"Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood...

"Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place."

Fucking lmao

What will they say once exposed by evolutionary psychology?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYx8IHJ9dWE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Perfect

m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYx8IHJ9dWE

Schopenhauer really needed feminism in his life.
>One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces.

I love how he assumes his opera is more important than the conversations of women

>I love how he assumes his opera is more important than the conversations of women
I'm cool with women and all that but this just triggered my shit

Good bait

>he still thinks evolutionary psychology is a valid field, and not the unveriiable, unfalsifiable ramblings of scientific outcasts

Opinion, and thread, descarted

men and women are indeed different.

Grumpenhauer was such an uptight bore. Detest him and his preconceptions of maturity.

>descarted

How embarrassing

It's more embarrassing that you don't know old memes

importance is subjective

theres absolutely no reason your life is or any work of art is more important than a speck of dust on your windowsill

no bait

Do you understand the difference between what's being said and the speaker, retarded bitch?

Brilliant insight Ocypete!

It just happens that those differences amount to men serving as a lights in the lives of women without recoprocity.

When did he write that nonsense?
Though I suppose no one bothered to translate some English woman into German

literally kill your self

>importance is subjective

No it's not. Knowledge universally has value among humans. Awareness of one's situation is the only means of avoiding .

Humanity will be strung along by comercials until you drones stop parroting this enslvement advertising propoganda.

I don't think you are cool with women user.
We all know exactly what it's like to be a straight white male like Puccini.
You should make an effort to engage with the stories of women and people of color. Maybe listening to their conversations without interrupting could benefit you.
There's a whole movement based around this all around you. And it's beautiful

Another post from a woman who didn't refute what he said.

I think Stephen Hicks is right about Women and Germans. To them the idea of clarity is terrifying because they would have to kill themselves if their statuses were quantified. Repression of their vein natures with high minded morality creates a disjunction and replaces the ability to reason well with a desire for worship.

>You should make an effort to engage with the stories of women and people of color

You should make an effort to suck on my white johnson

>Knowledge universally has value among humans
>among humans

in other words, knowledge (a fictional, subjective creation of the mind) has value among subjective beings

>Awareness of one's situation is the only means of avoiding .

i assume you meant to write 'death' there. first, just because something helps an organism 'avoid death' does not make it important. second, this premise defeats itself, since all efforts to avoid death are fruitless anyway. third, the distinction between living and dead is also something subjectively created. objectively, some electrons arent moving around in a particular pattern anymore and molecules once arranged in a 'body' will redistribute themselves into a different order.

Pseudo-scientific babble.

The original post is an unsupported statement with no reasoning, other than the preconceptions of his time, and that the actual fact of child-care requires a childish mindset (it doesn't).

Philosophy is cancer.

I'm not reading Schopenhauer for the reason that he's a pessimist, (and I am very not) but I'm commenting on that specific and favourite line of reasoning that all lonely misogynist anons refer to, only. He, and they, have no excuse.

You don't get it because you were never a boy in an American public school.

It's not that women are inferior to men, but most brothers and husbands are, according to western values, better than their sisters and wives due to the conservative nature of feminimity. Penis envy stems from our culture's repression of your natural feminine/subservient tendencies.

Fickle emotion, an essential component of childhood, is absent from the masculine ethos because alpha masculinity is fundamentally an expression of leadership through strength and trustworthiness, the antithesis of whimsical emotion.

How does emotion in feminimity compare to that in childhood and masculinity? That's the question to be had.

It's interesting how you've gone for an image of sexual violence in your retort. As if you feel the need to defend your white masculinity from a threat.
#justsaying

It was a joke, not a retort and what do you mean "sexual violence." What's violent about a consensual blowjob?

Dude, you're talking about a guy who valued THE MOST the aesthetic experience. He literally said that the aesthetic experience was the reason for which suicide seemed to him unreasonable, and you're telling me that you're surpised by the fact that he hates women ruining the most important aspect of his life every goddamn week?

His chauvinist writings might be cringe-worthy, but that aspect of his perception is still perfectly justifiable.

Superb bait

I wasn't the original user you responded to, and I'm, in fact, male.

Firstly, you've assumed penis envy actually exists, which it doesn't. It's a baseless, pseudo-scientific concept originating with Freud.

Everything in your post is non-scientific, vague, and relies on internal mental models with a litany of assumptions about intent.

Philosophy is cancer.

This reminds me why I should stop coming to Veeky Forums