It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings. It follows as a self-evident fact that woman and man are equal as human beings. Discrimination between man and woman is a flagrant act of oppression without any justification. Woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks Woman loves and hates as man loves and hates Woman thinks, learns and understands as man thinks, learns and understands Woman, like man, needs shelter, clothing and vehicles Woman feels hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst Woman lives and dies as man lives and dies. But why are there man and woman? Indeed, human society is composed neither of man alone nor of woman alone. It is made up naturally of man and woman. Why were not only men created? Why were not only women created? After all, what is the difference between man and woman? Why was it necessary to create man and woman? There must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only. It follows that neither of them is exactly the other, and the fact that a natural difference exists between man and woman is proved by the created existence of man and woman. This means, as a matter of fact, that there is a role for each one of them, matching the difference between them. Accordingly, there must be different prevailing conditions for each one to live and perform their naturally different roles. To comprehend this role, we must understand the differences in the nature of man and woman, namely the natural differences between them: Woman is a female and man is a male. According to a gynaecologist, woman menstruates or suffers feebleness every month, while man, being a male, does not menstruate and he is not subject to the monthly period which is a bleeding. A woman, being a female, is naturally subject to monthly bleeding. When a woman does not menstruate, she is pregnant. If she is pregnant she becomes, due to pregnancy, feeble for about a year, which means that all her natural activities are seriously reduced until she delivers her baby. When she delivers her baby or has had a miscarriage, she suffers puerperium, a feebleness attendant on delivery or miscarriage. As the man does not get pregnant, he is not liable to the feebleness which woman, being a female, suffers. Afterwards woman breast-feeds the baby she bore. Breast-feeding continues for about two years. Breast-feeding means that a woman is so inseparable from her baby that her activity is seriously reduced. She becomes directly responsible for another person whom she helps to carry out his biological functions, without which it would die. The man, on the other hand, neither conceives nor breast-feeds. All these innate characteristics form differences because of which man and woman cannot be equal. These, in themselves, are the realities that necessitate the distinction between male and female, i.e. man and woman; they assign to each of them a different role or function in life. This means that man cannot replace woman in carrying out these functions. It is worthy of consideration that these biological functions are a heavy burden, causing woman great effort and suffering. However, without these functions which woman performs, human life would come to an end.
It follows that it is a natural function which is neither voluntary nor compulsory. It is an essential function, whose sole alternative is that human life would come to a complete standstill.
There is a deliberate intervention against conception which is the alternative to human life. In addition to that there is a partial deliberate intervention against conception, as well as against breast-feeding. All these are links in a chain of actions against natural life, culminating in murder, i.e. for a woman to kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver and breastfeed, is within the realm of deliberate interventions against the nature of life embodied in conception, breastfeeding, maternity and marriage, though they differ only in degree.
To dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity — i.e. nurseries replacing mothers — is a start in dispensing with the human society and transforming it into a biological society with an artificial way of life. To separate children from their mothers and to cram them into nurseries is a process by which they are transformed into something very close to chicks, for nurseries are similar to poultry farms in which chicks are crammed after they are hatched. Nothing else would be appropriate for man’s nature, and would suit his dignity, except natural motherhood, (i.e. the child is raised by his mother …) in a family where the true principles of motherhood, fatherhood and brotherhood prevail, rather than in a centre similar to a poultry breeding farm. Poultry, like the rest of the members of the animal kingdom, needs motherhood as a natural phase. Therefore, breeding them on farms similar to nurseries is against their natural growth. Even their meat is closer to synthetic meat than natural meat. Meat from mechanized poultry farms is not tasty and may not be nourishing because the chicks are not naturally bred, i.e. they are not raised in the protective shade of natural motherhood. The meat of wild birds is more tasty and nourishing because they grow naturally and are naturally fed. As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, only for them should society establish nurseries and the like. It is better for those to be taken care of by society rather than by individuals who are not their parents.
If a test were carried out to discover the natural propensity of the child towards his mother and the nursery, the child would opt for his mother and not the nursery. Since the natural tendency of a child is towards his mother, she is the natural and proper person to give the child the protection of nursing. Sending a child to a nursery in place of his mother is coercion and oppression against its free natural propensity. The natural growth for all living things is free sound growth. To substitute a nursery for a mother is coercive action against free sound growth. Children who are driven to a nursery are driven compulsorily or by exploitation and simple-mindedness. They are driven to nurseries purely by materialistic and not social considerations. If coercion and childish simple mindedness were removed, they would certainly reject the nursery and cling to their mother. The only justification for such an unnatural and inhuman process is the fact that the woman is in a position unsuitable to her nature, i.e. she is compelled to perform duties which are unsocial and anti-motherhood.
The woman, whose nature has assigned to her a natural role different from that of man, must be in an appropriate position to perform her natural role.
Motherhood is the female’s function, not the male’s. Consequently, it is unnatural to separate children from their mother. Any attempt to take children away from their mother is coercion, oppression and dictatorship. The mother who abandons her maternity contradicts her natural role in life. She must be provided with her rights and conditions which are appropriate, non-coercive and unoppressive. Thus she can carry out her natural role under natural conditions. Anything else is a self-contradictory situation. If the woman is forced to abandon her natural role as regards conception and maternity, she falls victim to coercion and dictatorship. A woman who needs work that renders her unable to perform her natural function is not free and is compelled to do that by need, * for in need freedom is latent. *
Among suitable and even essential conditions which enable the woman to perform her natural role, which differs from that of man, are those very conditions which are proper to a human being who is sick and burdened with pregnancy, i.e. bearing another human being in her womb, which renders her physically incapacitated. It is unjust to place such a woman in this stage of maternity into circumstances of physical work incompatible with her condition. Such work is a punishment of woman for her betrayal of maternity and of mankind. It is also a tax she pays for entering the realm of men who are not, of course, of her sex.
The belief, including the woman’s own belief, that the woman carries out physical labour of her own accord, is not, in fact, true. For she performs the physical work only because the harsh materialistic society has placed her, without her being directly aware, in coercive circumstances. She has no alternative but to submit to the conditions of that society while she thinks that she works of her own accord. However, the rule that ‘there is no difference between man and woman in everything’ deprives her of her freedom.
The phrase ‘in everything’ is a monstrous deception of woman. This idea will destroy the appropriate and necessary conditions which constitute the privilege which woman ought to enjoy apart from man in accordance with her nature on which a natural role in life is based.
To demand equality between man and woman in carrying heavy weights while the woman is pregnant is unjust and cruel. To demand equality between them in fasting and hardship, while she is breast-feeding, is unjust and cruel. To demand equality between them in any dirty work, which stains her beauty and detracts from her femininity, is unjust and cruel. Education that leads to work unsuitable for her nature is unjust and cruel as well.
There is no difference between man and woman in all that concerns humanity. None of them can marry the other against his or her will, or divorce without a just trial. Neither the woman nor the man can remarry without a previous agreement on divorce. The woman is the owner of the house because it is one of the suitable and necessary conditions for a woman who menstruates, conceives, and cares for her children. The woman is the owner of the maternity shelter, which is the house. Even in the animal world, which differs in many ways from that of man, and where maternity is also a duty according to nature, it is coercion to deprive the young of their mother or deprive the female of her shelter. A woman is but a female. Being female means that she has a biological nature different from that of man. The female’s biological nature differing, as it does, from that of the male, has imparted to a woman characteristics different from those of a man in form and essence. A woman’s anatomy is different from that of a man just as the female in plants and animals are different from the male. This is a natural and incontrovertible fact. In the animal and plant kingdoms the male is naturally created strong and tough, while the female is created beautiful and gentle. These are natural and eternal characteristics innate in these living creatures, whether called human beings, animals or plants.
In view of his different nature and in line with the laws of nature, the male has played the role of the strong and tough without compulsion but simply because he is created in that way. The female has played the role of the beautiful and the gentle, not because she wanted to, but because she is created so. This natural rule is just, partly because it is natural, and partly because it is the basic rule for freedom. For all living creatures are created free and any interference with that freedom is coercion. Non-commitment to these natural roles and a lack of concern towards their roles amount to an act of negligence and destruction of the values of life itself. Nature has thus been designed in harmony with the inevitability of life from what is being to what will become. The living creature is a being who inevitably lives until he is dead. Existence between the beginning and the end is based on a natural law, without choice or compulsion. It is natural. It is natural freedom.
In the animal, plant and human kingdoms there must be a male and a female for life to occur from its beginning to its end. They do not only exist but they have to play, with absolute efficiency, the natural role for which they have been created. If their role is not efficiently performed there must be some defect in the course of life caused by certain circumstances. This is the case of societies nowadays almost everywhere in the world as a result of confusing the roles of man and woman, i.e. as a result of endeavours to transform a woman into a man. In harmony with their nature and its purpose they must be creative within their respective roles. For the opposite is retrogressive. It is a trend against nature, which is as destructive to the rule of freedom, as it is hostile to both life and survival. Men and women must perform, not abandon the role for which they are created. Abandoning the role or even a part of it only occurs as a result of coercive conditions, i.e. under abnormal conditions. The woman who rejects pregnancy, marriage, make up and femininity for reasons of health, abandons her natural role in life under these coercive conditions of health. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood etc., because of work, abandons her natural role under the same coercive conditions. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity etc., without any concrete cause, abandons her natural role as a result of a coercive condition which is a moral deviation from the norm. Thus, abandoning the natural role of female and male in life can only occur under unnatural conditions which are contrary to nature and a threat to survival. Consequently, there must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering woman from performing her natural role in life and driving her to carry out man’s duties in order to be equal in rights. Such a revolution will inevitably take place, particularly in the industrial societies, as a response by the instinct of survival, even without any instigator of revolution such as the Green Book.
Driving woman to do man’s work is unjust aggression against the femininity with which she is naturally provided for a natural purpose essential to life. For man’s work disguises the woman’s beautiful features which are created for female roles. They are exactly like blossoms which are created to attract pollen and to produce seeds. If we did away with the blossoms, the role of plants in life would come to an end. It is the natural embellishment in butterflies and birds as well as the rest of animal females which is created for that natural vital goal. If a woman carries out man’s work, she will be transformed into a man abandoning her role and her beauty. A woman has full rights to live without being forced to change into a man and to give up her femininity. The physical structure, which is naturally different between man and woman, leads to differences in the functions of their different organs which lead in turn to differences in the psyche, mood, nerves and physical appearance. A woman is tender. A woman is pretty. A woman weeps easily. A woman is easily frightened. In general woman is gentle and man is tough by virtue of their inbred nature. To ignore natural differences between man and woman and mix their roles is an absolutely uncivilized attitude, hostile to the laws of nature, destructive to human life, and a genuine cause for the wretchedness of human social life. Modern industrial societies, which have made woman adapt to the same physical work as man at the expense of her femininity and her natural role in terms of beauty, maternity and peace of mind — those societies are uncivilized. They are materialistic, uncivilized societies. It is as stupid as it is dangerous to civilization and humanity to copy them.
* The question, then, is not whether the woman works or does not work. For it is a ridiculous materialistic presentation. Work should be provided by the society to all able members — men and women — who need work, but on condition that each individual should work in the field that suits him, and not be forced to carry out unsuitable work. For the children to find themselves under adult working conditions is injustice and dictatorship. Equally it is injustice and dictatorship for woman to find herself under the working conditions of man. *
Freedom means that every human being gets that education which qualifies him for work which is appropriate to him. Dictatorship means that a human being learns what is not suitable for him. That leads him to work which is not suitable for him. Work which is appropriate to man is not always appropriate to woman, and the knowledge that is proper for the child is not suitable for the adult.
There is no difference in human rights between man and woman, the child and the adult. But there is no absolute equality between them as regards their duties.

Advertisements