Diebert writes: But Pye, men desire so many things, low and high, earthy and heavenly.
This would be true of most all humans, yes?
Women are not what men desire . . .
Are you meaning to distinguish this italicized desire as a non-earthly i.e. 'spiritual' thing for men, hence, unfulfillable by embodiment of any kind? Some blind dualism lurking there, if so.
Let's go ahead with this high-minded notion of men's italicized desire then. Will your sentence work for you as well with the sexes reversed?
Diebert: although in cases women are still trying to embody themselves as one particular exclusive object of desire.
This would not be the case for men as well? goodheavens, a whole social order to rationalize and reward women/men for just this singular thing. (And I mean this not as carte blanche defense for either; nor do I mean it as complete dismissal of embodiment.)
Diebert: All the other problems with women have to do with their general lack of vision and in fact a web of control she has been weaving herself into.
Oh Diebert, Diebert . . . . if only you could see this as the blurred vision of men and the self-accusation that it is.
Diebert: Luckily men have showed them the way by education and invention so that they can free themselves of their particular preoccupation.
Do you seriously believe that men are responsible for women wanting and being-able to think and do? These and many other presumptions from
rational man are why it is simply impossible to carry on a sane conversation regarding men and women here.
Here, we have an entire house philosophy that in seeking to dismantle the idealization of Woman (which, by the way, I have supported as a worthy pursuit) has simply replaced it with another (negative) idealization of her, just slipping one noose for another, same fixation.
** And here, we have the recommendation to transcend dualistic thinking, again, by being embedded right smack in it. And here, we still have Diebert faithfully carrying the Standard!
Diebert: But who is going the free up the men?
It's
what, Diebert.
What is going to get through to them . . . .
**edit: replacing an ideal with a cartoon.