Sharing this anonymously from a reader, with permission.
“I'm 32 years old, a new psychotherapist with a long-standing interest in Jung, and currently in a discernment process regarding childbearing and motherhood. This past Friday, I tearfully described to my analyst Marchiano's article and the unsettling impact it had on me. While my analyst was supportive in reorienting me to a wider perspective (and in shrugging Marchiano off, intimating an over-identification with her role as a mother), reading your article provided a much needed counterpoint to what I am now seeing as a wildly limited Jungian perspective on the topic of motherhood. Not to mention bringing attention to Marchiano's anti-trans child activism, of which I was formerly unaware.”
Another email I'm sharing anonymously here, with permission.
"Lisa’s article had made me wonder whether I was selfish not wanting to have a child, and validated my guilt for not having my 'maternal instinct' kicking in while friends around are getting pregnant.
Your article give me faith that I am on the right path, my own path - thank you."
Your words were the first I read this morning, and I’m filled with deep appreciation. Thank you for calling out Lisa Marchiano’s utter bullshit. I used to listen to This Jungian Life until her anti-trans rhetoric started becoming apparent. It’s so alarming that she is now using her platform to parade about the same gender essentialist nonsense that JD Vance and the Republican Party have been crowing about. I have two children and love being a mother, but the idea that this was my one and only path to fulfillment is nuts. Also, as my kids move into adulthood, I’m experiencing a radical shift in my perspective and experience, an opening of possibilities. But I have to wonder; if the “biological destiny” of women is having children, what does it mean when that era of our life has ended? Has our usefulness and purpose ended too? It’s a pretty disgusting thought to boil all women down to baby making machines.
I really appreciate your take on this as a woman who is child-free, not completely by choice. I was very disappointed in Lisa's perspective, and am a little tired of her parading 'Jung said this therefore it is the truth' about everything, when Jung, like everyone, was very much a product of his time.
Thanks for your audacity Satya. I feel grateful for TJL as it was accessible for me before I embarked on my own analysis journey… but I stopped when I heard Lisa’s anti-trans rhetoric come through. I just couldn’t feel inspired after that.
Motherhood is a calling just like anything else is. We each individually birth new life into being - whether it’s a lifelong journey with gender expression, composing music, writing books, or literally having a child. As a former teacher, I find it quite reductive to believe that you can only be concerned with the welfare of children by basically owning/possessing one of your own. There are other imaginative, community-oriented ways to engage a maternal instinct, which not everyone may have, or even be expected to have, like men/ people socialized as men.
Finally, in the name of queerness as creation and gestation and imagination and something every human can learn from, I think of this quote often by Daniel Mallory Ortberg:
“God blessed me by making me transsexual for the same reason God made wheat but not bread and fruit but not wine, so that humanity might share in the act of creation.”
Holding back the desire to engage with some transphobic comments on your post in the hopes that they will digest what others have so thoughtfully written. Thanks for your courage.
Preach it Satya! Thank you for speaking truth to power. I had not heard her anti-trans rhetoric or read this article. I’m shocked and appalled. Biological essentialism is lazy for a Jungian, and, as you so eloquently point out, has dangerous consequences. And of course it’s “hubris to assume that we can consciously assess all aspects” of such a decision! That’s precisely why we learn to listen to and dance with the unconscious. That’s how I approached my own decision not to have a child. I knew well enough that my conscious mind couldn’t see the whole picture, so I listened and wondered and asked for clarity. And it came. What is Lisa Marchiano afraid of do you think? I know what keeps J. D. Vance and his ilk up at night—too few white babies. But is that driving her fear? In any case, thank you for a brilliant piece.
Thank you for writing this brilliant counterpoint to Marchiano’s childish pedantry.
As a mother to many children, I attest that they are part of my individuation only because I had choice.
If I had birthed them to fulfill some nonsensical notion of biological destiny or to further my own individuation I’d be a terrible mother indeed. What a burden to place on my own children to say they are here to fulfill MY psychological needs, to have elected motherhood to gain entry into “proper womanhood”. Ew!
BLESS YOU for saying all of this, and for responding to Lisa Marchiano’s long and deep history of toxic anti-trans rhetoric. I read her recent essay with horror that she is now extending her gender-control ideas into the realm of reproductive choice. I’m in training to be a Jungian analyst, and I’m a mom of three LGBTQ young adults. I’m appalled that this regressive attitude is presented as a legitimate Jungian perspective by someone so prominent in the Jungian world. It is so damaging to so many. Thank you for expressing such a strong and Jungian stance about our human need to individuate, guided by our own psyche! And thank you for connecting Jung’s statements, cherry picked by Marchiano, in the context of all you have helped bring to light about Christiana Morgan. THIS is what Jungian scholarship looks like! So much respect to you for not biting your tongue about this.
In regards to men... as a man with no kids, I think there's a lot stigma attached as well. Add to that, that, if you love kids, but don't have any of your own then there's something really wrong with you. The saga of two men - one who kids outwardly show emotions and feelings towards their father and the other.... The other once said it's ok to have as many kids as you want, as long as you have the money to support them, but never a word about the love to give them. The irony to me is all of the talk about kids when the attacks on Gus Walz were totally inhumane this week. My aunt said to me Friday that she loved being an aunt and that my brother and I meant the world to her. Her son is my ony first cousin. The other side of his family have gone on for years about how he is the only one that has carried on "the family" name. Shakespeare asked, "What's in a name?" I think the name is called Patriarchy. This issue of children is so large and complex and feeds into our Patriarchial sick heritage in ways that hurt me to my core. I know it's Patriarchial when IVF is being attacked. It's obvious that it's not about the children.
Thank you Satya, for this rant, so well said! I hope you will consider publishing it as an op-ed, because it's an important message that speaks for so many of us. I am childless, not by choice, but by surgery for cervical cancer at a very young age. I emerged from that trauma believing I was no longer a woman, because I would never bear children. It's taken many years and much deep work to heal those wounds at so many levels. I still bear the surgical scars and undoubtedly still bear the psychological scars from carrying those beliefs as well. Your voice on this is so strong, thank you for raising it!
Thank you for writing this. As a childfree woman by choice *and* a therapist, I am so disappointed in another mental health professional’s callous and irresponsible weaponizing of psychology to advance a gendered-sexist—utterly/-bullshit perspective on what defines women. To assert that a woman cannot be individuated without children is a heartbreak opinion. What a time we are in. This election cycle will pronounce this prejudice further so am appreciative of your words.
Truly thankful for your work, honesty and bravery to speak the truth!
This brings me back to The Red Book, in Liber Primus, at the beginning of his descent into his individuation process (and unconscious), Jung says:
“It is no teaching and instruction I give you. On what basis should I presume to teach you? I give you news of the way of this man, but not of your own way. My path is not your path, therefore I cannot teach you. The way is within us, but not in Gods, nor in teachings, nor in laws. Within us is the way, the truth and the life. Woe betide those who live by way of examples! Life is not with them. If you live according to an example, you thus live the life of that example, but who should live your own life if not yourself? So live yourselves…. There is only one way and that is your way. You seek the path? I warn you away from my own. It can also be the wrong way for you” (p. 231)
Thank you for this. I’ve had a rollercoaster journey in my choice around children, and at 41 now I’m finally able to feel I made the right choice in not having kiddos. Sometimes there’s a pain and a “what if”, but I believe in my heart I followed the right path. Articles like Marciano’s cast doubt and fear, and I’m so grateful to you for calling it out.
I'm 75 years old and I can't believe someone is spouting the same old 'biology is destiny' argument from the early 1970s. Really? I loved your line about 'the whole point of individuation is that it's individual'. Says it all.
Sharing this anonymously from a reader, with permission.
“I'm 32 years old, a new psychotherapist with a long-standing interest in Jung, and currently in a discernment process regarding childbearing and motherhood. This past Friday, I tearfully described to my analyst Marchiano's article and the unsettling impact it had on me. While my analyst was supportive in reorienting me to a wider perspective (and in shrugging Marchiano off, intimating an over-identification with her role as a mother), reading your article provided a much needed counterpoint to what I am now seeing as a wildly limited Jungian perspective on the topic of motherhood. Not to mention bringing attention to Marchiano's anti-trans child activism, of which I was formerly unaware.”
Another email I'm sharing anonymously here, with permission.
"Lisa’s article had made me wonder whether I was selfish not wanting to have a child, and validated my guilt for not having my 'maternal instinct' kicking in while friends around are getting pregnant.
Your article give me faith that I am on the right path, my own path - thank you."
Your words were the first I read this morning, and I’m filled with deep appreciation. Thank you for calling out Lisa Marchiano’s utter bullshit. I used to listen to This Jungian Life until her anti-trans rhetoric started becoming apparent. It’s so alarming that she is now using her platform to parade about the same gender essentialist nonsense that JD Vance and the Republican Party have been crowing about. I have two children and love being a mother, but the idea that this was my one and only path to fulfillment is nuts. Also, as my kids move into adulthood, I’m experiencing a radical shift in my perspective and experience, an opening of possibilities. But I have to wonder; if the “biological destiny” of women is having children, what does it mean when that era of our life has ended? Has our usefulness and purpose ended too? It’s a pretty disgusting thought to boil all women down to baby making machines.
I really appreciate your take on this as a woman who is child-free, not completely by choice. I was very disappointed in Lisa's perspective, and am a little tired of her parading 'Jung said this therefore it is the truth' about everything, when Jung, like everyone, was very much a product of his time.
Thanks for your audacity Satya. I feel grateful for TJL as it was accessible for me before I embarked on my own analysis journey… but I stopped when I heard Lisa’s anti-trans rhetoric come through. I just couldn’t feel inspired after that.
Motherhood is a calling just like anything else is. We each individually birth new life into being - whether it’s a lifelong journey with gender expression, composing music, writing books, or literally having a child. As a former teacher, I find it quite reductive to believe that you can only be concerned with the welfare of children by basically owning/possessing one of your own. There are other imaginative, community-oriented ways to engage a maternal instinct, which not everyone may have, or even be expected to have, like men/ people socialized as men.
Finally, in the name of queerness as creation and gestation and imagination and something every human can learn from, I think of this quote often by Daniel Mallory Ortberg:
“God blessed me by making me transsexual for the same reason God made wheat but not bread and fruit but not wine, so that humanity might share in the act of creation.”
Holding back the desire to engage with some transphobic comments on your post in the hopes that they will digest what others have so thoughtfully written. Thanks for your courage.
Love that quote!! Whew. Thank you, Olivia, for all you wrote.
Beautiful, Olivia!! Thank you!!
Preach it Satya! Thank you for speaking truth to power. I had not heard her anti-trans rhetoric or read this article. I’m shocked and appalled. Biological essentialism is lazy for a Jungian, and, as you so eloquently point out, has dangerous consequences. And of course it’s “hubris to assume that we can consciously assess all aspects” of such a decision! That’s precisely why we learn to listen to and dance with the unconscious. That’s how I approached my own decision not to have a child. I knew well enough that my conscious mind couldn’t see the whole picture, so I listened and wondered and asked for clarity. And it came. What is Lisa Marchiano afraid of do you think? I know what keeps J. D. Vance and his ilk up at night—too few white babies. But is that driving her fear? In any case, thank you for a brilliant piece.
Thank you for writing this brilliant counterpoint to Marchiano’s childish pedantry.
As a mother to many children, I attest that they are part of my individuation only because I had choice.
If I had birthed them to fulfill some nonsensical notion of biological destiny or to further my own individuation I’d be a terrible mother indeed. What a burden to place on my own children to say they are here to fulfill MY psychological needs, to have elected motherhood to gain entry into “proper womanhood”. Ew!
BLESS YOU for saying all of this, and for responding to Lisa Marchiano’s long and deep history of toxic anti-trans rhetoric. I read her recent essay with horror that she is now extending her gender-control ideas into the realm of reproductive choice. I’m in training to be a Jungian analyst, and I’m a mom of three LGBTQ young adults. I’m appalled that this regressive attitude is presented as a legitimate Jungian perspective by someone so prominent in the Jungian world. It is so damaging to so many. Thank you for expressing such a strong and Jungian stance about our human need to individuate, guided by our own psyche! And thank you for connecting Jung’s statements, cherry picked by Marchiano, in the context of all you have helped bring to light about Christiana Morgan. THIS is what Jungian scholarship looks like! So much respect to you for not biting your tongue about this.
In regards to men... as a man with no kids, I think there's a lot stigma attached as well. Add to that, that, if you love kids, but don't have any of your own then there's something really wrong with you. The saga of two men - one who kids outwardly show emotions and feelings towards their father and the other.... The other once said it's ok to have as many kids as you want, as long as you have the money to support them, but never a word about the love to give them. The irony to me is all of the talk about kids when the attacks on Gus Walz were totally inhumane this week. My aunt said to me Friday that she loved being an aunt and that my brother and I meant the world to her. Her son is my ony first cousin. The other side of his family have gone on for years about how he is the only one that has carried on "the family" name. Shakespeare asked, "What's in a name?" I think the name is called Patriarchy. This issue of children is so large and complex and feeds into our Patriarchial sick heritage in ways that hurt me to my core. I know it's Patriarchial when IVF is being attacked. It's obvious that it's not about the children.
Brilliant. “This is why we look to the unconscious to help us find our path through life, not to our underwear.”
Thank you Satya, for this rant, so well said! I hope you will consider publishing it as an op-ed, because it's an important message that speaks for so many of us. I am childless, not by choice, but by surgery for cervical cancer at a very young age. I emerged from that trauma believing I was no longer a woman, because I would never bear children. It's taken many years and much deep work to heal those wounds at so many levels. I still bear the surgical scars and undoubtedly still bear the psychological scars from carrying those beliefs as well. Your voice on this is so strong, thank you for raising it!
Thank you for writing this. As a childfree woman by choice *and* a therapist, I am so disappointed in another mental health professional’s callous and irresponsible weaponizing of psychology to advance a gendered-sexist—utterly/-bullshit perspective on what defines women. To assert that a woman cannot be individuated without children is a heartbreak opinion. What a time we are in. This election cycle will pronounce this prejudice further so am appreciative of your words.
Truly thankful for your work, honesty and bravery to speak the truth!
This brings me back to The Red Book, in Liber Primus, at the beginning of his descent into his individuation process (and unconscious), Jung says:
“It is no teaching and instruction I give you. On what basis should I presume to teach you? I give you news of the way of this man, but not of your own way. My path is not your path, therefore I cannot teach you. The way is within us, but not in Gods, nor in teachings, nor in laws. Within us is the way, the truth and the life. Woe betide those who live by way of examples! Life is not with them. If you live according to an example, you thus live the life of that example, but who should live your own life if not yourself? So live yourselves…. There is only one way and that is your way. You seek the path? I warn you away from my own. It can also be the wrong way for you” (p. 231)
Thank you for this. I’ve had a rollercoaster journey in my choice around children, and at 41 now I’m finally able to feel I made the right choice in not having kiddos. Sometimes there’s a pain and a “what if”, but I believe in my heart I followed the right path. Articles like Marciano’s cast doubt and fear, and I’m so grateful to you for calling it out.
Thank you for these brilliant comments. We are free to choose, period.
I'm 75 years old and I can't believe someone is spouting the same old 'biology is destiny' argument from the early 1970s. Really? I loved your line about 'the whole point of individuation is that it's individual'. Says it all.