I admit I started skimming half-way through your essay because you do not discuss the most significant factor contributing to the modern pathological relation between the sexes: secularization of human experience!
Instead of Masculine and Feminine, we now refer to men and women as "Male and Female", and instead of focusing on Character (a…
I admit I started skimming half-way through your essay because you do not discuss the most significant factor contributing to the modern pathological relation between the sexes: secularization of human experience!
Instead of Masculine and Feminine, we now refer to men and women as "Male and Female", and instead of focusing on Character (and by extension, moral VIRTUE), we use scientific models to explain behavior as the result of 'brain chemicals' and hormones. Personally, the reductive "hormonalization" of female/woman nature has contaminated all discussion of ethics. Thanks to several dangerously-convincing explanations, women can basically blame hormones for everything. If she is a bitch, must be PMS. If she's fat, must be her thyroid or 'genetics' or some 'hormonal fluctuation'. Angry? Sad? Happy? Crazy?--she MUST be BPD or suffer from PTSD because "you know, her boyfriend cheated on her, she must be sooooo traumatized now."
Women are encouraged to evade all accountability through "official science". See how dangerous it is when pathological behavior has been legitimized by a materialistic paradigm?
In ancient metaphysics, there was an archetypal and mythic model for moral behavior. It wasn't enough for men to be piles of muscle, they also had to be virtuous and noble in their speech, gestures, and demeanor. Women likewise had some divine model upon which to build an entire "personality" that was both noble and well-rounded.
At least Jungian psychology, with its Archetypes and Animus/Anima dynamic, contained traced of an original Tradition.
This stands as my best attempt to explain why almost all women born between the years 1992 - 2000 are neurotic, crazy, and worse: blame everything and everyone but themselves for their inexcusable behavior!!!
I hope you keep writing. You're off to a promising start. I would like to see you explore the "esoterica" side of your newsletter name. What esoteric ideas are you particularly inspired by?
I discovered my spiritual side quite recently and haven't spent any time thinking and reading about those things; I picked e-girl esoterica, partially because I liked the alliteration, but I also have wide ranging interests like mathematics, art, beauty, history, philosophy, and I like to dabble in these things. So I don't have any specific ideas that I can point to; but the main thing that drives is me is a search for truth and beauty.
Beauty will lead you towards an intuitive understanding of truth. That is one way the ancients understood, philosophy is another. Looking forward to your next essay
If you're after more esoterica and myth, you may find some of the writings of John Michael Greer interesting. He's most well-known for his "collapse now and avoid the rush" kind of writing, but he does a lot of occult writing, talks about the importance of myth (even among people who say they don't believe in myths, like the followers of Progress!).
I'm not into the occult and myth side as much as he is, but it may interest you. Sit with a coffee and a box of tissues, this is his most recent post - on the death of his wife.
We have essentially two female archetypes. Madonna, and the Whore. (Although in Madonna these two blended!). So, Marilyn Monroe, sleepy eyed sexpot, and Mother Mary. Other cultures had Medea, Kali, Durga, the ‘Shrew’ or Scold. And so on. It was accepted a scorned woman (Medea) was a dangerous person who would kill her own sons to hurt her ex lover. It was accepteds t the ‘Shrew’ needed to be tamed. Kali and Durga are the most dangerous Gods in the Hindu pantheon. We don’t accept women as easily being these dark feminine types. It can’t be just dark energy, it has to be something done to Marilyn/Mary for her to be that way. A lot of women really take advantage of men, using their bodies and emotion to take financially from their ‘lovers’. We barely acknowledge this. And if we do everyone pretends either he deserved it, or ‘I am not like that. I would never choose a man for money.’ Right. She might sleep with someone not for money, but marry? No. It is ubiquitous in our society. Ask young women what they want in a man and his salary will be the first or second item mentioned. I was sitting in a coffee shop with my wife and a few of her friends. Another female friend came up and chatted for a minute and then walked away. One of the women said conspiratorially ‘she scored’. The other women oohed and aahed. It turned out she had just married a top realtor in a very wealthy suburb of Vancouver. He probably made a Million or so a year. I was disgusted.
Good point. Masculine and feminine are active qualities that at least imply certain attributes. Male and female Conveys nothing. Or very little at any rate.
I admit I started skimming half-way through your essay because you do not discuss the most significant factor contributing to the modern pathological relation between the sexes: secularization of human experience!
Instead of Masculine and Feminine, we now refer to men and women as "Male and Female", and instead of focusing on Character (and by extension, moral VIRTUE), we use scientific models to explain behavior as the result of 'brain chemicals' and hormones. Personally, the reductive "hormonalization" of female/woman nature has contaminated all discussion of ethics. Thanks to several dangerously-convincing explanations, women can basically blame hormones for everything. If she is a bitch, must be PMS. If she's fat, must be her thyroid or 'genetics' or some 'hormonal fluctuation'. Angry? Sad? Happy? Crazy?--she MUST be BPD or suffer from PTSD because "you know, her boyfriend cheated on her, she must be sooooo traumatized now."
Women are encouraged to evade all accountability through "official science". See how dangerous it is when pathological behavior has been legitimized by a materialistic paradigm?
In ancient metaphysics, there was an archetypal and mythic model for moral behavior. It wasn't enough for men to be piles of muscle, they also had to be virtuous and noble in their speech, gestures, and demeanor. Women likewise had some divine model upon which to build an entire "personality" that was both noble and well-rounded.
At least Jungian psychology, with its Archetypes and Animus/Anima dynamic, contained traced of an original Tradition.
This stands as my best attempt to explain why almost all women born between the years 1992 - 2000 are neurotic, crazy, and worse: blame everything and everyone but themselves for their inexcusable behavior!!!
you make a good point; I did not consider how the loss of myth and lack of a cohesive meta-narrative underlies the problem; thank you for engaging
I hope you keep writing. You're off to a promising start. I would like to see you explore the "esoterica" side of your newsletter name. What esoteric ideas are you particularly inspired by?
I discovered my spiritual side quite recently and haven't spent any time thinking and reading about those things; I picked e-girl esoterica, partially because I liked the alliteration, but I also have wide ranging interests like mathematics, art, beauty, history, philosophy, and I like to dabble in these things. So I don't have any specific ideas that I can point to; but the main thing that drives is me is a search for truth and beauty.
Beauty will lead you towards an intuitive understanding of truth. That is one way the ancients understood, philosophy is another. Looking forward to your next essay
If you're after more esoterica and myth, you may find some of the writings of John Michael Greer interesting. He's most well-known for his "collapse now and avoid the rush" kind of writing, but he does a lot of occult writing, talks about the importance of myth (even among people who say they don't believe in myths, like the followers of Progress!).
I'm not into the occult and myth side as much as he is, but it may interest you. Sit with a coffee and a box of tissues, this is his most recent post - on the death of his wife.
https://www.ecosophia.net/a-life-remembered/
We have essentially two female archetypes. Madonna, and the Whore. (Although in Madonna these two blended!). So, Marilyn Monroe, sleepy eyed sexpot, and Mother Mary. Other cultures had Medea, Kali, Durga, the ‘Shrew’ or Scold. And so on. It was accepted a scorned woman (Medea) was a dangerous person who would kill her own sons to hurt her ex lover. It was accepteds t the ‘Shrew’ needed to be tamed. Kali and Durga are the most dangerous Gods in the Hindu pantheon. We don’t accept women as easily being these dark feminine types. It can’t be just dark energy, it has to be something done to Marilyn/Mary for her to be that way. A lot of women really take advantage of men, using their bodies and emotion to take financially from their ‘lovers’. We barely acknowledge this. And if we do everyone pretends either he deserved it, or ‘I am not like that. I would never choose a man for money.’ Right. She might sleep with someone not for money, but marry? No. It is ubiquitous in our society. Ask young women what they want in a man and his salary will be the first or second item mentioned. I was sitting in a coffee shop with my wife and a few of her friends. Another female friend came up and chatted for a minute and then walked away. One of the women said conspiratorially ‘she scored’. The other women oohed and aahed. It turned out she had just married a top realtor in a very wealthy suburb of Vancouver. He probably made a Million or so a year. I was disgusted.
Good point. Masculine and feminine are active qualities that at least imply certain attributes. Male and female Conveys nothing. Or very little at any rate.