Imagine, for example, someone like Satyr here proclaiming his own rendition of what it means for men and women to assume their “natural” roles…to eschew the “memetic” roles ascribed to gender by a “society” owned and operated by the “moderns”.
How then is her own understanding of gender roles more or less in sync with his?
In regard to interactions that revolve around political power, employment, family, careers, the military, sports, sexuality, etc.
How here has “feminism” gone too far?
And let’s get down to specifics. Let’s name names. Let’s turn to the actual headlines where gender crops up: Trump grabbing women by their pussy…Joe Biden, Tara Reade and allegations of sexual assault.
“It’s new, therefore it’s wrong” is different from “It’s new, therefore it’s unproven”. If a statement is not proven it does not mean it’s wrong.
The old is not necessarily better than the new. In fact, it might be worse. This is why I think the right approach to dealing with unproven statements is to test them.
But how can something that lasted for ten thousand years be worse than something that has never been tried?
Because its lifespan can be shorter. A method that survived for ten thousand years might perish after one hundred thousand years whereas another one that has never been tried might be able to survive for millions of years.
It looks like the need for something new arises precisely because of the fact that the old has been tested to death. When you test something, you make its weaknesses, not only its strengths, become apparent. And when a flaw is discovered, a need for correction, which is to say something better, is born. But of course, not every proposed correction is a proper correction given that it’s very easy to solve the problem by creating new problems thereby doing more harm than good.
Nah, that’s a hypothetical apology.
I understand and I actually agree with that. But that’s not what you said in your first post. In your first post, you said that feminism is wrong because it’s new.
Beside that – just to make this discussion a bit more fun – one has to make a distinction between personal preference and ability. Just because you don’t want to do X does not mean you can’t do X. In other words, if women don’t want to write code that does not mean they can’t write it. And to make things even more complicated, one must make a difference between “I don’t want to code because I wrongly feel incompetent (low confidence caused by patriarchy) or because I feel irrational aversion towards coding (again, caused by patriarchy)” and “I don’t want to code because I simply don’t want to code”. FINALLY, one must distinguish between what one wants to do and what one should do. In other words, just because women don’t want to write code doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.
According to my intuition, most women are genuinely uninterested in technical jobs (which means it’s not caused by patriarchy) and the reason they are uninterested is because it’s generally not their strength. So we have the case of ability and preference being related to each other. There are exceptions, of course, and some of those exceptions have suffered the negative effects of patriarchy.
Dead? Because that’s what you seem to be saying. If we did something else, we’d be dead.
You are both making valid points and I find the discussion is logical.
Let me just add a specification to the OP: we are in an end time of sorts. The internets have eliminated time and space as concerns for communication. This is massive, vast and enormous and completely alters what life is.
I do not think the future looks anything whatsoever like the past.
" How many things are now called the worst wickedness, which are only twelve feet broad and three months long! Some day, however, will greater dragons come into the world.
For that the Superman may not lack his dragon, the superdragon that is worthy of him"
Or perhaps the Superfeminist, the Superkaren (oh god)
Animals where the male is larger than the female:
Lions, Silverback gorillas, Human beings
Where the female is larger than the male:
Spiders, Snakes, the aliens from “Independence Day”
We all know what happened to Hera when she got too big for her britches and tried to rebel against Zeus.
Also, only Zeus (masculine) is able to fully immortalize a mortal completely in his human form (Ganymede)… All other loves of the gods turn to flowers or Cypress trees or a Cicada or whatever. Man has some special grace that woman doesn’t have. The masculine as the higher principle is connected to wholeness.
Feminism is either a blatant, toxic defiance of the masculine out of bitterness or a misguided attempt to appropriate masculine qualities in order to prove something under the banner of “equal opportunity”…That some women can do some things better than some men (or that some women outrank some men) will NEVER make the feminine the higher principle.
indeed it is different, which is why I specified that distinction
I agree with all of this, while at the same time insisting on the point that not every idea is worth being tested.
Unproven doesn’t mean wrong, but doesn’t mean right either. Often you can see the flaws from miles away.
I’ve proposed a reason why I think “superfeminism” is a flawed idea. That it is unproven is not the reason I proposed.
The reason I proposed is that it is contrary to personality traits, that they are not “cut out for it” in other words.
That is what you have been insisting I said. I forgive your misunderstanding.
history is full of cases of a person who really did not want to step up to a certain role, but who was absolutely the right person who was needed for that role
likewise we have plenty of “turtles on a tree branch” everywhere (it’s a phrase in my family which we assign to people who evidently did not climb to where they are on their own, somebody put them there)
we can hope that opportunity continues to be given to all equally, and the decision to actually enter into a role be done by an individual alone, freely and by his or her own sense of duty an evaluation, and their permanence on it be dictated by their performance
by this i mean that a person should not be denied a position for being that sex or race or age, and equally important they should not be forced into it
it’s not just intuition, as I mentioned before, it’s cross-cultural, statistically relevant, scientific fact
there are exceptions, but trust me they are doing fine, because they are just as assertive as the men, if not more
the exceptions do not want or need a “women in IT” support group to cheer them on
that is not at all what I seem to be saying I specifically said not necessarily extinct
maybe we’d still be on trees?
maybe we’d have evolved smaller brains and smaller eyes, but infants that drop and start running right away?
who knows what we’d be if things had not been the way they were?
pondering on that is an exercise of futility
If you want to prove that the current societal order is better than the one promoted by feminists – and I’m sure this is what you want to do – you can’t do so by claiming that the current societal order works. You need to make a claim that it works better.
Again, it’s not enough that it works, it must work better.
Obviously, you are trying to say that the current societal order works better than the one proposed by feminists.
You are also trying to say that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses which makes men better suited for certain roles in society and women for others. In other words, men and women don’t have the same set of abilities, so a society where men and women have arbitrarily assigned roles (because if one believes that men and women are equal, it doesn’t matter what kind of role they are assigned to) will be a weaker one.
And here, you are saying that what is new is bad. Maybe not in the first sentence but most definitely in the second.
So, to sum up my perception of what you’re trying to say:
Man and women are not equal, so a society that doesn’t recognize this distinction will be a weaker one
(I agree with the premise as well as the conclusion)
how do you figure?
i gather from the above that “the disruption of that order” is bad, and that “resent based policy” is bad
i think that a new structure that was neither disruptive of that order nor resent based would be quite welcome
in fact I have alluded to something along those lines:
Granted. Only the highest of all humans is a woman but she is much rarer than higher men. But what does this mean?
Does this not mean a ant-queen or a bee-queen… depending on fascism or monarchy.
I see a hive, dude. Don’t you? So isn’t this hive typically ruled by a mother-tyrant?
And are not males mere instruments…
Butt no, of course the ant is not the Nietzschean higher woman. I souls guess. I actually have little idea of what he meant except I can relate in my own personal way in a sense.
Not the ant-hood, but to the Valkyries. They are higher than men and they do live among us.
But Valkyries like men.
You are speaking of policies based on resentment. ReSent based policies, not reCent based policies. “Recent based policies” sounded quite strange but obviously not enough to make me question my eyesight.
Hives, unlike human societies, are composed of sterile clones.
Human females are aggressively competitive among themselves, and it tends to not be the healthy type of competitiveness in which one aims higher to become superior to the other. Instead they target the other, and attempt to take one another down.
It is very foolish to assume that in a matriarchy there would be no “oppression” of any group.
I put oppression in quotes because it is not reasonable to speak of oppression proper in a society where all are born with equal rights.
The feminist cooperative utopia is based on denial of that or willful ignorance of it.
I’ll go ahead and demean my own argument by saying that I’m not speaking from a scientific perspective now, as I am employing the phrase “tends to” and grounding this observation on personal experience. It seems fair. It is a weak point, but I feel it’s worth mentioning when speaking of hives.
Perhaps the feminist utopia is a hive. Perhaps all women must stop rearing children for that to be realized.
Yeah women are far more aware of their shit than men are, either of their own or of womens. And then there are plenty of men who are aware of this, and profit tremendously.
Yes the hive is typically ruled by a mother-tyrant, like in Sweden. But I don’t see how the highest human is a woman. Is the rarest of woman more special than the rarest of man? The gap between even great MEN is already huge let alone between great men and women:
" My concept "Dionysian” here became the supreme deed; compared with it everything that other men have done seems poor and limited. The fact that a Goethe or a Shakespeare would not for an instant have known how to take breath in this atmosphere of passion and of the heights; the fact that by the side of Zarathustra Dante is no more than a believer and not one who first creates truth—that is to say not a world-ruling spirit, a Destiny; the fact that the poets of the Veda were priests and not even fit to unfasten Zarathustra’s sandals—all this is the least of the matter and gives no idea of the distance, of the azure solitude in which this work dwells. Zarathustra has an eternal right to say: “I draw around me circles and holy boundaries. Ever fewer are they that mount with me to ever loftier heights. I build a mountain range of holier and holier mountains”
The same Shakepeare who N said had the most powerful vision of reality, even HE by N’s estimation couldn’t breath in his heights.(Although I don’t know if i agree with N here).
However, Nietzsche did NOT (as far as i know) ever engage with or even so much as MENTION Shakespeare’s “The Sonnets”…Yet took the time the time to talk about Julius Caesar (rolls eyes)… This small fact is something that I’ve never seen mentioned in any Nietzsche scholarship, yet it seems incredibly important. The “slight muse” of Shakespeare’s Sonnets may well be Nietzsche’s Superman… Or if he’s not, what does that mean, what is the relationship between the two… are they antagonistic, etc etc… Professing to know the limits of someone’s depths (Nietzsche on Shakespeare) without ever engaging the very CORE of Shakespeare (The Sonnets) would be like someone professing to be an expert on Nietzsche without ever talking about TSZ.
The question is then, why did N never mention The Sonnets:
A) He never read them (but i believe he had a collected works of Shakespeare in German)
B) He read them but didn’t think them very important (highly unlikely)
C) He read them and found them gravely important but left out mention for esoteric reasons
Great post. I disagree with Nietzsche on Shakespeare and honestly think it is because things need to be read in their native language, poetry especially.
Shakespeare not in English is like tennis on a sloping soggy hill. It has nothing to do with Shakespeare’s power. It is all in the sound. At least so I discovered when I set about reading Hamlet aloud and suddenly realized it wasn’t a somewhat boring drudging piece but ecstatically awesome, word for word.
Whatever N has said on the English is facile. I attribute this to his admiration for and service of Bismarck, who loathed nothing more than Englishmen. And, because N was wise, he consequently said very little about the English indeed.
On the subject of men and women -
I do not agree at all that men are greater or better than women. Men just fuck up way too much to give them that credit. If men were so great, the world would not have so much leftism, to begin with. The state of the world proves that men are shit, as a rule, and that the Superman is direly needed.
I trust that women will do most of the work in rearing the Superman. The logic behind that trust is simple: most men, nearly all of them, are desperately offended at the thought some species could turn out higher, better, more capable of love, more intimate with power, than they are.
Whereas millions of women desperately yearn for something better than regular old man. Women are not as insidiously jealous as men are - they are jealous very overtly. Men think they can hide it and go through insane lengths for it. But they never can hide it other than to their idiot buddie-boys.
I mean can you imagine reading Zarathustra in English… oh um oops.
But Zarathustra is conceptual poetry, alchemy. It is not in the impact of the spoken word, as Shakespeare is - it isn’t as “superficially” musical. Though it really kind of sucks to read it in English, the bigger concepts largely come across.
What does not in the least come across is the humour. Or does it? I find especially book 1 impossible to read without laughing very often at quite small things.
Women do of course hide their envy from men where they can and from women where they can try, but not from themselves. Well not nearly as much as men do at least - this is the advantage of being the weaker sex. You start out with less presumptions, less illusions.
Add to that the capacity of childbirth and see that women more than man are made to understand creation beyond themselves.
Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder if Blalvatski and Alice Bailey are not to be seen as serious examples for such an understanding. It would be pretty good if such a rough one as B. would be interpretable as such - much of their philosophy is surely of the advent of a Higher Man.
Say, work with me here, there is a hard conservative and experimentally Nietzschean caste of women who are tasked with rearing or finding means to the rearing of as well as educating and preparing eduction of the Superman.
What would the Curriculum look like?
(Because someone has to tell these women what to do. They might raise a Superman but they cant fathom whats going on in the bastards heart.)
If I had to right now spot the setting it would be eastern Canada, and the Superman would be raised on semi Eskimo Frenchwomen and Hockey. I don’t find it probable that whatever the Superman would be, he could be beaten at ice hockey. All jest aside there is a core of truth to this, and a need for seemingly trivial elelements to seep into he equation of the childhood of the man-beyond men.
It is a spartan sport and has actual grace. Canada has the Hudson Bay which would make for a Superhumanly harbour. There are grizzlies around and stuff like that. The opposite of city dwellings is required. Not many western nations offer that so much as Canada. Politics is suitable nowhere for this project, so we have to completely ignore politics. Also - where can you ignore politics? The same place.
In what way is the Earth suitable - where has man not ruined here?
Have you tried reading Shakespeare in German? I imagine the English translation of Nietzsche is relatively better than the German translation of Shakespeare (Other than some poems most of Nietzsche is prose)
I mean, imagine trying to translate "A Lover’s Complaint’ (the companion poem to The Sonnets) to German (shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/LoversComplaint.html)… It’s barely comprehensible in English… I didn’t even appreciate Shakespeare until I was in my late 20’s… Along with some of the sonnets, probably the most esoteric writing in English.
It’s just strange that Nietzsche would skip over The Sonnets… Superman=lightest thing on earth, a shadow, has not yet arrived… Shakespeare’s fair youth: a “slight muse”(i.e. insubstantial, barely there yet so profound in importance like the Superman), a brightly shining shadow, has not yet truly arrived (Sonnet 55)… Like Nietzsche’s experience of the Superman, it seems Shakespeare has only experienced the fair youth as a dream or vision…but he’s REAL, something that will come.
I didn’t say that men in general are better than women in general, but that the rarest of men is something more special than the rarest of women. shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/53 “But you like none, none you, for constant heart.”
"SHAKESPEARE
(April 23, 1664-1889)
Nay, Master, dare we speak? O mighty shade,
Sitting enthroned where awful splendors are,
Beyond the light of sun, or moon, or star,
How shall we breathe thy high name undismayed?
Poet, in royal majesty arrayed,
Walking with mute gods through the realms afar—
Seer, whose wide vision time nor death can bar,
We would but kiss thy feet, abashed, afraid!
But yet we love thee, and great love is bold.
Love, O our master, with his heart of flame
And eye of fire, dares even to look on thee,
For whom the ages lift their gates of gold;
And his glad tongue shall syllable thy name
Till time is lost in God’s unsounded sea!"
-Julie C.R. Dorr a really great poet in her own right showing her deference
lol, well I took German for 2 weeks (or was it 2 days) in college… But quickly realized there was no way I was ever going to become fluent unless someone kidnapped me, threw me in a dungeon and tortured me relentlessly in until I finally became fluent… even then I would still probably be too obstinate… there are words in German that are the size of entire sentences… who needs that.
Do you prefer TSZ in Dutch over English?
Yes women are more naturally disposed to appreciate creating “beyond themselves.”… But it’s the sacrifice of higher men that will lead to the arrival of the Superman. But of course these men need good mothers too.
Well, we don’t even know if the Superman is even born in some traditional sense… we only know per TSZ that he arrives…
I do think there needs to be some normality in education (sports hanging out with friends etc )… Not just some kid being treated like a science experiment in an effort to raise him into a god or something… The most divine is also the most normal, “simple” (the subdued sophistication and simplicity of the Greek gods vs the Ornate Asian gods) … my most religious experiences have always been at this cross section of divine and normal. I once almost slipped into sleep as I was laying in my bed concentrating dutifully on someone I love, but before actually falling into sleep, the beginning of a cross of wet gold flashed in my mind’s eye with incredible realness… You know that feeling when you catch yourself before actually falling asleep as if you’re falling off the bed and you get an adrenaline rush…it was like that expect i was jostled back awake by this vision that was literally seared into my memory… My one and only vision of a cross…which i immediately associated with Eros without any mental deliberation…not Christ ironically…
I dunno, Cananda gets cold as fuck in the winter… I don’t even like the winters in Massachusetts…anything below 10 degrees fahrenheit can GTFO …(you have much more mild, civilized winters in the Netherlands… I dunno why you chose Cananda to set up camp if you’re financially location independent but i digress) … For nature and space it’s great I suppose… but eventually he (the Superman) will have to venture out of the Icy North like the Vikings and hopefully reconquer some more choice locations like Los Angeles or Cape Town
