I'm a Nietzsche-hater!

[thedailyshow]

I found myself with the unpleasant task of writing a paper on Nietzsche, and what he views as the major ills in society. According to Nietzsche, giving women more rights and education is what causes the degeneration of society. Here's a few of his oh-so-enlightened quotes on women:

"Woman wants to become self-reliant---and for that reason she is beginning to enlighten men about "woman as such": this is one of the worst developments of the general uglification of Europe."

"Women should be silent in church."

"Women should be silent when it comes to politics."

"Women should be silent about women."

"A man...must always think about woman as Orientals do: he must conceive of woman as a possession, as property that can be locked, as something predestined for service and achieving her perfection in that."

"When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexually. Sterility itself disposes one toward a certain masculinity of taste; for man is, if I may so, "the sterile animal.'"

:puke:

The scary part is that so many stupid Republicans would probably agree with Nietzsche about women. I can't believe that people actually bring themselves to study Nietzsche and take him seriously. What a fuckwad he is.

[htuttle]

1. "thedailyshow is dead" --Nietzsche

:evilgrin:

More seriously, Nietzsche strikes me the same as many Western philosophers. One or two valid and interesting insights, but with a whole lot of personal cruft from his own subconscious thrown in for good measure.

[J-Lo Biafra]

2. I'm with you, bud!

Nietzsche is horrible. I just can't get into a guy whose philosophy partially inspired the Third Reich.

[thedailyshow]

3. and I thought it was stupid how he ridiculed France and glorified

Germany for not acceding to weaker cultural imperatives. It's funny how Republicans today ridicule France and glorify the nations that stands with them in terms of foreign policy and cultural stances.

[J-Lo Biafra]

4. Yes, it's way too creepy.

Coincidence?
:tinfoilhat: :scared: :tinfoilhat:

[thedailyshow]

17. I think not....

Nietzsche is probably one of Rove's favorite philosphers. Eww.

[rogerashton]

5. Nietzche's attitude toward women

is one of the worst aspects of a philosophic corpus that is a way mixed bag at best. He has some worthwhile things to say on aesthetics and perhaps his discussion of motivations in terms of the will to power are of some value.

Unfortunately, Nietzche's ideas are very attractive to bright, teenage and post-teen males. Been there, done that, decades ago. One of my students is mildly attracted to Nietzche. I did my best to warn him off, pointing instead to Sartre and Camus as having ideas similar to some of Nietzche's more defensible ones. It would have been counter-productive, though, to tell the young man just "bad, bad."

Story is, as I understand it, that Nietzche had just one sexual contact, that probably with a woman of commercial virtue, and contracted the siphilis that drove him insane and probably killed him. So he was a real messed up guy about women.

[thedailyshow]

6. he died of sysphilis?

That explains a lot, actually. What a fitting end for a misogynist!

[rogerashton]

8. I think so.

I haven't double-checked. Certainly he suffered from an insanity that was regarded as tertiary syphilis. it PROBABLY didn't influence his philosophy.

Probably.

Hey -- go easy on philosophers. (No, I am not one). They are in business to say challenging things. Even Nietzche -- though I think he is far less important than he seems to be regarded.

[liontamer]

29. what I learned about Nietzsche

he probably got the syphilis from his time as a war medic

as for his bitterness toward women: the woman he loved was an intellectual equal. the two of them and another friend used to have afternoon philosophy discussions, but she was in love with the other guy, and eventually he was squeezed out.

[thedailyshow]

30. poor nietzsche

[DelawareValleyDem]

7. You forgot

"Man shall be trained for war and woman for the procreation of the warrior. All else is folly"

I had a freeper tell me yesterday that if it wasn't for the women's liberation movement which caused women to enter the workplace, we'd still have a society where one income families could get by. What brillant thinking

[thedailyshow]

9. That's very faulty thinking...

What about inflation? Economic crises? Depressions? A one-income family couldn't survive on that, so for economic necessity today, two income earners are needed to create much-needed financial stability for their families.

Economic necessity often drives progressive changes within society in my view, and the Great Depression and World War II was a catalyst for that change. If the freeper wants something to blame, he should blame the men for causing the Great Depression and World War II, not women's liberation.

Freepers are so fucking dumb.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. It's Not That Simple

Don't forget that the economy did not expand at the same rate as the workforce when women entered it en masse.

So, while i generally disagree with simple economic principles, this is one case where supply & demand works as simply as it sounds. More people competing for the jobs, workforce growth outstripping workforce positions, results in wage depression.

Now, i don't agree with the freeper who said this. Things are actually more complicated than that. But, i'm sure lots of DU'ers have seen the "real wage" charts from about 1970 to now. Individual workers do, indeed, make less money for the exact same positions (below the board room) than they made in 1970, or 1980.

So, the original statement is not really totally stupid. There is some simple economic fact in there. The problem is, that guys like the one who said it, really aren't as interested in economic effects and quality of life issues as he is in keeping women down.

I think this is a case of the messenger being more faulty than the message.
The Professor

[thedailyshow]

14. hmm, interesting

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Remember, I Have NO Problem With Women In The Workforce

Just wanted to make that abundantly clear. Just that there is a modicum of economic merit to what that idiot said.
The Professor

[thedailyshow]

18. of course....

I get ya. :wink-wink:

Just kidding!

[laheina]

19. I'm no feminist scholar

But didn't WWII bring women into the work force? I'd be interested to hear this person's reasoning, although I'm sure that it derived from some weenie talking point.

[thedailyshow]

20. I think it did though

I'd also argue that the Industrial Revolution was the first catalyst though in bringing women into the workforce.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Nope

Read my other post. In WWII, the women were REPLACING men in the workforce, as a few million soldiers headed overseas. The effect was the the supply of workers did not significantly outgrow the supply of jobs.

Also, there was a massive mobilization effort, whihc meant the production rates were very high and even more people were needed to fill positions than prior to the war when all those men were still at home. So, those women were going into an employee-starved market and would have no negative impact on wage levels.

Today, that's not the case. While women belong in the workforce as much as men, it's an economic fact that there are now more people working in jobs than the companies actually need. Hence, higher unemployment and lower real wages.

The freeper, probably accidently, touched on an economic truth. It would be his motivation in saying it that i would question.
The Professor

[laheina]

22. Right

I'm not questioning your economic evaluation of the situation, by any means. I meant in a sociological sense, that after the mobilization effort of WWII that it started to become more socially acceptable for women to work, and they began to slowly trickle into the workforce. Is this incorrect?

Rather than feminists simply deciding that it was time to campaign for this end result--which seems to be this freeper's opinion.

I dunno. It's been a long night, and I need to go get some sleep. :)

[ProfessorGAC]

24. That's A Fair Point

WWII probably did have the effect you suggest. I was speaking strictly economically.

A workforce that has twice the potential members will be a workforce that pays less. But, i would have to agree about WWII making women working outside the home more socially acceptable.

First, someone had to do it. Secondly, the productivity was extremely high, so they were doing a wonderful job. So, they were patriots and effective workers. It would be hard to hold them back after that, without looking like the evil empire.

Lastly, i am being at least slightly sardonic in my support for the freeper. I think it's a case where the idiot got something correct, completely by accident.
The Professor

[laheina]

36. The line of reasoning

is just as important ans the conclusion that it yields. IMHO

Mr. Economics smarty pants :P

[DelawareValleyDem]

23. I wasn't aware that my little freeper

story would cause a ripple of discussion. Perhaps I should clarify.

First, the freeper was female.

Second, as Professor points out, increasing the supply of workers without increasing the demand of jobs would put downward pressure on the wages.

What I interpreted from her comment was "I have to work only because these other women want to". And it seemed to me to be an oversimplification of the issue, particularly since she didn't seem to be factoring in things she could control, like spouse and lifestyle choices.

Unfortunately, I duplicated her oversimplification in my retelling.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. It Was A Friendly Discussion

No harm in any of this, right? Nobody got mad. Like i said in another post, your freeper friend (sorry for the gender mistake) may have accidentally gotten something right. Sort of like a blind pig finding a truffle.
The Professor

[mogster]

10. Nietzsche? What a retro windbag! :-D

"he must conceive of woman as a possession, as property that can be locked, as something predestined for service and achieving her perfection in that"

Rai-rai! I'm getting vibes here, back from, say, middle ages?

Fuckwad sounds good to me.

[thedailyshow]

11. yeah, he's a total fuckwad, haha

or better yet, a douchebag.

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. But Ray Nitschke was a hell of a guy.

GO PACKERS!!!!! :hi:

[thedailyshow]

15. ha

Go Pats! I say, fie, fie on the Packers! ;-)

Just kidding :evilgrin:

[Kellanved]

26. not so strange, considering the relationship to his sister.

And of course he used a lot from Schopenhauer, who easily outdid Nietzsche in being anti-emancipation. I guess it made it easier to sell the books.

[thedailyshow]

28. what happened in his relationship to his sister?

[Kellanved]

34. it was complicated

She was his ghostwriter, enemy #1, discussion partner, inspiration, possibly lover, and a host of other things. Not all at once, though.

[DelawareValleyDem]

31. I believe

he once made the remark that for a philosopher a sister is an acceptable substitute for a wife. You can interpret that as you wish. As mentioned, Nietzsche borrowed a lot from Schopenhauer and even Kant. Noted Freeper Gordon Liddy titled his autobiography 'Will', a theme that runs through the work of these three philosophers, which makes me wonder just what type of people are most influenced by them.

Typo on edit

[thedailyshow]

32. ewww.

[Bucky]

33. Gordon Liddy's "Will" should've been subtitled "as in triumph of the -"

creepy guy, but not nearly as creepy as that "a sister is an acceptable substitute for a wife." His defenders probably would point out that he meant in the role of a homemaker, not bedmate. But it's still reducing a woman to a job of convenience-provider.

[MsAnthropy]

27. He was just a crabby curmudgeon and a joke even in his own time

that anything he wrote outlived him and is being used by the right is bizarre and sad.

[dean_dem]

35. Nietzsche had a lot of contradicitions about him though....

so I would defend him, but definitely wouldn't agree with everything he said.
Aside from his sexism, and latent racism for that matter, he actually had a lot of good ideas about the nature of morality and things like that. So yeah, he was a grumpy curmudgeon, but I wouldn't completely discount him.