Claim 1 in Dream Theory

As I mentioned before, Hobson pointed out three important factors of Freud's Dream Theory. Here is the first one again; 

1.) "that wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes" 

If anyone doesn't know, I am a huge fan of Freud's. However, so far I have not been able to completely agree or disagree with any one of his theories, I always end up with agreeing with this part, and disagreeing with that part, and so on. I have the same problem here. For example, I agree that our secret wishes, our hidden thoughts and desires, etc. which are usually repressed, are strong instigators of dreams. On the other hand, to suggest that they are repressed infantile wishes seems to me to be completely absurd. People dream of such extraordinarily complex things and situations, and things that in our infancy we couldn't even possibly know about. In our infancy we seem to only wish for very simple things, things to eat and drink, a warm soft place to sleep, room to play, and loving arms to hold us. I don't see how dreams about going to school in your underwear or falling down a flight of stairs or having sex, or being chased goes relate to infantile wishes. Now, I think many dreams do go back to childhood, even early childhood, but I think it would be quite a stretch to try to relate most common dreams all the way back to infancy. 

Dream Content

I was almost shocked when Hobson seemed to suggest that there is no difference between manifest and latent content in dreams, and that dreams are random, unpredictable, and motivationally neutral. Those are, in my opinion, very careless remarks to make. Can he really find no patterns whatsoever in dreams? In what kinds of people dream certain kinds of dreams in certain circumstances? No patterns within the similar images and situations people experience in dreams? If he can find no patterns, no reason to look further into distinguishing the different types of content in dreams, he is obviously refusing to see them. The way he dismisses these aspects of dreams, like content, so easily makes it seem like he thinks dreams are meaningless and unimportant, which I think is a huge mistake. I appreciate that he says you may be able to draw some meaning from then, but I don't like the implication that dreams have no intrinsic meaning. I think dreams have a very powerful influence over people and shouldn't be dismissed so lightly, without seriously studying them on a deep level. Dreams can be reflective of what's going on in the back of your mind or in your everyday life, and they are certainly very meaningful. I think the content of dreams is the most important thing about them. The obvious symbols and the hidden meaning within the symbols if of the upmost importance not only to the dreamer, but also potentially to psychoanalysts and psychologists in general. I think Hobson should have looked a little closer in to dream content.

Freud's Dream Theory

Allan Hobson identified three cardinal points of Freud's Dream Theory; 


1.) "that wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes" 
2.) "that these infantile wishes welled up from the unconscious in sleep, and needed to be disguised and censored" 
3.) "that dreams can be interpreted and they can only be interpreted correctly by the use of free association to the dream material in the transference relationship with the psychoanalyst"  


Hobson made clear in the article that he felt we should dismiss Freud's Dream Theory entirely, but I don't think he did a very good job in trying to dismiss those three claims. He stated again and again that Freud's theory is untestable, and therefore unscientific. Although Freud may have only written about his own dreams and didn't test his theory on other people, that does not automatically mean that no one could ever design an experiment that tests how a person dreams. Just because there may not be conclusive evidence supporting Freud's theory at this particular moment in time does not mean that we should simply assume that he was wrong or do away with his theory all together. I don't think he gave any good reasons why wishes would not at least help to instigate dreams, or why hidden wishes, desires, fears, etc. would not play an active role in our dreams. And oftentimes when a person has a thought, desire, etc. that seems to dark, gruesome, etc. we do try to consciously repress it. So why would we not do the same thing in our dreams by actively trying to disguise or censor that same thought or desire? And perhaps we don't need a specialized psychoanalyst to interpret our dreams for us, but can we honestly deny that they might have some keen insight into our dreams that even we may not possess? I think it was very foolish of Hobson to try to dismiss Freud so quickly and easily, and I was not convinced by any of his arguments at all. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 4

If you couldn't tell, I really didn't like this article. I don't think it defended vegetarianism very well and I think it did a terrible job of trying to equate patriarchy with meat eating. I will admit that there may be some small similarities between meat eating and male dominance, but vegetarianism alone is clearly not going to overthrow the patriarchy. It is actually pretty foolish to presume that there is any kind of real correlation between meat eating and patriarchy or vegetarianism and matriarchy. Besides that, becoming a vegetarian does not offer any solution to the "problem" of male dominance. Furthermore, women are not usually looked upon as mere “possessions” any more, they are not solely sex objects and they are not the only ones who are sexually objectified, and a lot of women eat meat. Women can be in a relationship or marriage with a man and still retain their individuality. Women are able to do paid work, vote in elections, and receive an education. Women in the Western world have a lot of independence for living in a patriarchy. And although women still have a lot more ground to gain in terms of egalitarianism, you can't simply ignore all that women have accomplished thus far. Women can be vegetarians if they want, but they don't need vegetarianism to challenge the patriarchy. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminisim Part 3

One thing that really bothered me about the article is when the author talks about how men “consume” women through sex shows, pornography, and prostitution, and makes no mention of how men are "consumed" by women in the same way. The focus is put completely on men and their sexual "appetites", as if women don't have any! As if women are the pinnacles of holiness or something and men are nothing more than lustful beasts. That's just completely biased and unfair. It may be true that the sexual “appetites” of men are aroused by women in a similar way to how their taste buds might be aroused by food, or animal flesh in particular, but doesn't the very same thing happen to women? Are men not just as frequently sexually objectified, and treated as "pieces of meat"? Women can just as easily “consume” men and lust after their flesh. Both men and women have distinct sexual “appetites”, so if you want to talk about the "consumption" of women by men, you have an obligation to talk about the "consumption" of men by women as well. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 2

The author claims that women/wives, in the Western world, are still looked upon as possession by their husbands, but I'm not convinced. It seems to me that that claim is fairly outdated. Of course women have been treated as possessions in the past, and there are still many other cultures across the world that still hold this ideal, I don't believe that this is a widespread ideal in modern day America. Obviously there are still some men that feel this way and do treat women as possessions, but nowadays that seems to be more the exception than the rule. It appears to be commonly accepted now that women are no longer looked at as objects or possessions. The author also says that during a marriage ceremony a woman’s identity is completely destroyed by uniting a husband and wife, which I think is fairly ridiculous. Arranged marriages are no longer common in the western world, women can keep their maiden name after marrying, and continue to have many individual rights while in the marriage. Divorce is also usually fairly easy to obtain, so no woman has to be stuck in a marriage if she wants to get out. A woman still retains her individuality while being in a marriage, she doesn't lose who her identity the way the author claims. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 1

There are so many things I found inadequate about this article I don't even know where to begin. For one thing, I really didn’t like that the author refused to mention what happens when women eat meat. You can’t just assume that women don't eat meat, because that would be absurd. There are many women who eat meat, like me. I occasionally enjoy cow, pig, chicken, and even fish, though not very often. I also consider myself to be a feminist. So where does that leave me? Should feminism prohibit me from eating something I enjoy? What does meat-eating say about me, and about all of the other women who are meat-eaters as well? Does it mean we are trying to assert our dominance over other women by making ourselves more “masculine”? I don't think so. The author undoubtedly should have addressed the "issue" of women meat-eaters in this article. Another thing that really bothered me was that the author could only try to find the link between meat eating and male dominance in the Western world. There are many cultures all over the world that are big on hunting and eating meat which are incredibly egalitarian, and I feel that that should have been mentioned. What about the article bothered you the most?