The Nature of the Female
The Nature of the Female
Post by lightscape on Mar 6, 2006, 1:10pm
The Nature of the Female
Arthur Schopenhauer
One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man’s without being essentially happier or unhappier.
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.
Natural weapons
In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. 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 its 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.
Female truth
The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.
Feminine charms
Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.
Absence of genius
Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes. Insipid women-veneration
This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.
Monogamy and ‘filles de joie’
In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second. No argument about polygamy
There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.
Property and inheritance
In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband’s funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband’s money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.
In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.
That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.
Up to ‘Property and inheritance’ the translation is by R. J. Hollingdale, from Arthur Schopenhauer: Essays and Aphorisms (Penguin 1970), then by T. Bailey Saunders.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by Willie Molson on Mar 6, 2006, 3:11pm
This is some good shit.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by rule62 on Mar 6, 2006, 3:24pm
We now have had feminists and empowered womyn for some time. Where are all the great womyn scientists, physicists, etc. ? We should be seeing them by now. This is a great read.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by wayman on Mar 6, 2006, 7:55pm
** Where are all the great womyn scientists, physicists, etc. ? We should be seeing them by now.**
U havent seen them???
Their all on TV in sticoms and movies and other fictional stories.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by benjaminbelial on Mar 6, 2006, 9:28pm
Along with the Black ones.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by h on Mar 7, 2006, 1:11am
Gina Davis is President!
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by TyHigs on Mar 7, 2006, 1:55am
He is good. But he is outstripped by miles by his German successor – Otto Weininger. But be prepared, his sentences are long and dense. You must have good short term memory to read his essays.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2006, 2:09am
Mar 6, 2006, 7:55pm, wayman wrote:** Where are all the great womyn scientists, physicists, etc. ? We should be seeing them by now.**
U havent seen them???
Their all on TV in sticoms and movies and other fictional stories.
Well, there ARE a few notable real life exceptions. Such as Marie Curie. And… well, that’s all that comes to mind. So make that ONE notable exception.
A favored quote of mine:
The reason why there are no female Mozarts and Einsteins is because there are no female Hitlers and Jack the Rippers
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by TyHigs on Mar 7, 2006, 2:44am
http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by mamonaku on Mar 7, 2006, 6:13am
One of my personal favs.
“Works and Days” by Hesiod.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hesiod/index.htm
—-
(ll. 42-53) For the gods keep hidden from men the means of life. Else you would easily do work enough in a day to supply you for a full year even without working; soon would you put away your rudder over the smoke, and the fields worked by ox and sturdy mule would run to waste. But Zeus in the anger of his heart hid it, because Prometheus the crafty deceived him; therefore he planned sorrow and mischief against men. He hid fire; but that the noble son of Iapetus stole again for men from Zeus the counsellor in a hollow fennel-stalk, so that Zeus who delights in thunder did not see it. But afterwards Zeus who gathers the clouds said to him in anger:
(ll. 54-59) `Son of Iapetus, surpassing all in cunning, you are glad that you have outwitted me and stolen fire — a great plague to you yourself and to men that shall be. But I will give men as the price for fire an evil thing in which they may all be glad of heart while they embrace their own destruction.’
(ll. 60-68) So said the father of men and gods, and laughed aloud. And he bade famous Hephaestus make haste and mix earth with water and to put in it the voice and strength of human kind, and fashion a sweet, lovely maiden-shape, like to the immortal goddesses in face; and Athene to teach her needlework and the weaving of the varied web; and golden Aphrodite to shed grace upon her head and cruel longing and cares that weary the limbs. And he charged Hermes the guide, the Slayer of Argus, to put in her a shameless mind and a deceitful nature.
(ll. 69-82) So he ordered. And they obeyed the lord Zeus the son of Cronos. Forthwith the famous Lame God moulded clay in the likeness of a modest maid, as the son of Cronos purposed. And the goddess bright-eyed Athene girded and clothed her, and the divine Graces and queenly Persuasion put necklaces of gold upon her, and the rich-haired Hours crowned her head with spring flowers. And Pallas Athene bedecked her form with all manners of finery. Also the Guide, the Slayer of Argus, contrived within her lies and crafty words and a deceitful nature at the will of loud thundering Zeus, and the Herald of the gods put speech in her. And he called this woman Pandora (2), because all they who dwelt on Olympus gave each a gift, a plague to men who eat bread.
(ll. 83-89) But when he had finished the sheer, hopeless snare, the Father sent glorious Argus-Slayer, the swift messenger of the gods, to take it to Epimetheus as a gift. And Epimetheus did not think on what Prometheus had said to him, bidding him never take a gift of Olympian Zeus, but to send it back for fear it might prove to be something harmful to men. But he took the gift, and afterwards, when the evil thing was already his, he understood.
(ll. 90-105) For ere this the tribes of men lived on earth remote and free from ills and hard toil and heavy sickness which bring the Fates upon men; for in misery men grow old quickly. But the woman took off the great lid of the jar (3) with her hands and scattered all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men. Only Hope remained there in an unbreakable home within under the rim of the great jar, and did not fly out at the door; for ere that, the lid of the jar stopped her, by the will of Aegis-holding Zeus who gathers the clouds. But the rest, countless plagues, wander amongst men; for earth is full of evils and the sea is full. Of themselves diseases come upon men continually by day and by night, bringing mischief to mortals silently; for wise Zeus took away speech from them. So is there no way to escape the will of Zeus.
—-
—-
And someone asked about Black scientists…
Please see this link.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmscientists1.html
Black men, despite the hell that we have endured, are and were, scientists, inventors, and philosophers.
My advice to you friend, is to not speak on subjects you know nothing about.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by passingby on Mar 7, 2006, 8:09am
Good link mamonaku. I’m Black but no Democrat, and I don’t appreciate their pandering and the ways in which those activist groups take advantage of the black community, but I certainly don’t appreciate this
|
|
V
Mar 6, 2006, 9:28pm, benjaminbelial wrote:Along with the Black ones.
Stormfront is thattaway ben ————–>
(and if you get back, stop belieing that all Blacks are like the ones you see on BET, which IMO, shouldn’t even be CALLED BET anymore, since the ‘values’ it represents there don’t align with many Blacks who want other things in life besides ‘bling’ and ‘respect’)
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by op on Mar 7, 2006, 10:33am
Mar 7, 2006, 8:09am, passingby wrote:Good link mamonaku. I’m Black but no Democrat, and I don’t appreciate their pandering and the ways in which those activist groups take advantage of the black community, but I certainly don’t appreciate this
|
|
VMar 6, 2006, 9:28pm, benjaminbelial wrote:Along with the Black ones.
Stormfront is thattaway ben ————–>
(and if you get back, stop belieing that all Blacks are like the ones you see on BET, which IMO, shouldn’t even be CALLED BET anymore, since the ‘values’ it represents there don’t align with many Blacks who want other things in life besides ‘bling’ and ‘respect’)
I agree. I don’t appreciate the “black” comment either.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by Richie Rich on Mar 7, 2006, 12:17pm
….Acutally the ignorant comment about blacks are nothing new here. There will always be a select few who surface with it because they only know what they see on TV. ( Always posters under the guest name).Other ignorant idiots based their perceptions only on what other so called “intellects” like the one called Fred Reed. He writes many entertaining things about life but for some unknown reason is an expert with blacks and even worse Ghetto blacks which he think represents the population.
He seems to think blacks have not invented nothing in American society and have not help to build it. http://inventors.about.com/library/blblackinventors.htm
Further accusations claim blacks are vehemently anti American and believe America is fundamentally evil. It is funny how knowledgeably men such as Kramkrumthebulgar will admit that feminists are the worst people with this ideology and the schools have taught ALL American kids this same view these days!!!
No wonder why the AW are gaining momentum, men are even more divisive than women and cant come to any sort of consensus due to pettiness. The USA is Fu*KED for this very same reason!!!
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by joey on Mar 7, 2006, 1:31pm
Hang in there, Richie Rich.
I always look forward to your posts as well as the posts of the other incredibly intelligent men of color that post on this board. They know who they are. Fuck the ignorant fools.
“All the variously shaped and shaded people of Earth trace their ancestry to African hunter-gatherers, some 150,000 years ago.”
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature2/index.html
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by Willie Molson on Mar 7, 2006, 2:09pm
Joey, that’s absolutely true. There is no Caucasoid or Mongoloid race, only branches of the African race. Recently a group of Texas and Chinese researchers have traced the genetic origins of the Asian group to Africa. Previously, it was theorized that humans evolved in a parallel fashion in Asia, but, due to studying the mitochrondrial DNA of humans of Asian descent, it was found that this proposition was erroneous.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by ddg on Mar 7, 2006, 3:54pm
Cheikh Diop, in African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, talks about how humanity evolved from a common African also. He details additionally the contributions that Africans have made to civilization, particulary western civilization. Just though I’d add my 2 cents.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by skeptos on Mar 7, 2006, 4:24pm
A few months back, somebody on this board (I forget who) said “Let’s be a men’s movement, not a white men’s movement.”
I heartily agree.
Skeptos
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by wayman on Mar 7, 2006, 4:52pm
**The reason why there are no female Mozarts and Einsteins is because there are no female Hitlers and Jack the Rippers **
Im surprised no comments to-wards this……
N E how no Hitler women yet simply because women haven’t gained that kind of power YET.
Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts Absolutely-
Weather your a woman or Man. (period)
No Jack the Ripper Females………….
Mmmmm Getting close. Women are killing and being found to kill more and more these days…… they mostly like to kill children or have someone kill their husband or boy friends.
Just because women don’t get as much “press” as the males do doesn’t mean they are not there. Women are increasingly more and more violent in western civilization.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by mamonaku on Mar 7, 2006, 5:37pm
Truth be told,
I barely think in terms of race these days. I have bigger problems trying to survive in the post 9-11 era.
Men of all stripes and shades are living in Hell. Most of us don’t know that we are even there yet.
All the races of Men are in dire straights. Under the eyes of the law, we are all Niggas now.
There I said it.
It was written in a famous document long ago that a Black slave was three fifths of a human being. Slaves had no rights, only responsibilities. Slaves could be sold at will. Slaves had to surrender all of their earnings to their masters. A slave could be lynched at will.
It is now written in codes of law across this nation that Men are abusers, and women are “victims”.
Men have no reproductive or familial rights, only responsibilities.
Men can be evicted and/or imprisoned on hearsay evidence. We can be murdered with impunity because of our sex, and because of vague defenses of “domestic violence” or “psychological abuse”.
Men are not slaves, not yet. But we are a heartbeat away. We will either, as MLK said, “Live together as brothers or die together as fools.”
Chew on that.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by wayman on Mar 7, 2006, 5:45pm
Mar 7, 2006, 5:37pm, mamonaku wrote:Truth be told,
I barely think in terms of race these days. I have bigger problems trying to survive in the post 9-11 era.
Men of all stripes and shades are living in Hell. Most of us don’t know that we are even there yet.
All the races of Men are in dire straights. Under the eyes of the law, we are all Niggas now.
There I said it.
It was written in a famous document long ago that a Black slave was three fifths of a human being. Slaves had no rights, only responsibilities. Slaves could be sold at will. Slaves had to surrender all of their earnings to their masters. A slave could be lynched at will.
It is now written in codes of law across this nation that Men are abusers, and women are “victims”.
Men have no reproductive or familial rights, only responsibilities.
Men can be evicted and/or imprisoned on hearsay evidence. We can be murdered with impunity because of our sex, and because of vague defenses of “domestic violence” or “psychological abuse”.
Men are not slaves, not yet. But we are a heartbeat away. We will either, as MLK said, “Live together as brothers or die together as fools.”
Chew on that.
Well said.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by samm on Mar 7, 2006, 5:53pm
Mar 7, 2006, 5:37pm, mamonaku wrote:Truth be told,
I barely think in terms of race these days. I have bigger problems trying to survive in the post 9-11 era.
Men of all stripes and shades are living in Hell. Most of us don’t know that we are even there yet.
All the races of Men are in dire straights. Under the eyes of the law, we are all Niggas now.
There I said it.
It was written in a famous document long ago that a Black slave was three fifths of a human being. Slaves had no rights, only responsibilities. Slaves could be sold at will. Slaves had to surrender all of their earnings to their masters. A slave could be lynched at will.
It is now written in codes of law across this nation that Men are abusers, and women are “victims”.
Men have no reproductive or familial rights, only responsibilities.
Men can be evicted and/or imprisoned on hearsay evidence. We can be murdered with impunity because of our sex, and because of vague defenses of “domestic violence” or “psychological abuse”.
Men are not slaves, not yet. But we are a heartbeat away. We will either, as MLK said, “Live together as brothers or die together as fools.”
Chew on that.
Word Up!
Amen, mamonaku.
Very well said.
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by passingby on Mar 9, 2006, 7:44am
Bump, because I think that there’s someone here who needs to read these informative posts…
——————————————————————————–
Re: The Nature of the Female
Post by Willie Molson on Mar 9, 2006, 10:02am
Mamonaku, you articulated your position well. I’ve said this in many guises before, all civilizations are built on the achievements and foibles of those who have gone before them. We all owe, to each other, a debt of gratitude to the evolution of our species on this planet. When I find people who refuse to acknowledge this, it just tells me that that individual is wrestling with their own demons and insecurities.
——————————————————————————–
