This part gave me absolute chills: "Woman is nothing but man’s expression and projection of his own sexuality. Every man creates himself a woman, in which he embodies himself and his own guilt. […] She is only a part of man, his other, ineradicable, his lower part."
How brutal. I'm very intrigued to read more on this topic now, thank you for this stunning and unsettling piece of writing.
So sorry. I did stop this text and went on to do other things because it also unsettled me. I even asked my partner “am I being too bleak?”, should I just write funky stories? I guess this has become the dark side of my sunnier disposition in the podcast. Anyway, my husband is a G as in Good and told me “well, it may be dark but it’s necessary”. So I took a minute and then finished it.
I find myself at a bit of loss as to what I'd like to say regarding this essay of yours, Joana, because there are so many things that could be discussed. To echo Emily's comment below, some of it is brutal indeed. But yes, it is also necessary.
For myself, I might have some sympathy for Otto Weininger, because I know that at 23 I was still a very immature human being, shallow in my understanding of ... well, so many things if not in fact everything. Such humility (and I hope this doesn't come across as performative) may not be typical of a man, or an American, but it is what nurtures my sympathy for Weininger even as I shudder at the consequences of his ideas being brought forth into the world. (Consider Dagney Juel.)
What I believe to be of importance and necessity when it comes to untangling our mistaken ideas about gender, race, sexuality and so on, is understanding when and how these ideas came into being, finding their roots, and digging them out. Not an easy task when the modern world has built upon so many of these mistakes.
For example, the "Curse of Ham"--a biblical narrative of an incident between Noah and his son Ham--that led to Noah's damnation of Ham and his descendants, which would subsequently be used as a justification for slavery and the perceived differences between races. Likewise, it would be an act of cognitive dissonance to dismiss interpretations of the Adam and Eve story as having had no effect on the general thinking of western men in general and individuals such as Weininger in particular. The idea of Eve as a temptress (which is not even in the Bible as such) undoubtedly influenced some of this thinking, thinking which is ultimately no more than a denial of men's responsiblity from their own contemptible behavior.
Of course, I've committed my own transgressions in my life, so I cannot claim to have lived without making my own mistakes. But I know they were mistakes, and I've also come to understand how much better the world would be if we could but "[make] space for other societal dreams."
*sigh* I hope, Joana, that my comments are not too long-winded or tiresome. Living with mistaken ideas is an impediment to one's growth; finding one's way beyond them is sometimes a challenge, especially if one has never had the opportunity to express how one is trying to grow beyond them. I sometimes doubt myself as a result. Regardless, as always, thank you for your work!
I am also curious about your knowledge of the Bible (I had an atheist upbringing, a rare occurrence in my generation in Portugal!). As little as I know, Eve may not be called temptress in the Bible, but the role (or lack thereof) women have in it surely puts the blame on her: she doomed women to painful birthing whereas men were doomed to sweat and suffer for food and goods. Quite an uneven punishment! It seems to say that if God decided we must suffer, it was surely deserved. Eve decided to eat the apple of knowledge, thus creating a very complicated reading of women’s wisdom and sapience. In Medieval times in Europe, it was considered that women knew too much, and their agency was eroded to the point of literally “domesticating” them when industrialization arrived, that is, appointing the house as the limit of their agency.
Yes, it's a complete mystery as to how the seed of these ideas were first planted, though less so when one remembers that they were written by men.
As I mentioned, religious texts have often been used to justify terrible behavior (and even that seems like an insufficient word for ... so many horrifying acts) and this is likely a core concept that has ... "led us down the garden path", so to speak.
The idea that an entire gender can be blamed for another's is ... astounding! It's a historical, cross-cultural belief that has allowed an entire gender (men) to avoid accountability--at least in the west, though similar ideas have spread more or less throughout the world. That's what bothers me most, that a man could ever somehow exculpate himself from doing something awful by claiming he was tempted.
(If you're familiar with Marjane Satrapi's 'Persepolis' there's a great moment which encapsulates what I'm getting at. --> Another day, as Marji hurries to catch a bus, guardians stop her saying that running makes her behind look “obscene.” Marji’s response is to yell, “Well, then don’t look at my ass!” --> It made me laugh for how obvious and correct her response was while it also encapsulated the entire madness of patriarchal society's oppression of women. https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/persepolis-2-the-story-of-a-return/section8/)
Ultimately, these kinds of ideas are also damaging to men, which is also why I feel a need (perhaps a responsibility) to address them. Perhaps the reason that so many men become incels or subscribe to ideas that are toxic is because they have grown up with these ideas and only have them reinforced by the internet algorithms leading them into a recursive, feedback loop that is difficult to break free of. They fail to see that they've relinquished their own autonomy and selfhood to a lie. (And then there's that insidious need to be right ...)
Of course, you're not the person who needs to be told all of this, Joana. If nothing else, I hope that being able to have this discussion helps me to clarify not only my own thoughts about these types of issues but how best to communicate them.
I appreciate your writing, Joana, and continue to learn from it. I also appreciate the challenge that comes with sharing ideas; it's good practice and exercise for the mind and spirit!
Don’t you find that rather than being compassionate for intolerance we should perhaps teach intolerance to be compassionate? When I wrote this text, I’d just watched Adolescence, the show about a kid who kills a girl on Netflix. There are many issues with this noble but concerning attempt of trying to tackle knife crime and misogyny. One of them is that it’s centred on male narratives. The cop dad, the aggressive father (exonerated by his wife and daughter of any culpability), the murderer. The only scene centered on a woman, the psychologist, doesn’t give her a story, she’s a cypher. Just tears at the end. She plays both the temptress and the feeble victim even though she is now a modern woman - she works and has professional proficiency - so she serves as an identifier of the blatant sexism. All the women of the series serve the male narrative and do not exist in any other way than in the shadow of the men, or serving the male story (even if it’s to condemn him).
What struck me in your comment is that you focused on Weininger’s narrative rather than on Stein, Toklas, Woolf, Cusk.
I find it to be a default setting of society as a whole. The narrative is always male.
Should I have sympathy for those young men currently promoting homophobia through religious proselytizing? If I’m the psychologist of adolescence, I’ll have to.
But it’s certainly not my first reaction. As you could see with Emily’s reaction above, as women, we’re horrified because we know what that means for us. You spoke about society about yourself as a young man… but what about the people who keep being subjected and spoken about in this way? We live, as women, with these values in us, and we fight them every day.
I’ll give you a neutral example: Gabor Maté. A lot of people swear by him, he’s a nurturing doctor who consistently promotes engaged dialogue between children and parents. But he makes wild statements, like Weininger, simplifying life for people. Every ailment we have is due to trauma. Easy. It doesn’t take a lot of time for him to chain women to a damned role in his theories of both being everything and failing at it inevitably ( he says: a baby’s “early interactions with the mother shape the adult’s ability to respond to stress”).
All these seemingly innocuous unscientific theories (equivalent to religious narratives for today’s society) subject mothers to an endless stream of guilt for wanting something for themselves beyond being in constant physical contact with their kids. And they pass as great, kind and compassionate statements. A man looking at a woman’s ass is easy to debunk, it’s common decency. But these nefarious little chains society yields all the time are far more pernicious. The other day I saw an ad in the tube for supplements. « We got our Mum back » the ad said about a perimenopausal lady. « My friends and family say I’m back to being myself » says the same ad, quoting a certain dude who has Crohn’s disease. While the lady is just a mum (a function outside of herself) and doesn’t even have a voice - she’s spoken about - the man has family and friends - a whole life that belongs to him, a voice, and agency.
I hope my Pandora’s box brings good things with the bad ones I point out. In certain versions of the myth Pandora is réponse le for ALL emotions and not just destruction and chaos. Pandora is, of course, the inspiration for Eve.
I will also be happy to respond to your thoughts here, Joana, but will take a bit of time to compose my own feelings. Suffice to say, yeah, I understand what you're saying about the broader influences/presentation/manipulations of society. Your opening question is key, of course, to where I'm coming from and it's something I've given a lot of thought to over the past few years. I will only say for now that it's not about being compassionate for intolerance and I would by no means suggest it as a way of thinking and living in the world.
Anyway, in due time, I hope I can provide some helpful and productive thoughts here as well. (It's really exercising my heart and mind, I can tell you!)
Dear Daniel, thank you for your words. I notice that my texts do not stimulate many comments, which saddens me a little. So please don’t apologize! I’m fascinated by your interest/compassion for Otto Weininger.
So I feel like taking this opportunity to poke a little and I hope you’re ok with that. I hope I don’t come across as harsh-I feel like you are an open person, ideal to ask a few questions I can’t possibly answer myself.
So, about Weininger. I find myself thinking very little of him because... I don’t know. Perhaps my tolerance level for intolerance has reached its tipping point. Even or perhaps more so if it’s self-inflicted harm. Moreover, he seems to have suffered a weird kind of main character self-importance which I have little patience for.
My question is why do you focus on the male side? I’m curious to know why it also motivated you to self-analyze. To be very honest, my first instinct was to think, of course, in a text about women, Daniel focuses on the man. But then I kept reading you and I seemed to spot some self-analysis, which is crucial if men want to think of the way women are treated, but also if the powerful role they still have in society. I imagine you may not want to detail, but you left me wondering what you were referring to?
Hi Joana, I'm happy to contribute to the discussion as difficult as such topics may be, because as mentioned it is necessary and hopefully beneficial to us and whoever else may read theses comments. So, yes, poke away! :^)
Your question regarding Weininger and my compassion for him is absolutely a legitimate one, so I'll do my best to answer it.
Until I read your essay, I had never heard of Weininger, so I was surprised not only by the contents of his book but that it managed to have such an impact in his time. I would have to say that my focus on him stems partly from the self-awareness of my own life and how I might relate it to Weininger's. It's not to say that I have ever thought as he did at the age he committed suicide, but I must recognize that at that age I was still an undeveloped human being, immature in my understanding and thinking about the world and humanity. I have to recognize that I too had (and still have, if I'm being honest) the potential to think wrongly and foolishly about so many things. The need to be right is an insidious problem for human beings but perhaps especially for men; perhaps as a man, I feel a need to address this problem for other men who may read this. It's ok to be wrong; it's ok to make to mistakes; and it's for our benefit to recognize the wisdom, intelligence and grace that women have to offer. I've learned a great deal from a great many women in different aspects of my life and continue to do so. My life is all the better for it.
The whole of humanity will be better off when we all recognize the value inherent in all other human beings. I think what we've lost as a species historically due to misogyny, racism, and bigotry and so on. The things that could've been achieved had we been able to see each other clearly ... well, we're here and we have to work with what we have.
So perhaps in order to undo the damage that's been done by people like Weininger, I believe it's important to recognize that, despite the corrupted nature of his ideas, there was a human being there and his ideas were a manifestation of deep suffering, a complete disconnect from reality. It's also perhaps my belief in the need for redemption, that in order for humanity to ... survive, much less evolve, we have to make some kind of peace with where we've been and how we came to be here. This is not to make some kind of space for Weininger idea's--we can accept that they exist as an aberration of human thought but must be excised--but to recognize that human thinking is fragile and all too susceptible to corruption of one kind or another.
I hope that begins to answer your question at least. In short, I have to begin from where I am is one way of looking at my original comment. Let me consider your second comment ...
Hi there, very quickly. Thanks for your answer. I've ben thinking about it for a while and I'm touched by your dedication to trying what is the hardest thing to do: to look back, look inward and look around. I'll come back to this... Still need more time. Take care and thanks so much. It's awesome to be able to talk in this way.
Hi Joana! Thank you very much for that. I appreciate that you’re a very busy person—between your museum work, podcast, writing and of course family life! (My own responsibilities keep me busy enough!) I’m heartened to hear that you find value in our discussions. I’ll be happy to pick it up whenever is best for you. But yes, you take care of yourself too! We need rest and clear minds for the challenges ahead. 🙏
Hi there, I finally have some time to think about your thoughts, which you so kindly share. It’s interesting to go back to the Bible when reading Weininger because it’s all there in the beginning: Eve comes from Adam’s rib such as the woman is part the artist in his last quote. I would love to know more about this myth but it strikes me as a myth showing that although woman gives birth to humanity it was Adam and God who created HER. They gave birth to woman: it makes me want to be a bit naughty and reverse the “penis envy” theory. Birth envy seems to be at stake here. The powerful fate (because it certainly isn’t a choice) of having the biological ability to birth is taken away from women and assigned as a condemnation. It is even more pernicious: it is henceforth an obligation. Heteronormative notions of life and family rule the Bible. Therefore, barrenness, from memory, is one of the main crises in the First Testament, and also in folk tales, especially for powerful men such as kings. If women can accomplish their sole purpose of making babies for the patriarch, he cannot leave a legacy. So Weininger’s theories are inherited from centuries of patriarchal rule. My son reminded me that in the Bible, it is said that men should not lay down with other men - that was the main worry, lesbianism is not even contemplated because women’s pleasure was eradicated through birthing constantly and having to rule the economy (household, family, work and goods). But homosexuality was not considered a sin, it is described, at least in English, as, from memory, a “distasteful act”. So Weininger’s troubles with homosexuality are deeply personal because he seems it as a personal a failure. And he therefore goes into the monastic solution for such urges, which is asexuality, that is, an ecclesiastical life, where a lot of gay people ended up.
I must say that at the moment I’m very critical of the stories we feed ourselves with: you can’t watch a film without someone grabbing a gun, or explosives, or someone having murdered someone (a woman, usually). Every story told is either about crime, war, or romantic love, usually lust disguised as such. The Bible was written to prevent female lust, pleasure, gay inclinations, not wanting children, women working in places of leadership, men wanting a quiet studious life without setting up a family, or even wanting a gay life, and therefore supports female attractiveness but not too much, female leadership but as a mother, gay inclinations, but discrete or controlled, the values of family replicating the patriarchal hierarchies, racism (desire and acceptance for difference) etc. Being a man in all of this is being given a position of natural power which, in Weininger’s case is a bit of a conundrum because he could have that power as long as he played by the rules of society. What happens with incels, I think, is that they feel as if they aren’t being given what society naturally tells them is their right. In a hierarchical society, men are told to stay in line and accept who is stronger - that’s how Trump functions - but in incel culture, that is lost. Main character syndrome? Loneliness? Lack of a family structure? A social narrative of success in capitalism which will obviously never involve more than 1% of humanity? Who knows? I definitely think that men have a role to play NOW before it’s too late, but I think that the focus on Weininger doesn’t help. I think that the focus should be on men talking to each other, evaluating what they’re doing to society and what society is doing to them. And I’m not seeing those films, those books, those Ted Talks. Where are they?
I think I may need a bit of time to sit with this now; my family is preparing to take a trip to the US in the coming week—my first trip back in … well, since before COVID— but I hope to reply in kind soon.
I will say that I agree with, I think, everything that you have written here. There are many interesting aspects to consider; for one, why is God gendered in the first place? That in of itself is problematic and, frankly, a perfectly silly belief to think that a supreme being would be male or female.
Ah, anyway, I just wanted to let you know I’ve seen this and will give a proper response hopefully soon. And yes, these things should be talked about more for the sake of young men who may feel lost but are not yet entirely lost.
After a few weeks away, I’m doing my best to catch up on … many things, but
this discussion has remained on my mind. I hope now I can give an adequate response to some of the aspects you bring up, though I humbly submit to you that I can only give you my own understanding of these issues but by no means necessarily provide answers or solutions to these problems. However, with greater understanding … perhaps such things will become possible.
Regarding "It’s interesting to go back to the Bible ..." through to "So Weininger’s theories are inherited from centuries of patriarchal rule."
I’ve come to believe that a great part of humanity’s problems is our clinging
to our stories, to ancient long-held beliefs even in the face of evidence
proving otherwise; cognitive dissonance, in other words. Ultimately, the
Adam and Eve narrative is only a story but one that has unfortunately
facilitated and supported a history of oppression. (Not all cultures of
course -- particularly some tribal ones -- have held beliefs that engendered such
disparity between men and women, though they almost certainly believed
in a difference in the roles that men and women have played in their cultures.)
I understand what you mean by the story placing woman as a creation of
God from man, thereby bestowing a lesser status upon her even though we
know full well that that’s not how nature works. Or ever worked! And yet,
because people take their holy books literally, they (let’s face it, mostly
men) have used it as a means of placing themselves above women. I wish I
had an insight into the psychology of the men who put these words to
page, but it will ultimately remain a mystery. More importantly is the need to
recognize, acknowledge and state unequivocally that the story has served
to create an imbalance that does not support nature but goes against it.
As much as Weininger was influenced by centuries of patriarchal rule
(which was of course supported by the silly presentation of God in strictly
male terms), it was like being influenced to believe that smoking cigarettes
was good for you (as it was in the US in the 50s, for example).
The ability to give birth is, of course, one of the greatest miracles that
exists on a daily basis. That we live at all is miraculous, but our
understanding and relationship to life and death, I think, is skewed. Just
because it seems obvious that life is a miracle (and living isn’t a “miracle”
for everyone) doesn’t mean that death can’t also be a miracle. Just
yesterday I found this beautiful verse by the recently passed Andrea
Gibson: “My love, I was so wrong // dying is the opposite // of leaving // I am
more here // than I ever was before.” In other words, I think we humans
have lost a proper respect for both life and death, and that neither is necessarily more sacred than the other.
Regarding "My son reminded me that in the Bible ..." through to "... where a lot of gay people ended up."
Maybe I’m mistaken but the only clear and direct reference to
homosexuality in the Bible that I know of specifically is in the Old Testament
and is in the context of the covenant of Abraham, in which the people of
Israel were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply”. In other words, I
understood homosexuality in that context simply to be in conflict with the
main purpose of the covenant, which was basically to have as many kids as
possible. (The verse that you refer to I think is also in this context and I have read at least one interpretation that a following line refers to women "laying together" as well but in more oblique terms.)
We see similar things today in countries where having multiple children is
incentivized by one state or another (places like Hungary, Russia, and
undoubtedly elsewhere) to increase the indigenous or native population. In
other words, even the covenant of Abraham can be seen in this light—a
political or nationalistic goal. This kind of story is just as outdated as the
Adam and Eve narrative; people—men, women, or in between—should
have the right to live as they wish, and seek whatever pleasure they wish, as long they are doing no harm to anyone else.
Unfortunately, history has given us a long, perhaps ultimately uncountable
list of one group of human beings not letting other human beings live as
they wished. Of course, many reasons from economics to bigotry have
been used to justify what is clearly (to me anyway) unconscionable and
cruel behaviour.
As for Weininger, he is merely emblematic of these greater issues; clearly,
despite however strongly he may have felt about the things he wrote, if he
had actually expressed any truth at all in it … why would he have killed
himself? To my thinking, his inability to reconcile his beliefs with his own
life and his own nature only proves how flawed his thinking was.
Regarding "I must say that at the moment ..." through to "... as long as he
played by the rules of society."
Unfortunately, the architecture of these patriarchal structures have been in place for a long time and we’ve grown up with them whether we like it or not. It’s hard
enough as an individual to shake off these things—I took me many years of
introspection, self-study and questioning to shake off my own flawed
thinking but the questioning part of my own mind, I think, existed even in the midst
of everything I grew up with. (This is not to say I don’t or won’t still get
things wrong but I’ve come to accept the vastness of my ignorance, which
has allowed me to be much more open than any other knowledge I may
have thought I possessed.)
Even in the midst of all the apparent backward progress of our current age,
I would say “Take heart!” The architecture we’ve lived by for so long has
always held up the façade of a Potemkin village; it cannot last or humanity cannot
last as long as the powers that be continue to try and prop it up. As much
as is within our power, I believe that we have to create as much space as possible, as much opportunity and provide as much support as possible for people to
live as they wish given the confines of present conditions.
I don’t believe society functions anymore in the best interests of humanity
as a whole —did it ever? —as it has clearly failed women, people of color,
LGBTQ+ and other marginalized people. I may still live within society as
such but I still have my own mind and will; I play by the rules as necessary
in order to live but that’s all. Mind you, I recognize that my privilege as a
white American male born into a middle class family has made that
considerably easier. It also helps that my needs are simple; I’m content to
live an ordinary life. (I once considered becoming a monk!)
Which brings us to the following … "What happens with incels ..." through to "I’m not seeing those films, those books, those Ted Talks. Where are they?"
I think of the whole “incel” issue as an extension of the perceived entitlement that comes with supremacist ideology (incels seem to be predominantly white, am I right?). White supremacist ideology is fundamentally a perceived sense of entitlement that certain things are your due because you happened to be born a certain gender, race, class, etc. It should be blindingly obvious that this is nonsense, but this is the problem with being spoon fed from birth ideas that are contrary to reality. What’s surprising is that it even goes against a basic American ethos that by working hard you can achieve your goals.
However, a lot of entitlement issues also come with basic American ideas, too. I long ago stopped believing in the American Dream as a myth that had long since run its course. The rugged pioneer, the individualist mentality, the gender disparity baked into the ideal of American life, all of these things have served to create, I’m thinking, a good part of the belief system at the core of incel ideology, but none of them are even possible in the present day. Such ideas were always problematic (and founded on some amount of willful ignorance) but now cannot help but clash with reality.
(I don't know if incels are strictly an American phenomenon--I suppose other cultures have their own manifestations--but as with social media, the root of the problem probably sprouted there.)
I know that there must be movies, books, TedTalks (?) and organizations trying to address these issues, but it’s hard for anything to break into mainstream thinking these days. The world is flooded with conflicting beliefs, ideologies, misinformation, charlatans, demagogues, and so on. We also have powers and authority actively pushing back against the progress that many have fought for. I think we have to first find our own way as much as possible and then find people in our lives that we trust (and I mean trust in a way that is beyond outward appearances but on the fundamental level of character) and gather them together and keep them close in our lives.
Wah! This is all quite long, isn’t it, Joana? I hope you find it worthwhile and I hope it
creates more positive thoughts, feelings and ideas than it may negative ones. (Otherwise, you can dismiss these as the ramblings of a fool; I may be no more or less than that.) Our species and current condition is complex and I have often felt dismayed by our present state, but I’ve tried to push past the despair, to accept reality as it is, and do my best to work with things as they are. I accept that I may only be able to live in the world and may not have the power to effect any great change, so I do what I can in the small choices and acts I am able to put into effect.
All good wishes and hopes to you, yours and, in time, everyone!
Apologies for the long delay in replying to our previous discussion. I was away with family for three weeks and we've been settling back into our routines. I also wanted to catch back up on my own writing as I'd had to put it aside for some time.
In any case, I have written a somewhat lengthy reply and wanted to ask whether you'd still like me to post it here or if we should continue the discourse via an alternate platform (like DMs?). I hope your work has been going well!
This part gave me absolute chills: "Woman is nothing but man’s expression and projection of his own sexuality. Every man creates himself a woman, in which he embodies himself and his own guilt. […] She is only a part of man, his other, ineradicable, his lower part."
How brutal. I'm very intrigued to read more on this topic now, thank you for this stunning and unsettling piece of writing.
So sorry. I did stop this text and went on to do other things because it also unsettled me. I even asked my partner “am I being too bleak?”, should I just write funky stories? I guess this has become the dark side of my sunnier disposition in the podcast. Anyway, my husband is a G as in Good and told me “well, it may be dark but it’s necessary”. So I took a minute and then finished it.
I find myself at a bit of loss as to what I'd like to say regarding this essay of yours, Joana, because there are so many things that could be discussed. To echo Emily's comment below, some of it is brutal indeed. But yes, it is also necessary.
For myself, I might have some sympathy for Otto Weininger, because I know that at 23 I was still a very immature human being, shallow in my understanding of ... well, so many things if not in fact everything. Such humility (and I hope this doesn't come across as performative) may not be typical of a man, or an American, but it is what nurtures my sympathy for Weininger even as I shudder at the consequences of his ideas being brought forth into the world. (Consider Dagney Juel.)
What I believe to be of importance and necessity when it comes to untangling our mistaken ideas about gender, race, sexuality and so on, is understanding when and how these ideas came into being, finding their roots, and digging them out. Not an easy task when the modern world has built upon so many of these mistakes.
For example, the "Curse of Ham"--a biblical narrative of an incident between Noah and his son Ham--that led to Noah's damnation of Ham and his descendants, which would subsequently be used as a justification for slavery and the perceived differences between races. Likewise, it would be an act of cognitive dissonance to dismiss interpretations of the Adam and Eve story as having had no effect on the general thinking of western men in general and individuals such as Weininger in particular. The idea of Eve as a temptress (which is not even in the Bible as such) undoubtedly influenced some of this thinking, thinking which is ultimately no more than a denial of men's responsiblity from their own contemptible behavior.
Of course, I've committed my own transgressions in my life, so I cannot claim to have lived without making my own mistakes. But I know they were mistakes, and I've also come to understand how much better the world would be if we could but "[make] space for other societal dreams."
*sigh* I hope, Joana, that my comments are not too long-winded or tiresome. Living with mistaken ideas is an impediment to one's growth; finding one's way beyond them is sometimes a challenge, especially if one has never had the opportunity to express how one is trying to grow beyond them. I sometimes doubt myself as a result. Regardless, as always, thank you for your work!
I am also curious about your knowledge of the Bible (I had an atheist upbringing, a rare occurrence in my generation in Portugal!). As little as I know, Eve may not be called temptress in the Bible, but the role (or lack thereof) women have in it surely puts the blame on her: she doomed women to painful birthing whereas men were doomed to sweat and suffer for food and goods. Quite an uneven punishment! It seems to say that if God decided we must suffer, it was surely deserved. Eve decided to eat the apple of knowledge, thus creating a very complicated reading of women’s wisdom and sapience. In Medieval times in Europe, it was considered that women knew too much, and their agency was eroded to the point of literally “domesticating” them when industrialization arrived, that is, appointing the house as the limit of their agency.
Yes, it's a complete mystery as to how the seed of these ideas were first planted, though less so when one remembers that they were written by men.
As I mentioned, religious texts have often been used to justify terrible behavior (and even that seems like an insufficient word for ... so many horrifying acts) and this is likely a core concept that has ... "led us down the garden path", so to speak.
The idea that an entire gender can be blamed for another's is ... astounding! It's a historical, cross-cultural belief that has allowed an entire gender (men) to avoid accountability--at least in the west, though similar ideas have spread more or less throughout the world. That's what bothers me most, that a man could ever somehow exculpate himself from doing something awful by claiming he was tempted.
(If you're familiar with Marjane Satrapi's 'Persepolis' there's a great moment which encapsulates what I'm getting at. --> Another day, as Marji hurries to catch a bus, guardians stop her saying that running makes her behind look “obscene.” Marji’s response is to yell, “Well, then don’t look at my ass!” --> It made me laugh for how obvious and correct her response was while it also encapsulated the entire madness of patriarchal society's oppression of women. https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/persepolis-2-the-story-of-a-return/section8/)
Ultimately, these kinds of ideas are also damaging to men, which is also why I feel a need (perhaps a responsibility) to address them. Perhaps the reason that so many men become incels or subscribe to ideas that are toxic is because they have grown up with these ideas and only have them reinforced by the internet algorithms leading them into a recursive, feedback loop that is difficult to break free of. They fail to see that they've relinquished their own autonomy and selfhood to a lie. (And then there's that insidious need to be right ...)
Of course, you're not the person who needs to be told all of this, Joana. If nothing else, I hope that being able to have this discussion helps me to clarify not only my own thoughts about these types of issues but how best to communicate them.
I appreciate your writing, Joana, and continue to learn from it. I also appreciate the challenge that comes with sharing ideas; it's good practice and exercise for the mind and spirit!
Don’t you find that rather than being compassionate for intolerance we should perhaps teach intolerance to be compassionate? When I wrote this text, I’d just watched Adolescence, the show about a kid who kills a girl on Netflix. There are many issues with this noble but concerning attempt of trying to tackle knife crime and misogyny. One of them is that it’s centred on male narratives. The cop dad, the aggressive father (exonerated by his wife and daughter of any culpability), the murderer. The only scene centered on a woman, the psychologist, doesn’t give her a story, she’s a cypher. Just tears at the end. She plays both the temptress and the feeble victim even though she is now a modern woman - she works and has professional proficiency - so she serves as an identifier of the blatant sexism. All the women of the series serve the male narrative and do not exist in any other way than in the shadow of the men, or serving the male story (even if it’s to condemn him).
What struck me in your comment is that you focused on Weininger’s narrative rather than on Stein, Toklas, Woolf, Cusk.
I find it to be a default setting of society as a whole. The narrative is always male.
Should I have sympathy for those young men currently promoting homophobia through religious proselytizing? If I’m the psychologist of adolescence, I’ll have to.
But it’s certainly not my first reaction. As you could see with Emily’s reaction above, as women, we’re horrified because we know what that means for us. You spoke about society about yourself as a young man… but what about the people who keep being subjected and spoken about in this way? We live, as women, with these values in us, and we fight them every day.
I’ll give you a neutral example: Gabor Maté. A lot of people swear by him, he’s a nurturing doctor who consistently promotes engaged dialogue between children and parents. But he makes wild statements, like Weininger, simplifying life for people. Every ailment we have is due to trauma. Easy. It doesn’t take a lot of time for him to chain women to a damned role in his theories of both being everything and failing at it inevitably ( he says: a baby’s “early interactions with the mother shape the adult’s ability to respond to stress”).
All these seemingly innocuous unscientific theories (equivalent to religious narratives for today’s society) subject mothers to an endless stream of guilt for wanting something for themselves beyond being in constant physical contact with their kids. And they pass as great, kind and compassionate statements. A man looking at a woman’s ass is easy to debunk, it’s common decency. But these nefarious little chains society yields all the time are far more pernicious. The other day I saw an ad in the tube for supplements. « We got our Mum back » the ad said about a perimenopausal lady. « My friends and family say I’m back to being myself » says the same ad, quoting a certain dude who has Crohn’s disease. While the lady is just a mum (a function outside of herself) and doesn’t even have a voice - she’s spoken about - the man has family and friends - a whole life that belongs to him, a voice, and agency.
I hope my Pandora’s box brings good things with the bad ones I point out. In certain versions of the myth Pandora is réponse le for ALL emotions and not just destruction and chaos. Pandora is, of course, the inspiration for Eve.
Hello again again!
I will also be happy to respond to your thoughts here, Joana, but will take a bit of time to compose my own feelings. Suffice to say, yeah, I understand what you're saying about the broader influences/presentation/manipulations of society. Your opening question is key, of course, to where I'm coming from and it's something I've given a lot of thought to over the past few years. I will only say for now that it's not about being compassionate for intolerance and I would by no means suggest it as a way of thinking and living in the world.
Anyway, in due time, I hope I can provide some helpful and productive thoughts here as well. (It's really exercising my heart and mind, I can tell you!)
Dear Daniel, thank you for your words. I notice that my texts do not stimulate many comments, which saddens me a little. So please don’t apologize! I’m fascinated by your interest/compassion for Otto Weininger.
So I feel like taking this opportunity to poke a little and I hope you’re ok with that. I hope I don’t come across as harsh-I feel like you are an open person, ideal to ask a few questions I can’t possibly answer myself.
So, about Weininger. I find myself thinking very little of him because... I don’t know. Perhaps my tolerance level for intolerance has reached its tipping point. Even or perhaps more so if it’s self-inflicted harm. Moreover, he seems to have suffered a weird kind of main character self-importance which I have little patience for.
My question is why do you focus on the male side? I’m curious to know why it also motivated you to self-analyze. To be very honest, my first instinct was to think, of course, in a text about women, Daniel focuses on the man. But then I kept reading you and I seemed to spot some self-analysis, which is crucial if men want to think of the way women are treated, but also if the powerful role they still have in society. I imagine you may not want to detail, but you left me wondering what you were referring to?
Hi Joana, I'm happy to contribute to the discussion as difficult as such topics may be, because as mentioned it is necessary and hopefully beneficial to us and whoever else may read theses comments. So, yes, poke away! :^)
Your question regarding Weininger and my compassion for him is absolutely a legitimate one, so I'll do my best to answer it.
Until I read your essay, I had never heard of Weininger, so I was surprised not only by the contents of his book but that it managed to have such an impact in his time. I would have to say that my focus on him stems partly from the self-awareness of my own life and how I might relate it to Weininger's. It's not to say that I have ever thought as he did at the age he committed suicide, but I must recognize that at that age I was still an undeveloped human being, immature in my understanding and thinking about the world and humanity. I have to recognize that I too had (and still have, if I'm being honest) the potential to think wrongly and foolishly about so many things. The need to be right is an insidious problem for human beings but perhaps especially for men; perhaps as a man, I feel a need to address this problem for other men who may read this. It's ok to be wrong; it's ok to make to mistakes; and it's for our benefit to recognize the wisdom, intelligence and grace that women have to offer. I've learned a great deal from a great many women in different aspects of my life and continue to do so. My life is all the better for it.
The whole of humanity will be better off when we all recognize the value inherent in all other human beings. I think what we've lost as a species historically due to misogyny, racism, and bigotry and so on. The things that could've been achieved had we been able to see each other clearly ... well, we're here and we have to work with what we have.
So perhaps in order to undo the damage that's been done by people like Weininger, I believe it's important to recognize that, despite the corrupted nature of his ideas, there was a human being there and his ideas were a manifestation of deep suffering, a complete disconnect from reality. It's also perhaps my belief in the need for redemption, that in order for humanity to ... survive, much less evolve, we have to make some kind of peace with where we've been and how we came to be here. This is not to make some kind of space for Weininger idea's--we can accept that they exist as an aberration of human thought but must be excised--but to recognize that human thinking is fragile and all too susceptible to corruption of one kind or another.
I hope that begins to answer your question at least. In short, I have to begin from where I am is one way of looking at my original comment. Let me consider your second comment ...
Hi there, very quickly. Thanks for your answer. I've ben thinking about it for a while and I'm touched by your dedication to trying what is the hardest thing to do: to look back, look inward and look around. I'll come back to this... Still need more time. Take care and thanks so much. It's awesome to be able to talk in this way.
Hi Joana! Thank you very much for that. I appreciate that you’re a very busy person—between your museum work, podcast, writing and of course family life! (My own responsibilities keep me busy enough!) I’m heartened to hear that you find value in our discussions. I’ll be happy to pick it up whenever is best for you. But yes, you take care of yourself too! We need rest and clear minds for the challenges ahead. 🙏
Hi there, I finally have some time to think about your thoughts, which you so kindly share. It’s interesting to go back to the Bible when reading Weininger because it’s all there in the beginning: Eve comes from Adam’s rib such as the woman is part the artist in his last quote. I would love to know more about this myth but it strikes me as a myth showing that although woman gives birth to humanity it was Adam and God who created HER. They gave birth to woman: it makes me want to be a bit naughty and reverse the “penis envy” theory. Birth envy seems to be at stake here. The powerful fate (because it certainly isn’t a choice) of having the biological ability to birth is taken away from women and assigned as a condemnation. It is even more pernicious: it is henceforth an obligation. Heteronormative notions of life and family rule the Bible. Therefore, barrenness, from memory, is one of the main crises in the First Testament, and also in folk tales, especially for powerful men such as kings. If women can accomplish their sole purpose of making babies for the patriarch, he cannot leave a legacy. So Weininger’s theories are inherited from centuries of patriarchal rule. My son reminded me that in the Bible, it is said that men should not lay down with other men - that was the main worry, lesbianism is not even contemplated because women’s pleasure was eradicated through birthing constantly and having to rule the economy (household, family, work and goods). But homosexuality was not considered a sin, it is described, at least in English, as, from memory, a “distasteful act”. So Weininger’s troubles with homosexuality are deeply personal because he seems it as a personal a failure. And he therefore goes into the monastic solution for such urges, which is asexuality, that is, an ecclesiastical life, where a lot of gay people ended up.
I must say that at the moment I’m very critical of the stories we feed ourselves with: you can’t watch a film without someone grabbing a gun, or explosives, or someone having murdered someone (a woman, usually). Every story told is either about crime, war, or romantic love, usually lust disguised as such. The Bible was written to prevent female lust, pleasure, gay inclinations, not wanting children, women working in places of leadership, men wanting a quiet studious life without setting up a family, or even wanting a gay life, and therefore supports female attractiveness but not too much, female leadership but as a mother, gay inclinations, but discrete or controlled, the values of family replicating the patriarchal hierarchies, racism (desire and acceptance for difference) etc. Being a man in all of this is being given a position of natural power which, in Weininger’s case is a bit of a conundrum because he could have that power as long as he played by the rules of society. What happens with incels, I think, is that they feel as if they aren’t being given what society naturally tells them is their right. In a hierarchical society, men are told to stay in line and accept who is stronger - that’s how Trump functions - but in incel culture, that is lost. Main character syndrome? Loneliness? Lack of a family structure? A social narrative of success in capitalism which will obviously never involve more than 1% of humanity? Who knows? I definitely think that men have a role to play NOW before it’s too late, but I think that the focus on Weininger doesn’t help. I think that the focus should be on men talking to each other, evaluating what they’re doing to society and what society is doing to them. And I’m not seeing those films, those books, those Ted Talks. Where are they?
Hi Joana!
I think I may need a bit of time to sit with this now; my family is preparing to take a trip to the US in the coming week—my first trip back in … well, since before COVID— but I hope to reply in kind soon.
I will say that I agree with, I think, everything that you have written here. There are many interesting aspects to consider; for one, why is God gendered in the first place? That in of itself is problematic and, frankly, a perfectly silly belief to think that a supreme being would be male or female.
Ah, anyway, I just wanted to let you know I’ve seen this and will give a proper response hopefully soon. And yes, these things should be talked about more for the sake of young men who may feel lost but are not yet entirely lost.
Much to think about … 🙏 Be well, Joana!
Hello again!
After a few weeks away, I’m doing my best to catch up on … many things, but
this discussion has remained on my mind. I hope now I can give an adequate response to some of the aspects you bring up, though I humbly submit to you that I can only give you my own understanding of these issues but by no means necessarily provide answers or solutions to these problems. However, with greater understanding … perhaps such things will become possible.
Regarding "It’s interesting to go back to the Bible ..." through to "So Weininger’s theories are inherited from centuries of patriarchal rule."
I’ve come to believe that a great part of humanity’s problems is our clinging
to our stories, to ancient long-held beliefs even in the face of evidence
proving otherwise; cognitive dissonance, in other words. Ultimately, the
Adam and Eve narrative is only a story but one that has unfortunately
facilitated and supported a history of oppression. (Not all cultures of
course -- particularly some tribal ones -- have held beliefs that engendered such
disparity between men and women, though they almost certainly believed
in a difference in the roles that men and women have played in their cultures.)
I understand what you mean by the story placing woman as a creation of
God from man, thereby bestowing a lesser status upon her even though we
know full well that that’s not how nature works. Or ever worked! And yet,
because people take their holy books literally, they (let’s face it, mostly
men) have used it as a means of placing themselves above women. I wish I
had an insight into the psychology of the men who put these words to
page, but it will ultimately remain a mystery. More importantly is the need to
recognize, acknowledge and state unequivocally that the story has served
to create an imbalance that does not support nature but goes against it.
As much as Weininger was influenced by centuries of patriarchal rule
(which was of course supported by the silly presentation of God in strictly
male terms), it was like being influenced to believe that smoking cigarettes
was good for you (as it was in the US in the 50s, for example).
The ability to give birth is, of course, one of the greatest miracles that
exists on a daily basis. That we live at all is miraculous, but our
understanding and relationship to life and death, I think, is skewed. Just
because it seems obvious that life is a miracle (and living isn’t a “miracle”
for everyone) doesn’t mean that death can’t also be a miracle. Just
yesterday I found this beautiful verse by the recently passed Andrea
Gibson: “My love, I was so wrong // dying is the opposite // of leaving // I am
more here // than I ever was before.” In other words, I think we humans
have lost a proper respect for both life and death, and that neither is necessarily more sacred than the other.
Regarding "My son reminded me that in the Bible ..." through to "... where a lot of gay people ended up."
Maybe I’m mistaken but the only clear and direct reference to
homosexuality in the Bible that I know of specifically is in the Old Testament
and is in the context of the covenant of Abraham, in which the people of
Israel were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply”. In other words, I
understood homosexuality in that context simply to be in conflict with the
main purpose of the covenant, which was basically to have as many kids as
possible. (The verse that you refer to I think is also in this context and I have read at least one interpretation that a following line refers to women "laying together" as well but in more oblique terms.)
We see similar things today in countries where having multiple children is
incentivized by one state or another (places like Hungary, Russia, and
undoubtedly elsewhere) to increase the indigenous or native population. In
other words, even the covenant of Abraham can be seen in this light—a
political or nationalistic goal. This kind of story is just as outdated as the
Adam and Eve narrative; people—men, women, or in between—should
have the right to live as they wish, and seek whatever pleasure they wish, as long they are doing no harm to anyone else.
Unfortunately, history has given us a long, perhaps ultimately uncountable
list of one group of human beings not letting other human beings live as
they wished. Of course, many reasons from economics to bigotry have
been used to justify what is clearly (to me anyway) unconscionable and
cruel behaviour.
As for Weininger, he is merely emblematic of these greater issues; clearly,
despite however strongly he may have felt about the things he wrote, if he
had actually expressed any truth at all in it … why would he have killed
himself? To my thinking, his inability to reconcile his beliefs with his own
life and his own nature only proves how flawed his thinking was.
Regarding "I must say that at the moment ..." through to "... as long as he
played by the rules of society."
Unfortunately, the architecture of these patriarchal structures have been in place for a long time and we’ve grown up with them whether we like it or not. It’s hard
enough as an individual to shake off these things—I took me many years of
introspection, self-study and questioning to shake off my own flawed
thinking but the questioning part of my own mind, I think, existed even in the midst
of everything I grew up with. (This is not to say I don’t or won’t still get
things wrong but I’ve come to accept the vastness of my ignorance, which
has allowed me to be much more open than any other knowledge I may
have thought I possessed.)
Even in the midst of all the apparent backward progress of our current age,
I would say “Take heart!” The architecture we’ve lived by for so long has
always held up the façade of a Potemkin village; it cannot last or humanity cannot
last as long as the powers that be continue to try and prop it up. As much
as is within our power, I believe that we have to create as much space as possible, as much opportunity and provide as much support as possible for people to
live as they wish given the confines of present conditions.
I don’t believe society functions anymore in the best interests of humanity
as a whole —did it ever? —as it has clearly failed women, people of color,
LGBTQ+ and other marginalized people. I may still live within society as
such but I still have my own mind and will; I play by the rules as necessary
in order to live but that’s all. Mind you, I recognize that my privilege as a
white American male born into a middle class family has made that
considerably easier. It also helps that my needs are simple; I’m content to
live an ordinary life. (I once considered becoming a monk!)
Which brings us to the following … "What happens with incels ..." through to "I’m not seeing those films, those books, those Ted Talks. Where are they?"
I think of the whole “incel” issue as an extension of the perceived entitlement that comes with supremacist ideology (incels seem to be predominantly white, am I right?). White supremacist ideology is fundamentally a perceived sense of entitlement that certain things are your due because you happened to be born a certain gender, race, class, etc. It should be blindingly obvious that this is nonsense, but this is the problem with being spoon fed from birth ideas that are contrary to reality. What’s surprising is that it even goes against a basic American ethos that by working hard you can achieve your goals.
However, a lot of entitlement issues also come with basic American ideas, too. I long ago stopped believing in the American Dream as a myth that had long since run its course. The rugged pioneer, the individualist mentality, the gender disparity baked into the ideal of American life, all of these things have served to create, I’m thinking, a good part of the belief system at the core of incel ideology, but none of them are even possible in the present day. Such ideas were always problematic (and founded on some amount of willful ignorance) but now cannot help but clash with reality.
(I don't know if incels are strictly an American phenomenon--I suppose other cultures have their own manifestations--but as with social media, the root of the problem probably sprouted there.)
I know that there must be movies, books, TedTalks (?) and organizations trying to address these issues, but it’s hard for anything to break into mainstream thinking these days. The world is flooded with conflicting beliefs, ideologies, misinformation, charlatans, demagogues, and so on. We also have powers and authority actively pushing back against the progress that many have fought for. I think we have to first find our own way as much as possible and then find people in our lives that we trust (and I mean trust in a way that is beyond outward appearances but on the fundamental level of character) and gather them together and keep them close in our lives.
Wah! This is all quite long, isn’t it, Joana? I hope you find it worthwhile and I hope it
creates more positive thoughts, feelings and ideas than it may negative ones. (Otherwise, you can dismiss these as the ramblings of a fool; I may be no more or less than that.) Our species and current condition is complex and I have often felt dismayed by our present state, but I’ve tried to push past the despair, to accept reality as it is, and do my best to work with things as they are. I accept that I may only be able to live in the world and may not have the power to effect any great change, so I do what I can in the small choices and acts I am able to put into effect.
All good wishes and hopes to you, yours and, in time, everyone!
Hello, Joana!
Apologies for the long delay in replying to our previous discussion. I was away with family for three weeks and we've been settling back into our routines. I also wanted to catch back up on my own writing as I'd had to put it aside for some time.
In any case, I have written a somewhat lengthy reply and wanted to ask whether you'd still like me to post it here or if we should continue the discourse via an alternate platform (like DMs?). I hope your work has been going well!