>Those noble free-spirited women who have made education and elevation of the female sex their task should not overlook one consideration: marriage, according to its highest conception as a friendship between the souls of two human beings of different sex, in other words, as it is hoped for in the future, concluded for the purpose of begetting and educating a new generation-- such a marriage, which uses the sensual, as it were, only as a rare means to a greater end, probably requires, I fear, a natural aid: concubinage...A good wife-- who is supposed to be friend, helper, bearer of children, mother, head of the family, manager, and who may even have to stand at the head of her own business or office, quite apart from her husband-- cannot at the same time be a concubine: generally this would be asking too much of her.
-Human, All Too Human
What did he mean by this? Did he think women should be allowed to play around with other guys?
How do you get to that conclusion?
All he says is that women don't like sex as much as men because they have too much other shit on their mind.
>>7740255
He says *concubinage*, which you can't really equate to sex in general. Concubinage means being sexual loyal to one man.
do you know what the word concubine means you dolt
>>7740266
>being sexual loyal to one man.
No?
>>7740266
It's a translation from German in which concubine just means mistress. Not some kind of whore.
And even if he meant concubine in the way you're describing, you'd probably be taking what he says too literally.
>>7740279
>Not some kind of whore
Exactly. It indicates sexual dedication to just one man
he's just saying that the institution of marriage will fail because the demands upon a wife are too high for a woman who is expected to be friend and equal to the man under the new feminist ideal (elevation of women meaning they become, finally, the peers of men and not just their counterpart); that the woman must become the man's concubine to satisfy his new ideal of a fully satisfying companionship, but cannot be both his concubine and his wife because the responsibilities become too great for a single person. Whether or not Nietzsche was right in the particulars, anyone can see that we have lost the classical model of marriage completely since his time, and the husband and wife roles have mostly ceased to exist in the most 'progressive' parts of our society.
I'm not Nietzsche—I've probably put it even worse. But his idea will not seem strange to anyone who is familiar with the business-like marriages of the medieval and classical civilizations.
>>7742028
I've made some bad mistakes in this post. Let me try again.
The problem is that the new marriage will be less sensual (becoming more a marriage of minds and noble values) than the old; a woman cannot become both his peer and companion and still fulfill his sensual needs as his wife, so he will be unfaithful.
I got the outline of the problem, but fudged the particulars. The new, nobler woman will have to be his partner in too many ways—she may even have to run her own business (in this he was right). Under this strain, she will cease to fulfill his sensual need, and he will fulfill that need elsewhere.
Essentially, the "raising" of women will also be the indirect cause of increased infidelity and a growing demand for mistresses.
>>7740248
No, he meant that women should not be financially independent, or have the stress of working a job, since running a home is a big enough job in itself. A cushy job, but a job.
>>7740266
He means it ironically, kinda like how posters from /r9k/ refer to every woman as a whore.
He's saying the modern Partner-Wife cannot simultaneously fulfill the role of Breeder-Wife.
We need the Chinese system. You have your competent, well educated wife - with a nice dowry, preferably - who runs the family and the house, and concubines - lesser wives - who function in the capacity of hired help and child birthers.
The peasantry never had this system because the men weren't successful enough to feed and house all of these people. They would marry a peasant woman who would have never had the opportunity to function as the 'head of household.' She never had the option of "standing apart" as he called it.
Nowadays, even the most common poor people are overly educated for their functions in society. We in the West don't have a functional peasant breeder class. We have incompetents who serve no function and continue to churn out more incompetents. Anyone who serves a purpose has two kids and most, and a sizable portion don't see the point in having children at all.
We have monogamous partnerships where the Partner-Wife doesn't function as anything but. Great for family finances, terrible for the ACTUAL purpose of marriage, which is having and raising children.
What if, while the Man and Woman are working 60+ hours per week, there are some women at home raising children, benefiting from the economic safety of the efforts of the heads of household, establishing and maintaining a cohesive family unit, creating an atmosphere in which the children can succeed? What if, instead of having a latch key kid raised by public schools and the Internet, they had a loving parent to guide them and be with them? What if the actually competent members of our society continued to progenate?
As it stands, people with wealth spent it on frivolities. They watch a number go up in a bank account. They plan to pay for cruises and medical bills as decrepit old people with no kids or grandkids. They benefit no one but themselves for their entire existence.
People without wealth continue to push more children out into a life of suffering and ignorance. They too benefit no one.
>>7740248
He essentially means that a sexual relationship of equals cannot stand, that man seeks to dominate women and women seeks to be dominated by man, so both man and woman will seek sexual satisfaction outside of marriage. The woman will submit to advances of other men, and men will make advances on women. Marriage as it is known cannot exist within a system where man and woman are truly equal in all things, as the feminists of his time sought.
>>7742142
He is not advocating, and never advocates for a concubine system. It's very hard to read too much into Nietzsche's statements on sex since he was celibate and didn't have deep relationships with females who weren't family other than Salome.
Read this http://genius.com/Friedrich-nietzsche-old-and-young-women-xviii-annotated
It's not the best translation of this passage but it's good enough. Nietzsche was wholeheartedly anti-egalitarian. He was not a misogynist, no woman who ever knew women said this and Salome said he was among the most pro-feminine men she had ever met. He looked on concubinage as a bad consequence that would arise from the false equivocation of men and women.
He wrote this during a time when very few men or women considered their spouses their best friends. Marriage was a financial and reproductive arrangement, sure you usually got along well enough with your spouse, but it wasn't expected that they would be your everything. For an example, when Mary Todd Lincoln had her best friend over at the white house, she made Abe sleep on the couch as they shared the bedroom. Abe also shared beds with some of his best friends. This kind of thing spawned modern rumors of homosexuality, but that's just our own prejudices shining on a different time, when you didn't have to say 'no homo' after saying you loved a man.
Nietzsche has more or less been proven correct over the years. Women, with their liberation, are less happy than their mothers who supposedly suffered in silent servitude. Gaining education and political rights didn't magically make thousands of years of culture and hundreds of thousands of years of biology disappear.
>>7742296
>Women, with their liberation, are less happy than their mothers who supposedly suffered in silent servitude.
>citation needed
Fucking Nietzsche stirring up the manosphere dregs as usual
>>7742296
I know, I'M advocating for it.
It seems odd that in our modern society we consider everything on cold, rational, economic terms... except when it comes to having children. In that case, our feelings and morals come before the truth that we are dying out.
>>7742296
>He is not advocating
This. He's describing what IS happening, with no mention of what ought to happen. Anyone who reads it clearly will notice that. We cannot even be sure that he says "noble free-spirited women" in his own voice and not in the spirit of accepting their premise.
>>7742325
Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being and Their Relationships with Gender Equality, Meisenberg and Woodley
>Among indicators of gender equality, a low rate of female non-agricultural employment is associated with higher female-versus-male happiness and satisfaction. Differences in the rate of female non-agricultural employment explain part of the effects of communist history and prevailing religion. They may also explain the recent observation of declining female life satisfaction in the United States.
There's a huge literature on this, just hit up google scholar with "gender equality happiness" and related keywords.
>>7742325
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/05/why-are-women-better-off-but-less-happy/18293/
I'm not in the 'manosphere' btw, I love women, I have a wife and two daughters. I merely recognize that Nietzsche, and the others speaking in the same way at the time, were correct in their understanding that women's liberation was not necessarily going to come without major tradeoffs.
Nietzsche's analysis in general is great, in his eye Christianity is Democracy is Feminism is Humanism is Socialism is Anarchism, it's all the same narrative sold in different packages.
In Zarathustra, he says that women want children and everything else is foolishness. As I watch my wife with our daughters I know this statement to be true, regardless of who's feathers it ruffles. So many women are deprived of motherhood by the demands of the public sphere interfering with their duties in the domestic. Birth rates fall and misery increases across society.
