Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: "The Invisible Partners"
Message-ID: <305@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 10:06:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.305
Posted: Tue Jul 23 10:06:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 02:51:11 EDT
References: <2135@pucc-h>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 31

In article <2135@pucc-h> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; Jeff Sargent writes:

>       ...  Squarely based on the psychological work of Carl Jung and
>his followers, this explored how each person has within him or her an
>"invisible partner", a feminine or masculine (respectively) side of the
>personality.  He used the terms "anima" for the feminine side of a man, and
>"animus" for the masculine side of a woman.  ...

How is this any different than explaining appropriate/inappropriate
behavior by claiming that we each have invisible Good Angels and Bad 
Angels sitting on our shoulders whispering advice into our ears? (Oh,
you don't see the Angels? That's because they're INVISIBLE, dummy. And
you don't ordinarily hear them whispering because their voices are
really high pitched but you pick up the meaning subliminally...)

This kind of model assumes there's a thing called masculine behavior
and a thing called feminine behavior. Seems to me that one person's
masculine behavior might be the next one's feminine behavior. Certain
male members of our society, for example, might view flower arranging
as rather dubious behavior for a 'real man,' but most Japanese might
view it as perfectly acceptable behavior. A friend of a friend was
attacked by a mob in Brazil because he was flying a kite (apparently
considered swishy behavior by your basic macho Brazilian). Where's
your dividing line? 

And what's the justification for compartmentalizing the personality in
this artificial way? What exactly does it buy you analytically?

I kind of prefer the Good Angel/Bad Angel theory, myself.

                         -- Very Masculinely, Bill Ingogly