“Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses it’s wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.”
He continues on to describe women’s “weaker reasoning powers”, how they are “mental myopic[s]”, and that “a completely truthful woman … is perhaps an impossibility”. The great man concludes thus: “Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex … More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex.”. Legend. [from ‘On Women’ in Essays and Aphorisms]
Good ol’ Arthur, a ladies man to the bitter end. Please feel free to post any similar pieces of classic philosophy that you know about (not just mindless sexism, any old crazy stuff is good). A citation would be appreciated too, so I can look up the original. Cheers.
Dishonourable mentions:
Kant - “The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people.” [from ‘Physical Geography’]
Bertrand Russell thought wars of colonial genocide are justifiable. [see ‘The Ethics of War’]
Francis Bacon thought warts could be cured by being rubbed with bacon.
All those bastards could be cured of their sophistry if they were rubbed with bacon.
Almost all modern psychology is symptom-suppressant, or release-based “therapy” where people make themselves “feel better”. What ever makes someone feel “comforted” or “secure” is also what is viewed as “true” or “right”.
I generally agree with what you have quoted from Schopenhauer. I especially want to highlight the following:
“Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex … More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex.”
Nietzsche says somewhere - I don’t have the reference - that, whereas the modern male focuses on the body of the female, the Greek male focused on the body of the male. And indeed, it seems we are trying to produce the (physically) ideal female with our aesthetics. The Greek, on the other hand, looked at woman with the question in mind (or in his body): “Can this woman produce strong sons for me?” He had the physically ideal male in mind, a Zeus or an Adonis, when he pictured his Aphrodite.
Wanting to have strong or intelligent sons is an eugenic sort of sexual preferance. It means people want to help out their damned gene pool. I gotta agree, but today, seems like many “people” often want the opposite.
Except Cruise could handle it perfectly well. Nicholson was the one who couldn’t handdle the real truth - that he got beat by a preppy sissyboy and a woman.
I get the feeling women in 18/19th century Germany weren’t exactly the finest specimens the Great Goddess has ever produced. Probably the men there and then weren’t worthy of fit women. Look at Nietzsche’s ideal:
I think all the anti-women quotes of the old philosophers can be discared on account of their lack of experience with beauty.
“Female”/“Male” are dualities of expectation and mind-control.
Homosexuals make people feel disturbed because people can sense social rolls/expectations being defied. Anything which does not conform to human expectations is seen as “wrong”. So, if I expected women to be a certain way, and some of them were not that way, I could claim that they were “wrong”, but that is only a claim based on personal expectation, or, sometimes, common expectation.
Almost all pro and anti female arguments are delusion.
Almost all pro and anti male arguments are delusion.
This is because “male” and “female” do not actually exist. Instead, there is an expectation and class which exists, within the perspective, and then, that expectation is imposed/used. So, if someone looks and acts “female”, they are judged as “female”. It is an archetype of social expectations, not a reality.
I find it very intiresting that socialogical analysis has only become prominent in the recent past, as far as I know.
All of the quotes Havoc posted of the descriptions of certain types of people may very well have been acurate at the time when those observations were made. Some of them may still be accurate now. The only problem is that these passages apear to attribute these characteristics to the nature of those types of people, seemingly without any consideration of sociological conditions.
The problem is that we cannot possibly know about the true nature of people without thoroughly considering the circumstances that play a significant role in the developement of those people. And it is fairly clear to me that very often, these circumstances are dictated by other people, and they are often made to empower the creators of these circumstances.
Now, I am not trying to “blame it on the white man.” If black people and women truly are naturally stupid, if Jews (what are jews anyways?) truly are naturally greedy, if Asian people truly are naturally bad drivers then so be it, I will have no problem accepting this. I follow the logic. The problem is, I just do not see the people that make these claims making an honest attempt to understand the distinction between nature and nurture. And this is by no means an easy distinction to understand. I have spent many long hours just trying to figure out what parts of me are nature and what is nurture, and im still for the most part confused.
And you have to understand it is not only sociological circumstances. There are so many circumstances that can potentially affect the development of people. The supposed fact that White cultures have generally progressed to a greater extent than other cultures is no indication of any natural superiority. The tribe of pre-historic cave men that discovered fire were not naturally superior to their next door neighbors. The lightning bolt just happend to hit their bush.
“Female”/“Male” are dualities of expectation and mind-control."
First let me say that I think Dan means to say that many characteristics commonly attributed to being “Feminine” or “Masculine” are not natural characteristics, but as he says, expectation and standards of a society. Ofcourse I dont think he means having a penis or a vagina are “social rolls.”
I dont see how this comment does not incorperate hard fact, nor do I understand what you mean by projecting “desire to believe” onto “belief.” Personally I whole heartedly agree with Dan. The standards prevalent in many societies of how women and men are supposed to be or act are, well, complete bullshit.
Seriously, I think the women in Nietzsche’s and Schopenhaur’s time were fat, ugly and stupid. Look at the portraits of the Dutch masters, for example - all fat and ugly. A brilliant artist like Rembrandt had a wife that by today’s standards would be considered a troll. I think this is highly significant in interpretating writing from that time. You have to see every philosophy in it’s context.
Honestly, as interesting Lou looks, there is a significant difference in nature’s vitality here.
We must not forget that the German philosophers wrote in a time where a world war was necessary to purge the continent. All that they saw around them must have been completely corrupted. It is logical to assume that after WWII, nature made a fresh start and invested purged energy in the gene-pools at hand - most notably the American; nutrition and other stimuli were most abundant there. We are only two generations ahead. Even if one were blind it would be a blatant lack of trust in nature to assume she hasn’t used this great opportunity to create genius. (I refer here to my signature)
I think that is very short-sighted. Those times had different ideals. In Rubens’ time and place, women actually gained weight on purpose (can you imagine that today?) in order to approach the ideal. It is largely a matter of conditioning. Men from different times and places might easily be disgusted by today’s ideal (and yes, that includes yours). In fact, I already have quite a different perspective. Did you mean Laura Palmer to be attractive as opposed to Lou? I find her nothing of the sort.
Given the views you have expressed ad nauseam elsewhere,i.e. racism, anti-semitism, holocaust denial, holocaust and genocide approbation, your misogyny comes as no surprise. Your lack of empathy is typical of a narcissist. If you are capable of a romantic relationship at all, it would probably only to treat your partner as an object to bolster your poor self esteem.
Some of you may have missed this, but my original post was actually serious - I only used the Schopenhauer quotes as an example of bad philosophy and in no way endorsed it. I thought that much was obvious.
I’m stunned that there are people here who think that discussions on the attractiveness of various women is philosophy. It’s not, it’s biography at best, gossip at worst.
then so be it, I will have no problem accepting this. I follow the logic. The problem is, I just do not see the people that make these claims making an honest attempt to understand the distinction between nature and nurture. And this is by no means an easy distinction to understand. I have spent many long hours just trying to figure out what parts of me are nature and what is nurture, and im still for the most part confused.
