Arthur Schopenhauer "On Women" - Cynical but True

[Winston]

Check out Arthur Schopenhauer's essay "On Women". It's very cynical and pessimistic, but very truthful, witty and funny as well. I can't believe you could get away with such politically incorrect essays in the 18th and 19th Centuries. You won't find anything like this today with modern writers or philosophers.

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html

An abridged version of Arthur Schopenhauer's famous essay "On Women"

Schopenhauer: "The truth can wait, for it lives a long time"

The nature of the female

One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man's without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

Natural weapons

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.

Female truth

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

Feminine charms

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Absence of genius

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

Insipid women-veneration

This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.

Monogamy and 'filles de joie'

In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.

No argument about polygamy

There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.

Property and inheritance

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, 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.

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 when there cease to be male descendants. 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.


Up to 'Property and inheritance' the translation is by R. J. Hollingdale, from Arthur Schopenhauer: Essays and Aphorisms (Penguin 1970), then by T. Bailey Saunders.

[wuming]

After reading Schopenhauer's essay I naturally wanted to know what his life was like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer

He was an abolitionist and in favor of animal rights in the 19th century. That puts him far, far ahead of his contemporaries by my reckoning.

As for the essay itself - many points ring true even though the structure of the essay (assertions and observations) begs the question, though I suppose polling and statistical significance weren't available in that time. And there are gems of insight that are difficult to argue with:

"...to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties" - he should have said, Halve one's rights AND assets.

"The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice." - I suspect this to be true as I have seldom met a woman for whom fairness and integrity were primary, but, it would be interesting to test this assertion more rigorously. Certainly the prevailing tendency to try to take a spouse's pre-marriage assets in divorce court support Schopenhauer's assertion.

Finally, Schopenhauer's ridicule of venerating women and putting them on a pedestal, I agree with. Because women are, in that respect, no different from men: given unearned and unchecked power, they'll abuse it.

[jamesbond]

I really like this essay and agree with most of what he said. This man was wise beyond his years! In the latter half of the 20th century, feminism has reared it's ugly head and is now part of our culture.

[Grunt]

Correction, feminism is a symptom of a dying culture. And the American culture is most certainly dying. Consider feminism the "death throes" of any society. Where and when it is seen, the end is certainly near.

[Winston]

After reading Schopenhauer's essay I naturally wanted to know what his life was like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer

He was an abolitionist and in favor of animal rights in the 19th century. That puts him far, far ahead of his contemporaries by my reckoning.

As for the essay itself - many points ring true even though the structure of the essay (assertions and observations) begs the question, though I suppose polling and statistical significance weren't available in that time. And there are gems of insight that are difficult to argue with:

"...to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties" - he should have said, Halve one's rights AND assets.

"The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice." - I suspect this to be true as I have seldom met a woman for whom fairness and integrity were primary, but, it would be interesting to test this assertion more rigorously. Certainly the prevailing tendency to try to take a spouse's pre-marriage assets in divorce court support Schopenhauer's assertion.

Finally, Schopenhauer's ridicule of venerating women and putting them on a pedestal, I agree with. Because women are, in that respect, no different from men: given unearned and unchecked power, they'll abuse it.

W: I think this is generally true, that women aren't as objective about being fair, but there are exceptions. For example, the female bosses, managers and supervisors I've had tended to be fair, respectful of me, and usually kind, as well as responsible. But perhaps female managerial types are a different breed than most women.

Plus, if a woman is very kind, it kind of makes up for her lack of fairness toward others, sometimes.

I do notice that they do not like logical and objectivity, as that article implies. For example, most women find chess to be boring and uninteresting. Most people who like to play chess are men. That tells you a lot right there about how women think.

It's an interesting analogy that they are like big children.

[wuming]

W: I think this is generally true, that women aren't as objective about being fair, but there are exceptions. For example, the female bosses, managers and supervisors I've had tended to be fair, respectful of me, and usually kind, as well as responsible. But perhaps female managerial types are a different breed than most women.

That's an interesting observation, to me, as it's an outlier in my sample size! In high-tech work, I've had both male and female managers, and I usually preferred male bosses because they're more direct and typically stick to facts. I wouldn't say my female bosses were bad, just not as effective generally. My parents tend to agree from their own work experiences in the USA/Canada, and my mom, who works in a female-dominated field, almost always dislikes her female bosses, who she typically finds petty, controlling, and incompetent. But her field does not attract very sharp people to begin with.

I do notice that they do not like logical and objectivity, as that article implies. For example, most women find chess to be boring and uninteresting. Most people who like to play chess are men. That tells you a lot right there about how women think.

It's an interesting analogy that they are like big children.

At least in the USA/Canada, what I've noticed is that girls/women tend to mature more quickly than men, right up through college. However, by late 20's, I noticed all my male friends had grown-up quite a bit (improved self-knowledge, more disciplined, more responsible, more knowledgeable) while my female friends - in their conversation and life-outlook - didn't sound different from their college days. My male friends notice this as well. And of course, one sign of the truth of this pattern is that trying to bring this up with women tends to cause hissy-fits of denial and anger; even when a woman has made serious blunders in her professional or personal life, self-reflection and corrective action are uncommon. Winston and others, what do you think? If you've seen this pattern of arrested-development too, is it a Western phenomenon?

[Enishi]

One of my female friends is quite intelligent and rational. She is extremely good at math, and works as an engineer. She believes in adhering to certain principles, and thinks many women are fools. By my estimation, she's probably a 1 in 1000 exception to the rule.

Not only are women as intelligent as her hard to come by in almost any setting, but even then those with her level of principle will be few and far between here in America

[woodwater]

One of my female friends is quite intelligent and rational. She is extremely good at math, and works as an engineer. She believes in adhering to certain principles, and thinks many women are fools. By my estimation, she's probably a 1 in 1000 exception to the rule.

Not only are women as intelligent as her hard to come by in almost any setting, but even then those with her level of principle will be few and far between here in America

no comments by females???

[KristineTheStrawberryGirl]

Hello everyone, Winston invited me to reply to this essay. I was a little reluctant, because I think that the direction of this forum is going towards an all male discussion (which is fine). Please be honest about whether you'd prefer Winston to make this forum exclusively male. I won't be offended, but I'd rather Winston know, because he seems to want me to contribute.

here was my response to Winston's e-mail about the essay:

Most of what he said applies to most women, or at least most western women (19th century to present). Of course, there are indeed exceptions to the rules, but the few women who are exceptions rarely have difficulties being recognized as the exceptions.

For example, I earned a B.A. in philosophy, which has always been a classically male dominated major (by the way, Schopenhauer is not new to me). During the first few years, in the upper division classes, it was not uncommon for me to be the only woman in the class. I was fine with that, and I never felt like the professors were failing to recognize my abilities. In fact, it was mostly male professors that were my mentors in college. The last year or 2 of college, I started noticing the philosophy department was doing all they could to get more women into the major. The number of women only increased slightly, because few women can make it through those types of classes. It's simply not a typical skill set for women to have. I actually agree with Schoppenhauer that most women are either more suited in the home or in charge of children. I happen to be an oddball in that regard, because I was never good with children and didn't really like children so much until I had my own son. I totally love my son, but would not be the right person to be in charge of children, who are not my own. I think I'd be a better attorney or even a playwright (if I wanted to go the creative direction). I am an exception to the norm, and so I do not feel particularly threatened by any man's assertions about the way MOST women are. I think people are able to see that about me without me having the need to pander it. If someone thinks that I lack whatever quality, I won't blame it on being a woman or blame it on men. However, when you confront most women about these realities, instead of thinking about how they can change things, they will blow up at you and try to personally attack you by focusing on your vulnerabilities.

A little comment on your remark about females in managerial positions, I have to ask, how long it's been since you worked in a traditional sector? These days there are tons of women in manager level positions who are totally irrational and under qualified. The problem is that most women use tactics to marginalize other people to get what they want. I think this may be the central point where I differ from Western women is that I do not thrive on marginalizing others or highlighting the vulnerabilities of others. Most women I encounter do.

Some points that I disagree with in Schopenhauer's essay ..

One is where he talks about women's charms and beauty. I suppose it is difficult to write about something so variable in the middle of a general type essay. He kind of implies that all women have a few years of beauty intense enough to make men lose their reasoning. Personally, I think that at least half of women never possess this type of beauty ever in their lives. I do agree with him, however, that most women lose their looks either from aging or after having a few children. These days, we have procedures that can take care of that, for some women (at least for a decade or so longer than before), but these procedures will not make an angel out of a dog. It is unfortunate for women that aging looks worse on a woman than a man. A man with a full head of hair, a strong jaw line and no weight problems will be attractive his whole life no matter how gray his hair gets, how many fine lines or deep creases her gets, laxity of the skin or how much collagen he loses. In fact, a full head of gray hair can be appealing! Women with the same type of aging look haggard. It seems not fair, but it's just the way the world is

As far as polygamy goes ... I don't agree with him there either. One wife is bad enough, why would any man want more than that? LOL! Seriously, though ... I think monogamy is a challenge (for both genders), but I do not see having more than one spouse as a solution. If marrying one person a problem, I'd think that marrying several people would be even worse. Personally, I don't have an idea about the solution to this tension, but it would be an interesting discussion. Your friend Ladislav once mentioned that we are moving away from a "traditional man, woman and child" relationship, except for those who are very poor or very religious. There's probably some truth to that, but the question is what types of relationships are in the future, and how do we raise our children in these relationships?

Just a few add-on comments:

I always found Mr. Schopenhauer to be incredibly depressing, far worse than 20th century existentialists (who I find to be very uplifting in some regards), but I think this is one of his best writings. Good find, Winston!

Another thing to note is how old was Schopenhauer when he wrote this? I think that he was quite young, and one question is whether an older man may have a different perspective?

[Grunt]

You differ little from the average American female.

The average American female is an overt, aggressive attention whore.

You are a passive aggressive attention whore.

[KristineTheStrawberryGirl]

You differ little from the average American female.

The average American female is an overt, aggressive attention whore.

You are a passive aggressive attention whore.

My husband disagrees, and that's all that matters.

[woodwater]

You differ little from the average American female.

The average American female is an overt, aggressive attention whore.

You are a passive aggressive attention whore.

Are you a cuckold or what??..wussie??

[woodwater]

You differ little from the average American female.

The average American female is an overt, aggressive attention whore.

You are a passive aggressive attention whore.

Comment from a scandinavian gal:

American society is something apart from the rest
of the world. I don't waste time on this type of
discussions - juvenile and uneducated male and
female. I chose to live in a totally different
country and enjoy more intelligent pastime. You are an European.
Why do you waste time on such?

agree,but schpenhauer was german..from the 19 century and a pessimist

So was Marx. This is typical 19th century German male talk (which
eventually produced such movements as National Socialist German
Workers Party). It has nothing to do with Finnish lives, neither
with the lives of many other nations

[Enishi]

I have noticed that philosophers and many intellectuals, especially prior to the 20th century, had rather negative opinions of women. Not that some of their views didnt have merit, but very 'in the head' type people tend to have a hard time with social relations, especially if they have aspergers syndrome, like me.

[Grunt]

Ok so the retard wants to reference Scandinavia?

"Young Swedish women demand that their men use the lavatory in a
strictly sedentary posture - partly, I am told, for reasons of
hygiene, but, more crucially, because man standing up to urinate is
deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity and, by extension,
degrading women. I am not taking the pissoir, dear and trusting
reader, this is for real. To micturate from the standing position is
viewed - among more progressive Swedes - as the height of vulgarity
and possibly suggestive of violence. "

Toddle back under whatever rock you crawled out from under, nitwit.

You differ little from the average American female.

The average American female is an overt, aggressive attention whore.

You are a passive aggressive attention whore.

Are you a cuckold or what??..wussie??