A long time ago I sent my ex-girlfriend Schopenhauer's classic essay "On Women". It goes without saying, she did not take it very well. The following is an e-mail reply that I sent her, explaining and purporting the essay. Names have been edited out

Original essay here

Well shit 추석, I would be willing to bet my manhood you would disagree with Schopenhauer on this. Is there a female on earth who would agree with him? Haha. You are an optimistic, "Teutonical Christian" young girl. Schopenhauer is a cynical, atheistic old fart. Okay... I really love this essay so I'm gonna give you my purport. First I will respond to your analysis. I'm in a smarty pants mood so bare with me puts on smarty pants

This essay is not about men, it is critiquing/explaining about females. So he doesn't bother explaining about what he prides his sex on. Some information is provided for contrast, because if yer gonna talk about women, inevitably the subject of men comes up. By follow his logic, you mean you understand? Good. Though you don't accept his logic/point huh. I would say you and Schopenhauer are basically from different planets, worlds apart. Everything in existence, be it God's plenary expansion or the result of some cosmic accident, is subject to change... 안그래요? There is something unending and that is change itself. Just before you were telling me about how relationships (being a boyfriend) is a temporal status. Then you leap to married relationship being everlasting/unending? It's a covenant or something right? But didn't God break his covenant? There is the first covenant, 옛날 covenant, with Abraham... old testament covenant. Then in the new testament there is a new covenant later, is it at mount Sinai? Ahh I'm rusty on the bible stuff. Pretty sure there are two covenants, old and new. Here God made some change, or evolution. I don't think anyone wants to live in a world where everything is constant, nor one where everything changes so rapidly. So I can accept that some things can be more changeable than others, some things can be more consistent. As I see it there is only one (main) reason why marriage should be so committal, and that is familial.

Why family should stay together, whilst other things are quite changable? You can change yer hair colour, your fashion, your taste in music, your friendships, your residence, your thinking and so on... all these things and more. However, with family there is some livelihood at stake. It is a high stakes activity... the very life of children relies on the man being devoted, or in modern times the parents. Of course these days there is the state, another kind of parent or "nanny". Never the less, an undevoted man meant devastation for the family in biblical times, that is a historical truth. You can't deny that. Do you know what dispensation is? I believe in that approach to religion. If you dunno, it means take cultural factors into account. God is appearing differently in the old testament than in the new testament. Just like God is appearing differently in the Vedas 100,000 years ago or the book of Mormon 200 years ago, and so on. Therefore of course, women wants the man to be faithful, women wants to be bound unendingly, unending security, unending provision. Women still wants that, though not to such an extent these days. I aint gonna deny your spirituality or your principals. In saying that, to say your thinking is 100% rooted in that is gotta be a kind of mask. You care about security and faithfulness and provision, these material things. And these things flow/come easily in a relationship that is ontologically sound. You wouldn't be my girlfriend if I was some drifter or a homeless man or a social pariah, that's a fact. Even if I was the most charming man, the most funny man, the most handsome man. There has to be some materiality or benefit, and generally speaking man has gotta be better than the women to be with her.

Women long to develop great character? Hah! Women have that ability, do they cultivate it? Generally speaking I don't think so. Didn't I tell you? Women can afford to be boring, men cannot afford to be boring. A beautiful women is less likely to cultivate character than an ugly women. Great women long to develop great character. Greatness is naturally something rare. I think the average women is more concerned with her appearance moreso than cultivating great character. Even if she is "trying to be the strongest version of herself", to be a great women is a different task than being a great man. Interestingness is a lesser priority for being a great women. Fuckin a'. Men are just more interesting on the whole than women, it's a fact! By interesting here I mean entertaining, laugh inducing, mind blowing.

Women can be financially independent. This "independence" is ultimately depending on, or because of men. This is true moreso in modern times than in old times. In old times jobs were more practical, and leaned towards requiring skills that mostly men posses solely or in a greater capacity than women. Many modern jobs are more comfortable. These modern jobs are only available in modern society... these modern things that afford such a case, how is it that they exist? Men built them, men made them, men forged them.. by and large. Your school. Men built that. Your apartment, men built than. The airplane you came to Korea on, men built that, men flew that. Your country, men founded that. Go to take a shit in our apartment... ohh plumbing is nice huh? Me built that, men fix that, men operate the sewage plant where yer shit goes, and men built the steel it travels through. Man built the factory where the steel is made. 알았지? 그러니까, this modern independence is a kind of psuedo independence. It's wise to remember though that 100% independence is an impossibility, at least I have never come across anything 100% independent.

Poor women is economical. That's not frugal that's poverty. In most western economies women are spending about 70-80% of the money, yet men are earning more than women on the whole. Women like spending money. Women treasure comfort and luxury. They are more extravagant than men. Men are hedonistic in their own way, but women are certainly more extravagant. This is the case when women are given freedom to do so. Natural inclination can be restrained through culture of course.

I mean jeez, all your points are basically "women can be like this". Yeah, women are human beings, they have most of the abilities men do, if not all. To say they have these capacities to some degree or to an extent is to say nothing at all! Just like for example women have strength and men have strength. Who can deny this? Most men have greater strength than most women. Who can deny this? Similarly women can have character, frugality, financial independence, abstract thought, objectivity, development. Schopenhauer is saying men have these faculties in a greater capacity. We say a quality is feminine or masculine because a quality is possessed by one gender moreso than another. It's not to say it is isolated to one gender. And cases can vary, you can find a women who is strong, and a very boring man. But, people are generally following their inclinations, and inclinations often have roots in gender. Hey women are more emotionally driven than men. You gonna deny that? Doesn't mean I don't feel emotion. Sometimes I feel emotion really overwhelmingly... but on the whole it doesn't drive me.

I don't think the language is pejorative, but I have a dirty tongue. He's not going around calling women cunts. Well he is but not directly :p If you wanna describe something negatively then you gotta use negative language. Pejorative is just a fancy name ivory tower academics and politically correct nazi's give words that express disagreement or a different view than them. For example soft P.C people will say "African Americans", a neutral term, stemming from a neutral position. Through that name they are expressing "I'm not making any particular statement about that group of people". A neo-nazi will say "nigger" indicating a negative view, they are indicating "I am thinking particularly negatively about that group of people". To say that you can't use that pejorative/negative word is to say you can't make a negative/pejorative statement, cuz at the end of the day that is one in the same, just the name is a more condensed word. And to argue against the use of pejoratives and to try to outlaw them or make them illicit hate speech is a kind of condescending/ pretentiousness, because it is saying "you are not allowed to a negative view, you are not allowed to hold a view that I disagree with".

Argument from time is a weak argument, it has little to no standing. "Hey man, get with the times, it's 2013!". So everything modern is good? Let's take that logic a step further ex-girlfriend name. "Hey, it's 2013, get with the times. This no sex before marriage is old fashioned, very 0th century. Alot has changed, these days people tend to bang like rabbits, so your bible bashing holy covenant stuff is irreverent". That is a defective way of thinking, it's a silly argument, it has no basis. And hopefully you can see that through the example I have used.

Soft minded is not necessarily something to be guilty of right, it's contextual huh. Doesn't it say in the bible there is a time for everything? You can be guilty of soft-mindedness when strong mindedness was necessary. I like yer soft-mindedness, it can be a good quality. Strong mindedness is a much more disguising look on a women than soft mindedness, at least for me. Take (your friend), she has strong mindedness, overly strong mindedness. This is far less bearable than your overly soft-mindedness. This is a side note. But you know, (your friend)is an asshole. Do you know who her two friends are in Uljin? You (at least before) and (your other friend). Is it a coincidence these two people are the two softest people in Uljin? Asshole never want friendship with other assholes. Assholes want friendship with pussies. Other asshole won't take their shit, and dicks don't like assholes cuz they prefer pussies. Of course pussies don't like dicks so much, but without dicks the assholes are gonna shit all over them. It's some vicious triangle of human nature that finds homeostasis somehow. Anyway (your friend) is an asshole, don't let her shit on you.

Schopenhauer had trouble with the ladies. I think that made him a bit jaded. I find his views refreshing though, in a society/atmosphere in which the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Alot of what he says I think is truth, and although truth is healthy, it often has a bitter taste (unappealing taste). So I appreciate his valiance. For the sake of correctness, he doesn't say men are solely suffering from monogamous marriage... in-fact he went into great detail explaining how it disadvantages a huge chunk of women.


Alright now for my views on the essay itself:

Nature of the female

I agree that women are childish. In the sense that they are generally enamored and focused on the details immediately around them. This is a quality present in children certainly, and to an extent, but in a different capacity, amongst females. Boys grow out of that into a different mode of being; manhood. Women experience womanhood, which is a different mode of being, but less of a departure from childhood. Take for example choice of topic. When children gather they are choosing a very immediate time frame and close distance. When women gather it is a similar case.

Natural weapons

Doesn't a women treasure her physical beauty more than a man? It is more precious to her, no? For example the quintessential icon of beauty: hair. Let's say yer sleeping, and somebody cuts all yer hair off without you noticing. What is your reaction? I think most women would have a more severe reaction than men. Some women would cry, that's certain. Many would lament it. Many would be embarrassed and inferior. For men it is not such a big deal. For me I would be thankful "몰료로해어콧, 아싸!". So women treasure their appearance more. It is valuable to women, in the same sense that gold is valuable; it can be exchanged for something else of value. I think here Schopenhauer is leaving out alot. Looks are only part of the equation, especially if a women wants her man to stick around. Physical attractiveness has limited novelty, it's appeal fades easily. It is true that a woman's beauty has a striking effect, and that it lacks longevity.

Female truth

Actually I think everyone is a liar. I mean, most people don't treasure honesty, it's seen as quite unimportant, it's seen sacrificially, that it's worth doing for the result you get. I agree with Schopenhauer that women are good at lieing! I am a terrible liar. "Dissimulation" though is slightly different from lieing, or it's a certain way of lieing. I had to look that one up when I first read the essay. It means to omit information,intentionally, so as to change or warp or distort the image of how something actually is. For example do you remember at volleyball? I didn't actually play that day. For some reason I didn't wanna tell you, so I used language which alluded that fact, and gave you the impression that I played (working with your assumption), but without actually saying directly "I played" or "I didn't play". That is dissimulation. Take a look at "cheating" for example. Actually women cheat in relationships as much if not moreso than men. Simply they are better at concealing that, through the power of dissimulation.

Feminine charms

It's true that men have done, are doing, and will continue to do silly things because of women. Some otherwise great/intelligent/wise can act foolishly because of women. Isn't it that men wage wars, but that alot of them are fought over women? Helen of Troy rings a bell. It's true that a man's sex drive can be his weakness... and if a women is a 꽃뱀여자, then he can be crippled by her. I think women can be artistic. Your poem thingy was nice for example. There are lots of female musicians I admire (although far more are men). Men do seek direct mastery over things than women. I like the old fashioned notion of a women deriving her status from the man she is associated with. Don't women think like that to an extent? When a group of women gather and talk about their boyfriends, don't they show them off like a kind of item? And men too in another way. Yeah, Schopenhauer is saying women are rascals, but actually everyone is.

Absence of genius

On the whole, genius is a male thing. Most people aren't genius' maybe 99.9%. Then those .01% of people who are genius', aren't they mostly male? Most of the great characters throughout history have been men.Whether they are great in goodness or great in evil, they are men. Whether it be tyrannical leaders like Nero, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc... or great people like Edmond Hillary, Nicholas Tesla, Einstein, or what have you. The best and worst of humanity are men. Women's live as Shcopenhauer says "flow more easily". It's not to demean women. To demean women is to say because their quality or character is different than men so they are trash. The kind of feminist thinking whereby women are encouraged to be manly, to be more like men, as a form of "equality". I think this secretly (unconsciously) implies the thought that men are better, because it discourages women from uptaking a more naturally suitable role. Householding for example is frowned upon by some modern women, but this is a very important activity, albeit one without much reputation or fame or glory. Householders won't revolutionize the world with some grand theory or marvel the world with great art, but it has a huge impact on the lives of a few. It's important on a microscopic level.

Insipid women veneration

I gotta agree with this point. Many problems in society today are caused by ambiguous gender roles. This idea that "girls can do anything" is bogus. If girls are independent, why when they are solo (single mother for example), they need child support from a man or the state? Girls pretty much can't be marines, or firefighters or furniture removal personal. 99% of women can't meet the criteria for that, they are not biologically equipped, they are not strong enough. So standards are lowered for them to be able to enter. This is actually a kind of discrimination against men, vicarious discrimination. Because there are women in these jobs when a man could be doing a better job. It's also unequal because the women who offer a lower quality of work are given the same pay, effectively underpaying men. A kind of women veneration, token veneration. Also I think a women who has a man stalking her/grovelling for her finds that unattractive. "I will do anything for you" kind of nice guy is kind of pathetic, maybe it looks like he has low self worth. I dunno if Schopenhauer is right in saying it's because unconsciously women believe men are better than them. At the very least on a romantic level, I don't think women are happy having to lead the man. Women want their man to "be a man". Some people say that means being an asshole or something... which is true, it's just not an articulate way of saying it. Articulate way is confident, certain, leadership. Potency is the word! When women are venerated and given the position of men, society suffers.

Objectification

"Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it". That's true. Women objectify men, as objects of utility. Status is an important thing in a man for a woman. In a different way men bjectify women, as objects of sex. For example, you can see when you meet new people (maybe moreso when yer with me) "ohh ohh 추석 is very beautiful". Of course it's complimentary, but it also highlights the nature of men.

Absence of rationality/Emotionality

"It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men". I think that's true. Women are more sympathetic than men. If you take someone with a bad situation, or there is something bad happening, like on the news for example, women will often make comments like "oh, isn't that terrible, it's so tragic, oh lord". An example could be starving kids in Africa. You see that they aren't doing well and your like "oh, isn't that terrible", they are suffering, it's unfortunate. But then that's what they get for living in the dessert. Another example could be some injury. For example when I fell off the bridge before, maybe a women would feel sympathetic about that. The injury looks very gruesome. But a man can look at that and say "well, he was probably being an idiot, fighting someone, or falling off a bridge in a drunken stupor", and he would be right in thinking that, he could see that the consequence was not unjust, but the result of my foolishness. Why then should he feel sorry for me?

Nasty/Collectivity

"So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them is infinitely greater". This I think sums up why women are capable of being so nasty, and doing such terrible things, with it so often being the case. For example, Kobe Bryant's wife. he cheated on her, maybe seven years into the marriage. It pissed her off, but she stayed. Then at the ten year mark on the dot she files for divorce, to the amount of 180 million (not absolutely sure on that figure). She did that because in the state of California after ten years of marriage there are certain benefits granted by law to a divorcee. There is no way she deserves 180 million, she is not worth that much. She is incapable of producing anything worth that much. There was a women in England who was being brutalized by her husband. So she killed him. She got three years in jail, and a medal/celebration from some feminist organization when she got out of prison. People walk down the isle thinking it's gonna be "unending", and then things like this happen and more. Sometimes I wondered about why/how women can do things like that, and the explanation offered in the quote above makes sense to me. Nobody consciously does bad things for the sake of badness, just because women operate for the good of the species as a whole, they conjure some twisted unconscious justifications.

Later on Schopenhauer is talking about how women see each other as enemies. Because all women are fundamentally engaged in the same occupation (propagation), all women tend to see each other as enemies. So he says when women first meet there is alot more dissimulation than men. I for one have found men are much more open when they first meet than women. Women are quite reserved and take longer to open up on the whole. Also he sees that an exchange of compliments amongst women is much more ridiculous than an exchange of compliments between women. This video sums it up well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTBSYSmUiBE

Equality

Rights cannot be mentioned without responsibility, they go hand in hand, part and parcel. So then if women's rights are elevated it is healthy to elevate responsibility, yet this is impossible. Again take an example of a marine. Could complain"oh, oh women should be entitled to be marines too". Okay then, you gotta meet the criteria, you gotta uptake the responsibility that comes with the role... but that can't be done. Then if you lower the standards for entry/participation entitlements have been gained, without an increase in responsibility. Do I need to go into great detail to explain the downfall of this situation? I hope not.

Polygamy vs monogamy

I think one of the strongest points Schopenhauer makes in his essay is this one. "Theirs is a dreadful fate: they are human sacrifices offered up on the altar of monogamy". Monogamy creates are larger disparity between women than is the case with polygamy. There will always be roles/men in society who remain single, and furthermore it is often common to have a "shortage" of men due to things like war. So then that leaves some portion of the population unable to be supported. That's a terrible thing, so long as we are correct in assuming a woman is ultimately dependent on men in some form or another ( I mentioned this before regarding direct and indirect dependence). There are other factors that come into play here. Good example would be hypergamy, women wanna marry up, and it's almost always the case. So then women don't really see the whole male population as viable partners. I heard a statistic that 80% of women consider 20% of men to be "above average". So considering that, there is a good argument for polygamy. I honestly don't think polygamy is a big deal. Alot of people have a problem with it because of enculturation, rather than logic, I feel. In modern life women are more capable of supporting themselves, so for many women there is less need to resort to prostitution as a result of monogamy. Still there are unskilled people who will resort to prostitution. What argument is there against polygamy other than cultural fluff?

I aint saying people should do it, I'm saying it should be allowed. Take a look at non-consensual polygamy for example aka adultery. This is frowned upon by most, yet it is not illegal. Why then is consensual polygamy illegal? It should not be the case. Also bear in mind I aint saying I want to be polygamous. Under the modern relationship dynamic it would most likely be a nightmare.