|
Posted by J. B. Santoy on December 3, 2007, 12:09 am
Please log in for more thread options
in and through their souls, the whole universe thus having its
being in them, the female must be described as absolutely without the
quality of genius. . . . There is no female genius, and there never has
been one . . . and there never can be one. Those who are in favour of
laxity in these matters, and are anxious to extend and enlarge the idea
of genius in order to make it possible to include women, would simply by
such action destroy the concept of genius. . . . How could a soulless
being possess genius? The possession of genius is identical with
profundity; and if any one were to try to combine woman and profundity
as subject and predicate, he would be contradicted on all sides. A
female genius is a contradiction in terms, for genius is simply
intensified, perfectly developed, universally conscious maleness. . . .
. . . A woman's demand for emancipation and her qualification for it are
in direct proportion to the amount of maleness in her. The idea of
emancipation, however, is many-sided, and its indefiniteness is
increased by its association with many practical customs which have
nothing to do with the theory of emancipation. By the term emancipation
of a woman, I imply neither her mastery at home nor her subjection of
her husband. I have not in mind the courage which enables her to go
freely by night or by day unaccompanied in public places, or the
disregard of social rules which prohibit bachelor women from receiving
visits from men, or discussing or listening to discussions of sexual
| 
XML site map