Schopenhauer  dealt with the fact that women can have a negative side. And he saw the problem that England was worshiping women. He thought nothing good can come from that. Since I saw that the subject seemed uninteresting to me since he saw and explained the issue clearly. There is what to discuss however in terms of his concepts of the Ideas in the subject and how that relates to this but it seems off topic for this blog.

What I mean is he did not see fit to put a good deal of the positive traits we see in people into the ideas and the world of unconditioned reality [the dinge an sich]. Nor even into the subject.

So he did not put the ideas into the Will. A great move. But he did put them into the subject which he does not identify as the Will but rather as the opposite side of the coin of representation.


But let'stake a look at Jung. He at least saw fit to out human archetypes into the subject.

What I mean by a "great move" is that Schopenhauer thus solved a puzzle that existed since the middle ages. Divine simplicity. You could say the Ari also dealt with it in the same way, but Schopenhauer shows more in detail why his approach is necessary form a metaphysical point of view.
The Ari is simply mystical and does not concern himself with metaphysical aspects of his system