Feminism: Ultimately hatred of nature?

Out of curiousity, what was the impetus behind this comment? I am not sure I understand the context.

I’m not about to make a case for feminism as the movement is directed/seen/understood, but I don’t understand why by nietzschean philosophy there should be an objection to it. They got the power, they win. They shouldn’t have the power… then take it back!.. wah wah.

My case is for civilization. And civilization does not exclude the possibility that one man or a group of man be in power, it merely stipulates that the weak are to be protected for a very good reason*, and therefore it puts limits in the will of individuals.

*That by protecting the elder, the women, and the young, we are able to ensure a continuous transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next. Knowledge being more valuable than strength.

The quote that Sauwelios posted :

That’s Nietzsche saying that everyone is the same and they have the same goals. They just don’t realize it or admit it.

And then your post seemed somewhat ambiguous:

Some ends are better than others. Some means are better than others. Don’t you agree?

If you do not have strength, then you cannot preserve knowledge. So both knowledge and strength are valuable.

If we are on the same page with this, some ends are better than others, to certain people. And some means are better than others, if the means effectively secure the ends without compromising the good the seeker desires.

The issue at stake here is that philosophers seek the spread of an idea, and once people are on the same page they act. So what is at stake is first whether the idea is successfully implanted, and second how it is carried out.

I don’t think Nietzscheans seek the eradication of the young or women. I am not certain of Sauwelios’s desires, but I don’t think slavery is ruled out, as well as dominance.

Then you are in the Nietzsche camp… there is no way to determine a better end and everything is just will to power - the winner is right.

The winner is right only insofar as the winner gets the goods. One can strive for something and fail, I have no problem with that. If you strive to protect someone and fail, in the end that person will be hurt, and it is that event of suffering that matters, don’t you think?

The winner gets the goods but the ends achieved and the means used may either (or both) be judged wrong.

So ‘the winner is wrong’ is a possibility.

The striving and possibly failing is beside the point.


I get what you’re saying here and we’re partly on the same page, but I just find the way you are using the word wrong to be unhelpful for this discussion. There are not moral categories in nature. Something is good or bad because it is good or bad to us. If someone kicks me in the face and takes all my stuff then sets up in a mansion down the street while I am a bum, I hate that person… For that reason I want to see him fail, or at least get my stuff back. On this I hope we will agree.

To attach the word immoral to him means something to me, and others granted we agree on the definition and they empathize with the situation, but the moral categories are conventional.

The reason I feel it is necessary to take this stance is because when it comes down to it, the world is about actions. No one wants to be at the bottom with any sense of moral superiority.

I might try to build a world that is in the image of what we can both understand as moral due to the tradition of classifying the world in that way, and I might do it because that world makes me feel good, for whatever reason. Ultimately though I will need to accomplish that somehow.

The problem with sticking to moral categories is that you will run up against people who won’t abide by them. Would you be satisfied with a life of slavery, for example, if you could know you are “morally in the right”?

A recruiting campaign, I see.

I think that what they seek is the eradication of impositions against their will (the part in bold), without consideration for the fact that these impositions are needed.

That is really what the history of philosophy has been about, dissemination of ideas. Look at Martin Luther and Calvin for example, or Machiavelli, most (every?) historically renowned philosopher really, you can see the effects of their philosophy. Some people think that philosophy is just impractical thinking (not saying you do), but history tells us ideas have power.

We’ll have to ask Sauwelios. I am interested in what you mean by these impositions being needed though.

Feminism has done some good things for women, no doubt. I believe women should be educated, have rights, etc. But, frankly, feminism - for the most part - was birthed from nihilistic resentment, i.e., of man’s natural superiority ( physically and intellectually ). Now, that’s not to say that ALL males are superior to women, but for the most part, or in general, males out-compete women athletically/physically and intellectually ( E.g., in the sciences ). Yes, it’s true - women are graduating more than men are, but note that women have affirmative action and an education system that caters towards the feminine way of learning. Anyways, to condense this, yes - feminism is the hatred of nature; they resent gender dynamics that were brought about by thousands of years of evolution. Juxtapose feminism with the Nietzschean concepts of slave/morality and victim identification; it’s elucidating.

Morality exists in order to get good results for the members of a society. Actions have been judged moral which lead to an overall good. Rape and assault may feel good to some men but ultimately these acts are destructive to society. Therefore, they are immoral and wrong.

I’m not sure if you think I am here to defend rape or assault, because I’m not. The reason I do not find it useful to argue with moral categories is because there are those who will not follow them and telling them they are wrong or immoral will have no effect.

Rape and assault are adverse to the good of the individuals subject to them, it makes perfect sense that they would seek to deter it and, when possible, employ the means to do so.

The moral categories are not just arbitrary.They are derived from observing the consequences of actions. They are intended to discourage certain actions and encourage others.
People will not follow them? People will not follow laws either but that does not mean that we should not talk about that.
BTW rape is against the law and so is assault. It’s hard to prove and the victim gets raped a second time in the courts. It’s much more effective to use morals to try to prevent rape and assault.

It harms more than the raped or assaulted victim. It harms her family and it produces a society where a large portion of the people live in fear.

Okay, morals are preventative and so have a use. I will agree with you there. But the issue is when people realize that morals do not stop them for undertaking an action, and here in the discussion that is the case so using moral arguments will be ineffective.

Indirectly the family is subjected to the adverse effects, yes. You do realize I never argued in favor of rape?

If morals do not stop action, then there are laws. But laws require that a person is caught and prosecuted. If that person believes that he will not be caught or that he will be able to prevent being punished then what else is there to stop an action?
Especially in the context of the philosophy - ‘might is right’.

Rape was the subject of the OP. Seems a suitable example to use during the discussion.

If morals do not stop actions, then there are laws — I agree.

But laws require that a person is caught and prosecuted. — agree.

f that person believes that he will not be caught or that he will be able to prevent being punished then what else is there to stop an action? — Good question, particularly if he does not hold morals to be true, valuable, or necessary. This is where we stand.

Okay, it just seemed as if you were trying to convince me that rape wasn’t a good thing, and I was just saying I never said it wasn’t, in fact I acknowledged that rape is a bad thing for the person subjected to it, in fear of being subject to it, and others related to that person who would empathize or otherwise mourn such an action taking place.