rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Jung on Women
#1

Jung on Women

I have another thread about Jung saved in my drafts, but I thought -- since this forum ultimately has its roots in the pursuit and psychology of the opposite sex -- that this would be a better introduction to the man as an important red pill thinker.

These passages are from Jung's essay "Woman in Europe", written in 1927 and republished in the Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition.

So, while a lot of this may not be new to the men of this forum, it far precedes many similar writers.

Quote:Quote:

Moreover, what can a man say about woman, his own opposite? I mean of course something sensible, that is outside the sexual programme, free of resentment, illusion, and theory. Where is the man to be found capable of such superiority? Woman always stands just where the man's shadow falls, so that he is only too liable to confuse the two. Then, when he tries to repair this misunderstanding, he overvalues her and believes her the most desirable thing in the world.

Jung alludes to two of his important psychological concepts here, which are shadow projection and anima projection.

I won't go into that much in this post, but as summarized in this passage, man has the tendency to project either the darkest or most idealized parts of his unconscious onto women (and other people), so he's either totally disgusted by them or pedastalizes them.

We can of course see that dynamic playing out in modern world in the split between the "MGTOW" types of men and the "white knights". There are very few men who manage to see women objectively, as neither angels nor demons.

Quote:Quote:

In numerous ways woman is indissolubly bound up with man's world and is therefore just as exposed as he is to all the shocks of his world. The war, for instance, has affected woman just as profoundly as it has man, and she has to adapt to its consequences as he must.

But since as a rule her place is on man's intimate side, the side of him that merely feels and has no eyes and does not want to see, woman appears as an impenetrable mask behind which everything possible and impossible can be conjectured—and actually seen!—without his getting anywhere near the mark. The elementary fact that a person always thinks another's psychology is identical with his own effectively prevents a correct understanding of feminine psychology. This is abetted by woman's own unconsciousness and passivity, useful though these may be from the biological point of view: she allows herself to be convinced by the man's projected feelings. Of course this is a general human characteristic, but in woman it is given a particularly dangerous twist, because in this respect she is not na'ive and it is only too often her intention to let herself be convinced by them.

By maintaining a passive attitude with an ulterior purpose, she helps the man to realize his ends and in that way holds him. At the same time she is caught in her own toils, for whoever digs a pit for others falls into it himself.

Jung highlights another weakness in man's perception of women, which is his tendency to believe her psychology is the same as his own.

Esthar Vilar would write insightfully about this nearly 50 years later, in her book The Manipulated Man, particularly the chapter "what is woman?"

"One of man's worst mistakes, and one that he makes over and over again, is to assume that woman is his equal, that is, a human being of equal mental and emotional capacity. A man may observe his wife, listen to her, judge her feelings by her reactions, but in all this he is judging her only by outward symptoms, for he is using his own scale of values.

He knowns what he would say, think and do if he were in her shoes. When he looks at her depressing way of doing things, he assumes there must be something that prevents her from doing what he himself would have done in her position."

In short, many of the ills of modern feminism and society can be traced back to men's belief that women want the same things they do, e.g., personal freedom, intellectual achievement.

Another difficulty is man's less-conscious feelings and emotional side, whereas women use feelings and emotions as the conscious driver of their actions and decisions.

To be clear, when Jung talks about the "feminine" side of man, this has more to do with broadly feminine energies, like feelings, comfort, nurturing, etc. These energies are unconscious in men, which is why Jung states women coincide with the part of him that has "no eyes and does not want to see". He'll expand on the difference between men and women's emotions later in the essay.

Quote:Quote:

When we observe the way in which women, since the second half of the nineteenth century, have begun to take up masculine professions, to become active in politics, to sit on committees, etc., we can see that woman is in the process of breaking with the purely feminine sexual pattern of unconsciousness and passivity, and has made a concession to masculine psychology by establishing herself as a visible member of society.

[N]o one can get round the fact that by taking up a masculine profession, studying and working like a man, woman is doing something not wholly in accord with, if not directly injurious to, her feminine nature.

When I speak of injury, I do not mean merely physiological injury but above all psychic injury. It is a woman's outstanding characteristic that she can do anything for the love of a man. But those women who can achieve something important for the love of a thing are most exceptional, because this does not really agree with their nature. Love for a thing is a man's prerogative. But since masculine and feminine elements are united in our human nature, a man can live in the feminine part of himself, and a woman in her masculine part. None the less the feminine element in man is only something in the background, as is the masculine element in woman. If one lives out the opposite sex in oneself one is living in one's own background, and one's real individuality suffers. A man should live as a man and a woman as a woman.

As we all know, women's entering into the workplace (and other previously male-oriented endeavors) has brought out the masculine side of their nature, substituting a love of things for their typical love of a man, which is damaging to her overall psychology as a woman.

Quote:Quote:

The contrasexual element has a mysterious charm tinged with fear, perhaps even with disgust. For this reason its charm is particularly attractive and fascinating, even when it comes to us not directly from outside, in the guise of a woman, but from within, as a psychic influence— for instance in the form of a temptation to abandon oneself to a mood or an affect. This example is not characteristic of women, for a woman's moods and emotions do not come to her directly from the unconscious but are peculiar to her feminine nature. They are therefore never naive, but are mixed with an unacknowledged purpose. What comes to a woman from the unconscious is a sort of opinion, which spoils her mood only secondarily. These opinions lay claim to being absolute truths, and they prove to be the more fixed and incorrigible the less they are subjected to conscious criticism. Like the moods and feelings of a man, they are somewhat hazy and often totally unconscious, and are seldom recognized for what they are. They are in fact collective, having the character of the opposite sex, as though a man—the father, for example—had thought of them.

Men's feelings come from the unconscious, which is why they have less conscious understanding and connection with emotions than women do; on the other hand, women's "logic" comes from her unconscious, which is why they're less comfortable or capable of dealing with complex ideas and facts.

Or, as Roissy would say, "Women are probably capable of some rudimentary logical thinking in a pinch, but it isn’t their default mental algorithm, and they won’t like having to be logical when they could defer to their insanely precocious feeeeelings instead."

On the other hand, most men have trouble deciphering the feeling-based language of women, since they try to interpret it logically.

Quote:Quote:

Thus it can happen—indeed it is almost the rule—that the mind of a woman who takes up a masculine profession is influenced by her unconscious masculinity in a way not noticeable to herself but quite obvious to everybody in her environment. She develops a kind of rigid intellectuality based on so-called principles, and backs them up with a whole host of arguments which always just miss the mark in the most irritating way, and always inject a little something into the problem that is not really there. Unconscious assumptions or opinions are the worst enemy of woman; they can even grow into a positively demonic passion that exasperates and disgusts men, and does the woman herself the greatest injury by gradually smothering the charm and meaning of her femininity and driving it into the background. Such a development naturally ends in profound psychological disunion, in short, in a neurosis.

This particular passage is pure gold.

How many women do we see today arguing so-called principles in a way that just miss the mark in the most irritating way, and are thus exasperating and disgusting to men?

Quote:Quote:

Naturally, things need not go to this length, but long before this point is reached the mental masculinization of the woman has unwelcome results. She may perhaps be a good comrade to a man without having any access to his feelings. The reason is that her animus (that is, her masculine rationalism, assuredly not true reasonableness!) has stopped up the approaches to her own feeling. She may even become frigid, as a defence against the masculine type of sexuality that corresponds to her masculine type of mind. Or, if the defence-reaction is not successful, she develops, instead of the receptive sexuality of woman, an aggressive, urgent form of sexuality that is more characteristic of a man. This reaction is likewise a purposeful phenomenon, intended to throw a bridge across by main force to the slowly vanishing man.

Women who've become too reliant on the masculine parts of their unconscious either:

- Lose the ability to access the feelings of men (women who can't keep a man)
- Reject masculinity in the opposite sex (harpies and cat ladies)
- Become sexually aggressive and promiscuous (whores)
- Become lesbians (particularly of the butch variety)

Quote:Quote:

Traditionally, man is regarded as the marriage breaker. This legend comes from times long past, when men still had leisure to pursue all sorts of pastimes. But today … [m]ore than ever man loves his comfort, for ours is an age of neurasthenia, impotence, and easy chairs. There is no energy left for window-climbing and duels. If anything is to happen in the way of adultery it must not be too difficult. In no respect must it cost too much, hence the adventure can only be of a transitory kind. The man of today is thoroughly scared of jeopardizing marriage as an institution. He is a firm believer in doing things on the quiet, and therefore supports prostitution.

In this respect marriage should be safer now than it ever was. But in reality it is beginning to be discussed.

In America about a quarter of the marriages end in divorce. And the remarkable thing is that this time the scapegoat is not the man but the woman. She is the one who doubts and feels uncertain. It is not surprising that this is so, for in post-war Europe there is such an alarming surplus of unmarried women that it would be inconceivable if there were no reaction from that quarter. Such a piling up of misery has inescapable consequences.

At the beginning of our era, three-fifths of the population of Italy consisted of slaves—human chattels without rights. Every Roman was surrounded by slaves. The slave and his psychology flooded ancient Italy, and every Roman became inwardly a slave. Living constantly in the atmosphere of slaves, he became infected with their psychology.

Something similar is happening to women in present-day Europe. Too much that is inadmissible, that has not been lived, is accumulating in the unconscious, and this is bound to have an effect. Secretaries, typists, shop-girls, all are agents of this process, and through a million subterranean channels creeps the influence that is undermining marriage. For the desire of all these women is not to have sexual adventures—only the stupid could believe that—but to get married. The possessors of that bliss must be ousted, not as a rule by naked force, but by that silent, obstinate desire which, as we know, has magical effects, like the fixed stare of a snake. This was ever the way of women.
What is the attitude of the married woman to all this? She clings to the old idea that man is the scapegoat, that he switches from one love-affair to another as he pleases, and so on. On the strength of these outworn conceptions she can wrap herself still more deeply in her jealousies. But all this is only on the surface.

The result is that the married woman begins to have doubts about marriage. The unmarried believe in it because they want it. Equally, the man believes in marriage because of his love of comfort and a sentimental belief in institutions, which for him always tend to become objects of feeling.

Man has become comfortable in life and marriage, contrary to his nature, while the unmarried "secretaries, typists, shop girls" of the world infect married women with their bitter and desperate mindset.

As Jung rightly points out, women also pick up on their husband's lack of energy or courage to chase other women, for "window-climbing and duels", which fuels a lack of respect of his masculinity.

Quote:Quote:

Finally, contraception is a fact of enormous importance to women in general, because it does away with the constant fear of pregnancy and the care of an ever-increasing number of children. This deliverance from bondage to nature brings a release of psychic energies that inevitably seek an outlet. Whenever a sum of energy finds no congenial goal it causes a disturbance of the psychic equilibrium. Lacking a conscious goal, it reinforces the unconscious and gives rise to uncertainty and doubt.

Women who don't rear children will seek to displace that energy elsewhere. That includes the energy she actually expends rearing the child, but also the energy she would otherwise seek in the psychic relationship with her children, as Jung points out in the next passage.

Quote:Quote:

Woman's psychology is founded on the principle of Eros, the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man is Logos. The concept of Eros could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that of Logos as objective interest. In the eyes of the ordinary man, love in its true sense coincides with the institution of marriage, and outside marriage there is only adultery or "platonic" friendship. For woman, marriage is not an institution at all but a human love-relationship—at least that is what she would like to believe. (Since her Eros is not naive but is mixed with other, unavowed motives—marriage as a ladder to social position, etc.—the principle cannot be applied in any absolute sense.) Marriage means to her an exclusive relationship. She can endure its exclusiveness all the more easily, without dying of ennui, inasmuch as she has children or near relatives with whom she has a no less intimate relationship than with her husband. The fact that she has no sexual relationship with these others means nothing, for the sexual relationship is of far less importance to her than the psychic relationship.
...
If her husband had anything like as many relationships with other people she would be mad with jealousy. Most men, though, are erotically blinded—they commit the unpardonable mistake of confusing Eros with sex. A man thinks he possesses a woman if he has her sexually. He never possesses her less, for to a woman the Eros relationship is the real and decisive one. For her, marriage is a relationship with sex thrown in as an accompaniment. Since sex is a formidable thing on account of its consequences, it is useful to have it in a safe place. But when it is less of a danger it also becomes less relevant, and then the question of relationship moves into the foreground.

For him, Eros is a shadowland which entangles him in his feminine unconscious, in something "psychic," while for woman Logos is a deadly boring kind of sophistry if she is not actually repelled and frightened by it.

Jung's distinction between the Logos-driven man and the Eros-driven female is a powerful one, particularly in how it changes the way the sexes see relationships and marriage.

Of particular interest is Jung's observation that women don't view things like marriage or sex as naively as men.

I also like this part: "If her husband had anything like as many relationships with other people she would be mad with jealousy", because it really highlights the differences between men and women when it comes to relationships, both sexual and otherwise.

Quote:Quote:

A man is usually satisfied with "logic" alone. Everything "psychic," "unconscious" etc., is repugnant to him; he considers it vague, nebulous, and morbid, He is interested in things, in facts, and not in the feelings and fantasies that cluster round them or have nothing to do with them. To a woman it is generally more important to know how a man feels about a thing than to know the thing itself.

But, unlike the objective discussion and verification of facts, a human relationship leads into the world of the psyche, into that intermediate realm between sense and spirit, which contains something of both and yet forfeits nothing of its own unique character.

Into this territory a man must venture if he wishes to meet woman half way. Circumstances have forced her to acquire a number of masculine traits, so that she shall not remain caught in an antiquated, purely instinctual femininity, lost and alone in the world of men. So, too, man will be forced to develop his feminine side, to open his eyes to the psyche and to Eros. It is a task he cannot avoid, unless he prefers to go trailing after woman in a hopelessly boyish fashion, worshipping from afar but always in danger of being stowed away in her pocket.

Again, to be clear, Jung is not saying that a man must literally become "feminine". Opening our eyes to the psyche and Eros is precisely what most of the men here have done to deal with the masculinized women of the West, in that we stripped away our masculine naivete about love, sex, and emotions while developing our personalities and "inner game".

You don't use Logos to game Western women (at least not externally); you use Eros. But as we all know, more feminine women tend to be more forgiving of "beta" behavior, which is essentially an undeveloped Eros, a naivete about love, sex, and women. Likewise, a masculine man neither faults nor condemns a woman's lack of Logos, he simply accepts it as it is.

Quote:Quote:

What the woman, in her new-found self-assurance, wants to do is not at all pleasing to the man, while the feelings he has discovered in himself are far from agreeable to the woman. What both have discovered in themselves is not a virtue or anything of intrinsic value; it is something comparatively inferior, and it might justly be condemned if it were understood as the outcome of a personal choice or mood. And that, indeed, is what usually happens. The masculinity of the woman and the femininity of the man are inferior, and it is regrettable that the full value of their personalities should be contaminated by something that is less valuable.

You really can't put it any more succinctly than this. Both soft men and hard women are inferior to the masculine man and feminine woman.

Though Jungian psychology does call for a man to develop his spiritual and unconscious sides, he was always adamant that this should never create anything even approaching androgyny. Because even a man's unconscious is predominantly masculine, and his strengths lie in the masculine elements of his nature.

In a way, you've seen this play out in the community. Men who spent much time in Eros-driven pursuits, like chasing women, have eventually returned even more strongly to the Logos of history, politics, intellectual debate, etc.
Reply
#2

Jung on Women

[Image: potd.gif]

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling
Reply
#3

Jung on Women

I have always liked Jung women myself [Image: biggrin.gif]

Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Reply
#4

Jung on Women

Superb post.
Reply
#5

Jung on Women

My interest in Jung has been peaked by the post. Well done, matey.

"Action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect." - Thucydides (from History of the Peloponnesian War)
Reply
#6

Jung on Women

Very well written post. I have always liked Jung's ideas. Much better then Freud.

It's interesting how modern liberal academics would have to label Jung a sexist for these writings. Yet they are all fleas compared to his intellectual giant.
Reply
#7

Jung on Women

Excellent Enigma, great stuff. Thanks for sharing. I think I will read some Jung, can you recommend some books? I looked into Jung when I was younger but didn't really understand it (experience lacking).
Reply
#8

Jung on Women

Quote: (09-07-2017 07:25 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Excellent Enigma, great stuff. Thanks for sharing. I think I will read some Jung, can you recommend some books? I looked into Jung when I was younger but didn't really understand it (experience lacking).

Based on Jungian Psychology:

King Warrior Magician Lover

https://www.amazon.com/King-Warrior-Magi...0062506064


I also recommend Way of the Superior Man

His way to deal with the feminine is very much in line with Jungian Psychology

https://www.amazon.com/Way-Superior-Man-...perior+man
Reply
#9

Jung on Women

Great post indeed.

Quote:Quote:

If one lives out the opposite sex in oneself one is living in one's own background, and one's real individuality suffers. A man should live as a man and a woman as a woman.

Wonderful stuff. Any interview or reading of Jung I've had has always led me to believe he was amazingly accurate in his analysis.
Reply
#10

Jung on Women

Quote: (09-07-2017 07:25 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Excellent Enigma, great stuff. Thanks for sharing. I think I will read some Jung, can you recommend some books? I looked into Jung when I was younger but didn't really understand it (experience lacking).

I actually first started getting into Jung when I became interested in his psychological types, which the Myers-Briggs is based on. There's a ton of depth to the subject that goes way beyond a simple MBTI type.

My favorite book on that subject is probably Personality Type: An Owner's Manual by Lenore Thomson.

https://www.amazon.com/Personality-Type-...lity+types

This thread draws from the Collected Works of C.G. Jung Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition, where he talks about everything from women to Communism to Nazism to religion to the unique psychology of Americans. It's a great read for anyone's who interested in political or cultural trends.

https://www.amazon.com/Collected-Works-C...g=UTF8&me=

Another book I really like is Problem of the Puer Aeternus, which is written by one of Jung's proteges, Marie-Louise Von Franz and deals with a lot of the issues that plague modern man.

https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Puer-Aete...u+aeternus

And like I said, I kind of got into Jung in a roundabout way, but I think Man and His Symbols is a pretty solid introduction into some of his core concepts.

https://www.amazon.com/Man-Symbols-Carl-...is+symbols
Reply
#11

Jung on Women

Not to get off topic but I think it is relevant to the discussion, since the idea of homosexuality has only been termed or codified in modern times: Did Jung ever treat that topic? I would find that super interesting as well.
Reply
#12

Jung on Women

So basically, men running game are like butch, feminist women excelling at their profession? That actually makes a lot of sense, since it's women that are naturally supposed to chase men and worry about relationships; men are by nature clueless in this department... While we do have to act in non masculine, perhaps ungraceful ways to get women in the West today, as long as it comes a far second from our main passion, we should be fine.

Our work should always come first -- before our to be wives, kids, parents, friends etc. -- passionate work should always be no.1 by a mile.

That's the masculine and righteous way to live.
Reply
#13

Jung on Women

Fantastic post, Enigma.

Coincidentally, I came across a journal of mine from 4 years ago, when I was reading Aspects of the Feminine of which I would like to share 2 quotes, without my own commentary.

If anything, it would do women more good to read his writings than us for the simple fact of understanding the male lens towards females.


shepherd Hermas on Rhoda, his slave master:, p6

Quote:Quote:

When I saw her beauty, I thought in my heart: "How happy I would be if I had a wife of such beauty and distinction." This was my only thought, and no other, no, not one"

The power dynamic is evident here, as we note the pedestalization of Rhoda, being his master. This resonated with me as this ties up to loving and being in love; I wrote about the 4 types of love elsewhere in this forum.

This disposition to women, the accumulation of hope and future happiness concentrated into a woman and the reactive nature of such, is quite evident around us.

We have grown out of this mostly, from our mother to our partners and so on.

Nonetheless, it's of distinction to note the power balance and how applicable that is with male-female relationships; how women are on a raised platform, societally and that this belief is ever more prevalent.

Innocent in nature but naive in practice.

Jung truly was ahead of his time (or are we only catching up now?).


Aspects of the Feminine, p33

Quote:Quote:

The eyes of science are fearless & dear; they do not flinch from gazing into moral darkness & dirty corners.

The man of today can no longer rest content with a traditional judgement;

He must know why.

This search leads to the creation of new standards of value
.

Again, this alludes to the current state of affairs between women and men.

Traditional virtues are eroding and traditional judgement has lost its reliability.

The new standards of value are indeed being created but this could very well be the ongoing battle between the sexes; what men judge through their own wiring and how women 'want' to be judged, to their benefit.

Men trying to adapt to the women of the 21st century and women trying to change men to adapt to their new desired persona.
Reply
#14

Jung on Women

^ The problem is that biology takes precedence over psychology in this regard, no matter how women want men to react or interact at this point, given the circumstances, it is fruitless if it does not induce the boner/pass the boner test

I had to say it, mostly because it's true, but also because it's funny

[Image: wink.gif]
Reply
#15

Jung on Women

Quote: (09-12-2017 09:27 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Not to get off topic but I think it is relevant to the discussion, since the idea of homosexuality has only been termed or codified in modern times: Did Jung ever treat that topic? I would find that super interesting as well.

As far as I know, Jung considered homosexuality to be a form of mental illness/neuroticism. Though I've never read his own thoughts on the matter, Von Franz touches on it in the Puer Aeternus book I mentioned above, where she links it to a mother complex, where the man's energy is so tied up in his relationship with the mother that he can't view other women sexually.

But they also believed it could be caused by the relationship with the father, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote: (10-19-2017 10:05 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

^ The problem is that biology takes precedence over psychology in this regard, no matter how women want men to react or interact at this point, given the circumstances, it is fruitless if it does not induce the boner/pass the boner test

I had to say it, mostly because it's true, but also because it's funny

[Image: wink.gif]

Just to be clear, Jung was talking about this stuff 50 to 100 years ago, long before gender roles became nearly as distorted as they are today. Though I don't think you were implying otherwise.
Reply
#16

Jung on Women

Quote: (10-21-2017 07:23 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Quote: (09-12-2017 09:27 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Not to get off topic but I think it is relevant to the discussion, since the idea of homosexuality has only been termed or codified in modern times: Did Jung ever treat that topic? I would find that super interesting as well.

As far as I know, Jung considered homosexuality to be a form of mental illness/neuroticism. Though I've never read his own thoughts on the matter, Von Franz touches on it in the Puer Aeternus book I mentioned above, where she links it to a mother complex, where the man's energy is so tied up in his relationship with the mother that he can't view other women sexually.

But they also believed it could be caused by the relationship with the father, if I'm not mistaken.

Couple of nuggets I found:

I asked myself whether the growing masculinization of the white woman is not connected with the loss of her natural wholeness (shamba, children, livestock, house of her own, hearth fire); whether it is not a compensation for her impoverishment; and whether the feminizing of the white man is not a further consequence. The more rational the polity, the more blurred is the difference between the sexes. The role homosexuality plays in modern society is enormous. It is partly the consequence of the mother-complex, partly a purposive phenomenon (prevention of reproduction).
-- Memories, Dreams, Reflections

The worst results flow from parents who have kept themselves artificially unconscious. Take the case of a mother who deliberately keeps herself unconscious so as not to disturb the pretence [sic] of a "satisfactory" marriage. Unconsciously she will bind her son to her, more or less as a substitute for a husband. The son, if not forced directly into homosexuality, is compelled to modify his choice in a way that is contrary to his true nature.
-- Marriage as a psychological relationship: anima and animus

Jung wrote that homosexuality in men mostly occurs when there is identity with the Anima or a Mother complex. The latter were viewed as maladaptive, though not infrequently also having some positive qualities. Quoting from his Collected Works, volume IX:

Since a "mother-complex" is a concept borrowed from psychopathology, it is always associated with the idea of injury and illness. But if we take the concept out of its narrow psychopathological setting and give it a wider connotation, we can see that it has positive effects as well.

Thus a man with a mother complex may have a finely differentiated Eros instead of, or in addition to, homosexuality. (Something of this sort is suggested by Plato in his Symposium.) This gives him a great capacity for friendship, which often creates ties of astonishing tenderness between men and may even rescue friendship between the sexes from the limbo of the impossible. He may have good taste and an aesthetic sense which are fostered by the presence of a feminine streak. Then he may be supremely gifted as a teacher because of his almost feminine insight and tact. He is likely to have a feeling for history, and to be conservative in the best sense and cherish the values of the past. Often he is endowed with a wealth of religious feelings, which help to bring the ecclesia spiritualis into reality; and a spiritual receptivity which makes him responsive to revelation.


I don't know how he would've regarded the buttfucker parades of the 1980s onward, albeit most of the homosexuals in those parades are acting out.

Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Reply
#17

Jung on Women

Most laypeople I have considered fairly sharp believe that it has more to do with faulty or lacking father-son relationships. I think there are probabilities all along the spectrum of disposition and constitution (genes) predisposing to femininity or "fruitiness" which then maybe the Dad picks up on and has a hard time relating to --- and possibly also relating to the connection with the mother as a result, as Jung describes above. With others it's just a cold father who possibly is acting out what happened to him, a bad generational father figure he hands down. Still with others, it could be the chicken-egg of mental illness. All in all I feel it's part developmental (possibly the pathogen talked about by Cochran which implies some immune predisposition) and then nurture as the child ages.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)