other women, the "servant" detests herself.
The drudge weeps out her woes alone, without really feeling lonely -
loneliness is identical with morality, and a condition which implies
true duality or manifoldness; the shrew hates to be alone because she
must have some one to scold, whilst hysterical women vent their passions
on themselves. The shrew lies openly and boldly but without knowing it,
because it is her nature to think herself always in the right, and she
insults those who contradict her. The servant submits wonderingly to the
demands made of her which are so foreign to her nature; the hypocrisy of
this pliant acquiescence is apparent in her hysterical attacks when the
conflict with her own sexual emotions begins. It is because of this
receptivity and susceptibility that hysteria and the hysterical type of
woman are so leniently dealt with: it is this type, and not the shrewish
type, that will be cited in opposition to my views.
Untruthfulness, organic untruthfulness, characterises both types, and
accordingly all women. It is quite wrong to say that women lie. That
would imply that they sometimes speak the truth. Sincerity, pro foro
interno et externo, is the virtue of all others of which women are
absolutely incapable, which is impossible for them! . . .
The current opinion that woman is religious is equally erroneous. Female
mysticism, when it is anything more than mere superstition, is either
thinly veiled sexuality (the identification of the Deity and the lover
has been frequently discussed, as