The logic between the two sentences

In the book review, please see http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...both-sides-now, in the second to the last paragraph:

"The point is that happiness is always threatened by abstractions, of whatever time or political tendency. In mid-century London, for a woman like Anna, Marx and Freud and self-absorbed boyfriends happened to be the forms that oppression took. Today, there are different invitations to self-destruction. Feminism, for instance."

What is the relation between the sentences before "Today" and after "Today"? Does it mean that:

Anna had self-destructed in the 1960s because of the oppression exerted by Marx, Freud and self-absorbed boyfriends. However today, we still have many reasons which lead to self-destruction and feminism is one of the causes.

Is my understanding correct? Thank you very much.

Not a Teacher


"The Golden Notebook” is the story of a woman, Anna Wulf, trying to break out of a prison of abstractions. Some of these abstractions are Marxian, some are Freudian, some are just the superstitions acquired by living in a society in which women's pain and pleasure count for less. The point (if one can speak this way about a novel) is not that Marxism, Freudianism, and sexism are bad—and We Shall Overcome. The point is that happiness is always threatened by abstractions, of whatever time or political tendency. In mid-century London, for a woman like Anna, Marx and Freud and self-absorbed boyfriends happened to be the forms that oppression took. Today, there are different invitations to self-destruction. Feminism, for instance."

I think it speaks volumes. Some things may have bad influence upon you though, at heart, they musn´t be necessarily bad; it is up to tou how you receive them or respond to them; if you let them to destroy your happiness. And no matter time or government, or whether it is feminism, utopian socialism or sexism.

You must give the source if you're going to copy and paste like that, Johnyxxx! Firstly, someone spent a long time writing it and deserves credit, and secondly, anyone reading your post needs to know where you got it from so they can read the rest if they want to.
You've copied it from:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/02/18/both-sides-now

Raymott said:

You must give the source if you're going to copy and paste like that, Johnyxxx! Firstly, someone spent a long time writing it and deserves credit, and secondly, anyone reading your post needs to know where you got it from so they can read the rest if they want to.
You've copied it from:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/02/18/both-sides-now

Click to expand...

I did not give the source of the paragraph I copied because I thought it was clear it came from the page yuhilda posted in his/her original post I was responding to. But ok, I will take your advice into my heart and next time I will give what is needed.

OK, fair enough. I overlooked that. I still would have added something like "Your source also says ..."