Is the female equivalent of the hero's journey different to it's male counterpart?

Are you claiming that the traits possessed by fictional heroines accurately reflect the moral values of women?

Women do not have the same competitive or creative drive as men for quite obvious biological reasons

A peasant woman who seduces and marries the sultan for his wealth and power, then seduces the Captain of the Guards and gets pregnant, poisons the other women in the harem, convinces the Captain of the Guards to murder the Sultan, then betrays him and sees him captured and executed, then rules as Queen dowager until her son comes of age and assumes the throne with help from mommy.

So you a priori have made the decision that any female hero isn't actually "female" and have totally invalidated the question You can't just enter into a discussion saying any evidence that contradicts me doesn't count, that's fucking retarded

Isn't that basically that one Chinese emperoress?

Wut
It doesn't invalidate the question it underlines it's importance.

Can anyone give a real life equivalent of the Hero's Journey?

Think about it. The male archetype goes out into the world fights dragons, overcomes his limitations and reenters the ordinary world as something better, a king who has earned the respect of his peers.

The female archetype feels like they deserve better, so they go out into the world and embrace their shadow instead of fighting it. She sucks off the dragons, gets slapped around, and eventually suffers a collapse that renders her either unable to leave the underworld again or drives her back into the ordinary world as a reformed hooker. This could be triggred by a hero who asserts dominance over her and reintegrates the female shadow by virtue of his masculine force, or she just learns to appreciate the status quo through the realization of not being able to sustain herself, with the other choice being a slave within the underworld.

That's one source where I drew inspiration from.

>Is the female equivalent of the hero's journey different to it's male counterpart?
>any female hero's journey that isn't different is just a male journey with a sex change

How does that not make the question totally trivial and irrelevant?

But I suppose you're right since OP isn't actually looking for an answer, he's clearly already made up his mind and just wants a circlejerk about his ebbin literary theory

A man has to prove his value, a woman normally doesn't. She just has to look fuckable and that's about it. In the vast majority of cases there's no reason for a woman to become exceptional, more even women have drive towards being as normal as possible.

So you think the female journey is the same as the male journey?

That has a nice symmetry to it in the sense that the male hero proves himself through violence and the female through sex.

But it's an abstract form of violence that can be applied to all sorts of problems I think. Like the dragon being a leaky roof that has to be fixed.

I think the hero's journey is a basic template that sometimes does and doesn't describe the heroic narratives present in mythologies and folkways

I think there are categorical differences between male and female hero's, but these are varied throughout cultures and are not the fucking misogynistic /r9k/ their shit being talked about in the thread

I guess you could argue that the dragon in a sense might be a women's own sense of entitlement.

You're all going on about plot but I believe that a 'female touch' would be more felt in the characters and their interactions with one another.
anyone? It's interesting for the discussion

War seems to be one of the most obvious examples, but I think the hero's journey isn't just a one time event but something that at least for men tends to repeat itself over and over again on a smaller scale.

Take Audie Murphy. The guy was a war hero and managed to find his way back to life as a hero, becomes a movie star, gets addicted to pills but overcomes his addiction after locking himself into a hotel room for a week. That said I suppose on a micro level male and female narrative share elements of overcoming obstacles, but generally it seems like the female journey is slower in pace and less proactive, or at least in a more feminine way. See a nurse in comparison to a fireman for example.

It can be but at the most archetypal level the hero slays the dragon. Likewise the female powers can also be abstracted so that they "seduce" their baby to take a nap or whatever but the archetype remains sex just as the male archetype remains violence.

>See a nurse in comparison to a fireman for example.
I don't know what you think these jobs are like, but a nurse probably has a faster paced workload than most firefighters in most cities.

What do you think about free will in context of entering the archetypal underworld. I'm not sure if there's a difference generally speaking in terms of engaging it by own choice or just being flushed down passively.

I'm aware about that but I would argue a nurse isn't risking her life in most cases.

The belief that women can't and don't have the same potential as men is literally why we're dealing with feminism. Women have taken over the government and culture. Stop pretending like men are strong and women are weak. It's pretty clear that men are weak and women are strong these days.

Women are acclimating to being equal to men, and men are acclimating as well. Right now, the issues in culture are arising from a lack of ability to cope and a lack of ability to utilize new positions with grace and honor.

In the future, your post will be laughable, as will feminism be as well. People will be taken as individuals. Chances are my hero's journey is far better and more heroic than yours. I'm just assuming given how pathetic someone must be to think this way, and how mired in the past rather than building upon it towards a new future. You are the kind of man who is part of the reason why men are pussies and women are beasts are right now. Simple, and pathetic.

I am absolutely convinced you have no idea what the hero's journey is and think that it is just an archetypal story of masculine bravado and action

Campbell, the one who invented the idea, used the hero's journey to describe Christ in the New Testament. Another example that should be more your speed is "Finding Nemo"

>women are beasts right now

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Here's the thing, women and men are roughly the same amount of people on each side, maybe more women. But women need men in order to make feminism work where as men don't need women in order to make the patriarchy work. Therefor women are not equal to man. Logic.

Jesus, the hero's journey isn't intrinsically violent in the least.
Not even to mention your fucked view of women and feminity

>women are equal

Only in utilizing the methods that ultimately push ideologies. The weird unexpected element are the men that agree with the irrational and blatantly flawed extreme feminist ideologies.

But a lot of bullshit in general, like subtle Marxism or whatever this cancerous shit is that is spreading, a lot of spreads because men in power are just too lazy to examine potential ultimate outcomes.

>the hero's journey is and think that it is just an archetypal story of masculine bravado and action
>Finding Nemo

I wouldn't call Finding Nemo a masculine story of bravado and action, but ok. I was more thinking along the lines of the story of Gilgamesh or Die Hard, if you want a more modern example. You know, dudes wrestling, discovering new allies, and so on.

a lot of it spreads*

But yeah, a lot of people are just too lazy for thorough examination. I'm not talking shit about these people, cause it's hard enough to manage our own lives when we have other self inflicted oppression's that are suffocating our focus/creating distractions that throughout history, always precedes social meltdowns, big or small.

That was literally my point. The "monomyth" or hero's journey can be filled with violence and action, but it doesn't have to be.

"Finding Nemo" *is* a perfect example of the hero's journey

King Arthur is a better one I think.

I should add, finding Nemo is a particularly good example because it actually shows two hero's journey stories simultaneously. One, a huge geographic journey across the sea, the other a personal journey of strength and self-betterment

"King Arthur" is a whole myth cycle and not a single story. But, you are right there are many elements of the monomyth that are present in Arthurian myths

I get what you mean but I think you knew what I meant too. When I said King Arthur I was thinking more about Excalibur, which is excellent one way or the other.

To go full circle on the OP, do you think Finding Nemo is also representative of the female archetype?

...

I'm not disagreeing that Marxism is a cancer of the kind and the like, and that people are essentially animals these days, intellectually, but take a step back and realize the general changes in gender roles are permanent. Men will retain masculinity, women will retain femininity, but it will be an open deal and not a prison for either side. In the future once the Marxism fad dies and is remembered as a neo-movement in the early 21st century, men and women will most likely be treated as equals.

We are simply going through the birth pains of evolution. People are too animalistic to handle changes this seismic. Hence cucks and hambeasts.

One should do their best to be the best person they can be, see the times for what they are, and attempt to make their mark accordingly. I am a woman, but it is true I don't have this strange innate urge to dominate everything else and leave a mark that way. However, wanting to put myself out there as best as possible is functionally indistinguishable. If things must be made Freudian according to my "nature", I'm seeking the gaze of historians so their research can penetrate me. Isn't this something anyone worth their salt would attempt?

Also helps I've channeled the hatred of condescension into not being a fuck, unlike feminists who have become obsessed with their hatred of condescension so much so they founded a religion around it.

The movie Excalibur.

My opinion is that the hero's journey isn't an intrinsically gendered literary structure.

If a female hero goes on a quest that either takes them on a long geographic journey, or on a journey of training and self-improvement., then sure it lines up to Finding Nemo decently well

I think the problem with third (fourth?) way feminism is that your mind goes one way and your biology goes another, resulting in some epic confusion that can't be resolved by doubling down on the ideology.

Ladys man right here.

Haven't seen it.

The monomyth is a really shoddy loose weave narrative template anyway. There are probably a dozen other narrative models that describe that movie more accurately and honestly

>The female archetype feels like they deserve better, so they go out into the world and embrace their shadow instead of fighting it. She sucks off the dragons, gets slapped around, and eventually suffers a collapse that renders her either unable to leave the underworld again or drives her back into the ordinary world as a reformed hooker. This could be triggred by a hero who asserts dominance over her and reintegrates the female shadow by virtue of his masculine force, or she just learns to appreciate the status quo through the realization of not being able to sustain herself, with the other choice being a slave within the underworld.
What in the everloving fuck are you talking about

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think that archetypes transcend free will in the sense that they are fixed images that cannot be altered. What I mean is that the hero slaying the dragon exists as an archetype regardless of how anyone feels about it, it just "is."

It's a really good movie that manages to provide a sense of profound catharsis multiple times, if you're into that sort of thing. I'm not too hung up on Joseph Campbell, and frankly I think he's full of shit on some issues, but I when I say hero's journey normally most people rougly know what is meant in an somewhat abstract way, which makes using the term helpful even though my interpreation differs more or less.

>I'm seeking the gaze of historians so their research can penetrate me.

Sure, for some people who don't have a mind in the first place. If you're a hardcore feminist, it means you're a convert to a secular religion. There's only so many reasons for that, almost all of them requiring that you are dealing with some kind of personal insecurities. Most likely it is the general 21st century ennui and lack of Self people are dealing with in the Digital Age-- there's so much information out there, you seem so small and meaningless, and you can no longer tell where you end and something else begins. Those with undeveloped personalities are left adrift until Marxism or /pol/ism takes a hold. Animals refusing to encounter their own Despair, in the Kierkegaardian sense.

Still, biology isn't everything. If biology were all that mattered, man would be shitting itself in the jungle. Consciousness has a way of superseding innate urges and subconscious drives. Greek philosophy frequently hammers home the idea that one is a slave to their passions unless they take personal control of them.

Women who are not animals, men who are not animals, not sucking at the teat of 21st century idolatry to balm their Despair, will do just fine. One just needs to be cognizant of the times as simply another part of history. Though, a very, very important part. Digital Revolution may be the most seismic shift since self - awareness.

Yes it is; even Luke Skywalker was violent as was Jesus Himself. Also are you trying to be punny about my characterization of the feminine archetype?

Ottoman as fuck

>enter wholesome small town girl
>starts to hate small town and runs away to become an actress in LA
>meets pimp
>pimp makes her addicted to drugs
>pimp beats on her when she doesn't bring enough money
>she almost dies after having an overdose
>gets saved and then chained to a fridge by a negro until she's clean
>goes back to her small town to become kindergarden teacher
>meets nice guy in church
>family

You're welcome.

Winston Churchill has had his history - hole filled with lots of historian research - cock. Most great men worth remembering. Its less gay if a girl does it.

if she has a dick she's not a she

You know Lifetime movies aren't literature right?

Question, historically speaking where there any female hunters chucking spears at wolly mammoths?

Thinking about this I might have found another angle on the topic. Is the female shadow different from the male shadow?

But do they not reveal something about the feminine consciousness, albeit in an exaggerated way, in the same way a monster truck rally reveals something about masculinity?

>implying

Like men and women being equal, what a man and a woman entails is changing as well. In the future, I'm sure no one will give two shits about the things we concern ourselves with.

Instead it will be: "Robots are not people! You can't date a robot! Not in my house. Why can't you find a nice transgender wolfkin to settle down with?"

Once upon a time men wore dresses and high heels. You're being myopic in your focus on contemporary history.

What about movies like Terminator or Alien, where the female is self-made but conformist and mundane, and after being thrown in the way of tragedy and peril, finds a fighting spirit, leadership and a purpose after all their allies have died?

hehehe that's right goyim we are entering a new age which is the end of history. silly outdated ideas about gender will never apply anymore because we will be enlightened by science hehe

As long as someone sticks a penis in a vagina there will be genders. Only way I see to shift it is to increase the ratio of vagina to penis 50 to 1 in order to turn supply and demand dynamics.

And they also killed each other in duels over petty social slights. You're being myopic by focusing on fashion.

Yeah I see what you're saying. I agree that the current model for a female will always be a carrying over of what a women had to be prior.

I mean the fundamental evil's exists and they are prime for exploiting women just based on the fact that women lack physical strength. That alone makes them an easy target. Wisdom would say get behind a stronger man, but a stronger 'good' man, obviously not a man that's going to beat the shit out of you because he had a bad day. But given the shitty element within the spectrum of the entire element of human behavior, wisdom does say get behind something moral and strong. And strong morals exist.

But yeah, ultimately, the evolution will lead to women just doing their shit as they want and men doing their shit as they want, under the most fine tuned and high frequency usage of ethics and understanding of each other.

>end of history
Good job being totally unable to comprehend Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. Its not even close to the end of history, it's simply a shift in the event changing current of history.

It's hilarious how some of you here use Veeky Forums, the bastion of free dialogue, as a balm for your own insecurities. Does the idea that women should be treated as individuals capable of anything any individual could be capable of rally make you that upset?

Good job playing into the US vs THEM narrative. Who's the goy, exactly?

>women lack physical strength
If a man hides behind a bigger man that's no better than hiding behind a lynch mob.

I'm less optimistic. As soon as society collapses men will lapse into dominating women and women will lose the progress they made partially because they weren't happy with what they had.

It's not really different today, but it certainly used to be.

Women today are essentially voluntarily sterile men, which has been unthinkable for most of human history.

If you're speaking in Jungian terms in what you mean by the shadow, then yes to an extent. It's important to note that he viewed human beings as psychologically androgynous, so the concept of a "male and female shadow" is not going to be what you expect. Look into anima and animus for further details.

What. Say that to all the modern career driven women. I'm in STEM, and it amazes me how hard working and driven some of these women are. A good portion of them also do things like cross country bicycling, trail hiking, and mountain climbing. I have a female lawyer friend, and she's ridiculously smart, taking on cases that baffle me in their complexity.

I too, am dissatisfied with women's portrayal in media. There are some different factors driving these women, but it's actually not all that different. Hell, look at Gilgamesh. When he was young, he wanted glory and approval. He was a great braggart. Well muscled young men tend to be rather vain.

This issue is more complex than you're letting on.

I don't understand what you're trying to say at all.

The standing behind the stronger is a common tactic in battle. It's the basis for the idea of "protection." You don't shield yourself with wood, you shield yourself with metal. You don't put women on the front line, or children, you put men. This is the fundamental countermeasure to any offense.

Morality, ethics, is what will determine the value of everything though.

>Does the idea that women should be treated as individuals capable of anything any individual could be capable of rally make you that upset?

Not the guy, but even though me liking the idea in theory I somewhat doubt it would look like you think you would. Much of the equality stuff only works because men secretly know it bullshit but were socially conditioned to hold back. Partially by the women themselves because they use their sexuality for leverage and then men trying to fuck them.

If men wouldn't hold back anymore and would treat women like other men this would get really really ugly quick. I don't know what you think men are doing to women in terms of mistreating them, but I gurantee you what men do to men is much much worse.

>claims gender distinctions won't exist in the future even though gender distinctions have been a universal constant in every culture for all of human history
>tries to say their position is not arguing for the end of history

ishygddt

That seems reasonable. I mean, I am certainly behind a strong man, but my interests are in contemplation foremost. Hypatia of Alexandria existed, plenty of worthwhile women have existed. Fewer because fewer could break out. I think we're simply living in a time where that fact of life is changing now.

My hope would be that women calm down and men buck up and we have a stronger species for it. In order to do that, we need to contribute to the forward momentum in the way we think is best.

Problem is that there are hegemonic powers at play trying to control everything, not in the illuminati cabal sense but the "blind leading the blind" sense. However, history shows that those forces tend to be circumvented or destroyed eventually. I'd hope people would be able to see the wealth of knowledge at their literal fingertips and educate themselves and develop critical thinking skills.

Cool, this sounds interesting! Thanks.

What. Men use their sexuality all the time. What are you talking about? An attractive man goes further in his field than an unattractive one in most fields. Networking has a lot to do with how attractive you are in body and mind, sometimes even more so than your ability.

Maybe there are outliers but the only dicipline I know women have an advantage is extreme endurance running for some strange reason. Generally it seems like for every woman like you described there are about 10 males doing an equal job.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but I say in gloves are off situation that's comparable to the dynamic between men women would not last long, on average.

>My hope would be that women calm down and men buck up

>and men buck up

Not him, but personally, I hope men quit society altogether. They are leaving higher education in droves already.

There's literally nothing left of Western civilization to actually defend, or to protect.

Eh', that's because you're putting your optimism on the world, when it should be with the few within the world that are 'good.' Because those individuals will always be 'good'. They'll always be good peoples, good company, quality personalities, etc etc. There's plenty of these people in general that don't join the shit flinging. There's plenty that despite the fact the common lens we all use to look at the world, is currently only focusing on people acting like animals, there are people who don't get influenced by that perception of the world and refuse to get involved with the bullshit.

Lets say the prophecy is right, the world is going to go to shit, the apocolypse is inevitable, well, the evolutionary process that would stem from such a shitty moment, would just magnify the desire to end suffering, which will lead to the ultimate realization of what it truly takes to end suffering. So I mean, the good will eventually come through. No reason to dwell on a outcome that generates pessimism. Just stay away from the bullshit and you'll be okay.

>So I mean, the good will eventually come through. No reason to dwell on a outcome that generates pessimism. Just stay away from the bullshit and you'll be okay.

Nah, the strong will eat the weak and dictate what's good and bad until there's biological imprint on the species. Only possibility I see for good people is to come together and to work as a group, but even then they will just use their power to dominate someone else. That's reality of life I think. The strong eat the weak. The enlightened society you're dreaming of will be overun and killed by less noble savages sooner or later.

Yeah I just replied to someone else, but same shit applies. Evolution, even from a ideologue stand point, I feel will always produce the desire to end suffering. People will eventually get it and if they don't, they usually just end up eating each other leaving the remains to the ones who didn't participate in the cannibal like slaughter. So just whatever you do, don't get too involved with the bullshit that's going on.

If men did what men in African tribes did to other men acutely would fall apart. Civilization is a house built upon a foundation of laws. The laws are such that now, men and women, all races, lgbt, etc, can most likely live in accordance to one another in the coming decades. Yes, if men did not hold back at all things would fall apart, but women aren't holding back and many men don't even know they are. The system we live in now was created by women--culturally, I mean, this awful rise of Marxism is alpha females and beta males. It sucks, but it's a proof of concept. This is antithesis. Synthesis will come along at some point.

My vision is equality of individuals. Generalities will exist, and unlike a postmodern Marxist I'm more than fine with that. True diversity of culture and the like is important, not this unipolar globalism.

As for suffering, everyone suffers. It is obvious why housewives rebelled in the 60s. You can only keep someone in isolation from the real world for so long before they want out. Women were popping Xanax just to get through the monotony of life. The harsh rebellion of feminism shows that the psychological conditions were poor for many women. Not all, but SOME women, some people, cannot do with being cooped up like trophies on a shelf. For decades.

Unlike before, women had no knowledge of the real world. Women became literate, and knowledge creates a lust for more. Its reflective of the Fall, but that's how the story always goes. Women seem to want to be a part of the world of action, of the mind, and the manifestation of that psychological torpor as fat sweaty beasts is the birth pains of this shift.

I'm willing to bet on permanent social change, and ultimately for the better. It's good to have as many people with skin in the game as possible.

Complaining about women being able to have a real hero's journey will be about as normal as people in the 21st century complaining about the poor wearing purple.

There is the Self. One can defend the future. There are many things left to protect. The ennui and despair of the 21st century is our test. If there is nothing left, then create something. History is not made by those who surrender.

The idea that women were somehow chattel slaves who couldn't do anything put wash clothes and raise children before the advent of feminism, is a very very interesting piece of historical revisionism that a lot of people, including you, believe in.

I don't agree with this entirely because time tells the ultimate story. Anyone who perpetuates any form of degeneracy eventually end up eating their own children.

It happened in Rome...everyone aspired for great things to the point the people started to eat each other which translated as Rome comming apart at the seams. When every one wants to be powerful, it stretches and puts stress on the fabric and holes appear. The confusing part about this, is that it takes hundreds of years, creating the illusion that it's going to last forever.

So even if the degenerate take over, they won't last. Their insatiable appetites for control and oppression will ultimately be their down fall.

No good is ever lost. As good is the only thing that sustains life in general. But again, length of time creates the illusion that suffering will last forever. When it won't. Degeneracy is a cancer, it eats itself.

Maybe, but I'd say that has a lot to do with how new the infrastructure and social support that allows women to take such jobs and dedicate their lives to them is. We're only a few generations into it.

I'm a geologist by trade, and I was surprised to learn that there are more employed female geologists than male.

I am in part biased, because of the people I surround myself with. I'm one of those STEM educated females from a top ten state University, so I'm exposed to more successful and driven women.

Yeah but you don't understand the current situation between the sexes.

Men are still expected to be what they were in the 1950s in skill and honor, but not in temperament, whereas women can do whatever the fuck they want and everyone is expected to dote upon their choices, and even clap at immense irresponsibility.

Women are now in the same place as men where 100 years ago, e.g they can get educated, they can make a lot of money, and they can even occupy the most powerful political positions in the world, and yet men are expected to pay the bill on a date, die in war, and be the last to leave a sinking ship.

Oh I did not believe they were chattel. They lived lives they were fine with, probably often happy with. They were illiterate though. What they wanted from life was different, and what life needed grin them was different. Many men were also illiterate, farmers, laborers.

Things change. Men more and more wanted to do more with their lives rather than toil for an elite, once they learned and over time became more literate. There used to only be one sex--women were simply men with inside out penises --and so the important thing was hierarchy.

Women were left behind, which worked for a while, but not once workmen went through the same changes as a whole that men went through.

Its not that women were chattel. Its that they realized there was more possibilities in life, more things for them to do, the ability for them to write their own destiny and take fate into their own hands and shape the world as anyone be else before them. Keeping women suppressed after they became as a group cognizant of this sparked feminism.

Women have been booted from Paradise, so to speak, as men once were. Once upon a time men and women only had to care for the family and provide to the state, and the state often did see their role as benevolent and protecting the masses.

The shift merely was disjointed. Men revolted en masse in many places one literacy became widespread in them. Same in colonized nations.

Many women will end up going back to old ways, as will many men, but it will be by choice. Freedom to self-determinate.

Again, I'm not as opitimistic. I think ultimately technological civilization is progressing in a way where the demands of society and the demands of human biology drift apart. Or rather the underlying mechanisms that give our lives a purpose beyond blind ratio, as in the meaning we artifically attribute to our lives in order to make sense of our growing biological confusion, because we can't keep up with the times unless we stop being human bit by bit. But I think even if we managed to do so we still wouldn't be happy, because life is a shifting dynamic and the only constant is the struggle. I would even go so far and say that we just might end up increasing our suffering because we'll accelerate the conditions that make us unhappy. More desire, more competition, boredom otherwise, the realization of the meaninglessness of life in an objective sense through increased intelligence.

Life is suffering either way and it will never stop to be that way. If it stop life will stop to be life and there won't be any reason to move. What keeps us going is a constant struggle against nature who's trying to devour us. It's impossible to win and eventually we'll all end up losing. That said I think the female principle differs from the male principle in the sense that the masculine archetype embodies fight and conquest where as the feminine represents submission and going with the flow.

This applies to all forms of association. Cohabitation of two individuals under the same roof may lead to the enslavement of one by the will of the other, as it may also lead to liberty for both. The same applies to the family or to the co-operation of two persons in gardening or in bringing out a paper. The same with regard to large or small associations, to each social institution. Thus, in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, we find communes of equals, men equally free - and four centuries later we see the same commune calling for the dictatorship of a priest. Judges and laws had remained; the idea of the Roman law, of the State had become dominant, whilst those of freedom, of settling disputes by arbitration and of applying federalism to its fullest extent had disappeared; hence arose slavery. Well, of all institutions or forms of social organisation that have been tried until this day, Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty - provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy.

Communism and Anarchy

by Peter Kropotkin

Freedom: July, p. 30. - August, p. 38, 1901.

How is it wrong? Virtually all the ancient literary sources talking about 'heroic' women were written by men with a vested interest in having their wives and daughters know their place.

I'm sure plenty of women concurred about the ideal (even with modern feminism many women still do), that's how cultural norms tend to work, but it's naive to pretend it's a female perspective in our sources.