Schopenhauer

The other day at a used bookstore, I picked up a book called History of Ideas on Woman. It contains the thoughts, mostly of philosophers, about women down to '70s. Most of the stuff in it didn't surprise me. The first entry is from the book of Genesis, a.k.a. the death knell for women's rights and dignity for the next 2,000 years. Pre-Biblical entries include Plato, Plutarch, and Aristotle. Plato said that women should be included in society too, and that keeping them in the home isn't doing anyone any good. Too bad nobody took him seriously. Plutarch just backs up the whole "your place is in the house" thing, while Aristotle posits that women are just mutilated, and therefore inferior, versions of men that just happen to give birth.

One essay that I'd never heard of before because I've stopped really reading western philosophy at this point, was Schopenhauer's essay about women. Now, I don't know anything about Schopenhauer, but I do know that western philosophers rise to prominence because they have something new or different to say. Ah, yes, let me expound my new system to you, and then when it comes time to talk about women, I'm going to defend every status quo observation about them since recorded history.

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.

Like I haven't heard that one before. Well here's one that people still haven't gotten over the centuries: if you don't don't allow people to be educated, they'll be stupid. If you train them to be frivolous, they will be. If you make them spend all their time around children, they'll be childlike.

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.

Oh, yeah, I TOTALLY heard that making sweeping generalizations about the appearance of a group of people and then using that as a basis for calling them inferior was a well thought out, philosophical way to prove your point. Good one, Art.

In our part of the world where monogamy is the rule, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties.

Exactly! Just like my mom has worked 40 hours a week and done all the housework and cooking and child-raising and bill-paying for the last 25 years, while my dad just works, does laundry once a week, and mows the lawn sometimes! Oh! And he keeps a separate checking account that he just spends on himself! Now you're getting it!

OK, I'm done. You get my point. This is why I shy away from established philosophies or religions, most of which are misogynistic. These guys can say all they want about new social contracts, ways of perceiving the universe, etc. I don't care. If you can't wrap your mind around the fact that if you oppress people the bad qualities they have are there only because of your oppression, then I'm not going to have any respect for your damn philosophy.