The reason why all this has to be stated here is simply that women, who
could state it much better, have almost unanimously refrained from
discussing such matters at all. One finds, indeed, a sort of general
conspiracy, infinitely alert and jealous, against the publication of
the esoteric wisdom of the sex, and even against the acknowledgment
that any such body of erudition exists at all. Men, having more vanity
and less discretion, area good deal less cautious. There is, in fact, a
whole literature of masculine babbling, ranging from Machiavelli’s
appalling confession of political theory to the egoistic confidences of
such men as Nietzsche, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Casanova, Max Stirner,
Benvenuto Cellini, Napoleon Bonaparte and Lord Chesterfield. But it is
very rarely that a Marie Bashkirtsev or Margot Asquith lets down the
veils which conceal the acroamatic doctrine of the other sex. It is
transmitted from mother to daughter, so to speak, behind the door. One
observes its practical workings, but hears little about its principles.
The causes of this secrecy are obvious. Women, in the last analysis,
can prevail against men in the great struggle for power and security
only by keeping them disarmed, and, in the main, unwarned. In a pitched
battle, with the devil taking the hindmost, their physical and economic
inferiority would inevitably bring them to disaster. Thus they have to
apply their peculiar talents warily, and with due regard to the danger
of arousing the foe. He must be attached without any formal challenge,
and even without any suspicion of challenge. This strategy lies at the
heart of what Nietzsche called the slave morality—in brief, a morality
based upon a concealment of egoistic purpose, a code of ethics having
for its foremost character a bold denial of its actual aim.