Are people punished–in the academy , and elsewhere–for being bold? Probably so. A new article at Inside Higher Ed suggests that Black Student Activists are increasing punished for being their brave, bold selves.
This? Beyond evil.
Are people punished–in the academy , and elsewhere–for being bold? Probably so. A new article at Inside Higher Ed suggests that Black Student Activists are increasing punished for being their brave, bold selves.
This? Beyond evil.
By Jennifer Lawson, MA.
Colin McGinn. At the time I was in graduate school (beginning in 2006), that name struck the kind of absolute respect any philosopher would love to have. As a matter of fact, when I was a Research Assistant, he wanted to write an essay for the book I was assisting with but was unable to for reasons he may or may not explain later. I had been elated to potentially work on one of the papers, so it is with pleasure I introduce to you the man and the myth: Dr. Colin McGinn.
During the course of my studies, a scandal broke loose. I paid as little attention to it as I could, but, frankly, it was everywhere. I do not know the precise allegations against McGinn. What I do know is that he is innocent and has been found innocent.
We often think that a guilty verdict is the absolute worst verdict one can receive, so I emailed McGinn to inquire whether his position is, as a matter of fact, terrible. I had a hunch it was. After all, with the gossip (and I’m not innocent of this all the time) at the time, it’s clear that psychological things come into play. It’s much more difficult to get rid of a negative impression than it is to recover your good name. This is a psychological fact; and a rather unfortunate one for all of us.
Are there ways to recover after your name has been trod through the mud? I really cannot say. I haven’t, quite simply, done the research. Yet, I open the conversation about this and welcome back to the philosophical community the esteemed Professor: Colin McGinn.
When I emailed him on March 6, 2019, he simply had this to say:
Thanks for asking. Yes, it has had a very bad impact on my life in many ways. I am limited in what I can talk about for legal reasons, but I would be happy to share some aspects of my situation.
It is not simply the life and livelihood of a person we are discussing. It is also the future of philosophy.
McGinn has been working, as he has always done, on important issues all the while. This makes me admire the man even moreso. Be sure to check his personal blog and website to see the philosophical issues he has been working on.
If you’re anything like me, there’s another person out there, somewhere, with your exact name. Try a Google search on yourself. It’s better to start early. This way, you can get to know who shares a name with you. Who knows??! You may even become friends.
Growing up, there was always at least one other ‘Jennifer’ in my class. So, I went by ‘Jennifer L.’ These days, in philosophy, there are indeed other Jennifer’s .
Jennifer Saul is one such Jennifer. Lucky for us, she goes by ‘Jenny,’ whereas I go by, sometimes, ‘Jennie.’ This is a fortunate and lucky way we have uniquely signified ourselves.
Why is this important?
If you appreciate your own work–but, even more importantly, if others do–people will want to cite you, save it for posterity, and so forth. So, they need to know which Jennifer is which because, after all, they may simply love all Jennifers.
Do a Google search o yourself. See what you find. You are probably already, in some way, differentiated from others, but perhaps not. It’s nice to know, however, just what’s out there about you.
This article is a few months old, but it’s top-notch. Philosopher Ray Monk is one of the brightest minds out there. His scholarship is and always has been impeccable. This essay is about Nietzsche’s end-of-life tale, wherein he goes mad.
Here’s the thing. Conferences. I’ve never presented. I don’t know that I even want to. I have attended. I have been a referee. But presenting? I used to think that was the shit.
It is much better–for philosophy authors as well as yourself–to be in the audience. It is definitely fruitful to ask questions, but even more so to take notes. It is good to survey the aftermath of a conference, too. This is a way to know who actually is the shit and who is a complete and total loser.
There are indeed both in philosophy and you want to know who they are. Losers? Just stay away from them and, with hope, they won’t bother you. Folks who are the shit? Snuggle them, philosophically speaking. Enjoy their work. Don’t try to be like them. Just know there’s people who are, as matter of fact, the shit. When the time comes you meet a loser, you can always take solace in the fact that there are also winners.
Having said all of that, if you’re interested in attending a philosophy event–or you know of one upcoming near you–check out PhilEvents. There, you really can “do both.”
So, there’s this book I wrote. It’s all DIY. It’s called Revitalizing A Failed Tradition. What is it about, you say? Well, it’s about the intersection of western and Native American philosophy and lifeways. At the time I wrote it, I was in a sort of tight spot. I didn’t have access to my books–or much of anything besides my memory, knowledge and my computer with internet access. With those parameters, I wrote this book.
At the time I wrote it, I honestly felt crappy. I was a total loser. But–O did wrote this under such conditions. It’s a collection of essays by yours truly.
There’s an entire industry you should know about and it’s the publishing industry. The standard view is to not just “publish or perish” but to publish in certain “quality” outlets.
After a while, mulling this over, I think: Hey: If you want to write, why not self-publish? Many, many Great Authors in history did exactly that. And it’s not because they had no other option. There’s certainly things to be said about self-publishing, though it may not be the sole type of publishing for the future.
Self-publishing on Amazon is so simple, even I could do it! So, if you’re testing the waters, have a novel idea that doesn’t fit anywhere yet (or some other circumstance that prevents you from entering an agreement with a publisher), why not self-publish?
Check this out. It’s a website I’ve never really seen before all about how philosophy is, well, a great major. It goes into detail about all the ways philosophy can assist one in life–in many, many ways. There’s a lot more to it than that, so be sure to click the link!
No. No we should not. They do not deserve to go down in history. They are not worthy of our argument. They do not need to be given the honor of citation.
I say all this without stating names or naming cases. But, no.
We should not cite awful people.
See here (a little gossipy) what brought these thoughts about.
Jennifer (50 citations and counting!)
Read the article here.
They are strange creatures, right? Many of them are noted for their odd and unusual habits, such as….walking!
Yes, folks. Many philosophers have taken walks throughout history. Kant, Kierkegaard, the Stoics, Socrates, Cynics. All of them walked.
You might think this is an odd habit. Yet, I look around and see many healthy, normal people taking jaunts every day. The do it to be fit, get air, walk their dogs, enjoy nature. In short….what’s so odd about philosophers?
Virtue Ethics os the hottest thing in philosophy since Bernard Williams. He was the one, along with philosophers like G.E.M Anscombe, who brought this way of thinking back from the Ancient dump yards.
Curriculum Vitae. Curriculum Vitae. It’s two words every budding philosopher needs to know. Here’s a couple of tihngs to consider when making yours.
Certainly look to respected philosophers, such as your professors, to get an idea of what to include. However, yours is most certainly not going to look like theirs simply because they are already working: teaching, doing research, and serving the profession.
As a student, yours will look smaller. Don’t think smaller is worse!
If you have too much on your CV at a certain stage (say, as you apply to grad school), things may look suspicious. No one expects you to have done everything at that point–if ever.
You may certainly look at mine. I hold an MA. I was pretty darn active in graduate school, too. Perhaps, even, too active. Don’t worry about having yours look too active. Anyone who is anyone would prefer a healthy balance: for yourself, your work, their department and the future of philosophy.
You can view my CV here.
Let me know if this is helpful and whether you seek additional help. I’m no expert on this, after all. Just giving friendly (and, hopefully, useful) advice.
I admit. I’m winging this post with no handlebars. In this handlebars-free post, I will argue that there is a foundation more firm than Cartesian Foundationalism.
What most people get wrong about Descartes is that he was a Skeptic. In fact, he was attempting to not be a Skeptic. He was searching for a foundation for knowledge (and, thus, many other things, such as science and law). In what comes I will show that while Descartes was a tragic philosopher, who ended up trying to cleave to God as a foundation, he was on the right track nevertheless.
Descartes. Many know the name. Fewer know The Cogito: “I think, therefore, I am.”
These things are well-known to philosophers and these ideas have been grappled with ever since Descartes published his Meditations.
After years of first learning about Descartes, teaching Descartes and, now, being in a similar foundational place as Descartes, I can tell you this: It is not God for which we shall have a foundation for understanding.
The goal isn’t to reach above and beyond, going higher than skeptical doubts. Rather, the goal is to move closer to Earth, where we belong.
Here, in front of me, is my computer. I am typing on it. This is something I know. And I even know it with Wittgensteinian certainty.
Descartes, as well as many other famous philosophers, may have, as a matter of fact, been plagued by abnormal mental states. These states have actually brought about things such as the scientific revolution. So, I’m not here to dis Descartes.
Moving further, though, and having had my own abnormal states, I conclude that advances we have made in psychological health and wellness may in fact move us to other unforeseen revolutions.
At one point, I explored the option of God. I found, perhaps as Descartes eventually found, that just wasn’t the final answer.
The answer is not necessarily empiricism, either. The way in which I am currently in the world in a normal state–after an abnormal one. As such, I can reflect on these things and say: If you suffer from abnormal states, seek counseling and support. These things may very well bring to new and innovative understandings.
As for Descartes? Going from mere empathy, I can only imagine he suffered greatly. It was probably torment. We should never overlook such tortures that brings us closer to things like science, law and, well, knowledge.
Here’s an article–an open, free to view article–about advancements in Artificial intelligence (AI). This is something I have read about, talked about and discussed with others, including members of our military and philosophers of science.
It’s been a while, honestly, since I took up the task of AI. In this post, I’m going to tell you why AI sucks. Big time. And why only the United States Military should have AI.
The article I mentioned above does indeed appear to be an “advancement” in AI. So I urge you to have a look.
What is AI? In short, it’s a massively harmful weapon.
This isn’t a debate about AK47’s. These are weapons much more powerful and much more strong than you can even imagine. So, the issue is not whether these are covered under the “Right to keep and bear arms” clause.
To the contrary, these are probably more WMD than current WMD’s.
As I told everyone, when I got my Alexa, I played “How Do You Like Me Now?” by Toby Keith about 1,000 times.
Then, I promptly unplugged, put away and never used again.
These are weapons only our military should have and as so-called advances are made, we may actually have to face a Zombie Apocalypse if we don’t quickly hand them over.
Check this out. It’s a conference that may interest readers and contributors alike! The French Society of Philosophy meets once a year, by my accounts. The topic this year is: From ontology to social networks.
Check it out, register and give yourself a reason to go to Paris, France!
That is the very question I asked a Professor one time. I am not crazy, but some philosophers may or may not be. Some philosophers, too, may be good or bad. I’m going to talk about the bad-crazy kind. It’s a special blend of philosopher whom I shall smite (in words, of course).
There’s this theory. A theory that logic and rationality are normative. This may be a hot thing to think. I’m going to tell you: It just ain’t so.
Two years ago, I started on a thought. You can, if you will, read it here. The essay is titled the “Tyranny of Reason,” but it’s not exactly reason. It’s a special brand brand of non-reason I object to. There is, as a matter of fact, an objective way to reason and think. That’s why we teach Introduction to Logic. That’s why we weed out cognitive biases.
Folks who purport there is “nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so” may, after all is said and done, end up a tragic figure in Hamlet.
The arguments, if I dare look at them, will undoubtedly fall apart under any logic-microscope. It is not the case that logic and reason are normative. It is precisely the case that those who purport such are the actual tyrants. I wish to not name names, for that would, very likely, impinge character. However, if anyone would like to stand up and have their work so scrutinized, let me know.
This is an open thread about mentoring tips and advice. I realize I may be somewhat early in my career here, but I have succeeded in many things. I’m going to put down some of my tips, which may or may not be helpful and useful so others may also succeed. These tips are not just for minorities or women, either. After all, Feminism is for Everybody.
Others may make corrections, offer their own advice and add to the conversation. As for myself, I am available at JLawson [at] Steton [DOT] edu. If you are a person new to philosophy, feel free to contact me. I may happen to know a mentor and friend for you.
It wasn’t too long ago that I applied to do work on The Einstein Papers. I didn’t get the position and that’s just as well. I am pleased, however, to announce that Albert Einstein’s papers, including manuscripts and, I believe, correspondence, is now available to view here, at CalTech.
It all started when I did a brief stint at a local law firm. It was the first time I worked with mostly women. It was a culture shock for me. All the women I worked with happened to be single. Like my silly (and somehwat crazy, at the time, self), I told them: Girl, you need a date!
I encouraged them to get on dating sites. Some chose POF. Some chose Christian Mingle.
These women? They thought they would be alone forever. They thought they were “too old” and “not datable.”
Not true! I told them.
Turns out, they all did get dates. They recounted a few of them to me. They weren’t all great, but they weren’t all bad, either. They each attracted very “attractive” men.
Dating tips for “older women?” Take the advice you give your daughters:
I suppose nuclear weapons are in the news. They have been since before Trump was president. Hillary famously brought up the point that we wouldn’t want someone like him and him ilk with WMDs.
She’s absolutely correct.
We don’t need Nukes at all, actually.
A couple of years ago (maybe less, maybe more), I read “Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons.” You can read a review about all about those myths here. I encourage you to check it out. For really real. There’s tons–literally, tons–of myths about nuclear weapons that have been propagated.
This isn’t my favorite topic, but at the time I noticed many of my friends in panic at the very thought that, say, there was dispute with the United States and North Korea.
Why don’t we need nuclear weapons? Well, for one thing, after knowing the myths, you’ll realize they are not so scary, after all. Do they harm? Yes, of course. Can they kill and cause radioactivity? Sure. But the lasting impact and the size of the damage is comparatively small considering what we’ve been made to believe.
Nukes? Who needs them?
Like many women, I’ve had my fair share of stalkers. This is especially true since I am somewhat known. The issue of stalking, as well as other public safety concerns, are the issue of this post. Herein, I will show that Facebook over Twitter is the way to go.
Social media has had it’s fair share of problems. Some of them include fake news and fake accounts.
About a year and a half ago, I received a text from Mark Zuckerburg himself. He was, to be honest, down in the dumps about all of this. What could I do? I don’t have the solution for everything. So, I simply offered what I could: “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius. I also offered this bit of advice: “Don’t carry the weight of the world on your shoulders.”
I think those helped in, perhaps, perking him up. He later said he did, in fact, read Meditations and he appeared to enjoy it.
He probably got advice from somewhere else, but I did what I could and, hey, it’s never a bad day to read Meditations.
Now, on the the point at hand. Facebook has several features, including privacy settings, friendship closeness and proximity and hacking protections that make it, very simply, a better choice over Twitter.
On Twitter, anyone can create a fake account, anyone can follow you–and sometimes that can end up far too creepy.
I do not use Twitter anymore. You can find me on Facebook.
This is a personal post: For the period of several years, I was on Social Security Disability. I was diagnosed with a psychological condition in graduate school. Fortunately, I got help, care and support.
The department I studied at–the Philosophy Department at the University of North Florida–knows about my condition and has been privy to my progress as I moved along in my studies while obtaining treatment.
At this time, I am free and clear. That is not to say I’m perfect. Perfect is not the definition of mental health, anyway. It means I am no longer clinically diagnosable.
There is, as has been reported, an increasing amount of individuals in college with mental health conditions. As a result, I have formed precious bonds with clinicians, lawyers, and others, in my progress.
Those who stand in the way of mental health progress are the bane of our existence. Don’t be crappy. Support your own and other people’s mental wellness.
If you see someone struggling, don’t bring them down further. Lift them up, offer support. That’s what my friends and colleagues have done for me.
I am considered “successful.” That’s mostly due to the awareness people have these days about things like mental health conditions. Gone, practically, are the days of stigma and discrimination, those backward ways of thinking. Here to stay are times when the proper care and support are offered by millions.
Among those in ethics, particularly, it is well-known that Kant advocated non-masturbation. What exactly did he say? What did he mean? But, most importantly: Why?
Here’s a segment of what Kant said about masturbation:
But it is not so easy to produce a rational proof that unnatural, and even merely unpurposive, use of one’s sexual attribute is inadmissible as being a violation of duty to oneself (and indeed, as far as its unnatural use is concerned, a violation in the highest degree). The ground of proof is, indeed, that by it a man surrenders his personality (throwing it away), since he uses himself as a means to satisfy an animal impulse. But this does not explain the high degree of violation of the humanity in one’s own person by such a vice in its unnaturalness, which seems in terms of its form (the disposition it involves) to exceed even murdering oneself. It consists, then, in this: That a man who defiantly casts off life as a burden is at least not making a feeble surrender to animal impulse in throwing himself away (p. 425).
Ordinarily, it is supposed that Kant was just an overzealous prude. I’m going to argue he wasn’t.
It can’t be the case, for example, that he had never masturbated before. If he hadn’t, how on Earth would he know what it’s all about? Perhaps, before that writing, he had, in fact, masturbated quite a bit.
Let’s grant that point. Now, onto the more important thing: Like clockwork, Kant would stroll and take walks at the very same time of day, each day. He was so regular that people, and even perhaps the city, set their watches by him.
What if Kant was in love?
We know he probably never got married. But one can most certainly be in love and not marry. Speculate further: What if he fell in love with a prostitute? In that day and age–and even in this one–such a thing would be so scandalous as to be worthy of the life of, at least, the woman.
It is my guess that when someone has actually met their soulmate, their sexuality is one of the things that binds them. This does not have to be seen as oppressive. It may, in fact, be the sort of autonomy Kant called for.
When he said, “Hands off,” perhaps he was making a suggestion: Fall In Love.
Here is a superb paper. It’s not by myself, but by a fellow contributor: Clayton Littlejohn. Read it and weep.
What do I know about it? Precisely nothing.
Well, a about one year ago–to this day–I had a Skype interview with a top–and I mean, top–bitcoin agency.
Was I qualified? Hell no. I applied, anyway, and got an interview.
I was interviewed by one person, who I can only imagine was the CEO. Her? She was Asian and apologized for her not-to-too-shabby English.
I didn’t get the job.
Which brings me to Twitter. The word is that the CEO of Twitter, along with others, are stockpiling Bitcoin. Why is this important? It’s the economy, stupid.
You may now call me a conspiracy theorist because I believe the CEO of Twitter is trying to–and succeeding in–selecting the entire market for himself.
The new monopoly is not to buy out or outwit the competitor. The new monopoly? The one we haven’t felt the collapse of yet? That one is weaseling your way into owning everyone and everything.
Maybe I’m wrong. I certainly hope so. But these things, which I confess not to know entirely too much about, are deeply troubling.
Our money? American currency? Just what was wrong with it in the first place?
This is a more personal and more political post than what I’ve been doing lately. However, the issue of who should be the next President of the United States is certainly a BIG issue.
I know who I will be voting for already.
Her name is Stacy Abrams.
A formidable person, she can defiantly win. Just look at her history. She won in Georgia. Georgia!
That might not seem significant to you, but consider the fact that is a Black Woman. If she can win in Georgia, where there is bookoos of hatred, she can most certainly win America, where there is not.
In the paper Impure Theorizing in an Imperfect World,
Verovšek argues that, in short, we should not be aiming for Utopia on Earth. In this post, I’m going to allege he is correct.
Imagine there is a Heaven. It’s easy, if you try. Should we attempt to create such a thing on Earth? No.
We would not be trying to be God, but attempting to be The Devil.
Am I guilty of trying to make Heaven a Place on Earth? Absolutely. The struggle, if I may in all accuracy, allude to Hitler, is to resist, as it were, that urge.
If there were a Heaven, there would also be a God. That Being would have made a planet just so.
It’s my assertion that events like Global Warming and other disasters are due to us and our perfect striving.
We are not perfect and will not be. Our Planet? Perhaps it is perfect the way it is. As for us, can we accept the challenge of accepting our own humanity?
I, for one, hope so.
How would someone get my special attention?
Probably by being kind.
At the moment, I am single.
This is completely embarrassing, but my celebrity crush probably thinks I’m a totally, ugly loser. His name is Clayton Littlejohn, PhD.
My best date? Well, to be honest, I’ve been on more dates than I should brag about. The best have always been one on one dates at places like coffee shops.
My worst date? When I acted like a complete, bumbling fool, as I typically do.
You know, I’m not totally interested i dating so-called “fans.” I should probably leave it at that.
If I could change my name, it would be to Nicolette.
My biggest pet peeve?
Everyone–and I mean everyone–in epistemology wants to defeat the Global Skeptic. Drawing upon Existentialism, I shall argue the way to defeat the Global Skeptic and to make sense of Moore’s assertion, “Here is one hand and here is another,” is to take personal cognitive steps.
Most people, when confronted with the Global Skeptic Hypothesis, puzzle over it. Some try, as they are want to do, to argue with it.
In the following steps, you can stop–fully stop–being a Global Skeptic.
Here’s an interesting CFP. It’s on natrual kinds on CogSci.
I finally logged in today to Academia [dot] edu for the first time in a long time. I had a bit of information to update.
Anyway, I don’t have premium access–yet. However, I have found the service valuable.
Case in point: Impact in philosophy, as well as many other disciplines, is very important. Here I am, a fledgling in Philosophy, having just earned my MA, and I already have over 50 mentions.
I am very grateful to those who think me and my work worth mentioning. It is an incredible honor.
It helps, also, in securing a job in philosophy, which I think I have done.
Good luck to everyone. Thank you for your mentions.
Growing up, I often heard the phrase, “Blood is thicker than water.”
Maybe this is true, but which “blood?”
The current way we structure families in the United States–that is, what is called the “nuclear family”–has not always been the way families were organized.
There are, if you read anthropology, kinship arrangements such as: materilnial, paterlinial, and more.
In some cultures, what we know as “uncles” are the fathers. Thus, a child may have more than one real father. Likewise, there are cultures in which the woman chooses the husband and courts with him for a very long time before selecting him to live in her place.
So when one says that blood is thicker than water, what exactly do we mean? Is it that way in all cultures? None? If any, which ones? And does this thickness mean anything, well, good?
These are things I honestly do not know the answer to. Luckily, these are things that can be analyzed and scrutinized by people outside my discipline.
Philosophy? As we say: It’s brings branches of knowledge to life. As for those branches of knowledge? They may just be more rigorous, sound and truth-telling than philosophy itself. Philosophers, of course, don’t like to admit this, but that’s very much the way it is.
When Daniel Callcut and I worked on the anthology Reading Bernard Williams, it was indeed a task. I worked from my home at the time about fifteen minutes away from the University of North Florida. Daniel? I’m really not sure.
He sent me several essays to review. They typically fell under the genre “Feminist Philosophy,” which I utterly loathed.
I wanted to work on “The Big Things.” “The Man Things.”
He truly knew how to get under my skin; and not in a good way.
Still, I tried to do my job. I edited the selected essays for clarity, grammar–but not content; in short, I was keeping the integrity of the scholarship while, if I may, perfecting it at the same time.
It was terrible work.
Once told I would be credited in the book by Rico Vitz, I thought, “Great. Just great.”
However, I realize that I am stubborn now. I also realize that my instructors were, well, paternalistic. It was, really, for the best, though.
I ended up working precisely on “big things” and they can be found in that very book.
If you haven’t read this excellent contribution to philosophy, I dare you to.
Check out the catchy tune by Herman’s Hermits titled “Mrs. Brown You’ve Got a Lovely Daughter.”
The song appears to go on and on about a girl so sharp that she stands out in a crowd. The lead singer laments that it is sad she doesn’t love him anymore.
What does this song mean?
Well, it’s Women’s History Month. And, as some know, there’s been a trend to shun non-feminist men from relationships, intercourse, and so forth. That’s not precisely what this song is about, but it may be close.
There are brilliant women in the world. And, frankly, it’s really a sad day when they don’t love us.
Back in the 1800’s, Woolf argued everyone, really, needed “A Room of One’s Own.” Not so ironically, the not-so-long ago film about her was titled “The Hours.” I proposed: Hours For What We Will now that we do not need corporations in the way we used to.
Furthermore, Nozick argued that only the outstanding people deserved wealth. In my observations, everyone is outstanding.
-Jennifer Lawson, PhD
He’s probably the most brilliant mind I’ve ever seen.
She’s the absolute best. Plus, she holds my old-fashioned values. Right, folks?
Learn more here.
You just have to sometime be around kids and shit.
Check this shit out. Feminism ‘or’ Food? Really, folks? How’s about my concept of: both/and.
Yes, I have added Both/And into the logic cannon. It’s usable now.
-Jennifer Lawson —>Feminism and Food and Cocks and Cigarettes.
….but I really like Brian Leiter, PhD. He seems like a really impeccable man.
For such a Socialist, he paid absolute Zero.
Fuck that shit, which is exactly what I said and did.
You can read this excellent work by Soren Kierkegaard here.
I saw him speak in Daytona Beach, FL. Hell yeah, folks.
I’m really not the sharpest tool in the shed, y’all. But I do know this: I’ve been a poet, I’ve peered into songs, poems, book and rap. Rappers think on their feet. They are quick and brighter than anything I’ve ever seen. I respect that. So, it was with pleasure that I took a bow and let my students take charge some of the time (usually when they needed it). I was no skin off my nose to let Professor Littlejohn do his work without my personal interference.
It’s true. And thank you, “Hoodrats,” for letting us know about this. Freud’s view was that Real Women crave dick. My latest “encounters” would know I was pushing in that direction and, now, I’m right there. So, thanks, y’all. I’m a real woman now. I pity the fools who aren’t.