Actually, it is the only poem Eliot published in an early text and then never included in a collection. But the attitude, as you say, is not at all unusual, and his representations of real women--as opposed to children in gardens or statues or images--is consistent. They are neurotic and often disgusting. they have "good old female stench"; they are a "doorstep dunged by every dog in town"; they are hysterical.
And yes, I know his men aren't so great either. But they do not evoke that kind of sexual loathing. A possible exception is the young man carbuncular, though he seems more an image of stupid presumption.
>>> Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]
> 01/31/09 9:00 AM >>>
> Peter Montgomery wrote:
> And we must infer that the narrator is Eliot?
No, but it's unpublished scribbling, it echoes a lot else, there is
no obvious sign of dramatic monolouge, & it's just not worth
wasting time arguing with this. Eliot is the one who imagined the
narrator in quite straightforward terms.
And while any fool can ask a question, the question only becomes
interesting if he/she gives an answer also.