Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) was a German philosopher and cultural critic who published intensively in the 1870s and 1880s. He is famous for uncompromising criticisms of traditional European morality and religion, as well as of conventional philosophical ideas and social and political pieties associated with modernity. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I don't know about you, but I was pretty shocked reading Nietzsche's views on women. I've heard that he wasn't so sexist earlier in life and that later on he had more dislike for them, presumably because of his failure to win the hearts of his lovers. Of course everyone's view of women back then seems bad compared to our modern perspective; Maybe I have too high of expectations, but I thought a smart guy like Nietzsche could give women a little more credit.
Maybe he should have shut up about women and families because he didn't have much experience with them? These opinions hardly add anything to his philosophy right?
Are there any good ideas you took away from Nietzsche's many word on women?
A small part from section 68 of The Gay Science:
Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women." The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, ''that corrupt women: and all the failings of women should be atoned by and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman. and woman forms herself according to this image...
This looks like an early look into feminist thought from the 20th century.
Nietzsche deserves credit for raising that idea, but the part you left out is important too, and there is great ambiguity in this passage. According to the sage, the law of the sexes is that willing is the manner of men and willingness the manner of women. Is the sage being descriptive or normative? Is this a social or natural law? Does Nietzsche agree with the sage (whatever he meant)?
Yes, but for Nietzsche they are corrupted, so they are not capable of greatness. It is quite interesting because many of the ideas that inform feminism can be found in Nietzsche's philosophy. In fact, feminist philosophers have long argued that philosophy as a discipline is unduly patriarchal and their inversion of many of the traditional values of philosophy mirrors quite remarkably Nietzsche's inversion of the values of Platonic philosophy. Nietzsche even says somewhere (in the Gay Science, I think) that women can be made equal of man but the process would take several centuries and apparently there were more pressing matters at hand.
What passage or passages are you basing this claim on? Nietzsche was certainly critical of women, but it helps to discuss specific passages.
Z: Old and Young Women; BGE: 145, 239; A:54, 58; GM III 8, 14; WP: 864; HAH: 432, 435.
Right on.
That passage from TSZ is notorious, but I think it's better to leave that aside when discussing Nietzsche's views on women because TSZ is a fantastical allegory that intentionally appropriates other stories and motifs, and Nietzsche's own voice is not clearly represented. Likewise, I think it's best to avoid WTP since those aphorisms were not published by Nietzsche, meaning he either didn't think they were good enough for his prior works or he didn't have a chance to publish them, which makes them suspect due to his increasing mental deterioration. There is enough in Nietzsche's published works to discuss his problematic views on women, and you identified some important ones.
You mentioned BGE 145, and I would add the prior passage, 144, among his most problematic. It's puzzling that a man who once advocated for women to attend University would claim that there is something wrong with a woman with scholarly inclinations. You mentioned the "Lou affair" in this thread and it seems here that he's trying to be an asshole.
One of the reasons I think Nietzsche is important is that he discusses humans as animals with instincts and so forth due to a long process of natural selection (though, not Darwin's interpretation of natural selection), but an objection I have is the simplistic and perhaps convenient way he applies this insight to his treatment of women. This is evident in many of the passages you identified.
Why wouldn't it be women that shape men? Women are more selective in their mates so it seems to me that men would have to grow accustomed to their ideal.
Women are only now able to be more selective of their mates. Until women gained the ability to earn their own living and had means to avoid the dangers of becomming pregnant (i.e., access to birth control), they were dependent upon men, be they husbands or fathers. Added to this is the prevalence of rape as a means to procreation and the gross lack of legal recourses to curtail this all-too-common practice.
Sure. But besides rape and arranged marriages, women have still been picking their mates most of the time. They didn't suddenly get the ability to select their mates once they gained access to birth control. We can say women can afford to be MORE selective today, but they could be selective throughout most of history.
That's an interesting question. The passage cited is supposing a culture in which men have the power/influence to establish the ideals for men and women. Given sexual selection at the biological level, perhaps you wonder why cultures develop such that men do have the power/influence to establish the ideals for men and women. I think it's fair to say that, for whatever the reasons, it has been largely true that men around the world throughout history have been the ones to set ideals (which is not to say women have no influence). Nietzsche also acknowledged women's ability in this regard in passage 66 of TGS which I discussed elsewhere in this thread.
In the natural world, males often have to impress potential mates. Even Frederick Schiller wrote in Ode an die Freude, "... man who has won a noble woman ...". Like Joni Mitchell once said, "... it's the ladies choice ...". I heed this and treat my girlfriend well. She reciprocates and we grow closer. It's an ideal mutualistic symbiotic relationship.
In addition to passage 68 in TGS cited by u/Zosostoic, I think the nearby passages of 66 and 71 are also sympathetic to women.
66 suggests women exaggerate their weaknesses to appear fragile and make men feel clumsy. They show their strength by protecting themselves against the men who are stronger – it makes men mindful and protective of them. This is similar to survival strategies in other species.
71 claims Men/society have conflicting ideals of women, which is difficult for women to handle: they are expected to be pure, yet to engage in sex and have children (hence the ideal of the Virgin Mary). Marriage is a sudden entrance into a paradoxical reality (at least it often was for "high society", and sometimes still is). Women can’t be sure what men think of their honor; on the one hand men have an ideal for women as pure and non-erotic, and yet men know what their wives do in the bedroom. Children are an atonement – they feel at least children make up for their erotic behavior.
http://www.ebookshell.com/Nietzsche,%20Friedrich%20-%20Gay%20Science,%20The%20[trans.%20Kaufmann]%20(Vintage,%201974).pdf
One thing to keep in mind is that Nietzsche often generalizes about groups of people while allowing for individuals to be exceptions to the group.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Nietzsche often acknowledges he has personal prejudices, and he frequently stated that he didn't want followers who would simply accept his views. It's a mistake to read Nietzsche as telling you what to think.
I do get the sense that Nietzsche is less kind to women after The Gay Science, but I think Nietzsche is more critical and vitriolic in general after TGS, so it's not just with respect to women.
On the one hand, we need to consider people's ideas in context, but on the other hand we shouldn't simply explain people's ideas as products of the times, especially for people like Nietzsche who were profound thinkers, critics of contemporary values and beliefs, and forward thinking (Jefferson would be another example, yet he owned slaves his whole life).
I'm 35 now. Began reading Nietzsche around 24 or so.
I'll tell you this much: Nietzsche is the sort of writer that becomes more interesting as you get older, as you acquire more experience, as life hurls more tests and curveballs at you etc.
I used to nod my head with every little footnote added by Kaufmann in his translations of Nietzsche's books regarding women, and now, just over a decade later, I find myself laughing and astonished at how much Nietzsche got right regarding women. Nietzsche's stance on women may be a byproduct of the views of his milieu, it could also be the byproduct of much sexual frustration owed to rejection - who knows - but over the years, I now agree with him far, far more than I did in the past.
I'm not trying to open up a debate here, really, but more so a plead for you to make a (mental) note of what has struck you (either positively or negatively) of Nietzsche's writings now, and compare it to your views ten, twenty, thirty years down the line. Maybe they'll shift in the opposite direction, maybe they'll stay the same, maybe they'll intensify, but keep that perspective in mind as you continue to tread along.
Nietzsche was smarter than you and was right. It is possible to criticise women not just because you are unsuccessful with them
So, you agree with everything Nietzsche says about women!?!
From what I've read, yeah pretty much.
What I've learned from Nietzsche is that you'll never forget the women that break your heart and that it'll cloud every thought and action you take for the rest of your life.
In TSZ, it is clearly meant to be a metaphor. The key to passages about women lies in the chapter "In the Happy Isles": "For the creator himself to be the new-born child, he must also be willing to be the child-bearer, and endure the pangs of the child-bearer. Verily, through a hundred souls went I my way, and through a hundred cradles and birth-throes. Many a farewell have I taken; I know the heart-breaking last hours"
Which means, that chapters "Old and Young Women" and "Child and Marriage" are not actually about women. Women here are a metaphor for body; men are a metaphor for mind/spirit (and it is highly ambiguous, who is actually holding a whip in this relationship).
In other words, the point of these chapters is to tell about one's own psychological rebuilding. Your Body and Mind both should conceive a mutual "child" - an Ubermensch/Overman/Superman. (Btw, Chapter "Voluntary Death" also tells about the very same rebuilding, but in a different set of metaphors: "And when shall I want it?—He that hath a goal and an heir, wanteth death at the right time for the goal and the heir". Meaning, that the more you become a Superman, the less of your previous personality exists)
The passages in "Ecce Homo", also imply this. For the same reason as, for example, passages there about eating food under the title "Why am I so Clever?" (they are not actually about the food per se, but instead sublty hint that your mind capabilies are determined by your physical body).
The passages about the emancipation of women there (meaningfully situated near the passages on psychology) - clearly imply the very same metaphor (and with reference to TSZ, no less). The elevation of the body to the same level as of the mind/spirit/soul, would imply the autonomous role of the mind/spirit/soul - and thus would make the supporter of such a position a "Preacher of Death" and an "Overworldsman" in TSZ slang. It's not about women at all, its about whether you believe you actually have a soul and expect life after death.
You should probably take away that Nietzsche himself was not great with women and suffered all manner of heartbreaks and unhappiness. In his work its always been the case for me, as a reader, that N uses women to be provocative, tongue-in-cheek and to undermine. The fact that modern feminism has embraced N speaks volumes, he is not a true misogynist or a mysoginistic thinker.
I think we need to be careful about trying to put a round edge on the harsh things Nietzsche says. I agree with you that he wasn't the clear cut mispgynist that, say Schopenhauer was, but it is difficult to walk away from his writings without believing that Nietzsche thought women were fundamentally inferior to men and not the type of person that ought to serve as a model of how to live. In his parlance, women cannot be warriors. So, yes, we can agree that Nietzsche didn't hate women (he had several close female friends, some of whom were heavily involved in the female emancipation movement and remained on friendly terms with most of them, despite being a fervent opponent to tbat movement). But he clearly did not think women are or could be equal to men (without lower mem to their level). However, Nietzsche recognizes that anything that has a history escapes definition because meaning and significance change with time and with subsequent struggles for power the characterize humanity. For this reason primarily--that women and men are not eternal, objective or god-given categories but products of a long and violent process of socialization that was necessary to render the human animal a citizen--that feminist thinkers use Nietzsche's philosophy. However, all I have read preface their usage with caveates about the terrible things he says about women. Further complicating the picture--as discussed elsewhere in this sub by me and unsernamed17--is that events in his personal life related to spurned love and a fallout with his mother and sister changed what he wrote about women. If one restricts themselves to his middle period (post-Birth of Tragedy and pre-Zarathustra) one sees a more nuanced and insightful anlaysis of women that is much more amenable to the goals of feminist philosophy and more in line with progressive ideas about the relationship between the sexes in the 21st century.
That seems like a good wide-eyed take on the OPs question. I would have to agree :)
I'm not sure why you think he wasn't misogynistic. Has modern feminism really embraced him? That doesn't seem right.
No figure has universal love in a movement as diverse as feminism however Nietzsche has a solid place in the canon. As to whether he was or wasn't a misogynist, it doesn't really matter too much, there are good arguments on both sides. He ranted and raved against anarchism in his works too but he's a major thinker for today's anarchist movement and thought.
http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01763-5.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gzOIAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA27&dq=nietzsche+feminism&ots=l1d7Uvy4k-&sig=JsvfZzhzezELcX4BnEI1yPUDvMQ#v=onepage&q=nietzsche%20feminism&f=false
https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=intstudphil&id=intstudphil_1994_0026_0003_0013_0021
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/53559/summary
What's so controversial about them?
While there are moments of brilliant insight (as noted by zosostoic and usernamed17) there are many comments that simply cannot be chalked up to anything others than tasteless humor at best and balls-out misogyny at worst. What are we to make of it? Walter Kaufman tells us to simply ignore them as not a significant part of his philosophy. But if we look at the role woman plays in his writing we will see that it is not so easy, all the more so when Nietzsche warns us against such convenient vivisection of his philosophy. If we are to ignore what he says about women, what are we to make of his claim that truth or that life is a woman? Finally, if we look at Nietzsche's personal life, we can see a clear pattern between events that transpired and changes in his views on women. The "Lou Affair" occurred just as he finished the Gay Science. The event was traumatic for Nietzsche (arguably the definitive event in his adult life) and it would be naive to think that it didn't have an effect on his thinking (especially so for a philosopher who regards all philosophy as a confession of the philosopher!). The interesting question, to me, is if we disagree with the things Nietzsche says about women, if we believe he is mistaken about these matters, what does that say about the other parts of his philosophy that are related to it?
I agree with Kaufman that it doesn't seem that Nietzsche's views on women are inextricably related to his core ideas. You'd need to argue more for why you think this is the case. You mention his supposition that truth is a woman, but the point of that metaphor (each time he discusses it), is to suggest that truth needs to be courted and to criticize imperialistic attempts to force truth to reveal itself; he likens this to courting relationships between men and women, which supposes 19th century generalizations about men and women, but there is no evidence that he is suggesting truth is like women in the ways in which he is critical of women.
Nietzsche carefully chose what he published, so everything in his books is there intentionally. I am not sure why I have to argue that Kaufman was wrong to dismiss it. Doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one who is doing the dismissal? At any rate, shifting the burden of proof is the most boring thing to do in a discussion, so beyond saying that here's some reasons why I think his ideas about women are important: First, Nietzsche says they are. He says that every philosophy is a confession (GM III) and that one's ideas about men and women are unalterable facts about who one is, i.e., their truths (BGE). It is a fact that women played an enormously influential role in his life and there is a direct connection between the events that passed in his life and what he wrote. As you noted in a different comment on this post, there was a shift in his writing after GS; this shift was caused by his relationships with women. More specifically, his ideas about the relationship between man and woman are prefigured in his descriptions of master and slave and his notion of the will to power and the general violence and savagery that Nietzsche sees everywhere he looks speaks to an exaggerated, virile masculinism that only makes sense when contrasted with an equally exaggerated picture of women as essentially weak, timid, fearful. Likewise, Nietzsche's conception of art is repeatedly expressed in term of pregnancy and birth and thus the relationship between the artist and his art mirrors the relationship between mother and child. He believes we ought to divorce the artist from his work and consider the latter on its own. These are just a few of the ways I think his ideas about women are related to other aspects of his work. But again, I think these are easy to see if one bothers to look. Personally, I think it was easier for Kaufman to dismiss the issue rather than tackle it head on and for that reason alone I am reluctant to accept his dismissal without a better case being made.
I wasn't asking you to argue against Kaufman to prove who is right, I just didn't think what you were saying was obvious and I wanted to read more argument to understand your view.
I agree that Nietzsche's views on women are important and related to his other ideas, but if I recall, Kaufman's point was that Nietzsche's views on women aren't inextricably related to his others views such that if we believe he's mistaken about women, we must also be skeptical of or reject other aspects of his philosophy. That's what you seemed to be wondering about at the end of your first post, and that's my take on it. As I said in my other response to you, I think Nietzsche's views on women are in part related to his other ideas, but they're not a necessary consequence of his other ideas; his other ideas don't entail negative views about women.
My bad.
It is this that I have not yet made up my mind about. (And why I appreciate the discussion and your always excellent contributions on this sub, btw!)
He was sexist, there is no doubt about that. There are plenty of quotes where he points out women are inferior specially intellectually to men. I personally just ignore those ideas he proposed. I admire him and consider him a brilliant man but he is not the voice of truth and I won’t clap what he got wrong. Many would try to justify it saying he had a complicated love life but that is bs, he simply hated women.
Why the down votes?
I don’t understand as well. Nietzsche proposed to follow your own path, yet they blindly take every nietzschean idea as if it is the absolute truth. Either that or they refuse to accept the truth, Nietzsche was sexist.
I don't think he hated women and for that reason I think it is wrong to label him a misogynist. But I agree he is sexist because I think he sees women as essentially inferior to men and even when he raises the possibility that this inferiority is not rooted in our inalterable nature and can be changed by making changes in society, he does not advocate undertaking this effort. For Nietzsche, women are like Christians: not a type suitable for greatness.