I liked yesterday’s super original ‘sex’ topic—truly groundbreaking philosophy club vibes. But what’s with the misogynistic undertone?
A recent (deleted) post about “Matcha Latte”, and calling “Clairo” as “performative male”, then this piece telling a heavy-handed symbolism and a selective biblical phrase. While Cantonist kidnappings were real and horrific, a beggar woman turning into a one-woman vigilante serial killer is some quite dramatic invention.
I won't comment on the alleged misogynism, since this is thread meant to comment on this specific article and not a NYPhilClub event. But (1) as for the "heavy-handed symbolism," I'd say that it might seem heavy-handed to those who have certain aesthetic tastes and not others. Literary critics use such language when they have an axe to grind. And (2) any quotiation choice at all is going to be "selective" by definition. I take it that the story is intended as a fictionalized narrative to reflect and re-imagine a time that was actually "real and horrific" for those who lived it. If my own distant family had no shared recollection of such a time (and didn't pass it down to me), that just means I have to work a little harder to invoke some sympathetic imagination -- which is the only way that some literary pieces can be appreciated. Do I really need to say that fiction can be "true" without being literally accurate?
I liked yesterday’s super original ‘sex’ topic—truly groundbreaking philosophy club vibes. But what’s with the misogynistic undertone?
A recent (deleted) post about “Matcha Latte”, and calling “Clairo” as “performative male”, then this piece telling a heavy-handed symbolism and a selective biblical phrase. While Cantonist kidnappings were real and horrific, a beggar woman turning into a one-woman vigilante serial killer is some quite dramatic invention.
I won't comment on the alleged misogynism, since this is thread meant to comment on this specific article and not a NYPhilClub event. But (1) as for the "heavy-handed symbolism," I'd say that it might seem heavy-handed to those who have certain aesthetic tastes and not others. Literary critics use such language when they have an axe to grind. And (2) any quotiation choice at all is going to be "selective" by definition. I take it that the story is intended as a fictionalized narrative to reflect and re-imagine a time that was actually "real and horrific" for those who lived it. If my own distant family had no shared recollection of such a time (and didn't pass it down to me), that just means I have to work a little harder to invoke some sympathetic imagination -- which is the only way that some literary pieces can be appreciated. Do I really need to say that fiction can be "true" without being literally accurate?
Calm down. Sounds like you posted (now deleted) the meme and you wrote the article.
The author is not responsible for aligning with the misogyny of course. Would love more of your thoughts but I’m not chronically online..
I’m the author and I think, if anything, having a strong female antihero is the opposite of misogyny.
Wonderful read.