The Curse of Jung

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or forces critical thinking that challenges an ego investment it’s far easier to categorize the offender as holding to outdated modes of thinking.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.

Dangerous Thoughts

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?


  1. 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.

  2. “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 as an argument against the teachings of Nietzsche.

    Jung was a big proponent of Zen Buddhism, which ties in with your previous post on the Tao of Game & nihilism.. I think you betray that nihilistic tone when you say “what if it’s a good thing Men should be masculine and women should be feminine”.. as you say it’s not a good or bad thing “It’s not right or wrong, it just is.”

  3. “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 as the pathological gender reversals are results of mechanization and industrialization. More precisely, the gender reversals are poorly managed knock-on effects of industrialization. Going even further, these gender reversals were at one point necessary for society’s growth & evolution, but the pendulum of gender polarity now swings the other way, with Game being the primary, but not the only driver, pushing men towards a new form of masculinism.

  4. I wonder why in the post 50s antagonized society 99% of a certain gender makes up the prison population.

  5. “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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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 physical attraction first.

    Then, in order to keep the woman, you must display characteristics of the second stage of animus, the man of action and intiative. I’d argue that the number one reason women fall out of love would be lack of ambition on the mans part.

    The third level of animus signifies for me, the moment in a relationship where a woman decides she would rather put aside her goals in order to bask in the successes of her man, as a sidekick and never as a leader. When the female submits to sharing her life in support of your goals, she has reached the third stage. Being into BDSM myself, I would like to think that the conditioning and general daily submission forced onto your female speeds up the process.

    The fourth level of animus, the incarnation of meaning and spirituality – even amongst spiritually aware people – is rarely reached. I would think only few couples would ever reach that level aside from soul mates and those whose livelihoods connect and benefit off of each other. A good example, and a favorite of mine would be Alexander and Ann Shulgin. Alexander Shulgin is a brilliant chemist, pharmacologist, and many other things, a true living legend – and his wife works dutifully as his research partner, writer, caretaker and lover.

    granted, this is all opinion of me, many other may not find it to be absolutely correct. I happen to think of things such as psychology as flexible in meaning, like theology.

  8. 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 cooked with love, and a house cleaned by a mate is a house warmed by care. I make the money, she attends to me and the house and spends money on maintaining our needs.

    Nowadays I see it to mens advantage to not be economic equals. I’d rather take a huge hit to economic status and maintain this arrangement than I would have two incomes.

    I now believe a big part of LTR game is good old fashioned economic hand.

  9. 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.

  10. 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 lot (I don’t get hung up on traditional gender roles much as with this example because it is each doing what needs to be done to get by), so the washing machine, etc, freed up a lot of time to do other things (like in 2012 to watch tv). For developing a theory, one could say how they define what is masculine and feminine, and then describe the result of what this society looks like. I’m a bachelor and have to cook and wash dishes for myself and I don’t consider this feminine as it just is something that has to be done. Emotions are part of a human being and are not necessarily just feminine or less masculine, a man could feel sad about something for a few minutes and that would not be feminine as some would say because it would be the reaction of a normal human being. Someone could also go overboard as too much of a jerk and lose friends, lose business, and turn off girls so they leave. Or, I don’t know much about those tv programs but maybe they were both overly soft wimpy douches. I can’t recall many show from that era, but maybe for game some dude like Fonzie is more of a masculine ladies man (someone else can mention better examples of masculine men). Maybe currently Chuck Norris. It is known that biologically males (sperm) can inseminate and females (egg) can have offspring (zygote), so males and females can have intercourse is that the bottom line between gender dynamics and game is interpersonal behavior to get sex, and everything else (used to be about raising children, but now) is just extra interactions between people and intrapersonal ones own individual psychological state. Usually if a guy is a wimp or talks about flowers and stuff he is considered a homo (not masculine, and more feminine). I don’t know much about Freud, except stupidly he did not know much about female anatomy, and maybe the only good thing he did was have what could have been the first casting couch, so too bad there wasn’t porn then so he would have known what to do with female anatomy and a couch (damn, he would have to be a fool to not be able to put those two concepts together).

  11. 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 herself for a day’s worth of calories.

    We live in an artificial reality without the mortal hardship all other mammals have to deal with on a daily basis. It is from this reality gender developed, requiring two specializations to ensure the survival of the species. Of course gender roles are going to get messed up. That’s the price we have to pay to be virtually guaranteed to live to 80+ years with decent health if we don’t do anything excessively stupid.

  12. 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 of that time as a “golden age,” we today have it better than people then.

    Psychologically speaking, specific social roles tend to lead to greater life satisfaction. We like to think that we can handle freedom and choice, but we don’t fare much better than random chance in our choices if we have more than 5 or so distinct options. The two default gender roles we have are fairly well optimized in terms of how satisfying they are for a typical member of either gender. Anyone who actually objects to the practice, rather than the principle, can deviate from the default. In today’s world, they can even change their anatomical sex, if they so desire, so gender roles are not binding for those with a strong preference.

    Game theoretically, this question is interesting indeed. Gender equality is best for the group as a whole, but masculine and feminine roles are best for all individuals in that group. It’s a large-scale version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma ( With strong enough social pressure, it is stable, but if that social pressure fades things will revert back to strong gender roles (which will hamper progress economically).

    Based on a preliminary look, it would appear that it is best for society to encourage monogamy and gender egalitarianism, and best for individuals to subvert this system. You have mentioned several times on this blog that the feminist ideals of the majority make game much easier for someone who actually sees what he’s looking at. So the real question we should be asking is “Does feminism hurt us?” and it would appear that the answer is “No.”

  13. 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).

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. I don’t count Carl Jung within the social sciences. The only controlled study, experiment, he ever did was on astrology.

  18. 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 screening for feminine women to go out with.
    Hiring managers (many of whom are domineering career “women” in the HR department) tend to use Jung-personality tests in the hiring process probably to weed out the tough men and hire other women or feminized-submissive-“men” who will blend in and do what they are told.
    A scientist could explain this in more detail that for the definition of a mating species the chromosomes have to be similar in that upon producing offspring the next generation has to be fertile in that the offspring is also still able to reproduce, so the apple couldn’t have rolled to far from the tree in that male/female humans would still as of 2012 be in the same species family (at least biologically, now psychologically that is another question).

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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’.

  22. 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.

  23. 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: Even the worth of your currency is in shambles if compared to its former value:

    It´s true that there are many factors that brought about this situation in the west but one can safely argue that feminism if not a direct cause of West’s maladies, hasn´t alleviated the social consequences of a decaying economy, it just exacerbated its effects.

  24. 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.

  25. 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 prevailing feminist wisdom clings to the Jung inspired notion that gender is a just social creation and one that sustains a Patriarchal hierarchy.”

    If the above statements were true, they would be trivially easy to verify by consulting the standard histories of feminism and anthologies of its key works, such as these:

    Feminism: A Very Short Introduction, ed. Margaret Walters

    Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings, ed. Miriam Schneir

    Feminist Political Theory: An Introduction, ed. Valerie Bryson

    Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction, ed. Rosemarie Tong

    The Routledge Companion to Feminism and Postfeminism, ed. Sarah Gamble

    If Jung were as important to feminism as Rollo claims, there would be a chapter, at least, in each of these books, but they don’t even mention Jung. Far from being foundational to feminism, Jung is irrelevant to the movement’s history.

    Indeed, this irrelevance is occasionally noted by feminists, such as Susan Rowland, who wrote Jung: A Feminist Revision in 2002 arguing that “Feminism has neglected Jung to its own detriment.” Has Rowland initiated a feminist reappraisal of Jung? To judge from Amazon’s Books that Cite this Book statistic, the answer is “no:” only eight books cite it, one of which is another of Rowland’s

    To sum up:

    • A representative sampling of histories of feminism and anthologies do not even mention Jung.
    • When a feminist writes a book trying to get other feminists interested in Jung, after 10 years, her book is cited seven times- a miserable failure in terms of influence.

    This raises the question: why are feminists so uninterested in Jung?

    Probably because he says things like this:

    Jung in 1912 on tragic American marriages:

    “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.”

    “To-day 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.”

    “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.”

    “No one can get around the fact that by taking up a masculine profession, studying and working like a man, woman is doing something not wholly in accord with, if not directly injurious to, her feminine nature.” Jung 1970b page 117 Jung ‘Woman’ C G Jung,‘Woman in Europe’, in his Civilization in Transition 2nd edn., trans. R F C Hull, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    In a letter to his then-friend Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung wrote, “The prerequisite for a good marriage, it seems to me, is the license to be unfaithful.” (January 30, 1910.)

    “the feminine element in man is only something in the background, as is the masculine element in woman. If one lives out the opposite sex in oneself one is living in one’s own background, and one’s real individuality suffers. A man should live as a man and a woman as a woman.” Woman in Europe 1927 Coll. Works, vol. 10 p 243

    “Woman always stands just where the man’s shadow falls, so that he is only too liable to confuse the two. Then, when he tries to repair this misunderstanding, he overvalues her and believes her the most desirable thing in the world.” Woman in Europe 1927 Coll. Works, vol. 10 p 236

    Having sampled the above, it should be clear why Jung was never a significant influence on feminism.

  26. Pingback: Suck It Up |
  27. 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.

  28. Pingback: Homosexuality |
  29. Pingback: Alpha Tells |
  30. Pingback: Complementarity |
  31. 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.

  32. 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 he is not feminist, and the utilization of anima is for men while animus for women indicates the opposite (hidden function of the psyche). In this regard a woman should get in touch her her masculine side… On top of this, I disagree with the point of men being inherently more rational and women inherently more emotional: this is very much about what is “allowed, honored and praised.” While a particular behavior may not be praised, if it is allowed, as opposed to NOT allowed, then it will find expression. Also Gender and Sex are different, again pointing to a surface level understanding of the intellectual context here where many have offered definitions if one took the time to really read them, many of the mistakes in this post could not exist. Also it seems that there is a misunderstanding of the term feminism and a misunderstanding of its aim. :/ I respect that two people can and should be able to chose to express whatever gender roles they like through the consent of their own relationship, I would hate to be thrust under a general category without mobility in ANY area. I want to be able to decide with my mate how to best divide the labor that is required for a harmonious life: in a way that contributes best to my personal and our collective sanity: if that means he goes to work and I clean the floors, as long as I have decided that works for me and not because it is thrust upon me without flexibility is the important thing. What you call the “feminization” of our culture, doesn’t seem so bad to me. Though there is a shadow to the “feminine” which I am not entirely sure how you are using this term, and I assume you describe this at length in previous posts, so I won’t bug you much with it here save to say I am utilizing my own assumptions. So, gentlemen, interesting dialog. My suggestion, if it hasn’t been brought up yet, is Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulao Feire: not only for men and women, but other aspects of gender, race, religion, culture etc….

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s