Nietzsche and the truth about Women

[Atheist-Lite]

"Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one solution --it is called pregnancy.

Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child. But what is woman for man?

Two different things wanteth the true man: danger and diversion. Therefore wanteth he woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly."


Is this a view that Nietzsche developed from his philisophy or direct experience of the fair sex? He had some experience given how he died but was this experience enough for him to develop a rounded view of women and how they might fit into his 'will to power' rantings? I don't need a essay but some abreviated educated opinions might give me food for thought on this?

[Rum]

Syphilitic twat.

[Elegant Mule]

Nietzsche was attacking the social structures of his day, many of which needed to be attacked, and perhaps first among those in need were popular views on women. Now, we welcome the view that women are in almost all respects the equal of men, and statements like Nietzsche's ring sexists and backwards, but Nietzsche was attacking the view of women as 'prized property', as virtuous and chased and delicate, not as equals with equal right. Nietzsche was knocking women off a pedestal, and by doing so allowed women to claim a place among the masses, as equals.

Frances Nesbitt Oppel writes about Nietzsche and gender at length.

(To be honest I'm not sure I agree with what I wrote, the more likely case is that he was a dick, though and though. But the case can be made.)

[Rum]

Are you new? If so, welcome!

As to Nietzsche - really - he was a twat of immense proportions.

[Robert_S]

Everyone says you have to really invest a great deal of time studying to get N. It reminds me of The Duke and Dauphin's show from Huck Finn.

The two con men would put on a horrible show for half the town, who hated it, but would not admit to their fellow townfolk that they got took for the price of admission. So the ones who saw the play would give it rave reviews so that the rest of the town would see the show the next night. On the third night, when the entire town came out, pockets stuffed with rotten eggs and tomatoes, the two would charge admission and duck out the back.

I suspect that people who have spent years studying all the works and looking up all the references will not admit to having wasted their time on some cult of personality.

[Elegant Mule]

Are you new? If so, welcome!

As to Nietzsche - really - he was a twat of immense proportions.

How could you tell?! (I Think maybe it was that the post count was "1", but I won't rule out psychic powers!)

I've had rationalia saved as a favorite sence the Dawkins forum fiasco, but never had the time to really commit. As (moral?) luck would have it I'm in between jobs now, so I can share my wealth o' philosophical learning with the people! So be prepared for some informational Wittgensteinian ramblings of the nature of 'religion' and a touch of Rawlsian ethics just for fun!

[Rum]

Are you new? If so, welcome!

As to Nietzsche - really - he was a twat of immense proportions.

How could you tell?! (I Think maybe it was that the post count was "1", but I won't rule out psychic powers!)

I've had rationalia saved as a favorite sence the Dawkins forum fiasco, but never had the time to really commit. As (moral?) luck would have it I'm in between jobs now, so I can share my wealth o' philosophical learning with the people! So be prepared for some informational Wittgensteinian ramblings of the nature of 'religion' and a touch of Rawlsian ethics just for fun!

If you hang around (and I hope you do) you may notice that well established members occasionally turn up with a different name and a very low post count! Welcome to RATZ!

[Elegant Mule]

I suspect that people who have spent years studying all the works and looking up all the references will not admit to having wasted their time on some cult of personality.

I'd give Nietz a little more love then that, THE MAN KILLED GOD! Just for that idea (the idea that god was not just unreal, but passe, and while we're at it immoral) he deserves mention among the great minds of modern thought.

I'd also give Nietzsche credit for writing decent books, in a language that can be understood without 30 years of training and a half dozen Sherpa (I'm looking at you Immanuel!)

[Hermit]

"Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one solution --it is called pregnancy.

Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child. But what is woman for man?

Two different things wanteth the true man: danger and diversion. Therefore wanteth he woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly."


Is this a view that Nietzsche developed from his philisophy or direct experience of the fair sex? He had some experience given how he died but was this experience enough for him to develop a rounded view of women and how they might fit into his 'will to power' rantings? I don't need a essay but some abreviated educated opinions might give me food for thought on this?

Philosophy (if you can call it that). None of Nietzsche's associations with women were lasting or deep, and at the time he died of syphilis (a fact vehemently denied by his admirers), the disease was more prevalent among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

The best I can say about Nietzsche's stuff on women is that it was not as bad as that of his contemporary, Otto Weininger, whose main contribution to improving the world was to remove himself from it instead of writing a sequel to Geschlecht und Charakter: Eine prinzipielle Untersuchung.