The following is a harsh critique of womankind. Not only men, but
women, also, do have great weaknesses as a group.

Women are very much attracted to the superficial. Therefore they have
a problem in the fine arts. Very few great artists are women. When
women paint or make music they tend to create a facade. In film music
the music is meant to be a only a backdrop, so here it's of the good.
But their strong tendency to keep to the surface is behind much of
their problems.

If a woman finds an amount of gold and a lump of yellow mica, then she
throws away the gold and keeps the latter. The yellow mica is what
looks pretty. This portrays a collective problem in womankind. I, as a
man, am confronted with the hideous, machinelike, rationalistic shadow
of men. I have this in me, too. But I do something to confront this
collective monster which is Rationalism.

Women, of course, are fully aware of the asphyxiating rationalism in
men. But men, as a rule, aren't aware of their own collective shadow.
Neither are women aware of their own shadowy nature, which is obvious
to all the men.

Of course, any man raising the subject is immediately
accused of "misogyny and gynophobia".

The following is a harsh critique of womankind. Not only men, but
women, also, do have great weaknesses as a group. Sorry for the level
of generalization in the following. It's natural in a discussion to
bring a thing to a head.

Feminists criticize the androcentric and patriarchal patterns that
subdue women. But the androcentric and patriarchal patterns are
already present in the "animus", which is defined as the unconscious
psyche of women which is projected onto men. The animus tends to
absorb the cultural patterns. Although it is clothed in the values of
the present culture, it remains archaic to a great extent. It is the
archaic unconscious expectancy of what a man is, and it is boringly
predictable.

The other day I saw a documentary about an Iranian-Jewish young woman
living in New York who had become split between two cultures. She
could not marry that nice man whom she liked because he was not "rich
and powerful" and this is how Iranian men should be.

So her own animus was rich and powerful. It was her own decision not
to marry this man because she could not properly project her own
animus on him. But her expectancy on relationship was that of love,
too. This is unknown in Iran where marriage is a social and economic
enterprise. So she had a combined American and Iranian animus, and no
man could live up to it. This is certainly a androcentric and
patriarchal pattern. But it's not the men's fault that some women
can't marry men who aren't "rich and powerful". It is their own fault.

Furthermore, contrary to what many feminist theorists say, it remains
a fact that women are bound to motherhood. Either they get attached to
actual babies of their own making, or they are captivated by a "giant
baby", that is, an adult infantile man with strong narcissistic
traits. Women adore narcissistic men because they haven't integrated
their animus (their archaic unconscious expectancy of what a man is).

This means that they will always support the narcissistic man in any
circumstance. Giving women power is, indirectly, to give narcissistic
men power, something which will, ultimately, lead to the demise of our
civilisation. In a board of directors with only one woman, any
narcissistic man will, effectively, have two votes. With two women he
will have three votes, etc. That's how it works. In our Western
civilisation there is an ongoing struggle between narcissistic men and
normal men. The narcissists are today getting the upper hand because
of more feminine power in society. Companies are forced to close down
because of this. It is a dangerous situation.

When women experience themselves as being held back, it is really an
effort to hold narcissism back. Feminists don't like to talk about
this, but womens' support for Adolf Hitler was almost complete. They
were twice as likely to support Hitler than men were. He is the
perfect animus figure. Elderly German women still get tears in their
eyes when talking about him. He is, possibly with the exception of
Mao, the most beloved person in world history. Women, as a rule, adore
such men. The historical Jesus belongs to the most hated.

The attraction to infantile and narcissistic men is an immense
problem. It is well-known how the average woman always thinks that a
good-looking and well-behaved man is a good and trustworthy man,
although it's likely to be a narcissist. This is no different from a
little child who thinks that a person wearing a Santa Claus mask is a
nice and generous person. But every adult ought to know that moral
qualities are independent of the superficial qualities. The bigamous
inclination is also strong in women. This phenomenon derives from the
multiplicity of the animus (animus is many, while a man's anima is
one).

To discuss the collective shadow of womankind is becoming urgent
today. All the feminists do is discussing the collective shadow of
men, and in many cases they project their own problems and refuse the
see the joint anima-animus difficulties. The predilection among women
for men endowed with money and power is clearly a repulsive streak. It
is a positive streak in men that they have no such predilections. They
tend to fall in love with just anybody. Women are much more
calculating. Women also have a great problem with their falseness. In
order to raise the consciousness of women they must realize their own
shadowy nature.

Women are very much attracted to the superficial. Therefore they have
a problem in the fine arts. Very few great artists are women. When
women paint or make music they tend to create a facade. In film music
the music is meant to be a only a backdrop, so here it's of the good.
But their strong tendency to keep to the surface is behind much of
their problems.

If a woman finds an amount of gold and a lump of yellow mica, then she
throws away the gold and keeps the latter. The yellow mica is what
looks pretty. This portrays a collective problem in womankind. I, as a
man, am confronted with the hideous, machinelike, rationalistic shadow
of men. I have this in me, too. But I do something to confront this
collective monster which is Rationalism.

Women, of course, are fully aware of the asphyxiating rationalism in
men. But men, as a rule, aren't aware of their own collective shadow.
Neither are women aware of their own shadowy nature, which is obvious
to all the men. Of course, any man raising the subject is immediately
accused of "misogyny and gynophobia".

Mats Winther
------------------------

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:07:05 -0700
MsgID:<46967BD9.112F@armory.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

The bigamous
inclination is also strong in women. This phenomenon derives from the
multiplicity of the animus (animus is many, while a man's anima is
one).

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:07:05 -0700
MsgID:<46967BD9.112F@armory.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

That shit in women's heads was inherited from men like you.

The Sage
------------

The following is a harsh critique of womankind. Not only men, but
women, also, do have great weaknesses as a group. Sorry for the level
of generalization in the following. It's natural in a discussion to
bring a thing to a head.

Feminists criticize the androcentric and patriarchal patterns that
subdue women.

But the androcentric and patriarchal patterns are
already present in the "animus", which is defined as the unconscious
psyche of women which is projected onto men. The animus tends to
absorb the cultural patterns. Although it is clothed in the values of
the present culture, it remains archaic to a great extent. It is the
archaic unconscious expectancy of what a man is, and it is boringly
predictable.

The other day I saw a documentary about an Iranian-Jewish young woman
living in New York who had become split between two cultures. She
could not marry that nice man whom she liked because he was not "rich
and powerful" and this is how Iranian men should be.

So her own animus was rich and powerful. It was her own decision not
to marry this man because she could not properly project her own
animus on him. But her expectancy on relationship was that of love,
too. This is unknown in Iran where marriage is a social and economic
enterprise. So she had a combined American and Iranian animus, and no
man could live up to it. This is certainly a androcentric and
patriarchal pattern. But it's not the men's fault that some women
can't marry men who aren't "rich and powerful". It is their own fault.

Furthermore, contrary to what many feminist theorists say, it remains
a fact that women are bound to motherhood. Either they get attached to
actual babies of their own making, or they are captivated by a "giant
baby", that is, an adult infantile man with strong narcissistic
traits. Women adore narcissistic men because they haven't integrated
their animus (their archaic unconscious expectancy of what a man is).

This means that they will always support the narcissistic man in any
circumstance. Giving women power is, indirectly, to give narcissistic
men power, something which will, ultimately, lead to the demise of our
civilisation. In a board of directors with only one woman, any
narcissistic man will, effectively, have two votes. With two women he
will have three votes, etc. That's how it works. In our Western
civilisation there is an ongoing struggle between narcissistic men and
normal men. The narcissists are today getting the upper hand because
of more feminine power in society. Companies are forced to close down
because of this. It is a dangerous situation.

When women experience themselves as being held back, it is really an
effort to hold narcissism back. Feminists don't like to talk about
this, but womens' support for Adolf Hitler was almost complete. They
were twice as likely to support Hitler than men were. He is the
perfect animus figure. Elderly German women still get tears in their
eyes when talking about him. He is, possibly with the exception of
Mao, the most beloved person in world history. Women, as a rule, adore
such men. The historical Jesus belongs to the most hated.

The attraction to infantile and narcissistic men is an immense
problem. It is well-known how the average woman always thinks that a
good-looking and well-behaved man is a good and trustworthy man,
although it's likely to be a narcissist. This is no different from a
little child who thinks that a person wearing a Santa Claus mask is a
nice and generous person. But every adult ought to know that moral
qualities are independent of the superficial qualities. The bigamous
inclination is also strong in women. This phenomenon derives from the
multiplicity of the animus (animus is many, while a man's anima is
one).

To discuss the collective shadow of womankind is becoming urgent
today. All the feminists do is discussing the collective shadow of
men, and in many cases they project their own problems and refuse the
see the joint anima-animus difficulties. The predilection among women
for men endowed with money and power is clearly a repulsive streak. It
is a positive streak in men that they have no such predilections. They
tend to fall in love with just anybody. Women are much more
calculating. Women also have a great problem with their falseness. In
order to raise the consciousness of women they must realize their own
shadowy nature.

Women are very much attracted to the superficial. Therefore they have
a problem in the fine arts. Very few great artists are women. When
women paint or make music they tend to create a facade. In film music
the music is meant to be a only a backdrop, so here it's of the good.
But their strong tendency to keep to the surface is behind much of
their problems.

If a woman finds an amount of gold and a lump of yellow mica, then she
throws away the gold and keeps the latter. The yellow mica is what
looks pretty. This portrays a collective problem in womankind. I, as a
man, am confronted with the hideous, machinelike, rationalistic shadow
of men. I have this in me, too. But I do something to confront this
collective monster which is Rationalism.

Women, of course, are fully aware of the asphyxiating rationalism in
men. But men, as a rule, aren't aware of their own collective shadow.
Neither are women aware of their own shadowy nature, which is obvious
to all the men. Of course, any man raising the subject is immediately
accused of "misogyny and gynophobia".

Mats Winther

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:15:27 -0700
MsgID:<469823AF.1544@armory.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

That shit in women's heads was inherited from men like you.

Wrong! From Right-Wing Fundies and their antisex brainwashing of girls.
I'm just the messenger here. And I don't believe that women
HAVE to have shit in their heads, and I promote that they get rid
of it.

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:15:27 -0700
MsgID:<469823AF.1544@armory.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

That shit in women's heads was inherited from men like you.

Wrong! From Right-Wing Fundies and their antisex brainwashing of girls.
I'm just the messenger here. And I don't believe that women
HAVE to have shit in their heads, and I promote that they get rid
of it.

You don't understand genetics. Physical traits are not the only thing inherited
by progeny, psychological traits (ie -- behaviors) are also inherited. Why do
you think that it was women that have been repressed and oppressed by men for
all these thousands of years and not the other way around? Luck of the draw?
Pure chance? So when I say that shit in women's heads was inherited from men
like you, I mean exactly that. It can't come from anywhere else.

"We often see a very strange effect of unconsciousness. For the one on whom the
shadow has fallen is unavoidably influenced in an unconscious way by the
projection, and if the two people are closely connected, the recipient of the
projection may be constrained to live the negative role projected upon him" (THE
I AND THE NOT I, by M Esther Harding, pg 78)

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and
suspicious of men who try to" -- H. Mumford Jones
=============================================================

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:15:27 -0700
MsgID:<469823AF.1544@armory.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

That shit in women's heads was inherited from men like you.

Wrong! From Right-Wing Fundies and their antisex brainwashing of girls.
I'm just the messenger here. And I don't believe that women
HAVE to have shit in their heads, and I promote that they get rid
of it.

You don't understand genetics. Physical traits are not the only thing inherited
by progeny, psychological traits (ie -- behaviors) are also inherited.
-------------

Why do
you think that it was women that have been repressed and oppressed by men for
all these thousands of years and not the other way around? Luck of the draw?
Pure chance?
------------------

So when I say that shit in women's heads was inherited from men
like you, I mean exactly that. It can't come from anywhere else.
-----------------------------

"We often see a very strange effect of unconsciousness. For the one on whom the
shadow has fallen is unavoidably influenced in an unconscious way by the
projection, and if the two people are closely connected, the recipient of the
projection may be constrained to live the negative role projected upon him" (THE
I AND THE NOT I, by M Esther Harding, pg 7
----------------------

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:55:37 -0700
MsgID:<46994659.402@armory.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

That shit in women's heads was inherited from men like you.

Wrong! From Right-Wing Fundies and their antisex brainwashing of girls.
I'm just the messenger here. And I don't believe that women
HAVE to have shit in their heads, and I promote that they get rid
of it.

You don't understand genetics. Physical traits are not the only thing inherited
by progeny, psychological traits (ie -- behaviors) are also inherited.

But what precisely they are is NOT understood.

What you think of as
surely genetic is merely cultural. It evolves, but as memes, not genes.

Why do
you think that it was women that have been repressed and oppressed by men for
all these thousands of years and not the other way around? Luck of the draw?
Pure chance?

Duh! Physical size and strength??

Also, this oppression was far from
universal, and far from long-term even in most western societies. The
evidence from the Neolithic tells a different story.

So when I say that shit in women's heads was inherited from men
like you, I mean exactly that. It can't come from anywhere else.

I'm the opposite of the men who oppress.

I reject the shit in women's
heads that was put there by the oppresors.

Women have been brainwashed
to be their own oppresors, for the most part.

People are VERY difficult
to oppress without being brainwashed into helping their oppressor. I
don't even think people COULD BE oppressed without that!

"We often see a very strange effect of unconsciousness. For the one on whom the
shadow has fallen is unavoidably influenced in an unconscious way by the
projection, and if the two people are closely connected, the recipient of the
projection may be constrained to live the negative role projected upon him" (THE
I AND THE NOT I, by M Esther Harding, pg 78)

That's just one of those cutesy principles that people love because
they sound profoundly confounding. That feature to them does NOT EVER
automatically make them the Truth either in toto or in any given
situation. There are many other things that happen as well, and the
classic human failing is to imagine we know things from single notions
when actually we don't know shit and things are WAAAY more complicated.

Reply to article by: SmackWaterJack <thecongreation@hotmail.com
Date written: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:54:49 -0700
MsgID:<46990DE9.771F26B2@hotmail.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

That shit in women's heads was inherited from men like you.

Wrong! From Right-Wing Fundies and their antisex brainwashing of girls.
I'm just the messenger here. And I don't believe that women
HAVE to have shit in their heads, and I promote that they get rid
of it.

You don't understand genetics. Physical traits are not the only thing inherited
by progeny, psychological traits (ie -- behaviors) are also inherited. Why do
you think that it was women that have been repressed and oppressed by men for
all these thousands of years and not the other way around? Luck of the draw?
Pure chance? So when I say that shit in women's heads was inherited from men
like you, I mean exactly that. It can't come from anywhere else.

Except that there were ancient societies that were matriarchal societies
ruled by women not the patriarch.
You are correct that most of radical feminists fight against the
patriarch because the patriarch deemed/deems them as 'property'.
Property has long history of causing 'territorial' disputes. Right of
heirs etc. fall under the radical feminists dispute with the
patriarchy.
The reason for this seems to be tied to inheritance issues.

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:55:37 -0700
MsgID:<46994659.402@armory.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

That shit in women's heads was inherited from men like you.

Wrong! From Right-Wing Fundies and their antisex brainwashing of girls.
I'm just the messenger here. And I don't believe that women
HAVE to have shit in their heads, and I promote that they get rid
of it.

You don't understand genetics. Physical traits are not the only thing inherited
by progeny, psychological traits (ie -- behaviors) are also inherited.

But what precisely they are is NOT understood.

We do not have to understand what they are in order to observe what they are.
------------------

What you think of as
surely genetic is merely cultural. It evolves, but as memes, not genes.

Memes are not a scientifically validated concept, they are another pop
psychology fad.
---------------------------

Behaviors can be inherited and not be just "merely cultural"...
----------------------------------

"Consider for instance, those animals that have specifically differentiated
anatomical characteristics, those of the teeth or something like that. Well,
they have a mental behavior which is in accordance with those organs"
(CONVERSATIONS WITH JUNG, by Richard Evans, pg 83)
-----------------------------

Women are not a separate species from men, so whatever is in their brains is in
yours as well.
-------------------------------

Why do
you think that it was women that have been repressed and oppressed by men for
all these thousands of years and not the other way around? Luck of the draw?
Pure chance?

Duh! Physical size and strength??

Then why did dinosaurs go extinct? Evolution favors the survivial of the
fittest, not the strongest or biggest or even the most intelligent, just the
fittest.
----------------------------------

Also, this oppression was far from
universal, and far from long-term even in most western societies. The
evidence from the Neolithic tells a different story.

That oppression is universal today and it was universal back then.
-------------------

It is the
exceptions to the rule that you are trying to make out to be the rule.
--------------------------

So when I say that shit in women's heads was inherited from men
like you, I mean exactly that. It can't come from anywhere else.

I'm the opposite of the men who oppress.

Individuals are not the topic here -- men as a whole are.
-------------------------------

I reject the shit in women's
heads that was put there by the oppresors.

And men are not the oppressors?
------------------------------

Women have been brainwashed
to be their own oppresors, for the most part.

What kind of scientific evidence do you have to back up that assertion?
---------------------------

People are VERY difficult
to oppress without being brainwashed into helping their oppressor. I
don't even think people COULD BE oppressed without that!

Think again. Even if we were to pretend that oppression was all in women's
heads, why is it that men are always there to physically fulfill the role of the
oppressor? There is a compliment there that demonstrates it isn't just in
women's heads.
-------------------------------

"We often see a very strange effect of unconsciousness. For the one on whom the
shadow has fallen is unavoidably influenced in an unconscious way by the
projection, and if the two people are closely connected, the recipient of the
projection may be constrained to live the negative role projected upon him" (THE
I AND THE NOT I, by M Esther Harding, pg 78)

That's just one of those cutesy principles that people love because
they sound profoundly confounding. That feature to them does NOT EVER
automatically make them the Truth either in toto or in any given
situation. There are many other things that happen as well, and the
classic human failing is to imagine we know things from single notions
when actually we don't know shit and things are WAAAY more complicated.

Then why are your off the cuff explanations for women being oppressed so
simple-minded and naive?
---------------------------

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:45:11 -0700
MsgID:<469D70A7.75C1@armory.com

they catch-up historically. Lots of chnage has already happened to
the shit in women's heads, but not nearly enough.

That shit in women's heads was inherited from men like you.

Wrong! From Right-Wing Fundies and their antisex brainwashing of girls.
I'm just the messenger here. And I don't believe that women
HAVE to have shit in their heads, and I promote that they get rid
of it.

You don't understand genetics. Physical traits are not the only thing inherited
by progeny, psychological traits (ie -- behaviors) are also inherited.

But what precisely they are is NOT understood.

We do not have to understand what they are in order to observe what they are.

WRONG! It is easy to mistake something cultural for something inherited.

This is why memes have to be distinguished from genes.

What you think of as
surely genetic is merely cultural. It evolves, but as memes, not genes.

Memes are not a scientifically validated concept, they are another pop
psychology fad.

The nature of memes has nothing to do with some magical particles like
atoms or genes, memes are admittedly and affirmatively ONLY IDEAS,
and we KNOW how ideas are propagated, you inflict them on children!

Behaviors can be inherited and not be just "merely cultural"...

That assertion cannot BE demonstrated with ANY certainty.

"Consider for instance, those animals that have specifically differentiated
anatomical characteristics, those of the teeth or something like that. Well,
they have a mental behavior which is in accordance with those organs"
(CONVERSATIONS WITH JUNG, by Richard Evans, pg 83)

You mean they chew?

That's NOT any kind of a thing we're talking
about, more we are discussing here the things they seem to choose
to chew, or the mythology that they have developed ABOUT chewing.

Such anatomical allegations of behaviors is NOT psychological, and
then consequently NOT sociological or anthropological.

Women are not a separate species from men, so whatever is in their brains is in
yours as well.

Sure. But there may be varations, we simply don't know the limits of
the cultural.

Why do
you think that it was women that have been repressed and oppressed by men for
all these thousands of years and not the other way around? Luck of the draw?
Pure chance?

Duh! Physical size and strength??

Then why did dinosaurs go extinct? Evolution favors the survivial of the
fittest, not the strongest or biggest or even the most intelligent, just the
fittest.

Sure. But political oppression occurs by violence or the threat of
violence.

We're not disccussing any speciel survivability.

Also, this oppression was far from
universal, and far from long-term even in most western societies. The
evidence from the Neolithic tells a different story.

That oppression is universal today and it was universal back then.

We simply do NOT see the historical marks of such a thing in the
Neolithic.

It is the
exceptions to the rule that you are trying to make out to be the rule.

When the exceptions are the majority, they ARE the rule.

And that is
so, like it or not. Peoples had very different takes on the roles of
men and women in recent prehistory.

So when I say that shit in women's heads was inherited from men
like you, I mean exactly that. It can't come from anywhere else.

I'm the opposite of the men who oppress.

Individuals are not the topic here -- men as a whole are.

Irrelevant.
If men could be taken as a group, we wouldn't be discussing anything.

I reject the shit in women's
heads that was put there by the oppresors.

And men are not the oppressors?

The rich were/are the oppressors.

Women have oppressed women nearly as often as men have.

Women have been brainwashed
to be their own oppresors, for the most part.

What kind of scientific evidence do you have to back up that assertion?

What we see today when women try to shame one another to keep each
other in line with the majority culture. Just the use of the word
"slut" by women is evidenciary.

People are VERY difficult
to oppress without being brainwashed into helping their oppressor. I
don't even think people COULD BE oppressed without that!

Think again. Even if we were to pretend that oppression was all in women's
heads, why is it that men are always there to physically fulfill the role of the
oppressor? There is a compliment there that demonstrates it isn't just in
women's heads.

I did not say that it is ONLY in women's heads, just that they oppress
their own sex nearly as much as men do.

"We often see a very strange effect of unconsciousness. For the one on whom the
shadow has fallen is unavoidably influenced in an unconscious way by the
projection, and if the two people are closely connected, the recipient of the
projection may be constrained to live the negative role projected upon him" (THE
I AND THE NOT I, by M Esther Harding, pg 78)

That's just one of those cutesy principles that people love because
they sound profoundly confounding. That feature to them does NOT EVER
automatically make them the Truth either in toto or in any given
situation. There are many other things that happen as well, and the
classic human failing is to imagine we know things from single notions
when actually we don't know shit and things are WAAAY more complicated.

Then why are your off the cuff explanations for women being oppressed so
simple-minded and naive?

Disingenuous.
That's merely your dishonest posture, since you seem unable or
unwilling to demonstrate that.