is the good, and the whole
world exists under a moral law; even to the animals, which are mere
phenomena, we assign moral values, holding the elephant, for instance,
to be higher than the snake, notwithstanding the fact that we do not
make an animal accountable when it kills another. In the case of woman,
however, we regard her as responsible if she commits murder, and in this
alone is a proof that women are above the animals. If it be the case
that womanliness is simply immorality, then woman must cease to be
womanly and try to be manly.
I must give warning against the danger of woman trying merely to liken
herself outwardly to man, for such a course would simply plunge her more
deeply into womanliness. It is only too likely that the efforts to
emancipate women will result not in giving her real freedom, in letting
her reach free-will, but merely in enlarging the range of her caprices.
. .
A woman who had really given up her sexual self, who wished to be at
peace would be no longer "woman." She would have ceased to be "woman,"
she would have received the inward and spiritual sign as well as the
outward form of regeneration.
Can such a thing be?
There is no absolute woman, but even to say "yes" to the above question
is like giving one's assent to a miracle. Emancipation will not make
woman happier; it will not ensure her salvation, and it is a long road
which leads to God. No being in the transition stage betwee
.
|
