Rousseau, on women

[SigniferOne]

A woman must have the art to make us want to do everything which her gender cannot do by itself and which is necessary or agreeable to it. She must, therefore, make a profound study of the mind of man -- not an abstraction of the mind of man in general, but the minds of the men around her, the minds of the men to whom she is subjected by either law or opinion. She must learn to penetrate their sentiments by their words, their actions, their looks, their gestures. She must know how to communicate to them -- by her words, her actions, her looks, her gestures --the sentiments that she wishes to communicate without appearing even to dream of it. Men will philosophize about the human heart better than she does; but she will read in men's hearts better than they do. It is for women to discover experimental morality, so to speak, and for us to reduce it to a system. Woman has more wit, man more genius; woman observes, and man reasons. From this conjunction results the clearest insight and the most complete science regarding itself that the human mind can acquire -- in a word, the surest knowledge of oneself and others available to our species.

There is no parity between the two sexes in regard to the consequences of sex. The male is male only at certain moments. The female is female her whole life or at least during her whole youth. She needs care during her pregnancy; she needs rest at the time of childbirth; she needs a soft and sedentary life to suckle her children; she needs patience and gentleness, a zeal and an affection that nothing can rebuff in order to raise her children. She serves as the link between them and their father; she alone makes him love them and gives him the confidence to call them his own. How much tenderness and care is required to maintain the union of the whole family!

The strictness of the relative duties of the two genders is not and cannot be the same. When woman complains on this score about unjust man-made inequality, she is wrong. This inequality is not a human institution -- or, at least, it is the work not of prejudice but of reason. Doubtless it is not permitted to anyone to violate his promise, and every unfaithful husband who deprives his wife of the only reward of the austere duties of her gender is an unjust and barbarous man. But the unfaithful woman does more; she dissolves the family, and breaks all the bonds of nature. There follows from these principles, along with the moral difference of the sexes, a new motive of duty and propriety which prescribes especially to women the most scrupulous attention to their conduct, their manners, and their bearing. To maintain vaguely that the two sexes are equal and that their duties are the same, is to lose oneself in vain declaiming; it is to say nothing so long as one doesn't have to live with the consequences of his ideas.

Everything that characterizes the fair sex ought to be respected as established by nature. You constantly say, "Women have this or that failing which we do not have." Your pride deceives you. They would be failings for you; they are their good qualities. Everything would go less well if they did not have these qualities. All the faculties common to the two sexes are not equally distributed between them; but taken together, they balance out. Woman is worth more as woman and less as man. Wherever she makes use of her rights, she has the advantage. Wherever she wants to usurp ours, she remains beneath us. One can respond to this general truth only with exceptions, the constant mode of argument from the defenders of the fair sex.

Woe to the age in which women lose their ascendancy and in which their judgments no longer have an effect on men! This is the last degree of depravity. All peoples who have had morals have respected women. Look at Sparta; look at the ancient Germans; look at Rome -- Rome, home of glory and of virtue if ever they had one on earth. It is there that women honored the exploits of great generals, that they wept publicly for the fathers of the fatherland, that their vows or their mourning were consecrated as the most solemn judgment of the republic. All the great revolutions there came from women. Due to a woman Rome acquired liberty; due to a woman the plebeians obtained the consulship; due to a woman the tyranny of the Decemvirs was ended; due to women Rome, when besieged, was saved from the hands of an outlaw. Gallant Frenchman, what would you have said when you saw a procession of them, so ridiculous to your eyes, passing by? You would have accompanied it with your jeers. How we see the same objects with a different eye! And perhaps all of us are right. Form this cortege of fair French ladies; I know nothing more indecent. But compose it of Roman women, and you will have the eyes of all the Volsci and the heart of Coriolanus.

-Emile, 1762

[SigniferOne]

That's interesting, lots of people in this subforum like to philosophize and hear themselves talk, but no one wants to engage with serious and heavy-duty philosophers.

[Dayman]

That's interesting, lots of people in this subforum like to philosophize and hear themselves talk, but no one wants to engage with serious and heavy-duty philosophers.

Heavy duty philosophy takes a bit of time to digest.

Be patient.

But you really don't put forward your own opinion or ask us a question.

[SigniferOne]

But you really don't put forward your own opinion or ask us a question.

I thought posting Rousseau's view would be argument enough, since it's not politically correct to say that men and women are fundamentally different in any way, both sexes are argued to be absolutely equal, etc. I just thought it interesting that the same nonsense was pushed as early as 1700s by the various philosophes in France, and the reason it didn't take hold then is because men (and some women) simply revolted from the idea. Rousseau's defense is one such argument. Diderot was on his side as well it seems.

To be honest, I think all this philosophising over women tends to kill sexuality. You are male; she is female; nothing else is relevant.

Well yes, some of the bad philosophizing does that, most particularly post-modern. But Rousseau philosophizes that your natural instincts are good in this case, and that those philosophers who disagree with it are wrong.

I never consider a man who is known for liberal pedagogic ideas but also for abandoning all his many children into orphanages, worth reading, let alone quoting, whatever he says.

He's a mixed bag -- not always easy to read in political thought, but absolutely stunning in his views on education (which I'm quoting from here). Either way, he's one of the giants of modern thought. But as one of the introductions to his books says, people prefer to rather talk about him, than actually read him.

Anyways ,I actually disagree with most of the things in this quote such as "Women have wit,Men more genius" I have always thought the opposite was true. He also finds men more systematic and pondering. I have always thought men were more impulsive (apart from shopping obviously) and let women take care of fine print.

Remember that it's a translation, so don't consider the wit/genius comparison too closely. Look at his big picture: he says that women don't like to think abstractly, and they have to simply do things, while men love to think abstractly, and this forum is one example of it. Men aren't impulsive when they don't look at the fine print, they're more generalizing, they like to look at the big picture, while women love the little details and rarely look at the big picture.

Interesting though how he feels that one man and one woman balance out each other but a woman should not adopt a man qualities but he doesn't mention about men adopting womens qualities .

I think that's obvious right?

[Shaun]

Well yes, some of the bad philosophizing does that, most particularly post-modern. But Rousseau philosophizes that your natural instincts are good in this case, and that those philosophers who disagree with it are wrong.

Yes, I accept that and agree with Rousseau on this issue. However, philosophising over women still ruins sexuality. And, my friend, sexuality is all that matters with women. Thus, philosophies on women are pointless. Instead of understanding philosophy, you need to understand sexuality. Because sexuality is the duality which creates life. Understand this, and you understand people.

[baabaaloo]

or just dont want to read it

[Ummon]

I never consider a man who is known for liberal pedagogic ideas but also for abandoning all his many children into orphanages, worth reading, let alone quoting, whatever he says.

[Noble Savage]

I find it a little strange that the bloke mentions how much he admires Spartan women when comparing them to the rest of the Greek world and much of the time periods following ,they actually indulged in getting wasted and having a laugh with their mates.

Aristotle complained that they enjoyed too much freedom,power and prestige.

Anyways ,I actually disagree with most of the things in this quote such as "Women have wit,Men more genius" I have always thought the opposite was true. He also finds men more systematic and pondering. I have always thought men were more impulsive (apart from shopping obviously) and let women take care of fine print.

I do agree that Women are born women , they seem to have a certain maturity even when they are very young, maybe this is something to do with women being more calculating (in my opinion).

Interesting though how he feels that one man and one woman balance out each other but a woman should not adopt a man qualities but he doesn't mention about men adopting womens qualities .

Interesting but I do prefer his thoughts on politics a bit more.

@Odovacar tell us more about Diderot's thoughts on women please.

[Bovril]

Whilst it is possible to talk about the agregate psychological features of the sexes, such things should not be born in mind when dealing with individuals. Too many people, including our author, have the absurd attitude that the characteristics of men and women tend not to overlap.

[SigniferOne]

Double post.

[Odovacar]

You are unright, Ummon. Lot of people dislike Rousseau but he was one of the most influental philosophers ever. He goes even beyond enlightement.
Kant, Fichte and many french philosophers came from him.

His theories may be questionable, but so is philosophy ever.
One can hate and dislike him as he wishes, but studying him is important for 18th -19th century philosophy.

As for his opinion about women...interesting ideas. I cant agree entirely..but on the other hand, I think "women" are hard to know..if they there is something like "women in general" except the obvious things (body, taste in colours, emotions etc.)

I prefer Diderot's description about women.

[Ummon]

You are unright, Ummon. Lot of people dislike Rousseau but he was one of the most influental philosophers ever. He goes even beyond enlightement.
Kant, Fichte and many french philosophers came from him.

His theories may be questionable, but so is philosophy ever.
One can hate and dislike him as he wishes, but studying him is important for 18th -19th century philosophy.

As for his opinion about women...interesting ideas. I cant agree entirely..but on the other hand, I think "women" are hard to know..if they there is something like "women in general" except the obvious things (body, taste in colours, emotions etc.)

I prefer Diderot's description about women.

I fully agree with De Maistre on Rousseau, instead.

[Odovacar]

Sorry noble Savage but Diderot's strenght is in his style. You need to read it. Its short but striking.

diderot argues women are driven mainly by emotions, more likely by passions.
They are capable of both devious things and the greatest heroism.

"they make you miserable if you really love them, they make themselves miserable too"

"There was a woman who said she is going to burn up heaven so that humans will love God for himself"

Diderot's picture about women is closer to my limited experiences even though its romanticised and overly passionate.
Women can be anything from booring, through evil as far as heroic, or simply very loveable.
There is no way to determine what they are.

Remember the sphinx in the greek legend? His riddle was an answer for the quesion: what is human.

For me, and for exitentialism, its already a wrong question.
Don't ask "what is a human" ask "who is this human".
For a human is what he or she makes of him or herself.

Nicolai Hartmann says too, that general wisdoms about humans are superficial.
If we look into a person we see much more than individual apparences of general things.

BTW I suggest ppl to read that Diderot text, its beautiful.

[Odovacar]

That clearly shows your politicial agenda then...

[Ummon]

De Maistre might be right on something, regardless of his political ideas.

[Shaun]

To be honest, I think all this philosophising over women tends to kill sexuality. You are male; she is female; nothing else is relevant.

[Pra]

To be honest, I think all this philosophising over women tends to kill sexuality. You are male; she is female; nothing else is relevant.

I have given out too much rep in the last 24 hrs.

I couldn't agree anymore with this. And to elaborate, I think Rosseau was nothing more than the product of his time,

Women have to have specific roles, they have to be put in boxes to restrain their sexuality, and their flaws are more damaging to the family than their male counterparts, when the flaw concerns matters of the home or sex. Now the male counterparts have to maintain roles what was stereotypically 'male' in that society, and flaws in those areas inculcates greater failure.

He also points out that the more 'tender and motherly' attributes to women is important in a functioning society.


Now I agree with some of his points; simply put, men and women are anatomically different, and successful interactions between us involves following some archetypes of male and female roles, but in this day and age, his words aren't really that applicable. Women can hold more positions of power, and they can engage in successful ventures.

Still, successful sexual relationships tend to involve a successful man, who finds a women and she submits to him. No woman wants a pushover, or a weak man. Say what you want, but there's no changing that. There's one important point that I'd like to address that too many people philosophize on and is incorrect: women want sex, it's not a gift they give, but something mutually enjoyable, and they are attracted to the archetypes of a successful dominant man.

[Shaun]

Think of it this way: some men are perfectly fine just acting on instinct -- in getting women, in intimacy, and everything else. Other men need to have a philosophical reason: "What's the proper way for me to react to women?" This question has always interested philosophic men, and not to any detriment.

Men only need to learn a philosophy on how to react to women because society has interfered with their sexuality. Look at young kids playing in the sandbox, before they have reached puberty. They know how to treat girls, their emphasis on interactions with girls is fun fun fun! They hate boredom. Suggest to them that they take a girl out to dinner and they protest because that is so bo-ring. But yet if the girls want to join, they still have to play by the boys' rules. No endless boring sitting down and talking about emotions and stuff like that - she has girlfriends for that.

And this is how interactions between grown men and women should be - fun. Exciting. Interesting. Anything but boring. Boredom is the worst thing a woman can feel with a man; all other emotions are preferable, from love to hate.

But then society comes along and tells men that in order to get girls they have to take them out to dinner, buy them flowers, sit and talk about boring crap...

No wonder men need philosophies on how to interact with women!

But in recent times it has been absolutely disastrous to the male psyche, as you observe. Take note of Dustin Hoffman's character in Meet the Fockers -- indeed take that whole family as this hyper-liberal idea that gender roles are something constructed and artificial, rather than innate and fundamental.

I agree with you here - modern ideas that gender is a totally artificial and societal construct are totally wrong. That's not to say that people should be forced to follow their natural gender roles to the tee - women can do many of the same jobs as men and be just as successful - but I still see not only the physical differences but the emotional and thinking differences between the sexes and see that we have both strengths and weaknesses, and that the sexes were meant to be complimentary to each other; not the same. It is no coincidence that women tend to dominate the type of work involving caring for others of some sort (nursing, social work, care for the elderly); this is because, quite simply, they are better at it. Whereas men being physically bigger, stronger, tougher and fitter are more suited to roles which require physical strength (policeman, soldier, builder, etc.). To deny this, like what many feminists do, is sheer ignorance.

But Dustin Hoffman's character was also a highly sexual male, which again backs up my point about sexuality.

But you can't go to a philosophic man and say, stop being philosophic and do as I do. They need a philosophic reason. Rousseau gives that reason, as certainly there were few philosophers more important than he in all of modern history. Here he is inveighing in favor of strong differentiation between men and women, in favor of strong difference between how the two should be treated, and vehemently opposing the philosophes who had began to probe the idea of gender indifference in his own time.

True, I suppose I can't really disagree with this.

He also points out that the more 'tender and motherly' attributes to women is important in a functioning society.

I agree that they are.

Now I agree with some of his points; simply put, men and women are anatomically different, and successful interactions between us involves following some archetypes of male and female roles, but in this day and age, his words aren't really that applicable. Women can hold more positions of power, and they can engage in successful ventures.

His position may be slightly outdated - as of course women can be successful in most of the things only men did - but his message is timeless. That men and women are different, and perform some roles to a better ability than the other gender; the sexes were meant to be complimentary.

Still, successful sexual relationships tend to involve a successful man, who finds a women and she submits to him. No woman wants a pushover, or a weak man. Say what you want, but there's no changing that. There's one important point that I'd like to address that too many people philosophize on and is incorrect: women want sex, it's not a gift they give, but something mutually enjoyable, and they are attracted to the archetypes of a successful dominant man.

I think submit is the wrong word, if only for its connotations. A better way to describe it is, women still look at men for leadership. In all my interactions with females, they have always looked at me for that aspect of leadership, to make the final decision.

Women hate men who can't lead.

[Odovacar]

Women hate men who can't lead.

I partially agree. Society teaches us to expect women to lead or at least being not in leading role, but women still expect us to lead, in some things.

In many things woman consiously or subconsiously lead. I know very conservative women who generally look up on their partner but secretly they lead even when psing as being led.
Some things are always decided by women, some things by men. If things are run properly.

As for no men need philosophy about women..men need experience about women. I learned much from women before I could deal with them. Its still questionable if I can at all since girls who like me seek me out first.

We aren't all machos. And bringing up the example of stupid kids is not good. Intelligent women never reside for long with people who treat them with tyranny.
Women want strong men, but strenght doesn't equal tyranny.

[Shaun]

In many things woman consiously or subconsiously lead. I know very conservative women who generally look up on their partner but secretly they lead even when psing as being led.
Some things are always decided by women, some things by men. If things are run properly.

Well, yes.

We aren't all machos.

Define 'machos'.

And bringing up the example of stupid kids is not good.

I did it poorly. I shall try to find some links which more articulately portray my point.

Intelligent women never reside for long with people who treat them with tyranny.
Women want strong men, but strenght doesn't equal tyranny.

Agree. Which is why I oppose the use of the word 'submit'.