/lit/ - Literature

Likewise all “feminism” in people, in men as well, a shutting of the gates to me: one will never enter this labyrinth of daring perceptions.

Knowledge, the yea- saying to reality is just as much a necessity to the strong as cowardice and the flight from reality — the “ideal” — is to the weak, inspired by weakness...They are not free to perceive: decadents find the lie necessary — it is one of their conditions of self-preservation. — He who not only understands the word “Dionysian” but understands himself in the word “Dionysian” needs no refutation of Plato or Christianity — he smells the putrefaction...

>>7187918
>Woman is unspeakably more evil than man, more clever also; goodness in a woman is already a form of degeneration...All so-called “beautiful souls” have a physiological ill as their basis — I do not say all there is to say
i don't get why.

literally the courage wolf of philosophy

>>7188067
no, you have to agree with it already. he has to say what you're already thinking

>>7188075

The what?

>>7188067
He's saying people who say things like "she has a great personality" really mean "she's fucked up I the head" and women who are cruel are desirable. Basic human shit

>>7188077
What?

>>7188075
Nietzsche goes a thousand miles beyond courage wolf

>>7187918

You really gonna listen to a spaghetti spiller that caught syphilis losing his virginity to a prostitute?

You really gonna listen to, The Übercuck, friendzoned by a feminist?
>Salomé and Rée separated from Nietzsche after a falling-out between Nietzsche and Salomé, in which Salomé believed that Nietzsche was desperately in love with her.
She swerved on that 4 inch syphilis dick.

you really gonna take his opinion on women seriously? top kek.
If he was alive today he would have an Atheist Youtube channel with more Anita Sarkeesian videos than fucking Jordan Owen.

His critique on Christianity and Science is all I'd call required reading from him. Everything else is just... lol

good fucking god who translated this?

fucking dreadful

>They all love me-an old story

Could have fooled me. Every girl he sniffed around was like sorry, no

>>7188149
He's right in this passage though. Youd know that if you spent time around women

>>7187918
>To the woman, there exist two types of men: the lover and the confidant, the entertainer and the provider. The woman desires the most entertainment from the men whom she covets, with the fewest judgements from and responsibilities towards mostly every person from whom she cannot be satisfied, unless she has some fantasies about them: the impotent, the ugly, the destitute, the weak, the virgin. The woman seeks the ideal stability of a few relationships, more or less explicitly open, as well as the excitation of all the fun and drama by expected to be offered by superior men. In one word, the woman seeks the men providing her with the playgrounds which are the largest and safest for her to enjoy her histrionic nature.
>
>In being turned towards pleasures, the female fantasized about the life of men which would have been nothing but about pleasures, without any hardship, or at least more enjoyable than her “enslaved” life. The female has never been “liberated”, since she was never been caged concerning her love life, even though, for millennia, knowing intuitively how she behaves without supervision, the men expected her to control herself a minimum. Her supposed novel “liberation” was nothing but a response, quite expected knowing the woman, from the contrived prudishness of the previous generation — well, not the generation of the aristocrats, for those have always been liberated, therefore fighting against their lassitude, for decades, if not centuries. After having for decades demanded from the society various perks, the woman market becomes, to those who can access it, instantly wider as well as more liquid. The questions become thus “why to enter this market?”, “how to enter this market?”.
>

>>7188279
>The woman constantly follows her desires, especially those leading her, she expects, to many refined pleasures; thereby, the men whom she appreciate can push the limits of behaviour towards her, whereas the lesser men, the poor, the ugly, the impotent must follow rigorously what is socially expected from them in each encounter with every female; in general, those men must not interact at all, at risk of being pegged as a pervert and accused, more or less explicitly, of assault, even before they have done anything. Can be shamed, sometimes publicly, about their virility, even the men whom she does not despise beforehand, but failing somehow to please her. Once pegged, by at least one woman, as litter, these men will be irrelevant to any other female around at the time of the pegging. Indeed, in order to grade the men, with respect to their potential ability to satisfy her, a female relies on the personal experience as well as on the members of her species, by pure mimetism: when she sees another female accompanied, she believes that the man must be worth it, worthy precisely because he apparently manages to satisfy one woman; the man is viable. A boyfriend can notice this situation when he attaches himself to a woman and suddenly notice that who seeks satisfaction from him is at least another female possibly even more relevant than the present girlfriend. The more a man manages to make a herd of females believes that he satisfied many other such creatures in the past, the higher ranked the man is, especially as an entertainer, by each woman.
>

>>7188280
>Her quest being to “feel the most alive”, as the industry of leisure sells it, her moaning, her orgasms being such a epileptic seizure, her little brain sparkling such as a firework, offering thus the highest hedonistic yield, it is no wonder that the female thinks sexually, wants sexually, does sexually, is sexually. This strange little creature knows thus without a doubt why she is on earth, what her nature is; she wants to grasp her existence by the reaction of the reality onto herself, to feel alive, to “live her emotions” without serious danger, nor risk, nor effort. We see thereby that two types of woman exist: the one already feeling empowered in assuming her hedonism; the other one dreaming all day long about it, dreaming to be liberated by a man without any negative judgement, to be, more or less secretly, a frivolous little minx, if only in dilettante. This second kind of woman is submissive in appearance; she is passive, fantasizing about waiting for at least one man who would reach her true self, for a few to the extend that he would irremediably unlock her, through what she would felt as a rapture.
>

>>7188283
>The woman lacks reflexivity bringing a lack of equanimity as well as of efficiency about her behaviour; she is a pure actor in the world, she cannot pause, she cannot take time to stop herself in order to reflect on what she thinks, what she says, what she does. Sometimes, a sudden reflexivity comes by pregnancy, when not aborted, which remains caused by her eternal ignorance, her incapability of introspection beforehand and too often, the woman is at sea when strikes this minute observation on her existence which leads her to not be able to inquire further: to reflect on her reflections, discourses, actions, to put forth always more space between what she feels and what she believes is her self. In being so close to what she desires and feels, the woman naturally believes that what she does is sound, coherent with her “finding herself”, “finding love”, that she is not ego maniac, or even that it is altruistic, that she searches for her happiness just as much as she wishes others to be happy: if she feels good, it can only means that others involved in doing what she does feel just as good.
>
>Naturally, all hedonistic that she is, sooner or later, the woman faces the difficulty that is the lassitude stemming from her wealth; a difficulty undermined for a moment thanks to the easiness of obtaining a diversity of attention from the herd of most men, especially once that the she manages to pass as a powerless creature tormented by the men. By her lack of reflexivity, the female however remains in the hedonist pendulum: she swings from sheer satisfaction towards a sadness, only to swing back, once a new man in sight, towards a pleasure more or less already lived, but different enough to be worth living.

>>7188284
>Many men claim that, contrary to the men, the female is the least rational creature, whereas the men would be the least emotional. In reality, the exact converse holds: the woman perfectly knows what she wants; her hedonist stance is the more logical for, after all, everybody loves their pleasures just as they show aversion towards their pains; however, she fails to notice that her hedonism remains inefficient, by its fruits hardly permanent, due to her lack of reflexivity. It is not rare that, all exhausted by a few decades of unbridled pleasures, a new life begins as the older female calms herself in discovering a mild state of ataraxia blended in a longing for the golden times, believing to have reached a new liberation leading her to discover her spiritual side. Even the young female taking the holy orders does so only after a few years of liberation where she stumbles upon a spiritual path after thinking that she has been hurt by the men. Most men remain, on the other hand, completely emotional, towards their existence in general, towards the woman in particular.
>
>Does a female love a man as a man loves a female? No; the female does not love the man; at best, the woman loves to be loved as well as adores to love to be loved. Most of the men love a woman such as most of the females loving their children, up to, for too many men, talking to the female in puerile manner in public; whereby most of the men completely failing to understand that a man must take a female with detachment, such as an owner loving his dog, such as the scientific towards his experimental subject.
>

>>7188286
>The nature of the woman leads to a masculine discrimination of men with respect to their behaviours towards the female. The most common kind of men is naturally the beta, in other words, the men devoted to the female, the men seeking, from the female, some “meanings to their lives”, some faint relevance, validation of their existence. Since the female herself seeks the men from whom she expects the most pleasures as well as the least displeasures, the first kind of men divides into three sub-kinds: the first sub-kind is the man who attempts to proudly content the female foremost via the flesh, in betting on his appearance as well as his performance, for, irrespective of her beauty or age, the woman is explicitly no longer in the habit to compromise on her desire of sex; the second sub-kind is the man who attempts to satisfy the woman foremost via the mundane amusements, in betting on his finances, typically in offering her various activities; the third sub-kind is the man who tries to provide the woman with comfort, either material or emotional — the famous emotional tampon. These are three sub-kinds of the beta man; each one of these men offers his services to the woman and wait for her to accept him or reject him; all of these men take a passive stance and completely depend on the woman each day of their lives. The three betas are disposable by their nature and by their number in the world: the betas are a cheap commodity which is not scarce at all.
>

>>7188287
>The female creates also a punishment for those betas who fail her, an humiliation on the virility of the men at her disposition; for instance, in disclosing the performance of her other lovers, former or present, in order to keep them interested, to strengthen their dependence and the competition: they might have not met the standards expected by the woman, nonetheless she still refuses that they leave her sphere of influence. She can prevent those men depending on her to depart towards other truths in ridiculing them about what she makes them believe is their essence, the essence to seek a relevance of their existence through her desires. No wonder why she dares to demand and generally obtains a faithfulness from most of her lovers.
>

>>7188291
>Once ended her various love stories, until she finds new ones, the good little boyfriends-husbands-fathers must be dedicated in providing a safe net for her, in listening to her life at diner, in sharing, day after day, the chores, the bills, the rents, the care of the children and, of course, her states of hysteria, more or less pronounced. The playground provided must be the largest possible; the best boyfriends sanctify her, up to the point to being proud of, for instance, not even thinking of touching her handbag nor of manipulating her telephone. In being devoted, once in some relationship, the betas tend to think the mother-whore dichotomy; these men accept that the girlfriend-hood or the motherhood is a redemption for the female, from becoming a “sinful whore” after she looses her virginity. Nonetheless, more or less consciously, a few boyfriends acknowledge what is the nature of the woman, without hesitating to share the girlfriend, notwithstanding a behaviour going from a will to be seen under a favourable light, up to a touch of bitterness taking the form of an assertion, more or less explicit, of power over her lovers, especially when those do not come form the circle of friends of the couple, rarely over the girlfriend itself.

>>7188294
>The female knows that the good lover is selfish towards her, in bed or not. The lover and the female match, click, the relationship sparkles to better enliven her. This new kind of man is the second and last sub-kind: the man who is not devoted to the female and even less to her sensual quest; a man having such an independence form her, that she senses it quite easily. This man belong to the alpha kind. The alpha man naturally turns the table with the woman: all indifferent that he is when he must deal with her, it is now the woman who must show that she is worthy of him; whereas, when it comes to men seeking validation through her, the betas do not demand anything from the woman, the woman waits for the first men, amongst the flock of all the betas, who complete her list of requisites.
>
>It is with the alpha man that the woman “feels alive”, “feels like a woman” the most, by her work that she must furnish in order to be even considered. The alpha man rewards the woman when she has proved that she merited him. It is this man who gives “meaning to the life” of the woman; she knows that such a man is exceptional, thereby that he is worth it, just as the woman knows that, as she wishes, she has the power to make the three betas feel relevant in their lives. For once, she knows that a man is above her, that there is better than her, that she can be relevant towards somebody for once, only if she is good enough. The alpha man knows that the absolute liberty plays against the liberty itself, whereas the woman only knows this through an intermittent intuition. He gives the woman a frame of restrictions wherein the woman can plays in liberty and it permits her thus to develop her faculty to enjoy herself and the world, to attain the most jouissance. Once more, this situation goes in the opposite direction than the case of the beta males, which the woman knows that they come and go, that they are easily affordable, easily replaceable.
>

>>7188287
Ah, the text from which it all springs.

>>7188296
>We could expect from the woman that, by her existence naturally revolving around the tragedy and the drama, she would become an artist, a creator, but that would be missing the evidence that the female does not live through such excruciating lives. The woman remains poorly creative, precisely for she has an interest in art. On the contrary, the masculine angst brings some abilities, themselves leading to creativity: mostly as males who seek the feminine approval through the mundane activities as well as the comfort, the men are not interested in the drama nor the tragedy, even less when their lives are filled of events of these natures, but those few at ease with communication becomes the perfect artist, inventor or creator, which attracts, incidentally, the female. The lesser exposition towards the female of the alpha men leads those rare men naturally to a strong intellect, or for the fewest, to wisdom, foresight, in particular once equipped with equanimity.
>
>It becomes manifest that this kind of man knows that there exists a life beyond sex, contrary to the first kind of beta male, knows that there exists a life beyond the entertainment, contrary to the second kind of beta male, knows that there exists a life beyond the woman, contrary to the third kind of beta male. There exists a famous saying: the difficulty is not to come in the brothel, but to come out of it. If they must apply a dichotomy towards the female, those rare men choose the whore-saint one: they take the woman for what she is, a public good, her only pure state being a virgin.
>

>>7188300
>Sometimes, gifted with reflexivity, such men have a strong degree of equanimity which permits them to appear infinitely more detached around her. These higher alpha men leave, without resentment, such a binarity as the whore-saint; happily they accept the woman for what she is; they do not expect anything from the woman, they do not blame the woman, they do not despise the woman, there would not even be a relevance to do otherwise. He understands that the female is a different creature from him, as he understands that an order between the female and the man remains unbecoming. Contrary to the three kinds of beta males, the alpha man cherishes more his time and serenity; he leaves the woman, her quest for pleasures, her worries, to the other men passing after him; in having none dependency towards her, the alpha man understands that, as nice as it is to take a female when he desires one, it is even more delightful not to have a woman when he does not desire any.
>
>On earth to be shared, in heat all year long, the woman is a whore, as so many say often bitterly, but the whore is equally a woman. In living so essentially for, by, as well through the histrionism, the pleasure, the frivolity, the superficiality, the woman knows why she is on earth, to such an extend that nothing remains more beautiful when she rests in her purest state, the one where the female acknowledges her nature.

>A whole species of the most malevolent “idealism” — which, by the way, also occurs in men, for instance in Henrik Ibsen, that typical old maid — has as its goal the poisoning of good conscience, of the natural love between the sexes.

Nietzsche is just mad about Rilke cukolding him (Rilke loved Ibsen).

what is there to actually hate about women?
i honestly thought each time we made a misogyny show, we did so as an attempt at 4channesque trope role playing. if you're a confident male in this 150th year after ford with hate towards women, then you're probly homosax

Why should I take philosophy seriously when some of its most important figures regard females with /r9k/-tier complaining?

>>7187918
What the fuck is he even trying to say?

Jesus Christ Nietzche is as bad a stylist as Schopenhauer is good.

>>7188409

It's a godawful translation you stupid cuck

>>7188415
Jokes on you I actually am a cuck and am going to watch some cuck videos, so thanks.

Nietzsche was a mistake.

Emerson did it better.

Freddy wanted so badly to be respected by Wagner. It's a bit cringe.

>>7188149
The syphilis myth was disproved fyi. Read more.

I think a lot of these quotes either aren't from Nietzsche or are (bad) direct translations attempted by OP

>>7188324
Kek

>The woman is like the Jew -- she is all hooves and horns, like a snake. Beware of her, for she will strike at thy heart simply because she can; and when your heart is broken, she will point to it and say: ''That is the price of your naivety and trust, stupid man!''

>>7188735
cringe is a noun

>Woman has no primary interest in a great or artistic man, she does not prefer him to a successful and rich soap-boiler, and what is more, she never knows he is great until the world acknowledges him as such. . . . If in the Europe of to-day, and in all countries like Europe, it is material success alone that is regarded as the highest value, and if money is the principal hall-mark of power and prestige, it is due to the ascendancy of women in our midst. Women cannot take any other point of view, and where their influence tends to prevail, as it does particularly in England and America, there you will find the worship of cash the principal religion of the community. . . . To-day this vulgarity can be detected in every aspect of our lives. Everything, every consideration of refinement, is overlooked, provided that money be present. And the man who kills most female hearts is he who can throw a rich fur round his capture and whirl her off in a sumptous Rolls-Royce. . . . Wives who have passionately loved their husbands will learn to dislike and despise them intensely if owing to some unhappy turn in their fortunes they become material failures. . . . Individually this vulgarity ramifies in woman as an inability to pursue refinement, unassisted or undirected; as a readiness to sacrifice refinement or else the fruits of cultivation, to any other sordid end, and as an inaccessibility to the finer nuances of thought. That is why the notion 'Lady' is such absurd nonsense. It is the grossest and most palpable fiction. No 'lady' has ever existed or will ever exist.

>>7187918
Cringeworthy, Nietzsche was a mistake.

When will the frog-posters leave?

>>7188331
>we
My sides

>>7190429
Lmao this shit can't be real. Which of his texts are there from?

>>7190835
He actually says some very accurate things in there

>implying feminism doesn't tend towards attracting the weakest, ugliest women

>>7188280
>The woman constantly follows her desires, especially those leading her, she expects, to many refined pleasures; thereby, the men whom she appreciate can push the limits of behaviour towards her, whereas the lesser men, the poor, the ugly, the impotent must follow rigorously what is socially expected from them in each encounter with every female; in general, those men must not interact at all, at risk of being pegged as a pervert and accused, more or less explicitly, of assault, even before they have done anything.

God damn, this is accurate. Girls let guys who they're sexually attracted to do whatever they want to them, including verbal, emotional, and sometimes physical abuse. Guys who they're not sexually attracted to on the other hand, can't even look at them, lest they be labelled "creepy". I always thought this kind of behavior was because of radical feminism, but I guess women were always bitches.

Schopenhauer is right
but why can't I stop loving them?

>>7188075
Kill yourself

>>7191726
Because hating women is a pleb-ass reaction to all of this. Have some love of fate and enjoy womanliness.

>>7191726
because as fucking corny and cheesy as it sounds - we apparently need this thorny love.

all innate crap..i hate myself because i have so much love to give but nowhere to put it etc.

>>7191749
It sounds like you need to lift/box/swim/something bro.

>>7191726
because you are spineless and seek validation outside of what you consider your self, and not inside.
do not be afraid of your immobility

>>7191724
>I always thought this kind of behavior was because of radical feminism, but I guess women were always bitches.


in fact, the radical feminism makes explicit this statement, instead of letting it implicit. I think that men always knew it, but before it was about the social class, in order to ease her existence. Today, it is about the social class, just as before about the easing of her material difficulties, as well as the expectation of giving pleasures.

>>7191749
>tfw went back to uni after being a depressed NEET for a year and then working a shitty job for two
>met a qt bookworm freshman who's reading infinite jest
>she's crushing super hard and texted me late last night

Gonna fuck her next time I see her. Love is great. Women are great. Even though it always causes me massive heartfelt pain I can't help but do it again.

>>7191794
Nietzsche says it in the OP. So yeah.

>>7190835
Lol. Your denial is cringeworthy

>>7191788
I can get validation easy though
women make me weak and vulnerable and idk why

>>7188420

why don't you just cuck off m7

>>7191814
Because you need to be validated. Needs come from weakness. I've been asking out more women recently and been rejected, it's painful as all hell but I don't need so much now to avoid pain. Avoiding pain comes from weakness.

What would Nietzsche think of homosexuality in all of it's forms?

>>7191846
There's actually a decent possibility that he was homosexual himself.

I don't see any good reason that he would dislike it. He would dislike it probably in just the same way he dislikes many things: even though not all homosexuals are fruity, many are. And many homosexuals are just as last mannish as the rest. But there's nothing inherently wrong in it. The Greeks loved fucking boys and they were the shit to Nietzsche so who cares really

>>7190914
suck ur nan u prick

>>7191855
>There's actually a decent possibility that he was homosexual himself.
How come? Wikipedia mentions it and calls it bullshit, and I haven't heard about it anywhere else.

>>7191870
There is no 'we' fam, 'we' aren't your online friends.

>>7191876
Go fuck your mother

>>7191881
Rude, that's no way to treat your online friend :^)

>>7191886
you fucking son of a cow
i don
t ca
re

>>7191893
you clearly do though, seeing as there's nothing to be gained or lost from replying to me :^)

>>7191875
I remember a lecture where rob Solomon talks about it. I don't personally believe it.

But the point is still that he wouldn't probably mind it. Homosexuality never caused the decay of any culture and is perfectly Dionysian.

But having had a few gay relationships myself (though I'm not pretty exclusively straight) I've found that basically all gay men are horribly boring, vapid people. They tend more so as a group to be last men than straight men.

>>7191895
fuck off

>>7191899
I'm *now pretty exclusively straight

Not that my sexual preference matters

>>7191895
top lel


top lel

Nietzsche confirmed for proto-/r9k/ scum. Thanks for clarifying for me exactly why I don't need to read this guy.

>>7191900
why are you so angry anon?

>>7191909
Yes ignore the subtext and please continue broadcasting your opinions, they're very interesting and I'm enjoying them very much

>>7191943

What subtext? The subtext I see in these extracts is that Nitch was a droning boor who, in these cases, used his obvious talent as a writer to pontificate priggishly based on his own impoverished experience of the opposite sex. He doesn't even attempt to apply logic or be persuasive, he just makes brash assertions clearly aimed at the kind of reader who will connect them with their own experiences and go 'hey yeah right on man'. There's nothing challenging or insightful about this text, it doesn't engage with any sort of debate or search for truth, it's just narrow-minded screed intended to be wanked over by guys who already felt the same.

I'm sure this isn't his best work, but still, it really puts me off of the idea of reading anything else by him.

But hey. if I'm missing some important subtext here then by all means fill me in

>>7191973
>implying you can understand something outside of your experience

>>7191978

oh right you're an idiot

okay bye

>>7191979
>implying i want you to read nietzsche

>>7191981

thought maybe you were on /lit/ to talk about books but, my mistake, evidently you're just here to post smug greentext comments

>>7191985
ok dude

>>7191973
Do you even grasp what he's saying about feminism?

He's saying the obvious. First, why do women want to become like men in any way? Nietzsche sees the men of his age as pathetic and despicable, it's a corruption for women to want to become like that.

As for the other part, he's criticizing male entitlement. He's saying women can be cruel lovers and that's fucking great. As it should be. Forcing women to love men and to enjoy it is a corruption of women.

And his anti-equalitarianism has always been apparent in his philosophy.

Maybe the translation I posted sucked but after I re-read it I realized he's sounding /r9k/ on purpose but is actually satirizing them. Because almost the whole of Ecce homo is a satire.

Seriously, read the passage carefully instead of judging it. The only conclusion is that he's presenting /r9k/ as despicable.

And Nietzsche was a repressed, lonely person when he wrote these passages. Of course that's contextual. Your flailing attempt at "le superiority", as though your shit doesn't stink and you're "better than" Nietzsche is the biggest tell that you're as fucked up in the head as he was, if not more, because Nietzsche at least recognized he was a bitter, fucked up soul.

>>7191979
There's something wrong with you.

Your visceral reaction to the criticism of feminism is 100% exactly why you're not ever going to comprehend his subtlety. Nietzsche despises feminists because he knows they will do what you did, which is to give the passage a cursory reading, presume it's horrible and move on. You won't even try to refute yourself. It's a mental disease. You'd realize how pro-female the paragraphs are if you'd try.

Nietzsche was incredibly important in the development of feminism FYI

>>7191990
From where do you get that Nietzsche was bitter, aside from him apparently having no luck with women and him being very anti-everything?

>>7192001
He complains about being lonely all the time in his letters. Those emotions obviously had an impact on his writings, especially like the OP which is essentially his teary-eyed admittance that him and men like him are unlovable.

You're right though. It's not bitter.

>>7192005
>especially like the OP which is essentially his teary-eyed admittance that him and men like him are unlovable.
Are you saying that the part about selfless, objective men is talking about himself? Or are you talking about another part, because I don't think Nietzsche is selflessly objective or thinks of himself in that way, unless he means something different by those words than what I imagine.

>>7191724
>I always thought this kind of behavior was because of radical feminism, but I guess women were always bitches.
actually, there is also a pride from those feminists, but the non-radical feminists do not hesitate to benefit from the perks brought by the radical ones. Plus, since only the radical feminists make the behavior explicit, it permits the non-radical ones to claim that they are not-radical while still benefiting form the perks.

>>7192013
>Are you saying that the part about selfless, objective men is talking about himself?
Yes. He clearly is. "Selfless" also meaning without ego.

Is he not speaking objectively here? Nietzsche is a perspectivist, whenever he's spouting shit in one of his crazy rants he's basically reciting a viewpoint. Who's viewpoint is he referring to?

>Or are you talking about another part, because I don't think Nietzsche is selflessly objective or thinks of himself in that way, unless he means something different by those words than what I imagine.
Read "objective" carefully. He doesn't mean "men who think rationally", that's the parody. He means men who aren't subjects, they've got penises and the "objects" of men but don't have the souls and passions of men. In Zarathustra the last men. To become a subject is to become truly human, it's to have an ego, to be full.

He's saying that men of passion are the ones who women love, and just being a man doesn't make you deserving of anything. And it's not that men of passion do deserve it, but passion is just necessary to be loved by women in the true sense.

Is not the ability of women to love who they want the ultimate feminist principle?

>>7191990

>>7191990

>he's sounding /r9k/ on purpose but is actually satirizing them. Because almost the whole of Ecce homo is a satire.

If the context of this passage in the larger work makes it obvious that it's satire then I accept that. Nothing in the passage itself makes that clear at all, though.

>>7191994

Where is there anything pro-female in this passage? That's not a rhetorical question, if I'm missing something then please help me see it. All I see that could be interpreted as pro-women is the odd comment along these lines: 'the natural state of things, the eternal war between the sexes, certainly assigns her by far the first rank.'

In the context of the other stuff about 'emancipated women' having missed the boat this basically parses as 'women get husbands who knock them up and give them kids, which is all they need, so they should be happy'.

I don't see anything in this passage materially different from the view of modern-day MRA bloggers like Roissy. Women are incapable of love and logic, driven only by the primal needs of their reproductive systems -> successful women 'win' by entrapping a man into giving her children and security -> unsuccessful women take revenge through feminism, which is against nature.

I'm really more than happy for you to show me how I'm wrong, if I truly have got the wrong end of the stick here.

>>7192022
Women can be bitches if they want to, it's just the imperative that "real women don't need no men" or I have to love or respect her bitchiness that's the problem.

>>7192024
>Is not the ability of women to love who they want the ultimate feminist principle?
it is, but men must not confuse the love from women as the love from men towards women.

>>7192032
>Nothing in the passage itself makes that clear at all, though.
You're right. Nietzsche is never clear. That's because you're suppose to understand that noble is ever clear, another principle of psychoanalysis. So often what we say is an expression of some ulterior desire. And Nietzsche tries to capture this radical subjectivity in his philosophy, because he sees objectivity as fundamentally a sham and a deception.

As far as the passage, read >>7192024 . We can talk more about the specifics too.

>>7192032
Ecce homo is not satire or sarcastic, when academic can't handle something, they call it satire.

Everything is very clear, they are just trying to muddy his infinite wisdom.

>>7192032
>Where is there anything pro-female in this passage? That's not a rhetorical question, if I'm missing something then please help me see it. All I see that could be interpreted as pro-women is the odd comment along these lines: 'the natural state of things, the eternal war between the sexes, certainly assigns her by far the first rank.'
He's basically saying that men do what they do for the opinion of women.

>In the context of the other stuff about 'emancipated women' having missed the boat this basically parses as 'women get husbands who knock them up and give them kids, which is all they need, so they should be happy'.
This is in context of a passage where Nietzsche rips into happiness as anything to be desired. It's one of the first principles again of Nietzsche, Freud and psychoanalysis that happiness is NOT what we want. But he's speaking from a male perspective: how do men "fix" this horrible torture of women? Pregnancy is for sure correct; it forces women to depend on men. It's true but you're wrong if you think he's seriously advocating that as a practical medical cure for anything, he's saying male psychology cannot handle female psychology.

>I don't see anything in this passage materially different from the view of modern-day MRA bloggers like Roissy. Women are incapable of love and logic, driven only by the primal needs of their reproductive systems -> successful women 'win' by entrapping a man into giving her children and security -> unsuccessful women take revenge through feminism, which is against nature.
Haha he's mocking male "rationality" extremely hard in this section, and just previous to it (literally two sentences or so) he mocks the idea of the purely egoist or unegoist action (both are absurd to him)

He's not saying men are rational or whatever, he's saying they're dumb and irrational. (Nobody is ever objective or rational to a psychologist)

>I'm really more than happy for you to show me how I'm wrong, if I truly have got the wrong end of the stick here.

No, I'm glad to have a discussion. It makes me actually work. Times like this are why I come to /lit/

>>7192040
Of course not, I agree

>>7192053
Eh, what? That's not true at all. Nietzsche was actually an incredibly humble person IRL. I bet you think Stephen Colbert is an overbearing, egotistical asshole in his personal affairs too..

>>7192062
>Eh, what? That's not true at all. Nietzsche was actually an incredibly humble person IRL. I bet you think Stephen Colbert is an overbearing, egotistical asshole in his personal affairs too..

Yeah... that's at the very beginning of ecce homo, that he has "multiple faces" and has no problem being a "good european"

Did you read the book?

>>7192032
>Where is there anything pro-female in this passage?

>Ah, what a dangerous, creeping, subterranean little beast of prey she is! And so agreeable at the same time!

Nietzsche often conceives of danger as good. Compare with this quote from Zarathustra:
>The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

I mean, I have a hard time finding something blatantly anti-female(as opposed to anti-feminist) in here, when more familiar with Nietzsche. You just confuse Nietzsches values with typical values, so when he says "evil" you think "bad", but this is a mistake!

>>7192032
Oh and as far as feminism is concerned, yes, it's perverse. Marilyn Monroe used her sexuality and went wild on men. She wasn't a feminist. She was the ideal woman he describes.

Naturally, she's a huge role model to feminists who demand "rights".

As for voting, in order for you to view it as a good thing that women vote, you first must take the right to vote as a serious apparatus. I don't. I've never once voted seriously and view American politics as a sham. IMO, the right to vote is essentially "the right to be lied to and manipulated", to be treated like cattle.

Yes, Nietzsche despises every feminist who will try to come up with a system for anything (he utterly despises any and all systems, including political ones), but that doesn't make him /r9k/.

>>7192072
Did you also take that section where he describes a person with the caveat that he "forbids you to imagine who he's speaking of" seriously?

>one passage in a satire suggests it's not a satire therefore it's not

The command that you can't figure out who he's talking about is an imperative to do that exact thing, and pretending to be serious is the core of satire.

>>7192073
Yes, unless if you're dumb as fuck and believe being anti-feminist is being anti-woman, the distinction this poster makes is dead accurate to what Nietzsche is trying to do.

>>7192079
The passage say "I forbid any conjecture about whom I may be describing in this passage. "

Which make total sense to me and is not satire or sarcastic.

>>7192072
It's also important to note that "satire" doesn't mean "doesn't have serious intent". Clearly Nietzsche is serious in this book but what points are explicitly what he believes are hard to come by.

>>7192089
Yeah I was paraphrasing a translation.

If you read that and just went "okay" and went with it instead of trying to figure it out, then I have bad news for your ability to comprehend Nietzsche's humor.

>>7192054

Cool, okay, nice to find a couple of people willing to actually talk about books.

>He's basically saying that men do what they do for the opinion of women.

Yeah, fair enough; this passage is just as contemptuous (although less explictly) towards men as it is towards women. I'll accept that. I get that he's mocking male 'rationality'. But then, somebody like Roissy has plenty of scorn to pour on 'beta males' as well.

>This is in context of a passage where Nietzsche rips into happiness as anything to be desired. It's one of the first principles again of Nietzsche, Freud and psychoanalysis that happiness is NOT what we want. But he's speaking from a male perspective: how do men "fix" this horrible torture of women? Pregnancy is for sure correct; it forces women to depend on men. It's true but you're wrong if you think he's seriously advocating that as a practical medical cure for anything, he's saying male psychology cannot handle female psychology.

But he doesn't just present pregnancy as a male solution to the problem of being tormented by women. He also presents it as the successful culmination of womanhood, when he talks about 'the instinctive hatred of the dysfunctional, that is, unfruitful woman, toward one who is functional'.

He states pretty explicitly that any attempt by a female to achieve anything more/other than breeding is nothing but the embittered flailings of a woman who couldn't snag a man - doesn't he?

>>7192062
>Eh, what? That's not true at all. Nietzsche was actually an incredibly humble person IRL.
The kind of mild, pleasant manner I believe Nietzsche had in person is not in contradiction with his wild, extravagant claims of himself; "Why I am so clever", "Why I write such good books", why he "is one who tears history into two pieces, one before and one after him...". He is mild and pleasant, but also very sure in his abilities, in fact this assurance is part of why he is mild and pleasant, he does not see a reason to assert them... Except when it is time to speak of himself and his abilities, there he sees a reason to bring them into light, as another lecture in his philosophy. His mildness is not humility, the way christian humility is a method to cripple and bring down the greater personalities, he is not self-depreciating(though I might very well be wrong, I'm not exactly intimately familiar with how nietzsche acted in public, especially from a perspective that was not his).

Or are you speaking about another form of satire in ecce homo?

>>7192097
Why do you devalue motherhood and pregnancy?

>>7192073
>The true man wants two things: danger and play

no, this is nothing but some fantasy from a spineless man. the true man remains immune to the woman.

>>7192104
Who are some of your true men?

>>7192097
>somebody like Roissy has plenty of scorn to pour on 'beta males' as well.
so then your major contention with this passage is that it cleaves too close to men like heartiste, roissy and the like?

>He states pretty explicitly that any attempt by a female to achieve anything more/other than breeding is nothing but the embittered flailings of a woman who couldn't snag a man - doesn't he?
I think it's fairly obvious if you look at reality for like two seconds that pregnancy and having children is extremely important to women and is basically the most important aspect of life for the majority of them.

Be careful to read "feminism" with proper historical context. Feminism today is a different animal. But there is clearly a large segment of feminism that is literally *tipa fedora* tier anger and ressentiment towards men, from women who are ugly, undesirable or fat ("infertile" in the social sense), and that's what he's arguing against most directly. I still don't think Nietzsche would like modern feminism but he would say different things about it, not this exactly.

>>7192073

I appreciate you actually engaging with me on this but I feel like the Nietzsche fans in this thread are a bit too convinced of their own exegetical superiority. Of course I understand that 'evil' is a subjective term and that a guy like this wouldn't deploy it in a Judeo-Christian sense.

I get that when Nietzsche presents women as cruel and dangerous he's talking with some admiration and isn't intending a slight on them; if anything he has contempt for the men they prey on. But still we come down to this view where it's all biology, where the purpose of womanhood is to squeeze out a sprog and any thwarting of that goal leads to perversions of the natural order.

This is not conducive to healthy gender relations.

>>7192103

I don't, I just object to the fear and derision with which Nietzsche regards all behaviour by women EXCEPT the pursuit of motherhood and pregnancy.

>>7188149
you really gonna take his opinion on women seriously?
yes, along with shope's and all the greats because it backs up my extensive experience.

She was just a muse for all the poet lads... she served her purpose... You are just a long-term partner cuck... Serve yours.

>>7192098
No I think you're right here. He legitimately believes his philosophy is very good and important, I don't think he's "humble" in that sense.

What I mean is, when he writes "why I write such great books", he's sort of parodying the egotistical fuck you have to already be to even write an autobiography. You have to presume you're worth reading about to write one. So he just takes that implicit emotion and writes it explicitly on the page, a form of satire. So he really does believe he writes great books, but he's not being entirely direct in saying that. Because the context in which that line is said effects the meaning.

What I mean when I say he's humble is that he's always self aware. Nietzsche knows how fucking pretentious he is and plays with it. He chooses to remain cocky even though he knows how absurd it is

>>7192107

>so then your major contention with this passage is that it cleaves too close to men like heartiste, roissy and the like?

Yes (heartiste and roissy are one and the same, by the by). It seems to me that this is where we find the roots of evo-psych bloggers with one foot in the game/MRA camp and the other in the Trump-for-president camp. The kind of guys who caused the term 'cuckservative' to appear in mainstream political discourse.

Maybe my original mistake was to conflate these sort of guys with /r9k/, because /r9k/ is a step down the ladder; although feeding from the same ideological troughs, /r9k/ see themselves as victims, not as impartial observers or profiteers of the societal struggle that they perceive.

>>7192108
>I get that when Nietzsche presents women as cruel and dangerous he's talking with some admiration and isn't intending a slight on them; if anything he has contempt for the men they prey on. But still we come down to this view where it's all biology, where the purpose of womanhood is to squeeze out a sprog and any thwarting of that goal leads to perversions of the natural order.

>This is not conducive to healthy gender relations.

Eating the forbidden fruit always does this. Most science actually tends to confirm Hume's sentimentalism and behavioral psychology. But you're right, any random observation of the facts leads to a broken world view.

So like, they can do tests on women's hormones and they're most fertile in the early stages of a relationship. And they will feel impelled to leave if copulation isn't successful after a year or so. So unless if you want to reject this, then you're going to have to admit that children and pregnancy are a huge force driving women's subliminal desires in a relationship. That doesn't mean that's what's "good" for the ideals in the woman's conscious mind.

And no, Nietzsche is not presenting a female teleology. His comment about "fixing" women is obviously meant from a male perspective.

>>7192125

pure ideology

>>7192125

I would never try to deny that parenthood is important to a majority of women, or even that this is a biological imperative. Just like men have a biological imperative to get their end away.

But there's a long way from 'we have an instinctive drive to reproduce' to 'any woman who wants to be active in public life, or educate herself, or speak out on any topic, must be barren or can't get a man'.

To extend that logic, any man who has ever been a great statesman or scientist or general must be a pathetic loser who can't get laid, or else he would never have had time to do anything but wade through pussy - am I right?

This is the philosopher's version of that kid who goes to the bar to pick up chicks, feels belittled by the experience -spurning girls and the mocking guys they go home with- so he goes home and reminds himself why they all suck, for hours.

Poor N. So smart, so broken.

>>7192117
I see. I've read plenty of his stuff and he's smart and actually influenced my thought to a degree.

I can't say whether he's wrong. I don't find his views palatable and I think sometimes he's dead wrong. But the core ideas, maybe not in their exact understanding, have a degree of validity. I'd sublate them, not negate them, if you know Hegelian terminology at all.

Where I think you're wrong to dismiss this sort of biological determinism. Do you really believe women do not have a strong subconscious urge to have a baby?

>>7192135
We're speaking here of causation. We agree that biology is causally determinant in what people desire. Okay.

What Nietzsche is pointing out is something so basically human that it's almost absurd to have to point out. Are not fedora-tippers usually ugly, fat, weak? Are not feminists usually fat or unattractive too? Both of these are obvious correlations?

But the answer is what way the causation goes. I don't think Nietzsche is wrong at all that "infertile/undesirable" women are subliminally frustrated about sexuality and thus cleave to feminism.

>To extend that logic, any man who has ever been a great statesman or scientist or general must be a pathetic loser who can't get laid, or else he would never have had time to do anything but wade through pussy - am I right?

What? I find this paragraph confusing. Why would successful men be virgins by that logic?

>>7192129
Explain

>>7192138
Please don't post in this thread anymore

>>7192140

I mean yeah I spent some time reading Roissy's backlog too; his older stuff - before he got so into the /pol/ side of things, when he was mostly writing about game - is quite engaging. I agree that he has some valid ideas and, yes, biological determinism holds some water and shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

But see my reply to the other guy, above:
>>7192135
Yes, women have a strong subconscious urge to have a baby. People have many strong subconscious urges and reproduction is one of the strongest.

But on the basis of that, to write off women in particular as incapable of moving beyond their primal instincts is just silly. I know women who care about their careers and their passions just as much as me or any of my male friends. And yes, at some point most of them will probably want to have a child, but that isn't the be-all and end-all of their activity in this world any more than fathering a child is the be-all and end-all of men.

>>7192114
Yeah, I had similar thoughts, but decided to not put them in the post. It's impossible that a man who's as sensitive(in the perceptive way) as Nietzsche wouldn't realize how pompous "Why I am so wise" sounds.

>>7192108


>I don't, I just object to the fear and derision with which Nietzsche regards all behaviour by women EXCEPT the pursuit of motherhood and pregnancy.
ALL behavior? Presumably you're only talking about the OP section, and what other behavior does he outline there?
Feminism, equal rights, voting, "to be as the modern men", anarchism as counterattack against power. But these are behaviors that nietzsche hates in men as well! And I have yet to see evidence for him being some taliban-type dude who goes around and wants women put in the kitchen.

>>7192151
>Are not feminists usually fat or unattractive too?
I need to interject, in our contemporary age feminism is a very vast movement, and to call feminists usually fat or unattractive is to pay the argument a disservice. I would wager that if you were to ask a class of blonde swedish volleyball girls, all of them would call themselves feminist, except for occasional reactionary-type women. We're far beyond the suffragette movement.

>>7192153
"Perfectly happy" is schlock to Nietzsche. Women live long lives. They obviously don't spend every second of their lives trying to have children. Again, it's obvious just by looking at reality.

Most women, though, at some point in their lives do want to have a child. And if you look, you'll find that most women who don't have children express that their biggest regret was not doing so.

It's not that women can't enjoy other things, it's that having children is a bigger subliminal pressure in women's minds than in men's. That's all he means and I don't think he's wrong.

So when he means "fixing" women he means - if a woman gets pregnant - that will overtake her life very easily.

Also fuck street name sign captchas.

>>7192108
Also I agree with the other poster. It sounds like you're too structured and encoded by "patriarchy" style thinking. Get over feminism, it's basically all bullshit.

Nietzsche is not saying women cannot do other things with success, he's just commenting on the most fixed element of their subconscious.

Does anyone have the nietzsche quote about women being able to turn into men, but in the hundreds of years during the process they would be afflicted with the flaws of both genders?

>>7192151

>What? I find this paragraph confusing. Why would successful men be virgins by that logic?

Because the implication is that any woman who cares about anything other than reproduction must be broken. Why shouldn't the same be true of men?

Let me anticipate your answer: because a man just has to stick his dick in a vagina for a few minutes to father a child, but a woman has to carry it for 9 months, bear it and raise it. Right?

But that kind of determinism should only be used to explain conduct, not to guide it. Modern society tends to agree that reproduction is a joint act and the children are a joint responsibility. Reject that if you like, but I get on board with it because I think we can be more than our most basic instincts. Biological determinists will point at every incident of failed marriage, or racial conflict, or an 'alpha male' getting what he wants, and hold it up as evidence that biology still rules everything. But what they ignore is the massive societal shift that makes those things increasingly aberrant.

In the end I guess I believe in progress, so yeah, Nietzsche is never going to be for me.

>>7192162
>it's that having children is a bigger subliminal pressure
the pressure is not ''to have a baby'', but ''to have a baby from the men they want''

women believe that they live through their choices that lead us to fine pleasures

>>7192161
Yeah except literally everybody in white society is not a racist, likes equal rights and so on (please read that as cynically as possible). We live as last men in Nietzsche's view. It's so much better to live in a society when the advantaged in society don't pretend to give a fuck about others

The most radical feminists are still Dworkins tier.

>>7192169
>Reject that if you like, but I get on board with it because I think we can be more than our most basic instincts.
yes sure, until the woman kills their children, because ''it is not the right time'' and be proud of it

>>7192162

But.. I never said 'perfectly happy'. I'm confused.

If we reduce this piece of writing to 'most women want to have children, it's important to them' then I agree but it isn't much of a controversial or insightful statement, is it?

Where I take issue with it is the contemptuous language used, the particularism of his views ('women are like this') and the sweeping generalisations.

>>7192167

I mean if you think feminism is bullshit then I guess we just have nothing to talk about. I don't think this a matter of encoding or 'getting over' feminism (muh red pill); this is a matter of fundamental differences of opinion. I believe in equal rights and opportunities.

>>7192175

I'm trying to bask in the pleasure of actually having had a reasonably civil and text-based discussion on /lit/, please don't ruin my afterglow by shoe-horning in an abortion debate.

>>7192169
>Because the implication is that any woman who cares about anything other than reproduction must be broken.
No, it implies that feminism in Nietzsche's day was driven by women who couldn't have children and thus tried to drag other women down. You're now reading stuff that's not even subtext, you're imposing words that aren't there.

Nietzsche's not saying that wanting things besides children is wrong, he's saying that if a woman doesn't even have that option she basically becomes batshit and resents women who do. Which is essentially a truism if you just look at the world.

I believe though that you swallowed the feminist pill that tells you women were literally helpless all through history and were oppressed and just recently were able to do things, aka you associate feminism with "good for women", you've been conned.

And you're right. Nietzsche says feminists are incompatible with his view, you're too corrupted in your "objective" beliefs of history. Utterly despicable.

>>7192169
>Because the implication is that any woman who cares about anything other than reproduction must be broken.
No, it is the observation that the women who reject their womanly roles are broken. And this rejection is not a strong one, that passes through the barrier of roles like they were dust in the wind, this is a rejection born of weakness, of inability to bear your role, of resentment, which is why they turn it into a political democratic movement and try to have the whole thing of gender roles abolished. The tripfag butterfly used to use Pippi Longstocking as an example of the overman, Pippi doesn't behave like a good little girl as expected of her, but pippi also does not revolt against the authority of that fat bitch prussiluskan, she just ignores it. Pippi doesn't try to start a femen movement with annika to overthrow the patriarchy, she just does whatever the fuck she feels like at the moment, all actions are done with light feet, as play...

>>7192182
>If we reduce this piece of writing to 'most women want to have children, it's important to them' then I agree but it isn't much of a controversial or insightful statement, is it?

It's not because Nietzsche uses it to explain why feminists are so gross.

>I believe in equal rights and opportunities.
Yeah then we don't have anything to talk about. Equality is sickness. You're sick and need to analyze your own desires. A good start is to analyze why you can't handle looking at the world without a system of thought (the biggest sign of illness)

I'm not a "red piller", and my views are pro equalitarianism in some ways, just a caveat

>>7192182
>I believe in equal rights and opportunities.

>>7192184

>I believe though that you swallowed the feminist pill that tells you women were literally helpless all through history and were oppressed and just recently were able to do things, aka you associate feminism with "good for women", you've been conned.

As someone whose chief passion and interest is history, I'd be very interested for you to expand more on this and explain how the patriarchy is a lie.

>>7192185

So basically Nietzsche just rejects all notions of politics and social responsibility. Which I guess I already knew.

I can see the appeal of this because personally I'm selfish and politically disengaged, more interested in avoiding inconvenient systems than fighting to change them. But if nobody ever fights to change them, most people keep getting fucked. So, really, it's a good thing that there are people out there who are willing to pit themselves against what they perceive as wrong rather than just high-handedly disengage.

>>7192190

>my views are pro equalitarianism in some ways
>Equality is sickness

?

>A good start is to analyze why you can't handle looking at the world without a system of thought (the biggest sign of illness)

You might need to explain further because, in my humble opinion, it's a blatant impossibility to perceive anything without interpreting it, and as soon as you start interpreting you are creating a system of thought. Or are you just accusing me of being programmed by a received system of thought? I don't think that's the case and I'm unsure why you draw that conclusion.

>>7192185
This as fuck. It's not that women should let themselves be controlled, it's that the feminist system of thought is the wrong response to it. It's diseased thinking.

for all this talk on feminism you guys really should read feminist works

you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about

what a shit thread lmao. why is it that threads about women always get a minimum of 100 replies on /lit/?

>>7192201
>As someone whose chief passion and interest is history, I'd be very interested for you to expand more on this and explain how the patriarchy is a lie.

Because it's too simple and history is always a reconstruction, a story, an experience of psychoanalysis.

It's not that it's necessarily wrong, it's that it makes the wrong presuppositions about what history is and what it can do. History is just a collection of stories we tell, with no ability to prove any absolute degree of efficacy.

>So basically Nietzsche just rejects all notions of politics and social responsibility. Which I guess I already knew.
No no no no no no. All wrong.

>>7192204

teen males generally have mother issues

>>7192209

>History is just a collection of stories we tell, with no ability to prove any absolute degree of efficacy.

this clearly goes for the dogma 'patriarchy is a lie'

>>7192201
>You might need to explain further because, in my humble opinion, it's a blatant impossibility to perceive anything without interpreting it, and as soon as you start interpreting you are creating a system of thought. Or are you just accusing me of being programmed by a received system of thought? I don't think that's the case and I'm unsure why you draw that conclusion.
Once you accept something like patriarchy theory, you lose the ability to not read patriarchy into history. You get stuck in that system and you don't develop it.

As Nietzsche puts it rather, "I mistrust all systematizers", because it's basically 100% true that every time someone tries to establish a system of thought, it's meant to control you.

(This is basically in the ethical sense, doesn't pertain to science. Patriarchy theory is the same Marxist dupe of viewing history as an "objective structure" that influences primitive moral concerns)

Yes I'm for equality of income because I'm poor and the rich suck ass. Jacobins are better than those assholes.

>>7192214
Not really, because not all lies are false.

>>7192182
>, please don't ruin my afterglow by shoe-horning in an abortion debate.
it was indeed the goal, but the demand of free abortion and even pills to avoid pregnancy is clearly against N.

and it is not even clear that mothers are tamed after their pregnancies.

>>7192221

wow
you don't know how to think or use words apparently

>>7192216
>>Yes I'm for equality of income because I'm poor and the rich suck ass.
being this resentful

>>7192209

Of course history is always a construction, like any interpretation. But it's based on actual past events. There is a truth which we can approach more or less closely based on evidence, and it's perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions from what we know or think we know. e.g., we know from textual sources that the prevailing systems of thought in Europe for most of recorded history tended to place harsh limitations on women's rights and had pretty strong views about their proper role in society. By all means refute this by an alternate interpretation of the available evidence, but by stating 'you've been conned' you're not really contributing to the dialectic.

>No no no no no no. All wrong.

Please explain. Nietzsche appears to me to have a thorough contempt for all forms of political participation. I'm happy to be exposed to counter-evidence, though.

>>7192216

I agree with mistrusting all pre-packaged systems of thought. Nonetheless I believe, based on my own reading of the available evidence and consideration of arguments from multiple perspectives, that women have tended to be subjected to men throughout history.

If you want to tell me that's wrong, you're going to need a better argument than 'it's wrong because some people say it's right'.

>>7192232

good post

/thread

>>7192232
>But it's based on actual past events. There is a truth which we can approach more or less closely based on evidence, and it's perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions from what we know or think we know.
no need to be such a realist-rationalist.

the question is not whether history is construction, existed or not. the question is why do you care about history at all.

>>7192242

I mean... I think caring about history is a pretty widely accepted position. The reasons for caring about it are commonly known. Maybe it would be more productive if you explained why you think we shouldn't.

>>7192201
>I can see the appeal of this because personally I'm selfish and politically disengaged, more interested in avoiding inconvenient systems than fighting to change them. But if nobody ever fights to change them, most people keep getting fucked. So, really, it's a good thing that there are people out there who are willing to pit themselves against what they perceive as wrong rather than just high-handedly disengage.
This is not a question of: is this movement good? But rather: why does this movement exist, what is the psychology behind it? Why would someone take a great burden on themselves for this specific crusade?

>>7192228
Lel

Confirmed for inhuman autist

If your mom asks you what you did, you say you went to the store, which you did yesterday (aka you're being "truthful") when you were actually smoking pot, you're lying.

>>7192232
>we know from textual sources that the prevailing systems of thought in Europe for most of recorded history tended to place harsh limitations on women's rights and had pretty strong views about their proper role in society.
And men didn't? Sure the men on top had freedom, but for most people even today they have a "proper role".

History also has a massive survivorship bias, just like all science.

>Please explain. Nietzsche appears to me to have a thorough contempt for all forms of political participation.
Democracy yes, but he loved Julius Caesar and Cesare Borgia

>I agree with mistrusting all pre-packaged systems of thought. Nonetheless I believe, based on my own reading of the available evidence and consideration of arguments from multiple perspectives, that women have tended to be subjected to men throughout history.
I agree, but again you're giving a limited and frankly stupid view of history because you're only considering the perspective you're considering. Subjection is the typical human state.

>>7192228
Yeah I'm resentful and if I had any balls i would cut off donald trumps head.

>>7192204
>such works are mirrors: when an ape looks in, no apostle can look out
t. lichtenberg

>>7192253

truth/falsity of 'patriarchy is a lie' is irrelevant when you consider the passage I quoted in my post

Go read a book Quasimodo

>>7192257
Just remember when you're reading ancient texts you're reading the opinions of people who wrote texts. And your inability to recognize your own biases is astounding.

Just remember that the desire for equality is an illness. Good night.

>>7192253

>And men didn't? Sure the men on top had freedom, but for most people even today they have a "proper role".

That's true, but it doesn't diminish my point. Multiple different forms of subjection can coexist in the same societal structure. Feminist theorists call this intersectionality and frankly I find it pretty dreary because it's just common sense.

>Democracy yes, but he loved Julius Caesar and Cesare Borgia

Precisely: he admires personal charisma backed up by an amoral drive to impose one's will on the world. In other words, he has contempt for politics and social responsibility. Which is what I originally said.

>>7192268
>ceasar and borgia weren't doing politics
ayy lmao

>>7192268
Alright well, you can care about feminism all you want, I'm dropping out of the convo because I'm pretty bored.

I just don't really care that much about oppressed people. They are boring as fuck. Reading one story about Julius Caesar is 100x more entertaining than 100 essays about the intersectionality in ancient Egyptian society. So I'll keep doing what I do and you can too. Good night.

>>7192270

Okay, maybe my use of the term 'politics' was not transparent. To me, a Caesar or a Borgia is not a political force but an anti-political one. The seizure and exercise of power through non-political means negates politics.

But I accept that the broader definition of politics encompasses all manner of systems of governance, so okay, my bad.

What I mean to say, then, is that Nietzsche despised public discourse, democratic process and - again - social responsibility.

>>7192272

peace

>>7192272
i liked the story about Caesar where he was captured by pirates and went all "i'm totally going to kill you cheeky bastards when I'm released haha" and then they all had a good time and then he was released and he had them all executed

>>7192277
>social responsibility

beefsteak
and
an
'unbelievable'
quantity
of
FRUIT
R
U
I
T

>>7192283

But it's not a spook, because nobody is claiming any kind of objective truth for it. It's just a useful concept because it helps us to build societies where people don't act like cunts to each other all the time.

If you pursue ideological purity then it's going to turn out to be the biggest spook of all.

>>7192286
social responsibility is a spook

>>7192203
>>7192204
This, how could you judge something you know nothing about, most of you probably haven't even read a book by a woman (ayn rand doesn't count).

I agree with him that knocking up a broad changes everything, i know many women would probably have been dumb club sluts if they weren't stupid and have unprotected sex in their early teens.
Now they are boring house wives that are wasting their lives away having to raise the parasite that came out of their snatch

>>7192298
>Now they are boring house wives that are wasting their lives away having to raise the parasite that came out of their snatch
in appearance, but they are still fucked by a few lovers, just like they have always been. Women do not change and there is no ''rotting away'' possible for women, since there is nothing to salvage beforehand.

>>7192302
they are too fat and ugly now for people to fuck

>>7192152
If you think N's 'rejection-motivation' isn't a necessary consideration for the truth and meaning of his statements, then you're identified with him so deeply, you've drunk so deeply of the 'superiority-avoidant' drink, you could never uncloud your eyes. It's N's all the way down for you.

>>7192232

If you understood that those systems usually saw the family or at least the landholding family as the basic unit of society rather than the atomized interchangeable individual, you wouldn't need patriarchy to explain how things worked.

Men and women are different. As individuals they were treated differently under law with the assumption that they'd form a family and reproduce, and that to some degree they'd make decisions together from then on.

Men worked and provided for their families and women fulfilled their role by holding the home front. They were protected where possible from the horrors and dangers of life and could influence their men to act on their behalf, despite having less skin in the game. The man nominally lead the household because he was expected to provide for it but this hideous notion that this stripped women of all power and agency and left them unwillingly oppressed until feminism rescued them is as degrading to women as it is to men and European civilisation. Its a toxic, narrow and simplistic view and I can't stand it.

Women today have more rights and privileges under law because theye retained their prior social and legal protections and have been granted by, 'the patriarchy,' without bloodshed the rights and privileges of men. Patriarchy is the triumphalist projection of those who deem this just of their ideology upon the history of our civilisation and I won't leave such an insult unanswered. Go ahead and twist my words as your kind are want to do, I don't mind. I just couldn't let that guy you were arguing with let you have this without at least one dissenting voice raised against you.

>>7192337

>The man nominally lead the household because he was expected to provide for it but this hideous notion that this stripped women of all power and agency and left them unwillingly oppressed until feminism rescued them is as degrading to women as it is to men and European civilisation.

Yeah I pretty much agree with you, those were different times with different standards and it doesn't do to overstate how oppressed women were back then.

However, it's a fact that women's role in society limited the opportunities for individual women - who may have wanted more (or at least something different) than a life as a wife and mother. Men had the advantage of generally being free to aspire to more than just a domestic role if they wanted, although again this shouldn't be overstated; the aspirations of the lower classes have of course always been curtailed.

Nowadays society aims to give women the choice to pursue typically more 'male' lifestyle choices e.g. career focus, public office etc. An inherent tension arises from this because women generally do still feel the need to be wives and mothers, but are also told that they should be ambitious, and the fact is that traditional views of motherhood (still held by a vast majority) aren't really compatible with careerism.

I don't think the only, or correct, way to deal with this tension is to declare that feminism was a mistake and women should suck my dick and make me a sandwich. (Not saying you necessarily believe that, just pointing out how toxic this discourse can become).

Some guy from /r9k/ shot up a school the other day and a common response on that board was that this is women's fault for not putting out, and that the problem could be solved by state mandated girlfriends. Just saying.

>Women today have more rights and privileges under law

True, but they still get paid less and raped more. Go figure.

>at least one dissenting voice raised against you.

You are so brave.

>>7192354
>and a common response on that board was that this is women's fault for not putting out, and that the problem could be solved by state mandated girlfriends
I agree with the rest of your post, but this part was silly. You can't possibly be taking /r9k/ dank memes seriously. Don't be this stupid.

>>7192362

I dunno man, at the point where actual people are actually dying, it all gets a bit serious doesn't it?

I'm not saying that /r9k/ is a legitimate centre for debate or something, but it's an illustration of just how far the anti-feminist rabbit hole can go.

>>7192365
when have people (recently) actually been killed over feminism?

>>7192354
>>Some guy from /r9k/ shot up a school the other day and a common response on that board was that this is women's fault for not putting out, and that the problem could be solved by state mandated girlfriends
it would, because it decreases the cost of each woman

>>7192368
suicide of the father losing their children and having to pay child support to the exwife whereas she is already provided for by some other beta richer than the previous man stupid enough to settle with her.

>>7192354

>pay gap myth

Are you serious? I hate to do this but I'm going to have to tell you to read more broadly on that. Because it's a lot more complicated than, 'because penis.'

>Rape is already abhorred
>The inherent nature of male and female sexual function accounts for the discrepancy between male and female rape victimhood

I know I'm greentexting but these argumentsaare so tired and sjw that this is as polite as I can be.

You're right that men and women were treated differently under law but this is because different expectations were placed upon them. Men were expected to fight wars, stand between women and the worst of hardships, to bear the consequences of their family's behaviour including that of their wives, and other things.

I agree it was sub optimal. Failure to make allowances for rare exceptions must have cost us many Marie Curies over the course of history. But judging by the birth rates and dysfunctional single parent households of the feminist west, most of them wouldn't have been born under the current model.

My ideas could ruin my life if I am exposed, so yeah, standing up to people like you is brave. Though the anonymity kinda rains on that parade, haha.

Nietzsche was being rough as guts in those above paragraphs. I agree with you. Subtext or no, the modern mind boggles.

>>7192368

Not saying people were killed over it, just pointing out the perspective that sees state allocation of mating resources as a solution to individual psychosis. It's a pretty stark reflection on the whole embittered beta (their word, not mine) male psychology, to my mind. But I grant that it was a bit of a digression.

>>7192370

I know you're probably just trolling but fuck it, let me respond anyway because I'm sick of this shit:

- you've misidentified the problem

- your proposed solution, aside from being inhumane, would cause a practically infinite proliferation of new problems, and would be completely unenforcable

- your image has no basis in reality, it's a product of a warped worldview characterised by self-pity and entitlement; these guys who whine that women are being selfish by not sleeping with them are literally the same as fat girls on tumblr who whine that men are incorrect not to be attracted to them

>Are you serious? I hate to do this but I'm going to have to tell you to read more broadly on that. Because it's a lot more complicated than, 'because penis.'

Nah, okay, I get that I was being glib and I accept being called out for it. The pay gap is a thing but yes it's more complicated. Same with the rape thing; although I would still say that, whilst yes, it is generally abhorred in public discourse, there're still some incredibly unhelpful public attitudes towards rape which are still widespread even if not always straightforwardly expressed.

>My ideas could ruin my life if I am exposed, so yeah, standing up to people like you is brave.

My apologies if I seem like the PC-police or something, that is not my intention. I think you'll find that public opinion generally agrees more with you than it does with me; liberal media outlets/tumblr may be skewing your view of what ideas actually prevail with the general public.

>>7192354

>>7192354

Also the idea that women should put out to manlets who want to use them as fuckholes or face death is horrifying. This discourse often becomes toxic from both sides, I agree with you there.

I have to hit the sack as it's late here. Get back to Nietzsche I've derailed enough. The last word in our exchange is yours, sorry it has to be so brief.

>>7192393

Sorry, latter half of the post was aimed at
>>7192379

>>7192397

Cool; you're all right. Gnight

>>7192354
>>Nowadays society aims to give women the choice to pursue typically more 'male' lifestyle choices e.g


the feminists want what they perceive as the good life of the men that they desire, because, once more, most men are despised by the feminists. The feminists do not care about powerless little worms, they only see what they consider as good men.

>>7192428

>most men are despised by the feminists

As well say that most women are despised by the casual, socialised misogynists who form the largest societal group obstructing feminism.

>>7191909
>>7191973
>Anyone who has a remotely negative opinion about women has to be a retard
>If you're not a sycophant to femininity and put vaginas on a pedestal you're not a real man

kek

>>7192523
>if you don't have a negative opinion on women you're putting vaginas on a pedestal

>>7192531
>I won't read something from a philosopher because he MIGHT have a bad opinion of women

>>7192538
who are you quoting?

>>7192549
You. You obviously have a problem with people having a negative opinion of women, regardless if what they are saying is factually correct or not.

>>7192552
no, i posted one thing questioning your logic in one post. my own opinion isn't relevant or even known to you

>>7192552

But - and this is now actually the guy you were responding to - my issue is that what he's saying is not factually correct because it doesn't really contain any facts, he's just asserting that women who want to vote, wear trousers or be educated are embittered harridans.

This is tired ground really, already been over this once, I think maybe the couple of decent posters I was responding to have gone to bed and I should just move on tbh

>>7192565
>he's just asserting that women who want to vote, wear trousers or be educated are embittered harridans.

But this is true in a lot of cases. Obviously you have not been studying liberal arts at university like I have.

>>7187918
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU5cMZymSr0

this is the modern woman, strong and independent, needing no men besides to be fucked properly and having her orgasms.

>>7192488
no, most men adore to please women.
even those guys just wish to be considered by a woman.

the real misogynist remains rare and not vocal.

>>7191846
He'd probably criticize the rampant homosexuality of today as weakness and just another outpouring of herd mentality. Much of it is a negative reaction to the parents' expectations of the child and the absence of a stronger family unit as well.

>>7192599
I will never understand how a man would ever raise someone else's children.

>>7192587
>bear pls
>BEAR!
>WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT, BEAR!?
Oh my God she is so fucking thick.

>>7192608
when somebody feels pride in being a tutor, it doesnt matter if its his own kid

>>7192616
I get that, but you are essentially mopping up someone else's dirt.

in contrast, this is the great oppressor of women. the dangerous threat to them, enslaving and raping women as soon as he can

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_orOT3Prwg

>>7192619
that's essentially a superstition.
>i need at least 50% of my own DNA, else i can't do it

>>7192640
Dude, no-fault divorce actually exists. Which means that a woman might have left her husband and taken her kids with her, just because he refused to put to the fucking toilet seat down, i.e she can be a psychotic bitch, and you are voluntarily raising her children.

>>7192646
kinda irrelevant special case here, why should i be together with a psychotic bitch in the first place.

>>7192667
Fair enough, but I for one am not raising a child that doesn't have my genetic material.

>>7192675
MILFs appear, convictions vanish

>>7192709
Luckily, women don't talk to me at all, so I don't have to worry much about losing any convictions.

>>7188302
>>7188300
>>7188296
>>7188294
>>7188291
>>7188287
>>7188286
>>7188284
>>7188283
>>7188280
>>7188279
Who are you quoting? Seriously.

>>7193754
Your cuck father.

>>7192354
The problem dude is you insist women don't have a nature, not because of any factual concerns, but because women are often denied promotions and jobs because it's believed they will get pregnant. I.E., you structure "facts" around your political and social desires. I don't agree to any degree that we should accept this economic conditions where people are treated so harshly and competitively in labor markets, I'm a little socialist there, so I don't have to pretend women's strongest desire isn't children because I don't accept the fundamental economic beliefs you do.

AKA you're basically politically motivated instead of honest.

>>7192354
>I don't think the only, or correct, way to deal with this tension is to declare that feminism was a mistake and women should suck my dick and make me a sandwich.
Nobody is fucking saying that you retard, and neither is Nietzsche. You believe far too much that feminism is this dichotomy where you either are a feminist or you're a typical male chauvinist.

>>7192488
>As well say that most women are despised by the casual, socialised misogynists who form the largest societal group obstructing feminism.
Nice tribalism, kek.

>>7194516
you do understand that the liberals want that women have babies but only after their twenties.

the liberals frown upon teen pregnancies, up to shaming the girls, do everything they can to avoid them, and do nothing to favour teen pregnancies.

>>7195072
I suppose so

> These higher alpha men leave, without resentment, such a binarity as the whore-saint; happily they accept the woman for what she is; they do not expect anything from the woman, they do not blame the woman, they do not despise the woman, there would not even be a relevance to do otherwise. He understands that the female is a different creature from him, as he understands that an order between the female and the man remains unbecoming
Leo Tolstoy's wife copied out War and Peace 4 seperate times in longhand.


I am just asking. Why do men assume we can't meet them where they want and need us to?

>>7195707
The bitter ones don't.

>>7195072
>that quebec
I can definitely tell where this illustration was drawn

>>7194516

I can't really work out where you got this stuff from my post. You seem to be bestowing an awful lot of ideas upon me that I never expressed and don't believe.

>you insist women don't have a nature

No I don't. I'm quite happy to accept that there are some fundamental differences between men and women, but it's not a binary distinction. Some women are more typically 'male' and some men are more typically 'female'. And I'm not even getting into trans stuff, I don't want to open that whole can of worms. I just mean that it's an observable fact that some women are more ambitious, if given the chance, and don't just want to be homemakers. To cram all women into a box based on what we think their 'nature' is, is inhumane. 'The nature of women' is perfectly acceptable as a descriptive term. As a prescriptive one, it's destructive.

>I don't accept the fundamental economic beliefs you do.

Where the actual fuck did you get the idea I'm a free market capitalist?

>AKA you're basically politically motivated instead of honest.

This is a false dichotomy. Tell me where I'm being dishonest, this time without putting words into my mouth about how there's no such thing as femininity or the free markets make me hard.

>>7194530

>Nobody is fucking saying that you retard, and neither is Nietzsche. You believe far too much that feminism is this dichotomy where you either are a feminist or you're a typical male chauvinist.

...no, a middle ground is exactly what I was urging. Nietzsche is saying something very close to this 'suck my dick and make me a sandwich' position when he talks about how education, political participation and trousers (?) are all bullshit and frippery that women should shun in order to better embrace their 'eternal femininity'.

>>7194539

>Nice tribalism, kek.

...yeah, that was my point.

>>7192379
You are existing within a feminist ideologically bent culture. Marie Curie is just a creation of feminist laurelbearers. Pierre Curie has been written out of history... It's the same story with Ada Lovelace.

>>7196048

>you are programmed
>here are some baseless and indeed easily disproved assertions in support of my preconceived ideological convictions
>see how free thinking I am

>>7187918
Imagine a life where you have never been great at anything, never felt the urge to be great at anything, never felt that magnetic admiration to someone who was great at something, wanted to imitate and ultimately defeat him. Just nothing. Literally all you do in life is exist. Occupy space. pass the time. You're a chick.

You're bored,tweeting about your fucking hair and not even feeling any kind of happiness from it, just soothing your constant need to be bitter and cunty and petty toward other women. Every single thing you've done in the past year was mundane, shallow, and boring. You spent the last six hours reading kinda-interesting Reddit stories about people who made interesting Halloween hats for their kids or some stupid bullshit that you think is interesting and you may say is interesting but you're not really sure if it's really interesting. You're just fucking sitting there, gestating, fermenting, with a moist hole between your legs that guarantees you'll at least never have to get up and move around and work to support yourself.

And then you see men, over in some corner, having fun. You've never seen this before. What are they even doing? Instead of their consciousnesses merely sitting in their thick skull and revolving around itself, they are imbuing their conscious energy and intentionality into external objects, crafts, goals, projects. All the bitterness and cuntiness you feel nonstop seems to be absent, as they congratulate each other for being victorious, and happily learn from someone who defeated them. These creatures are truly content to be alive. They have found purpose in a purposeless universe.

And your gaze turns back on itself, on your self, and you realise you've never had that. You can never have it. You're just a stupid cunt.

So you get up, you walk over there, and you fucking ruin everything. Just ruin the whole fucking thing. The five seconds of attention you get will be worth destroying it. Because you're a woman.

>>7196203
you need help or a hug

>>7196228
It's a copypasta

>>7196235
but an accurate one

>>7196203
I'll admit, that was funny to read

>>7191742
Literal cuck

>>7195862
>cramming women into a box is inhumane
>western individualism (incl contemp feminism) is destroying familial ties and pushing the birth rate way down

Patriarchy; can't live with it, can't live without it

I'm not unsympathetic by the way. I dont see the problem ever being solved through politics though. Rome went through the same shit in the second and third centuries, and you'd be hard-pressed to call what happened to them in the following years "the march of progress" or "the Right side of history". At the end the problem is psychological, and to that end I think the best hope lies with science

Good day

>>7196716
>with science
science is the apology of the human sterility

>>7196722
What does that mean?

>>7196731
that science will not resolve anything that some part of the humanity consider as a problem. Science is nothing but a man-made tool which needs constant funding. do not get your highs up.

>>7196810
If science can manipulate the basic elements of our bodies (which it can) then has the power to change our behaviour. Its just a question of time

>>7187924
>dat pic

kek Nietzche was a syphilitic weakling

>daybreak 227
THE CHAIN-WEARERS. Beware of all those intellects which are bound in chains! Clever women, for example, who have been banished by fate to narrow and dull surroundings, amid which they grow old. True, there they lie in the sun, apparently lazy and half-blind; but at every unknown step, at everything unexpected, they start up to bite: they avenge themselves on everything that has escaped their kennel.

>>7196203
Based.