Nietzsche Forum Nietzschian Misogyny

As a Nietzsche apologist in this respects, i always took Nietzsche's reputed misogynistic writings as a calling out of the essence of women to trial, because the essence of women had been a tradition of misassigned virtues of gender: docility, frailty, servitude... Though Nietzsche always is quick to praise women as the most cunning of creatures.

This was just a qualm of this thinker i've had longwithstanding...
and i turn it over to your thoughts, Nietzsche group members.

"....if you go to women, do not forget your whip."

Quote:

I have always thought the same as well. If he had met me--well, WooWoo!!! ::drool::

But seriously, I will address his relationships with his sister and mother later.

Quote:

Yes, have at it.

Yes, there is actually a great picture of him and his friend with a woman and a whip. Maybe I could find it. He was also anti-Christian "the first and last true christian died at the cross" anti democratic, and anti-feminine. But many "geniuses" were anti "feminine" Most of the Ancient Greeks (Plato thought women almost as equal, but naturally inferior), Romans, Mozart, (the Queen of Night), some argue Milton (Eve's portrayal, whom Woolf said every women must confront) or Shakespeare (Taming of the Shrew, among others), Picasso (and many other artist who "womanized" and treated women as objects, not "subjects") and that's just off the top of my head. Infact, one would have to really dig hard to defend a "genius" beyond this century who would not be a "mysogynist". Is this ad hominum? Should it matter?

Nietzsche also has a timeless wit that sometimes transcends his deconstruction of prejudices into the comedism of stereotypes... (a la Richard Pryor, Bill Hicks, or Dave Chapelle)... One thing you get to learn about Nietzsche through many readings is that he'll sacrifice truth for a laugh on occasion.

"They say that evil men do not make music. So why is it that the Russians make music?"

"When in the company of women, the highs are higher and the lows less frequent."

PS: a note about womanising as objectification of the subject... I think Sartre makes a good argument for the impossibility of permanence in love on the ontological basis that a conscious Being in the end makes their Other out to be an object.... For example a woman falls out of love with a man because he contradicts her preconceptions of his consistence of being (he doesn't quit drinking like he said, his hours at work changed, he leaves the toilet seat up), therefore unhappiness arises from the romatic plan being thwarted by the fluidity of subjectivity. So objectivizing has its' priority in consciousness over sex, and the sexual aspect is just a small aspect of objectivism of the Other.

But seriously, I will address his relationships with his sister and mother later.


Wow. Freud would have a field day there lol...His sister actually CHANGED or omitted a lot of his later work after his death - it's the equivilent of a chimp editing Dante.

I don't tend to proscribe to gender/gay studies deconstructionism however the master-slave relationship in Rousseau is similar if I read your interpretation correct?

look up lou salome and paul ree and you should find the famous photo of the three of them posing.
i have a problem with women, none of them want me being there. being there and here is the beauty of being.

Quote:


Ironically his father was a preacher, I think it is not so much that he was against christianity from a religious/metaphysical angle but strictly from a moral one: christianity is just slave morality.
I quite agree with his thought really that the first and last true christian died on the cross; the founder of the christian churches as we know them is after all not christ, but Saint Peter, so ultimately all of this thing known as christianity is rooted in betrayal. There is a good quote in Scorsese's film "last temptation of christ" (never read the book on which the film is based, might do so one day) where Judas says: "you're a rock, what good are you, you just ay there and don't move!" (something to that extend anyway).
Anti-democratic, who ever is really democratic? It is easy to believe in democracy when the people you want to win always win, but ultimately democracy is something of a lottery. Plato was very anti-democratic aswell for Nietzsche it was more a case that democracy is fullfilment of the slave morality, it is the rule of the slaves.
Anti-women, I think that more than anything that was just the way things were back then, it is only really in the middle of the 20th century that women became recognised. It is irinic though, this species we are, in a lot of animal species the women tend to be dominant rather than the men. I think the reason why women were considered lesser in those times is because women were less educated, but the irony is that they were less educated because they were considered lesser.
If I am not mistaken Nietzsche also made a comment once that his moustache put off women!

Steven

First, I'd like to say that the double standard of gender bias, in modern day society, is dreadful. If I have one more women's studies major, tell me that Nietzsche sucked because he was a misogynist, I'll puke s**t out of my own ears. With the amount of "acceptible" man hating going on in cities, and schools of thought... a little old-school issues with women seems a bit trivial. He has been dead for quite some time. That was a rant. Getting that out of the way...

Who cares if he hated women. I've been screwed over by just about every woman I've lent trust, and vulnerability to. From my mother, to the woman that broke my heart. I've yet to come across a woman filled with the integrity, and decency that I keep hearing they're in possesion of. In fact, I understand why there are man-haters out there. They've all been screwed over by men in their life. Or they think they have. I have yet to learn to hate women, but somedays... they are far from my favour. I'm not saying you should hate women, I'm just saying, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

I've yet to find one "thinker" that was right on the money in every thought and idea. That's why there are so many philosophers, and why they have a degree in it. Because you take the most useful aspects of all theories that you come across, and incorporate it into your own ideas. I'm sick of hearing about people who had issues back before anybody shed light on the issues. At least shed light in a public opinion aspect.

That's the problem with public opinion. It's all style, no substence. I say, who cares who hates who, if it's for their own viable reasons. Anybody that judges has had problems with somebody else. In one way or another. I'm sure they could all justify the reasoning. If you're not smart enough to glean what you need from somebody's philosophies, then you shouldn't be playing philosopher.

I'm sorry... what were we talking about?

Quote:


Heraclitus said of opinion that it are the toys of children; you can really notice how accurate that is when you look at celebrity life/culture (culture?) and for instance presidential elections. Who will win the elections? The one with the best and most elegant speeches, he who can ‘create’ (give rise to) the best opinions.

Anyway, if you ever want to see a great film that makes fun of both feminism and male chauvinism, try Fellini’s “city of women” ::happy::

Steven