![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My sweetie has a subscription to "Psychotherapy Neworker" magazine, and I usually end up stealing it and reading it cover to cover before he gets a crack at it.
I was surprised but pleased to see that in the latest May/June issue, they'd printed a letter I wrote to the editor. I wrote the editor about unexamined fat prejudice in an otherwise very good piece about the Don Juan archetype in modern cinema written by Dr. Frank Pittman. I was taking issue with his use of the word "gargantuan" to describe the plump waitress that the Jack character goes home with for a "pity fuck." I thought Pittman's response showed he didn't fully understand my criticism, but it was nice to see the letter printed. He'd also sent me a longer, private email reply about 6 weeks ago.
There were several good articles in there, as always, but two in particular have been on my mind. The first was about dealing with babies and infants with different temperaments. The author talked about how some babies are considered "good" or "easy" babies and others are more difficult, and how parents blame their troubles on themselves instead of realizing that babies have different needs because of in-born temperament differences. An example: some babies adapt easily to change, and others have extreme difficulty adjusting to changes. Some infants are intense in the way they express emotions, while others are more laid back. There were several other dimensions discussed, such as high-activity/low-activity, high-sensitivity/low sensitivity, and pessimism/optimism. I think this could be an eye-opener for ADULTS, too. For instance, I have a really hard time when I have a plan for the evening or the weekend and something goes wrong. I have a really hard time switching gears. This probably indicates I'm a low-adapter when it comes to change. This isn't all negative, though. Low-adapters, on the plus side, can sit with a task or creative project for hours without getting bored or tired.
The other piece was an overview of how our ideas about marriage have changed over time. In the late 1700s, some people started to marry for love, instead of for money or political reasons, for the first time. This radicalized the gender politics of the time. France went through a really liberalized period in terms of women's rights and individual rights in general at that time. Later, some of the reforms were rolled back. However, looking at the sweep of history over several centuries actually gave me hope. While many of my friends on the more liberal end of the spectrum are disheartened at recent developments regarding same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and other issues related to individual rights and gender equality, I have hope that, in general, we are moving toward more freedom, rather than less. We just have to wait it out, not despair, and not give our country over to the radical religious right. It may not come as quickly as I'd like, but the pendulum will swing the other way.
I was surprised but pleased to see that in the latest May/June issue, they'd printed a letter I wrote to the editor. I wrote the editor about unexamined fat prejudice in an otherwise very good piece about the Don Juan archetype in modern cinema written by Dr. Frank Pittman. I was taking issue with his use of the word "gargantuan" to describe the plump waitress that the Jack character goes home with for a "pity fuck." I thought Pittman's response showed he didn't fully understand my criticism, but it was nice to see the letter printed. He'd also sent me a longer, private email reply about 6 weeks ago.
There were several good articles in there, as always, but two in particular have been on my mind. The first was about dealing with babies and infants with different temperaments. The author talked about how some babies are considered "good" or "easy" babies and others are more difficult, and how parents blame their troubles on themselves instead of realizing that babies have different needs because of in-born temperament differences. An example: some babies adapt easily to change, and others have extreme difficulty adjusting to changes. Some infants are intense in the way they express emotions, while others are more laid back. There were several other dimensions discussed, such as high-activity/low-activity, high-sensitivity/low sensitivity, and pessimism/optimism. I think this could be an eye-opener for ADULTS, too. For instance, I have a really hard time when I have a plan for the evening or the weekend and something goes wrong. I have a really hard time switching gears. This probably indicates I'm a low-adapter when it comes to change. This isn't all negative, though. Low-adapters, on the plus side, can sit with a task or creative project for hours without getting bored or tired.
The other piece was an overview of how our ideas about marriage have changed over time. In the late 1700s, some people started to marry for love, instead of for money or political reasons, for the first time. This radicalized the gender politics of the time. France went through a really liberalized period in terms of women's rights and individual rights in general at that time. Later, some of the reforms were rolled back. However, looking at the sweep of history over several centuries actually gave me hope. While many of my friends on the more liberal end of the spectrum are disheartened at recent developments regarding same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and other issues related to individual rights and gender equality, I have hope that, in general, we are moving toward more freedom, rather than less. We just have to wait it out, not despair, and not give our country over to the radical religious right. It may not come as quickly as I'd like, but the pendulum will swing the other way.
