Nietzsche and women

Torakx

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/what-nietzsches-love-of-carmen-can-say-about-his-hatred-of-women/article29586876/

I stumbled across this article the other day and wanted to see what others think about this topic.

It's possible Nietzsche experienced some form of exorcism with the death of Carmen. Even then, I would say it was a conflicted one and therefore all the more inspiring for him.
There was a strong opposition of morals in that act.

He was very much in love with chaos.
"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves."

The feminine is Dionysus. It is easier for me to say that he cherished women so much, that he expected a lot from them. Often as disappointed in them, as he was in common men.
And if you have doubts, read one of his favourite authors books.
Goethe-The Sorrows of Young Werther.
That is Nietzsche's story in my view. I believe that is why he loved Goethe's writing.
He experienced the same disappointments I believe and so it seems an appropriate way to gather insights.

There are some other passages in his books that may appear to show a dislike for women.
I can't remember them offhand. But do remember stumbling over them and not fully getting his point.
I am curious though what others think about him in this regard.

I have access to other opinions on this, from people who responded elsewhere. Some of those responses were very good and informative.
It seems a majority of Nietzsche fans disagree with the idea that he hated women.

Black Swan

Did Friedrich Nietzsche praise Georges Bizet's "Carmen" because it epitomized and demonized his view of the femme fatale: a woman using seductive powers that could overcome or corrupt all men, perhaps even Nietzsche's pure and omnipotent Uberman like a siren for Hercules? Nietzsche in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" suggested that Uberman existed, but now he cautions in his praise of "Carmen" that even Uberman may have a fatal flaw, an Achilles heel? Alternatively, to what extent do these modern day interpretations fall short of what Nietzsche thought?

Torakx

That's very insightful. I have to agree with that theory.
The article I posted seemed to be so shallow in it's awareness of the person Nietzsche seemed to be. Like the author had not read all his writing.

Today I found a brilliant article on this topic.
https://williamlittlesociology.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/nietzsche-carmen/
There is so much to say after reading all of this.
But it is better said already in that article.

From this article there are two parts I will post, that encompasses what I think about Nietzche's views of women and love and "Carmen".

In July however, Lou and Nietzsche’s sister Elisabeth had a fight over Nietzsche’s “wild marriage” proposals. Elisabeth characterized Lou as an “evil, egotistical, and immoral character” and later in August when Nietzsche’s mother found out about all this, she said he was “a disgrace to his father’s grave.” Enter the maternal superego, with Elisabeth cast in the role of Micaela. This led to years of quarrelling and estrangement among the Nietzsches. Aside from the overt parallels with Carmen, the whole situation lends new light to the well known photograph Nietzsche commissioned in Lucerne with Lou Salome holding a whip while he and Paul Ree are posed pulling her in a cart. The notorious line that he later gave to the character of the old woman in Thus Spake Zarasthustra (On Little Old and Young Women)—“You are going to women? Do not forget the whip!”—might be therefore read another way than the typical misogynistic one. It is the man who gives himself to love who will be whipped.

This also falls in line with your mention of an Achilles heel and femme fatale.
The whip is not for the man to dominate the woman, but the other way around, should he fall in love.
And what true man that has married for love, can disagree?
The animals know this already, if you watch dogs close enough
Look to see who gets first place at the watering hole.

Further down the article, the writer mentions Nietzsche's overall feelings on Bizet and refers to health as Nietzsche saw it.

The overall feeling he has about Bizet, however, has more to do with his understanding of health. “Bizet makes me fertile. Whatever is good makes me fertile. I have no other gratitude, nor do I have any other proof for what is good” (Case of Wagner, Section 158).

My own view is that Nietzsche was referring to the conflicts within that play.
He believed that struggle and resistance overcome, brought growth.
The conflicts on stage, were powerful renditions of emotional struggle.
This growth may have been passed on to the spectator, vicariously experiencing the struggle and walking away to live the growth.

It seems to me, that "Carmen" might have been for Nietzsche, a guide for the weary hearted.
To experience love and passion, to it's fullest, and experience the loss of self and disconnect from parents, through another.
In this way, Carmen had to die. In order for the spectator to be released into the wind, to ponder the consequences, after having experienced love and lust to it's fullest.

Joe1919

Nietzsche seems to have had difficulties when it came to friendships and women, and his failures were often reflected in his writings, where he seems to get some sort of revenge on his former friends. For example, he was friends with Paul Ree (and seems to have loved Lou Salome) and was upset when Ree and Salome lived together. He has a go at Ree (his published writings), starting in the preface (S4) of 'The genealogy of Morality' and further throughout the book (Ree is grouped in with the English moral philosophers). Throughout the book, he seems very praiseworthy of older 'Master morality' and especially 'revenge' which he sees as the origin of all morality.(especially book 2)

Similarly, Nietzsche had a great friendship with Wagner and his wife, Cosima, with whom he perhaps had a crush. This friendship also ended in bitterness and he later published 'The Case of Wagner' where he compares Wagner's music to Bizet.

I have granted myself some small relief. It is not merely pure malice when I praise Bizet in this essay at the expense of Wagner. Interspersed with many jokes, I bring up a matter that is no joke. To turn my back on Wagner was for me a fate; to like anything at all again after that, a triumph.

PS. I am probably a little guilty here of the genetic fallacy (as Nietzsche is sometimes accused of), but I think the above is relevant in terms of giving some reasons and motivations to his thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Torakx

I appreciate the mention of the genetic fallacy. I haven't heard that term before.
Your theory sounds plausible.
I think I could see him being jealous and bitter. Especially during the stages where he began to lose his mind.
Visually I don't have a picture of the timeline and these events. It's difficult to tell if that could be related to losing his mind.
I read somewhere recently, some research group or other, have re-diagnosed his condition as brain cancer, not syphilis.
For what it's worth.

It's a tough one for me..
I think he was the type who had big dreams and expectations for people, especially those he was close to.
His breaking away could have been in response to them at first showing great potential, and then after a while, appearing to be weak and decadent.
Maybe some form of unacceptance of Nietzsche or his philosophy, set them apart and made him feel they were weak minded.
I don't think he had a small ego
Perhaps getting closer to others, for Nietzsche, was a process of finding faults where growth was not happening.
Some people get bored with others very quickly, once they have uncovered enough.
But if there are enough "coincidences" with his relationships, it would appear pretty accurate to say the relationships broke off and he chose then to get revenge in writing.

I will have to look around for info on his other relationships. I haven't read enough about Wagner himself and his relationship with Nietzsche.
The Nietzsche reader I have covered all his books, but some important parts maybe missing for me.
Some excerpts from his books mostly.

What I could do is try to find the criticisms he made of those people, and investigate to see if he was correct or it fit his philosophy.
Despite the timing.
If he starts changing his mind and the target of his criticism has not actually changed in such and such a way, I would have to agree it may have been his jealous or bitter nature acting there.

Joe1919

One can grasp it with one's very hands: great success, success with the masses no longer sides with those who are authentic,—one has to be an actor to achieve that!— Victor Hugo and Richard Wagner—they both prove one and the same thing: that in declining civilizations, wherever the mob is allowed to decide, genuineness becomes superfluous, prejudicial, unfavorable.

Nietzsche's 'The case of Wagner' (S11) (freely available online)

Nietzshe's criticism of Victor Hugo is interesting today as Hugo is the original author (1862) of the novel 'Les Miserables' that has become probably the most successful musical of recent years. Incidentally, I enjoyed the musical and found it uplifting.

But back to Nietzsche. A point is often made in that an author often takes on a different persona when he writes. The author may for example be meek and powerless, but take on the persona of someone strong and powerful (who he perhaps would like to be) in his writings.

In his writings, Nietzsche seems a cruel man that has no pity. Yet, before he went mad, he showed great compassion when he hugged the horse and tried to save it from his masters whip.

Torakx

Joe1919 wrote: »

Nietzsche's 'The case of Wagner' (S11) (freely available online)

Nietzshe's criticism of Victor Hugo is interesting today as Hugo is the original author (1862) of the novel 'Les Miserables' that has become probably the most successful musical of recent years. Incidentally, I enjoyed the musical and found it uplifting.

But back to Nietzsche. A point is often made in that an author often takes on a different persona when he writes. The author may for example be meek and powerless, but take on the persona of someone strong and powerful (who he perhaps would like to be) in his writings.

In his writings, Nietzsche seems a cruel man that has no pity. Yet, before he went mad, he showed great compassion when he hugged the horse and tried to save it from his masters whip.

I think I'll have to buy the book on paper
Sounds too good for digital. The Nietzsche reader may not have covered this.

So what might all that say for Nietzsche's views on women.
Do you get the feeling he was unaware of himself?
I think he always knew what his "will" was doing and probably why too.
I would go so far as to say, he adapted his writing just like he complained about in the passage you mentioned, but not for the majority, or the crowd. To those he mentions are suited to his writings.
The free spirits he sought to waken up, to do "his" work.
He had to manipulate. I would love to have been able to ask him that question. I doubt he would address it in his books.
The game would have been up. A charlatan revealed haha
I would see it as a noble sacrifice, if I had been him.
But, then maybe the type of person who would already consider this, is the one he sought to find?

Found a treasure trove of Nietzsche quotes about women
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/nietzschewom.html
Loads here to think about.

I had to post one of the quotes from that webpage.

On female chastity
There is something quite amazing and monstrous about the education of upper-class women.
What could be more paradoxical? All the world is agreed that they are to be brought up as ignorant as possible of erotic matters, and that one has to imbue their souls with a profound sense of shame in such matters until the merest suggestion of such things triggers the most extreme impatience and flight.
The "honor" of women really comes into play only here: what else would one not forgive them? But here they are supposed to remain ignorant even in their hearts; they are supposed to have neither eyes nor ears, nor words, nor thoughts for this - their "evil"; and mere knowledge is considered evil. And then to be hurled, as by a gruesome lightning bolt, into reality and knowledge, by marriage - precisely by the man they love and esteem most!
To catch love and shame in a contradiction and to be forced to experience at the same time delight, surrender, duty, pity, terror, and who knows what else, in the face of the unexpected neighborliness of god and beast!

Thus a psychic knot has been tied that may have no equal. Even the compassionate curiosity of the wisest student of humanity is inadequate for guessing how this or that woman manages to accomodate herself to this solution of the riddle, and to the riddle of a solution, and what dreadful, far-reaching suspicions must stir in her poor, unhinged soul - and how the ultimate philosophy and skepsis of woman casts anchor at this point!

Afterward, the same deep silence as before. Often a silence directed at herself, too. She closes her eyes to herself.

Young women try hard to appear superficial and thoughtless. The most refined simulate a kind of impertinence.

Women easily experience their husbands as a question mark concerning their honor, and their children as an apology or atonement. They need children and wish for them in a way that is altogether different from that in which a man may wish for children.

In sum, one cannot be too kind about women.

With this extract in mind, I think i would suggest the idea, that anything he writes about women that seems to be negative, is merely misunderstood or true.
The man was an empathic genius I feel.
Cognitive empathy for sure. Emotional too from the horse story.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

...I think i would suggest the idea, that anything he writes about women that seems to be negative, is merely misunderstood or true.

It has been suggested that Nietzsche was writing for a predominately male audience, which would be an important point of view when attempting to interpret his works (Oliver & Pearsell, Eds, Feminist Interpretations of Friedrich Nietzsche, 1998). Such perspectivism was typical for Nietzsche, where reality was known only in terms of the perspectives seen by individuals or groups at particular moments; i.e., Nietzsche comparing and contrasting male perspectives of women in terms that aided male comprehension. Such an orientation when writing was not unique, especially if we move from philosophy to fictional novel writing, where authors tend to primarily address either a male or female readership. This raises the issue: To what extent does such perspectivism lead to misunderstanding of Nietzsche's philosophical writing?

Torakx

Good point!
It would be very easy to think he was a misogynist, especially from a females perspective.
Which is why I felt the need to make this thread.
I wanted to show that while he was quite up front and critical of women, if not more so men if you think about it. He also had a very deep appreciation for women and their lack of recognition in philosophy.
He saw so far ahead(purely by understanding the will to power and it's effects), it would not surprise me if he had accounted already for the feminist movement and went further again past this!

Link to the book you mentioned.
Oliver & Pearsall, Eds, Feminist Interpretations of Friedrich Nietzsche, 1998

There are a lot of good points made in this book and I have only read a few chapters in. Too many good points to start picking them out.
But many of the views here are also what I saw in Nietzsche.
He was distinctly Dionysion in nature. Empathetic and artistic in his appreciations.
He wrote in a way that was provocative and critical.
Almost goading in some places. All in order to inspire and awaken.

As for the feminist perspective?
It may depend on the "brand" of feminism.
Personally I find the most common and more radical type, extremely damaging to any progress for the feminine.
It has taken hold of the concept of male and female.
I have a strong feeling Nietzsche was like myself(after reading his books lol), in that he saw the dionysion and apollonian more than the male and female.
I see women who are predominantly apollonian, they often take jobs as managers, organisers, philosopers! etc
I see men whoare predominantly dionysion.
They often become artists, writers, nurturers, athletes etc.

This is how I see the sexes. Our bodies are just containers for the "soul".
I believe Nietzsche was the same.
And reading his philosophy from this perspective may change the interpretation a great deal.
For me, when he talks of men, I hold in mind that he means the masculine drives as well as the males of the species.
I think he often jumped in between these, depending on the topic.
But if anyone had read "The birth of Tragedy" and understood the principles at play, they would know to consider all of this in his other writings too.

To understand Nietzsche requires a mind more or less free of belief and judgement.

To summarize on the feminist perspective.
A true interpretation might rely on the reader discerning between the physical sexes and the symbolic sexes.
In this sense I see no difference between a male or females interpretation of Nietzsche. Only that our modern culture may warp the minds of both and cause them to misunderstand.
We saw what the Nazis did to his writing..
He is easily misunderstood by the more apollonian in nature.
I believe any male or female who is of the dionysion persuasion would instantly recognize themselves in Nietzsche. This I have no doubts.

It seems to me that because of the system used to educate people today and through "recent" hiistory, the appolonian has been given preference in all areas of science and philosophy.
Which could mean that the majority of men and women who train to become philosophers, are more likely orientated towards an apollonian way of thinking and will almost always misunderstand Nietzsche.
That could be said to be one of the corruptions of science and knowledge through "patriarchy", the dominance of apollo.

I watched a lecture from a woman who is a professor in america for college students. Throughout the lecture it became clear she thought he was a mysoginist.She said that was her perception and gave a few examples.

On the other had, on FaceBook I see many amateur philosophers that are women, who absolutely love Nietzsches work. I would say this is because they are dionysion like myself and there is no place for us in the secular world.
We are the outcasts and those who Nietzsche prized the most.
He wrote for us I am sure. It is only us who seem to fully grasp his ideas and deeper intuitions.
I speak/write in absolutes, but I really mean generally or for the most part.