Nietzsche said this in his last published book "Ecce homo" which was written in 1888, well over a century ago:
>"The emancipation of women"-this is the instinctive hatred of physiologically defective-that is to say barren, women-for those women who are well constituted: the fight against "man" is always only a means, a pretext, a piece of strategy. By trying to rise to "Woman in herself" to "Higher Woman" to the "Ideal Woman" all they wish to do is to lower the general level of women's rank: and there are no more certain means to this end than university education, trousers and the rights of voting cattle. In truth, the emancipated are the anarchists in the world of the "eternally feminine", the most deep-rooted instinct of whom is revenge. A whole species of the most malicious "idealism"-which by the way also manifests itself in men in- Henrik Ibsen for instance, that typical old maid-whose object is to poison the innocence, the naturalness of sexual love. And in order to leave no doubt in your minds in regard to my opinion which on this matter is as honest as it is severe, I will give you one more clause out of my moral code against vice-with the word "vice" I combat every kind of opposition to Nature, or if you prefer fine words, idealism. The clause reads: "Preaching of chastity is a public incitement to unnatural practices. All contempt for the sexual life, all denigration under the concept 'impure" is the essential crime against Life- against the Holy Spirit of Life".
So if someone as perpicacious as Nietzsche summed up the movement in such a way even when it was in its early beginnings, can someone point out how feminism has changed or whether it's ever been good in some ways? Also feel free to post more commentary on feminism from previous generations.
>>25428127
>The emancipation of women"-this is the instinctive hatred of physiologically defective-that is to say barren, women-for those women who are well constituted
We see this today, where most feminists are childless, unattractive, masculine women jealous and resentful of happy, feminine and well-constituted women.
>By trying to rise to "Woman in herself" to "Higher Woman" to the "Ideal Woman" all they wish to do is to lower the general level of women's rank
We see this today, where feminists encourage women to be ugly, fat, masculine, intolerable, slutty and call anyone who disagrees sexist, essentially lowering standards for women so they can all become unhappy, unfulfilled and unattractive like the feminists are.
>A whole species of the most malicious "idealism"-which by the way also manifests itself in men in- Henrik Ibsen for instance, that typical old maid-whose object is to poison the innocence, the naturalness of sexual love
We see this today, where feminists constantly demonize innocent, natural male attraction and call it "objectification" "male gaze", "problematic", "misogynistic", "creepy", "rapey", "pedophilic", etc. and try to guilt them for it and make them feel self-conscious about it.
>I combat every kind of opposition to Nature, or if you prefer fine words, idealism
Feminism is still very much about trying to combat nature by calling all the natural inclinations that make men and women what they are "social constructs".
>All contempt for the sexual life, all denigration under the concept 'impure" is the essential crime against Life- against the Holy Spirit of Life".
Just replace "impure" with "problematic".
The difference is the denigration of sexual life has been completely shifted to the denigration of MALE sexual life. Female sexual life is celebrated, male's is locked up under very strict regulations (man can be sexual, but only if he does it in the right lighting, with a good body, charming words, etc.)
>>25428193
Good point. In this sense, neo-feminism is even more hypocritical and biased than the old feminism which at least tried to have some level of consistency, at least in this regard.
"Sex-positivism" only goes one way.
Another quote about feminism from Nietzsche, this one from "Human, All Too Human (1878)":
>In the three or four civilized countries of Europe women can through a few centuries of education be made into anything, even into men: not in the sexual sense, to be sure, but in every other sense. Under such a regimen they will one day have acquired all the male strengths and virtues, though they will also of course have had to accept all their weaknesses and vices into the bargain: thus much can, as aforesaid, be extorted. But how shall we endure the intermediate stage, which may itself last a couple of centuries, during which the primeval properties of women, their follies and injustices, are still asserting themselves over what has been newly learned and acquired? This will be the age in which the actual masculine affect will be anger: anger at the fact that all the arts and sciences have been choked and deluged by an unheard-of dilettantism, philosophy talked to death by mind-bewildering babble, politics more fantastic and partisan than ever, society in full dissolution, because the custodians of ancient morality and custom have become ludicrous to themselves and are striving to stand outside morality and custom in every respect. For if women possessed their greater power in morality and custom, for what will they have to grasp to regain a comparable abundance of power once they have abandoned morality and custom?
NIETZSCHE WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING.
>>25428127
Based Nietzsche.
