Nietzschean Feminism.

Say hello and shake our hands

Moderators: cwbyrvr, Nachos

Locked
User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Sun Aug 28, 15:13 2016

Hi. I'm an advanced student of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and have recently come to see that feminism may actually be a good thing from a Nietzschean perspective. Nietzsche is usually regarded as a misogynist, but I've always disagreed with that view, and I'd like to share and discuss my new insight in a perfectly polite manner.

The direct inspiration for this reversal in my thinking about feminism was this video, which I think makes very good points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

This video has suggested to me that feminism may be a good thing, from a Nietzschean point of view, by arguing that feminism preserves or increases men's "disposability" rather than expunging or decreasing it. For in itself, mere survival, even the survival of the species, is worthless in my view; even comfortable self-preservation is worth little. And what I think men's "disposability" has led to is that men have justified the existence of the human race, made it invaluable, through their works of genius (artistic, philosophical, political, etc.).

This is the reason I now identify as a Feminist: a Patriarchal Feminist, to be exact. For I think men's preserved or increased "disposability" under feminism may lead to an even higher justification, or perhaps only now the complete justification, of human history: the supreme artistic, philosophical, political (or religious!) work of male genius, the legislation and enforcement of the recurrence of human history, including all its gender inequality. For in my perception, feminism (and the democratic movement in general) makes the Nietzschean philosopher the greatest criminal, the lowest pariah--and perhaps not just feminism? Perhaps also, though in a different way, actual egalitarianism (e.g., the movement that demands women to be considered equally as disposable as men!). I do not demand to be considered equally as disposable and as valuable as women; I demand to be considered enormously more indisposable and invaluable. But to that end, I'm prepared to first be perceived as public enemy number one, wearing a monstrous and horror-inspiring mask: the mask of Kalki or Bhairava, who enforces a return to sexism, among other things--if need be by way of the decimation of the seven billion. The horror, I judge, is really the existential angst of taking upon oneself the responsibility formerly deferred to God: the responsibility for human flourishing. That responsibility requires me to be a Punisher, an "avenger", a vindicator of humanity's subjection to custom, women more so than men (for man, as the more "disposable" sex, is also the one who is more willing to transgress custom, to commit crimes, for example in order to save his women.) Equality is the seed of the destruction of culture. And our "culture" carries that seed as its highest ideal... It is therefore rotten to the core, or at least at the core. But if it can somehow survive this awareness, indeed, flourish in the very face of its own inherent nihilism--then and only then will I endorse it. For equality is not a natural right; in fact, it's rather the case that inequality is the moral imperative of nature! More precisely, it's the will of the Superman. The entire history of man and the universe is the will of the Superman. If Western democracy can incorporate this self-affirmation of the will to power... But no, it cannot do so in any case, for that affirmation would turn it into something fundamentally different. The only true source of morality is human will. Acknowledge this, affirm this, will this, and you're on my side. Deny this, and you deserve to succumb to Islam or the like. At least Islam is a more consistent form of that denial. (The most consistent form is tribalism, e.g. pre-Babylonian Captivity Judaism. A return to that would be my second choice, after the Nietzschean enlightenment.)
"Greek male contest [e.g., that of Aeschylus and Sophocles], Nietzsche seems to suggest, began at home with the most domestic, began with a man's estimation of woman and the womanly insofar as they represented the basic will of the mind [which unceasingly wants appearances and surfaces]." (Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche's Task, page 238.)

User avatar
Nachos
member
member
Posts: 4804
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 6:42 2004
Location: Next Tuesday
Contact:

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Nachos » Wed Aug 31, 15:17 2016

Do you have anything else to say? You've obviously not found the FAQ...
Ugh, I'm tired of my signature.

User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Wed Aug 31, 23:38 2016

I didn't "find" the FAQ because, not having any questions, I wasn't looking for it in the first place. And no, I have nothing else to say at this point, except that I'd no longer have a problem with this thread's being in the Hell forum (if that's what you mean). After all, it now somewhat fits the description...
"Greek male contest [e.g., that of Aeschylus and Sophocles], Nietzsche seems to suggest, began at home with the most domestic, began with a man's estimation of woman and the womanly insofar as they represented the basic will of the mind [which unceasingly wants appearances and surfaces]." (Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche's Task, page 238.)

User avatar
Nachos
member
member
Posts: 4804
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 6:42 2004
Location: Next Tuesday
Contact:

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Nachos » Thu Sep 1, 6:17 2016

So you came here to troll? Come back Friday.

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=47697
Ugh, I'm tired of my signature.

User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Thu Sep 1, 11:10 2016

My OP is completely serious. I am fishing for Men, though.
"Greek male contest [e.g., that of Aeschylus and Sophocles], Nietzsche seems to suggest, began at home with the most domestic, began with a man's estimation of woman and the womanly insofar as they represented the basic will of the mind [which unceasingly wants appearances and surfaces]." (Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche's Task, page 238.)

Madame Athena

Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 18:19 2016

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Madame Athena » Sun Sep 11, 20:40 2016

Wooow. It only took one paragraph for me to want to slap you just... so hard. In the mouth, even though I know that's an easy way to get a skin infection.

humankinda

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 20:31 2016

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by humankinda » Sun Sep 11, 21:46 2016

Sauwelios wrote:And what I think men's "disposability" has led to is that men have justified the existence of the human race, made it invaluable, through their works of genius (artistic, philosophical, political, etc.).
Why is this?

Why does the human race's existence need to be justified? And how does works of genius justify it? How does disposability lead to this?
For equality is not a natural right; in fact, it's rather the case that inequality is the moral imperative of nature!
You seem to be implying that morality and rights should come from primitive human behavior. Since humans are unequal in their primitive state, that somehow justifies believing in inequality as a moral imperative in our modern society.

How is morality human will? I assume what this means is if man has the ability to will himself to power, that power becomes the authority of morality? That morality sounds very arbritary if thats the case.

User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Mon Sep 12, 11:41 2016

humankinda wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:And what I think men's "disposability" has led to is that men have justified the existence of the human race, made it invaluable, through their works of genius (artistic, philosophical, political, etc.).
Why is this?

Why does the human race's existence need to be justified? And how does works of genius justify it? How does disposability lead to this?
By "justified", I do not mean to say that mere existence is unjust, but that it's neither just nor unjust; it just is. This is why I provided the alternative formulation "made it invaluable". I don't think mere existence is necessarily better than non-existence. This is supported by the widespread occurence of premeditated suicide and euthanasia. And I think even comfortable existence is only relatively better than non-existence: I could take it or leave it; I certainly don't think it warrants the existence of this whole spacetime continuum if I can "find sweet peas to eat", to speak with Heraclitus--not to mention all the discomfort, to put it mildly, that there has been throughout history. What Rousseau called "the sweet sentiment of existence" must be considerably sweeter than sweet peas if it is to justify all that.

Now what works of genius do is, they provide a "sweet sentiment", a euphoria or ecstasy or whatever you wish to call it, that transfigures one's whole world--in the first place the world of the genius himself, but also that of anyone in whom his heightened inner state is successfully reproduced--for example, through his artistic creations; and as for philosophy, it may suffice to consider Socrates' famous dictum that "the unexamined life is not worth living". But how does male "disposability" lead to all this? Anyone can see that, as a rule (and exceptions like the literal Lesbian Sappho only prove that rule), works of artistic, philosophical, political genius etc. have throughout history been authored by men. But why? I already gave one pointer in my OP when I said: "man, as the more 'disposable' sex, is also the one who is more willing to transgress custom".

Man's "disposability" is the reverse side of his privilege, even as woman's underprivilege is the reverse side of her "indisposability". Woman's "indisposability" has historically caused her to be unfree; man's "disposability" has caused him to be free--albeit "free as a bird". Thus man, not woman, has been the innovator, the experimenter--in the first place with himself, putting himself at risk, risking his fall from grace as well as more literal falls. This would not have been possible--because it wouldn't have been necessary--if the sexual difference between man and woman hadn't existed. In fact, the peculiarly human male counterpart to the fitness indicator that is female beauty--which suggests fertility--is creative intelligence: see Miller, The Mating Mind (but cf. Baron Cohen, The Essential Difference).

For equality is not a natural right; in fact, it's rather the case that inequality is the moral imperative of nature!
You seem to be implying that morality and rights should come from primitive human behavior. Since humans are unequal in their primitive state, that somehow justifies believing in inequality as a moral imperative in our modern society.

How is morality human will? I assume what this means is if man has the ability to will himself to power, that power becomes the authority of morality? That morality sounds very arbritary if thats the case.
I'm not implying what you think I'm implying: that would be a kind of "appeal to nature" fallacy. The moral imperative of nature is not a categorical imperative; it's imperative only with a view to what I've called the justification of the human race.

You're right about "might makes right", though. I'm saying there is no natural right, only positive right--rights posited, imposed, by human beings. But this arbitrariness is not necessarily at odds with there being a moral imperative of nature:

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/frie ... 6a9c7.html (Note that the final s should not be there; den Menschen is accusative singular there, not dative plural.)

User avatar
Angelica
member
member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 8:36 2016
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Angelica » Mon Sep 12, 12:31 2016

Patriarchal philosophy... what a crock of bullshit. How can you consider this feminism? [Edit: I hate misogyny.]

User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Mon Sep 12, 13:25 2016

Angelica wrote:Patriarchal philosophy... what a crock of bullshit. How can you consider this feminism? [Edit: I hate misogyny.]
It's feminism inasmuch as feminism is not egalitarian. The message from the video I linked to in my OP is basically that feminism is not egalitarian. I will concede, however, that there may well be people who identify as feminists yet are sincerely egalitarian. These must be opposed to me owing to my radical anti-egalitarianism. Hypocritical feminists, however--those who only pretend to be egalitarian--, must be opposed to me hypocritically, i.e. they must oppose me even though I'm really on their side, openly advocating what they secretly hold dear. Compare:

"I am a nihilist professor of philosophy. I once believed that intolerance of my teaching would come primarily from the Right. I was wrong. Liberal professors have condemned my nihilism as unacademic philosophy, some have even attempted to prevent my teaching it at any college or university. Conservative colleagues have never been that intolerant of our disagreement about what constitutes proper academic teaching of philosophy. This intolerance springs from liberalism's fear of its inherent nihilism. Democratic liberals really are on my side. They are nihilists too cowardly to face their own nihilism." (Neumann, Liberalism, "Academic and Un-Academic Philosophers". For Neumann's views on feminism, see http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187799)

User avatar
Angelica
member
member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 8:36 2016
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Angelica » Mon Sep 12, 13:39 2016

Sauwelios wrote:I do not demand to be considered equally as disposable and as valuable as women; I demand to be considered enormously more indisposable and invaluable.
This is highly misogynist, it takes away any pretense of being a feminist that you may have had with the rest of your post. Also, there's no such thing as patriarchal feminism. It's an oxymoron, feminism is by definition anti-patriarchal.

[Edit (to avoid a personal conversation usurping this thread): Right, I see what you mean now. You're the hero come to save us all. I think not. I certainly don't need your strange philosophy. And it doesn't matter whether patriarchy is at odds with "male disposability"; it's at odds with feminist principles.]
Last edited by Angelica on Mon Sep 12, 14:57 2016, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Mon Sep 12, 14:38 2016

Angelica wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:I do not demand to be considered equally as disposable and as valuable as women; I demand to be considered enormously more indisposable and invaluable.
This is highly misogynist, it takes away any pretense of being a feminist that you may have had with the rest of your post.
I disagree. I'm not saying I demand all men to be considered more indisposable and invaluable than women. I'm an exception. Moreover, it's ironic: the situation feminism supposedly combats is precisely that in which women are considered more indisposable and invaluable than men. I shall be considered enormously more indisposable and invaluable than women even, as I will reinforce that situation.

Also, there's no such thing as patriarchal feminism. It's an oxymoron, feminism is by definition anti-patriarchal.
Only if feminism is necessarily egalitarian--which arguably it isn't. (I deliberately say "necessarily" instead of "by definition".) My point is that patriarchy is not at odds with male disposability; rather the contrary.

humankinda

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 20:31 2016

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by humankinda » Mon Sep 12, 15:39 2016

Sauwelios wrote:...But why? I already gave one pointer in my OP when I said: "man, as the more 'disposable' sex, is also the one who is more willing to transgress custom...".
Let me try to understand. Before works of genius, human existence wasn't valued. It was mere existence. Works of genius transformed existence into something invaluable. Men were the major contributers of genius because their disposabilty gave them the freedom to transgress customs. Women's indisposability caused them stay within the limits of customs. These roles were placed on them by the inequality of their biology. Inequality of biology meaning women were protected/made unfree because of their reproductive value.

Believing that feminism increases the disposabilty of man, then it would follow that it will increase male genius and lead into a new era of "justification" or basically humanity becoming more invaluable.

The rest of your OP about demanding to be invaluable was harder for me to follow.

If women lacked contributions of genius because you believe they are not able to transgress customs, then wouldnt it be valuable to create an environment where women are able to transgress customs? Wouldnt society benifit if the other half of the population was also able to express their genius?

Why does disposabilty/indisposability have to be apart of the equation of genius today just because it might have in the past, which is a big assumption in the first place.

Why would increasing disposabilty of men necessarily increase genius? Are men not free enough to express their genius? If genius is a bucket, maybe male disposabilty has filled it to the top. Any more disposabilty would just cause it to overflow.

User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Mon Sep 12, 17:10 2016

humankinda wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:...But why? I already gave one pointer in my OP when I said: "man, as the more 'disposable' sex, is also the one who is more willing to transgress custom...".
Let me try to understand. Before works of genius, human existence wasn't valued. It was mere existence. Works of genius transformed existence into something invaluable. Men were the major contributers of genius because their disposabilty gave them the freedom to transgress customs. Women's indisposability caused them stay within the limits of customs. These roles were placed on them by the inequality of their biology. Inequality of biology meaning women were protected/made unfree because of their reproductive value.

Believing that feminism increases the disposabilty of man, then it would follow that it will increase male genius and lead into a new era of "justification" or basically humanity becoming more invaluable.
This is more or less adequate. I'm not saying human existence wasn't valued, though. (Interestingly, the Euthyphro dilemma may in this context be formulated as: "Is the just valued because it is just, or is it just because it is valued?") In the thread I linked Angelica to, I wrote:

"[Honesty] is and remains our preference because we [the philosophers] actually value existence precisely as what, in our view, it most probably is: valuation, the valuing of being over non-being, the valuing of it precisely because to be is to value. To be is to rise up in Satanic defiance of God, of non-being: the rising up out of non-being, the asserting of oneself as a being, is pleasurable to those who do it; otherwise they would cease doing it, or not have started doing it in the first place. This big bang of ours, and this coming into existence of minute quanta, is all a great hubristic rebellion against non-being, against the notion that it's better not to be. That which does not exist is just tacitly, passively, agreeing with that notion. But it's not true, it is better to rebel, no matter what profound and protracted torture it may be punished with. The rebellion itself is worth it. This fleeting moment of being, this little life of ours, and our dedication of it to its affirmation--that is absolutely worth it."

And elsewhere:

""What does 'existence' mean? It does not just mean to be. It means to struggle for existence... Nay, it means to victoriously struggle for existence." (Sauwelios, "Endeavour at a philosophic statement".)

Now this may seem in contradiction to the whole notion of "mere existence". But this is the examined life. And the philosophical examination of life is itself a work of genius. So we may say that, before works of genius, human existence wasn't examined--and thereby not truly valued. Its value, its meaning, was only a matter of opinion, not of knowledge.

The rest of your OP about demanding to be invaluable was harder for me to follow.

If women lacked contributions of genius because you believe they are not able to transgress customs, then wouldnt it be valuable to create an environment where women are able to transgress customs? Wouldnt society benifit if the other half of the population was also able to express their genius?
I'm not saying women are unable to transgress customs; I'm well aware of the Eve archetype. It's easier to keep women in check than men, because woman is the weaker sex (if only because of her reproductive role, hormonal balance, etc.). Moreover, male disposability tends to ensure that at least women's basic needs are always met. Thus women tend to have less of an incentive to go out of their way to satisfy their needs.

The reason men tend to be considered disposable is this basic female privilege. Men would not need to sacrifice themselves for women if women were not considered especially valuable. Take away this inequality, and you will not see an increase but a decrease in works of genius.

Why does disposabilty/indisposability have to be apart of the equation of genius today just because it might have in the past, which is a big assumption in the first place.
I don't think it's a big assumption, but will agree to consider it an assumption at this point. My contention is that the order of rank between the sexes is the most basic order of rank among human beings--not just historically, but very much evolutionarily--and that it would therefore be a tremendous waste to get rid of it. Male disposability has been the great engine driving humanity to its achievements. I would rather preserve or re-create the need for it by drastic means than see humanity settle for comfortable self-preservation (what Nietzsche called "the last man").

Why would increasing disposabilty of men necessarily increase genius? Are men not free enough to express their genius? If genius is a bucket, maybe male disposabilty has filled it to the top. Any more disposabilty would just cause it to overflow.
It is my experience and insight that increasing disposability increases genius, and that men are indeed not free enough to develop and express their genius. Paradoxically, the problem may be that they are too free... As I said, the freedom which is the reverse side of male disposability is a being "free as a bird". But by now, male disposability itself has started to become disposable: men no longer need to be disposed of like they did in the past! Like I said, this is all highly paradoxical. An important part of the male population no longer has an obvious role to play in today's world. This is why I want the bucket to overflow, so that the leader type shall once again be indispensable in today's herd type-dominated world.

http://sauwelios.blogspot.nl/2009_04_01_archive.html

User avatar
Angelica
member
member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 8:36 2016
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Angelica » Mon Sep 12, 17:19 2016

TL;DR

User avatar
melsbells
member
member
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 6:45 2014
Location: Finland

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by melsbells » Wed Sep 14, 15:02 2016

Welcome to spacefem, Sauwelios. You should probably read the faq and guide for new and returning members. In it you might find why no established members have been responding to you. Really read it, but some of the things you'll find is that you should introduce yourself and we'll get to know each other a bit. Maybe more obviously that spacefem is not the place to simply advertise your product, webpage, personal manifesto, etc. As is, it appears that you're either trolling or an intellectual one night stand. I don't have the energy for either at the moment though I'm tempted by the second option. I am not, nor have I ever been a Nietzschean. I do appreciate his hate for Kant, one liners, and explanatory power. Which brings us to disposability and me not wanting to engage despite the intrigue.

User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Wed Sep 14, 18:51 2016

To whom it may interest: my OP reminded my best friend of this interview:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-reduc ... r-problems

I think this "Femitheism", which I didn't know before, is consistent with the Hobbesian highest value of a comfortable life without a violent death. Nietzsche had already said that the democratic movement would lead to "giant ant-hills". In Femitheism's ideal society, men would basically be drones.

As such, Femitheism serves as a great foil for my Patriarchal Feminism!

User avatar
Angelica
member
member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 8:36 2016
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Angelica » Thu Sep 15, 7:31 2016

Sauwelios wrote:To whom it may interest: my OP reminded my best friend of this interview:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-reduc ... r-problems

I think this "Femitheism", which I didn't know before, is consistent with the Hobbesian highest value of a comfortable life without a violent death. Nietzsche had already said that the democratic movement would lead to "giant ant-hills". In Femitheism's ideal society, men would basically be drones.

As such, Femitheism serves as a great foil for my Patriarchal Feminism!
Fuck the patriarchy, I believe in femitheism.

User avatar
Sauwelios

Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 14:10 2016
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzschean Feminism.

Post by Sauwelios » Thu Sep 15, 13:08 2016

Angelica wrote:Fuck the patriarchy, I believe in femitheism.
As I said, a great foil. If your posts in this thread weren't enough, people need only follow your signature link to see that you believe that "making love to young boys" is "perfectly OK" and that there are "exactly" 19 tropical years in 235 lunar months...
"Greek male contest [e.g., that of Aeschylus and Sophocles], Nietzsche seems to suggest, began at home with the most domestic, began with a man's estimation of woman and the womanly insofar as they represented the basic will of the mind [which unceasingly wants appearances and surfaces]." (Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche's Task, page 238.)

Locked