231. Learning alters us, it does what all nourishment does that does not merely "conserve"as the physiologist knows. But at the bottom of our souls, quite "down below," there is certainly something unteachable, a granite of spiritual fate, of predetermined decision and answer to predetermined, chosen questions. In each cardinal problem there speaks an unchangeable "I am this"; a thinker cannot learn anew about man and woman, for instance, but can only learn fullyhe can only follow to the end what is "fixed" about them in himself. Occasionally we find certain solutions of problems which make strong beliefs for us; perhaps they are henceforth called "convictions." Later onone sees in them only footsteps to selfknowledge, guideposts to the problem which we ourselves AREor more correctly to the great stupidity which we embody, our spiritual fate, the UNTEACHABLE in us, quite "down below."In view of this liberal compliment which I have just paid myself, permission will perhaps be more readily allowed me to utter some truths about "woman as she is," provided that it is known at the outset how literally they are merelyMY truths.
232. Woman wishes to be independent, and therefore she begins to enlighten men about "woman as she is"THIS is one of the worst developments of the general UGLIFYING of Europe. For what must these clumsy attempts of feminine scientificality and selfexposure bring to light! Woman has so much cause for shame; in woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmasterliness, petty presumption, unbridledness, and indiscretion concealedstudy only woman's behaviour towards children!which has really been best restrained and dominated hitherto by the FEAR of man. Alas, if ever the "eternally tedious in woman"she has plenty of it!is allowed to venture forth! if she begins radically and on principle to unlearn her wisdom and artof charming, of playing, of frightening away sorrow, of alleviating and taking easily; if she forgets her delicate aptitude for agreeable desires! Female voices are already raised, which, by Saint Aristophanes! make one afraid:with medical explicitness it is stated in a threatening manner what woman first and last REQUIRES from man. Is it not in the very worst taste that woman thus sets herself up to be scientific? Enlightenment hitherto has fortunately been men's affair, men's giftwe remained therewith "among ourselves"; and in the end, in view of all that women write about "woman," we may well have considerable doubt as to whether woman really DESIRES enlightenment about herselfand CAN desire it. If woman does not thereby seek a new ORNAMENT for herselfI believe ornamentation belongs to the eternally feminine?why, then, she wishes to make herself feared: perhaps she thereby wishes to get the mastery. But she does not want truthwhat does woman care for truth? From the very first, nothing is more foreign, more repugnant, or more hostile to woman than truthher great art is falsehood, her chief concern is appearance and beauty. Let us confess it, we men: we honour and love this very art and this very instinct in woman: we who have the hard task, and for our recreation gladly seek the company of beings under whose hands, glances, and delicate follies, our seriousness, our gravity, and profundity appear almost like follies to us. Finally, I ask the question: Did a woman herself ever acknowledge profundity in a woman's mind, or justice in a woman's heart? And is it not true that on the whole "woman" has hitherto been most despised by woman herself, and not at all by us?We men desire that woman should not continue to compromise herself by enlightening us; just as it was man's care and the consideration for woman, when the church decreed: mulier taceat in ecclesia. It was to the benefit of woman when Napoleon gave the too eloquent Madame de Stael to understand: mulier taceat in politicis!and in my opinion, he is a true friend of woman who calls out to women today: mulier taceat de mulierel.
233. It betrays corruption of the instinctsapart from the fact that it betrays bad tastewhen a woman refers to Madame Roland, or Madame de Stael, or Monsieur George Sand, as though something were proved thereby in favour of "woman as she is." Among men, these are the three comical women as they arenothing more!and just the best involuntary counterarguments against feminine emancipation and autonomy.
234. Stupidity in the kitchen; woman as cook; the terrible thoughtlessness with which the feeding of the family and the master of the house is managed! Woman does not understand what food means, and she insists on being cook! If woman had been a thinking creature, she should certainly, as cook for thousands of years, have discovered the most important physiological facts, and should likewise have got possession of the healing art! Through bad female cooksthrough the entire lack of reason in the kitchenthe development of mankind has been longest retarded and most interfered with: even today matters are very little better. A word to High School girls.