Unveiling the Fragilities and Faultlines of Femininity: A psychoanalytic investigation (Part II)

From “Individualizing Gender and Sexuality: Theory and Practice” by Nancy J. Chodorow (2012).

Updated: September 27, 2021; 5:27 PM

Freud himself admitted that his perspective on femininity was limited and what little he did contribute to the field of psychoanalytic was from pure observational points of view in what he considered to be “feminine behaviors.” Women to Freud, as well as the subject of femininity, must have been no different than any other psychoanalytic riddle that needed unveiling. To further this exploration, I will consider the theories of Nancy Chodorow, Lucy Holmes, Julia Kristeva as well as some other psychoanalysts and philosophers and make an investigatory attempt in unveiling “the fractures and faultlines of femininity.” This psychoanalytic investigation will undoubtedly unveil the “peculiarities” of the psychotic psychoanalytic text of object relations expounded on the original writings of Freud’s castration complex known as Oedipus. This approach opposes aspects of normal healthy development, and as we will see has several connections to the aspects to the psychotic text of Western culture (splitting) as a distinct picture of developmental immaturity as one of the faultlines of both femininity and masculinity in human development. Another interesting aspect of development will be revealed in how we learn to navigate humiliation.

Since violence and aggression are behaviors considered to be a human problem, rather than just one belonging to the masculine gender, studies have shown that serious violent and fatal aggression, as behavior peculiar to animal competition, are carried out at higher rates by the masculine gender and that femininity contributes far less to this human problem. However, this is not to say that possessed femininity is not without its own set of peculiar fragilities and faultlines. Research studies tell us that women are less likely to carry out acts of serious and fatal violent aggression (homicide), but there is a small population of women who kill their children and this can be evidenced if we include into our consideration the abortion rate. 

One of the first elements of Chodorow’s theory is connected to the idea of identity which can include aspects of national, ethnic, religious, and gendered identity as her theory deals directly with Islamic terrorism. “Humiliation seems in some way to affect men and women in different ways can be expected from the classical Freudian account of challenges to phallic narcissism and from feminist descriptions … beginning with Horney, of the humiliation of being a little boy in relation to grown women (Chodorow, 2012, pp. 130).” However, the theory Chodorow develops she calls The Achilles Complex ties directly into Freudian castration anxiety/complex (Freud’s Oedipus) and borrows on the masculine Father-Son vertical and its power dynamic as witnessed in Freud’s patient Little Hans and Han’s fear of his father’s large and castrating phallus (Freud, 1909; Freud, 1924; Chassegeut-Smirgel, 1984). In order for us to uncover the fractures and faultlines of femininity it will require an understanding of the work of other feminist authors, philosophers, and psychoanalysts writing on the Mother-Daughter relationship and its power dynamic rooted in the paranoid splitting of Melanie Klein, and to which Chodorow and Lucy Holmes both borrow from as well.

To reiterate from my previous post, “The Fragilities and Faultlines of Masculinity,” based on the theory of Nancy Chodorow, borrowed from Freudian psychology and re-worked through Kleinian theory, we know that immature development contributes to the fragilities and faultlines of masculinity as well as femininity. We can say this because Chodorow’s Achilles Complex is based on the myth of Achilles who is “a junior man” humiliated by the actions of a superior officer, Agamemnon. To recap Chodorow’s theory:

“The psychic fault lines of masculinity and male selfhood express two developmental and fantasy components: first, maleness as not-female, the male self as defensively separate from and warding off the other [mother/feminine], defensively needing to split self from other if hatred takes over [and this hated object is first psychically introduced to small child in early development as the maternal “Object Other”]; second, maleness as adult man rather than boy-child, not humiliated, shamed, or defeated by another man [forged originally in the father-son affair of Oedipal relations.] (Chodorow, 2012, pp. 135).” …. Furthermore,

“…. this developmental context, issues of selfhood [self-identity] as well as of gender [gender identity] tend to differentiate men from women, such that the male’s sense of self may typically be more defensive and in need of protecting its boundaries than the female’s typical sense of self. (Chodorow, 2012, p. 130).” ….

Additionally,

“Humiliation, specifically, is especially a male-male — originally father-son — affair. In the normal developmental course of events, much hinges on how a boy relates to his father and turns into a man — the delicate negotiation of this transformation, of identification, of how to replace or join without bringing on retaliation, castration, or humiliation. All of these, in turn, depend partly on a father’s own sense of confident masculinity and selfhood. … (Chodorow, 2012, pp. 131).”

Might the same be said of femininity and the female self originally configured in the mother-daughter relationship? And what’s more, how does humiliation play into the original mother-daughter affair? Indeed, it does and those outcomes will be discussed later.

To continue, we can certainly say that immature development (being a junior man/young man) bears a part in the fragilities and faultlines of masculinity because mature, intelligent men, possessing normal, healthy, and secure development seemed to be better suited in navigating humiliation as their secure sense of self forged in the original secure attachments of the father-son relationship as well as the mother-son relationship balance out the loss encountered and to which these men’s self-identity and gender identity are neither threatened by feelings of femininity/homophobia nor does it require them to make a display of their “sense of masculinity through physical prowess and physical power.” That is to say, these men feel secure in their self-identity, are intelligent to know better, that masculinity sometimes requires accepting losses and these realizations occur as a natural consequence through the natural course of development we call aging (Erikson, 1982). So while mature men encountering a loss, although the loss may feel uncomfortable and foreign even humiliating, possess a strong degree of healthy problem-solving creativity rooted in their secure sense of self, and seemed to be more accepting of ruptures because their experiences and possessed feelings of assuredness in their identity, knowing that this loss will not “define them as weak/powerless/feminine/non-masculine,” and knowing one must sometimes “try again” in order to overcome failures. This does not seem to happen with regard to the immature stages of human gender development and/or those possessing abnormal developmental attachments known as ambivalent attachmentavoidant attachment, and disorganized attachments, (Wallin, 2007) and high levels of narcissism requiring high degrees of narcissistic supply (wins over losses). This is not to say, that individuals possessing these attachment styles will go on to victimize others with serious or fatal violent aggression either. Its reference here is completely an indexical sign but not guaranteed in terms of future risk of perpetrating violence. Of course, something must be said regarding how these two faultlines of masculinity play into authoritarian types of personalities and dictatorships. As a result, women tend to be far less physically aggressive but tend to use much more social strategy and “game” with regard to their gameplay and utilize more passive-aggressive violence which contributes to their social intelligence. Whereas men, because of how they were socialized with regard to identifying with their father’s phallus as well as being taught what it means to be “a man”, tend to exert their identity more in terms of physical strength and male-patterned dominance which often is displayed as violence.

The Fragilities and Faultlines of Femininity

To begin, women, borrowing from Freudian psychology, tend to be much more masochistic as we witness higher rates of anorexia and bulimia among women as well as female rates of self-cutters in self-harming behaviors but also their desire for self-castration fantasies such as plastic surgeries (Knafo & Feiner, 2006). So, regarding “the fragilities and faultlines of femininity” one similar type of possessed psychoanalytic characteristics is immaturity which may be due to abnormal development, play into the psychological dynamic to serious and fatal violence and aggression against the gendered self. The traits Freud termed “peculiar” to femininity which he observed as “high degrees of possessed narcissism,” is a young egocentricity — a defensive need to “hold the male gaze”, may also play a role in the fragilities and faultlines of femininity. The key defining characteristic between the two, masculinity and femininity, is in the way the genders defend against loss. As a general rule, women already have to navigate the lost phallus at an early age, this fact seems to bear a part in how women also handle future losses. Women’s lost phallus becomes her “deficiency” and so, are socialized to be submissive to the phallus and from a very early age may introject the lost phallus as her “deficiency.” 

Women’s possessed sense of, and desire towards, aesthetic beauty may bear a part in the destabilization of her feminine identity as women tend toward possessing high degrees of vanity in combination with high impression management thereby contributing to the faultlines of her femininity. This peculiarity seems to be in line with the same type of immature development (egocentricity and defensive need to hold the male gaze) and/or abnormalities in developmental attachments to the mother-child affair as well as the father-child affair. This is to say, women tend toward fear in “becoming their mothers.” That is to say and to borrow from Nancy Chodorow, the first faultline of femininity is femaleness that is “not like Mother” in a defensive need to split the self from the Object Other if hatred takes over. When this happens, women experience castration fears of aging such as loss of aesthetic beauty, self-doubt and wondering about her own value, become completely foreclosed about becoming a mother herself, or feel threatened when placed against other powerful female Objects. When we witness this psychic defensive need of femininity displayed in women, what we witness is far lesser an aspect of masculine physical strength and prowess exerted against an Object Other. Although there has been crime statistics reported as this happening within a small population of women who kill, which has been eloquently termed “femme Fatales”what is more commonly observed is passive-aggressive violence occurring against Object Other (in a defensive need to split the self from the Other, internalized mother, if hated takes over). That is because this all-powerful Mother figure could feed and nurture us or abandon us and leave us to die. For some, these unconscious fears may remain to stay strong within the unconscious and may develop into borderline personality disorder (Silberschmidt, Lee, Zanarini, and Schulz, 2015).

Additionally, because this maternal object has been incorporated into the psyche and identified with as the maternal Object because of shared genitalia, women are more likely to exert violence against the self as opposed to the Other outside herself, as she herself possesses the Object Within in the triangulation of her psyche of Mother-Father Self (Holmes, 2008, Holmes, 2013). She can become psychotically foreclosed against any possibility of a heterosexual development and/or instead develop a homosexual or transgender lifestyle as a creative compromise to a problem as well as develop sexually deviant creative female perversions. “If a little girl has no penis to prove she is not her mother, she can introject the mother (Holmes, 2013).” In a similar vein, if a little girl has no penis to prove she is the father, she can introject the father’s phallus. Likewise, if a little boy has no vagina to prove he is like his mother, he can introject the mother’s vagina creatively through phantasy and/or fantasy (Knafo and Feiner, 2006).

When a little girl introjects their mother, the little girl is able to gain mastery over the maternal object which is both feared, loved, and hated. This psychoanalytic truth holds true for the little boys as well who introject the father through identifying with his penis. What we observe in cases of humiliation forged in the original mother-daughter affair, and I am going to theorize here based on my readings, as is the development of homosexuality (lesbian, and transgender homosexuality, anorexia-bulimia, the development of feminine machisma, and the idealized phallus, and other forms of violence against the self; such as excessive body manipulations and plastic surgeries, abortions, and other self-defeating behaviors such as excessive promiscuity and using the body as a prop “sex object” as a defensive need, as well as the ultimate denial, suicide, in the formation of abnormal identity and object relations.

If we consider Freud’s phrase, “anatomy as destiny,” we can accept the following: “We all, men and women, have an unconscious impulse to control and subordinate the female sex, and this is because our first object in this world is a powerful woman who can feed us or let us die. We all, men and women, have to find our own ways to subdue and contain this loved and hated figure, and boys and girls find different solutions to this universal problem (Holmes, 2013).”

We can now borrow from the writings of Julia Kristeva who wrote in her “Stabat Mater:”

“When feminists call for a new representation of femininity, they seem to identify maternity with this idealized misapprehension: and feminism, because it rejects the image and its abuses, sidesteps, the real experience that this fantasy obscures. As a result, maternity is repudiated or denied by some avant-garde feminists, while its traditional representations are wittingly or unwittingly accepted by the “broad mass” of women and men.”

Lesbian Homosexuality and Forms of BDSM in Deviant Sexual Relationships (fetishes)

To expound further on the fragilities and faultlines of feminity we look to the writings of Simone de Beauvoir who said all the complexities of feminity can be explained through the fact, that in this world, women function as a “deficient Other” (de Beauvoir, 1952). I interpret this quote as implying that a woman is perceived as a deficient Other when she is without a masculine counterpart (a husband) with which to complete and guide her in the world. This implies there is not only a need for a healthy connection to what women experience as “femininity” but also a need for protecting its integrity for all forms of socially acceptable femininity (homosexual, transgender, masculine dominant female, and otherwise). This requirement may move us toward a healthier understanding of the differences in object relations, with regard to femininity, with an importance placed on issues surrounding boundaries and mergings and what those “boundaries” and “mergings” mean for a properly socialized acceptable feminine identity. Speaking from personal experience, the female creative perversion I have developed as a way to unconsciously control and subordinate the female sex manifests as homosexual phantasies. I believe this is my unconscious impulse to control and subordinate female flesh. In all sibling arrangements and childhood relationships there exists this unconscious impulse or wish to control and subordinate the female sex. The question is whether or not the individual will be successful in satisfying their potential defensive need to control and subordinate this “Object Other” without harming the object of her affections.

Nancy Chodorow wrote French psychoanalysis through Lacan and structuralism argued that gender and sexuality are always in the partial realm of culture. “Our bodies, masculinity, and femininity are named linguistically. Our identities, fantasies, and desires are filtered through our parents’ own linguistically infused fantasies, through cultural stories, and through institutions like marriage, parenthood, religion, and politics … When we come up against these findings that each clinically particular individual has his or her own personally individualized sexuality, whose description requires much more than a generalization about the sex of the object in relation to the self (Chodorow, 2012, pp.155–156).”

In the above statement, we get a good dose of caution from Chodorow alerting us to generalizations about sexuality. This information contained herein this post is meant to be taken as informative information gleaned from accredited psychoanalysts and philosophers.

In another form of sexual deviance, we witness this unconscious impulse to subordinate the female sex through something called Bondage and Discipline in Sadism and Masochism (BDSM). This form of sexual deviance allows for the very real potential for “binding female flesh with props.” These props can be used by the subjects as counterphobic defensives (counterphobic objects) that help us to navigate, defend, and ward off our anxieties surrounding our defensive impulses to control and subordinate female flesh as well as to be subordinated by. The element of consent is a crucial aspect of this type of sexual deviance. These props, leather straps, ropes, chains, other medieval restraining devices as well as electronic stimulation toys (eStim) may be used in counter defensive to the powerful unconscious wish to control our early childhood Objects (mother/father). More recently there has been concern over newly developing technologies used for electronic stimulation (eStim toys) and service security surveillance technologies in pursuit of “potential threats” to the security, prosperity, and freedom of American democracy. Christine Weiland wrote, Culture, as a space where the working through of fundamental human problems takes place, constitutes a container; culture, as an ideal and a prohibition, constitutes part of the superego. For the individual, the solution to any particular psychic problem will depend on both his/her object relations as well as the cultural space.” She also expressed fears towards advancing new technological inventions which would place matricidal destructiveness in the hands of people possessing infantile anxieties. In “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Carol Cohn had lucidly demonstrated in her writing the lethal aspects that result from the social embodiment of, or the acting out, of unanalyzed phantasies belonging to the male imaginary (Wieland, 1996; Jacobs, 2007; Kohn, 1987).” How does this play into the fragilities and faultlines of femininity? It bears importance when consider against the psychoanalytic backdrop of triangulation Lucy Holmes wrote about and witnessed in her clinical patients. That is the Mother-Father-Self psychic triangulation. And how this triangulation of not only mother-daughter, but the father-daughter affair, may influence infantile anxieties where the phallus becomes the counterphobic defense against the feared all-powerful mother in the development of female masculinities of “machisma” as well as other feminine peculiarities.

Anorexia and Bulimia

Little boys are given the ability to separate themselves psychically from their mothers’ deficiency by misidentifying with her. That is to say since little boys have a penis and so they identify with the father’s all-powerful penis. The traditional Freudian psychology places the mother as the “deficient Other” or the weak and powerless parental object. However, little girls don’t have this option and so they identify with this powerful maternal figure through her “milk” (breasts also theorized as the maternal penis). Helene Cixous claimed the mother is a metaphor. She also wrote the breast acts as a privileged topos of female expression: “a woman is never far from ‘mother’ . . . There is always within her at least a little of that good mother’s milk. She writes in white ink.” And so, we come to understand, “Mother writes in white ink; mother’s milk.” And so, “Voice: milk that could go on forever … Eternity: is voice mixed with milk (Walker, 1998, pp. 134–139).” We can make a comparison by saying, at least for the little boy, the penis is the privileged topos of masculine expression. In like vein, the little boy is never far from his ‘father.’ But to further theorize, for a little girl who finds her mother frustrating and humiliating towards her, the powerful milk association, identification, and incorporation of “mommy is now inside of me because I drank her milk” becomes the powerful abdication of the “Queen” through reverse digestion, the regurgitation of that frustrating milk through forced expulsion of food or the complete denial of it (food) as the psychic defensive needed to split the self from this hated body, yet incorporated, still humiliating and frustrating internalized object. If homosexuality is a compromised formation, then we could also say too, anorexia and bulimia may also be a form of creative compromised solution, albeit potentially lethal and dangerous. If we turn to Julia Kristeva, she views maternity as “the privileged realm of the subject’s ambiguous stance between the sensuous pre-Oedipal bonds of maternal attachment and the disciplined separation of Oedipal (or symbolic) detachment. The mother’s body is the lived terrain of this contradiction, serving as both source of a disruptive semiotic and as pre-condition for the productive symbolic. She reproduces the father’s symbolic order while simultaneously destroying it with her pre-symbolic links to the disruptive realm of (unrestrained) libidinal drives (Walker, 1998, pp. 145–146; Oliver, 1993, pp. 3).”

The influencing semiotics of language found in the maternal chora, a negative language spoken that marks the return of the symbolic order. “It is the site that constantly subverts the stability and coherence of the symbolic. It appears to be at odds with the paternal authority of the symbolic (Walker, 1998, pp. 115; Kristeva, 1985).” For Kristeva, the semiotics is linguistics tied to the body and expressed as a “bodily experience,” such that for the child this time period exists before the time of acquired spoken language (pre-Oedipal) and so, its subjective influences remain hidden in the unconscious. Here Michelle Boulous Walker reports feminist writers suggesting the maternal body as “the body as negativity” and “embodies an active form of madness.” “This madness erupts as laughter indicating aggressive negativity toward unity and law (Walker, 1998, pp. 115; Kristeva, 1985). The language of the body is experienced in very real negative and positive ways by the child. Thus, again, unwittingly sets up for us a scenario of the borderline patient (Silberschmidt, Lee, Zanarini, and Schulz, 2015). Thus, similar to how Chodorow interprets the masculine development of a child;

“In the normal developmental course of events, much hinges on how a boy relates to his father and turns into a man — the delicate negotiation of this transformation, of identification, of how to replace or join without bringing on retaliation, castration, or humiliation. All of these, in turn, depend partly on a father’s own sense of confident masculinity and selfhood (Chodorow, 2012, pp. 131).”

So too, can we surmise that “much hinges on how a daughter relates to her mother and thus develops into a woman. In a similar arrangement, the delicate negotiation of this transformation, of identification, of how to replace or join in without bringing on retaliation, castration, or humiliation. All of these, in turn, depend partly on the mother’s own sense of confident femininity and selfhood.”

In a similar vein, Weiland tells us all patients, in fact all people, are in some way engaged in an internal struggle with their objects, especially the mother. Although this struggle is unique to the person as it is hidden for someopen for others, it seems to underlie the human condition and, in this sense, constitutes a fundamental human problem where the solution to it is both an individual and cultural one (Weiland, 1996).

And as Carol Cohn informs us of the lethal cultural results when the social embodiment of the male imaginary (the phallus) is allowed to parade in unrestrained fashion with no prohibitions placed on the part of the superego what we witness is infantile destructiveness in an age of advancing, available to the highest bidder, technology.

Feminine Machisma and the Idealized Phallus and Fear of Pregnancy

I will briefly discuss these faultlines of femininity; feminine machisma, the idealized phallus, and fear of pregnancy. It has been theorized the father’s penis becomes the idealized symbolic imaginary for little girls and is “every girl’s solution” to navigating her loss of not being given a penis. Where I do not necessarily believe this to be a “faultline” per se, as one must consider one’s object choices placed in substitution for the lost phallus. For example, female love object choice in lesbian homosexuality and choosing a masculine gender identity, pursuing a career as a female military officer, or becoming a pilot as an idealized form of phallus substitution. Also, professional female athletes, female police officers, and female bodybuilders may utilize healthy avenues to satisfy their lost phallus and I often think of Serena Williams and her tennis racket as phallus. While others may develop unhealthy behaviors like becoming female gang members to prove their worth in criminalized organized crime groups, in demonstrations of physical violence of their possessed masculine strength, prowess, and power. We might inquire, “Are we all “hard-wired” and “cemented” to our object choices based on our genetics and cultural upbringings?” Consider reading the journal article written by David Berreby, “The Things That Divide Us.” We know from the psychoanalytics of identity formation, culture is a very strong influencing factor. In addition, some women have very real unconscious fears of maternity and may require several years of psychotherapy before becoming pregnant (Balsam, 2012; Jacobs, 2007). This is not necessarily a faultline, in my opinion, although it can pose a problem for women wishing to become pregnant. The choice of maternity is a personal and private one. In addition, our unconscious fantasies and defensive impulses in relation to our objects, we all have been informed by our parental influences both maternal and paternal, their marital arrangements, the quality of their marriage and treatment of one another, and cultural surroundings which all play a bearing on a child’s future identity.

These are just a few of the ways females deal with the unconscious impulse to control and subordinate the female flesh. I have not discussed excessive body manipulations and self-castration fantasies nor acts of excessive promiscuity and the most fatal of all unconscious drives, suicide.

SOURCES:

Balsam, Rosemary. (2012). Women’s Bodies in Psychoanalysis. East Essex, Canada. Routledge.

Berreby, David. “The Things That Divide Us”. National Geographic Magazine. April 2018. Vol. 233, №4. pp.46–67. “We are wired at birth to tell Us from Them and to favor our own group.”

Chasseguet-Smirgel, Janine. (1984). Creativity and Perversion. London. Free Association Books.

Chodorow, Nancy J. (2012). Individualizing Gender and Sexuality: Theory and Practice. Relational Books Perspective, Volume 53. New York. Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group.

Cohn, Carol. Sex and Death in the Relational World of Defense Intellectuals. Signs: Women, Gender, and Theory. Vol. 12, №4. Summer, 1987. pp. 687–718.

de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The Second Sex. New York. Alfred A. Knopf.

Erikson, Eric H. (1982). The Life Cycle Completed. New York. Norton.

Freud, S. (1909). Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old boy (Little Hans). In Standard Edition, Volume 10. pp 5–149. London. Hogarth Press.

_______, S. (1924). The dissolution of the Oedipus complex. In Standard Edition, Vol. 7.

_______, S (1931). Female Sexuality. In Standard Edition, Volume 21.

Holmes, Lucy. (2008). The Internal Triangle: New theories in female development. New York. Jason Aronson.

Holmes, Lucy. (2013). Wrestling with Destiny: The Promise of Psychoanalysis. New York. Routledge.

Jacobs, Amber. (2007). On Matricide: Myth, Psychoanalysis, and the Law of the Mother. New York. Columbia University Press. Chapter 12, The Latent Mother-Daughter (pp. 148–156).

Knafo, Danielle and Feiner, Kenneth (2006). Unconscious Fantasies and the Relational World. Hillside, NJ. The Analytic Press, Inc.

Kristeva, Julia (1986). Stabat Mater. In Female Body in Western Culture: Contemporary Perspectives. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

Kristeva, Julia (1985). Revolution in Poetic Language. New York. Columbia University Press.

Oliver, Kelly. (1993). Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the double-bind. Bloomington. Indiana University Press.

Silberschmidt, Amy; Lee, Susanne, PhD; Zanarini, MD; and Schulz, Charles S., MD. Gender Differences in Borderline Personality Disorder: Results from a multinational clinical trial sample. Journal of Personality Disorders. Vol. 29, No. 6 (December, 2015). Note: Gender differences in BPD populations tend to be comprised of women at a rate of 75% or higher. 

Walker, Michelle Boulous. (1998). Philosophy and the Maternal Body: Reading silence. New York. Routledge.

Wallin, David J. (2007) Attachment in Psychotherapy. New York. Guilford Press. 

Wieland, C. (1996). Matricide and Destructiveness: Infantile Anxieties and Technological Culture. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 12(3),

OTHER BLOG POSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CONTENT:

Barna, Karen. The Fragilities and Faultlines of Masculinity. ProclivitysPrincipleWisdom.Medium.com. Published online January 3, 2020. https://proclivitysprinciplewisdom.medium.com/the-fragilities-and-fault-lines-of-masculinity-87b85babef49

Barna, Karen. Myth, Phantasy, and Culture: Male counterphobic defenses against emasculation. ProclivitysPrincipleWisdom.Medium.com. Published online May 11, 2021. https://proclivitysprinciplewisdom.medium.com/myth-phantasy-and-culture-male-counterphobic-defenses-against-emasculation-3099b2bdf3d7

Barna, Karen. On Why The Creation Of Aestheticism Is So Important To Self Esteem and To Falsehood. ProclivitysPrincipleWisdom.Medium.com. Published August 10, 2021. https://proclivitysprinciplewisdom.medium.com/on-why-the-creation-of-aestheticism-is-so-important-to-self-esteem-and-to-falsehood-4c42b10c0fdf

Barna, Karen. Freud’s Riddle of Femininity and Some of the Secret Peculiarities of Female Psychopathologies. ProclivitysPrincipleWisdom.Medium.com. Published September 16, 2021. https://proclivitysprinciplewisdom.medium.com/freuds-riddle-of-femininity-and-some-of-the-secret-peculiarities-of-female-psychopathologies-79b8620833b1

Barna, Karen. The Riddle of Gang (Group) Stalking and Uncovering some its “Secret Peculiarities”: A forensic analysis of one individual case study. ProclivitiysPrincipleWisdom.Medium.com. Published September, 18, 2021. The importance of this post works through some of the psychoanalytic of gendered-based aggression/violence.  The Riddle of Group (Gang) Stalking and Uncovering Some of its “Secret Peculiarities”: A forensic analysis of one individual case study | by Karen Barna | Sep, 2021 | Medium 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.