What were Machiavelli's views on women?
827503
1. Nicolo Machiavelli was a misogynist proto-feminist (apparently)\nhttp://homepage.mac.com/gabyraymond/machiavelli.html\n\n2. His most notoriously mysogynistic quote comes from "The Prince, Chapter XXV What fortune can effect in human affairs and how to withstand her." Here it is .....\n"For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."\nhttp://historymedren.about.com/library/text/bltxtprince25.htm
90332
Hmm, does someone have a politcal theory midterm coming up?\n\nKant was largely a predecessor to Marx/Engels and was critisizing the same social structures they work and their inevitable ends of ruin. \n\nMachiavelli on the other hand was an advocate of the totalitarian ideal. Force makes right, but the quite "The ends justifies the means.", in itself is not correct. Even Niccolo would not entirely agree with that. \n\nTheir deep philophies are much to deep to get into because they were largely addressing different periods in political history.  Machiavelli was witnessing Roman decline and revolution, while Kant was witnessing the rise of the industrial revolution and its impacts upon the masses. \n\nIs there a specific topic you were intrested in like free will? social revolution or something?
235259
i think that it was written in times where women did not have any rights and in a societal setting that did not value a woman's opinion.  St. Paul was notorious for his views on women, which in many respects, seem to contradict how Jesus regarded women...Jesus elevated women...in one respect, Jesus was the greatest feminist ever...so, to answer your question, it was written by a man, but the central message was inspired by the Holy Spirit...
71755
from my point of view we have understimated the value of women in the society, many times had been seen that women do better in certain things that are supouse to be done by a man, i think she will make a terrific president, much better than the ass right now, i encourage people to think...not to act as macho without a brain..
441483
Who says a woman cant? Some have the fear that she would run it with emotions and thoughtfulness rather than who could win and who can be in control.oddly, i believe most of those who think that,are men.Actually,i think a woman would get this country in order.Have you ever thought that that may just be what this country needs? some thoughtfulness and emotions even if it politics.Doesnt mean people shouldnt actually have feelings and care about the american people.Not just see them as "little"people or people who are below them in the system.
638057
Machiavelli, author of The Prince, was a philosopher. He believed that giving all the power to a single person would have beneficial outcomes on the society the person controlled. Hope I helped.
281534
Voltaire's philosophy was based on skepticism and rationality, which leads me to believe that he didn't really lean one way or the other. He probably would be more of the philosophy that men do good things and bad things, thus being skeptical of both the naturally good and the naturally evil philosophies. Check out the link below and see if that helps.
586400
Machiavelli supported tyranny because he thought that emperors and kings had the divine right to rule, and then therefore had the best ideas overall. He also thought that if a strong leader kept people in line, even with semi-harsh rules, that it was what was best for the people.
1838
Generally ladies are peace loving, accurate, hardworking, determination and concentration on their work...... and godgifted motherly behavioiur.  Therefore, I do support the idea of a woman president.
176940
Machiavellian\nof, like, or befitting Machiavelli. \nbeing or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described. \ncharacterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty: Example: He resorted to Machiavellian tactics in order to get ahead. \na follower of the principles analyzed or described in The Prince, esp. with reference to techniques of political manipulation. \n\nSource: The Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Copyright © 1997 by Random House Inc. \n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nMachiavellian\nof or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism \nsuggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith \n\nSource: Merriam-Webster's WWWebster Dictionary \n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMachiavellian\nPsychology. of or relating to behavior in which a person purposely manipulates or misleads others in order to achieve his or her own personal goals. \n\nSource: Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology \n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMachiavellian\nof or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism \n\nsuggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith \n\nSource: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language - © 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated \n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMachiavellian\nusing clever but often dishonest methods which deceive people so that you get what you want, esp. power or control \n\nSource: Cambridge International Dictionary of English \n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMachiavellian\npertaining to Niccolo Machiavelli, 15th-century Italian statesman; unscrupulously cunning. \n\nSource: From The Hutchinson Dictionary of Difficult Words © Copyright Helicon Publishing Ltd. 1998 \n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMachiavellian \none who advocates or follows the doctrines of Machiavelli \n\nof, concerning, or befitting the doctrines expressed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which moral considerations are subordinated to the holding and exercising of political power. \n\nSource: ©2000 The Wordsmyth English Dictionary \n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMachiavellianism \nThe political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power. \n\nSource: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nMachiavellianism is the term some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. The concept is named after Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince). In 1970 Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's level of Machiavellianism. This eventually became the MACH-IV test, a twenty-statement personality survey that is now the standard self-assessment tool of Machiavellianism. People scoring above 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered high Machs; that is, they endorsed statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so," (No. 1) but not ones like, "Most people are basically good and kind" (No. 4). People scoring below 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered low Machs; they tend to believe, "There is no ex
312380
Guy:\n\nSomeone who is independent, enjoys and appreciates life genuinely. Someone who is secure with himself (not in the macho-sense, but in the self-accepting sense).\nSomeone who likes women. (Someone who doesn't see women as the ultimate goal to achieve and works to attain her, but rather takes delight in her as a person and chooses to be with her)\nSomeone who WILL not revolve his life around hers.\nSomeone who WILL not allow himself to be led by her.\n\nBottom line: A woman wants a man who can be the one to take her along for the ride and not the way around.\n\n^ If you need clarification to that last line, just ask.\n\nAnyhow, everything I described above is the source of attraction. That's why there's those people that seem to raise attention when they enter a room. \n.
262389
Germaine Greer in "the Female Eunuch" makes the point that men who like women's clothes often don't want to be women but just wnat the social trappings that come with the female stereotype, eg being submissive, beautiful, adorned with finery and treated like a princess.\n\nGG is often wrong when it comes to the inner workings of men though, so I present this to you as a question, not a statement of fact.\n\nDo you want a woman's body or do you want to be adored and adorned?\n\nEdit:  I strongly agree with thisgirl that although you may want to express yourself (as is your right) you should take care when it comes to some of the less tolerant people on this planet.
567356
See Rousseau and women in\nhttp://cal.csusb.edu/Faculty/Philosophy/moody/314f04%20rousseau_and_women.htm
1176188
It is interesting how women have been given rights, but still denied certain places to be equal to man. Yet there was a woman pope that was almost written out of history. Infact she personated herself as a man and evenatually got elected pope. Even popes are not innocent people and during that time...i can't quote the exact century, but I believe the 16th century....popes had lovers. She ended up pregnant. Before anyone was to find out she tried to flee, but it was too late. She was found out and on her escape out she was given birth to a baby. She and the baby were stoned to death on their way out. The scholars were trying to write her out of history, but like anything the truth can't be totally erased. The church tried to keep money in power in the church thus forbidding priests to marry and keeping it totally male. It wasn't about equal rights, but money and power/politics. Now adays it has been so established that priesthood should only be for men, that Im not sure how well accepted a woman would be as a cardinal let alone a pope. We are still trying for a woman president. Because of the social stigmas we have so much to overcome. There is no overnight fix. Infact women got most of their rights after our rigths to vote...the sufferage. It took us that long just to get there....it will take us that much longer to get where we want to be.
869393
A woman can't be a good leader?  I believe history proves you wrong.\n\nCleopatra\nQueen Elizabeth I\nMargaret Thatcher\nEmpress Theodora\nmore woman rulers:\nhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801534.html\n\n\nRead about woman warriors throughout history:\nhttp://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html\n\nBTW - I do not agree that anger makes a good leader.
641369
This is really easy. Machievelli said the ends will justify the means and rulers should basically do anything to stay in power, ANYTHING.If you've read "The Prince," by Machievelli, you would understand this idea. Each of the people you have listed were pretty ruthless in their desire to stay on top. Just provide examples of this. Google each of their names to get a breif history of thier years as rulers. You will find plenty to support your claim. If you can't read the prince, get some sparks notes and find a few of his really good quotes.
127713
I had to write a paper on the Prince not to long ago, and here is a list of the major themes.  You can pick your favorite three.\n\nStatesmanship & Warcraft\n\nMachiavelli believes that good laws follow naturally from a good military. His famous statement that “the presence of sound military forces indicates the presence of sound laws” describes the relationship between developing states and war in The Prince. Machiavelli reverses the conventional understanding of war as a necessary, but not definitive, element of the development of states, and instead asserts that successful war is the very foundation upon which all states are built. Much of The Prince is devoted to describing exactly what it means to conduct a good war: how to effectively fortify a city, how to treat subjects in newly acquired territories, and how to prevent domestic insurrection that would distract from a successful war. But Machiavelli’s description of war encompasses more than just the direct use of military force—it comprises international diplomacy, domestic politics, tactical strategy, geographic mastery, and historical analysis. Within the context of Machiavelli’s Italy—when cities were constantly threatened by neighboring principalities and the area had suffered through power struggles for many years—his method of viewing almost all affairs of state through a military lens was a timely innovation in political thinking.\n\nGoodwill & Hatred\n\nTo remain in power, a prince must avoid the hatred of his people. It is not necessary for him to be loved; in fact, it is often better to for him to be feared. Being hated, however, can cause a prince’s downfall. This assertion might seem incompatible with Machiavelli’s statements on the utility of cruelty, but Machiavelli advocates the use of cruelty only insofar as it does not compromise the long-term goodwill of the people. The people’s goodwill is always the best defense against both domestic insurrection and foreign aggression. Machiavelli warns princes against doing things that might result in hatred, such as the confiscation of property or the dissolution of traditional institutions. Even installations that are normally valued for military use, such as fortresses, should be judged primarily on their potential to garner support for the prince. Indeed, only when he is absolutely sure that the people who hate him will never be able to rise against him can a prince cease to worry about incurring the hatred of any of his subjects. Ultimately, however, obtaining the goodwill of the people has little or nothing to do with a desire for the overall happiness of the populace. Rather, goodwill is a political instrument to ensure the stability of the prince’s reign.\n\nFree Will\n\nMachiavelli often uses the words “prowess” and “fortune” to describe two distinct ways in which a prince can come to power. “Prowess” refers to an individual’s talents, while “fortune” implies chance or luck. Part of Machiavelli’s aim in writing The Prince is to investigate how much of a prince’s success or failure is caused by his own free will and how much is determined by nature or the environment in which he lives. Machiavelli applies this question specifically to the failure of past Italian princes. In Chapter XXV, Machiavelli discusses the role of fortune in determining human affairs. He attempts to compromise between free will and determinism by arguing that fortune controls half of human actions and leaves the other half to free will. However, Machiavelli also argues that through foresight—a quality that he champions throughout the book—people can shield themselves against fortune’s vicissitudes. Thus, Machiavelli can be described as confident in the power of human beings to shape their destinies to a degree, but equally confident that human control over events is never absolute.\n\nVirtue\n\nMachiavelli defines virtues as qualities that are praised by others, such as generosity, co