these principles (for example, Israeli kibbutzim) work up to a certain size, which is around 200 or so; bigger than that and they fail. That happens to be the maximum size at which we can know most of the people involved. Once we can't have a personal relationship with people, then the healthy family archetype is impossible and we fall into the Matrisensus.
I think Carrie Gress, in her latest book, The End of Woman, mentions the feminine aspect of Marxism.
Btw, David, have you read anything on how dopamine works? A recent book I read, The Molecule of More, describes how dopamine highs come with socially "progressive" attitudes and behaviour. The book also touches on the causes and effects of oxytocin, the love hormone. I think such research might give a biochemical angle to your hypotheses.
As I see it, Edward, suggesting that Marxism is the root behind feminism just moves the problem back one stage. One must then explain why Marxism and Communism have been so seductive to their followers, when they, like feminism, are false-to-fact in their foundations. I didn't have room to expound this in the dialogue, but I believe that the Matrisensus, the shadow of the family archetype, is the psychological source of Communism as well as identity politics, which is why they resemble each other.
Basic evidence for this thesis is found in the fact that communists create a pseudo-family by calling each other comrade, and that the communist slogan, "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities," describes exactly how to be in a family, but not how to be in a society. Communes organized along these principles (for example, Israeli kibbutzim) work up to a certain size, which is around 200 or so; bigger than that and they fail. That happens to be the maximum size at which we can know most of the people involved. Once we can't have a personal relationship with people, then the healthy family archetype is impossible and we fall into the Matrisensus.
I think Carrie Gress, in her latest book, The End of Woman, mentions the feminine aspect of Marxism.
Btw, David, have you read anything on how dopamine works? A recent book I read, The Molecule of More, describes how dopamine highs come with socially "progressive" attitudes and behaviour. The book also touches on the causes and effects of oxytocin, the love hormone. I think such research might give a biochemical angle to your hypotheses.
That sounds very interesting, I'll check it out. Thank you.
Gress is great! Here's a link to an interview Janice and I did with Carrie Gress a while back. https://menaregood.substack.com/p/the-end-of-woman-how-smashing-the