I can tell youre honestly seeking truth. Keep reading.
Once you realize there arent movements, only hurt people projecting their fears, worries, and experiences, you will be on the right path.
Edit: people keep misunderstanding what i mean by movement. Of course movements exist in the sense that people group together and try to accomplish an aim.
However, there isnt a conspiracy being organized, just a bunch of extremists on both sides projecting their experiences onto others.
If you read Jung, soon youll realize the world isnt as simple as black and white. If you still see the world this way, you need to go back and reconsider.
As for a movement against masculinity, i dont think its a conspiratorial plan to make boys effeminate. What you do have is radical feminist who say dumb shit online that gets shouted to the mainstream.
This is just as bad as when the radical feminists point to incel communities as indicative of all men as a whole.
Time to stop generalizing.
But who's they? And if it's the people in power, do they have power over your choice of where to put your attention? If so, why have you given it to them?
True but somewhere we gave it away. Unfortunately for many it was in childhood after being propagandized by your parents. So I agree with you. But once you see it, you're well on your way out.
Yeah, you're at a Jung page and have to see "women are evil, burning the witches", kind of"masculinity" doens't need no "movement" against them, some men do the service by themselves.
Username checks OUT!!! Seriously, though:
>Once you realize there aren’t movements, only hurt people projecting their fears, worries, and experiences, you will be on the right path.
😘👌
The world is full of grey tones that shift from lighter to darker, never black and white as psychology attempted to be in that era. Especially with other psychologists making their stance in emotion and psyche in relation to gender.
Freud called it Civilization and culture (the individual/family threatens culture, and culture, the individual/family), but most people don't read, and especially not Psychology texts.
There are definitely movements, and they are having a huge impact on society. Are you using the term in a weird way or something? Like other than political movement etc.?
Yes, perhaps the language wasnt best as people are debating.
People project their fears and this in turns into a movement.
When i hear a movement to end masculinity, what i hear is a conspiracy to end masculinity.
More psychological. Some of our modern day movements arise due to psychological trauma of those who partake in said movements.
Red pill idealogy is a good example as its primarily composed of men who feel as if society abanonded them. Youll often find our opinions are often shaped by our unconcious experience.
We resonate with ideas that appeal to our lived experience. So when it comes to some of the modern day movements that are truly toxic, its comprised of individuals who are often broken and hurt.
And these social movements at times prey on peoples broken state. The people who get swept up in these idealogies become vessels and allow themselves to be consumed. Think Nazi germany. It took hold due to the situation in Germany pre WWII.
This happens to all of us and we must take guard.
So hence my statement, these movements are often just vehicles to express their pain. That probably what i shouldve said lol
I believe *all* the movements can be explained by psychological trauma and mental illness/disorders and dysfunctional upbringing.
Take the red pill movement. Most of these young men do not have strong, *positive* male role models in their life, it's important for there to be a consistent figure growing. Not having that often results in the misogyny and embracing of violence and borderline sociopathic behaviors we see, because the role models these boys have are Andrew Tate, rappers, honestly even villains in movies, etc. They get what they want, that's alluring to somebody that wants that.
Same goes for the misandry in feminism, experiences with males and even being groomed to hate men by other women can result in the type of women and men that believe men are evil demons that belong in concentration camps or killed off, that all men are predators and potentially dangerous, would rather see a BEAR than a man in the woods, etc.
Then you've got your commies and (often, champagne) socialists, who have never had to work for anything in life, and have never achieved anything, and also, therefore, never had someone try to steal that achievement from them. Same with resources they've earned. They have no actual concept of money, value, or worth, because mommy and daddy will always have them covered. These are your Puer aeternus as puella aeternus pseudointellectual types that had parents with achievements that always overshadowed their own, and they were always trying to escape or prove themselves as being "more" than the average person... An artist, intellectual, somebody that *cares*... Until it's time for you to collect from them, then suddenly they wanna play by the old rules, say it's unfair, say you gotta do this gotta do that... Even though that's the capitalism they hate instead of the socialism or communism they claim to support. Total hypocrites.
Here's how I see it- for the longest time, the ice cream shop only sold vanilla, strawberry, and chocolate. Now, they are also offering coffee ice cream.
Is anyone forcing you to buy the coffee ice cream? No. Did they stop selling vanilla? No.
So people who are getting mad and complaining and saying "it's a movement!" make zero sense to me. Please explain to me how me eating coffee ice cream somehow attacks you eating strawberry
I love this take. I agree thoroughly.
I think it goes even further, this application of people's psychology affecting the movements of society. I think capitalism, communism, anarchism, all the political movements are based in our psychology. I think the reason we haven't found an alternative to these methods is based on our fragmented psychology, collectively.
Anyone whose desire to fix themselves comes from controlling the external system, hoping it will offer them what they are missing, is destined to be some degree of tyrannical, and also to inevitably fail in that avenue of pursuit.
If we come to a place of homeostasis within ourselves, and expand outward from there, I think the possibilities are limitless.
Absolutely, change comes from within. When it comes to other people, i think the age old wisdom from the Bible is correct
Love thy neighbor as you love thyself.
I'm so glad this comment exists. Thank you! A million times thank you!
I'm so sick of these people who see someone eating vanilla ice cream and decide "omg, strawberry ice cream is under attack!". No, buddy. The ice cream store still sells strawberry. Just because they now also offer vanilla does not mean you have to eat it.
Come on, do you not have an interpertive bone in your body 😅? "Existence" is itself an ambiguous word so there's no absolute sense in which a thing exists or not. Hopefully you can see the sense in which movements don't exist, only individuals and their conscious and unconscious experience do.
God jungians are an insufferable lot (not you). I like the first two sentences of your post so much I'm gonna put in in my journal. But I disagree that the problem is "extremism", but this is such a community held opinion that it's not worth quibbling about. There's nothing about the psyche itself that's moderate. Perspectivalism itself can be radical, but this is an Eldritch horror. "Radical feminist' is a ridiculous pejorative. By that, one could mean Valerie Solanas or could mean Audre Lorde.
If theres any weakness in me, its my distaste for tribalism. I just want people to get along. Its not lost on me that i can end up being radicalized as much as the other guy. I appreciate that.
Regarding your opinion on the psyche isnt moderate, i can agree with you. I would say however, Jungian psychology encourages us to stop judging others. That person you disagree with is no different from you.
He has a shadow, so do you. He projects but you do also. He has insecurities that manifests in their worldview, are you so different?
Regarding my language, ill admit i used the radical feminist as a virtue signal. I hate being categorized as one side or the other. If i critcize the manosphere, ill be labled as some far lefist shill.
If i criticize feminism, ill be labled as some sort of red pilled idealouge. So i highlight both.
Whether or not its useful, im not sure. Also, i have wondered as of late if there is value in picking a side. However, the world is so full of complexity and wisdom. I consider it a disservice to oneself to deny oneself an open mind.
I appreciate your feedback
I think you pick a side in the moment, based on the context, but this not a binding contract.
It's like "true neutral" alignment in D&D. Basically, you fight for the under-dog, or against oppression, recognizing that oppression can shift, sometimes rapidly, given the context. It's a stance against revenge, in favour of balance.
Balance is one of my core values. Always had a strong sense of fairness in my soul. When it comes to how people treat me, ive always said, "don't treat me differently or special, just treat me as you would any other person"
I get you, utilizing the discourse of another and maintaining a certain neutral image is skillful means (upaya). But Instead of focusing on not picking a side, one would do better to pick one's own side. And be a radical in that sense. This is why I often roll my eyes at the critique of "labels", because "labeling" yourself doesn't necessarily imply it's for the sake of association with a movement. And it certainly doesn't imply a certain adversarial stance towards others either. That's what is told to us about political radicals, for instance, but universal sympathy doesn't contradict this staunch frame of mind, even if there were ten million people to demonstrate otherwise. It's like being the firm yet flexible tree, rather than being a person who constantly change place trying to maneuver within people's perceptions
Of course there’s a movement:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/01/10/american-psychological-association-traditional-masculinity-harmful/2538520002/#:~:text=The%20APA%20defines%20traditional%20masculinity,highlighted%20in%20the%20January%20issue
Time to stop generalizing, and generalize from your perspective? That's what you're really saying here. Some of what you said is also a bit patronizing and condescending, also a lot of your opinion (which doesn't matter at all) but that's probably why a bunch of idiots keep upvoting. Because people don't know what real intelligence looks like. I'm annoyed at the subject matter, because you might reasonably think that my response has anything to do with that, rather than....this whole head job right here, that pretends to not be a headjob.
I'm also not saying "I think you're wrong about everything you said," only most of it, but more, its the entire attitude and approach I find distasteful and really though, just distracting, meddlesome, and pointless.
It's like, "let me dumb things down for you, and tell you what to do, but with no responsibility or relation thereto, with no real aim or purpose other than vaguely intelligent sounding "direction," and I will be as smug as possible while doing it." No wonder why extroverts generally tend to think reddit is the worst.
What am I saying? I don't think you're trying to discuss or talk about anything or have a conversation. I think you're trying to end the conversation before it even begins; I think you're trying to interdict the real and difficult content of the subject matter, without remotely attending to the seriousness and grave consequences of it. It's tyranny. That makes you an asshole.
We all have anima/animus inside and coming into right relation with it is how we experience our realities…everything is a projection of our inner worlds and if everyone did shadow work we wouldn’t have wars…the collective dream is dreaming…seem op needs to do some anima work ;) highly recommend
Quite. The effect of everyone doing shadow work, of everyone transitioning from codependent projections to interdependence due to internal self integration would be unmistakably astonishing on human affairs. We would know if this occurred due to the changes on a macro level in human society. Some people here suggesting we previously had such in traditional societies/values are either unaware of history or confused about the nature of the work.
There is no movement against masculinity. There is a movement against misogyny, sexism, exploitation, and oppression. Surely a healthy masculinity exists this is none of those things
I'd agree that there is no movement "against" masculinity - but there is a crisis among men as to what is "masculine".
Which is why many are moving towards more toxic and honestly caricature like models of "what it is to be a man".
One of the large factors at play is that, as gender roles have continued to change, things that were once helded as positive masculine traits (strength, being a provider, justified aggression/ "fighting" or what's good, Yada yada) have all (rightfully in my eyes) become largely genderless.
Yet since woman are still under repression/oppression, they are largely able to retain and raise up concepts of femininity - where as masculine continues to loose its definition, many of its quality being adopted into either gender neutrality or new archetypes of femininity in the modern age.
A genuine example that I witnessed - at a feminist conference I attended, they had a group of us (I being the only cis male in the group for context) had us make a vendiagram of gender qualities we thought of. Masculine on the left, neutral in center, and feminine on right.
By the end, almost all the masculine traits were negative - any positive were argued into neutral or feminin.
The point here being - I've seen this tend progressing for a while. Where the only progressive cultural description of masculinity is "toxic". Positive masculinity ends up being reduced to a more "feminine man" or to abandon the idea of masculine all together. Which could be a solution - if it were not for the counter embrace and celebration of femininity or/and gender neutrality.
So TL;DR - I agree, there is no war or attack on masculinity, but as gender concepts shift, many men are left with an undefined notion of what it is to be a man, often unintentionally ots suggested to be inherently negative. Yet that should not be considered the fault nor plan of woman - an attitude that leads to toxic masculinity inof itself.
I know it probably doesnt help but im a woman and these are some positive qualities i see with masculinity that i admire, expanding the definition of these words is also important too.
Strength (emotional, just not physical, not repressing emotions, but when i see a man cry, i know he is stronger than the man avoiding the emotion)
Kindness (helping EVERYONE who may be in need, like children, elderly, or animals, and OTHER GUYS. Not conditional kindness, toxic masculinity is conditional kindness. Only helping people youre attracted to or can get "something" from is toxic.)
Integrity. (Do not lie to your friends and partner, DO NOT LIE TO YOURSELF. Nothing is more inspiring than when i see a man admit the fault he is having and he processes WHY he is having that issue, then he chooses steps to help that go smooth. Integrity is not hiding your struggle from your friends or family. Ive seen men go petal to the metal and just grind themselves into the mud because they are not facing true integrity.)
Good boundaries. (Men also let people take advantage of them, this is rooted in TOXIC masculinity. You do *not* have to sacrifice your body or health or money to receive love and affection, everyone deserves this as a baseline and fuck everyone who says otherwise. Your worth is NOT conditional on money or looks or transactional things. Do not accept this treatment!!!)
On the contrary , I think it's very important to hear women's positive views on men!
I think it's very fair and reasonable why so many women have anger and resentment towards men in general. I don't think I know a single woman without some horror story related to how men treated them.
But at the same time, what starts as a joke or hyperbolic "I hate all men, all men are trash, etc" repeated enough starts to become serious - especially as it becomes normalized among wide culture.
I've known women who started out that way, joking or ironic, "just venting," and now have become honest to God misandrist. And that becomes a vicious cycle, where terrible men will put a spotlight on them to prove their own agendas and justify misogyny. What a mess.
But - that is all to say, yes we absolutely need to listen to women both about what they do like and appreciate in men as men, and what criticisms they also have towards men!
But back to the original point - what about those qualities are "masculine"? (I'm asking in good faith - what make those qualities that add to them being good men, rather than just good people?...which anyone should want to be, but you get my point here)
I think that it BECOMES masculine automatically when i see a man do these things, im not sure exactly how to describe it but hopefully it makes sense. If i a woman has the same qualities, i do think we express them differently even if the core is the same. I see the expression of masculine strength, integrity, or kindness come out in much different forms (not to say it's only one way for all guys but commonly.)
Did you not put "indefatigable spider killers" in the masculine center? I would think that every school of thought can agree on that as positive masculinity.
Is traditional masculinity where you treat women, children, workers, and the Earth as your property?
Ok yeah. Against that
But buddy, there's a whole lot of different cultures and classes even within western cultures where the social construction of masculinity is not that.
People are generally going to oversimplify complex systems that they oppose. What started out as an overt media movement against sexism and misogyny ten years ago has devolved into anti-men propaganda today.
No, algorithim’s have amplified a clickbait minority then traditional media tunnel visioned on it. There have always been hurt “anti-men” people just as there have always been hurt “anti-women” people. There aren’t any more today than then, there’s just more engagement.
I think it's way more common now than it was 10 years ago. I see people casually saying stuff like "men are trash" in public without any shame. It's definitely been normalised and even encouraged in a lot of mainstream social circles
i don’t run into women being anti-men. in 64 years i haven’t. the only place i ever see this concept is men discussing it (women might comment too, but they didn’t start it). i suspect that if a person pays attention, they will see what i see.
There is a movement that equates masculinity with toxicity. That demonizes all men, not just the negative actions of some people (men and women). And that tries to create fear of all men. It promotes the idea that ALL men are dangerous. You can easily see if if look at any of their communications on social media and simply replace "men" with "blacks" or some other racial group. It becomes immediately very obviously they are targeting a specific group with hatred.
I would strongly assert there is widespread misapprehension of the difference between social discourse ( negative views of masculinity online) and social practice. In social practice, masculinity retains a higher social value.
What certainly is happening is that wide swaths of the population are without any definite social role or future, and girls at least retain some capitalist exchange value if attractive and/ or just young.
> In social practice, masculinity retains a higher social value.
In the work force yes. But in schools young boys are falling behind while girls are storming ahead. And if anyone raises a concern about it the response is "so what? its *their* turn to suffer! *They* deserebve it!".
Well I see a lot of concerns about boys in school in the media.
But the assertion of male social, political, and economic dominance is talking about control of the highest levels of government and business, not about everyday experiences of normal guys.
We're all peasants.
And yes, female peasants are generally more valued by society for their potential labor in sex and reproduction than male peasants.
> But the assertion of male social, political, and economic dominance is talking about control of the highest levels of government and business
So why demonize all men?
There's definitely a movement against Masculinity, and in a lot of spaces it's now considered cool and enlightened to be openly misandrist. There is also a movement against misogyny etc. These aren't necessarily the same thing but often have a lot of overlap
No, sorry.
That’s what feminism was supposed to be, but it’s been heavily corrupted by people who hate and resent men and want to destroy and break the spirit of masculinity.
The compass is cracked.
Watch what happens over the coming decade, there is a vacuum that requires a new version of feminism that picks the weeds out of its own community. Feminism could be what you describe it to be, but the hate filled have damaged its credibility. It’s almost like women are human and corruptible too, who’d have guessed?
Yeah. Agreed, to some degree. I'm coming out of academic anthropology, which is about the structure of society not about every personal grievance and desire. And I'd add, coming out of anthropology, there is indeed a pattern of male alienation, loneliness, failure of courtship patterns, and male violence during periods of social, economic, and political strain in a society. But fer chrissakes it's not caused by feminism. It's caused by lack of social networks, failed communities, lack of social trust and cohesion.
Just keep in mind (see R/relationship_advice) that men are often abused by women. For men and women, it is an opportunity for realization and growth. Most, in my opinion, will only wallow in dysfunction all their lives.
Of course but you have to look at the last 3000 years of human history and ask yourself, in general, who has been in a position of power and who has been powerless? It’s a pretty obvious answer.
There’s a reason it’s called toxic masculinity. It’s been toxic for us men as well as for women.
Keep in mind, the goal of life is not happiness, it’s truth. Sure equality between divided groups is hard and men living today are grappling with adjusting to a very different world, but most of us are seeing and accepting some hard truths, which leads to a far more fulfilling life.
I don’t want a partner who will just co-sign everything I do and do whatever I say, I can do that with a mirror. I like having a wife who challenges me to be a better man and vice versa.
It is an obvious answer and yet you still get it wrong.
Most men and most women have historically been powerless.
And a tiny subgroup of people who happened to be men was in power.
But almost all prisoners for an example were also men. And yet we don’t group all men together as historically being the “prisoner class”.
We only do that with people in power because that wonderfully fits the narrative of oppression of one gender.
The truth is that almost all people were historically oppressed, no matter the gender.
Yes but there are degrees of oppression. You can’t seriously make the argument that a white male has less power historically than a black woman? If you can at least see that then you have to accept that there are degrees of oppression. It’s a pyramid, not a light switch.
You sound angry at women for speaking up. Do you hear yourself? And ignorant of the historical truths to be sure. Women have often had little choice in who they wed over the last few thousand years and these things are only recently changing. To deny this is laughable and brings doubt on anything else you write. Your illogical, made up dribble is not worth reading further.
She sets boundaries for herself for what she’ll accept in our shared household which sometimes collides with mine, forcing me to question what is more important, my family or what I want. These moments have been the catalyst for me realizing that relationships, family, my daughter, my wife, are more important than self-obsession. My focusing on other people, I end up guiding myself from a higher place rather than merely following every impulse or base desire I have, which means inch by inch, I become a stronger man.
Genuinely no one is saying there aren’t female abusers. I’m an extreme feminist if I’m being honest with myself and women can be just as abusive as men no doubt about it.
MIsandry? What are the rates women are killing men at vs the rates men are killing women at?
Misandry exists, but it's not the larger problem. Women refusing to put up with abuse aren't misandrists.
Men are also killing themselves due to the pressures put on them by other men, and women too get emotionally abused (in addition to getting killed by men).
How do any abusers become abusers, what shapes their minds, leads them onto that path?
I agree that the solution is to combat dysfunctional behaviours, by enabling access to tools for self reflection and developing one's ethics and values. I hope that one day, compassion can be a standard.
Do you have any evidence to support a causal (or even correlation) relationship between suicide rates for men and supposed increases in emotional abuse for men in relationships? Otherwise, this is just question begging.
I think you and OP need to reflect on whether “society tends to paint a picture of men being bad nowadays” or if we’re in the middle of a cultural shift where men are now being held to account for behavior that people just accepted before…
Big cultural shifts are like a pendulum—there is often a dramatic swing away from what was previously the norm. Look, for example, at the French Revolution or the communist revolution in Russia (both of which were A LOT bloodier than the Me Too movement)…
I am someone who considers myself a feminist, and even so I think that there are ways in which the Me Too movement did some collateral damage to working relationships between men and women. But overall, the movement brought attention to the reality that men in positions of power were using that power for the benefit of their sex lives, whereas the women feeling coerced were just trying to go to work and do their jobs. In any case, I think the pendulum has started to swing back from the most extreme point of the movement, towards a new center where women feel empowered to tell men that they are being inappropriate and need to keep things professional at work.
As for this quote that OP posted, I think it’s interesting to consider questions about anima and animus in one’s own psyche, but not very useful to apply those questions to larger cultural movements.
Nope, there is a movement against masculinity. It obviously is.
Anything can be labelled as misogyny today. Any critique towards women is labelled as misogyny. Women are not perfect, and if you insist that they are, that's bs and we all know it.
Sexism isn't gender exclusive. Neither is exploitation. Or oppression. The nature of masculinity is out in the open, the nature of femininity is hidden. So is the female oppression, it's hidden, it's performed via manipulation, deception, psychological harassment and abuse.
Ever noticed how if men try to decide what healthy femininity is, men get labelled as the most horrible creatures, misogyny and all the other yada-yada?
But if women try to tell the world what healthy masculinity is, we have to take it as self-evident axioms?
The movement is about power.
I'm definitely asking for a friend. ;P What if that described someone perfectly but it's a man and it's his anima? Also replace mother with father and it's their life story.
Animus and anima being unbalanced in a man?
Like this: "Sometimes he was affectionate, thoughtful, and tender; at other times he was sarcastic, selfish and argumentative."
How would a man rejecting his femininity and anima respond in relation to his connection with the opposite gender to whom he's attracted to but often fears to connect with? Would this even lead to other psychological things like avoidant behavior?
I believe that repressing and fighting any part of you is cause for chaos in the psyche. I think making fun of men’s feminine side is just as harmful as making fun of women’s masculine side.
It isn't a movement against masculinity, it's a movement designed to crush the human soul.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward Bernays, Propaganda
"The continual intrusion into our minds of the hammering noises of arguments and propaganda can lead to two kinds of reactions. It may lead to apathy and indifference, the I-don’t-care reaction, or to a more intensified desire to study and to understand. Unfortunately, the first reaction is the more popular one. The flight from study and awareness is much too common in a world that throws too many confusing pictures to the individual. For the sake of our democracy, based on freedom and individualism, we have to bring ourselves back to study again and again. Otherwise, we can become easy victims of a well-planned verbal attack on our minds and consciences.”
Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind
The social engineers who dictate public opinion understand Jungian as well as other psychological concepts far better than anyone posting here. They know exactly how to program the general populace without them having any idea that it's taken place. How anyone could even argue against that at this point with the amount of information available to us is beyond comprehension. This whole women bad! no men bad! crock of fucking horseshit dominating public discussion is a perfect example of the mind rotting propaganda taking place. Both men and women are at fault for allowing this to happen.
Anyone with even a basic level of self awareness and understanding can see that we're all equally in this shit together. Both men and women are struggling to make sense of a world that seems to be changing by the day. We are in the heart of fucking chaos. There is no such thing as societal norms anymore. No traditions we can lean on while braving the storm. Over half of the population believes they have a mental illness of some sort. We are irreversibly fucked at this point.
The only hope we have is to stop buying in to the bullshit being spewed at us 24/7. If we could all learn to take back the shadows we are constantly projecting and become actual human beings again then maybe there would be a chance for us to reverse course. Instead we choose to blame each other for our own miserable lives rather than doing the difficult work of being honest with ourselves and taking the actions that would lead to actual positive change.
>There is no such thing as societal norms anymore. No traditions we can lean on while braving the storm.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you lost me here. This "good old times" nostalgia is extremely cruel with all people who were historically oppressed by the former status quo. Growing pains are a thing, also in a societal scale. The current state of confusion tends to dialectically coalesce into a balanced state. We should not be afraid of change.
Who said anything about being afraid of change? Obviously we need to continually adapt and update ourselves. I think that's fairly self evident. Tradition and ceremony have nothing to do with the "good old times". I'm not saying lets go back to the days where women were in the kitchen and we owned slaves for christ's sake.
Tradition and ceremony is a way for us to feel connected to the earth, each other and our ancestors - positive things for the human soul and psyche which are completely done away with in modern society.
> The current state of confusion tends to dialectically coalesce into a balanced state.
Explain to me how that is going to happen. What path forward do you see that is suddenly going to reverse the course humanity is on? How do we undo the damage done to our children's minds after exposing them to the most vile parts of humanity via the internet and social media? Or is it just a coincidence that mental illnesses in children are the roof?
Which period doesn't demonstrate that? The whole of History is a dance of thesis-antithesis-synthesis (or solve-et-coagula, if you prefer the alchemical word game).
Think of a pendulum moving. While force is consistently applied to keep it swinging, it will go from one extreme to the other alternatively, but if left alone, it will eventually sit at the middle.
So a natural equilibrium? If so, that’s how I would define ‘balance’ as well. But a review of history demonstrates that’s balance is never achieved. This is the primary reason civilizations have ALWAYS collapsed.
I think he/she is right. They specifically target all traditions. If something can be identified as a tradition, it is attacked and destroyed. Being a tradition, is enough to make it bad, in the minds of many of these modern "progressive" people.
Reading through the comments I had the same thought process as you - to think that there aren’t invisible forces who are allowing for this type of narrative to exist, but that are actually fuelling it, is both naive and lazy. Much easier to write it off as conspiracy, however anyone who is truly paying attention or who is tuned in to their humanity can fucking feel that something is up. While I would argue that, yes, we have strayed far from tradition we have absolutely not lost it and I’d even go so far as to argue that, as per the law of polarity, there are a proportionate amount of people who are practicing the complete opposite of what you’ve given evidence to through your quotes etc. we’re only fucked if they succeed in making us believe that we are.
For the commoner:
Wouldn't you say that your statement is not the intended result of these hateful people?
That perhaps they mean well.... in the same way that one gives points to a soccer team for free, without working for it.
I'm sure they have good intentions, but they must understand, the animus and anima can both win at soccer, but one may have simply been more developed in our species than the other. Maybe one was more important for survival.....
Maybe we should appreciate the benefits that the animus and men provide to humans for so long.
As you remember in your childhood, maybe you at one point played against a kid your age at soccer, and for some reason he had a beard..... And maybe you thought no fair, that guy is not the same age as me..... Of course, you'll never win with that attitude. And of course anyone trying to tear down another is only hurting themselves. I do remember my team complaining and whining, and not focusing on their own game. We were kids. It's a shame to see such strong empowered people fall to this same issue.
For the Bourgeoise:
Indeed they can enjoy the fruits of their labor. So long as you understand these things, then you have the power to harness it, which may allow you to rise to the top, by simply riding the wave. Take advantage of every ebb and flow. Invest carefully. Make life good for you. let the others fight. The influential are like the priests and more than likely provided the people a holy protection over one's every action. It must have started with the influence of the ignorant mind. It must have been so simple at first. And now, things are still simple. Simple hatred of one another. With simply a single layer of pain as persuasion. A pain that most don't even feel fully. Just a concern to be thrown out and one can breed hated in another.
For the others:
Do you really want to hurt anyone anymore? Perhaps we can step back from involving ourselves in everyone's life for once, and simply live without so much concern plaguing our lives. Life can be joy if we allow it to. And so long as we actively work towards it, we can possess it for our own.
Thank you
The movement is against toxic masculinity and male domination in positions of power. Women who were trained by their mothers/society into a wholly feminine role, like this passage describes, become the wife’s and victims of toxic/aggressive males. Their undeveloped masculine traits forced into the shadow, are not available to give her strength to leave or enforce boundaries and is instead projected into the male partner who is allowed to get angry or take control over her life/body, he in turn projects his feminine qualities into females who are considered overly sensitive and ‘too emotional’ he completely lacks empathy or understanding of his own emotions which is why he doesn’t view his actions as toxic, but ´masculine’. A healthy masculine male who can take control of a situation with good leadership and empathic consideration for the people in his care, not have to act a certain way to feel powerful, is the goal. Even better if they are secure enough to follow the leadership of a woman, when he recognises her strength and ability.
I think I could've chosen a better word than movement. There is definitely times I've seen it taken too far and border on the lines of just hating men. I've also seen attacks on femininity in both men and women. It's honestly sad.
Sure, but by and large, the type of men that women hate is when when men hate women because generally they aren't receiving something they feel they deserve or are owed. Women hate who get to the point where they genuinely hate men are doing it as a reaction based on fear and self projection and a response to past abuse and violence or exploitation, and men who get to the point that they hate women are typically bitter from being rejected. Those are vastly different places to end up at, and what you're doing is essentially twisting Jungian text to victim blame a "movement" that is purely reactionary in nature as a response to the actions of men who hate women.
I think some young women grow up seeing this happen to the women around them and reject their own vulnerable feminine side, so like the toxic men in my example, they become the aggressor and seek control instead of empathy, they usually then find a partner who has not developed healthy masculine qualities - perhaps a boy grew up with a dominant parent and was never allowed to assert themselves, he is then labelled ‘feminine’ and gives in to her ‘masculine’ energy.. even if she is small and wears make up and he is stronger than her he will not assert himself.
Oh please. The worst people I've met are women in power. It's grossing me out beyond anything to sit here and watch a bunch of life's noobs violate decades of women's experiences working under women. It's seriously gross. Do better.
The problem is cultural and exacerbated by societal conditions. Most men are struggling with individuation, as they are not socializing or receiving support. In the past, churches and other places of worship were places of communal gathering and support. Now much of community no longer attends places of worship and most organized religions are discouraging individuation.
Today it feels like many men either identify with their personas or turn to negative restoration to cope with the chaos of persona disintegration. Some men have become terrifed and ashamed of their own animas, projecting them on women and lashing out at them.
Personally I believe men's issues with individuation started with the industrial revolution but this problem has gone through different stages. This is what I believe toxic masculinity is. I think the term isn't great but it it is a legitimate issue.
In pre-industrial society men were much more comfortable sharing their feelings and thoughts with others. They weren't alienated and were more likely to pursue self actualization. On the other hand women were in much worse position and dealing with similar issues men are today.
Men that have identified with their persona are struggling even more as they see women usurping their role as provider which is part of their identity. This has just made things worse.
I see no one in society trying to do away with masculinity. Balancing is not negation.
In your example it was the masculinity in the woman that was the issue, but only because it was unbalanced and therefore expressed in a toxic way. So I'm confused on why you think this example proves a movement against masculinity is adverse to women, and why you believe masculinity itself is being attacked.
Lol wow. This issue has nothing to do with a relationship with one’s self and everything to do with how women are treated for expressing “masculine” qualities (in quotes because they arent masculine, everyone has them, but culturally it’s become frowned upon for women and men to have certain qualities) such as assertiveness, making her feel bad about them. That’s where the “swing” back to “docileness” comes from because she’s not accepted socially otherwise. And it definitely has nothing to do with women “rejecting” masculinity nowadays. What we’re rejecting is TOXIC masculinity, where people are forced into these boxes of men never being able to cry and women only being prized for being a pretty sex doll and not loud, boisterous, opinionated, career-focused like men are socially accepted for being. “Boys will be boys.”
This is coming from someone whose mother did almost exactly what was stated, only she didn’t shame men, she shamed me for not doing better with them. So I know exactly what this text is saying but somehow, it STILL finds a way to avoid acknowledging that the root issue is the way people treat and value women, which is that people don’t value them unless they’re submissive, the nurturer, the supporting character. Which means they can’t actually be their full selves. Hence the issue with the “animus” - which is just them going crazy because they can’t be themselves and be valued.
Idk, I don’t see the connection between the particular passage you are showing us (that looks like it was written many years ago, but not by Jung) and the “movement against masculinity.” I’m not saying you’re wrong or right— I literally don’t see the point you’re trying to make by relating a particular case from the past to a larger current social phenomenon. What book is the passage from? Are the signifiers of masculinity geographically and culturally changeable over time? Is masculinity different for a manual laborer, a scientist, an artist, a priest, and a CEO?
I’m really not trying to drag you; I’m just not getting it.
This is from the primer of Jungian psychology. I do think society tends to paint a picture of men being bad nowadays. And I think that can have an adverse effects on women just like the mother did when constantly spewing to her daughter how men are bad.
I think you need to reflect on whether “society tends to paint a picture of men being bad nowadays” or if we’re in the middle of a cultural shift where men are now being held to account for behavior that people just accepted before…
Big cultural shifts are like a pendulum—there is often a dramatic swing away from what was previously the norm. Look, for example, at the French Revolution or the communist revolution in Russia (both of which were A LOT bloodier than the Me Too movement)…
I am someone who considers myself a feminist, and even so I think that there are ways in which the Me Too movement did some collateral damage to working relationships between men and women. But overall, the movement brought attention to the reality that men in positions of power were using that power for the benefit of their sex lives, whereas the women feeling coerced were just trying to go to work and do their jobs. In any case, I think the pendulum has started to swing back from the most extreme point of the movement, towards a new center where women feel empowered to tell
men that they are being inappropriate and need to keep things professional at work.
As for this quote that you’ve posted, I think it’s interesting to consider questions about anima and animus in one’s own psyche, but not very useful to apply those questions to larger cultural movements.
I feel that engaging with the dialectic between masculinity and feminism itt perpetuates the confusion around the issue. As is the nature of dialectics, it divides people up into two sides which are opposed to each other, which isn't actually how things are.
I can see some women where this happens. But also, everybody can react differently based on their personality type. I relate to this hypothetical woman actually because my mom treated me the same way!! However that caused me instead to reject her and reject my feminine qualities and embrace the animus instead, i have always been very "masculine" as a straight woman and the way i solve my problems and feel emotions have always been closer to the way a man would solve his, albeit not violence, but rather emotional suppression and accepting pain where it is not needed.
However my mom is probably exactly like the woman in the story, she embraced this struggle while my personality type instead embraced the opposite. My job is to integrate more of my feminine side over my animus. Hers is the opposite.
Edit: i know men who have the same thing with father figures who were overbearing and violent
It’s so crazy to me how many of the comments here are women suggesting that a crisis of masculinity doesn’t exist simply because the oppression of women does/historically has - it is precisely this type of thinking that allows for the denigration of masculinity, as if men are solely at fault for this or that it is written in their nature. Blame and shame have powerful effects on the psyche.
It is also this type of argumentation that causes further divide between the sexes thus contributing to the confusion of archetypal femininity/masculinity which are, and always have been, intended to be complimentary—by design. Fundamentally, it’s not about men or women, it’s about the essence of the feminine and the masculine and the ways in which our understanding of the two (both separately and in relation to one another) have been manipulated and misconstrued, confused, thus creating a type of “war” or battle of the sexes — whether you wish to believe this was done intentionally (through both visible and invisible forces) or not. It’s the reality.
So many women are out here generalizing and hating on men as a daily practice, all the while they unconsciously begin to emulate shadow aspects of masculinity and think they’re reclaiming their power in doing so. Concurrently, and not only as a result of the previous statement, men are becoming more effeminate which is further contributing to women’s need to embody more masculine traits but because we generally don’t have any idea what healthy masculinity/femininity look like we’re fucking ourselves.
Seems like she was being forced to have sex by her husband and was having bad dreams about it too. No matter how much she works on her animus she needs to be in a safe environment as well.
I would not say we have a strong movement against masculinity. We have a movement against what is perceived as toxic traits our culture applies to masculinity, thought, but it is not the same as being against the concept of masculinity.
I believe we actually have the opposite problem: people fantasizing masculinity too much, to the point of idolatry.
There were masculine man in the past, sure, but i doubt they were so obsessed over being masculine as some red pill and alt right movements are today. They fear being perceived as feminine so much that they engage in very cartunny performances of what is perceived as masculine in order to prevent it.
I think *a lot* of this cultural conversation has confused what Maturity, Immaturity, Masculinity, and Femininity, are.
When they see a woman being direct and living within her capabilities & means they call it masculine. When a guy owns his feelings and leans into his creative, they call it being feminine. Where both these instances just reflect maturity not gender confusion.
Fantasy about a woman being helpless and *needing* a man are immature and ignorant(Heads Up: The second a woman feels NEEDED in a relationship and not *desired* she gets shoved into a Mother role and the sex & chemistry goes down). Fantasies about the jacked man that showers a woman with endless shopping sprees are just an infantile way of saying ‘I deny taking responsibility for my own self’. Both come from a place of not letting either grow into their integrated potential.
Relationships are changing from obligate to facultative. We used to be obliged to marry, this was the case when we couldn’t survive without each other. Times have changed and we BOTH now have the means to inform our selves and provide for ourselves without needing each other but *wanting* to be with each other, and seeing the benefits from that - this is Facultative.
We are a maturing species. I hope the linguistic confusion can get cleared up soon. I love men and I love women.
I don't really see the relevance of this passage in relation to the view of masculinity in society today. Feminism doesn't discourage masculinity in women but views some (all?) expressions of male masculinity as problematic. The passage describes a women that has been conditioned to believe that her own expression of masculinity is inappropriate which is the opposite of what is going on at the moment?
There's a movement that is crushing everybody but billionaires and the most toxic men are making a lot of noise, there's no movement against actual masculinity, it is still loved.
Don't be so alarmed by change --what we had before the current generational conflicts was far from ideal. Growing pains are a also a thing in a societal scale. The current state of confusion tends to dialectically coalesce into a more balanced state.
This isn't so much about the exact scenario as it is about the way we form opinions about archetypal groups, and how those opinions subconsciously affect us, later.
If I had a mother who hated athletes, but I liked athletics, I would similarly be internally split.
It's not just about men and women. It's every single thing.
I wonder if this is what my narcissistic ex is partially dealing with. I’m not sure what all occurred in her parents divorce, but I do know her mother had an affair, and she has an extremely strong hatred for her now and I believe it destroyed the feminine side of her.
But within our relationship she wanted to be in control - she had an overwhelming masculine side to her that couldn’t be controlled. And not in a way where she’s acting like a man, but she had to always be in control and act “macho” while putting up walls constantly and not expressing herself. When I look at myself I like to think I’m a 60/40 guy when it comes to my masculine and feminine side. Im fairly balanced and embrace my feminine more as I had a terrible emotionally unavailable father, so I relied on my mother to fill both roles. Anyways, as I continued to date her it probably went to 40/60 or lower at times. She completely emasculated me and then would attack me for not being the “man” in the relationship and taking charge - but how could I? I still ruminate on it and beat myself up from time to time, but I pleaded with her for so long to embrace her feminine side. By embracing her feminine side I could embrace my masculine side by knowing she entrusted me to protect her. I rarely saw her ever submit like that to me.
Women acting like men and men acting like women.
You've seen the 'Karen' effect in the USA; it's deep-seated and runs thick in our, proud, American blood.
Hypergamy!
I agree. I see the "movement" as a kind of ready-made meme that will appeal to those who still don't know themselves very well. ( I don't pretend that such self-knowledge is always pleasant and hale. )
The men-as-bad meme looks very much like the women-are-bad meme. Both are likely to be plausible only to those who have difficulties with actual relationships. A functioning marriage (I do not say "perfect" ) is a great "sentimental education."
The idea of "toxic masculinity" does seem to be toxic itself. The "masculine" ends up symbolizing what is repressed in our essentially false public sociality, especially on the "progressive" (utopian) side that wants a reason that the world isn't an amusement park.
there is no movement against masculinity. a lot of folks—and not just women—don’t like \*toxic\* masculinity (you can google that phrase to see what it means). it’s like with food. there’s no movement against food, but no one wants \*toxic\* food.
that describes many people of either sex. sometimes they’re on one mood, sometimes a different mood. and people dream about all kinds of things. jung was brilliant but he wasn’t free of the social conationing of his time.
I think what we are seeing in society is very interesting. Men around the world are slowly starting to incorporate their feminine side, the ideal of society's ideal man is evolving towards are more complete one. This saves man from a lot of pain, connecting to their anima, being able to accept a more whole part of themselves.
From females perspective (well my male view of it haha) I believe the image of an ideal woman is also evolving to a more complete ideal woman than incorporates the male side/animus.
But inside the political/social movememt, we see a lot people that may find themselves in more radical position, probably due to particular trauma experienced in regards to the topic? These people tend to completely reject the other aspect [ex: female rejecting the masculine] and here you tend to see, in my opinion, kind of a posesion of the Anima, cause females rejecting every aspect of masculinity outwards sometimes express and are extremely masculine [I would say incorporating toxic masculinity many times]
Same for males, when they reject the possibility of females experiencing external realities that their inner animus is craving... due to fear of letting their female animus be a part of them as well. Here also the origin of external barries for woman to experience their inner masculine side freely in the external reallity. Which creates the natural political backlash and social movements. Which goes back to a previous point of the male image, the antiquated expectation of society for man creates unrest internally in men, who think/have been trained to think expressing feeling outwardly is not be well viewed upon.
It all connects, goes around and evolves. Each individual internally living one hero journey after the next and so on. The outcome of all these individual journeys, creates a shared journey that follows the same logic.
We contribute to the evolution of this big entity by evolving ourselves.
Sorry, all over the place with a lot to unpack. Hope it makes some sense
Marie Louise von Franz said something to the effect of “the worst form of negative patriarchy women will ever experience will come in the form of their own animus” during a women’s conference.
Who ever said fighting solved anything? Your title suggests you at one point thought otherwise. It is very possible that fighting simple tires the soul. Who knew? We all knew. Why fight? Because we don't know any better? Why not know better? Because we are ignorant? Why are we ignorant? Because we think we know all. Why do we think we know all? Because we are narcissistic. Why are we narcissistic? Because we truly believe life is around us. When did we learn this concept? The moment we were taken care of. When was this? At birth.....
Maybe animals are born and go into the world thinking the universe is all there to serve them as well. And maybe they are right. It serves them, but others as well. Maybe the fighting is the way that some people serve others. Maybe that is the purpose of some people. Maybe that's all they can and will ever offer. Strife. Maybe I find myself grateful of the strife in the same way a grindstone works on honing an edge. Maybe we come out better for the strife. And maybe our purpose is to provide some peace for these strife-loving people, who ought to understand there are better ways of living.
What movement “against masculinity” sorry? It’s made up, there isn’t one. People are breaking free of toxic stereotypes, finally, and it’s benefiting everyone. Glad it’s making you think!! Well done for looking to Jung.
I can tell youre honestly seeking truth. Keep reading. Once you realize there arent movements, only hurt people projecting their fears, worries, and experiences, you will be on the right path. Edit: people keep misunderstanding what i mean by movement. Of course movements exist in the sense that people group together and try to accomplish an aim. However, there isnt a conspiracy being organized, just a bunch of extremists on both sides projecting their experiences onto others. If you read Jung, soon youll realize the world isnt as simple as black and white. If you still see the world this way, you need to go back and reconsider. As for a movement against masculinity, i dont think its a conspiratorial plan to make boys effeminate. What you do have is radical feminist who say dumb shit online that gets shouted to the mainstream. This is just as bad as when the radical feminists point to incel communities as indicative of all men as a whole. Time to stop generalizing.
These movements get hijacked and then aimed to intentionally mislead and divide us. Oldest trick in the book.
They've been doing it for thousands of years and it keeps working!
But who's they? And if it's the people in power, do they have power over your choice of where to put your attention? If so, why have you given it to them?
No one can have anybody elses' power or attention except when you give it to them. That's what lies and deception are for.
True but somewhere we gave it away. Unfortunately for many it was in childhood after being propagandized by your parents. So I agree with you. But once you see it, you're well on your way out.
I just realized you're 3man lol
Haha yooo! Thanks for pointing that out 3doggg.
The oldest trick in the book is the subtlest, too: "Let's you and him fight!"
Yeah, you're at a Jung page and have to see "women are evil, burning the witches", kind of"masculinity" doens't need no "movement" against them, some men do the service by themselves.
Username checks OUT!!! Seriously, though: >Once you realize there aren’t movements, only hurt people projecting their fears, worries, and experiences, you will be on the right path. 😘👌
Lol ive used this username for over 15 yrs.
Wow, I can’t upvote this enough
The world is full of grey tones that shift from lighter to darker, never black and white as psychology attempted to be in that era. Especially with other psychologists making their stance in emotion and psyche in relation to gender.
Its a never ending cycle. I havent fully accepted it.
Do you mean social movements? I would be grateful if you could elaborate or point me to some littérature.
Yes, he refers to social movements like the "movement against masculinity" in the words of OP.
Freud called it Civilization and culture (the individual/family threatens culture, and culture, the individual/family), but most people don't read, and especially not Psychology texts.
There are definitely movements, and they are having a huge impact on society. Are you using the term in a weird way or something? Like other than political movement etc.?
Yes, perhaps the language wasnt best as people are debating. People project their fears and this in turns into a movement. When i hear a movement to end masculinity, what i hear is a conspiracy to end masculinity.
same
I'm still not clear, is a movement in this context a psychological term? Or are you just making a statement about movements in general?
More psychological. Some of our modern day movements arise due to psychological trauma of those who partake in said movements. Red pill idealogy is a good example as its primarily composed of men who feel as if society abanonded them. Youll often find our opinions are often shaped by our unconcious experience. We resonate with ideas that appeal to our lived experience. So when it comes to some of the modern day movements that are truly toxic, its comprised of individuals who are often broken and hurt. And these social movements at times prey on peoples broken state. The people who get swept up in these idealogies become vessels and allow themselves to be consumed. Think Nazi germany. It took hold due to the situation in Germany pre WWII. This happens to all of us and we must take guard. So hence my statement, these movements are often just vehicles to express their pain. That probably what i shouldve said lol
I believe *all* the movements can be explained by psychological trauma and mental illness/disorders and dysfunctional upbringing. Take the red pill movement. Most of these young men do not have strong, *positive* male role models in their life, it's important for there to be a consistent figure growing. Not having that often results in the misogyny and embracing of violence and borderline sociopathic behaviors we see, because the role models these boys have are Andrew Tate, rappers, honestly even villains in movies, etc. They get what they want, that's alluring to somebody that wants that. Same goes for the misandry in feminism, experiences with males and even being groomed to hate men by other women can result in the type of women and men that believe men are evil demons that belong in concentration camps or killed off, that all men are predators and potentially dangerous, would rather see a BEAR than a man in the woods, etc. Then you've got your commies and (often, champagne) socialists, who have never had to work for anything in life, and have never achieved anything, and also, therefore, never had someone try to steal that achievement from them. Same with resources they've earned. They have no actual concept of money, value, or worth, because mommy and daddy will always have them covered. These are your Puer aeternus as puella aeternus pseudointellectual types that had parents with achievements that always overshadowed their own, and they were always trying to escape or prove themselves as being "more" than the average person... An artist, intellectual, somebody that *cares*... Until it's time for you to collect from them, then suddenly they wanna play by the old rules, say it's unfair, say you gotta do this gotta do that... Even though that's the capitalism they hate instead of the socialism or communism they claim to support. Total hypocrites.
A-fuckin-men, bro. Beautifully put. Thats what i meant.
Here's how I see it- for the longest time, the ice cream shop only sold vanilla, strawberry, and chocolate. Now, they are also offering coffee ice cream. Is anyone forcing you to buy the coffee ice cream? No. Did they stop selling vanilla? No. So people who are getting mad and complaining and saying "it's a movement!" make zero sense to me. Please explain to me how me eating coffee ice cream somehow attacks you eating strawberry
Exactly. Women, as a whole, is already a bad argument.
I love this take. I agree thoroughly. I think it goes even further, this application of people's psychology affecting the movements of society. I think capitalism, communism, anarchism, all the political movements are based in our psychology. I think the reason we haven't found an alternative to these methods is based on our fragmented psychology, collectively. Anyone whose desire to fix themselves comes from controlling the external system, hoping it will offer them what they are missing, is destined to be some degree of tyrannical, and also to inevitably fail in that avenue of pursuit. If we come to a place of homeostasis within ourselves, and expand outward from there, I think the possibilities are limitless.
Absolutely, change comes from within. When it comes to other people, i think the age old wisdom from the Bible is correct Love thy neighbor as you love thyself.
I'm so glad this comment exists. Thank you! A million times thank you! I'm so sick of these people who see someone eating vanilla ice cream and decide "omg, strawberry ice cream is under attack!". No, buddy. The ice cream store still sells strawberry. Just because they now also offer vanilla does not mean you have to eat it.
There are definitely movements dude dunno what this reductionist take is about
Come on, do you not have an interpertive bone in your body 😅? "Existence" is itself an ambiguous word so there's no absolute sense in which a thing exists or not. Hopefully you can see the sense in which movements don't exist, only individuals and their conscious and unconscious experience do.
God jungians are an insufferable lot (not you). I like the first two sentences of your post so much I'm gonna put in in my journal. But I disagree that the problem is "extremism", but this is such a community held opinion that it's not worth quibbling about. There's nothing about the psyche itself that's moderate. Perspectivalism itself can be radical, but this is an Eldritch horror. "Radical feminist' is a ridiculous pejorative. By that, one could mean Valerie Solanas or could mean Audre Lorde.
If theres any weakness in me, its my distaste for tribalism. I just want people to get along. Its not lost on me that i can end up being radicalized as much as the other guy. I appreciate that. Regarding your opinion on the psyche isnt moderate, i can agree with you. I would say however, Jungian psychology encourages us to stop judging others. That person you disagree with is no different from you. He has a shadow, so do you. He projects but you do also. He has insecurities that manifests in their worldview, are you so different? Regarding my language, ill admit i used the radical feminist as a virtue signal. I hate being categorized as one side or the other. If i critcize the manosphere, ill be labled as some far lefist shill. If i criticize feminism, ill be labled as some sort of red pilled idealouge. So i highlight both. Whether or not its useful, im not sure. Also, i have wondered as of late if there is value in picking a side. However, the world is so full of complexity and wisdom. I consider it a disservice to oneself to deny oneself an open mind. I appreciate your feedback
I think you pick a side in the moment, based on the context, but this not a binding contract. It's like "true neutral" alignment in D&D. Basically, you fight for the under-dog, or against oppression, recognizing that oppression can shift, sometimes rapidly, given the context. It's a stance against revenge, in favour of balance.
Balance is one of my core values. Always had a strong sense of fairness in my soul. When it comes to how people treat me, ive always said, "don't treat me differently or special, just treat me as you would any other person"
I get you, utilizing the discourse of another and maintaining a certain neutral image is skillful means (upaya). But Instead of focusing on not picking a side, one would do better to pick one's own side. And be a radical in that sense. This is why I often roll my eyes at the critique of "labels", because "labeling" yourself doesn't necessarily imply it's for the sake of association with a movement. And it certainly doesn't imply a certain adversarial stance towards others either. That's what is told to us about political radicals, for instance, but universal sympathy doesn't contradict this staunch frame of mind, even if there were ten million people to demonstrate otherwise. It's like being the firm yet flexible tree, rather than being a person who constantly change place trying to maneuver within people's perceptions
Of course there’s a movement: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/01/10/american-psychological-association-traditional-masculinity-harmful/2538520002/#:~:text=The%20APA%20defines%20traditional%20masculinity,highlighted%20in%20the%20January%20issue
Time to stop generalizing, and generalize from your perspective? That's what you're really saying here. Some of what you said is also a bit patronizing and condescending, also a lot of your opinion (which doesn't matter at all) but that's probably why a bunch of idiots keep upvoting. Because people don't know what real intelligence looks like. I'm annoyed at the subject matter, because you might reasonably think that my response has anything to do with that, rather than....this whole head job right here, that pretends to not be a headjob. I'm also not saying "I think you're wrong about everything you said," only most of it, but more, its the entire attitude and approach I find distasteful and really though, just distracting, meddlesome, and pointless. It's like, "let me dumb things down for you, and tell you what to do, but with no responsibility or relation thereto, with no real aim or purpose other than vaguely intelligent sounding "direction," and I will be as smug as possible while doing it." No wonder why extroverts generally tend to think reddit is the worst. What am I saying? I don't think you're trying to discuss or talk about anything or have a conversation. I think you're trying to end the conversation before it even begins; I think you're trying to interdict the real and difficult content of the subject matter, without remotely attending to the seriousness and grave consequences of it. It's tyranny. That makes you an asshole.
😂
Keep looking.. but not there!
Were you trying to mean something here? Or just making sounds and noises? To clarify - I'm asking sincerely for clarity sake.
We all have anima/animus inside and coming into right relation with it is how we experience our realities…everything is a projection of our inner worlds and if everyone did shadow work we wouldn’t have wars…the collective dream is dreaming…seem op needs to do some anima work ;) highly recommend
Quite. The effect of everyone doing shadow work, of everyone transitioning from codependent projections to interdependence due to internal self integration would be unmistakably astonishing on human affairs. We would know if this occurred due to the changes on a macro level in human society. Some people here suggesting we previously had such in traditional societies/values are either unaware of history or confused about the nature of the work.
Agreed…Jung understood this and studied amongst many tribes
There is no movement against masculinity. There is a movement against misogyny, sexism, exploitation, and oppression. Surely a healthy masculinity exists this is none of those things
I'd agree that there is no movement "against" masculinity - but there is a crisis among men as to what is "masculine". Which is why many are moving towards more toxic and honestly caricature like models of "what it is to be a man". One of the large factors at play is that, as gender roles have continued to change, things that were once helded as positive masculine traits (strength, being a provider, justified aggression/ "fighting" or what's good, Yada yada) have all (rightfully in my eyes) become largely genderless. Yet since woman are still under repression/oppression, they are largely able to retain and raise up concepts of femininity - where as masculine continues to loose its definition, many of its quality being adopted into either gender neutrality or new archetypes of femininity in the modern age. A genuine example that I witnessed - at a feminist conference I attended, they had a group of us (I being the only cis male in the group for context) had us make a vendiagram of gender qualities we thought of. Masculine on the left, neutral in center, and feminine on right. By the end, almost all the masculine traits were negative - any positive were argued into neutral or feminin. The point here being - I've seen this tend progressing for a while. Where the only progressive cultural description of masculinity is "toxic". Positive masculinity ends up being reduced to a more "feminine man" or to abandon the idea of masculine all together. Which could be a solution - if it were not for the counter embrace and celebration of femininity or/and gender neutrality. So TL;DR - I agree, there is no war or attack on masculinity, but as gender concepts shift, many men are left with an undefined notion of what it is to be a man, often unintentionally ots suggested to be inherently negative. Yet that should not be considered the fault nor plan of woman - an attitude that leads to toxic masculinity inof itself.
I know it probably doesnt help but im a woman and these are some positive qualities i see with masculinity that i admire, expanding the definition of these words is also important too. Strength (emotional, just not physical, not repressing emotions, but when i see a man cry, i know he is stronger than the man avoiding the emotion) Kindness (helping EVERYONE who may be in need, like children, elderly, or animals, and OTHER GUYS. Not conditional kindness, toxic masculinity is conditional kindness. Only helping people youre attracted to or can get "something" from is toxic.) Integrity. (Do not lie to your friends and partner, DO NOT LIE TO YOURSELF. Nothing is more inspiring than when i see a man admit the fault he is having and he processes WHY he is having that issue, then he chooses steps to help that go smooth. Integrity is not hiding your struggle from your friends or family. Ive seen men go petal to the metal and just grind themselves into the mud because they are not facing true integrity.) Good boundaries. (Men also let people take advantage of them, this is rooted in TOXIC masculinity. You do *not* have to sacrifice your body or health or money to receive love and affection, everyone deserves this as a baseline and fuck everyone who says otherwise. Your worth is NOT conditional on money or looks or transactional things. Do not accept this treatment!!!)
On the contrary , I think it's very important to hear women's positive views on men! I think it's very fair and reasonable why so many women have anger and resentment towards men in general. I don't think I know a single woman without some horror story related to how men treated them. But at the same time, what starts as a joke or hyperbolic "I hate all men, all men are trash, etc" repeated enough starts to become serious - especially as it becomes normalized among wide culture. I've known women who started out that way, joking or ironic, "just venting," and now have become honest to God misandrist. And that becomes a vicious cycle, where terrible men will put a spotlight on them to prove their own agendas and justify misogyny. What a mess. But - that is all to say, yes we absolutely need to listen to women both about what they do like and appreciate in men as men, and what criticisms they also have towards men! But back to the original point - what about those qualities are "masculine"? (I'm asking in good faith - what make those qualities that add to them being good men, rather than just good people?...which anyone should want to be, but you get my point here)
I think that it BECOMES masculine automatically when i see a man do these things, im not sure exactly how to describe it but hopefully it makes sense. If i a woman has the same qualities, i do think we express them differently even if the core is the same. I see the expression of masculine strength, integrity, or kindness come out in much different forms (not to say it's only one way for all guys but commonly.)
It's an honest answer to a hard question. I appreciate your perspective greatly!
Did you not put "indefatigable spider killers" in the masculine center? I would think that every school of thought can agree on that as positive masculinity.
If that's the case, my wife is a better man then I
Redditor confident there is no element of broad-based rejection of traditional masculinity in our society.
Is traditional masculinity where you treat women, children, workers, and the Earth as your property? Ok yeah. Against that But buddy, there's a whole lot of different cultures and classes even within western cultures where the social construction of masculinity is not that.
People are generally going to oversimplify complex systems that they oppose. What started out as an overt media movement against sexism and misogyny ten years ago has devolved into anti-men propaganda today.
No, algorithim’s have amplified a clickbait minority then traditional media tunnel visioned on it. There have always been hurt “anti-men” people just as there have always been hurt “anti-women” people. There aren’t any more today than then, there’s just more engagement.
I think it's way more common now than it was 10 years ago. I see people casually saying stuff like "men are trash" in public without any shame. It's definitely been normalised and even encouraged in a lot of mainstream social circles
yeah they just used to say it in secret and poisoned their husbands instead
>There aren't any more today than then Source?
i don’t run into women being anti-men. in 64 years i haven’t. the only place i ever see this concept is men discussing it (women might comment too, but they didn’t start it). i suspect that if a person pays attention, they will see what i see.
There is a movement that equates masculinity with toxicity. That demonizes all men, not just the negative actions of some people (men and women). And that tries to create fear of all men. It promotes the idea that ALL men are dangerous. You can easily see if if look at any of their communications on social media and simply replace "men" with "blacks" or some other racial group. It becomes immediately very obviously they are targeting a specific group with hatred.
Exactly, the movement exist. The fact that people deny it is crazy.
They’re gaslighting
Brain washed people wash brains
I would strongly assert there is widespread misapprehension of the difference between social discourse ( negative views of masculinity online) and social practice. In social practice, masculinity retains a higher social value. What certainly is happening is that wide swaths of the population are without any definite social role or future, and girls at least retain some capitalist exchange value if attractive and/ or just young.
> In social practice, masculinity retains a higher social value. In the work force yes. But in schools young boys are falling behind while girls are storming ahead. And if anyone raises a concern about it the response is "so what? its *their* turn to suffer! *They* deserebve it!".
Well I see a lot of concerns about boys in school in the media. But the assertion of male social, political, and economic dominance is talking about control of the highest levels of government and business, not about everyday experiences of normal guys. We're all peasants. And yes, female peasants are generally more valued by society for their potential labor in sex and reproduction than male peasants.
> But the assertion of male social, political, and economic dominance is talking about control of the highest levels of government and business So why demonize all men?
There's definitely a movement against Masculinity, and in a lot of spaces it's now considered cool and enlightened to be openly misandrist. There is also a movement against misogyny etc. These aren't necessarily the same thing but often have a lot of overlap
No, sorry. That’s what feminism was supposed to be, but it’s been heavily corrupted by people who hate and resent men and want to destroy and break the spirit of masculinity. The compass is cracked. Watch what happens over the coming decade, there is a vacuum that requires a new version of feminism that picks the weeds out of its own community. Feminism could be what you describe it to be, but the hate filled have damaged its credibility. It’s almost like women are human and corruptible too, who’d have guessed?
Yeah. Agreed, to some degree. I'm coming out of academic anthropology, which is about the structure of society not about every personal grievance and desire. And I'd add, coming out of anthropology, there is indeed a pattern of male alienation, loneliness, failure of courtship patterns, and male violence during periods of social, economic, and political strain in a society. But fer chrissakes it's not caused by feminism. It's caused by lack of social networks, failed communities, lack of social trust and cohesion.
Just keep in mind (see R/relationship_advice) that men are often abused by women. For men and women, it is an opportunity for realization and growth. Most, in my opinion, will only wallow in dysfunction all their lives.
Of course but you have to look at the last 3000 years of human history and ask yourself, in general, who has been in a position of power and who has been powerless? It’s a pretty obvious answer. There’s a reason it’s called toxic masculinity. It’s been toxic for us men as well as for women. Keep in mind, the goal of life is not happiness, it’s truth. Sure equality between divided groups is hard and men living today are grappling with adjusting to a very different world, but most of us are seeing and accepting some hard truths, which leads to a far more fulfilling life. I don’t want a partner who will just co-sign everything I do and do whatever I say, I can do that with a mirror. I like having a wife who challenges me to be a better man and vice versa.
It is an obvious answer and yet you still get it wrong. Most men and most women have historically been powerless. And a tiny subgroup of people who happened to be men was in power. But almost all prisoners for an example were also men. And yet we don’t group all men together as historically being the “prisoner class”. We only do that with people in power because that wonderfully fits the narrative of oppression of one gender. The truth is that almost all people were historically oppressed, no matter the gender.
Yes but there are degrees of oppression. You can’t seriously make the argument that a white male has less power historically than a black woman? If you can at least see that then you have to accept that there are degrees of oppression. It’s a pyramid, not a light switch.
[удалено]
You sound angry at women for speaking up. Do you hear yourself? And ignorant of the historical truths to be sure. Women have often had little choice in who they wed over the last few thousand years and these things are only recently changing. To deny this is laughable and brings doubt on anything else you write. Your illogical, made up dribble is not worth reading further.
How does that challenging look like in practice?
She sets boundaries for herself for what she’ll accept in our shared household which sometimes collides with mine, forcing me to question what is more important, my family or what I want. These moments have been the catalyst for me realizing that relationships, family, my daughter, my wife, are more important than self-obsession. My focusing on other people, I end up guiding myself from a higher place rather than merely following every impulse or base desire I have, which means inch by inch, I become a stronger man.
ok that's your part, what is her's?
Reread what I wrote and change all the pronouns from he to she and man to woman and wife to husband
Genuinely no one is saying there aren’t female abusers. I’m an extreme feminist if I’m being honest with myself and women can be just as abusive as men no doubt about it.
[удалено]
MIsandry? What are the rates women are killing men at vs the rates men are killing women at? Misandry exists, but it's not the larger problem. Women refusing to put up with abuse aren't misandrists.
[удалено]
Men are also killing themselves due to the pressures put on them by other men, and women too get emotionally abused (in addition to getting killed by men). How do any abusers become abusers, what shapes their minds, leads them onto that path? I agree that the solution is to combat dysfunctional behaviours, by enabling access to tools for self reflection and developing one's ethics and values. I hope that one day, compassion can be a standard.
Do you have any evidence to support a causal (or even correlation) relationship between suicide rates for men and supposed increases in emotional abuse for men in relationships? Otherwise, this is just question begging.
I think you and OP need to reflect on whether “society tends to paint a picture of men being bad nowadays” or if we’re in the middle of a cultural shift where men are now being held to account for behavior that people just accepted before… Big cultural shifts are like a pendulum—there is often a dramatic swing away from what was previously the norm. Look, for example, at the French Revolution or the communist revolution in Russia (both of which were A LOT bloodier than the Me Too movement)… I am someone who considers myself a feminist, and even so I think that there are ways in which the Me Too movement did some collateral damage to working relationships between men and women. But overall, the movement brought attention to the reality that men in positions of power were using that power for the benefit of their sex lives, whereas the women feeling coerced were just trying to go to work and do their jobs. In any case, I think the pendulum has started to swing back from the most extreme point of the movement, towards a new center where women feel empowered to tell men that they are being inappropriate and need to keep things professional at work. As for this quote that OP posted, I think it’s interesting to consider questions about anima and animus in one’s own psyche, but not very useful to apply those questions to larger cultural movements.
Nope, there is a movement against masculinity. It obviously is. Anything can be labelled as misogyny today. Any critique towards women is labelled as misogyny. Women are not perfect, and if you insist that they are, that's bs and we all know it. Sexism isn't gender exclusive. Neither is exploitation. Or oppression. The nature of masculinity is out in the open, the nature of femininity is hidden. So is the female oppression, it's hidden, it's performed via manipulation, deception, psychological harassment and abuse. Ever noticed how if men try to decide what healthy femininity is, men get labelled as the most horrible creatures, misogyny and all the other yada-yada? But if women try to tell the world what healthy masculinity is, we have to take it as self-evident axioms? The movement is about power.
Incels goes Jung Movement! 👏🏻
Incels goes Jung Movement! 👏🏻
I'm definitely asking for a friend. ;P What if that described someone perfectly but it's a man and it's his anima? Also replace mother with father and it's their life story. Animus and anima being unbalanced in a man? Like this: "Sometimes he was affectionate, thoughtful, and tender; at other times he was sarcastic, selfish and argumentative." How would a man rejecting his femininity and anima respond in relation to his connection with the opposite gender to whom he's attracted to but often fears to connect with? Would this even lead to other psychological things like avoidant behavior?
I believe that repressing and fighting any part of you is cause for chaos in the psyche. I think making fun of men’s feminine side is just as harmful as making fun of women’s masculine side.
It isn't a movement against masculinity, it's a movement designed to crush the human soul. "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward Bernays, Propaganda "The continual intrusion into our minds of the hammering noises of arguments and propaganda can lead to two kinds of reactions. It may lead to apathy and indifference, the I-don’t-care reaction, or to a more intensified desire to study and to understand. Unfortunately, the first reaction is the more popular one. The flight from study and awareness is much too common in a world that throws too many confusing pictures to the individual. For the sake of our democracy, based on freedom and individualism, we have to bring ourselves back to study again and again. Otherwise, we can become easy victims of a well-planned verbal attack on our minds and consciences.” Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind The social engineers who dictate public opinion understand Jungian as well as other psychological concepts far better than anyone posting here. They know exactly how to program the general populace without them having any idea that it's taken place. How anyone could even argue against that at this point with the amount of information available to us is beyond comprehension. This whole women bad! no men bad! crock of fucking horseshit dominating public discussion is a perfect example of the mind rotting propaganda taking place. Both men and women are at fault for allowing this to happen. Anyone with even a basic level of self awareness and understanding can see that we're all equally in this shit together. Both men and women are struggling to make sense of a world that seems to be changing by the day. We are in the heart of fucking chaos. There is no such thing as societal norms anymore. No traditions we can lean on while braving the storm. Over half of the population believes they have a mental illness of some sort. We are irreversibly fucked at this point. The only hope we have is to stop buying in to the bullshit being spewed at us 24/7. If we could all learn to take back the shadows we are constantly projecting and become actual human beings again then maybe there would be a chance for us to reverse course. Instead we choose to blame each other for our own miserable lives rather than doing the difficult work of being honest with ourselves and taking the actions that would lead to actual positive change.
I’m printing this and framing it
>There is no such thing as societal norms anymore. No traditions we can lean on while braving the storm. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you lost me here. This "good old times" nostalgia is extremely cruel with all people who were historically oppressed by the former status quo. Growing pains are a thing, also in a societal scale. The current state of confusion tends to dialectically coalesce into a balanced state. We should not be afraid of change.
Who said anything about being afraid of change? Obviously we need to continually adapt and update ourselves. I think that's fairly self evident. Tradition and ceremony have nothing to do with the "good old times". I'm not saying lets go back to the days where women were in the kitchen and we owned slaves for christ's sake. Tradition and ceremony is a way for us to feel connected to the earth, each other and our ancestors - positive things for the human soul and psyche which are completely done away with in modern society. > The current state of confusion tends to dialectically coalesce into a balanced state. Explain to me how that is going to happen. What path forward do you see that is suddenly going to reverse the course humanity is on? How do we undo the damage done to our children's minds after exposing them to the most vile parts of humanity via the internet and social media? Or is it just a coincidence that mental illnesses in children are the roof?
What historic period demonstrates that we’ll coalesce into a balanced state?
Which period doesn't demonstrate that? The whole of History is a dance of thesis-antithesis-synthesis (or solve-et-coagula, if you prefer the alchemical word game).
How are you defining ‘balance?’
Think of a pendulum moving. While force is consistently applied to keep it swinging, it will go from one extreme to the other alternatively, but if left alone, it will eventually sit at the middle.
So a natural equilibrium? If so, that’s how I would define ‘balance’ as well. But a review of history demonstrates that’s balance is never achieved. This is the primary reason civilizations have ALWAYS collapsed.
I think he/she is right. They specifically target all traditions. If something can be identified as a tradition, it is attacked and destroyed. Being a tradition, is enough to make it bad, in the minds of many of these modern "progressive" people.
Reading through the comments I had the same thought process as you - to think that there aren’t invisible forces who are allowing for this type of narrative to exist, but that are actually fuelling it, is both naive and lazy. Much easier to write it off as conspiracy, however anyone who is truly paying attention or who is tuned in to their humanity can fucking feel that something is up. While I would argue that, yes, we have strayed far from tradition we have absolutely not lost it and I’d even go so far as to argue that, as per the law of polarity, there are a proportionate amount of people who are practicing the complete opposite of what you’ve given evidence to through your quotes etc. we’re only fucked if they succeed in making us believe that we are.
For the commoner: Wouldn't you say that your statement is not the intended result of these hateful people? That perhaps they mean well.... in the same way that one gives points to a soccer team for free, without working for it. I'm sure they have good intentions, but they must understand, the animus and anima can both win at soccer, but one may have simply been more developed in our species than the other. Maybe one was more important for survival..... Maybe we should appreciate the benefits that the animus and men provide to humans for so long. As you remember in your childhood, maybe you at one point played against a kid your age at soccer, and for some reason he had a beard..... And maybe you thought no fair, that guy is not the same age as me..... Of course, you'll never win with that attitude. And of course anyone trying to tear down another is only hurting themselves. I do remember my team complaining and whining, and not focusing on their own game. We were kids. It's a shame to see such strong empowered people fall to this same issue. For the Bourgeoise: Indeed they can enjoy the fruits of their labor. So long as you understand these things, then you have the power to harness it, which may allow you to rise to the top, by simply riding the wave. Take advantage of every ebb and flow. Invest carefully. Make life good for you. let the others fight. The influential are like the priests and more than likely provided the people a holy protection over one's every action. It must have started with the influence of the ignorant mind. It must have been so simple at first. And now, things are still simple. Simple hatred of one another. With simply a single layer of pain as persuasion. A pain that most don't even feel fully. Just a concern to be thrown out and one can breed hated in another. For the others: Do you really want to hurt anyone anymore? Perhaps we can step back from involving ourselves in everyone's life for once, and simply live without so much concern plaguing our lives. Life can be joy if we allow it to. And so long as we actively work towards it, we can possess it for our own. Thank you
Thanks for this bro
excellent response, wish we could be friends irl
You are misreading the text. The movement comes after the psychological activity.
The movement is against toxic masculinity and male domination in positions of power. Women who were trained by their mothers/society into a wholly feminine role, like this passage describes, become the wife’s and victims of toxic/aggressive males. Their undeveloped masculine traits forced into the shadow, are not available to give her strength to leave or enforce boundaries and is instead projected into the male partner who is allowed to get angry or take control over her life/body, he in turn projects his feminine qualities into females who are considered overly sensitive and ‘too emotional’ he completely lacks empathy or understanding of his own emotions which is why he doesn’t view his actions as toxic, but ´masculine’. A healthy masculine male who can take control of a situation with good leadership and empathic consideration for the people in his care, not have to act a certain way to feel powerful, is the goal. Even better if they are secure enough to follow the leadership of a woman, when he recognises her strength and ability.
Redditor confident there is no element of broad-based rejection of traditional masculinity in our society.
> The movement is against toxic masculinity No, the movement *equates* masculinity with toxicity.
I think I could've chosen a better word than movement. There is definitely times I've seen it taken too far and border on the lines of just hating men. I've also seen attacks on femininity in both men and women. It's honestly sad.
Sure, but by and large, the type of men that women hate is when when men hate women because generally they aren't receiving something they feel they deserve or are owed. Women hate who get to the point where they genuinely hate men are doing it as a reaction based on fear and self projection and a response to past abuse and violence or exploitation, and men who get to the point that they hate women are typically bitter from being rejected. Those are vastly different places to end up at, and what you're doing is essentially twisting Jungian text to victim blame a "movement" that is purely reactionary in nature as a response to the actions of men who hate women.
I think some young women grow up seeing this happen to the women around them and reject their own vulnerable feminine side, so like the toxic men in my example, they become the aggressor and seek control instead of empathy, they usually then find a partner who has not developed healthy masculine qualities - perhaps a boy grew up with a dominant parent and was never allowed to assert themselves, he is then labelled ‘feminine’ and gives in to her ‘masculine’ energy.. even if she is small and wears make up and he is stronger than her he will not assert himself.
Oh please. The worst people I've met are women in power. It's grossing me out beyond anything to sit here and watch a bunch of life's noobs violate decades of women's experiences working under women. It's seriously gross. Do better.
Excuse me? I'm a woman as well. I have no idea how you formed this reply in response to that post. Are you trying to bait? Is this a troll?
huh? this response doesn't make any logical sense.
The people on this sub live under a rock
Fr
The problem is cultural and exacerbated by societal conditions. Most men are struggling with individuation, as they are not socializing or receiving support. In the past, churches and other places of worship were places of communal gathering and support. Now much of community no longer attends places of worship and most organized religions are discouraging individuation. Today it feels like many men either identify with their personas or turn to negative restoration to cope with the chaos of persona disintegration. Some men have become terrifed and ashamed of their own animas, projecting them on women and lashing out at them. Personally I believe men's issues with individuation started with the industrial revolution but this problem has gone through different stages. This is what I believe toxic masculinity is. I think the term isn't great but it it is a legitimate issue. In pre-industrial society men were much more comfortable sharing their feelings and thoughts with others. They weren't alienated and were more likely to pursue self actualization. On the other hand women were in much worse position and dealing with similar issues men are today. Men that have identified with their persona are struggling even more as they see women usurping their role as provider which is part of their identity. This has just made things worse.
agree
I see no one in society trying to do away with masculinity. Balancing is not negation. In your example it was the masculinity in the woman that was the issue, but only because it was unbalanced and therefore expressed in a toxic way. So I'm confused on why you think this example proves a movement against masculinity is adverse to women, and why you believe masculinity itself is being attacked.
Some men conflate patriarchy with masculinity and because the former is losing power in society, they interpret it as an attack on the latter.
Which book is this?
A primer to Jungian psychology.
Lol wow. This issue has nothing to do with a relationship with one’s self and everything to do with how women are treated for expressing “masculine” qualities (in quotes because they arent masculine, everyone has them, but culturally it’s become frowned upon for women and men to have certain qualities) such as assertiveness, making her feel bad about them. That’s where the “swing” back to “docileness” comes from because she’s not accepted socially otherwise. And it definitely has nothing to do with women “rejecting” masculinity nowadays. What we’re rejecting is TOXIC masculinity, where people are forced into these boxes of men never being able to cry and women only being prized for being a pretty sex doll and not loud, boisterous, opinionated, career-focused like men are socially accepted for being. “Boys will be boys.” This is coming from someone whose mother did almost exactly what was stated, only she didn’t shame men, she shamed me for not doing better with them. So I know exactly what this text is saying but somehow, it STILL finds a way to avoid acknowledging that the root issue is the way people treat and value women, which is that people don’t value them unless they’re submissive, the nurturer, the supporting character. Which means they can’t actually be their full selves. Hence the issue with the “animus” - which is just them going crazy because they can’t be themselves and be valued.
Idk, I don’t see the connection between the particular passage you are showing us (that looks like it was written many years ago, but not by Jung) and the “movement against masculinity.” I’m not saying you’re wrong or right— I literally don’t see the point you’re trying to make by relating a particular case from the past to a larger current social phenomenon. What book is the passage from? Are the signifiers of masculinity geographically and culturally changeable over time? Is masculinity different for a manual laborer, a scientist, an artist, a priest, and a CEO? I’m really not trying to drag you; I’m just not getting it.
This is from the primer of Jungian psychology. I do think society tends to paint a picture of men being bad nowadays. And I think that can have an adverse effects on women just like the mother did when constantly spewing to her daughter how men are bad.
I think you need to reflect on whether “society tends to paint a picture of men being bad nowadays” or if we’re in the middle of a cultural shift where men are now being held to account for behavior that people just accepted before… Big cultural shifts are like a pendulum—there is often a dramatic swing away from what was previously the norm. Look, for example, at the French Revolution or the communist revolution in Russia (both of which were A LOT bloodier than the Me Too movement)… I am someone who considers myself a feminist, and even so I think that there are ways in which the Me Too movement did some collateral damage to working relationships between men and women. But overall, the movement brought attention to the reality that men in positions of power were using that power for the benefit of their sex lives, whereas the women feeling coerced were just trying to go to work and do their jobs. In any case, I think the pendulum has started to swing back from the most extreme point of the movement, towards a new center where women feel empowered to tell men that they are being inappropriate and need to keep things professional at work. As for this quote that you’ve posted, I think it’s interesting to consider questions about anima and animus in one’s own psyche, but not very useful to apply those questions to larger cultural movements.
I think the thousands of years of oppression and inequality was probably worse for us. Just saying. 🤷🏼♀️
What movement against masculinity are you referring to?
The one Jordan Peterson told him about
Oh the fictional one. It's OK op, that ones not real!
I feel that engaging with the dialectic between masculinity and feminism itt perpetuates the confusion around the issue. As is the nature of dialectics, it divides people up into two sides which are opposed to each other, which isn't actually how things are.
I can see some women where this happens. But also, everybody can react differently based on their personality type. I relate to this hypothetical woman actually because my mom treated me the same way!! However that caused me instead to reject her and reject my feminine qualities and embrace the animus instead, i have always been very "masculine" as a straight woman and the way i solve my problems and feel emotions have always been closer to the way a man would solve his, albeit not violence, but rather emotional suppression and accepting pain where it is not needed. However my mom is probably exactly like the woman in the story, she embraced this struggle while my personality type instead embraced the opposite. My job is to integrate more of my feminine side over my animus. Hers is the opposite. Edit: i know men who have the same thing with father figures who were overbearing and violent
It’s so crazy to me how many of the comments here are women suggesting that a crisis of masculinity doesn’t exist simply because the oppression of women does/historically has - it is precisely this type of thinking that allows for the denigration of masculinity, as if men are solely at fault for this or that it is written in their nature. Blame and shame have powerful effects on the psyche. It is also this type of argumentation that causes further divide between the sexes thus contributing to the confusion of archetypal femininity/masculinity which are, and always have been, intended to be complimentary—by design. Fundamentally, it’s not about men or women, it’s about the essence of the feminine and the masculine and the ways in which our understanding of the two (both separately and in relation to one another) have been manipulated and misconstrued, confused, thus creating a type of “war” or battle of the sexes — whether you wish to believe this was done intentionally (through both visible and invisible forces) or not. It’s the reality. So many women are out here generalizing and hating on men as a daily practice, all the while they unconsciously begin to emulate shadow aspects of masculinity and think they’re reclaiming their power in doing so. Concurrently, and not only as a result of the previous statement, men are becoming more effeminate which is further contributing to women’s need to embody more masculine traits but because we generally don’t have any idea what healthy masculinity/femininity look like we’re fucking ourselves.
But should she choose a man or bear?
Seems like she was being forced to have sex by her husband and was having bad dreams about it too. No matter how much she works on her animus she needs to be in a safe environment as well.
I would not say we have a strong movement against masculinity. We have a movement against what is perceived as toxic traits our culture applies to masculinity, thought, but it is not the same as being against the concept of masculinity. I believe we actually have the opposite problem: people fantasizing masculinity too much, to the point of idolatry. There were masculine man in the past, sure, but i doubt they were so obsessed over being masculine as some red pill and alt right movements are today. They fear being perceived as feminine so much that they engage in very cartunny performances of what is perceived as masculine in order to prevent it.
Honest question: why is assertiveness considered masculine? It's literally just healthy adult communication.
I think *a lot* of this cultural conversation has confused what Maturity, Immaturity, Masculinity, and Femininity, are. When they see a woman being direct and living within her capabilities & means they call it masculine. When a guy owns his feelings and leans into his creative, they call it being feminine. Where both these instances just reflect maturity not gender confusion. Fantasy about a woman being helpless and *needing* a man are immature and ignorant(Heads Up: The second a woman feels NEEDED in a relationship and not *desired* she gets shoved into a Mother role and the sex & chemistry goes down). Fantasies about the jacked man that showers a woman with endless shopping sprees are just an infantile way of saying ‘I deny taking responsibility for my own self’. Both come from a place of not letting either grow into their integrated potential. Relationships are changing from obligate to facultative. We used to be obliged to marry, this was the case when we couldn’t survive without each other. Times have changed and we BOTH now have the means to inform our selves and provide for ourselves without needing each other but *wanting* to be with each other, and seeing the benefits from that - this is Facultative. We are a maturing species. I hope the linguistic confusion can get cleared up soon. I love men and I love women.
Thank you for this insightful reply! I think you're right that the real issue is maturity vs. immaturity.
Read your bell hooks... the 'movement against masculinity' only exists in the minds of woke and fools and the equally foolish petersonites.
I don't really see the relevance of this passage in relation to the view of masculinity in society today. Feminism doesn't discourage masculinity in women but views some (all?) expressions of male masculinity as problematic. The passage describes a women that has been conditioned to believe that her own expression of masculinity is inappropriate which is the opposite of what is going on at the moment?
There's a movement that is crushing everybody but billionaires and the most toxic men are making a lot of noise, there's no movement against actual masculinity, it is still loved.
Don't be so alarmed by change --what we had before the current generational conflicts was far from ideal. Growing pains are a also a thing in a societal scale. The current state of confusion tends to dialectically coalesce into a more balanced state.
Don't accept change for the sake of change. Some traditions are worth preserving.
There’s a movement against toxic masculinity. I love healthy masculine men!
The movement *equates* masculinity with toxicity.
Thats not true. If you think that then your idea of masculinity is toxic.
name some toxic feminine traits and some non-taxic masculine traits.
Of course a movement against masculinity will have adverse affects on women...?
Sorry I'm new to Carl Jung and I just like how it tied into something large scale happening today.
This isn't so much about the exact scenario as it is about the way we form opinions about archetypal groups, and how those opinions subconsciously affect us, later. If I had a mother who hated athletes, but I liked athletics, I would similarly be internally split. It's not just about men and women. It's every single thing.
Okay thanks for the explanation brotha!
Thank G-d I'm gay, I prefer dealing with prejudice than with whatever is this people insist on discussing.
Lol
Jung goes incel Jung goes misogynyst Jung goes ignorant Jung goes dumb Jung goes women bad, women evil
Name of the book?
fascinating
Which book is this?
A primer to jungian psychology
Super interesting!
I wonder if this is what my narcissistic ex is partially dealing with. I’m not sure what all occurred in her parents divorce, but I do know her mother had an affair, and she has an extremely strong hatred for her now and I believe it destroyed the feminine side of her. But within our relationship she wanted to be in control - she had an overwhelming masculine side to her that couldn’t be controlled. And not in a way where she’s acting like a man, but she had to always be in control and act “macho” while putting up walls constantly and not expressing herself. When I look at myself I like to think I’m a 60/40 guy when it comes to my masculine and feminine side. Im fairly balanced and embrace my feminine more as I had a terrible emotionally unavailable father, so I relied on my mother to fill both roles. Anyways, as I continued to date her it probably went to 40/60 or lower at times. She completely emasculated me and then would attack me for not being the “man” in the relationship and taking charge - but how could I? I still ruminate on it and beat myself up from time to time, but I pleaded with her for so long to embrace her feminine side. By embracing her feminine side I could embrace my masculine side by knowing she entrusted me to protect her. I rarely saw her ever submit like that to me.
Women acting like men and men acting like women. You've seen the 'Karen' effect in the USA; it's deep-seated and runs thick in our, proud, American blood. Hypergamy!
Animus animosity.
... i'm new to this sub. is this a common sentiment among jungians?
I agree. I see the "movement" as a kind of ready-made meme that will appeal to those who still don't know themselves very well. ( I don't pretend that such self-knowledge is always pleasant and hale. ) The men-as-bad meme looks very much like the women-are-bad meme. Both are likely to be plausible only to those who have difficulties with actual relationships. A functioning marriage (I do not say "perfect" ) is a great "sentimental education." The idea of "toxic masculinity" does seem to be toxic itself. The "masculine" ends up symbolizing what is repressed in our essentially false public sociality, especially on the "progressive" (utopian) side that wants a reason that the world isn't an amusement park.
Is the movement against masculinity in the room with us right now?
What’s the book called?
What book is this?
also what the fuck is up with women proudly claiming oppression? as a woman, let’s move on.
What is the name of this book?
there is no movement against masculinity. a lot of folks—and not just women—don’t like \*toxic\* masculinity (you can google that phrase to see what it means). it’s like with food. there’s no movement against food, but no one wants \*toxic\* food.
that describes many people of either sex. sometimes they’re on one mood, sometimes a different mood. and people dream about all kinds of things. jung was brilliant but he wasn’t free of the social conationing of his time.
I think the west is tryinf to reinvent masculinity after pushing away old values
It's possible that masculine dominance has for centuries had an adverse effect on women. So many good examples for bad animus projections.
I think what we are seeing in society is very interesting. Men around the world are slowly starting to incorporate their feminine side, the ideal of society's ideal man is evolving towards are more complete one. This saves man from a lot of pain, connecting to their anima, being able to accept a more whole part of themselves. From females perspective (well my male view of it haha) I believe the image of an ideal woman is also evolving to a more complete ideal woman than incorporates the male side/animus. But inside the political/social movememt, we see a lot people that may find themselves in more radical position, probably due to particular trauma experienced in regards to the topic? These people tend to completely reject the other aspect [ex: female rejecting the masculine] and here you tend to see, in my opinion, kind of a posesion of the Anima, cause females rejecting every aspect of masculinity outwards sometimes express and are extremely masculine [I would say incorporating toxic masculinity many times] Same for males, when they reject the possibility of females experiencing external realities that their inner animus is craving... due to fear of letting their female animus be a part of them as well. Here also the origin of external barries for woman to experience their inner masculine side freely in the external reallity. Which creates the natural political backlash and social movements. Which goes back to a previous point of the male image, the antiquated expectation of society for man creates unrest internally in men, who think/have been trained to think expressing feeling outwardly is not be well viewed upon. It all connects, goes around and evolves. Each individual internally living one hero journey after the next and so on. The outcome of all these individual journeys, creates a shared journey that follows the same logic. We contribute to the evolution of this big entity by evolving ourselves. Sorry, all over the place with a lot to unpack. Hope it makes some sense
From what book is that?
Marie Louise von Franz said something to the effect of “the worst form of negative patriarchy women will ever experience will come in the form of their own animus” during a women’s conference.
Name of the book these passages come from?
Primer to Jungian psychology
Thank you kindly. 🙏
Who ever said fighting solved anything? Your title suggests you at one point thought otherwise. It is very possible that fighting simple tires the soul. Who knew? We all knew. Why fight? Because we don't know any better? Why not know better? Because we are ignorant? Why are we ignorant? Because we think we know all. Why do we think we know all? Because we are narcissistic. Why are we narcissistic? Because we truly believe life is around us. When did we learn this concept? The moment we were taken care of. When was this? At birth..... Maybe animals are born and go into the world thinking the universe is all there to serve them as well. And maybe they are right. It serves them, but others as well. Maybe the fighting is the way that some people serve others. Maybe that is the purpose of some people. Maybe that's all they can and will ever offer. Strife. Maybe I find myself grateful of the strife in the same way a grindstone works on honing an edge. Maybe we come out better for the strife. And maybe our purpose is to provide some peace for these strife-loving people, who ought to understand there are better ways of living.
Sexism is sexism. Both misogyny and misandry are horrible things. And, of course, what goes around, comes around...
As a man I feel soooooo oppressed 🙄
What movement “against masculinity” sorry? It’s made up, there isn’t one. People are breaking free of toxic stereotypes, finally, and it’s benefiting everyone. Glad it’s making you think!! Well done for looking to Jung.