Hattie has some points "on Neechy", some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. As I cannot respond to her blog (something to do with my security settings I suspect), I will riff off a few of her ideas here.

To begin with, the culture of Neechianism (notice I already observe the corruption taking place between the philosophy and its popularisation with my term) is really a 19th Century throwback, and those who use Nietzsche in order to do their thinking for them, rather than doing their own thinking in relation to Nietzsche are very much to be ignored. Once they learn how to think for themselves, by producing nuances and reflections that take into account their own experiences within a 21st Century context, we can start to pay attention to them again. Until then they are followers and hangers-on who reflect the values and ideas of another.

Secondly, Nietzsche was right about a number of things, not least, as Hattie has pointed out, the Unconscious. Freud seems to have derived many of his own speculations from Herr Nietzsche, as Hattie recognises. A problem with Nietzsche's understanding of the Unconscious -- henceforth referred to here as "lizard brain" -- is that he tended to hypostatise his insights about it. Instead of allowing that its functions may be very fluid, and changeable depending on any situation, he wrote his philosophy as if certain people or entities were entirely responsible for certain facets of the lizard brain. So, for instance, "women" were held entirely responsible for all "reactive forces". It didn't matter that women were sometimes not reactive, or that it really depended what context they were in within society, not for Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, women represented all of the negativity of lizard brain consciousness, manipulating in a hostile fashion behind the scenes, without ever coming forth and articulating what is on its mind. (Contemporary feminism takes the polar opposite approach to this, which Nietzsche attributed to all women. It speaks directly what is on its mind, but is still ignored by those who live their lives half-way up Nietzsche's asshole.)

The point is, Nietzsche hypostatised the identity of "women", to make them appear to be a single facet of the neurobiological functioning of the lizard brain. Neurobiology itself, however, suggests that no human being necessarily functions from the basis of using only one part of this endowment. Lizard brain it itself the source of psychological and interpsychological plasticity, so hypostatising lizard brain's "reactivity", so that it seems to perform only one function for one sort of person is at best misleading and at worst downright unethical. To repeat -- women are not to be reduced to the negative functions of their lizard brains. That is an unethical move, to make them seem this way, the repressive nature of the 19th Century social context notwithstanding.

On the other hand, Nietzsche wants to make out that males can appropriate their lizard brains in a more appropriate fashion. He wants to show that by accessing their lizard brains more fully, males can renew themselves and live more fully. This idea that Nietzsche has seems more laudable. Unfortunately Nietzsche is his own worst obstructor, blocking the way to obtaining this end result -- an outcome that I call "shamanising" -- because his hypostatisations concerning "masculine" and "feminine" prevent entrance into the realm of lizard brain consciousness as pure fluidity.

To try to make plainer what I am getting at in terms of "shamanising" -- it is important to renew oneself by letting go of the heavy burden of one's socialised values, and entering into a psychical realm where everything about life and reality becomes fluid again. It is from having experienced this "melt down" that one is able to be creative in the most radical fashion. (Cf. Anton Ehernzweig, The Hidden Order of Art, for a discussion of this relational dynamic pertaining to the Unconscious). However, one does not let go of one's burden of socialisation whilst one remains attached to reified notions of masculine and feminine. Remaining fixated on these strongly socially conditioned values of the 19th Century will prevent one from accessing the lizard brain's functioning in the deepest possible way. (One has to become liquified - Dionyson - in order to do it.) Instead, one will remain fairly rigidified and on the surface of consciousness. Attachment to one's socialised values will keep one there. In Nietzsche's terms, one will be unable to access the "Overman" (who gains the power to transcend social values by accessing the powers of the Unconscious).

So it turns out that Nietzsche himself (his mode of writing) was the greatest obstructor in relation to the aims of his own philosophy -- which was to enable a revaluation of values through incorporating more awareness of the unconscious life of the mind (i.e *awareness*, not the contents, necessarily, of the unconscious) into social life.

Lastly, I would like to say that Nietzsche's general ideas can still be redeemed through what he proposed as "aristocratic values" -- namely reciprocation. I find that I do this automatically -- I reciprocate no matter what the circumstances are. When someone is kind, I try to return kindness, but when they are dismissive, I also tend to return that attitude (although I am not always aware of doing so!)

I think that women who want to be free of misogynistic idiocies, (for example, in behaviour), should do no more and no less than reciprocate, as a way of responding to the behaviour that is directed at them. Those who are kind to women will therefore be positively reinforced, whereas those who treat them negatively will have negative reinforcement for their behaviour.

To me reciprocation is a conditioned instinct due to my kickboxing training. If someone wants to play rough, I play rough back, but otherwise, I tend to keep things going at an even pace.