The sexual revolution represents a far more significant turning point in human events than I think most people living post-sexual revolution will ever fully appreciate. I was born after it, and I would presume most of the influential participants involved in our current gender discourse today were also products of a post sexual revolution acculturation. The vast majority of authors dutifully typing away on both manosphere and feministing blogs are, for the better part, results of the social-gender restructuring that occurred in the late 60s. With this in mind I think it’s important to reflect on the era prior to this to really grasp the significance of that change, and to understand how we’ve come to take certain aspects of our new gender reality as simply matter of fact. It’s hard to believe there was a time when we didn’t need to ask why men were Men.
A lot of critics of really anything pro-masculine today will always fall back on the canard that the ‘misogynist’ author would “love to return to the 1950’s”. The epithet “misogynist” is as useful as “homophobe” for the same reason that it’s an easy throw-away label to help disqualify a dissenting point of view. If it’s hurtful or forces critical thinking that challenges an ego investment it’s far easier to categorize the offender as holding to outdated modes of thinking. Make your opponent’s views an anachronism and your perspective appears more valid simply because it seems the more novel and developed. But were the 1950’s some gilded age of masculism? What about the 30’s or 40’s, or even the 19th century? Feminists and feminized men fondly resurrect the specter of the 1950’s as if the decade were some apex turning point in women’s enslavement; like the Hebrews under Pharaoh’s yoke yearning for the promised land. All the men who held any sway over society are caricatures of white, middle class boors – more Archie Bunker than Ward Cleaver, but even Ward’s benevolence and bearing would be suspect of passive-aggressive patriarchy.
What’s tragic in this silly dismissal of a masculine mindset is that it presumes any man in this, or the past three generations could ever have any realistic frame of reference for life in the 1950’s. This is doubly true for contemporary women using this shaming association, but in recognizing this we have to open up a new pandoras box. What else is the feminine imperative using (deliberate or unconsciously) as “common sense” to rise to prominence?
Modern feminist understanding of gender, and really our feminized society as a whole, is based to it’s very foundations on an anachronism even more outdated than some mythologized chauvinist era when “men had it so good, while women were their doting, unwitting slaves.”
The Curse of Jung
I go into a lot of detail describing feminine social conventions on this blog. Some people think it’s unfair to target just female conventions; there are after all many other social conventions that apply to men as well. I’d agree with this of course, and besides this blog’s focus being given to the social/psychological aspects of Game, those male conventions have already been (and still are) the subject of, literally, centuries of analysis and scrutiny. However, I’m going to focus on one to illustrate the progression of the cultural shift that was prompted by the sexual revolution.
Among the many archetypically masculine traits is a man’s reservations of emotion. For various biological and neurological reasons, men are the more rational of the sexes. This isn’t to deny them an emotional element. Indeed I’ve described men as the true romantics, however, classically men have to a better degree than women, been the more reserved gender when it comes to expressing emotion. What I’ve just described here is one of the base tenets of Carl Jung’s school of psychological theory. It’s kind of ironic that Freud would be so vilified by modern feminism, yet find his protege Jung would contribute so much to the fundamentals of the feminization of society.
One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into societies collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back it’s origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s.
Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality’; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state. Men simply needed to be perfected by exploring their ‘feared’ feminine natures, and women needed to be allowed the opportunity and freedom to masculinize themselves in order to perfect that androgynous balance. Introduce convenient, feminine controlled hormonal contraception and viola, gender equalism was born.
I’m going to introduce a radical thought into the gender landscape that’s been manicured by the feminine imperative and Jungian theory for so long; what if it’s a good thing Men should be masculine and women should be feminine? What if it’s beneficial to our species survival that our very biologies are complimentary to our gender? What if we should be teaching our boys to get in touch with their masculine sides? What if gender is actually more nature than it is nurture? What if Jung got it wrong and we’ve allowed the feminine imperative to standardized our perceptions of gender for over a century based on an incorrect presumption?
The prevailing feminist wisdom clings to the Jung inspired notion that gender is a just social creation and one that sustains a Patriarchal hierarchy. All we need do is dress our children in as neutral an environment as possible and society will progress towards a more idealized, more humane, androgynous norm. But this is counter to the new data we find with ever increasing regularity, both in clinical studies as well as a better scientific understanding of neurology and endocrinology and their relation to sexuality and gender identity. In the early 1900’s Jung lacked even a fraction of the knowledge we’ve studied and proved about the human animal in 2012. In addition to this we have over 100 years of advances in fields of psychology that didn’t even exist in Jung’s time. We’ve seen the social impact of over 40 years of feminized Jungian theory – are we seriously going to continue this ideology, oblivious to the long outdated legacy it has on contemporary culture? Are we going to allow the originator of Beta Game to continue defining what constitutes masculinity and femininity in our society?
We were so feminized by society, that we need to get back in touch with our masculinity. The “how to” would be a great post.
That’s a personal journey that pretty much boils down to following your gut and pushing yourself past your limits.
Many rights of passage for boys in primitive cultures involved sending him off on his own. When he successfully returned, he was a man.
Read up on Joseph Campbell, etc., then start your own quest.
Unfortunately, we’ve let go of this in the west and we’ve got generations of lost men who can’t own their own manhood.
When you know you’re a man, no one can take it away from you. Women will love it and feminists will hate it.
“What if Jung got it wrong and we’ve allowed the feminine imperative to standardized our perceptions of gender for over a century based on an incorrect presumption?” Does the feminization of men over the last 40 years and indeed the effectiveness of learning Game not prove that he got it very right? That everyone can masculine or feminize themselves given the right conditions/practices/behavioral changes. The fact that his theories have been co-opted and used to entrench the “feminine imperative” makes them no less valid.. in the same way that the horrors of the Nazi movement can’t really be used seriously… Read more »
“All the men who held any sway over society are caricatures of white, middle class boors – more Archie Bunker than Ward Cleaver, but even Ward’s benevolence and bearing would be suspect of passive-aggressive patriarchy.” Linguistic home run. I’m interested in debate here with No’s comment, above. Personally, I think that Jung was onto something, that yes, indeed, as is obvious, men do have feminine sides, just as women have masculine sides. BUT, massive caveat here, I believe, as Rollo suggests, feminizing men and masculinizing women is a pathological result. What is left unsaid, is that Jung’s analysis as well… Read more »
I wonder why in the post 50s antagonized society 99% of a certain gender makes up the prison population.
“what if it’s a good thing Men should be masculine and women should be feminine?”
Jung got it right – except that the body isnt a clean canvas which can hold arbitrary amounts of feminine and masculine energy.
Depending on how you look at it, the body is either a specialized extension of the energy, or the source of the energy. Either case, the masculine body is better suited for masculine energy and the feminine body is more suited for feminine energy.
A shocker right?
Lets make dogs more like cats and cats more like dogs, horses more like doves, doves more like lions.
Seriously, what for?
Each body / archetype / frame has its own strengths and weaknesses. The winning strategy is to play to your strengths and to minimize your weaknesses. Not the other way around.
Feminism, and Jung’s ideas, have become a case of the Emperor’s new clothes. Everybody can see that its bullshit, but most folks are too afraid to say anything about it.
I’ve always liked Jung, even though I find his research flawed in the anima and animus aspects as well. I like to think of his animus development as a sort of guide for men to follow for stereotypes. By possessing as many of the admirable traits of a womans animus as possible, you raise your value to her exponentially. The first and easiest way to attract women would be becoming the first stage of animus, as most women have already solidified that level – where she lusts after a man stronger than her who happens to be untamed. This broods… Read more »
I once had friction with a woman because she wasn’t feminist enough. She had wanted more traditional roles, where she concentrated on domestic duties and I was able to successfully provide. At the time I was in no position to do so, and resented her expectations. I told her that even if such roles were biological, our evolutionary direction was towards equality of financial duties. Nowadays I see advantage to the traditional roles. I prefer being the main provider and having the woman work under my direction at any task I assign her. Food is more nourishing when it is… Read more »
Why is the 50s chosen? There must be some reason. For example I may choose the 30s as i began the onset of the fed. Or maybe the 60s because of the collapse of the gold standard.
The 50s are normally viewed as the last period of time before the sexual revolution occurred and feminism became a dominating force in American society.
Not to get into conspiracies, but is suggested that there is an organization overseeing the matrix imperative of the world, and one objective is a significant decrease in the human population, so if true they don’t want the survival of too many humans. Now most people sit in schools and offices, so they don’t get to fully develop traits as the would be required to if it was a return to Welcome To The Jungle where women nurtured children and did chores while men went out to hunt. Also, it is said technology such as the washing machine changed a… Read more »
Rollo: Great post as usual. But one thing I haven’t seen you touch upon at all is the effect of living in a society without war. Sure, young boys go to Afghanistan and Iraq to die, but that’s far away from Western soil. Constant bloody struggle and conflict is the natural state of things, and it is only then that the true masculine can exist. When every single day is a scramble for food and survival, women will naturally submit and men will lead. No girl will complain about women’s right when her only option of survival is to prostitute… Read more »
I think that messed up gender roles are a worthwhile price to pay for our prosperity. Particularly in a culture where it is so easy to opt out of society’s role for you.
Yes, I hope Rollo will do a post about this.. Islamic countries can probably enforce gender roles even in peace time (think Saudi Arabia), but then every day is a struggle not to be on Allah’s bad side, if you are a devout believer.
However, I think it’s a valid point that messing with gender roles will eventually lead to the demise of a society, whereby things will return to their natural state.. It’s a never-ending cycle (think Roman Empire).
Any particular reason it will lead to the end of society? Cultures with greater gender equality tend to be more stable. The question of whether the stability is a good thing or not is still open, but a return to a ‘natural state’ will not happen. Especially considering that humans haven’t been around long enough to even *have* a natural state: we can adapt to pretty much anything.
I do not think that we need to have this gender reversal to have prosperity. We were prosperous before the sexual revolution, and we had far less of a prison population.
You ask if we should move towards gender equality or separate gender roles (presumably the traditional masculine and feminine ones). Rather than just saying “the old way was better,” you (rightly) leave the question open. So let’s look at the situation from several different perspectives: economic, psychological, and game theoretic (game theory as in math). Economically speaking, gender egalitarianism has clear advantages. Countries and cities with more equality develop more quickly and are richer and life expectancies are higher. The median family in the 1950s had only one car, and similar wealth otherwise. As much as we like to think… Read more »
Sorry but I beg to differ, even though the people seem more wealthy in reality they are not. The keyword here is “seem”. A close study of economic indicators back then (50s and 60s) shows that normally one income was necessary to keep a family afloat in middle class standards, nowadays inflation and debt are rampant, if you don’t believe me you can see it here: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm. Even the worth of your currency is in shambles if compared to its former value: http://www.shadowstats.com/inflation_calculator?amount1=100&y1=1913&m1=11&y2=2011&m2=11&calc=Find+Out It´s true that there are many factors that brought about this situation in the west but one… Read more »
My God, it’s like Roissy reads my mind sometimes. I’ll just leave this here:
Erm… Yes, men and women have physiological differences. The two sexes have an entirely different *chromosome*. What did you expect?
As for the results of the study, I don’t think anyone was disputing the way things *are*. Gender roles exist: that’s a given. The open question is when they are a good thing. The most extreme feminists seem to think the answer is ‘never’ while Roissy seems to think it is ‘always’.
That’s the social sciences for you. It’s safer for science to correct Albert Einstein than Carl Jung or Freud; there’s more power invested in antiquated psychological theories than in physics. I suppose in a way that makes Feminism something akin to the Roman Catholic Church during the Renaissance.
I don’t count Carl Jung within the social sciences. The only controlled study, experiment, he ever did was on astrology.
The Theory of Relativity is falsifiable. Feminist “theories” are not, and should be called “hypotheses”.
Is it normal to want to beat the shit out of skinny jean wearing hipster fags?
I feel a tinge of guilt every time I restrain myself.
Gender roles are probably more applicable to those who are or want to get married and have a family. I have decided that it is not best for me (psychologically and financially) to ever get married, so no I’m one of the few males I guess who will never submit to marriage. Not that marriage is necessarily bad, or that many people should never get married and have a family. I’m just saying that from a game standpoint there is some men (before marriage or if they never get married) that traditional gender roles do not really matter, aside from… Read more »
Voilà, not viola; complementary, not complimentary; probably unaware rather than oblivious. (No doubt there’s other things too.)
Only worth changing because what you’ve written is so much worth the reading: great stuff.
This post is an inaccurate description of the relation between Jung and feminism. Can you supply any evidence that these claims are actually true? “First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today.” “Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality’; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state.” “The… Read more »
hey Rollo, I am really interested in your views to what chad has mentioned
[…] ideal man. This is an unfortunate outcome of the ‘get in touch with your feminine side’ curse of Jung: in a similar respect to the myth of Relational Equity where a man expects his sacrifices and […]
The author is clearly not familiar with any of Jung’s theories besides the pop-psychology “men have a feminine side” trope. It’s the same rehashed argument against feminism (which is quite correct), but associating feminism with Jung because he introduced the terms of anima and animus is deeply wrong.
It’s similar to blaming cultural relativism on Einstein, because he introduced the theory of relativity. Jung’s theories are about the deep structures of human psyche, structures located much deeper than this current political bullshit.
[…] and the fallacy of the ONE are founded in a popularized ideological normalization. For instance the Carl Jung idea of anima & animus is so embedded in our culture that we take it for granted. For the past […]
[…] purple pill conflation is really just a comforting return the the curse of Jung – anima & animus – if the complete man is an even mix of Alpha and Beta, masculine and […]
Alpha is a mindset
Alpha is a…
There is also Jung on the sex relations:
This article has been proven to be extremely fallacious. Why is it still up?
[…] opined about Carl Jung’s contributions to our present state of feminine social primacy in the […]
What are you talking about????? Gender, a social creation? Jung never stated anything like that.
Quite the opposite. He proposed the archetype of the @anima”, the “inner woman” in a man, precisely as a minor part of a man’s personality (the “animus” being the equivalent in a woman). So he implicitely accepted a natural masculine essence in all men (and I think also explicitely, I would have to look for a direct quote on that though).
Feminism has NOTHING to do with Jung, a wise man who always acknowledged the natural differences between men and women.
I agree with previous comments about Jung and feminism: if you look closely at his seminal works, most importantly the Redbook (in my educated opinion) you will find not feminism so much as… using Jung’s own terms: Individuation… which has more to do with balancing overused strengths and under used weaknesses: as outlined in the Myers Briggs types (based on categories used by Jung in later works such as introversion and extroversion). It seems that much of this post employs the language of various philosophies without indepth understanding. As a few have previously commented: if you read Jung you find… Read more »
A friend of mine speaks to the more general aspects of this phenomenon and how it comes out of the higher education “Cathedral”. http://subrealism.blogspot.com/search/label/Cathedral?m=0
[…] his article The Curse of Jung, Rollo mentions his idea that feminism relied heavily on Carl Gustav Jung’s concept of […]
I can see why this post draws page views, and the comments are worth reading. But I wish RT would post some caveats so he doesn’t lose credibility. Just stop mentioning Jung as an influence on first wave feminism, which started before Jung was born, Wollstonecraft, and then the abolistionists ending slavery. Second wave feminism might have been influenced by Jung. In his day, Jung was more pro-woman than Freud and other founders for psychology.
Jung’s theories were inspired by his desire to bang many of his “patients” while he was married.
Those theories were also well before the advent of the tech we have today with regard to understanding the biological/neurological differences in men’s and women’s brains – as well as the grasp we now have on evolutionary and biological evolution.
Jung’s anima/animus theory is the foundation of the egalitarian, blank-slate equailsm feminism uses to hide its feminine-primacy agenda and social conventions. Again, a blank-slate disproven by research and technology Jung couldn’t dream about.
Yeah, Jung had a lot of affairs. 🙂 He also used to write about the gender imbalance in Europe during his time. There was a huge excess of marriage age women with no prospects, since WW killed off so many men. Feminism & romance novels took off during this time. But what else were these women supposed to do? I can’t really blame them.
Just stop mentioning Jung as an influence on first wave feminism, which started before Jung was born
First wave feminism aimed at Women’s Suffrage.
That wave continued throughout the 20th century.
Jung was born in the 19th century. Conceivably, Jung had an influence on First Wave Feminism before it was over.
Just stop mentioning Jung as an influence on …Wollstonecraft, and then the abolistionists ending slavery.
You’re making stuff up. Rollo never said anything of the kind.
” . . . first wave feminism, which started before Jung was born . . .” But is not generally considered to have ended before he became influential. He was introduced to the Anglosphere by Drs. Constance Long and Beatrice Hinkle WWIish, active 1st wave feminists. I think of him as one of the bridges between 1st wave and 2nd. He was effectively a constant in the life of Betty Friedan, born in ’21, the year before Dr. Long suddenly died (leaving Hinkle to carry the history legacy into the 50’s). “Jung’s anima/animus theory is the foundation of the egalitarian,… Read more »
Quoting @Rollo “First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s. Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality’; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state.” @theasdgamer I’m not… Read more »
Last comment I hope, quotes from Jung’s “Women in Europe” publication. Jung is a wordy guy, so overlong. But it’s interesting to hear his prediction for changing gender roles, how an overabundance of women was changing the institution of marriage, etc… I wish I could highlight the most interesting sentences, but will be completist with segments. His talk of “psychic equilibrium” sounds like an imbalance in the force”. 🙂  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 life makes… Read more »
[…] dug into why I have a problem with Jung in the past, but the point I’m making is that, in Jung, the Feminine Imperative and 2nd and 3rd wave […]
I consider myself a Psychoanalyst. Carl Jungs fallacy is not the concept of blank slate gender construction. This was not his work at all. Jungs fallacy is the idealism of the feminine. He found the Anima Complex in every male’s psyche and considered it divine. It might be. But not on the general premise of female divinity in the world. He saw all myth from the perspective of female superiority and holiness. All of Jungs work is tainted with unexplained awe for everything feminine. He furthermore just remodeled the Anima to the Animus and assumed it in every women with… Read more »
[…]  https://therationalmale.com/2012/01/11/the-curse-of-jung/ […]
Here’s a sample of what Carl Jung himself had to say regarding mysticism and being a “Mystic”: Everyone who says that I am a Mystic is just an idiot. He just doesn’t understand the first word of Psychology. ~Carl Jung, Conversations with Richard L. Evans, [Houston Film] Everything psychic has a lower and a higher meaning, as in the profound saying of late classical mysticism: ‘Heaven above, Heaven below, stars above, stars below, all that is above also is below, know this and rejoice.’ Here we lay our finger on the secret symbolic significance of everything psychic. ~Carl Jung; CW… Read more »
Oh damn! I learned a lot here. I wonder if there’s a post about the true reasons behind the invention of 1960’s hormonal contraception. Meaning, was it all politically motivated for the feminist movement to spread throughout the country and make men not needed anymore to further along the career-women model we find so common-place today?
[…] The Curse of Jung […]
“I like men that are in touch with their emotions, men that are not afraid to cry and show it” — girl I was simping over for a year. “Why do people get so emotional, I just don’t get it… Just stop being weak and pathetic people, it’s not that hard” — Same girl I was simping over for a year. I gotta say, I spent a lot time, most of my 20s, reading about Jung and getting familiar with the Archetypes, specially the infamous Anima. I’m 31 now and how I wish I hadn’t. I recently started to get… Read more »