In the post-perestroika years, the book Sex and Character by the Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger (1880-1903) became famous in Russia. How many heated debates it has generated in every student hostel! How many sad thoughts she evokes to this day among young readers! What did the philosopher write in it that still causes feelings among ladies all over the world?
Weininger, who managed to publish his scandalous book at the age of 23 (after which he committed suicide for some unknown reason), argued that a woman is an inferior being. In particular, the philosopher noted that there were a lot of brilliant men, and brilliant women — one, two and counted.
“But they were! another reader will exclaim. “For example, Sofia Kovalevskaya!” So it is, but Weininger tells us that all women who managed to become famous … had a masculine essence, and in general — the degree of a woman’s talent depends on the degree of her similarity to a man. As confirmation of his opinion, Weininger pointed to the appearance and character of Helena Blavatsky and Sofya Kovalevskaya.
It is well known that in schools the majority of excellent students are girls. There are also many talented women among adults, but in the end, for some reason, only male names remain in history. How can this be explained?
On the one hand, women are forced to spend more time on children and household chores, but, on the other hand, there are many unemployed women among women, and they have more free time for creativity than men. It turns out that it’s not just the lack of time. Everyone who read Weininger agreed that the author of this undoubtedly talented book noticed a lot of things correctly, but, nevertheless, no one could unambiguously explain the paradox of the almost complete absence of female names among geniuses. Including me.
Later I happened to return to this riddle. The fact is that for some time now I have been carried away by the creation of a universal system of protection against rudeness (“How to protect yourself from rudeness. 7 simple rules”) and drew attention to the fact that the most helpless category of those offended are beautiful young girls. How would gu.e. no one spoke to them, they stand and are silent, not knowing how to answer. Married women without children, even if they are barely eighteen, behave more pompously. Married women with children are even more determined, and, finally, those over forty have the most determined behavior.
This phenomenon is explained very simply. From an early age, girls are taught that a woman should be beautiful and everyone should like it. Most of all, the girl is afraid to look ugly in the eyes of others. Such fear makes it difficult for a girl to stand up for herself, especially when she is insulted in public, and some people take advantage of this. As for married women, especially women with children, they are no longer so concerned about their own attractiveness, and therefore are not so helpless before rudeness. And those over forty hardly think about their own beauty, and hurting them is like teasing a tiger. Moreover, women of this age often behave aggressively themselves.
Observing the behavior of men and women in critical situations, I came to the conclusion that it is precisely the fear of women to appear ugly that is the main reason why there are very few (or even none) geniuses among women. After all, a genius must defend his views, make his way in life, and this is always unaesthetic. Imagine, for example, a female scientist putting forward some revolutionary theory, and forced to argue because of it with a mob of snipers, and it will become clear to you why women avoid those areas of activity where you have to fight. That is why women easily give their discoveries to men — husbands, fathers, brothers, bosses and just acquaintances, so that they «punch» them on their own. Accordingly, the glory goes not to the one who submitted the idea, but to the one who brought it to life.
In addition to the fear of looking ugly, women are driven by the “instinct of disguise”. As you know, in the animal kingdom, the female has a pale color and modest behavior. This is necessary so that, in case of danger, she can hide and save the cubs. The male, on the contrary, always has a bright color and demonstrative behavior, in order, in the event of an enemy, to distract him and take him away from the place where his girlfriend is hiding with the kids. For example, only the male peacock has a beautiful tail, while the female looks like a modest chicken. In other words, instincts tell a woman to «keep a low profile.»
This begs the question: does this mean that it is easier for a woman to be creative in conditions of anonymity? If you study the statistics in which area of culture women creators have left the most noticeable mark, you will find that there are especially many famous women among writers (Ethel-Lilian Voynich, Charlotte Bronte, George Sand, etc.), as well as among composers, artists, sculptors — in other words, among the creators of works that are created alone, and not in a team. The work of the writer is especially well coordinated with the “sit and keep a low profile” instinct, since direct communication with critics can be easily eliminated by hiding behind a pseudonym. In science, pseudonyms are not accepted, and women scientists either realize themselves in not too revolutionary areas, or find men who “push through” their ideas (of course, already on their own behalf).
The question is, what about the numerous female actresses who are always in sight? Firstly, an actress, singer, ballerina is a work that reproduces rather than creates something fundamentally new, and secondly, even if an actress offers some new, special interpretation of a work, it is difficult for the public to judge whose merit it is — her or the director . Female actresses have much less to fight for an idea than, for example, female directors. Therefore, there are many actresses, and few women directors.
Now let’s move on to the question of whether Otto Weininger was right in believing that all famous women had a masculine essence. I believe that this judgment is close to the truth, but not entirely true. Famous women are not necessarily masculine aunts, but simply those who have allowed themselves to be “ugly”. To create something completely new and introduce it, overcoming the resistance of conservatives, can only be done by someone who does not try to please everyone and everyone like a hundred dollar bill. That is why many famous women are of the blue stockings type. Often these are middle-aged women, already past the age when it is scary to look ridiculous. Such, for example, are the majority of women authors of innovative health-improving methods, whose books are currently popular.
It turns out that women are doomed to succeed only in those areas where they do not have to fight with their environment. The question is, how to explain that occasionally there are women who are innovative teachers? After all, teachers still work in a team, and often hostile. However, there is no contradiction here, since this team is 90% female. A woman can start fighting for her ideas, but not among men. A talented woman in a male team is quickly neutralized with the help of ridicule and criticism, unless she is an old woman who has resigned herself to the fact that men will certainly create a reputation for her as an “old witch”. Young and beautiful in the men’s team will be able to do only something banal, or will be content with the role of an assistant to the «great man». If you want to be a «genius woman», leave the men’s team for the women’s team.
“But in women’s groups there are also intrigues and ridicule!” — will object to me. Quarrels and intrigues — yes, but criticism is more characteristic of male teams. Women’s conflicts are more often of a petty “everyday” nature, like: “You will no longer take the key to my office, because you littered it last year!” As for the promotion of their creative ideas, it is easier to do this in a women’s team, since women tend to perceive women leaders and fighters for their idea as men, and you will have numerous fans. Of course, there will always be women who will scold you, but they will attack your personality rather than your ideas. Of course, if you are not going to play the role of an innovator, working in a male team will be more comfortable and beneficial for you in all respects, but we are talking about creative self-realization!
You can bring your projects to the judgment of a male audience only when there are already ready-made results. Men have sharper tongues, and they will ruin your idea with their ridicule even at the stage of its development. Outside of work, a woman, of course, should meet with men — this cheers her up, but working among men in the role of an innovative creator is only a waste of her energy. No wonder the famous poetess Sappho was a teacher not for boys, but for girls.
Being in a women’s team does not deprive a woman of her creative power. She receives her share of support and admiration from women who assign her the role of «ringleader». So Weininger, saying that a talented woman always resembles a man in some way, probably made this judgment by observing the behavior of talented women in ladies’ society. By the way, in the animal kingdom we can also observe the phenomenon when the female takes on the role of leader in the «female team» — for example, in some types of aquarium fish. If the purchased fish turn out to be two «girls», one of them begins to play the role of a male: build a nest of bubbles and scare other fish away from it.
This is the same law of successful creativity for men. One should not think that in men’s teams «everyone is against everyone.» Each male innovator creates his own support group, consisting of men who, at least temporarily, take on the “female” role of followers. By the way, people with the “wrong orientation” are much more likely to achieve significant success precisely because they work without regard to the judgments of the opposite sex.
If they object to me, saying that it is much easier for a man to work in a women’s team, I will answer that this is true when it comes to routine work, where you just need to follow other people’s instructions, but as far as creative work is concerned, this is not so. A man working in a women’s team usually, instead of working on his creative project, spends time chatting and posturing, and gradually degrades. This situation is especially typical for men in the humanities who work in women’s teams. Active silent people who prefer to work rather than engage in diplomacy often become victims of intrigues in women’s groups. By the way, if men in the women’s team are in the minority, then a talented man, even if he is «seven spans in the forehead», as a rule, is destined for the role of «whipping boy». Therefore, we come to the conclusion: in order to maximize their creative plans, at the stage of developing a new project, a man should work among men, and a woman among women.
There are, of course, other conditions that not only greatly increase the likelihood that a person will do something outstanding, but simply inevitably lead to it! I talk about these premises in my book The Theory of Dominance, and I will share some unexpected conclusions from it with readers in the following articles.