Perhaps I sounded frivolous in my thinking about this. What I mean is that, in general, the "scientific" community and the "more modern public", which has deconstructed a lot of dated social and cultural paradigms (not because Freud was wrong and he was an ignorant conservative, but because he was a product of his time), end up not agreeing with some of the main Freudian approaches (and not that I don't agree, exactly, primarily because I know VERY LITTLE about his theoretical background, I'm still a child in the study of psychoanalysis). Especially the phallocentric idea, the certainty that the absence of the phallus is the woman's ignition for the whole process that follows in her psyche seems to me to be clear and extremely masculinist/patriarchal (and I'm lazy about a lot of this gender stuff), I think the concept of the phallus as the main figure is a problem. But again, I know very little. I've only tried to reproduce what I hear culturally about Freud and his "supposedly dated" model of the conception of the sexes.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
As such, it is completely sexist, but it represents a stigma in its historical context, like when there were slaves, we can use his theory to learn about the present, and give it a more current look, but without forgetting how important his theory and logic were at the time.
I thought it was a very good exchange of words, I think I will follow you because I am interested in your content.