Otto Weininger on the character of man

tain that though they are physically different, the characters of man and women are basically the same; that there are no specifically male or specifically female qualities. Those who put forward this argument must have rejected the idea that there is any real correspondence between the psychic and the physical nature of human beings. For if there is such a correspondence, it is reasonable to suppose that the difference between the male and female function in the process of human reproduction is reflected in quite different psychic qualities and characteristics. It would be possible to go into this at greater length than time allows, but as a significant contrast, whereas the male ejects the sperm in a single brief action and can then forget about it, the female has to nourish and protect the embryo for nine months; and even after birth it is natural for her to continue to nourish and protect the child for some time. It is very difficult to suppose that such a radical difference in physical function is not matched by an equally radical difference in character.

It is at this stage that I have to ask you to fasten your seat belts, by which I mean do not let prejudice take over and cause you to reject without rational consideration assertions which may appear to some at first sight outrageous. If M and W are opposite and complementary, they must have opposite and complementary characters, and it must be possible to define these characters by reference to other pairs of opposites. The two pairs which will be most appropriate to our enquiry are those of idea and actuality, and of individual and community. Weininger attributes identity, logic, principle to M. These, as we have seen, are all idea. They have no material existence. Identity is the essence of individuality, which in its fullest sense is also only idea. Man in the state of tribal consciousness was not fully conscious of his distinct identity, as we have noted also in the case of the child. He was physically a separate entity, but we donot think of him as yet fully individual. Weininger maintained that “woman has a meaning and function in the universe as the opposite of man’, and he went on to contrast man and woman as ‘unlimited being and unlimited negation’. “And so’ he wrote, ‘male and female make up humanity. The meaning of woman is to be meaningless.’

This negative judgement about woman should not prevent us from giving rational consideration to his characterology of

eD