Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
for corporations women actually cost more, because the more women they hire, their company's legal insurance assestment is going to come up a more expansive deals, for no other reason then statistics,
Do you know this for a fact?
I would have thought this illegal in Europe, if not, it should be. Until quite recently, women enjoyed lower car insurance premiums because they are safer drivers, but the EU ruled against it as discriminatory practice (statistics or no) and now we all have to pay for boy-racer Herberts.
Yay equality.
Quote Originally Posted by Mike5609 View Post
CG. Jung, "Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype" (Collected Works 9) at (eg) http://www.jungny.com/lexicon.jungia....jung.124.html "....where there is an overwhelming resistance to the mother and all she stands for ... is the supreme example of the negative mother-complex. The motto of this type is: Anything, so long as it is not like Mother! "

You may not become her. But are you actually any more free by reacting against her than by compliantly stepping into the role-model template that she exemplifies?
Um. Yes.
Anyway, Jung is no great expert on women.
"No one can evade the fact, that in taking up a masculine calling, studying and working in a man's way, woman is doing something not wholly in agreement with, if not directly injurious to, her feminine nature. … Female psychology is founded on the principle of Eros, the great binder and deliverer; while age-old wisdom has ascribed Logos to man as his ruling principle.
-- Contributions to Analytical Psychology"
at this point in time, the solution for this isn't a cultural revolution, its a better economy.
Some would say one implies the other.

Quote Originally Posted by Working On It View Post
If a woman loses her personhood it is because she believes this will get her something she doesn't think she can otherwise have. The question I would ask is "What does she want more than herself?" Many of you said security, but I would say more like control through guilt.
This is a tactic I have witnessed in "stay-at-home" "home-makers". (Who, curiously, tend not to stay at home very much.) It's such a mouthful, I prefer to call them "freeloaders". There is not enough work in the average home to justify one person staying there full-time as an "occupation".

he is gone by 7:12. When child was home he was gone by 7:18. Housework is done by 9.
I couldn't allow the chilling precision of this to pass without comment. It wouldn't be out of place in Stepford...

Many traditional women for generations saw their whole community as their home and were not trapped by an overbearing husband.
True. In some cases they were trapped by their own lack of ambition/imagination.

By the way all of this was said not to place guilt on those who choose a different way, but to enlighten those who had a narrow view of what a traditional role can look like.
It's great that you are fulfilled by your "complementary" role. But to suppose your own view is not narrow and constrained is simply to delude yourself. To promote yourself as enlightened is laughable. To criticise others as people who want to "control through guilt" smacks of projection.

Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
Do you think your housekeeper had a housekeeper?