3 ms·

>Nietzsche said, in his funny and somewhat misogynistic way: "Supposing truth is a woman, what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophe

>Nietzsche said, in his funny and somewhat misogynistic way: "Supposing truth is a woman, what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman's heart?" Maybe I don't know something about this Nietzsche guy, but how does that paragraph demonstrate a hatred of women? You know you can use the word woman in a sentence without hating women, right?

mbrock 12y ago
You can, but it's not easy, especially not if you're a 19th century man. More seriously, misogyny is not just "hatred." Nietzsche elsewhere wrote: "From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty." This wasn't negative for Nietzsche, who admired and advocated flattery and deception. Someone interpreted him like this: "Nietzsche's apparent misogyny is part of his overall strategy to demonstrate that our attitudes toward sex-gender are thoroughly cultural, are often destructive of our own potential as individuals and as a species, and may be changed." Can you not see how much charged cultural prejudice is expressed in the quote about truth as a woman? It's not exactly trivial to explain, but for starters, consider what it means that he considers it surprising or innovative that truth would resemble a woman rather than a man. Why? Because men are straightforward, logical, truth-like? Women, though, are mysterious, aesthetic — and something to "win." Nietzsche often wrote with irony, but that there are misogynistic aspects to this quote seems obvious. Virginia Woolf: "Why are women... so much more interesting to men than men are to women?"
- Sir_Substance 12y ago
  >More seriously, misogyny is not just "hatred." Yes, it is. That's what the word means, you don't get to redefine words to make yourself right. >You can, but it's not easy, especially not if you're a 19th century man. You got time penetrating wide area psychic powers you're not telling us about, or are you talking out your arse?
  - mbrock 12y ago
    "misogyny, noun. dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." I'm not redefining the word. You're wrong. Have a nice day.
    - Sir_Substance 12y ago
      I'm afraid that you are. The english language is not defined by dictionaries, especially ones which change their definitions as political stunts. It is defined by how people use it. Many dictionaries have changed their definition of "literally" to include "figuratively", but I'm here to tell you that's not correct. Similarly, I'm here to tell you that misogyny is specifically an abject hatred of women, no matter how much it would support your political cause for it to mean differently. Unlike "literally" your misuse of the worm misogyny puts you in the minority. Most people still use it correctly. I, or someone like me, will for the foreseeable future be here, triggering you, whenever you misuse it.
      - mbrock 12y ago
        I know what a dictionary is, thank you. They're collections of definitions collected by professionals who monitor usage. But I'd be interested to hear more about your theory of linguistic meaning. For example, if the meaning of a word is defined by how people use it, then what grounds do you have to reject my use of it? You claim that I am in the minority when I use the word "misogyny" to mean not only "abject hatred" but also "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against" — which is the definition vetted by the Oxford Dictionary of English. Can you demonstrate this in any way? Assuming that I am in the minority: if minorities are not allowed to use words differently, how would the meanings of words ever change? Your ideas about the meanings of words are incoherent. With your own premises, the statement "most people use it correctly" is a tautology. What political cause do you imply that I have? Do you think you have a different political cause?
        Sir_Substance 12y ago
        >You claim that I am in the minority when I use the word "misogyny" to mean not only "abject hatred" but also "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against" Fantastic, lets accept that definition for a second. Please explain how the following demonstrates "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against" women: >Nietzsche said, in his funny and somewhat misogynistic way: "Supposing truth is a woman, what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman's heart?"

mbrock 12y ago

You can, but it's not easy, especially not if you're a 19th century man. More seriously, misogyny is not just "hatred." Nietzsche elsewhere wrote: "From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty." This wasn't negative for Nietzsche, who admired and advocated flattery and deception. Someone interpreted him like this: "Nietzsche's apparent misogyny is part of his overall strategy to demonstrate that our attitudes toward sex-gender are thoroughly cultural, are often destructive of our own potential as individuals and as a species, and may be changed." Can you not see how much charged cultural prejudice is expressed in the quote about truth as a woman? It's not exactly trivial to explain, but for starters, consider what it means that he considers it surprising or innovative that truth would resemble a woman rather than a man. Why? Because men are straightforward, logical, truth-like? Women, though, are mysterious, aesthetic — and something to "win." Nietzsche often wrote with irony, but that there are misogynistic aspects to this quote seems obvious. Virginia Woolf: "Why are women... so much more interesting to men than men are to women?"

Sir_Substance 12y ago
>More seriously, misogyny is not just "hatred." Yes, it is. That's what the word means, you don't get to redefine words to make yourself right. >You can, but it's not easy, especially not if you're a 19th century man. You got time penetrating wide area psychic powers you're not telling us about, or are you talking out your arse?
- mbrock 12y ago
  "misogyny, noun. dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." I'm not redefining the word. You're wrong. Have a nice day.
  - Sir_Substance 12y ago
    I'm afraid that you are. The english language is not defined by dictionaries, especially ones which change their definitions as political stunts. It is defined by how people use it. Many dictionaries have changed their definition of "literally" to include "figuratively", but I'm here to tell you that's not correct. Similarly, I'm here to tell you that misogyny is specifically an abject hatred of women, no matter how much it would support your political cause for it to mean differently. Unlike "literally" your misuse of the worm misogyny puts you in the minority. Most people still use it correctly. I, or someone like me, will for the foreseeable future be here, triggering you, whenever you misuse it.
    - mbrock 12y ago
      I know what a dictionary is, thank you. They're collections of definitions collected by professionals who monitor usage. But I'd be interested to hear more about your theory of linguistic meaning. For example, if the meaning of a word is defined by how people use it, then what grounds do you have to reject my use of it? You claim that I am in the minority when I use the word "misogyny" to mean not only "abject hatred" but also "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against" — which is the definition vetted by the Oxford Dictionary of English. Can you demonstrate this in any way? Assuming that I am in the minority: if minorities are not allowed to use words differently, how would the meanings of words ever change? Your ideas about the meanings of words are incoherent. With your own premises, the statement "most people use it correctly" is a tautology. What political cause do you imply that I have? Do you think you have a different political cause?
      - Sir_Substance 12y ago
        >You claim that I am in the minority when I use the word "misogyny" to mean not only "abject hatred" but also "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against" Fantastic, lets accept that definition for a second. Please explain how the following demonstrates "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against" women: >Nietzsche said, in his funny and somewhat misogynistic way: "Supposing truth is a woman, what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman's heart?"