Arthur Schopenhauer: On Women

Arthur Schopenhauer is a forgotten German philosopher. In 1851 he wrote an essay entitled, “On Women.” As the copyright has expired, his full essay is reprinted below.

Do you agree with Schopenhauer’s view On Women?

You need only look at the way in which she is formed, to see that woman is not meant to undergo great labor, whether of the mind or of the body. She pays the debt of life not by what she does, but by what she suffers; by the pains of child-bearing and care for the child, and by submission to her husband, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. The keenest sorrows and joys are not for her, nor is she called upon to display a great deal of strength. The current of her life should be more gentle, peaceful and trivial than man’s, without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long–a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full-grown man, who is man in the strict sense of the word. See how a girl will fondle a child for days together, dance with it and sing to it; and then think what a man, with the best will in the world, could do if he were put in her place.

With young girls Nature seems to have had in view what, in the language of the drama, is called a striking effect; as for a few years she dowers them with a wealth of beauty and is lavish in her gift of charm, at the expense of all the rest of their life; so that during those years they may capture the fantasy of some man to such a degree that he is hurried away into undertaking the honorable care of them, in some form or other, as long as they live–a step for which there would not appear to be any sufficient warranty if reason only directed his thoughts. Accordingly, Nature has equipped woman, as she does all her creatures, with the weapons and implements requisite for the safeguarding of her existence, and for just as long as it is necessary for her to have them. Here, as elsewhere, Nature proceeds with her usual economy; for just as the female ant, after fecundation, loses her wings, which are then superfluous, nay, actually a danger to the business of breeding; so, after giving birth to one or two children, a woman generally loses her beauty; probably, indeed, for similar reasons.

And so we find that young girls, in their hearts, look upon domestic affairs or work of any kind as of secondary importance, if not actually as a mere jest. The only business that really claims their earnest attention is love, making conquests, and everything connected with this–dress, dancing, and so on.

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower it is in arriving at maturity. A man reaches the maturity of his reasoning powers and mental faculties hardly before the age of twenty-eight; a woman at eighteen. And then, too, in the case of woman, it is only reason of a sort–very niggard in its dimensions. That is why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance. For it is by virtue of his reasoning faculty that man does not live in the present only, like the brute, but looks about him and considers the past and the future; and this is the origin of prudence, as well as of that care and anxiety which so many people exhibit. Both the advantages and the disadvantages which this involves, are shared in by the woman to a smaller extent because of her weaker power of reasoning. She may, in fact, be described as intellectually short-sighted, because, while she has an intuitive understanding of what lies quite close to her, her field of vision is narrow and does not reach to what is remote; so that things which are absent, or past, or to come, have much less effect upon women than upon men. This is the reason why women are more often inclined to be extravagant, and sometimes carry their inclination to a length that borders upon madness. In their hearts, women think that it is men’s business to earn money and theirs to spend it— if possible during their husband’s life, but, at any rate, after his death. The very fact that their husband hands them over his earnings for purposes of housekeeping, strengthens them in this belief.

However many disadvantages all this may involve, there is at least this to be said in its favor; that the woman lives more in the present than the man, and that, if the present is at all tolerable, she enjoys it more eagerly. This is the source of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to women, fitting her to amuse man in his hours of recreation, and, in case of need, to console him when he is borne down by the weight of his cares.

It is by no means a bad plan to consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in ancient times; for their way of looking at things is quite different from ours, chiefly in the fact that they like to take the shortest way to their goal, and, in general, manage to fix their eyes upon what lies before them; while we, as a rule, see far beyond it, just because it is in front of our noses. In cases like this, we need to be brought back to the right standpoint, so as to recover the near and simple view.

Then, again, women are decidedly more sober in their judgment than we are, so that they do not see more in things than is really there; whilst, if our passions are aroused, we are apt to see things in an exaggerated way, or imagine what does not exist.

The weakness of their reasoning faculty also explains why it is that women show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men do, and so treat them with more kindness and interest; and why it is that, on the contrary, they are inferior to men in point of justice, and less honorable and conscientious. For it is just because their reasoning power is weak that present circumstances have such a hold over them, and those concrete things, which lie directly before their eyes, exercise a power which is seldom counteracted to any extent by abstract principles of thought, by fixed rules of conduct, firm resolutions, or, in general, by consideration for the past and the future, or regard for what is absent and remote. Accordingly, they possess the first and main elements that go to make a virtuous character, but they are deficient in those secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in the formation of it.

Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on. Perjury in a court of justice is more often committed by women than by men. It may, indeed, be generally questioned whether women ought to be sworn in at all. From time to time one finds repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, taking things from shop-counters when no one is looking, and making off with them.

Nature has appointed that the propagation of the species shall be the business of men who are young, strong and handsome; so that the race may not degenerate. This is the firm will and purpose of Nature in regard to the species, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. There is no law that is older or more powerful than this. Woe, then, to the man who sets up claims and interests that will conflict with it; whatever he may say and do, they will be unmercifully crushed at the first serious encounter. For the innate rule that governs women’s conduct, though it is secret and unformulated, nay, unconscious in its working, is this: We are justified in deceiving those who think they have acquired rights over the species by paying little attention to the individual, that is, to us. The constitution and, therefore, the welfare of the species have been placed in our hands and committed to our care, through the control we obtain over the next generation, which proceeds from us; let us discharge our duties conscientiously. But women have no abstract knowledge of this leading principle; they are conscious of it only as a concrete fact; and they have no other method of giving expression to it than the way in which they act when the opportunity arrives. And then their conscience does not trouble them so much as we fancy; for in the darkest recesses of their heart, they are aware that in committing a breach of their duty towards the individual, they have all the better fulfilled their duty towards the species, which is infinitely greater.

And since women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species, and are not destined for anything else, they live, as a rule, more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives their whole life and being a certain levity; the general bent of their character is in a direction fundamentally different from that of man; and it is this to which produces that discord in married life which is so frequent, and almost the normal state.

The natural feeling between men is mere indifference, but between women it is actual enmity. The reason of this is that trade-jealousy–odium figulinum–which, in the case of men does not go beyond the confines of their own particular pursuit; but, with women, embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, women look at one another like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is a patent fact that when two women make first acquaintance with each other, they behave with more constraint and dissimulation than two men would show in a like case; and hence it is that an exchange of compliments between two women is a much more ridiculous proceeding than between two men. Further, whilst a man will, as a general rule, always preserve a certain amount of consideration and humanity in speaking to others, even to those who are in a very inferior position, it is intolerable to see how proudly and disdainfully a fine lady will generally behave towards one who is in a lower social rank (I do not mean a woman who is in her service), whenever she speaks to her. The reason of this may be that, with women, differences of rank are much more precarious than with us; because, while a hundred considerations carry weight in our case, in theirs there is only one, namely, with which man they have found favor; as also that they stand in much nearer relations with one another than men do, in consequence of the one-sided nature of their calling. This makes them endeavor to lay stress upon differences of rank.

It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that under-sized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race; for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the un-aesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility; it is a mere mockery if they make a pretence of it in order to assist their endeavor to please. Hence, as a result of this, they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything; and the reason of it seems to me to be as follows. A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated–a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel. Hence, even Rousseau declared: Women have, ingeneral, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius.

No one who sees at all below the surface can have failed to remark the same thing. You need only observe the kind of attention women bestow upon a concert, an opera, or a play–the childish simplicity, for example, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks excluded women from their theatres they were quite right in what they did; at any rate you would have been able to hear what was said upon the stage. In our day, besides, or in lieu of saying, Let a woman keepsilence in the church, it would be much to the point to say Let a woman keep silence in the theatre. This might, perhaps, be put up in big letters on the curtain.

And you cannot expect anything else of women if you consider that the most distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a single achievement in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original; or given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere. This is most strikingly shown in regard to painting, where mastery of technique is at least as much within their power as within ours–and hence they are diligent in cultivating it; but still, they have not a single great painting to boast of, just because they are deficient in that objectivity of mind which is so directly indispensable in painting. They never get beyond a subjective point of view. It is quite in keeping with this that ordinary women have no real susceptibility for art at all; for Nature proceeds in strict sequence–non facit saltum. And Huarte in his Examen de ingenios para las scienzias–a book which has been famous for three hundred years–denies women the possession of all the higher faculties. The case is not altered by particular and partial exceptions; taken as a whole, women are, and remain, thorough-going Philistines, and quite incurable. Hence, with that absurd arrangement which allows them to share the rank and title of their husbands they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And, further, it is just because they are Philistines that modern society, where they take the lead and set the tone, is in such a bad way. Napoleon’s saying–thatwomen have no rank–should be adopted as the right standpoint in determining their position in society; and as regards their other qualities Chamfort makes the very true remark: Theyare made to trade with our own weaknesses and our follies, but not with our reason. The sympathies that exist between them and men are skin-deep only, and do not touch the mind or the feelings or the character. They form the sexus sequior–the second sex, inferior in every respect to the first; their infirmities should be treated with consideration; but to show them great reverence is extremely ridiculous, and lowers us in their eyes. When Nature made two divisions of the human race, she did not draw the line exactly through the middle. These divisions are polar and opposed to each other, it is true; but the difference between them is not qualitative merely, it is also quantitative.

This is just the view which the ancients took of woman, and the view which people in the East take now; and their judgment as to her proper position is much more correct than ours, with our old French notions of gallantry and our preposterous system of reverence–that highest product of Teutonico-Christian stupidity. These notions have served only to make women more arrogant and overbearing; so that one is occasionally reminded of the holy apes in Benares, who in the consciousness of their sanctity and inviolable position, think they can do exactly as they please.

But in the West, the woman, and especially the lady, finds herself in a false position; for woman, rightly called by the ancients, sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honor and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and be on equal terms with him. The consequences of this false position are sufficiently obvious. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number-Two of the human race were in Europe also relegated to her natural place, and an end put to that lady nuisance, which not only moves all Asia to laughter, but would have been ridiculed by Greece and Rome as well. It is impossible to calculate the good effects which such a change would bring about in our social, civil and political arrangements. There would be no necessity for the Salic law: it would be a superfluous truism. In Europe the lady, strictly so-called, is a being who should not exist at all; she should be either a housewife or a girl who hopes to become one; and she should be brought up, not to be arrogant, but to be thrifty and submissive. It is just because there are such people asladies in Europe that the women of the lower classes, that is to say, the great majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East. And even Lord Byron says: Thought of the state of women under the ancient Greeks–convenient enough. Present state, a remnant of the barbarism of the chivalric and the feudal ages–artificial and unnatural. They ought to mind home–and be well fed and clothed–but not mixed in society. Well educated, too, in religion–but to read neither poetry nor politics– nothing but books of piety and cookery. Music–drawing–dancing–also a little gardening and ploughing now and then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus with good success. Why not, as well as hay-making and milking?

The laws of marriage prevailing in Europe consider the woman as the equivalent of the man–start, that is to say, from a wrong position. In our part of the world where monogamy is the rule, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. Now, when the laws gave women equal rights with man, they ought to have also endowed her with a masculine intellect. But the fact is, that just in proportion as the honors and privileges which the laws accord to women, exceed the amount which nature gives, is there a diminution in the number of women who really participate in these privileges; and all the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just so much as is given to the others over and above their share. For the institution of monogamy, and the laws of marriage which it entails, bestow upon the woman an unnatural position of privilege, by considering her throughout as the full equivalent of the man, which is by no means the case; and seeing this, men who are shrewd and prudent very often scruple to make so great a sacrifice and to acquiesce in so unfair an arrangement.

Consequently, whilst among polygamous nations every woman is provided for, where monogamy prevails the number of married women is limited; and there remains over a large number of women without stay or support, who, in the upper classes, vegetate as useless old maids, and in the lower succumb to hard work for which they are not suited; or else become filles de joie, whose life is as destitute of joy as it is of honor. But under the circumstances they become a necessity; and their position is openly recognized as serving the special end of warding off temptation from those women favored by fate, who have found, or may hope to find, husbands. In London alone there are 80,000 prostitutes. What are they but the women, who, under the institution of monogamy have come off worse? Theirs is a dreadful fate: they are human sacrifices offered up on the altar of monogamy. The women whose wretched position is here described are the inevitable set-off to the European lady with her arrogance and pretension. Polygamy is therefore a real benefit to the female sex if it is taken as a whole. And, from another point of view, there is no true reason why a man whose wife suffers from chronic illness, or remains barren, or has gradually become too old for him, should not take a second. The motives which induce so many people to become converts to Mormonism appear to be just those which militate against the unnatural institution of monogamy.

Moreover, the bestowal of unnatural rights upon women has imposed upon them unnatural duties, and, nevertheless, a breach of these duties makes them unhappy. Let me explain. A man may often think that his social or financial position will suffer if he marries, unless he makes some brilliant alliance. His desire will then be to win a woman of his own choice under conditions other than those of marriage, such as will secure her position and that of the children. However fair, reasonable, fit and proper these conditions may be, and the woman consents by foregoing that undue amount of privilege which marriage alone can bestow, she to some extent loses her honor, because marriage is the basis of civic society; and she will lead an unhappy life, since human nature is so constituted that we pay an attention to the opinion of other people which is out of all proportion to its value. On the other hand, if she does not consent, she runs the risk either of having to be given in marriage to a man whom she does not like, or of being landed high and dry as an old maid; for the period during which she has a chance of being settled for life is very short. And in view of this aspect of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius’ profoundly learned treatise, de Concubinatu, is well worth reading; for it shows that, amongst all nations and in all ages, down to the Lutheran Reformation, concubinage was permitted; nay, that it was an institution which was to a certain extent actually recognized by law, and attended with no dishonor. It was only the Lutheran Reformation that degraded it from this position. It was seen to be a further justification for the marriage of the clergy; and then, after that, the Catholic Church did not dare to remain behind-hand in the matter.

There is no use arguing about polygamy; it must be taken as de facto existing everywhere, and the only question is as to how it shall be regulated. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate, for a time, and most of us, always, in polygamy. And so, since every man needs many women, there is nothing fairer than to allow him, nay, to make it incumbent upon him, to provide for many women. This will reduce woman to her true and natural position as a subordinate being; and the lady–that monster of European civilization and Teutonico-Christian stupidity–will disappear from the world, leaving only women, but no more unhappy women, of whom Europe is now full.

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Mamu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband’s funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband’s money with her paramours–the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course–medium tenuere beati.

The first love of a mother for her child is, with the lower animals as with men, of a purely instinctive character, and so it ceases when the child is no longer in a physically helpless condition. After that, the first love should give way to one that is based on habit and reason; but this often fails to make its appearance, especially where the mother did not love the father. The love of a father for his child is of a different order, and more likely to last; because it has its foundation in the fact that in the child he recognizes his own inner self; that is to say, his love for it is metaphysical in its origin.

In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however. That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except where all male descendants fail. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided. The vanity of women, even though it should not prove to be greater than that of men, has this much danger in it, that it takes an entirely material direction. They are vain, I mean, of their personal beauty, and then of finery, show and magnificence. That is just why they are so much in their element in society. It is this, too, which makes them so inclined to be extravagant, all the more as their reasoning power is low. Accordingly we find an ancient writer describing woman as in general of an extravagant nature. But with men vanity often takes the direction of non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage.

In the Politics Aristotle explains the great disadvantage which accrued to the Spartans from the fact that they conceded too much to their women, by giving them the right of inheritance and dower, and a great amount of independence; and he shows how much this contributed to Sparta’s fall. May it not be the case in France that the influence of women, which went on increasing steadily from the time of Louis XIII., was to blame for that gradual corruption of the Court and the Government, which brought about the Revolution of 1789, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the fruit? However that may be, the false position which women occupy, demonstrated as it is, in the most glaring way, by the institution of the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions.

That woman is by nature meant to obey may be seen by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of complete independence, immediately attaches herself to some man, by whom she allows herself to be guided and ruled. It is because she needs a lord and master. If she is young, it will be a lover; if she is old, a priest.

Read now: Quotes About Being a Man from Aristotle.

  • Rumour

    Thank you for posting this. It is both amusing and greatly distressing to know that this wisdom has been available for over 150 years, but not disseminated. I truly wonder how many men … men who absolutely need to read and ponder this … will take the time to do so.

    Games, toys, proud ignorance = contemporary masculinity

    • Hawk

      Rumour : Damned straight. I suppose the feminization of the western world managed to keep this particular essay hidden. A book along similar lines written in 1971 entitled “The Manipulated Man” by Esther Vilar will propose an answer to your question as to why men are not willing to read the writing on the wall that’s been there for so long. All you need do is read the last line of the last chapter of her book; “and man, that wonderful dreamer, will not awaken from his dream.”

  • dc1000

    bravo!!!

  • Carl Sagan

    Didn’t Schopenhauer suck with women though? Kind of like Nietzsche.

    I still like their philosophy, however.

    Another guy who knew his shit was Lord Byron.

    • uh

      “Suck with women” — avoided marriage. Schopenhauer went to whores. Nietzsche was gauche.

      • Whitehall

        Brahms “sucked with women” too. He started his musical career playing piano in a Bremenhaven whorehouse and frequented them all his life.

        His first serious job was teaching a nobleman’s family music. A young princess came to visit and Brahms fell in love with her. She snubbed him, of course, and Brahms wrote his Opus 25, in heart-rendering tension. It made his career but history has forgotten the name of the princess.

  • Capsaicin

    Epic.

    Truth.

    This essay is a penetratingly accurate examination and explanation of the differences between the sexes–physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual.

    If a man were to read Schopenhaur’s essay here, and take it to heart, being truly intellectually honest with himself, he would forever take women down from the pedestal he had put them on. And his masculine self-respect would skyrocket.

    And he would likely do much better with women; as Schopehaur points out, for men to “show them [women] great reverence is extremely ridiculous, and lowers us in their eyes.”

    However, as Rumour says above in the comments, tons of men today are just as trivial and frivolous as Schopenhaur believes women to be.

    It’s really not that hard to stand out when your competition is made up of so many childish, hyper-emotional, intellectually uncurious tools.

    Thanks for posting this, D & P. I honestly think you’re a little psycho (and not in a good way, tending toward outright hostility toward women and too much affinity for borderline violence towards them. Example: that picture on Twitter of a bruised women–your sole commentary was “turned on.”), BUT … the core ideas behind this blog do seem to emanate from real, deep truth.

  • Fox

    Thanks you for posting the entire reading. With only the lone paragraph yesterday I could not fully grasp the context or substance. I have to say I do agree with him now that I have read the entire section.

  • Pingback: SCHOPENHAUER ON WOMEN()

  • Village Indian

    :clap: :clap: we’ll done sir. Well articulated. Please post sources from Schopenhauer’s work that you used?

    • http://gravatar.com/samseau samseau

      Google Schopenhauer, “On Women”. This essay is over 150 years old.

  • Vince

    Good job on posting this… Have you read David Quinn’s essay “Woman”? It touches on many of the same themes.

    http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Exposition.html

  • Pingback: What Is The Real Purpose Of Women? » Roosh V()

  • Adam Michaels

    The truth. My girlfriends mom is visiting from another country. She is a high power financial director in her country, out of necessesity to survive as a single mother. But while here in the United States, her true interest shows, as she shops all day for kitchen supplies and clothes.

    Thanks for posting this. Schopenhauer really knew whats good.

  • http://thelesserevilshow.blogspot.com The Lesser Evil

    It take a certain type of many to step of the matrix have the type understanding Arthur Schopenhauer had so many years ago.

    http://thelesserevilshow.blogspot.com/2012/01/front-street-rosebudd-american-pimp.html

  • LordBromley

    Could this explain why most Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are men?

  • Issac Jordan

    If I could pick anyone in the history of the world to have lunch with, Arthur Schopenhauer would definitely be on my short list.

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

  • Whitehall

    Schopenhauer is renowned for being the Great Pessimist. He also comes across as catty and speaking from sour grapes. He also. little wonder, downplays the downside of male behavior.

    Still, he has the basic insights correct.

    However, we need to realize that the human species only survives when BOTH genders’ strengths are at work. I recognize the differences between the genders but we need both, well played. We need good women as much as we need good men.

  • Girl

    Thanks for posting this.

    I have to say that I did not understand everything since it is so much information to take in, but it has helped me understand why men have always been the stronger and more intelligent sex. I am starting to accept the fact that men are superior to us. In particular, i agree that we girls tend to stay more childlike and carefree than men. our mindset is closer to children and teenagers than adult male.

    we also need leadership and guidance to be happy, i need to look up to my man and i want to obey him. i think that’s just in our feminine nature. deep inside we know that we are inferior to men, but we don’t want to admit it, a bit like pride. but this article has taught me to be humble and put down my pride in front of men.

    at college i have been told by my male friends before that i was an arrogant girl. i cried of course, but now i finally know the answer. instead of always disagreeing with everything a man says, when a man tells me that i am wrong, i should admit it and apologize to him, when a man tells me i should change in a certain way, i should accept his teaching and improve.

  • A Lady

    The crux of your argument seems to rest upon how men are logical and objective while women are irrational and hopelessly subjective. Perhaps I believe this because I am a woman, but the entire human race seems irrational and hopelessly subjective to me.

    We are not a celestial mind/soul that rests in a human body. We’re a complex mixture of interactions between our mind and body. For example, scientific studies show that incorrect body posture and breathing can make us angry, anxious, and depressed. These states of being (angry, anxious, depressed) do not stem from a logical, rational, source, but instead from the body itself. Our minds become angry, anxious, and depressed, but until we are aware of how directly the body affects the mind, we do not have the truth on why we are feeling this way and may think that some different issue is affecting us (like a sour past, worries about the future, etc). Logic and objectivity are not things we, as humans, posses, because so much of what we do is a reaction from a stimulus in the body. Our minds, in a sense, are not pure.

    This is just a conclusion I’ve reached from studying psychology, anatomy, and people, it may be incorrect. But I certainly don’t believe that men are logical and rational while women are stuck being the opposite. Perhaps we as sexes exist on a gradient between subjectivity and objectivity, with men being closer to the objective side, but if you believe that you are perfectly objective, then you are deluding yourself.

    Men are definitely stronger than women. You guys have more muscle mass and are built to hunt. When it comes to longevity and the strength of the immune system, however, women are superior. We conclusively live longer on average than men and have much stronger immune systems. Our tolerance for pain is higher, even while we feel pain more acutely due to having less of a certain hormone in our body (you’ll have to forgive the lack of direct references, I haven’t organized these things perfectly yet). You have to ask yourself why women, if we are only made to be useful in our youth, have longer lifespans than men do.

    I agree with Whitehall’s comment, both sexes have strengths as human beings.

    I find a lot of value in the anti-feminist movement, it’s extremely fascinating to me as a woman. I do think there is truth in it, even if so much is mired in prejudice and an extremely subjective perspective. It’s made me question feminism and my own purpose as a human being. So keep spouting your ideas, I’ll be listening!

    • Graham

      A Lady,

      Re: your first three paragraphs, three words: ‘Difference of degree.’ As you noted towards the end.

      Re: your fourth. Men are risk-takers. We do the smoking, boozing, foolhardy adventuring. We work the dangerous jobs and fight the wars. We also avoid the doctor for as long as possible, and sometimes longer. You have to consider this when discussing average lifespans.

      Men have higher pain tolerance than women. It’s absurd to say women “feel pain more acutely”, as if a scientist could administer an objectively quantifiable amount of pain which is then experienced differently according to sex. As if there were a difference between ‘amount of pain’ and ‘amount of pain felt’. No, there is only the experience of pain; and women on average can take less of it than men. If the same stimulus causes more pain in a woman than in a man, this is because her pain threshold is lower than his.

      And of course women are still useful after their youth. Ever heard of women’s work?

      Joking aside, older women, while much less sexually attractive, are often worthy of respect and can be lovable for other reasons, such as their virtues as wives, mothers, generalized nurturers and homemakers, their brand of life-wisdom and their various accomplishments.

      -Graham

      • Apollyon

        Definitely false that women have a higher pain threshold. Note how many (mainly young) males actively seek out pain – roughhousing, contact sports, taking crazy risks, etc. Women actively seek pain avoidance. Most pre-industrial societies had rituals for boys to become men. Often, it involved pain. Rarely the case for women (girls become women simply by menstruating). When was the last time you saw a girl/woman deliberately testing her tolerance to pain? It’s not uncommon for boys (becoming less so as we continue to feminize boys in West).

        Regarding lifespans. Is this due to natural factors or due to men simply not taking care of themselves (how hard is it to get a man to go to the doctor? A woman goes to the doctor when she has the sniffles). In Russia, men die much earlier. The reason? Alcoholism. One can reasonably argue that men’s lives are simply tougher…everywhere.

        Imagine if it was the other way around? It would be the no. 1 ‘issue’ for feminists. Instead they have the ‘women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man earns’ nonsense.

      • Graham

        “Imagine if it was the other way around? It would be the no. 1 ‘issue’ for feminists. Instead they have the ‘women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man earns’ nonsense.”

        I took a class on feminist politics once (it was a bird course) and the subject of women’s health issues occupied 1 or 2 lectures. Lots of whining about how no one takes breast cancer seriously enough, no one takes women’s health seriously, the poor African women are all dying, etc etc. I piped up, “Women live significantly longer than men on average. Doesn’t that tell us who’s health is really taken more seriously?” Fully 10 seconds of stunned silence.

        Ideologues – I’m telling you – it’s like they’re blind, can’t see for themselves; they’ve never really seen and compared how people react when a female gets hurt and when a male does. The pampering starts on day 1 of a baby girl’s life. And I don’t begrudge them that one bit – until it turns into entitlement, narcissim and feminism.

    • H Lerkimer

      Not quite sure what you are getting out of this blog as a woman, besides a good laugh, but thanks for contributing!

      • Danger & Play Blog

        I’m letting you run wild because it’s so transparent what you’re doing…and it’s so useful for other men (especially the younger men who find female beheavior to be frustrating) to observe and learn from your wilding.

        You are acting out not because you’re a “strong, independent woman,” but because you deeply crave being forced to submit. Your cheeks are blushing now as you imagine me putting you in your place.

        That 50 Shades of Grey trailer going around probably isn’t helping things, either….

        • H Lerkimer

          Ooh, you’re letting me run wild. How brave and macho of you! Go ahead and dominate me by deleting my comments if it makes you hard. It’s your blog, after all.

          I didn’t read 50 Shades – I heard about it and it sounded stupid. I did hear they were going to make it into a movie, but I don’t have time for that kind of nonsense. Perhaps you could watch it for me and report back? You could probably find a willing victim in the crowd on the way out, if you are as good looking as you seem to think you are.

          Happy hunting!

        • H Lerkimer

          Just because someone likes to play rough in the bedroom does not mean they “crave being forced to submit” as you seem to infer. And just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are “acting out.” But I suppose if you view someone as a child, then you might feel that disagreement = insubordination. But then that would kind of make you a pedophile, wouldn’t it? I am afraid I don’t fully grasp the world view of the Manosphere yet, and I’m not sure how much more time I will put into it, but it certainly has been an interesting anthropological foray. Thanks for leaving your blog wide open where anyone can read it; it’s been quite eye-opening.

        • H Lerkimer

          I want to thank you again for providing me with welcome comic relief throughout my grueling 12 hour shift at work last night. In between treating men for heart attacks and women dying of multiple organ failure, I could retreat to my office and check on what new silly messages would await me here. It has been truly entertaining. I think I’ll stroll around the Manosphere more often and see if every male ego is as fragile as the ones on display here.

          My husband and my girlfriend are going to be ROFL when they see this. We had heard that men like you all exist, but before now I have never encountered any in person, at least who were willing to share their male-supremacist beliefs and fantasies with me.

          You guys aren’t by any chance associated with the open-carry wingnuts in Texas, are you?

          Great stuff, keep it coming!

    • Zelcorpion

      Women don’t live longer when living identical lifestyles. Studies done on Christian monks and nuns show that men live exactly as long as their female counterparts. Dangerous work, work-related stress, more alcohol, tobacco and worse eating habits are cutting down men’s life expectancy. Immune system correlates with lifestyle mentioned and is about the same lines. You should really check the data on monks and nuns.

      Pain resistance is a myth. Men are by far more pain resistant – childbirth is an exception, but women were designed to withstand that.

      Feminism is a destructive negative doctrine based on lies and also political and economic goals of the plutocracy. Ultimately women will understand that a hate-cult based on 95% of lies will only hurt them more than men and society as a whole will suffer.

  • Pingback: Aurther Schopenhauer: On Women | Air & Space()

  • Pingback: Contemporary Analysis on Women: All That is Wrong | From a Young Man's Perspective()

  • Pingback: Testosterone VS. Estrogen | From a Young Man's Perspective()

  • Pingback: Is Game Moral? | Danger & Play()

  • Jose

    I read half, but it’s a bit too sacreligious for my taste even.
    It’s “””funny””” how women have equal capability as men to learn and retain information.
    I’m sure Arthur would die for what he stands for, argue until his face turns blue and his eyes bulge out.
    It would be a lost cause for him, science has proven too many things against his argument; he is majorly wrong.

    i’m sure his supporters back in the 1800’s or whenever this was written loved him for it. Prime example of how you can be a complete fool and be idolized like Jesus Christ.

  • Pingback: Arthur Schopenhauer – The Art of Being Right | T B H Q()

  • H Lerkimer

    What a bunch of tripe. I found this site looking for fun stuff about rough sex, because who doesn’t love some crazy fun in the bedroom? But all this ancient nonsense about women being childlike, trivial, weak and incapable of reason – what, did I fall out of my chair and land in the 1700s somehow? Jesus christ guys, you might be good in bed and if so, I’d be happy to fuck you, but you start blathering on about how you are the keepers of reason and morality and women are eternal children and my eyes just glaze over. You might have your pick of the 18 year old girls with Daddy issues, but you obviously won’t ever keep company with a real woman with this kind of narcissistic personality disorder.

    For the record, I am a grown woman, breadwinner for my family, highly paid specialty physician, and mother of four. I’m bisexual, I have an open marriage and I fucking love sex. And I have no patience for this resurgence of misogyny packaged as some kind of return to chivalry or whatever you guys are imagining. “The Manosphere…” I almost peed my pants when I read that.

    Enjoy your perpetual adolescence! In case the obvious has escaped you, you too will lose your looks, your precious biceps, your virility and your logic as you age. I see dried up old men, confused and incontinent, every day in the hospital where I work. I hope you have developed something of value in your life besides your “alpha” identity when your youth and vigor desert you.

    Carry on, now, boys.

    • T and A man

      tl;dr

      • H Lerkimer

        If three short paragraphs are too long for you, it must have been quite a project for you to make your way through the original post, several pages long, from 1851! Where there’s a will there’s a way, apparently.

        • Séan

          “But all this ancient nonsense about women being childlike, trivial, weak and incapable of reason”.
          Weak? Y

          Hardly ancient nonsense in fairness.

          Hop onto Facebook any day of the week and see the garbage your average woman comes out with.

          • H Lerkimer

            I see trivial nonsense posted on FB by people of all ages and genders; I have not noticed much difference there. In my profession about half the physicians I work with are women, and I find that they are usually more thorough, and often more compassionate – perhaps that is “childlike” to you, I don’t know. There are more kinds of strength than muscular – I’d like to see you survive 62 hours of labor. Some would say it takes strength to be the caregiver for one’s elderly parents, something done almost exclusively by women. I see them every day, exhausted but holding on for months or years to keep their loved ones out of the nursing home. But sure, you can probably bench more than me – so what? That only matters if you are planning to assault someone, which perhaps you are, based on what I’ve seen here.

            I really don’t care about the size of your dick. I doubt that will ever have any relevance to me.

          • Séan

            Is child bearing tough? You betcha. Does enduring childbirth make one a strong woman? Not necessarily.

            There are plenty of welfare recipients sitting on their arses with their spawn running riot around them while they shovel another bucket of KFC chicken down their gullets watching their “stories”.

            Not one of these “mothers” has any “strength” to speak of,
            but in feminist la-la land (where you live) motherhood automatically bestows strength upon them, just because they’ve had a few kids.

            Strength is not bestowed upon you by default; it’s something you develop over time.

            Strength is a combination of both the mental and physical faculties of one’s self.

            It can be achieved with physical endeavour (eg via resistance training), by eveloping one’s mind to battle harden oneself against the tribulations of the world and/or a combination of both.

            Overall, when one looks at both physical and mental aspects of strength, women generally fail miserably in comparison to men.

            The evidence (note that word carefully) deems this to be true.

            The overwhelming amount of progress in this world is down to men.

            All the great inventions were/are created by men.

            Every single thing you touch, from the floor beneath your feet to the
            medical equipment you use to save lives, was invented and built by men.

            The best spectator sports are male dominated, bar the odd exception like tennis or athletics.

            It is because of our superior strength (mentally and physically) that the
            progress you enjoy today and the things YOU take for granted are possible.

            Leave it to women exclusively and it’ll soon degenerate into a smorgasbord of gossip, bitchiness and outright sloth.

            And you, and the whole world know this is true, deep down or otherwise. To say contrary is goddamn retarded.

            If it wasn’t, there would be ample evidence of females exclusively carving out niches for themselves, advancing the world as a whole.

            As it stands, I (and the rest of the world) are still waiting for any such significant evidence of this (note the word significant, NOT an occasional outlier) being true.

            And we’ll be waiting a while, ‘cos they simply aren’t interested in carving
            out these niches, nor are they capable overall as a demographic.

            The number of women going into STEM fields (you know, the areas that
            actually progress the world) is still miniscule.

            Ditto with regard to the number of woman starting businesses and other innovative endeavours which push us forward as a species.

            They chose not to go into these areas for the simple reason they generally lack the natural aptitude to be successful, to say little of their lack of interest or their natural risk averseness.

            Instead they pursue avenues which are more suitable to their natural
            skillset and demeanour, careers like nursing, teaching and childminding.

            Oh..and please don’t blame “the patriarchy” or anything similar for the fact woman have yet to achieve anything of note, relative to men.

            Feminism has been in force for a good hundred years, and women enjoy every right conceivable that men do.

            They’ve yet to do anything worth a toss in relation to the advancement of the world, bar occasionally look good.

            And the reason for this is that they just aren’t strong enough, mentally and physically.

            So to summarise I think referring to women as childlike, trivial, weak and
            incapable of reason is perfectly reasonable, given the available evidence.

            When the day comes I see them doing something else but posting duckface selfies, whining incessantly and rampantly attention whoring, I and others like me may begin to take them seriously.

            (Oh and by the way, IT IS mainly women who clog up social media sites with inane nonsense. While it’s true to say both sexes post their share of nonsense, women take it to another level)

            I will give you kudos from not going down the pathetic ad-hominem Feminazi shaming tactics route, outright at any case. No mention of not being able to get laid, not a hint of a mother’s basement.

            Fair play to you in that respect.

            But the mask slipped with the “assault someone” jibe, and the “dick won’t have any relevance to me” riposte.

            It seems online feminists and their ilk are always dying to fling petty
            insults at people, even when they know nothing about the character of the other individual that’s at the other end of the rope.

            No surprise really, because that’s all they got.

            Silly, emotional-based shaming in the face of damning logic.

    • Danger & Play Blog

      This is a fantastic parody comment. Loved it. Hit all of the typical nonsense talking points. Bravo, sir, bravo.

      • H Lerkimer

        Ha ha! Yes, you are funny. No, seriously, there are actually women in the world who don’t fit into your stereotypes. Imagine that!

        • Danger & Play Blog

          You missed the joke. Your comment hit on so many of the talking points that it had to be parody. If you are a woman, you do indeed fit every stereotype!

          • H Lerkimer

            Indeed, there are certainly some stereotypes at play here aren’t there. Oh well, carry on, I will look elsewhere for some less condescending sex play. Pity though.

          • H Lerkimer

            If you are looking for parody, though, I would refer you to “Girl” below, from 2 years ago. Seems a bit more your speed, no?

          • H Lerkimer

            No, sweetie, I didn’t miss the joke. It just wasn’t a very good one.

      • H Lerkimer

        I’m guessing you don’t go to lady doctors, do you, good sir? Wouldn’t want to offend your delicate sensibilities.

    • Ricky Vaughn

      “Jesus christ guys, you might be good in bed and if so, I’d be happy to fuck you”

      “For the record, I am a grown woman, breadwinner for my family, highly paid specialty physician, and mother of four.”

      “I’m bisexual, I have an open marriage and I fucking love sex.”

      “My husband and my girlfriend are going to be ROFL when they see this.”

      Wow, just wow, I can’t even. This is like, why we need patriarchy you guys.

      • H Lerkimer

        Wow, just wow. Like, totally incoherent, dude. Good luck with that patriarchy project.

  • Danger & Play Blog

    It’s a man for sure. Knows too much inside information. I never used the term “manosphere” on this post and yet “she” keeps talking about it. He was entertaining at first. Like all trolls, he overplays his hand and reveals himself for who he is.

    • D&P

      If you’re so sure of yourself why do you vet comments?

      • D&P

        I know you’ve been known to edit/delete stuff you don’t like

    • H Lerkimer

      Sweetheart, this is not the only blog in the world. Pull your head out of your ass.

  • H Lerkimer

    Are you a physician, sir? I am not sure what you think you are describing. I mention my profession only to highlight the absurdity of the claim, above, that women are trivial, incapable of logical thought, etc. etc.

  • jordan

    I enjoyed the read but this guy is blind if he couldn’t see that a large portion of men have the same characteristics that he confines only to women. Effeminate male ran society maybe?

    Just being opened minded. Just because he gets a lot of things right doesn’t mean he is 100% right.

    I see this reading most valuable as a wake call for men to be men.

  • Nick

    I agree with a lot of the points in this.

    We can see that given equal rights, equal education and equal opportunities that women have done almost nothing of value with it.

    The vast majority of women continue to idolise people like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian who’s only achievements of note are being an object of sexual desire for men. Fashion, makeup (appearance), material goods and social status are the only things that the vast majority of women seek and is evidently the main driving force of their lives.

    And yes, men also seek these things but in a much more minor way, they are not driven by it (the vast majority of men) as women are. Men often get a few nice clothes and a couple of nice material good and generally are happy and will focus on other things, such as improving ones self. Women on the other hand need the newest trend, the newest good, the thing that is hot right now.

    Should women have equal rights as men? I believe the answer is yes, even though they are in many ways inferior beings and will often contribute much less to society, there are always exceptions to the rule and those exceptions should be allowed to contribute and thus have the same platform as men. To deny that 1% would be a bad thing for society in my eyes as the other 99% of women will just do as described by Schopenhauer. It is thus up to the man to actually be a man in the face of a womans b/s instead of relying on laws to keep females playing to their natural instincts.