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 gift—­we 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 herself—­and can desire it.  If woman does not thereby seek a new ornament for herself—­I 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 truth—­what does woman care for truth?  From the very first, nothing is more foreign, more repugnant, or more hostile to woman than truth—­her 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 instincts—­apart from the fact that it betrays bad taste—­when 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 are—­nothing more!—­and just the best involuntary counter-arguments 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 cooks—­through the entire lack of reason in the kitchen—­the development of mankind has been longest retarded and most interfered with:  even today matters are very little better.  A word to High School girls.