___ abet, anus obit
Can anyone fill in the blank?

A: “obit anus, abit [not obit] onus”,

This is Schopenauer’s diary entry on the death of a woman he paid a monthly allowance to after a personal injury suit was successfully litigated against him.
3 women had been chattering in his hallway and he enjoyed silence. AS asked them to leave; the lady in question refused upon which he came back with a stick. He claims he waved it ; she claimed she was beaten and suffered permanent injury.

He wrote, “obit anus, abit [not obit] onus”, which translates to “the old woman has died, the burden has departed” because in civil law the claim dies with the claimant.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=TOCjnQs6ZnUC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=schopenhauer+pays+allowance&source=bl&ots=vHs5_UeuEW&sig=Dys4xo69rfQNce_bIGW2vFpPhbI&hl=en&ei=Vac4TImPFNGLnQfe9MzoAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Those who say women are not capable :

I refer you to the WWI an WWII war production experience.
test pilots, pilots,welders to cops etc. Women did the full range of men’s jobs.

What amazes me is it took until the 1970s for the women’s movement to full come of age.

Of course if women are to be equal – the children must have no parents to mind them. Enter the daycare which exists to assist the female achieve socioeconomic equality.

Even Charles Darwin could plainly see that women are inferior in intellect: “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman- whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr.Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius, that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

“Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection, that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-enforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.”

A common feminist canard is that which states that prior to the twentieth century, there is a lack of profound female achievement in the arts and sciences because the mythical patriarchy would not allow the delicate flowers to bloom. However, medieveal women were allowed and indeed, often encouraged to paint, as it was seen as work which would not defile their ladylike nature. So where then, are the female Michelangelos, Raphaels, and Da Vincis?

One poster brought up Madam Curie, which immediately supported the point of the poster who stated something about exceptions and rules(don’t feel like rereading the posts again just to quote). Great, one woman scientist of note(and well worth bringing up, because the Curies were both great minds), just fantastic proof of your point. Why not bring up the “patriarchal victim” of my branch of study, Rosalind Franklin, as well? Oh yeah, probably has something to do with the fact that she sat on top of some of the most important data in the history of molecular biology for months without being able to interpret it correctly, and it is up in the air whether she ever would have been able to(she was quite stuck on the idea that strands ran in the same direction). Watson credited her disagreeable nature as her foil going so far as to say that “she would have been famous for having found DNA if she’d just talked to Francis for an hour.”

In summary, the above poster is wrong, men have not been responsible for 100% of mankind’s most important scientific discoveries and artistic endeavors, just 99% of them.

*Explains why women would never accept such a thing, not matter how true, because it speaks negatively of their entire existence or classifies them into a group which they ‘feel’ they don’t belong to.

Also, I’d like to note that Schopenhauer’s analogy on ants doesn’t even hold up. Almost all ants are female: from warriors, workers, to the queen. Workers and warriors are sterile, of course. Male ants have wings, like young queens, and essentially exist to mate. They die not long after. I am not sure if this fact was not known during his time or if he was just fundamentally ignorant but it sure makes his analogy poor in retrospect.

“Innovation and real complexity are where women fail. Explain to a woman exactly what she needs to know to pass the test, and she’ll do it. Ask a woman to build you a complex electronic device, and she’ll laugh it off because in her mind, the task is impossible. Electronics grow on store shelves.”

Madame Curie I guess didn’t exist in some worlds out there.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/summary.shtml

I know that women haven’t achieved equality in the ’short’ time they have been given somewhat equal access to education and career opportunities, but nor has world peace suddenly appeared on our doorsteps. Then again, look at the state of the world with the majority of government leaders still being men? Could women do a worse job?

“Getting angry about ugly generalizations is a distraction, and Schopenhauer did have valuable points to make despite the cheap insults.”

The idea of women losing their beauty after having a child or two doesn’t always apply. But the often quoted double standard whereby ugly men with social status and/or money can still attract beatuiful women does. Now as to whether wealthy ‘handsome’ women can attract suitors is a theory that needs to be better tested. Money does often attract something, just not always what you expect.

As to a lesser intellect, it’s often difficult to tell the difference depending on the culture betwen well crafted logical arguements versus well staged emotional appeals when often it’s neither one nor the other, but rather a varied blend of both. I see these made at work all the time, whenever people in charge have to explain why some change is made. Often arguements could be made for both sides, and simply someone in power decided it would be better this way based on the information they had at that stage in time and quite possibly how they thought it would affect the strength of their ‘office’ power. These people tend to be both women and men, so I don’t see much difference in their intellectual approaches.