The first object in a male’s personal history and in cultural importance is the mother. It is in properly internalizing her as an object that the male learns everything from heterosexuality to heterosexuality (homosexuality being generally regarded as a failure to learn), including: how to be a separate human being, that is, how to separate from the first object; how to possess suitable objects that are appropriate substitutes for the first object; and what to expect from an object by way of care and devotion, including being kept clean, fed, groomed, smiled at, and humored. (...) Like any human chattel without a revolution in which to fight, her rebellions will be personal, small, sometimes mean, and relatively ineffectual. Since the infant/he is dependent on her—as masters are on servants and slaves—she will subvert her male child’s rights over her, his very masculinity, to make him less her master and more her equal. The indignity implicit in the futile effort of this actual adult to establish an equal authenticity with the infant dependent on her should be obvious. She will have the bizarre idea that she is an adult person, an idea that prohibits the demands of service required of her as a mother in a male- supremacist context. She will perhaps think that the child, as he grows, will come to know and love her for herself, for her own qualities as a person. But the father and/or the society built on his real power will step in and destroy the subversion inherent in this idea by requiring her son to define himself in opposition to her, as her opposite. He cannot have her qualities; she cannot have his. If he is to be a person, she must be regarded as an object. She will be damned and cursed for any attempt, small or large, to step outside the bounds of this valuation of her; and the boy will be encouraged to carry out the male revenge on her.
·
12 Gösterim
Yorumlar
Lütfen giriş yapınız.