Stavo leggendo Enest B. Bax avvocato e filosofo padre della questione maschile.
Ho difficoltà a comprendere un punto importante. Mi domandavo se qualcuno è in grado di spiegare ciò che dice, in particolare cosa significa che la donna, a differenza dell'uomo, ancora rappresenti un principio sessuale:
"But the other and most potent factor is, I fancy, a survival of the ancient worship of the principle
of generation. The exponents of Cuniform tell us that a well known symbol of the alone,
corresponding to the Greek Θ, is to be taken to signify the word “woman.” Now, I think there is
a certain moral attached to this piece of Cuniform lore. Woman is, and has been emphatically the
sex. The veneration of the generative principles in their grosser form is of course impossible to
civilised man. And while male man has ceased to represent a sex, in developing into the human
personality complete up to date; woman still represents a sexual principle; her personality centres
in sex, in fact she still remains for the most part, an amplified, beautified, embellished sexual
organ. Otherwise expressed, sex enters into the substance of woman, while in man it is only an
accident.1
Man has a sexual side which he recognises as something more or less distinct from
himself – “He” is not the male principle of humanity in the same way that “she” is the female
principle. With man sex enters into and affects the personality it is true, but is clearly
distinguished from the personality as such; with woman, sex is identified with, and
indistinguishable from the personality as a whole. This is easily seen in the incapacity of the
average woman to abandon herself to interest in any impersonal question. Discourse in any
drawing room with the “ladies” there assembled and you have an irresistible but uneasy sense
that, however well-feigned may be the interest in the subject of conversation, the real interest of
the woman centres round the fact that she is female and you are male, and in the various
conventional barriers with which this fact is surrounded. The way otherwise shrewd men let
themselves be deceived by the very thinnest assumption of interest in their pursuits on the part of
their wives is to the last degree amusing. A friend seriously speaks of his wife’s opinion, say on
some literary point; on being introduced to the wife she tells you she thinks Shakespeare must
have been a very clever man! The real interest of the good woman is, of course, entirely
absorbed in the personal matters springing directly from the sexual relation of married life. In
modern gyneolotry I think then we may see the survival of the cultes genatrices of antiquity
exhibiting itself, not in the coarse form of the worship of the actual organ, but in the refined one
of deference for the representatives of the principle of sex2
par excellence".
