Feminism: Ultimately hatred of nature?

Below is a conversation between a feminist and a Nietzschean that actually occurred.

Feminist: “In the first seven months of 2014, 162 women were killed; 61 women and girls were raped; 362 women were battered; 61 women and girls were sexually abused by men.
Are you not entertained?”

Nietzschean: “Women have other perks/men have other disadvantages. Seriously though, do you (feminists) really think nature has privileged man over woman?”

Feminist: “It’s not nature giving/taking away privileges in this case, it’s those in power, the state, the men.”

Nietzschean: “And how have those come to power if not naturally?”

Feminist: “By thousands of years-old traditions and by imaginary friends in books?”

Nietzschean: “I agree that those traditions are patriarchal and those friends male because they were invented by men. My question is, how did those men attain the authoritative positions required to do so? I think it ultimately comes down to man’s superior physical strength, which has to do with some fundamental role division between the sexes: for example, men simply cannot bear children. So do you think nature was unfair when she created sexual differentiation? Would it only be fair if all people were hermaphrodites?”

Feminist: “I understand that back in the cave, women had to stay in during pregnancy, and after for a while to get back to their feet and look after the children. But we live in a different world now, where a slight physical advantage (considering a fit women can be much stronger than an untrained man) does not settle any battles anymore. Therefore, maybe -JUST MAYBE- it’s about time we abandon the values of cavemen and the Middle Easterns of prehistoric times.”

Nietzschean: “If that physical advantage does not settle battles anymore, why didn’t those women hold off those men indefinitely?”

Feminist: “Because they are made to believe they can’t or shouldn’t? There was the news about an Indian woman who cut off the rapist’s penis, who [sic] was also her uncle. I think it’s a good start.”

Nietzschean: "Indoctrination, yes. But making them believe that they should would simply be indoctrinating them with the opposite prejudice. The truth is that they can or, more precisely, may be able to (as you admit, men have an overall physical advantage, so the chance of a woman holding a man off would generally be less than 50%, if ever so slightly). Of course, there’s also no reason why one should tell anyone the truth…

Feminist: “No matter if a woman can hold a man off or not (she may not, as I do accept that testosterone leads to more muscle build-up in the body), that does not give the men the right to force himself on a woman? So, I don’t get what you’re trying to say. Do men have the right to rape or assault women, well, because, they can?”

Nietzschean: “Yes. Might is right. Or, put differently, there is no natural or divine right, only positive right.”

Hatred of the feminine is hatred of nature. Since females and blacks are closer to nature, instinct, genes, reflex than white males. White males are the ‘top’ or upper level of human existence, most artificial.

Up/Down
Artifice/Nature
Universe/Earth
White/Black
Male/Female

This is the dichotomy. To hate the feminine is to hate nature. Many “feminists” are self-hating women. They hate their own femininity, and try to act like men or “become independent”. Females who embrace their femininity are beautiful, gorgeous, seductive, sensual, sexy, virgin women. Everybody wants to be around a truly feminine female. She’s gorgeous. She smells good. She’s healthy. She is the future of the genus. She is the house of man. She hold immortality inside her thighs and womb. Many “feminists” also hate pregnancy and children. They don’t want to have children. They want to die off. This is a death drive. They want extinction.

Feminine females want children with alpha males, a big family with lots of resources. Because a feminine female grows through her pregnancy and children.

K: my goodness, you are about the most clueless person I’ve come across in a while. (well since Erik was
babbling about god knows what) How old are you…12,15? I mean seriously, this post reeks of a
desperate young man who has no idea of what he is talking about. feminism is just another silly
ideology that attracts a certain type. We have a lot of those. It is mostly young people trying to find
an place in life. I did the Nitzschean thing when I was young. I call it the young and dumb phase.
Most…Most people grow out of this stage and move along with their lives. Some don’t and I feel sorry
for those who can’t move along with life.

When I was young and dumb, I thought something was missing, something in my soul, something that
could make sense of what we call life. I have written about this before and so I won’t bore you with
details, but I went searching. I search the ideologies and isms of life to find meaning in my life.
I spent years searching in all the ideologies and isms of the world. What I have found is really this,
we (humans) tend to make a mountains out of molehills. Life is pretty basic and pretty simple.
We have something in us that wants to make life out to be something special and magical and
to be remembered but the truth is life is pretty mundane and boring. So we try to spice it up, give it
meaning with ideologies and isms such as god, feminism, nihilism, anarchism and all the other
ism’s and ideologies that hang around stinking up the living room. About all you need to know about
life is really quite simple. It is better with people to hang around than by yourself. Just to wake
up with the one I love is really all I need these days. That is your molehill which people try to
make into a mountain of ism’s and ideologies. Everything else is just window dressing.
I spent the first part of my life adding things, ideologies, ism’s, material things. I have
spent the last few years subtracting things, Ideologies, ism’s, material things.
I can live without those things. I just need someone to be with. that is pretty much all
I need. The fact I like her is bonus points. That is the advantage of being old, you
simplify life to its basics and ism’s and ideologies and materials things don’t add to
your life. Lose the god, lose the ism’s such as anarchism and your life is exactly
what it needs to be, a molehill. Just don’t make a mountain out of it.

Kropotkin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Where did I say nature was good or hatred of nature was bad? But yeah, I do think nature is good. However, feminism, too, is part of nature. Here’s something I wrote on May 25, 2013:

[size=95]“[M]odernity’s conquest of nature arises ‘naturally’ from the nature of human herd animals. Indeed, modernity’s conquest of nature is essentially the conquest of the nature of nature, which is conquest… A ‘war to end all wars’!”[/size]

Compare:

[size=95]“[I]f ultimate reality is solely this Dionysian will to overpower, then everything in the conscious, common sense world must be caused by it. Since everything includes contemporary egalitarians and the past responsible for them, the will to overpower must be responsible for them too. Unlike Nietzsche, the superman will be fully in harmony with that will; only he can will the eternal return of the whole past.” (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, “Nietzsche”, Part II.)"[/size]

[size=95]“Socrates’ turn to the human taught him that the humans in charge, the males in charge, judge nature to act unbearably toward humans, like a sea always in motion, always threatening humans and human constructs with destruction, always failing to distinguish worthy from unworthy. Xenophon’s images bring to light Socrates’ insight into the male need to master feared and hated nature, to conquer nature. They show Socrates, the student of nature and human nature, learning that he will have to persuade ruling males of what he learned they would dearly want to believe, that nature is not what she seems but wholly otherwise, end-directed for human benefit by caring gods who ensure that the worthy benefit and the unworthy suffer. Socrates has no quarrel with nature, but he teaches a fiction to make it appear that the male quarrel with nature misunderstands nature. To this degree, Socrates’ teleotheology is itself a project to master nature, to rule it conceptually; it is a conquest of nature that orders nature in accord with human wishes; it is a male project, the project of a real real man to conquer nature conceptually—if only exoterically.” (Laurence Lampert, The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss, “Socrates, the Real Real Man”.)[/size]

If man is entitled to use strength, because he can, woman is entitled to use institution, because she can.
If man feels emasculated by institution. he is welcome to remove himself from it.

What about isms such as racism, sexism, ableism, etc…?
:wink:

What a sad, pointless existence.

Strength is a part of man’s nature, institutions are an artifice, created to protect the weak and dependent again on man’s nature to enforce their laws.

Man has the strength, but man wants woman. Woman is extremely well skilled at not only making man want woman, but also want woman to want man.
Strength is not power :wink:

Convention is an extension of the part of human nature which is in flux. Could one realistically say it is not man’s nature to build conventions? Is it not our artifice which has given the power to overcome nature?

If you wish to do away with a convention, the method is not to storm and bluster. Take a lesson from the troubadours and learn to compose and sing sweet poetry. There is strength in artifice too, else there would be no belief which drives man to use his strength to defend the law.

Here’s a translation of something I wrote six years ago:

[size=95]"Once upon a time, the people with the strongest unconcealed will to power were in power.

Then, people who possessed this unconcealed will to power to a lesser degree carried through a revaluation.

The latter thought up a moral world order that did not correspond to the natural world order (in which the former were in power).

By means of this revaluation, the latter came to power.

Until the latter were unconcealably powerful–and dared to express their will to power unconcealedly.

Now the latter even have poets who unvarnishedly praise their power and will to power.

But the basis of their power is concealed will to power. As soon as this is revealed, it cannot be the basis of new power anymore (for deception was its greatest strength)."[/size]

Feminists are entitled to use deception, inasmuch as they can, yes; but likewise, Nietzscheans are entitled to use the truth inasmuch as they can. And if feminists feel exposed by the truth, they are welcome to try to remove themselves from it.

This whole discussion is idiotic. You can’t escape nature. You can’t just do something atypical and say “this is not natural” and thereby declare yourself free of nature. Everything that has its origins in nature is nature. Even technology is nature. Even pollution is nature. People get nature confused with tradition. If human society is traditionally patriarchal that doesn’t mean a new and unprecedented matriarchal society would be “unnatural”–like it fell from some otherworldly domain outside nature–it would just be new.

I don’t understand whiny Nietzscheans . If might is right, then whatever makes you mighty is right. There are no rules other than that. Anything is acceptable as long as the result is power.

And what is the truth? That men can carry bigger rocks than women can?
Whoopity fucking doo.
Strength != power
Cunning is as much a part of nature as muscles.
If muscles were the natural measure of power, we should all yield to be dominated by the Africans, as they are on average the strongest race.

You don’t seem to get what my OP implies. The new and unprecedented society feminism seeks to establish is to be based on the supposed “unfairness” or “wrongness” of “patriarchy”. Our “patriarchal” society, however, came about due to the greater physical strength endowed to men, which was due, in turn, to sexual differentiation. By saying it’s wrong for men to use that with which they’re naturally endowed, feminism is saying either they were wrongly endowed with it–which means nature was wrong in endowing them with it–, or nature also endowed them with the revelation of its right use. It’s like saying God gave man the freedom to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but also gave him the prohibition against eating it. Hence my reference to “natural or divine right”. And in fact, the conversation went on for one more round:

Feminist: “Thank you for letting us know how rapists think.”

Nietzschean: "It’s how pantheists or atheists think.

‘Contemporary democratic “liberation” movements generally despise traditional Christian orthodoxy while asserting the supreme goodness of its compassion for suffering, impoverished humanity. They insist that men [i.e., human beings] have a right to life, freedom and equality. Had they been tough enough to experience uncompromising atheism, they would see no compelling reason for these rights or for any morality.’ (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, ‘Nietzsche’.)"


Compare the imaginary dialogue from my “Nietzsche Contra Wilders” essay:

Certainly. However, this truth is detrimental to those for whom (self-)deception is the means to power.

[size=95]“If the suffering and oppressed lost the faith that they have the right to despise the will to power, they would enter the phase of hopeless despair. This would be the case if this trait were essential to life and it could be shown that even in this will to morality this very ‘will to power’ were hidden, and even this hatred and contempt were still a will to power. The oppressed would come to see that they were on the same plain with the oppressors, without prerogative, without higher rank.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 55.)[/size]

Or that morality and naturality have nothing to do with each other. There is no right and wrong when it comes to what we’ve been endowed with, but when we make choices on how to use it, it comes under moral scrutiny.

Question: Is a woman under a delusion if she too desires power and strives to obtain it by any means?

The issue is what is the end game? And, by what means will it be achieved?. Free off all deception, there is still the matter of conflicting goods, and the means by which one will triumph over the other.

Everything and everyone is the same … it’s all will to power…

:-k No.

I don’t think that raping and assaulting women and preventing women from being raped and assaulted amounts to the same thing.