Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Bad Therapy, Weak Parenting, Broken Children | Abigail Shrier | EP 427" video.

@charleneblack2792 Maybe you're not the person to tell her to accept responsibility? Or at least not now. Maybe at 21, her present attitude is still due to her childhood. At 21, nearly 2/3 of her life was childhood, and another 1/5 was adolescence. That's still a big chunk of the total.
11
 @marywiggins7411 Reporting her and getting a lawyer might be better. We have to get serious with these people. Enough is enough.
8
@Gingerblaze No, it was a political decision on Jane Eyre's part. She knew who she was, who she was talking to, and what she needed to say. Anyone who would ask her such a thing was unworthy of her trust. She had the pure singlemindedness of a true entrepreneur, in the best sense, and she knew when and how to display her talents. Jane Eyre is rightly regarded as one of the very earliest feminists works and scandalized a lot of people because of it. It is a brilliant novel.
5
@zarbins I'm not on social media now. I'm here using a pseudonym, to save videos. I only started this much during the shutdowns in 2020. Just say NO to social media. Even this has had a harmful effect on me, and it's trivial. No minor should post any pictures of themselves, ever.
5
@theBaron0530 I had older parents who were in WWII and friends whose parents were of that generation. None were coddled in the least. Most of the people I know who went to college were expected to work to pay their own way through, and to earn scholarships by working hard in school as well. The Greatest Generation sent their children to fight in Vietnam. I was just a kid then, but I remember well the utter scorn people had for anyone who did not want to go. It was brutal. The financialization of the economy did this. The economy is unraveling. We went from the top three quintiles having a very solid and secure life, and most of those in the bottom two quintiles having a real chance, to everyone below the top 10% being precarious. We are Debtor Nation. This is obvious to anyone not prey to magical thinking.
5
@GinKirk7256 It's a great book. They're misrepresenting it. Actually, Jane Eyre does confront her abusive aunt and tells her categorically that she does not love her.
4
@katyt7470 I love how I was just censored. We can't even discuss literature. Worry about that. EDIT: testing, to see whether it's still up
3
@katyt7470 When Jane Eyre came out, it was regarded as a profoundly anti-Christian book. If you missed that, read it again. Jane wasn't seen as someone who was simply self-sacrificing but also as impelled by deep eroticism. This isn't the contemporary view. This is what people thought when the book came out. It was published around 1847, roughly, and by 1848, revolutions were springing up all over Europe. Jane Eyre drew more denunciations in the contemporary journals in England as being part of the kind of thinking that resulted in radicalism. The 19th century was the golden age of the novel, and people read books differently. They tried to decipher symbols and implied messages, figure out how much of the author's life or psychology was hinted at in the book, and so forth. People were shocked by the Brontë sisters.
3
@theBaron0530 Why am I being sense___oared? Why can't I ask whether you can see my comment?
3
She was in therapy -- why? And he went to Russia to detox. The kids need better advocates. Stronger people.
3
@katyt7470 I disagree, but YouTube won't allow me to say why. You're making Jane Eyre insipid. She wasn't. But the need to tame her comes as no surprise.
2
@katyt7470 Look, I'll be censored. Sorry, I can't go back into it. In general, contemporary interpretations of classics risk being appropriated purely for contemporary goals -- especially now, when everything is politicized -- and that of course falsifies the meaning of the work. See what people said about Jane Eyre when it came out. That's what I'm basing my opinion on. I remember misunderstanding Jude the Obscure in a similar way, thinking Hardy ultimately approved of the conventional morality he described, or at least that he saw no way to advance beyond it. Wow, what a mistake. These are both radical works.
2
@katyt7470 This was ree moved once. Let's see if it stays up this time. See? Discussing these books is subversive. Oh, it reappeared. LOL, how ridiculous. Some algorithm could not decide!
2
@johnkrstyen7351 Successful people aren't worried about you. They'll say what their consultants suggest that they say, when they do need to appear in public, to garner support for whatever their next scheme is.
2
I'd love to give you a hug.
2
@robertmarshall2502 YOU should write a book. This is PERFECT.
2
@debbylou5729 Did either of you read it? I'm reading it now.
1
@katyt7470 So consider: I am not allowed to develop an argument, but tossing off a word like "insipid" without justifying it is fine. What do you think about that? I think we couldn't be in a worse way as far as communication is concerned.
1
@katyt7470 Look, I'm being scents er . . . d again! I can't say names of books. In general, contemporary interpretations of classics risk being appropriated purely for contemporary goals -- especially now, when everything is politicized -- and that of course falsifies the meaning of the work. See what people said about Jane Eyre when it came out. That's what I'm basing my opinion on. I remember misunderstanding Jude the Obscure in a similar way, thinking Hardy ultimately approved of the conventional morality he described, or at least that he saw no way to advance beyond it. Wow, what a mistake. These are both radical works.
1
@katyt7470 I think that's a great interpretation. Very eloquent as well. The notion of a "church of one," and God in direct communication with one's own conscience, is very much an American notion, and is highly anachronistic for England. The God you describe could also be the God of Judaism, Islam, and to a great extent Plato as well, not to mention Antigone. In other words, it is a very abstract idea, and just happens to be Christian (or seem to be Christian) because Jane happened to have been born where she was. You're exactly right, the established church of that time thought it was scandalous, which is a totally different issue. America had no such thing as an established church even then. So in some ways, we can see more in Jane Eyre because of that, not less.
1
So why did she go to therapy?? And he had to go to Russia to detox. Okay. Tootles.
1
You know who was healthy? The kids who could pay their entire year of in-state tuition and fees and books with a summer job. And could take that degree to any city and afford an apartment without having a trust fund. Needless to say, they had little or no debt. They had agency all right. Anyone barely out of high school who says they have "agency" now might be conforming to the new rhetorical standard -- or they might be deluded.
1
It's the most affluent who they are focusing on. None of this describes the majority who have to work. They are worrying about their own. That's normal.
1
She's making bank for her own. That's the sum total of what's up with her. IOW, the usual.
1
Their focus is on the most affluent and the students who are admitted to the Ivies. No one who has to work has these problems. They have real problems.
1
@haydenwayne3710 This is just another move in the one-upmanship game. They know what to say to get special consideration in school, at work, etc.
1
@haydenwayne3710 Here's an idea. She has a Yale Law degree. Why doesn't she represent some parents whose children have been harmed? I know they exist. I've represented severely handicapped children and children with cancer pro bono, with my little state school degree. We need to start seeing through all of these people. Don't buy her book. Buy your kids some books.
1
I don't mean this as advice, but as a sincere question (this means the answer could be "no"). Is it acceptable to teach children to refuse to answer various kinds of highly personal questions from other adults, including school? That's what my immigrant parents taught me. Questions of this nature are a violation of privacy. They have nothing to do with parental abuse or neglect, where teachers, therapists, and medical professionals are mandated reporters -- and rightly so. I'm raising this for purposes of discussion. Could this cause more problems than it solves? How do you avoid these invasive questions without attracting attention?
1
Marx was a real pater familias. This is sheer bourgeois decadence. And they are convincing you of nonsense. "Marxist" is just the new code word. They are talking about the top 10%, which is their focus. It's natural. It's their crowd. It has nothing to do with my life -- probably not yours, either.
1
@theBaron0530 I hope my heterodox comment is not tossed for safety.
1
@darlingdeb7010 I agree with the true maverick journalist Whitney Webb: don't pay too much attention to what people say. Watch what they do. Do you imagine these two aren't setting up trust funds for their children? Really? Peterson earned a doctorate, and whatever anyone may think of his politics (personally, I find them 80% laughable), he was and is a highly qualified clinician who helped many people. His daughter didn't finish college and is a podcaster, thanks to being his daughter. Abigail Shrier is the daughter of two judges and a Yale Law graduate. Does she take the cases of struggling parents, to vindicate their right to parent their children as they believe to be best? She could represent some of the people they are talking about, who were targetted by this gender madness, and turn some lives around. Children's lives are at stake. Doing something to change that is harder than writing up a rant about it. If she really believes what she says, why doesn't she help some individual families? She could. She's a lawyer.
1
@darlingdeb7010 The "boomers" worked their way through college and were drafted to fight in Vietnam. Cushy life! Good thing Peterson's kids aren't being pampered like that.
1
America has no leftists, just a few nut cases among the hyper greedy.
1
We eradicated competition? Competition has never been harsher. The top three quintiles used to have a perfectly decent, secure life. Now only the top 10% do, and that's declining fast. This is ALL bull.
1