“What next? it has been asked of me – in the sense, how to go about reaching the destination I define. All directions for getting somewhere beyond everyday ken ought to give counsel on what not to do, where not to go. Following that formula, I offer these negative prescriptions. 1) Don’t take the first turning, marked “Sociology Avenue” or the alternate political route more grandly labelled “Highway of Society”: the sociological theory or social doctrine, however much graced with idealistic flourishes, will lead into the streets of masculine humanism, in which the conception of the human being is an abstraction orientated to male sexuality. 2) Don’t take any turning suggestive of scientific terrain: that way, there will be found only warehouses inhabited by statistics, of which a great nobody called Impersonality keeps charge – truth, there, is a statistical infinity. 3) Avoid the categorically religious turning: it will either (being modern) debouch into some boulevard of social ideology or lead back into archaic psychologies and off the edge of contemporary earth-life. (And ride fast past the alleys where the cults sell costly bad likenesses of truth.) Avoid also the categorically philosophical turning: modern or otherwise, it leads into monastic byways where the masculine intellect tries to be sufficient to itself for both seeker after, and provider to itself, of wisdom – in the long run, this has nothing to do with us (the human men-and-women whole). 4) Don’t turn at the signposts of art: no solutions, there, to the problem of human identity inhering in the difference of women from men (or, men from women), only emotional adventures without general human significance.
After this, the road merges into the ground of the destination – turnings, vehicles, and directions have been left behind. It is humane ground, where hope is to be realized according to values of personal good, rather than according to social postulates of mass-good or cultural postulates of individualistic good. Here there can be no affectation of belief that the differences between men and women can be absorbed by social sophistication (even while being intensified, as they are, in their physical aspects). The human setting here is natural – not “society,” but the natural universe: if we go straight to the end, we come to where we see ourselves in the large. It is only when women are seen in the large, and men together with them in the same large instead of as themselves the mold fixing the proportions of human life, that the essential human character becomes visible. Transcendence of sexuality is the human contribution to the universe; and this is much more clearly foreshown in the personal nature of women than it is in that of men … Next, to go straight to the end, in thinking about women (men and women), over and over again, until the mind stays there.