Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, And the Birth of the Red Pill

VIDEOS BY UBERBOYO / WATCH AND SUBSCRIBE TO UBERBOYO ON YOUTUBE

ESSAYS CREATED AND / OR EDITED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CHRONICLES

Philosophical Precursors of the Red Pill

The Red Pill, a concept popularized by the online community, draws inspiration from the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer. While both philosophers had distinct views, their works share common themes that resonate with Red Pill ideology.

Schopenhauer’s Influence

Schopenhauer’s pessimistic outlook on life, as expressed in his concept of “the will,” can be seen in Red Pill discussions about the inherent struggle and suffering inherent in human existence. Schopenhauer believed that life is a constant battle between desires and the limitations imposed by reality, leading to frustration and dissatisfaction. This idea is reflected in Red Pill notions of the “game” and the need for men to adapt and overcome in a challenging environment.

Schopenhauer’s critique of traditional morality and his emphasis on individual experience also align with Red Pill values. He argued that people often cling to comforting illusions and deny the harsh realities of existence. Similarly, Red Pill proponents advocate for a more realistic understanding of human nature and relationships, rejecting romanticized notions of love and gender.

Nietzsche’s Contributions

Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly his ideas on the “will to power” and the “Übermensch” (Superman), have influenced Red Pill thought. Nietzsche’s critique of traditional morality and his advocacy for individual self-overcoming resonate with Red Pill values of personal responsibility and the need for men to transcend societal expectations.

Nietzsche’s views on women and gender also have parallels with Red Pill ideology. While Nietzsche’s writings contain problematic and misogynistic statements, his broader critique of traditional gender roles and his emphasis on individual freedom and creativity can be seen as precursors to Red Pill discussions about masculinity and femininity.

Shared Themes

Both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche emphasized the importance of individual experience, self-awareness, and the need to confront harsh realities. Their ideas about the struggle for existence, the limitations of traditional morality, and the importance of personal responsibility and self-overcoming are all reflected in Red Pill ideology.

However, it is essential to note that the Red Pill movement has evolved independently of these philosophical traditions and has incorporated various other influences, including evolutionary psychology, game theory, and online communities.

Nietzschean Influences on Red Pill Masculinity and Self-Optimization

Will to Power: Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” (Wille zur Macht) emphasizes the driving force behind human creativity, self-overcoming, and striving for excellence. In the context of Red Pill masculinity, this concept is often misapplied or misunderstood. Some Red Pill adherents might see the will to power as a justification for aggressive competition, dominance, and exploitation, which is not in line with Nietzsche’s original intention. Instead, Nietzsche’s will to power is about individual self-overcoming, self-transcendence, and the pursuit of excellence, not about dominating others.

Übermensch: The Übermensch (or “Superman”) is Nietzsche’s ideal of a being who has surpassed conventional moral and societal norms, embracing a higher level of existence. In Red Pill discourse, the Übermensch is often associated with the ideal of a strong, confident, and dominant masculine figure. However, this interpretation deviates from Nietzsche’s original idea, which is more focused on the individual’s inner transformation and self-overcoming, rather than external displays of power or dominance.

Some commonalities between Nietzsche’s concepts and Red Pill ideas include:

  • Emphasis on individual responsibility and self-improvement: Both Nietzsche and Red Pill proponents stress the importance of taking personal responsibility for one’s life and striving for self-overcoming.
  • Critique of conventional morality and societal norms: Nietzsche’s philosophy and Red Pill ideology share a skepticism towards traditional values and a desire to challenge established norms.

Intersections of Nietzschean Morality Critique and Red Pill Analysis of Modern Feminism and Political Correctness

Nietzsche’s philosophical ideas, particularly his critiques of traditional morality and values, share similarities with the Red Pill movement’s criticisms of modern feminism and political correctness. Here are some key intersections:

  1. Rejection of Slave Morality: Nietzsche’s concept of “slave morality” refers to the values that prioritize compassion, equality, and altruism over individual excellence and creativity. Similarly, Red Pill critics argue that modern feminism and political correctness promote a “victim mentality” and “groupthink,” where individuals are encouraged to prioritize the feelings and interests of others over their own.
  2. Critique of Egalitarianism: Nietzsche rejected the idea of equal rights and values, arguing that they are based on a false premise of human equality. Red Pill critics also question the notion of egalitarianism, arguing that it ignores natural differences between men and women, and that attempts to enforce equality often lead to the suppression of individuality and excellence.
  3. Attack on Conventional Morality: Nietzsche sought to dismantle traditional morality, which he saw as a hindrance to individual creativity and self-overcoming. Red Pill critics similarly argue that modern feminism and political correctness have created a moral framework that stifles free speech, punishes dissenting opinions, and promotes a culture of outrage and victimhood.
  4. Emphasis on Individualism and Elitism: Nietzsche advocated for individualism and the cultivation of exceptional individuals. Red Pill critics, while not necessarily endorsing elitism, emphasize the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, as well as the need for a meritocratic system that rewards excellence and achievement.
  5. Skepticism towards Mass Movements: Nietzsche was critical of mass movements and the herd mentality, seeing them as a threat to individual creativity and innovation. Red Pill critics similarly view modern feminism and political correctness as mass movements that suppress individuality and promote conformity.
  6. Focus on Power Dynamics: Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” (WP 1067) emphasizes the drive for self-overcoming and the struggle for dominance. Red Pill critics, while not necessarily endorsing a hierarchical or patriarchal worldview, recognize the importance of understanding power dynamics in relationships and society, and argue that modern feminism and political correctness often obscure or deny these dynamics.

While Nietzsche’s philosophy is more nuanced and complex than the Red Pill movement, these intersections highlight the shared concerns and critiques of traditional morality, egalitarianism, and mass movements.

Nietzsche’s Übermensch and Masculine Excellence: Comparative Analysis with Red Pill Paradigm

Nietzsche‘s concept of the Übermensch (Superman) shares similarities with Red Pill conceptions of masculinity and individual excellence. Both emphasize the importance of transcendence, self-overcoming, and the rejection of conventional norms.

1. Transcendence of Conventional Masculinity

Nietzsche‘s Übermensch is not bound by traditional moral or social norms. Similarly, Red Pill masculinity rejects the notion of masculinity as solely defined by societal expectations, instead advocating for individual self-actualization and autonomy. Both philosophies encourage men to break free from constraints and forge their own paths.

2. Self-Overcoming

Nietzsche‘s Übermensch is characterized by the ability to overcome oneself, embracing one’s own mortality and limitations. Red Pill masculinity also emphasizes the importance of self-awareness, self-improvement, and the willingness to confront and overcome one’s own weaknesses and biases.

3. Rejection of Nihilism

Nietzsche‘s critique of traditional morality and his advocacy for the Übermensch can be seen as a response to nihilism. Red Pill conceptions of masculinity also reject nihilistic attitudes, instead promoting a sense of purpose and meaning derived from individual excellence and self-actualization.

4. Emphasis on Individual Excellence

Both Nietzsche‘s Übermensch and Red Pill masculinity prioritize individual excellence over collective or societal expectations. They encourage individuals to strive for greatness, to create their own values, and to transcend the ordinary.

5. Critique of Modernity

Nietzsche‘s critique of modernity, particularly its emphasis on egalitarianism and the leveling of differences, is echoed in Red Pill critiques of modern Western society’s emphasis on egalitarianism and the suppression of traditional masculinity. Both philosophies argue that this has led to a decline in individual excellence and a homogenization of human experience.

While there are similarities between Nietzsche‘s Übermensch and Red Pill conceptions of masculinity, it’s essential to note that Nietzsche‘s ideas were developed in a philosophical and literary context, whereas Red Pill masculinity emerged from online communities and popular culture. Nevertheless, both philosophies share a common concern with individual excellence, self-overcoming, and the rejection of conventional norms.

Nietzschean Influences on Red Pill Critiques of Victimhood-Oriented Feminism

Here are the ways Nietzsche’s critiques of ‘slave morality’ and pity inform Red Pill criticisms of modern feminism’s emphasis on victimhood and outrage:

  • Emphasis on utility: Nietzsche argued that “slave morality” is essentially a morality of utility, aimed at easing existence for those who suffer. Similarly, Red Pill critics of modern feminism might view the emphasis on victimhood and outrage as a means to achieve utility, namely, to gain power, attention, and sympathy for women. This utility-driven approach is seen as a form of “slave morality” that prioritizes the comfort and validation of the weak over individual strength and self-overcoming.
  • Pity and complaisance: Nietzsche criticized pity as a way to ease the suffering of others, rather than empowering them to overcome their struggles. Red Pill critics might extend this critique to modern feminism’s emphasis on outrage and victimhood, arguing that it fosters a culture of pity and complaisance, where women are seen as perpetual victims in need of rescue rather than as capable individuals who can overcome challenges through their own agency.
  • Transvaluation: Nietzsche’s concept of transvaluation, where the slaves create their own morality by subverting the values of their masters, might be applied to modern feminism’s emphasis on victimhood and outrage. Red Pill critics could argue that modern feminism has transvalued traditional notions of strength, courage, and individualism, replacing them with a morality that prioritizes weakness, vulnerability, and group identity. This transvaluation is seen as a means to empower women, but ultimately, it reinforces a “slave morality” that undermines individual excellence and self-overcoming.
  • Reactionary morality: Nietzsche’s critique of morality as a reactive response to the values of the strong might be applied to modern feminism’s emphasis on outrage and victimhood. Red Pill critics could argue that modern feminism’s focus on victimhood and outrage is a reactive response to the perceived injustices and inequalities faced by women, rather than a proactive attempt to create a new, empowering morality. This reactionary approach is seen as perpetuating a “slave morality” that focuses on what is wrong with society rather than striving for excellence and self-overcoming.

These parallels between Nietzsche’s critiques of “slave morality” and pity and Red Pill criticisms of modern feminism’s emphasis on victimhood and outrage highlight the ways in which Nietzsche’s philosophical ideas can be used to challenge and critique modern feminist ideology.

Nietzschean Perspectives on Modern Nihilism: The Intersection of God’s Demise and Value Decline

Nietzsche’s philosophical ideas on the death of God and the decline of traditional values significantly inform Red Pill critiques of modern society’s loss of meaning and the rise of nihilism. Here are some key connections:

  1. Decline of traditional values: Nietzsche argued that the decline of traditional values, particularly Christian morality, would lead to a crisis of meaning and purpose. Red Pill critics echo this sentiment, claiming that the erosion of traditional values, such as gender roles and social hierarchies, has resulted in a vacuum of meaning and a sense of purposelessness.
  2. Death of God: Nietzsche’s concept of the “death of God” refers to the loss of faith in objective moral and metaphysical truths. Red Pill critics argue that the decline of religious belief and the rise of secularism have led to a similar loss of faith in absolute values, leaving individuals adrift in a sea of relativism and moral ambiguity.
  3. Nihilism: Nietzsche saw nihilism as a natural consequence of the death of God, where individuals would struggle to find meaning and purpose in a seemingly meaningless world. Red Pill critics contend that modern society’s rejection of traditional values and its emphasis on individualism and hedonism have created a nihilistic culture, where people are desperate for meaning and connection.
  4. Reactionary impulse: Nietzsche’s philosophy often emphasized the importance of a “will to power” and the need for individuals to create their own values and meaning in the absence of traditional authority. Red Pill critics, while not necessarily endorsing Nietzsche’s entire philosophy, share a similar reactionary impulse, seeking to reclaim traditional values and social hierarchies as a bulwark against the perceived chaos and nihilism of modern society.
  5. Critique of modernity: Both Nietzsche and Red Pill critics critique modern society’s emphasis on progress, technology, and individualism, arguing that these forces have contributed to the erosion of traditional values and the rise of nihilism. They see modernity as a source of disorientation and anomie, rather than a source of liberation and progress.
  6. Focus on individual responsibility: Nietzsche’s philosophy emphasizes individual responsibility and the need for individuals to take charge of creating their own values and meaning. Red Pill critics, while not necessarily advocating for individualism, emphasize the importance of individual agency and responsibility in navigating the challenges of modern society and finding meaning in a seemingly meaningless world.

In summary, Nietzsche’s philosophical ideas on the death of God and the decline of traditional values inform Red Pill critiques of modern society’s loss of meaning and the rise of nihilism by:

  • Identifying the erosion of traditional values as a source of crisis and meaninglessness
  • Recognizing the loss of faith in objective moral and metaphysical truths as a contributing factor to nihilism
  • Emphasizing the importance of individual responsibility and agency in creating meaning and values in a post-traditional world
  • Critiquing modern society’s emphasis on progress, technology, and individualism as contributing to the rise of nihilism
  • Advocating for a reactionary impulse to reclaim traditional values and social hierarchies as a bulwark against nihilism.

An abridged version of Arthur Schopenhauer’s famous essay On Women

The nature of the female

One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man’s without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

Natural weapons

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.

Female truth

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

Feminine charms

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Absence of genius

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

Insipid women-veneration

This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.

Monogamy and ‘filles de joie’

In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.

No argument about polygamy

There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.

Property and inheritance

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband’s funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband’s money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.

In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.

That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.

Up to ‘Property and inheritance’ the translation is by R. J. Hollingdale, from Arthur Schopenhauer: Essays and Aphorisms (Penguin 1970), then by T. Bailey Saunders.

Husbands and Bachelors by H. L. Mencken

THE ACTUAL HUSBAND views it as a great testimony to his prowess at amour to yield up his liberty, his property and his soul to the first woman who, in despair of finding better game, turns her appraising eye upon him. But if you want to hear a mirthless laugh, just present this masculine theory to a bridesmaid at a wedding, particularly after alcohol and crocodile tears have done their disarming work upon her. That is to say, just hint to her that the bride harboured no notion of marriage until stormed into acquiescence by the moonstruck and impetuous bridegroom.

I have used the phrase, “in despair of finding better game.” What I mean is this: that not one woman in a hundred ever marries her first choice among marriageable men. That first choice is almost invariably one who is beyond her talents, for reasons either fortuitous or intrinsic. Let us take, for example, a woman whose relative naiveté makes the process clearly apparent, to wit, a simple shop-girl. Her absolute first choice, perhaps, is not a living man at all, but a supernatural abstraction in a book, say, one of the heroes of Hall Caine, Ethel M. Dell, or Marie Corelli. After him comes a moving-picture actor. Then another moving-picture actor. Then, perhaps, many more – ten or fifteen head. Then a sebaceous young clergyman. Then the junior partner in the firm she works for. Then a couple of department managers. Then a clerk. Then a young man with no definite profession or permanent job – one of the innumerable host which flits from post to post, always restive, always trying something new – perhaps a neighbourhood garage-keeper in the end. Well, the girl begins with the Caine colossus: he vanishes into thin air. She proceeds to the moving picture actors: they are almost as far beyond her. And then to the man of God, the junior partner, the department manager, the clerk: one and all they are carried off by girls of greater attractions and greater skill – girls who can cast gaudier flies. In the end, suddenly terrorized by the first faint shadows of spinsterhood, she turns to the ultimate num-skull – and marries him out of hand.

This, allowing for class modifications, is almost the normal history of a marriage, or, more accurately, of the genesis of a marriage, under Protestant Christianity. Under other rites the business is taken out of the woman’s hands, at least partly, and so she is less enterprising in her assembling of candidates and possibilities. But when the whole thing is left to her own heart – i.e., to her head – it is but natural that she should seek as wide a range of choice as the conditions of her life allow, and in a democratic society those conditions put few if any fetters upon her fancy. The servant girl, or factory operative, or even prostitute of today may be the chorus girl or moving picture vampire of tomorrow and the millionaire’s wife of next year. In America, especially, men have no settled antipathy to such stooping alliances; in fact, it rather flatters their vanity to play Prince Charming to Cinderella. The result is that every normal American young woman, with the practicality of her sex and the inner confidence that goes therewith, raises her amorous eye as high as it will roll. And the second result is that every American man of presentable exterior and easy means is surrounded by an aura of discreet provocation: he cannot even dictate a letter, or ask for a telephone number without being measured for his wedding coat. On the Continent of Europe, and especially in the Latin countries, where class barriers are more formidable, the situation differs materially, and to the disadvantage of the girl. If she makes an overture, it is an invitation to disaster; her hope of lawful marriage by such means is almost nil. In consequence, the prudent and decent girl avoids such overtures, and they must be made by third parties or by the man himself. This is the explanation of the fact that a Frenchman, say, is habitually enterprising in amour, and hence bold and often offensive, whereas an American is what is called chivalrous. The American is chivalrous for the simple reason that the initiative is not in his hands. His chivalry is really a sort of coquetry.

The Unattainable Ideal

THE AVERAGE WOMAN is not strategically capable of bringing down the most tempting game within her purview, and must thus content herself with a second, third, or nth choice. The only women who get their first choices are those who run in almost miraculous luck and those too stupid to formulate an ideal – two very small classes, it must be obvious. A few women, true enough, are so pertinacious that they prefer defeat to compromise. That is to say, they prefer to put off marriage indefinitely rather than to marry beneath the highest leap of their fancy. But such women may be quickly dismissed as abnormal, and perhaps as downright diseased in mind; the average woman is well aware that marriage is far better for her than celibacy, even when it falls a good deal short of her primary hopes… Thus the average woman is under none of the common masculine illusions about elective affinities, soul mates, love at first sight, and such phantasms. She is quite ready to fall in love, as the phrase is, with any man who is plainly eligible, and she usually knows a good many more such men than one. Her primary demand in marriage is not for the agonies of romance, but for comfort and security… One frequently hears of remarried widowers who continue to moon about their dead first wives, but for a remarried widow to show any such sentimentality would be a nine days’ wonder. Once replaced, a dead husband is expunged from the minutes. And so is a dead love.

One of the results of all this is a subtle reinforcement of the contempt with which women normally regard their husbands – a contempt grounded, as I have shown, upon a sense of intellectual superiority. To this primary sense of superiority is now added the disparagement of a concrete comparison, and over all is an ineradicable resentment of the fact that such a comparison has been necessary. In other words, the typical husband is a second-rater, and no one is better aware of it than his wife. He is, taking averages, one who has been loved, as the saying goes, by but one woman, and then only as a second, third or nth choice. If any other woman had ever loved him, as the idiom has it, she would have married him, and so made him ineligible for his present happiness. But the average bachelor is a man who has been loved, so to speak, by many women, and is the lost first choice of at least some of them. He represents the unattainable, and hence the admirable; the husband is the attained and disdained.

Here we have a sufficient explanation of the general superiority of bachelors, so often noted by students of mankind – a superiority so marked that it is difficult, in all history, to find six first-rate philosophers who were married men. The bachelor’s very capacity to avoid marriage is no more than a proof of his relative freedom from the ordinary sentimentalism of his sex – in other words, of his greater approximation to the clearheadedness of the enemy sex. He is able to defeat the enterprise of women because he brings to the business an equipment almost comparable to their own. Herbert Spencer, until he was fifty, was ferociously harassed by women of all sorts. Among others, George Eliot tried very desperately to marry him. But after he had made it plain, over a long series of years, that he was prepared to resist marriage to the full extent of his military and naval power, the girls dropped off one by one, and so his last decades were full of peace and he got a great deal of very important work done.

The Effect on the Race

IT IS, OF COURSE, not well for the world that the highest sort of men are thus selected out, as the biologists say, and that their superiority dies with them, whereas the ignoble tricks and sentimentalities of lesser men are infinitely propagated. Despite a popular delusion that the sons of great men are always dolts, the fact is that intellectual superiority is inheritable quite as easily as bodily strength; and that fact has been established beyond cavil by the laborious inquiries of Galton, Pearson and the other anthropometricians of the English school. If such men as Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spencer, and Nietzsche had married and begotten sons, those sons, it is probable, would have contributed as much to philosophy as the sons and grandsons of Veit Bach contributed to music, or those of Erasmus Darwin to biology, or those of Henry Adams to politics, or those of Hamilcar Barca to the art of war. I have said that Herbert Spencer’s escape from marriage facilitated his life-work, and so served the immediate good of English philosophy, but in the long run it will work a detriment, for he left no sons to carry on his labours, and the remaining Englishmen of his time were unable to supply the lack. His celibacy, indeed, made English philosophy co-extensive with his life; since his death the whole body of metaphysical speculation produced in England has been of little more practical value to the world than a drove of hogs. In precisely the same way the celibacy of Schopenhauer, Kant and Nietzsche has reduced German philosophy to feebleness.

Even setting aside this direct influence of heredity, there is the equally potent influence of example and tuition. It is a gigantic advantage to live on intimate terms with a first-rate man, and have his care. Hamilcar not only gave the Carthagenians a great general in his actual son; he also gave them a great general in his son-in-law, trained in his camp. But the tendency of the first-rate man to remain a bachelor is very strong, and Sidney Lee once showed that, of all the great writers of England since the Renaissance, more than half were either celibates or lived apart from their wives. Even the married ones revealed the tendency plainly. For example, consider Shakespeare. He was forced into marriage while still a minor by the brothers of Ann Hathaway, who was several years his senior, and had debauched him and gave out that she was enceinte by him. He escaped from her abhorrent embraces as quickly as possible, and thereafter kept as far away from her as he could. His very distaste for marriage, indeed, was the cause of his residence in London, and hence, in all probability, of the labours which made him immortal.