Rival
This archetype represents a person who is, more than anything else, a competitive spirit. The cause doesn’t matter as long as the goal is to win. There is a purpose to living as long as there is a prize to secure. Such a person is often very talented, skilled, well liked, and otherwise successful. The best version of this archetype is also a very good sport, never rubbing in a victory or resenting a defeat.
The obvious downside to this archetype, though, is that it’s never satisfied. Always on the verge of battle, the Rival never has a moment’s peace, which is invigorating for limited amounts of time but eventually does get tiresome. Also, most of the Rival’s relationships are defined by competition, which means they aren’t terribly substantial. The number one position only has room for… well, one. And it can get pretty lonely up there in spite of the spoils. Also, since the Rival pins all of her-or-his self-esteem on winning, a string of losses can make this archetype very difficult to live with.
If you are dissatisfied with the dominance of this archetype in your life, consider abandoning current competitive pursuits and/or approach other demands in your life in a different way. Your job, for example, does not have to be a competition with your coworkers. You can approach your work in a more cooperative spirit. Don’t put such a premium on winning and personal advancement. Try focusing on success as a corporate accomplishment and cease tying your self-worth to your ability to be "better" than others.
delicious
diggAmazing how persistent this story is...
A lot of it remind me of Victorian era ideology--which had a direct impace on things like divorce laws. Adultery not considered grounds for women, but was for men. Why? Because men committing adultery was the fault of women who were not doing an adequate job of acting as an emotional anchor to their husbands. And the "make sex important" reminds me of the advice "lie back and think of England.
At it's very worst--this mentality feeds into women staying with abusive husbands--because the abuse is "caused" by them---their failure to manage the emotional life of the home. And because, if their value depends on being with a man, how can they leave?
Also reminds me of a headline on a woman's magazine I saw years ago that I used to make similar points to my students: "How to get the perfect man and make sure you keep him"--why is it the woman's job to get the man? And if the man is perfect for a particular woman--why would she need to work to keep him?
Which also reminds me of part of a conversation I was having with a friend from the site yesterday--talking about how the job of sexual display is almost wholly on women in this culture--exaggerating signs of femaleness (less hair, red lips, bust and hip size)--and he was asking why it is that men aren't supposed to be equally responsible. Hmmm....maybe we need to bring back the codpiece? ummm,...on second thought...those "woody" ads on behalf of the blue pills are bad enough.
Planet Earth series
I found it completely amusing in light of this to watch the rainforest episode in this series where they filmed several versions of the Bird of Paradise.
The male - as most bird species - showier than the female has to put on a rather elaborate dance in order to impress the female and convince her that he is the best mate for her.
PBS
Had a show on a matriarchial society that still exists in China.
I found it rather touching... and realized just how much beauty we miss out on because of our skewed perspective on all this.
I have to admit from my frame of reference... I did get a kick out of watching the head female "elder" in the village exert her power without being challenged. She didn't have to be "mean" and there wasn't a "fight" - the guys just did what they were told because they knew it was in the best interest of the group. No rebels. It was refreshing.
They didn't go much into what the "romantic narrative" is there per se. I'll bask in the glow of something cool before I try to figure out if this idea persists to all areas of the male/female interchange.
Adultery in the Crucible
... this came up as a subtext in the movie "The Crucible" also - Elizabeth Proctor when talking to her husband about how he was "tempted into adultery" by Abigail says she "made a cold bed indeed" and blamed the adultery on her own insecurities for "driving him away".
Ironically ... by objectifying the woman, it makes the man look like a mindless beast incapable of taking charge of his own feelings and choices. A sort of invalid or victim that the "good woman" needs to come and rescue from the woman who doesn't take care of his emotional needs.
Though I think this is a warped view of a true hero - in the romantic narrative like the the Hero arechetype is the one the comes and rescues the victim from their own blame, instead of allowing them to face the responsibility of their own actions and choices. Both men and women are put in this Hero role... depending upon what needs "fixed".
Men generally rescue by having healthy views on sex and female intelligence.
Women rescue by having healthy views on emotion and by becoming the caregiver.
Man as "the prize"
This is an article I found that I believe supports the Lover as Rival notion.
As a woman, I'm apparently "supposed to" get a guy to to marry me.
AND if I am not married - I'm placed into this scenario:
I believe this take on things accurately represents the perception of the "social norm".
The entire frame of the article is attempting to give a "male perspective" on the "permanant" romantic narrative. Men are put the position of privilege and power - "the choosers".
Women in the position of "being chosen" - fitting into this objectification scenario.
Blame for a commitment "not happening" is placed on the female in the situation. A female is then implicitly devalued if she hasn't married - even if she has indeed "landed a partner". Without marriage any relationship is understood as some sort of "temporary arrangement". Marriage "seals the deal" so to speak and puts the woman as the object as the highest ranked object in that male's life. The man gives value to the woman.
The fear this approach and framing creates is to feed the fear of isolation (or other related fears).
Now the rival is going to take this stuff as a kind of checklist because they're desperate to hook up.
Motivation and desire are driven by fear and not love.
One thing I noticed about all of these articles is that if you can get past the framing - there are tiny, little tidbits of the truth nested throughout.
Having different facets is a good thing to me and a sign that a person is an individual - constantly changing and growing - and not just hooked to some addiction... however it's coupled with this negative frame:
Which to me makes the whole notion of "being an individual" about landing "your man". She has to bust the myth that she's not marriage material. It's all about him. It moves from something healthy, back to checklist material in order to help a helpless woman feel like she's in control and has some security in the romantic landscape if she's "clever enough". The addict has to compete for finite resources.
Or this "nugget":
That's a perfectly healthy ideal - and one I personally ascribe to. Unfortunately it's nested within the "guy ideal" - again back to the frame that women have to compete and change themselves in order to catch a man. The changing yourself part is not a problem, necessarily... as long as it's framed as a woman learning and growing as she learns more about herself - not centered around an addiction - trying to become the woman that the man you want to hook up with wants to possess.
But the ante has been upped -
This checklist... it's not like it's a new thing. There are articles galore in women's magazines describing an action plan to find your mate.
These girls have taken the advice before - for example one point "make sex important - guys want sex" (implied - have sex even if you don't feel like having sex - a sort of exchange relationship for perceived security and permanence).
Now even this article points out "that's not enough". You have to "make men connect with you on an emotional level during sex".
I guess guys are catching on that changes made to a woman's personality that aren't heartfelt won't seem passionate, but hollow and forced.
I wish the romance narrative would break free of the Rival archetype altogether.
Instead of adding another items to the checklist of what women need to do in order to not be lonely - why not write an article on how to be a whole person... make positive changes about who you are without the expectation of an exchange or reward?
Let everyone be responsible for their own emotions - men too... and how their choices are their responsibility as well.
If a man doesn't hook up with a woman he's been intimately involved with - doesn't that say something about the man too? - and is it necessarily negative? ...because really... if a couple isn't married perhaps their perception of marriage is actually something positive outside the social norm.