Today the American woman is still confused. She wants independence, she wants to be free to do everything… to have all the opportunities which men have, and, at the same time she wants to be mastered by man and to be possessed in the archaic way of Europe. -Carl Gustav Jung
Although I discuss the highlights below, I encourage readers to check out the original interview, published in 1912 in the New York Times, available here. A transcribed version is available here.
Carl Jung’s Red Pill Wisdom
Carl Jung devised a theory of the human mind with excellent predictive and explanatory powers—exactly what you would wish for in a scientific model.
Unfortunately, the implications of this model were too unsettling for popular dissemination; it was therefore suppressed, obfuscated, and piled with lies and nonsense by the academic guardians of the West who promoted simpler and less controversial ideas. The most dangerous truths, those about human nature itself, were effectively removed from American intellectual discourse.
Let’s explore some of these truths, straight from the famous psychoanalyst himself.
Since at least 1912, men in America have been neglecting their family life:
There is only so much vital energy in any human being. We call that in our work the Libido. And I would say that the Libido of the American man is focused almost entirely upon his business, so that as a husband he is glad to have no responsibilities. He gives the complete direction of his family life over to his wife. This is what you call giving independence to the American woman. It is what I call the laziness of the American man. That is why he is so kind and polite in his home, and why he can fight so hard in his business.
It was not some evil conspiracy that forced the abdication of paternal rights and responsibilities to the state but a logical development of the trends that made America successful. This unnatural division of labor is now disintegrating because men are opting out of creating households entirely.
So while the American man’s conscious mind was occupied with manifest destiny and dominating the marketplace, what governed his relationship with women?
A Crippling Mother-Complex
When men are still in the barbaric stage they make women their slaves. If, while they are still barbaric by nature, some influence makes them see that they dare not treat women as slaves, then what do they do? They do not know yet how to love something which is equal to themselves. They do not know what real independence is, so they must kneel down before this slave and change her into the one thing they instinctively (even when they are barbarians) respect: they change the slave idea into the mother idea. And then they marry the mother-woman. And they respect her very much.
We in the community point out this problem constantly: a generation of damaged men, raised by women, seeking a “return to the womb.” The contemptuous and disrespectful attitude of modern women that we enjoy criticizing is nothing more than the accumulated frustration with puerile men.
I noticed that whenever the American husband spoke to his wife there was always a little melancholy note in his voice, as though he were not quite free; as though he were a boy talking to an older woman. He was always very polite and very kind, and paid her every respect. Yo could see that in her eyes he was not at all dangerous, and that she was not afraid of being mastered by him. But when any one told him that there was betting going on he would leave her, and his face became eager and full of desire, and his eyes would get very bright and his voice would get strong, and hard, and brutal.
We talk about how desperate we are for feminine women; Carl Jung wisely notes that American women are just as desperate for masculine men. It is not enough to conquer your male rivals—you must conquer your woman if you want a good relationship. Take it from the founder of depth-psychology: women enjoy being possessed. This does not imply violence, but simply an aggressive psychological attitude, an attitude which cannot be endorsed in public but which women find inexplicably arousing:
I find that the men and women are giving their vital energy to everything except to the relation between themselves. In that relation all is confusion. The women are the mothers of their husbands as well as of their children, yet at the same time there is in them the old, old primitive desire to be possessed, to yield, to surrender. And there is nothing in the man for her to surrender to except his kindness, his courtesy, his generosity, his chivalry.
This is the presentation of a white knight or mangina, a condition in Jungian psychology called “anima possession,” which can arise whenever a man has to deal with the opposite sex. The woman constellates within the man’s psyche all the archaic, suppressed, and stereotypical “female” tendencies. These are not the positive values associated with femininity, but their ugly shadow: emotionality, whininess, bitchiness, capriciousness, destructive irrationality.
It is exactly this phenomenon which turns a suave seducer into a pathetic beta bitch-boy after he has caught a woman he is capable of loving—one who embodies his feminine ideal. Hence the warnings in the community about “oneitis,” maintaing frame, and the constant need to view and relate to your woman as to a real human being, not a fantasy figure.
The Strong Independent Woman
It may be that you are going to produce a race which are human beings first, and men and women secondarily. It may be that you are going to create the real independent woman who knows she is independent, who feels the responsibility of her independence… Today the American woman is still confused. She wants independence, she wants to be free to do everything… and, at the same time she wants to be mastered by man and to be possessed in the archaic way of Europe.
She wants to be a “strong independent woman” and still get penetrated by a real, virile man. She is utterly ignorant of her own psyche, and THIS is the tragedy of feminism and sexual relations in America. No matter how bad things become abroad, even in France, the birthplace of feminism, gender and sexual roles are still understood and appreciated on a basic level. Men have not abdicated their sexual role as men.
It is up to men to retake responsibility for the long-neglected culture in America. Let’s face it, “street harassment” campaigns are nothing more than white-collar women desperate for a strong, seductive man to approach them when they least expect it and sweep them off their feet:
There is no country in the world where women have to work so hard to attract men’s attention. There is in your Metropolitan Museum a bas-relief which shows the girls of Crete in one of their religious dances about their god in the form of a bull. These girls of 200 B.C. wear their hair in chignons; they have puffed sleeves; their corseted waists are very slender; they are dressed to show every line of their figures just as women are dressing today.
Then and 1912
At that time the reasons which made it necessary to attract men to themselves in this way had to do with the morals of their country. The women were desperate just as they are today, without knowing it. In Athens four or five hundred years before Christ there was even an epidemic of suicide among young girls, which was only brought to an end by the decision of the Areopagus that the next girl who did away with herself would be exhibited nude upon the streets of Athens. There were no more suicides. The judges of Athens understood sex psychology.
Consider the mass embrace of vampiric symbolism and the projection of rape fantasies by frustrated young women in America today. Projection, the transfer of psychological contents onto the external world, is a common feature in romantic relationships.
A man projects his unconscious archetypal feminine features (his “Anima”) onto a woman and a woman projects her idealized masculine elements (her “Animus”) onto a man—this accounts for about 80% of the crap we complain about on the internet.
You think your young girls marry European husbands because they are ambitious for titles. I say it is because, after all, they are not different from the European girls; they like the way European men make love, and they like to feel we are a little dangerous. They are not happy with their American husbands because they are not afraid of them. It is natural, even though it is archaic, for women to want to be afraid when they love. If they don’t want to be afraid then perhaps they are becoming truly independent, and you may be producing the real ‘new woman.’ But up to this time your American man isn’t ready for real independence in woman. He only wants to be the obedient son of his mother-wife. There is a great obligation laid upon the American people—that it shall face itself—that shall admit its moment of tragedy in the present—admit that it has a great future only if it has courage to face itself.
Prophetic, isn’t it?
Read More: 10 Reasons Why Foreign Women Are Better Than American Women
There is no such thing as a strong independent woman. It is a myth and the reality is that a women will never be independent. She needs a man.
-They need men to create and build companies so that they can get a paycheque.
-They need to marry a man so that she can divorce him and extort him for child support, when in reality, she has no proper management of her money.
-They need government (mostly comprised of men) to be able to play around with the family courts and implement feminism.
Women are not independent. They never have been and never will be. It is not in their biological blood to be able to carry out the same functions and duties as a man because it is not part of their gender. Which is why they fail miserably when it comes to playing dad and mom, and not to mention, look ridiculous as well.
Once again you speak the truth lol
Thank you.
Be his guest
You’re not really him are you?
He’s definitely a dick.
There’s no actual strong and independent women but many strive to be and call themselves such while parading on the backs of men, many of them whitenights. These women are more deluded than any other: you must not forget this.
Strong “independent” women are an abomination.
“I don´t need a man….except of my daddy for money and my butch lesbian girlfriend who´s acting and looking like a man.”
97$/hour:
through this find out more`
►►► <https://CareersRecords11.com/get/positions…
►►►`{{ for more see proof link—->>
And all the men in the government, who cut me my paycheck; and all the taxpaying men who fund those checks; and all the policemen who keep me safe; and all the firemen who will drag my fat ass out of my burning home after I drunkenly pass out w/ a lit cigarette; and all the construction workers who built and maintain my home/office/bars; and all the directors who make the trash I watch; and all the shitslingers who process my girl-dumps at a waste-management plant; and all the engineers who design the technology I use to make my life feel less empty; and all the white-knights who make me feel wanted; and all the alphas who dump jizz intro my uterus; and all the other men who maintain society so women can pretend to contribute
God created man to submit to Him and He created women to submit to men. The true rebellion of this divine hierarchy is the government and its ruthless implication of propaganda through the educational system, hollywood and mass/social media.
I see the feminine imperative in my college(the teachings of ‘professors’), in the news(if anyone thinks any prominent conglomerate news company give us objective presentations and commentaries of events than they are retarded), and the pieces of shit hollywood keeps spitting out( I refuse to call them films as this would insult some of the masterpieces I have seen hollywood produce e.g. Godfather, Full Metal Jacket, Citizen Kane) Exception in 2014:Gone Girl
In fact one could argue that the endorsement of cultural Marxism is not only a rebellion of God, but a rebellion of reality itself(hence it fails miserably in each case of its application e,g. Tanzania, Angola). Equality has never existed in nature. It is the appreciation and the critique of our differences that allows us to prosper in families, friendships, relationships and societies.
I’m sorry you have to endure the presence of slutty, western cunts at your school and in your classes. In my opinion, that’s the nucleus of the problem. All these dumb cunts’ fictitious perceptions of “strength and independence” hail from having a batshit women’s study degree, or from having sucked off enough professors to barely squeak out a degree in a more reasonable field. It’s been said many times here – the smartest women are without question, substantially and verifiably intellectually inferior to even the lowest IQ’d males that society offers up, yet we still humor their delusions and childish aspirations of pretending to be men, by allowing them to squat in OUR fucking institutions of higher learning and our graduate schools – snail trailing and drooling their ways through once rigorous degreed programs.
This is why we need to make their college and professional experiences a living hell and so fucking hostile they have no idea what the fuck to do with themselves but crumble into the sniveling, tear-streaked social piles of shit they truly are. Humiliate the sluts and continuously call out the drivel that the mouthy ones try and pass off as “ideas” and “contributions.” Men aren’t intimidated by the Socratic method – we fucking rise to the challenge and opportunity to quantify our beliefs, talents and strategies before our peers and before God. Women can’t even utter out grammatically correct sentences without some how interjecting some bullshit about how everything makes them feel. How these pitiful creatures aren’t under heel any longer is mind boggling and it would take all of about an eyeblink to put them back down in their domestic holes where they can no longer hurt themselves and those around them.
We need the loudest voices within redpill to take up the political mantle and it would instantly be game over for these dumb sluts. Even libtard men feel the same way we do. Lets get this show on the road gentlemen.
It’s going to take a catastrophe for women to realize all their talk of ‘strong and independent wimminz’ is just talk; right now, they are too convinced that what few achievements they’ve managed in the last 60 years are organic. Nothing less than societal chaos will show them what strength and independence really are
I think it’s about time they get their due, then. One great start would be STOP FUCKING HIRING THEM. Another would be for fathers to start punishing ambition in female children the instant it rears its rebellious, slutty head. This means putting a merciless boot heel on their daughters’ college (aka cock carousel) aspirations. If I see one more bitch opening her mouth in a college classroom or one more cunt playing doctor, lawyer, engineer – I’m going to fucking throw up. Enough of this shit already.
Best get some sawdust then, you’re gonna be doing a lot of puking. The sad thing is, I WANT women to be able to participate in society (provided they accept their biological role, however un-PC biology may be), but they have proven time and again that their contributions are nowhere near worth the trouble. Indeed, the only contributions I can see are bastard children, reality TV, non-stop advertising, sexual harrassment, and rape hoaxes. Where are the female inventors and geniuses we were promised? Riding unicorns in Narnia, no doubt
There are always exceptions to a rule. Marie Curie is an exception, for example. There are some outstanding women out there besides mothers that know how to raise their children right. Sadly, feminism is ruining women.
Full Metal Jacket. What a fucking movie. I have that shit on DVD (and I never buy DVDs).
Except women don’t ‘need’ to earn their own paycheque, to divorce their husbands, family courts or feminism.
Women today just ‘want’ those things, because of how fucked up society is in regards to the sexes. Women by nature need to be dependent on men, due to their being the ones who are pregnant for 9 months, breastfeeding, and nurturing helpless infants for years. Women care for the young, men protect them, and that’s how humans have had to operate since forever if they wanted the species to survive. Any ‘independent’ women back then would never have been capable of surviving pregnancy and raising a child on their own, so their genes would’ve died out. These facts of our inherent nature and therefore what men and women naturally need, shouldn’t take a psychologist to point out to anyone.
Women are animals, the nature of their reproductive system prevents them from being anything more. They are thus ruled by lower instincts, animal passions, fear, insecurity, breeding urges, emotional flurries, herd instincts and all the general behavior you find in wild animals….. they can be domesticated to some degree, but these days, the zoo keepers opened the park gates, so it’s a total jungle out there….
beautiful.
Interesting analogy, and it makes me think that while I love my dog, more than I love most people, that doesn’t mean I give him ‘freedom’. It’s because I love him that I keep him contained in my house and train him properly, that way he’s safe and we’re both happy. I would never let him do whatever he wanted, because his natural instincts would cause him harm. What he thought would make him happy, wouldn’t. He’d get run over, he’d chase other people’s cats, he’d become a menace and all that would achieve is us both being unhappy. But that’s similar to what feminism has done.
I’m sure this comparison will cause huge offence to any women reading it because ‘How dare I say women are dogs!!!’, but like I said, I love my dogs. They’re superior to me in many ways, with their sense of smell, hearing and loyalty. I just don’t pretend they’re my exact equal, and expect that my dog can do everything I can.
In america, too many women ARE dogs
Funny, I have never read Jung but I have always had this opinion of women. Possibly it derives from my father who has always had a dim, distrustful view of women (thanks to mistreatment by female relatives as a boy). I have always believed that women should be dominated and put
roughly in their place. And I have never had a woman leave me.
Women will leave a weak man for a strong man. I understand this fear men have of women and this makes them weak. Nowadays, men have good reason to fear women because of the damage that can be wrought by divorce. This is a huge problem.
Interesting the view expressed of American women. A big problem I have is the horrible way that American women
dress – like teenage boys. Walking along a street in London I can easily pick out the American women. While women of every culture and ethnicity are dressed to the nines, the American women look scruffy and unladylike.
I actually took out an American woman recently. I
showed up and she didn’t even have her hair done. I was stunned by such slovenliness. She said “you look disappointed”. I said “I’m taking you to meet my friends!” She complained that she didn’t have her “hair stuff”. I dragged her to the store to get the appropriate “stuff” and
clean her shit up.
Nothing more needed to be said. Fundamental in any relationship is that you do not embarrass your partner. Women do not understand that this works both ways.
REPOSTREPOST REPOST REPOST REPOST REPOST REPOST
“Nowadays, men have good reason to fear women because of the damage that can be wrought by divorce.”
The above is essentially a fear of government as opposed to an actual fear of women. It is a case of males protecting females regardless of the latter’s behavior.
Interesting point of view but I think that if men feared government as much as they should women would not have been handed such power.
Indeed. Too many individuals superstitiously believe that government can be utilized as a tool for benevolent purposes. However, in practice this always backfires in the long term. They do not fear this institution as they should, thus the massive growth in any given number of special interest groups that parasitically feed at the taxpayer trough.
Many of the Founders, for example, opposed implementing an income tax due to the inevitable corruption and tyranny (whether hard or soft) it would bring. This book provides an interesting insight on the subject. It is short, yet informative.
Well said. A woman not needing a man? That’s like saying “i am a strong and independent helicopter, i don’t need propellers”
Men and women are not independent. They need each other for different things.
Unless your name is Mary and you can convince Joseph that God made you pregnant….
Only Jesus had a ‘virgin’ mom and her name is Mary. Joseph is the step dad.
Jung could see the essential problem in 1912. Well, that lets the Jews off the hook.
It’s not the Jews, it’s the Nazis lolozlol
The notion of female independence is oxymoronic. It’s amusing that females prattle on about the their need for freedom, when they have no freedom from nature in the first place. Aristotle’s contention that some people are born slaves is undeniably true in regard to women. The difference between men and women is that men, while obviously born of nature, nevertheless have the capacity to transcend nature, to rise above it through the powers of will and intellect. This power is called genius, something women completely lack, as world history shows.
Well that settles it then. It’s time to repossess your woman, and not let you be possessed by her. And let the world know it, dammit!
Unfortunately, I’ve never known my house or car to sue me for alimony and get granted half my shit.
I don’t know if you’re kidding with this pic, but it needs to be said that “The Simpsons” portrayal of men and boys via Homer and Bart is one of the most damaging things to males in our society. These characters became templates and influenced countless future TV characters as well as advertisements and became the de facto way men are portrayed in the media. Don’t like the “Doofus Dads” or the way boys are all idiots on those Disney kid shows? Blame “The Simpsons.” This show’s name should be dirt in the manosphere.
I wholeheartedly agree with you
Well said. In fact, I don’t know a single father who needs his juvenile daughter to give him advice.
I think it’s more commentary on the sad state of America than a blueprint…
Prophetic? Indeed.
I really like how balanced this article is.
Both modern-men AND modern-women are frustrated and unable to behave how they really want… Ultimately unable to really get off…
Everyone is repressed and trying to numb their frustrations with ultimately pointless outlets and rhetoric… All the while prolonging their own suffering.
Everyone needs to adopt better attitudes and behaviours if they want to feel like their organism is properly activated. To go with nature and not against it.
But honestly I think the problem is a little more complicated than just changing attitudes and behaviours, which itself alone is a worthy task. Too much of the legal and social system is infested with this anti-libido way of life.
Men are not meant to live pay-cheque to pay-cheque sitting at a desk… Women are not meant to admire men with no self-esteem… Men are not meant to put the pussy on a pedestal and see their woman as an infallible crucible of truth… Women only want to feel a powerful force inside of them… a crescendo… not a question…
This requires that everyone chooses to be at their best… To fully express whatever is the height of their potential and true nature. Great men need to stop acting like pussies and be great.
This cannot work in an excessively liberal culture where virility and heroism are not rightly admired and respected. If masculinity is not celebrated, women will have no true men to love. Conversely, if femininity is not celebrated, men will watch as their libidos dry up.
Both men and women need a tinge of danger or mystery to ignite their passions. We need to do away with this backwards culture of insecurity and pussy-begging.
Good comment.
Both masculinity and femininity need to be cultivated rather than obliterated in the name of political correctness and radical egalitarianism and false notions of “equality.”
The masculine and feminine are two different types of energies, two different ways of perceiving, navigating and interacting with the world and reality. The current feminist culture sees only negative things about masculinity and masculine aggression and energy, and promotes feminine virtues over masculine virtues… and makes boys and men ashamed of their inherent masculinity and sex drive. This is reprehensible and wrong.
The thing is..all you have to do is watch what women do and which type of men they sleep with and spread their legs open…. to truly see their hypocrisy and the stupidity of neutralizing masculinity. Emma Watson makes a big speech about feminism that has feminists and liberals gushing.. and then you you look at her bf and they guy she’s fucking.. and he’s a masculine, athletic jock. If Emma Watson meant what she said about her wonderful feminist views, she would be fucking Pajama Boy, not her rugby player jock boyfriend.
Here’s some good videos on the importance of recognizing gender and the differences between masculine and feminine:
Jordan Peterson on Gender Forever:
Jordan Peterson on Beyond Gender?
you cannot fully cultivate femininity, it is by it’s own design chaotic and unmanageable.
I’ve seen Dr. Peterson’s work before… He is under-rated in my opinion. He’s been telling the truth for a while now. I like how broad his thinking is, he ties together economic forces, psychological forces, social forces, etc. I haven’t’ seen Beyond Gender so thanks for posting this.
Trust me I’m fully aware of the narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy of women… I’m not suggesting to celebrate every single thing about women without question. I think we are saying the same thing in that we need to take an honest look at the situation and come up with a best solution.
We need to celebrate what is best in our nature and create healthy outlets for our more destructive drives. No one likes feeling jealousy… No one likes to feel inhibited or frustrated… We need to create ways to take these urges and build-ups of energy, and re-direct them towards things that give us more opportunity to be our best. And I hope at that point we can be good to each other, men and women alike.
Men and women’s biological differences and the resulting psychological disparities have been scientifically proven. No way around it, men and women have different innate behaviours. We have to balance these forces or we’ll always be stuck trying to stead ourselves while in the middle of a storm.
I don’t have a solution or anything… the problem is multifaceted… But I like what I read in this Jung article about identifying flaws within both men AND women. I have actually met men that put their girlfriends into this mother role… And it makes me cringe with disgust… I can see how we are socialized in that direction. The more aware we are of these kinds of anti-libido behaviours the better we can be at re-directing our energy.
The problem is that Jung makes no logical conclusion. He’s just another armchair critic who himself crashed several relationships and ended up in a terrible depression himself. On the one hand he says men enslaved women and on the other hand he says they changed them into their mothers. I can see both sides of that argument, even in my own interactions with women.
Treat the woman better and leave her in charge of things, give her agency, she takes over becoming this tedious mother figure, who lauds over her man and hates him. Put your foot down and she crumples into a frightened slave girl, lazy, ambivalent and self interested as any slave would be.
Men attempted a reasonable partnership so they could have increasing commerce, technology and comfort, leaving family to the woman, but women always need leadership, companionship and supervision.
The mathematical end game here is thus :
You take on a woman and you must give her a certain amount of things she needs, but won’t be able to take care of, so you will end up running about after her, supervising her and taking care of those things yourself, which is hard to do, time consuming and frankly demoralizing when you didn’t want those things in the first place.
They really don’t want to yield and take instructions, follow the husband’s lead, they want their free agency, but they hate it when they get it. You are fucked if you do and fucked if you don’t. They are all emotional and attached to things, so if you say we’re not buying a dog, they cause trouble, but if you buy a dog YOU have to take care of the fucker, because she always needs your supervision.
You take on a family and you cannot leave a woman to her own devices, you must constantly allocate time and money and take time away from work to supervise, provide support, companionship etc. and much of the time you will be picking up the pieces of her drama, and doing things that she needs to be happy and comfortable that you either have no clue about, or didn’t want in your life in the first place.
Jung says that men abdicated family duties to their wives (1950s style), so they could be more aggressive in business, which is a logical, intelligent strategy of partnership. There is simply not enough time for professional pursuits and arranging all the entertainments and trappings families need, which are all negative sum anyway.
The only solution would be to hire a manager to manage the family while you are away doing business. You literally can’t leave a woman on her own for a day to fetch the kids from school and get groceries, she’s already miserable and causing drama.
I suppose in the old days, that’s where the grandfather and grandmother came into the picture. They managed the family while the husband got some work done. These days they are too busy playing golf, because they too understood the tedious burden that is family life.
All that we are ultimately doing is trying to recreate the illusion we had as children of some happy stable world around us, for our own children, but the truth is that most of it was an illusion propped up by our fathers who were working themselves to the bone, juggling the female element and the financial element in their lives.
I would say that one thing is missing here and that is the impact of compulsory education (instituted late 19th Century) and child protection laws. These two developments robbed the household of productive people (necessitating that the father work more to make up the income shortfall) and destroyed the ability of the father to educate his children himself.
Inside the household itself the father no longer had any value. They also increase the value of the woman. As such it was rational to let the woman rule the roost so to speak.
These developments are important factors with respect to the feminizing influence of democracy.
well yes, basically the family is a hollowed out shell, which is only a time and money pit for the husband. he has little authority and only duties to perform.
one of the problems i’ve experienced is that a younger woman, under 50, is simply unable to run the logistics of a household, even with home help etc. it was only when her mother came to stay for a few weeks that the house fell into order…. without the extended family or some serious staff that report back to the husband, the whole thing is a mess….. women cannot operate on their own…. they get dizzy and panicy, they get lazy, confused, lonely…. even with a maid or nanny, they don’t employ them properly and put them to use, they just cannot lead….
and then they won’t listen, take instructions etc. because they want to rule the roost…. it’s a fucking dead loss.
I don’t think women can run the logistics of anything, which is fine, because their job is to focus on the weaning of the child.
Interesting you mention (I assume) the grandmother. An important part of our evolution was when the grandmother began helping the mother with the weaning of the child. This enabled the mother to have yet another child while still nursing the first. This is also part of the reason for our longevity relative to other species.
“The problem is that Jung makes no logical conclusion. He’s just another armchair critic who himself crashed several relationships and ended up in a terrible depression himself. ”
– I think this boils down to ad hominem. I’m not surprised he had a fucked up social life, he was a revolutionary thinker. Surely he was a difficult person to relate to considering his ideas were so far off the mainstream.
“They really don’t want to yield and take instructions, follow the husband’s lead, they want their free agency, but they hate it when they get it.”
– Yupp… No doubt about it… Women’s urges are completely contradictory to each other in the modern world. I would hate to be a woman nowadays. 10 years of Facebook and than you’re stuck with your own empty thoughts for the rest of your life.
Stripping the man of any authority has created a society with no structure or self-esteem. Women can get away with their own stupidity until their looks fade, and then society completely falls on its face. The current legal system is just barely holding this all together… If the MGTOW are telling us anything, it is that men eventually turn their backs on a system that doesn’t treat them with respect.
“I suppose in the old days, that’s where the grandfather and grandmother came into the picture. They managed the family while the husband got some work done.”
– Interesting point. Yeah the “nuclear” family used to be a coordinated effort for survival by a whole bunch of people rather than Mom + Dad + 1.2 children. Nowadays, especially with Facebook and infinite communication, family ties unravel to a significant extent. Combine that with our disposable hook-up culture and modern women can’t fully connect with being a mother… can barely fully connect with anything really… They see their family as a burden and would rather go Eat Pray Love.
I have seen exceptions to this rule. I do know some mothers that take their role very seriously. And I am not surprised that the majority of them do not have a cheap whoring past.
“All that we are ultimately doing is trying to recreate the illusion we had as children of some happy stable world around us, for our own children, but the truth is that most of it was an illusion propped up by our fathers who were working themselves to the bone, juggling the female element and the financial element in their lives.”
– Can the family exist in the modern world? That is a loaded question… I hope the family still has a place… Otherwise Big Brother takes on that role, and I don’t want to think of where that leads.
The Mother-Wife ruler of household thing was a Prussian element and the USA was steered into that societal structure.
Looking at the USA now and the Prussians of the past, we can see the pattern. It makes for emotionally stunted hard-up people who tend to make the best soldiers (they don’t use the word “infantry” for nothing).
It’s only through absolute dependency/submission that a stable appearance/feeling of freedom can be enjoyed. Ie, the reflection has to be perfectly aligned with its source.
Misaligned or undeserved freedom will always lead to a feeling of entrapment, which tends to create a dead loop of misery.
Repent! And turn/align yourself back to God. Well that’s what a preacher would say.
wow ….What kind of stupid women have you been in relationships with? The problem is you people believe that you represent everyone else. Maybe you are surrounded by stupid examples of women because you are a stupid man. If you weren’t a stupid man you would attract a woman who isn’t stupid. Your intellectual little brain obviously can’t wrap itself around a practical concept such as that. You reap what you sow. Men and women who keep complaining about the opposite gender have never bothered to be the best versions of themselves, they have never bothered to be intelligent, they have never bothered to set boundaries hence they have never been in good relationships and keep whining about the same.
One of the better comments i have ever read.
Jung was a tremendously insightful man. I recommend reading his original essays themselves, and not bogus New Age repackaging. Jung also had game, bedding multiple women well into old age. His last words were, “Let’s have a really good red wine tonight.”
Nothing more than the serial altruism of caucasian men at play here…
Carl Jung is my all time hero and the greatest man to have lived imo. Memories Dreams and Reflections was a formative book for me and essential reading for any intelligent open minded man. No other autobiography I’ve ever read is like it.
It’s kinda nice to see articles posted here that support exactly what I have been saying the whole time.
“There is no country in the world where women have to work so hard to
attract men’s attention. There is in your Metropolitan Museum a bas-relief which shows the girls of Crete in one of their religious dances about their god in the form of a bull. These girls of 200 B.C. wear their hair in chignons; they have puffed sleeves; their corseted waists are very slender; they are dressed to show every line of their figures just as women are dressing today.”
Those aren’t dancers. Those are acrobats doing gymnastics over a very alive, very dangerous bull. It is questionable whether they are even female. If I remember correctly, I was told those were males in college. They look like males with their shirts off to me. Notice the length of the hair, while that might be a feminine length to a culture where men have very short hair (like 1950s USA), but (depending on the culture) by classical standards that’s “short” male length hair, not unusual for males to have “long” braided hair.
Regarding the royal bull games:
“Perhaps 5,000 people would watch one of these graceful exhibitions, the most spectacular entertainment in Minoan court life. Young men and girls, trained in a precise series of motions, exhausted the bull. Apparently they worked in trios, each person trying to keep his teammates from being gored or trampled. One would approach the bull’s head, slip his arms over the horns, kick his feet with the bull’s toss and somersault onto the bull’s back, then leap off behind his tail. Life depended on perfect timing and control.
The legend of Prince Theseus of Athens, who faced a man-eating bull in the Labyrinth, suggests that foreigners were trained as victims in the bull games. But Minoan art shows bold young Cretans freely taking part”.
‘Greece and Rome: Builders of our World’ – National Geographic Society, 1977
Long hair on men was a hallmark of recurring periods of male dominance. The late 1700’s and early 1800’s saw even the most powerful men with long hair and the women with scarves, bonnets and material covering them from head to toe. The male peacock has a permanent plume as does the rooster. These periods of ‘male peacocking’ alternate with periods of hypergamy in females. The cycle is 84 earth years, and guess what that is? It is the time it takes for the planet Uranus to orbit the sun. NO KIDDING!
Uranus has a horizontal axis of rotation with respect to it’s plane of trajectory around the sun which means that it’s north and south poles directly face the Sun (and Earth) every 42 years. The polar alignment of Uranus in 1776 was also a monumental time and a patriarchal one as well when long hair was the norm for men. Fast foreward three pole alignments (126 years) and in 1902 you see women exposing cleavage and their figures with the ‘wasp waist’ Victorian craze. 42 years later and it’s 1944 – another landmark in male might and victory. Another 42 years later and Voyager’s fly by of Uranus records that its ‘other’ pole was pointed DIRECTLY AT THE SUN! Remember 1986? Remember the faggott bands like WHAM? And the women with the ‘BIG HAIR’? And Madonna’s ‘Material Girl’ video where a bunch of short haired guys in tuxedos stand there like idiotic penguins seeking her approval as she flicks them off one after another?
Let’s add another 42 years to 1986 and see when we are forecast to be ‘zapped’ with the ‘other’ magnetic storm from old faithful Uranus. And I mean the next pole to hit us will be the same one that was in alignment IN 1776!!! It’s in 2030. Get ready men. Grab your sticks, this should be an EXCELLENT CYCLE. 16 years to go and the manosphere is already snowoballing out of control. YEEE-HAW! THIS WILL BE THE BIG ONE. The obelisks will RIIISE ONCE AGAIN on terra firma.
1986 + 42 = 2028, !=2030
Thank you. The software only corrects my spelling, not my math.
Dude… stop talking about your anus.
slightly nutty, but I hope you’re correct. Time to get back into alignment with the actual stars and dis-align with the fake tit celebrities that pollute the night sky
Well now that is some interesting shit you posted there.
One thing I always had a hard time figuring is what was with those big powdered wigs and puffy shirts and such. It always struck me as more feminine.
Yeah, so Jung is bullshitting here I’m pretty sure. The white figures are women and the black one jumping is a man. Plus the picture is a completely different time and place from what is mentioned in the quote – couldn’t find what Jung was referring to.
And while we’re at it, the “wonderfully” woman-centric minoan civilization was overthrown in a matter of 2-3 decades by a few hundred charriot-riding bronze armoured Acheans from mainland Greece milking a coincidental volcanic eruption (Thera). The “female sensitive” Minoans had persisted for millennia before that and were able to maintain a commercial fleet in the thousands, dominating mediterrannean finances. That particular paradigm sets a very dire shadow over the future of our own feminist, ultra-commercial modern western civilization, don’t you think?
Yellowstone is the new Thera! But who are the Achaeans?
Timeless stuff. Different terminology and jargon, same concepts.
This is the best article I’ve read on this whole fucking site.
Aw, thanks! I’m thinking I can throw together a few more on similar topics – lack of tribal elders or masculine coming-of-age rituals, the ignored burdens of masculinity, etc…
This was excellent, and gave me some terms and ideas to explore. Hope to see a lot more from you.
Game is not a recent invention, its only newly rediscovered by groups of men who had lost it the most.
It was not the same kind of bullshit it is today.
In the late 1940s, my grandfather mounted his motorcycle with sidecar put a chicken and a goat in it….drove to a neighbouring town and asked my grandmother´s father for his daughter´s hand. He said yes after taking the chicken and the goat and they have been happily married for 50 years (and a lot of children) before he passed away as an old man.
Go and try to get a wife the same way today. Good luck and may the gods be with you!
A)you can still find those girls in third world countries, and B) There was no shortage of infidelities in the past as well, just men had little knowledge about the true natures of women. I was reading Lenny Bruce’s autobiography and in the fifties he was surprised how many married women let him cum inside. His buddy told him the same, so he was no longer surprised when he saw brothers who looked nothing alike.
Creating everything new, creating ourselves, culture, that’s real 20th century shit anyhow. Feminism falls into that tradition. But there is a human nature and people that work against the fads and comforting illusions of the day keep re-discovering the old truths.
‘Take it from the founder of depth-psychology: women enjoy being possessed.’
Well considering a lot of them that are under the influence of demons…I’d have to agree.
‘She wants to be a “strong independent woman” and still get penetrated by a real, virile man.’
What are the stats on how many single mothers are out there…it seems this is happening too.
There is a great story recounted by Carl Jung in his autobiography, ‘Memories, Dreams, Reflections’, from his his time as a practising psychotherapist.
I will quote it here at length. It is quite an illuminating passage, entirely relevant to the original article.
—
“In contemporary psychotherapy the demand is often made that the doctor or psychotherapist should “go along” with the patient and his affects. I don’t consider that to be always the right course. Sometimes active intervention on the part of the doctor is required.
Once a lady of the aristocracy came to me who was in the habit of slapping her employees – including her doctors. She suffered from a compulsion neurosis and had been under treatment in a sanatorium. Naturally, she had soon dispensed the obligatory slap to the head physician. In her eyes, after all, he was only a superior ‘valet de chambre’. She was paying the bills wasn’t she? This doctor sent her on to another institution and there the same scene was repeated. Since the lady was not really insane, but evidently had to be handled with kid gloves the hapless doctor sent her on to me.
She was a very stately and imposing person, six feet tall-and there was power behind her slaps, I can tell you! She came, then, and we had a very good talk. Then came the moment when I had to say something unpleasant to her. Furious, she sprang her feet and threatened to slap me. I, too, jumped up, and said to her, “Very well, you are the lady. You hit first – ladies first! But then I hit back!” And I meant it. She fell back into her chair and deflated before my eyes. “No one has ever said that to me before!” she protested. From that moment on, the therapy began to succeed.
What this patient needed was a masculine reaction. In this case it would have been entirely wrong to “go along.” That would have been worse than useless. She had a compulsion neurosis because she could not impose moral restraint upon herself. Such people must then have some other form of restraint-and along come the compulsive symptoms to serve the purpose.”
—
Cheers to Carl Jung, for showing us boys hows a man handles such things. Ein Prosit!
Awesome story. Thanks for sharing.
Now there, there is a man!
The entitled, selfish woman in the story is modern feminism. She needs men to put her in her place. The reason feminists are all ugly is because they are the women incapable of attracting real masculine attention. Its literally driving them crazy. They dont hate men, they idoloze men. This is why feminism is androcentric, centered on males and built around educating and advancing women. Notice how they treat male feminists with such disgust; they want a man to challenge them not enable her tantrums by playing along.
I keep saying it, most feminists just need a good hard pounding from an alpha once a month to ease their longings.
This shows that the situation feminists and leftists keep rediscovering is an unsatisfactory arrangement that keeps recurring.
The reason, now that men are becoming aware it, is unfortunately that perpetuating it is the deliberate work of the legal and social systems. It will be a far more difficult task than men thought to repair this since the power structure supports and strengthens it and because the infection has spread elsewhere. Criticism of females is now a crime…
Correct except for the last sentence. Do not over dramatize things, criticizing women is not a crime, not even vaguely. That chain we put on our own minds. Free your mind, brother.
It does depend on much how good looking she is and whether anyone kin to her is present.
That has nothing to do with legality though.
Thank you
Funny, I have never read Jung but I have always had this opinion of women. Possibly it derives from my father who has always had a dim, untrusting view of women (thanks to mistreatment by female relatives as a boy). I have always believed that women should be dominated and put roughly in their place. And I have never had a woman leave me.
Women will leave a weak man for a strong man. I understand this fear men have of women and this makes them weak. Nowadays, men have good reason to fear women because of the damage that can be wrought by divorce. This is a huge problem.
Interesting the view expressed of American women. A big problem I have is the horrible way that American women dress – like teenage boys. Walking along a street in London I can easily pick out the American women. While women of every culture and ethnicity are dressed to the nines, the American women look scruffy and unladylike.
I actually took out an American woman recently. I showed up and she didn’t even have her hair done. I was stunned by such slovenliness. She said “you look disappointed”. I said “I’m taking you to meet my friends!” She complained that she didn’t have her “hair stuff”. I dragged her to the store to get the appropriate “stuff” and clean her shit up.
Nothing more needed to be said. Fundamental in any relationship is that you do not embarrass your partner. Women do not understand that this works both ways.
I think this is very true, and it’s an interesting point that the current rape accusation phenomenon reflects that. Have you noticed how, in these (almost certainly phoney) accounts, they always use the phrase ‘my rapist’? i.e. ‘I had to see my rapist every day’ or ‘I had to look into the eyes of my rapist on campus’. I get the sense not only of something like a possessiveness and even pride… but also an erotic thrill. It’s like only the thought of a man who takes what he wants forcefully is enough to capture their imagination… and boy, does he do that. That said, I do think, given the attractiveness of the accusers in many cases, they just want to project and indulge a fantasy that someone wanted to fuck them – indeed, enough to risk jail time for it.
Can anyone elaborate on the suicide part? I do not understand the psychology behind it.
Their vanity was greater than their desire for death. Even in death they wanted to maintain the image of feminine perfection. Showing them naked after death would destroy that illusion, ergo, the suicide stopped. Ultimately they would rather look appealing to men and other women more strongly than they would want to act irrationally impulsive.
I suspect that for many suicides, particularly young girls (and suicide bombers no doubt) a prime motivation is not clinical depression or despair, but the romance of suicide, which is a form of narcissism – think back to that article on transexual Leelah: a motivation is the imaginative anticipation of all the people pitying you dying in your prime, glorifying you in death. Being laid out like a naked slab of meat punctures the intended vainglorious effect
That’s a much better observation than mine, well done sir.
thank you
The idea of the dominant male is a misconception. Yes, the woman is irrational and incapable of moral responsibility but ultimately she holds the power. Women don’t mind being considered dishonest any more than they mind being considered to be stupid. Like intelligence, honesty enjoys a low priority on their scale of values. What matters to them is the helpless look, which mobilizes the male’s protective instinct like nothing else. Honor, in the sense implied here, is something women feel they can well do without.
As the woman enjoys the privileges of a protégé by allowing to be dominated physically and by being less intelligent than the man whose protection she is seeking. In the end of the day she holds the power, the man works for her. She is the boss.
The ideal couple in which the man is superior to the woman in every respect is the creation of woman. Women have the power; they make the choices. As it is in the business world, the man submits his bid; the woman chooses what’s best for herself. If she chooses a superior man, she is provided for all her life. If she chooses a man inferior to herself, he is less able to provide for her, nor will he want to do so — she will not appeal to his protective instinct as she would to that of a stronger man.
Weak boys learn early in puberty how hard it is for them to find a girl. When they are full-grown as short, unathletic men, their luck with women remains the same. Such a man will have to be extremely successful at business or his profession to win an attractive woman despite his physical shortcomings. Perhaps this is why short men are reputed to be ambitious and dynamic.
The woman calls the shots, gents, stop fooling yourself.
You talk like one of these weak men Jung is on about. By no means is the woman the boss. You are aware until very recently, the concept of a man raping his wife did not exist in law? Before the last century a man could take his wife as he wished whether she “allowed” it or not. You make the mistake of assuming that the current legislative environment is indicative of the natural order of things. It is not.
Men work the dangerous jobs, men die in wars, men provide for women but women control the sexual instinct. You tell who the boss is.
The weakest is he who does not even realises his own weaknesses. Or shall we say “blissfully unaware”?
No woman controls my sexual instinct. I think you speak for yourself.
Yes men do dangerous stuff. That’s what men do. Women stay at home praying for safety. This has nothing to do with “who’s the boss”.
So you are “blissfully unaware”.
How many women have come to you begging for sex compared to the number of women you’ve chased?
Quite a few actually. Matter of fact, I don’t “chase” women. You’d be surprised how many women are “chasing” you if only you pay attention.
Yeah, right!
lol! I’m not bragging mate, honestly. I have just made myself into the kind of man women want (good job, well educated, well groomed, in good physical shape etc.). Women strongly desire men like that and they will make their desire known when they see one.
He accords having roles with slavery. That a man volunteers to do tasks because he knows he is fittest to do so, and prefers not to live a substandard life, or be conquered, does not occur to him. When I fight to protect my wife it is because she is mine, I do it selfishly, not because she a task master demanding protection.
I suspect he would have us come to believe that because we may wish to walk a beach, we a slaves to the ocean.
Precisely. Even with a wife I am chased by lots of other women. They crave a well put together man, especially in this day and age.
You’ve made yourself into “product” desirable by women and the sex is your award for being a good boy.
It’s your hamster. A woman never chases, she lays a trap.
If a woman chases me it’s flattering, but it straight away makes me less interested in her. I like the ones that I think are a little bit out of my league, they’re always more satisfying to get. I’m sure there’s a biological reason for this. Jung would know.
Very well said!
You are… a little paranoid.
lol! You’re a pretty funny guy!
You have zero fucking clue what you are talking about. Unless you mean that my hamster walks up and offers me a written phone number on paper without me asking.
Sounds to me like you have no experience with this level of attraction, ergo, you presume such a thing does not exist. Rather like assuming the moon does not exist because you personally have not walked on it.
She offers her telephone number and she GIVES you sex, ok. What she actually does is laying the trap and you still think she wants YOU. No, what she sees in you is an OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLOIT for her own benefit. Even if she does not derive any direct benefit from you, the idea is what made her interested in the first place.
Way too paranoid. Human relationships all have give and take. If you have issues with that, there’s a nice cave off the side of Dover that may suit you. Assuming you like white oeuvres.
In this line of thinking the whole manosphere suffers from an acute form of paranoia.
Just think how often women refuse sex compared to how often men do (if ever).
You are jumping from argument to argument. Is there a point in continuing this discussion? Women sometimes chase men, men often chase women. The “why” has nothing to do with it. Your original claim was that women do not chase men, that is patently false, why you think they do it, which itself admits that it happens, is irrelevant.
Upon further reflection it appears he equates life itself with slavery.
Hmm you could say that about quite a few animals, for instance in a herd of horses where there is one stallion and many mares. He protects them, and they ‘choose’ to be in his herd, when he proves himself the strongest stallion by defeating all challengers. Also, in the wild, it’s impossible to rape a mare, because they kick. But does this mean the mares are ‘the boss’? No, the stallion ultimately controls the herd. A male lion similarly controls his pride, and gets to eat first. Without the male protecting them, the females and babies are vulnerable to predators.
Both sexes need each other, but the physically weaker one, who is hampered by pregnancy and baby-rearing, is not ‘the boss.’
Hampered by pregnancy? Get a woman pregnant with a baby or two and come back to report who the boss is. Why do you think so many married men with kids get betasised sooner or later?
Pregnancy is their lottery win.
Pregnancy is only a lottery win if you are in a weaker position as a man. Even if you don’t bring home the higher amount of bacon, as long as your frame is strong enough, you will be the one with power in the relationship.
My woman is pregnant now, granted I bring home five times what she does, when we met that wasn’t the case.
When a woman says to you, “No matter what you do, I’m not going anywhere. ” you know that your frame is intact. Just don’t believe it.
I don’t want to discourage you but soon or later she’ll get you. Congratulations on becoming a father, anyway!
Just as I was beginning to believe this blog was all American Survivalists and virgin fantasists somebody whips out Jung! Nicely done.
Although the only query I’d have was claiming Jung was scientific when he saw science as very limited when applied to psychology, in his sense of the word. But. amazing article and it’s true that this has been pushed out of Jung scholarship.
Freud was like the biggest liberal in the world. There was nothing you could say or do that would shock his sensibilities
Hell, he coined half of the terms that libtards use to define themselves and their situation.
The run by Wendy Davis for Texas governor is the perfect example of what happens when your white knights can’t help you anymore. For the first time abortion Barbie had to stand on her own. She suffered the worst defeat in Texas political history.
For those who dont know: her hubby paid for harvard while he stayed in Texas raised the two kids (either one or both of whom werent his). Once she graduated and got set up with a gig, she filed for divorce.
And voters somehow overlooked this.
I for damn sure helped to make sure that she suffered that loss. You should have seen the massive amount of propaganda she spewed at the university campuses here in Fort Worth. I couldn’t drive through my neighborhood without seeing the signs that she paid libtards to have in their yards.
But she suffered from the Bradley effect thank God. Because ultimately, women might talk a good game about who they will vote for, but the reality is that when they get in the booth, married women will vote for who ever their husbands vote for.
Ay – well understood.
I especially like Jung’s perception that women want to be slightly afraid of their men – thus their great fascination with the mythical rape-culture despite 30 year lows in rape. They have this innate desire to fear men – even their husbands – fear that his aggressive state might be unleashed upon her or fear that he might leave her for another woman. Women should be the ones to kneel in front of us as it actually excites them. In contrast, when men do that then women secretly despise it:
The basic problem is that we are living in ways that go against our biological nature.
About four million years ago the earliest human ancestors came about, the first creatures that could generously be called some form of human. 40000 or so years ago humans as we now know them evolved. During those millions of years we lived in hunter-gatherer societies, hunting meat and collecting fruits and berries and other edible plants and moving on to new areas when the current one became exhausted.
This is why men compete. When one group encountered another, they had a very limited set of available choices: Befriend eachother, exhausting the local resources that much faster and starve to death in common sympathy; move on to unoccupied territory; or fight, with the losers dying and the winners gaining the right to live.
This is why we still hunt and fish to this day, even though there is no objective need to. Millions of years of evolution has made it a biological part of what humans are and do.
This is why we travel. The only thing I have yet to regret spending money on is travel, even when it turns out more expensive than anticipated.
This is why the traditional sex roles are what they are.
This is why the rate of mental illness and prescription drugs are through the roof in modern societies.
What we need is a society where men and women live according to our biological natures. Until that happens, dysfunction and poverty is all the future holds.
“This is why we still hunt and fish to this day, even though there is no objective need to. Millions of years of evolution has made it a biological part of what humans are and do.”
I think this is a very important point to keep in mind. Technophiles and modernists of all stripes will often point to the hunter gatherer lifestyle to show how much we worked back then – all day physical labour just to get a bit of food! Oh how modern technology has freed us!
Yet, what was the nature of the work? Hiking, hunting, fishing, building a shelter. This ‘backbreaking’ work is what people these days do as a hobby, on their holidays, even to rejuvenate!
All ‘work’ is not equal, and not all ‘labour saving technology’ saves us labour. After all, it’s only work if we don’t enjoy it!
I was reading a lot of the comments praising the thoughts of Carl Jung. While I do appreciate his reasoning as it was described in the article above, let’s not forget that he was the one who introduced the idea that men should be more in touch with their feminine side. (http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/11/the-curse-of-jung/ and http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/21/kill-the-beta-2/) So we are essentially praising the man that has created this generation of effeminate men. I do not know enough of the subject and may be completely off, so if anyone cares to enlighten me I would appreciate it.
I didn’t want to go into too much detail (but may in another article) over how Jung’s ideas have been twisted and taken out of context to justify all kinds of BS (the articles you mention discuss the “Jung inspired notion” of gender as social construct). Jung adamantly did NOT believe that gender was a social construct, and he considered his work to be based on early evolutionary psychology. Hermaphrodite animals are only present in primitive phyla – sexual differentiation is clearly a novel and complex adaptive trait.
“God curse Carl Jung’s rotten corpse to hell for ever convincing popular culture that each sex had equal, but unexpressed, measures of feminine and masculine energies. Western culture has been so saturated with Jungian theory that we don’t recognize it as such. It’s become normalized to believe an idealized goal-state is a genderless, androgynous society.”
Clearly whoever wrote that never actually read Jung’s own words and instead is basing his critique on some far-derived feminist propaganda. Jung never made such ridiculous claims. How can anyone posses equal amounts of an energy when they clearly belong to a specific gender biologically?
The problem is that no one, I’d be willing to bet even most men on this site, is willing to to take the first step. Who’s going to step up and tell their own little princess daughters NO, FUCK NO, when the little slut in waiting demands to go to college. I for one will under no circumstances perpetuate this sick cycle. If I ever had a daughter she would be trained right out of the womb exactly what her role entails and what her very real limitations are in this life. Fathers need to rule and mold their progeny with enough courage to buck any and all liberal societal trends. No athletic participation, no science toys, no competitive toys, no educational toys for girl children – when the fuck do we wake up already. We are the enablers of career whores. We create them by not ramming a playroom full of dolls and toy stoves down their throats and by not punishing ambition in female children. It starts young and the disgusting influence of their mothers taints their every waking experience.
10-4
I still think women should develop their own interests but at the same time know their biological role as women. If a daughter wants to pursue an education that is alright because she may need it in the future. If she gets widowed and needs to help her family, then that is when she would need to get a job to do so. There is nothing wrong with women having jobs just as long as they don’t become feminists like Andrea Dworkin. Some women may be infertile or are just not meant to become mothers. There are always exceptions to a rule.
No wonder the western scientific community suppressed Jung’s findings….they’re accurate.
Another chapter in the book of unspeakable truths (of which there are many re: men & women)
The Anima & Animus.
I think Carl’s overall lesson here to men, American men specifically, would be: reclaim your Animus. Stop concentrating on your preconceived notions of Anima and how you “believe” women to be.
They will assume the role you determine once you determine your own (which is what they want anyway…that is their Animus –> men being men on man’s terms alone)
Ultimately, we can blame all of our problems on ourselves. There is no real independence in woman, there is no ‘real new woman’ as Jung alludes (which I think was his implication). So let’s stop pretending this will ever change.
“No matter how bad things become abroad, even in France, the birthplace of feminism, gender and sexual roles are still understood and appreciated on a basic level. Men have not abdicated their sexual role as men.”
Have you met French men? With all due respect (your article makes some good points), French men are more effeminate than American men by far. Granted, French women are more feminine than American women; but this is by necessity, being surrounded as they are by men without balls. They are only able to feel sexual polarity by becoming more feminine.
This is a fantastic essay. I’m also a big fan of Jung’s work. He addressed many of the important issues (masculinity, femininity, relationships, and even aging/the stages of lifer) better than any other modern thinker.
Jung’s stuff is very good but it has been long-abused by New Age charlatans.
I killed my inner mangina years ago by realizing my need for women’s approval was part of a longing for my “anima” as Jung talks about.
Funny how much this smells mangina.
Shaming of lazy, immature men who are to be blamed. Poor, poor confused independent strong woman.
Reading this was just like reading unimaginative MSM trying to spin their old narrative in yet another way.
The fact is that it is men who determine what is acceptable behaviour for women. It is a simple matter of physics. It is, in fact, our fault, and only we can change it. But we don’t want to.
“They are not happy with their American husbands because they are not afraid of them.”
While not exactly the point of his words, I’ve always thought that women you game should be just a little bit scared of you, a little bit intimidated. Just so they know their place. That way, you set boundaries without trying, and they know not to push you.
On the other side of that, if they think you’re a teddy bear, you’re a little bitch.
Every time I start a new relationship whenever we come to a point of disagreement I let it be known i’m unapologetic about my view and that i won’t back down, while maintaing Frame of course, Their is a very primal pecking order in the world of women and if she finds a weakness in you she will exploit it, Besides every women wants a man to lead and to control the situation, if she finds a man incapable of doing that she won’t respect him.
Men back then were beholden to mothers too? Damn. I wonder how much changing laws that forced people to stay with their parents until age 18 affected that.
This is all true. But then what? It is true that if we act the strong, decisive, unflappable part, if we come at the woman with desire and certainty and then possess her, we will be giving her what she really wants, what will really make her happy, instead of what she says she wants or what her culture has told her she should want. But why should we? Again it all boils down to giving women what they want. Beta boys try to please woman by doing what they say. Former-beta-boys using Game actually please woman by doing not what they say, but what works. But it’s still all about HER happiness.
Frankly, fuck HER! Or rather… don’t fuck her. To hell with HER.
Well said.
Obviously the author does not understand much about Jung. This interview was published in 1912, when Jung was still a student of Sigmund Freud, whose theories were highly influenced by sexuality and how the libido influences the psyche. By 1913, Jung broke from Freud’s theories and began discovering his own, distancing himself from sexual theories and embracing a psychology influenced by his concept of the collective unconscious and archetypes. One Jung’s archetypes was the Anima and Animus, feminine and masculine energy (also the author doesn’t understand the concept of Anima and Aminus. Jung’s work focuses on the internal rather than external). Jung’s work calls for integration of all parts of the self and unconscious, a process called individuation, to create a healthy individual. Anima an Animus is part of this process. Every human being has both feminine and masculine energies within us and it is our duty to find a healthy balance between the two in order for us to become whole. Therefore all men have to acknowledge the and feminine energy within us (which I wish many of people on here could try to do as the level of toxic masculinity is atrocious on here) as well as women acknowledging and accepting the masculine energy within. Jung based his theories on looking within and understanding the depths of oneself while Freud is solely focused on libido and more external perspective on psychology. While I acknowledge that Jung did say these things, it was foolish of the author to do so since Jung’s future work discredits these statements as they are not truly his, rather Freud’s. The author discredited any form of validity in his arguments since these concepts are NOT what is remembered for in history.
I think Jung was relying on time specific cultural stereotypes when he said……
“He gives the complete direction of his family life over to his wife. This is what you call giving independence to the American woman. It is what I call the laziness of the American man. That is why he is so kind and polite in his home, and why he can fight so hard in his business.”
It may be relevant to modern “monied” cultural traditionalism but not to the average man. The vast majority of men don’t have a business they have a job and if anything he fights hard to have it and keep it. Jung was an insightful guy but I doubt if the average man could even afford to see him. Which suggests that he may have functioned in his own cultural echo chamber.
I think the modern relevance of a “mother complex” can be described with an analogy of a toilet seat. If she demands that you put it down she is attempting to impose a style of management “mothering”. If she puts it down herself she is an equal partner. (lets face it ..it’s less strenuous than closing the bathroom door) I’m not sure the default perspective of men wishing to be mothered is as prolific as suggested. How many women occupy the position simply to gain bragging rights of authority and power in the relationship. (to many as far as I’m concerned)