The last bit of this article offers a very binary perspective which is exactly what the female psyche is not. This very view keeps her as a binary (either the black widow or the healer...)It is tricky for the male mind to understand that because, biologically, men don't inhabit the polarities as much as women. (inhabiting the oscillatory patterns of two opposite energies like estrogen and progesterone offer women a very different "primary stance" to men's. I won't address the details here. Not the forum. But I see lots of flaws in this thinking. I like what Guner says and I don't disagree but as I see it it is a much more nunaced conversation. These very pure archetypes you outlined at the end of the article feel disconnected from what women actually are. The paradox.
First, I would say that I make no such binary claim, so I’m not sure how you arrived at that. If I’m mistaken, please call my attention to it. Further, of course, I mostly lack a feminine mind, so I may be falling into masculine communication traps. I fully acknowledge that. However, the point of exploring archetypes at all is to achieve a level of cognitive economy that is never going to be equal to the complexity and depth of experience. It’s not science exactly. Nor is it pure theory. It is a little bit of mythos, pathos and a touch of reductionist logos. That said, just because I am unable fully to articulate the competing identities within humans doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about. Such sophistication would be hard for anyone, though I still think it’s worth setting out some basic sketches of the archetypes. The point after all is to illustrate that there are authoritarian forces originating in the feminine, too. We always hear about masculinized authoritarianism, but we’re very much living in a world where black widows lurk, waiting to surveillle and silence us. Metaphor is not reality, but it is a useful heuristic.
The last bit of this article offers a very binary perspective which is exactly what the female psyche is not. This very view keeps her as a binary (either the black widow or the healer...)It is tricky for the male mind to understand that because, biologically, men don't inhabit the polarities as much as women. (inhabiting the oscillatory patterns of two opposite energies like estrogen and progesterone offer women a very different "primary stance" to men's. I won't address the details here. Not the forum. But I see lots of flaws in this thinking. I like what Guner says and I don't disagree but as I see it it is a much more nunaced conversation. These very pure archetypes you outlined at the end of the article feel disconnected from what women actually are. The paradox.
First, I would say that I make no such binary claim, so I’m not sure how you arrived at that. If I’m mistaken, please call my attention to it. Further, of course, I mostly lack a feminine mind, so I may be falling into masculine communication traps. I fully acknowledge that. However, the point of exploring archetypes at all is to achieve a level of cognitive economy that is never going to be equal to the complexity and depth of experience. It’s not science exactly. Nor is it pure theory. It is a little bit of mythos, pathos and a touch of reductionist logos. That said, just because I am unable fully to articulate the competing identities within humans doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about. Such sophistication would be hard for anyone, though I still think it’s worth setting out some basic sketches of the archetypes. The point after all is to illustrate that there are authoritarian forces originating in the feminine, too. We always hear about masculinized authoritarianism, but we’re very much living in a world where black widows lurk, waiting to surveillle and silence us. Metaphor is not reality, but it is a useful heuristic.