There is still a good deal of talk about how needful the present world is of ‘the feminine’—and of how patriarchal, or male-dominated forms of thinking and governing are somehow resistant to this ‘feminine’ energy that could help to heal us and the planet. But this whole position seems very suspicious—if not cockeyed—to me. For one thing, materialism—which, last time I checked, does in fact appear to be the prevailing metaphysical scheme behind the vast majority of Western cultural-political-economic initiatives, is intimately bound up with mater. And if ‘mother’ is not female, what (or who) is? From where I am standing (or swimming), the obsession with material objects, with the body, with owning and acquiring, and so forth, seems to be the antithesis of (noble, ‘Brahmin,’ ‘Spartan,’ etc.) male disdain for such ‘sticky’ and ‘binding’ preoccupations. It may be worth noting here that ancient sages—East and West—typically regarded the ‘merchant class’—as well as wealthy oligarchs—with a heaping (and healthy) measure of contempt. What I detect is the eclipse of the genuinely masculine revolt against all such ‘worldly’ and ‘possessive’ concerns. Like the spirit, the truly male side of the continuum prefers liberty over liberality, inner autonomy over ‘global economy,’ stillness over busy-ness, composure over exposure. Contrary to many Jungians, who often argue that our male-dominated culture needs more of the feminine, I would claim that the current (popular) obsession with wealth, economics, sensual pleasures, bodily concerns, the feverish acquisition of goods and property is more closely tied up with the feminine (material) end of the spectrum than the masculine (immaterial) end. Yet another of my ‘unpopular’ opinions.