Becksie wrote-
Quote: In fact, in some way, it is an isolationists view.
That it is. An archetype is intended to isolate characteristics which transcend individual life styles.
Why you should think it "worrisome" baffles me. It is a very respectable intellectual position with a long tradition behind it.
Perhaps the direction of your reading material has occluded it from your view. You are, of course, an anti-IDer by association.
Begins one of the lovliest paragraphs in literature dedicated to the female-
"Women are the same the world over."
I wonder if you "worried" ladies, who had to be made to think of themselves as unique individuals in order to sell their husbands all that junk and leave him with nothing over for booze and smokes thus denying him male company where they make dirty jokes about women and isolating him in the backyard putting up a pegola, are the ones who have removed the books of Sir Henry Rider Haggard from the library shelves.
He would be "worrisome" by definition in your book.
Quote: It worries me that you seem to focus on the negative somewhat-women as archetypal tricksters and deceivers and the downfall of men...etc.
Worried again. Gee you must be really worried.
Am I wrong to focus on the "downfall of men"? I am a man after all and downfalls are proper crap. I have seen a very great deal of that and there is much more to come. We can't all go around pretending that women are not "tricksters and deceivers" when the evidence to the contrary is falling from the sky. Not for ever. Women being as tricky as they are it would be dangerous.
I am aware that one can be popular with ladies by going along with the pretence ironically as I have seen done many times but to go along with it unironically is definitely the qualification for being a very, very, very nice man. One Marjorie Proops would have approved of. In public I mean.
Quote:*That's why you just need to find a "nice", simple girl. She'd take all that archetypal crap out of your head.
Only if she behaved archetypically.