GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian wrote:Nobody writes a book for the desk drawer.

-I'm not so much afraid of the likes of Weininger's ideas as I am of their results, Leyla.

-What do you think of W calling psychologically deficient types "Jewish" and "feminine"?

Don't you think he'd have done better dividing his thesis in "conscious" and unconscious" types?

Didn't the Otto-man engage in way too much mudslinging himself?

Chapter VI—Emancipated Women
Sex & Character

AS an immediate application of the attempt to establish the principle of intermediate sexual forms by means of a differential psychology, we must now come to the question which it is the special object of this book to answer, theoretically and practically, I mean the woman question, theoretically so far as it is not a matter of ethnology and national economics, and practically in so far as it is not merely a matter of law and domestic economy, that is to say, of social science in the widest sense. The answer which this chapter is about to give must not be considered, as final or as exhaustive. It is rather a necessary preliminary investigation, and does not go beyond deductions from the principles that I have established. It will deal with the exploration of individual cases and will not attempt to found on these any laws of general significance. The practical indications that it will give are not moral maxims that could or would guide the future; they are no more than technical rules abstracted from past cases. The idea of male and female types will not be discussed here; that is reserved for the second part of my book. This preliminary investigation will deal with only those charactero-logical conclusions from the principle of sexually intermediate forms that are of significance in the woman question.

The general direction of the investigation is easy to understand from what has already been stated. A woman's demand for emancipation and her qualification for it are in direct proportion to the amount of maleness in her. The {65} idea of emancipation, however, is many-sided, and its indefiniteness is increased by its association with many practical customs which have nothing to do with the theory of emancipation. By the term emancipation of a woman I imply neither her mastery at home nor her subjection of her husband. I have not in mind the courage which enables her to go freely by night or by day unaccompanied in public places, or the disregard of social rules which prohibit bachelor women from receiving visits from men, or discussing or listening to discussions of sexual matters. I exclude from my view the desire for economic independence, the becoming fit for positions in technical schools, universities and conservatoires or teachers' institutes. And there may be many other similar movements associated with the word emancipation which I do not intend to deal with. Emancipation, as I mean to discuss it, is not the wish for an outward equality with man, but what is of real importance in the woman question, the deep-seated craving to acquire man's character, to attain his mental and moral freedom, to reach his real interests and his creative power. I maintain that the real female element has neither the desire nor the capacity for emancipation in this sense. All those who are striving for this real emancipation, all women who are truly famous and are of conspicuous mental ability, to the first glance of an expert reveal some of the anatomical characters of the male, some external bodily resemblance to a man. Those so-called “women” who have been held up to admiration in the past and present, by the advocates of woman's rights, as examples of what women can do, have almost invariably been what I have described as sexually intermediate forms.

-Do you really believe the average woman gravitates towards bad behaviour and decision-making more than the average male? If you do, Can you argue this logic?

1otherS wrote:I just don't like Weininger calling women aiming for sincere emancipation sexually intermediate forms or always possessive of some male anatomy. He erred again on this part-very 19th century black and white thinking.

Go out in the real world, there's plenty of feminine women pursueing philosophic and intellectual goals even when it's completely unfashionable to do so.

Leyla Shen wrote:[(turned out he entirely missed the fact that she had Juvenile Arthritis, brushing off her ache as a matter of improperly positioned sleeping)

-Do you really believe the average woman gravitates towards bad behaviour and decision-making more than the average male? If you do, Can you argue this logic?

Do you still find this to be a valid question in light of the above passage? If so, what are your reasons?

I just don't like Weininger calling women aiming for sincere emancipation sexually intermediate forms or always possessive of some male anatomy.

He erred again on this part-very 19th century black and white thinking.

Go out in the real world,

….there's plenty of feminine women pursueing philosophic and intellectual goals even when it's completely unfashionable to do so.

e.g.

-Women with Muslim-upbringing deciding to become atheïst.

-Pretty women picking up a microscope instead of marrying the fattest wallet.

-Female entrepreneurship in general.

PS: I've read Sex And Character in full and I've drawn my own conclusions. Can you claim the same?-That's what I want to know...

Dan wrote:(no, you can't include Leyla, dammit, because for one thing she's got hairy arms)

Ataraxia wrote:That's interesting,it's a fairly rare condition and my son suffers from that too,although it seems to have gone into remission the last 12 month. Before that he was on methatrexate for the previous 5 years.

He was also misdiagnosed when it first manifest in his knee.The gooses put him in a full leg caste thinking it was broken.

-Do you really believe the average woman gravitates towards bad behaviour and decision-making more than the average male? If you do, Can you argue this logic?

Do you still find this to be a valid question in light of the above passage? If so, what are your reasons?

I just don't like Weininger calling women aiming for sincere emancipation sexually intermediate forms or always possessive of some male anatomy.

He erred again on this part-very 19th century black and white thinking.

Go out in the real world,

….there's plenty of feminine women pursueing philosophic and intellectual goals even when it's completely unfashionable to do so.

e.g.

-Women with Muslim-upbringing deciding to become atheïst.

-Pretty women picking up a microscope instead of marrying the fattest wallet.

-Female entrepreneurship in general.

PS: I've read Sex And Character in full and I've drawn my own conclusions. Can you claim the same?-That's what I want to know...

You're playing word games here.

I've put forth reasons why I DISAGREE with his thought-go to my previous posts.

Weininger called the lowest of the male still higher than the highest of the female.

According to this logic, a male rapist and murderer ranks better on the morality-scale than a female Nobel Prize winner.

My question is: does this look like good sense to you? Isn't this absolute black and white-thinking?

Why do you have hairy arms?

Admittedly these stereotypes do exist, but they aren't the whole side of the spectrum.

There are plenty of women taking a genuine interest in hard sciences...

I'm not claiming any superiority,

I just have interpreted Sex And Character differently than the status quo on this board. You really shouldn't call me unthinking just because of this fact.

I wouldn't call myself intellectually frightened by Weininger either,

I just think he tragically wasted his linguïstic talent. He should have put his claims through rigorous testing.

If he had done this, he might've changed his thoughts on women...

-I'm trying to understand why Weininger dismissed the scientific method-why he didn't bother with detailed experiments. If he embarked on the empirical route, he could or could not have seen actual evidence of his claims.