Advanced search


(54 Posts)
Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 18:26:45

An excerpt from Colonel Gaddafi's "The Green Book".

I, personally though it was sensible.
Read it all and tell me what you think!
I would love to hear your opinion! smile



It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings. It follows, as a selfevident fact, that woman and man are equal as human beings. Discrimination against woman by man is a flagrant act of oppression without justification for woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks; woman loves and hates as man loves and hates; woman thinks, learns and comprehends as man thinks, learns and comprehends. Woman, like man, needs shelter, clothing, and transportation; woman feels hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst; woman lives and dies as man lives and dies.

But why are there men and women? Human society is composed neither of men alone nor of women alone. It is made up naturally of men and women. Why were not only men created? Why were not only women created? After all, what is the difference between men and women or man and woman? Why was it necessary to create men and women? 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 like the other, and the fact that a natural difference exists between men and women is proved by the created existence of men and women. This necessarily means that there is a role for each one of them corresponding to the difference between them. Accordingly, there must be different prevailing conditions for each one in order that they perform their naturally different roles. To comprehend these roles, we must understand the difference in the created nature of man and woman, that is, the natural difference between the two.

Women are females and men are males. According to gynaecologists, women menstruate every month or so, while men, being male, do not menstruate or suffer during the monthly period. 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, less active 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 a miscarriage, she suffers puerperium, a condition attendant on delivery or miscarriage. As man does not get pregnant, he is not liable to the conditions which women, being female, suffer. Afterwards a woman may breast-feed the baby she bore. Breast-feeding continues for about two years. Breastfeeding 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 assists in his or her biological functions; without this assistance that person would die. The man, on the other hand, neither conceives nor breast-feeds. End of gynaecological statement!

All these innate characteristics form differences because of which men and women are not the same. These characteristics in themselves are the realities that define male and female, men and women; they assign to each of them a different role or function in life. This means that men cannot replace women in carrying out these functions. It is worthy of consideration that these biological functions are a heavy burden, causing women great effort and suffering. However, without these functions which women perform, 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, without which human life would come to a complete halt.

Deliberate interventions against conception form an alternative to human life. In addition to that, there exists partial deliberate intervention against conception, as well as against breast-feeding. All these are links in a chain of actions in contradiction to natural life, which is tantamount to murder. For a woman to kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver and breast-feed is within the realm of deliberate, artificial interventions, in contradiction with the nature of life epitomized by marriage, conception, breast-feeding, and maternity. They differ only in degree.

To dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity - nurseries replacing mothers - is a start in dispensing with the human society and transforming it into a merely 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 into which chicks are crammed after they are hatched. Nothing else would be as appropriate and suitable to the human being and his dignity as natural motherhood. Children should be raised by their mothers in a family where the true principles of motherhood, fatherhood and comradeship of brothers and sisters prevail, and not in an institution resembling a poultry farm. Even poultry, like the rest of the members of the animal kingdom, need motherhood as a natural phase. Therefore, breeding them on farms similar to nurseries is against their natural growth. Even their meat is artificial rather than natural. Meat from mechanized poultry farms is not tasty and may not be nourishing because the chicks are not naturally bred and are not raised in the protective shade of natural motherhood. The meat of wild birds is more tasty and nourishing because they are naturally fed. As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, and only for them, should society establish nurseries and related institutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society rather than by individuals who are not their parents. be continued...

Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 18:27:27



If a test were carried out to discover whether the natural propensity of the child is towards its mother or the nursery. the child would opt for the mother and not the nursery. Since the natural tendency of a child is towards its 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 its mother is coercive and oppressive and against its free and natural tendencies.

Natural growth for all living things is free and healthy growth. To substitute a nursery for a mother is coercive action against free and sound growth. Children who are shipped off to a nursery are consigned compulsorily or by exploitation and simple-mindedness. They are driven to nurseries purely by materialistic, and not by social, considerations. If coercion and childish simple-mindedness were removed, they would certainly reject the nursery and cling to their mothers. 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.

A woman, whose created 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 mothers. Any attempt to take children away from their mothers 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 with conditions which are non-coercive, unoppressive and appropriate to her natural role. She can then fulfill her natural role under natural conditions. If the woman is forced to abandon her natural role regarding conception and maternity, she falls victim to coercion and tyranny. A woman who needs work that renders her unable to perform her natural function is not free and is compelled to work by need, and "in need, freedom is latent".

Among suitable and even essential conditions which enable women to perform their natural role, which differs from that of men, are those very conditions which are proper for a human being who is incapacitated and burdened with pregnancy. Bearing another human being in her womb lessens her physical ability. It is unjust to place such a woman, in this stage of maternity, into circumstances of physical work incompatible with her condition. For pregnant women to perform such physical work is tantamount to punishment for their betrayal of their maternal role; it is the tax they pay for entering the realm of men, which is naturally alien to their own.

The belief, even if it is held by a woman, that she carries out physical labour of her own accord, is not, in fact, true. She performs the physical work only because a harsh materialistic society has placed her (without her being directly aware of it) into coercive circumstances. She has no alternative but to submit to the conditions of that society, even though she may think that she works of her own accord. In fact, the alleged basis that "there is no difference in any way between men and women", deprives woman of her freedom.

The phrase "in any way" is a monstrous deception. This idea will destroy the appropriate and necessary conditions which constitute the privilege which women ought to enjoy apart from men in accordance with their distinctive nature, and upon which their 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 men and women in all that concerns humanity. None of them should marry the other against his or her will, or divorce without a just trial or mutual agreement. Neither should a woman remarry without such agreement or divorce; nor a man without divorce or consent. 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 female is the owner of the maternity shelter, which is the house. Even in the animal world, which differs in many ways from that of the humans, and where maternity is also a duty according to nature, it is coercive to deprive the female of her shelter and the offspring of their mother. be continued...

Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 18:28:09



Woman is female. Being female means she has a biological nature that is different from that of the male. The female's biological nature, differing as it does from that of the males, has imparted to women characteristics different from those of men in form and in essence. A woman's anatomy is different from that of a man's just as the female differs in plants and animals. This is a natural and incontrovertible fact. In the animal and plant kingdoms, the male is naturally created strong and aggressive, while the female is created beautiful and gentle. These are natural and eternal characteristics innate to living creatures, whether they are 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 striving not by design, but simply because he is created that way. The female has played the role of the beautiful and the gentle involuntarily because she was created so. This natural rule is just, partly because it is natural, and partly because it is the basic rule for freedom. All living creatures are created free and any interference with that freedom is coercion. Not to adhere to these natural roles and to lack concern for their limits amounts to a wanton act of corruption against the values of life itself. Nature has been designed to be 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 it is dead. Existence between the beginning and the end of life is based on a natural law, without choice or compulsion. It is natural. It is natural freedom.

In the animal, plant and human realms, there must be a male and a female for life to occur from its beginning to its end. Not only do they exist but they have to exercise, with absolute efficiency, the natural role for which they have been created. If their role is not being efficiently performed, there must be some defect in the organization of life caused by historical circumstances. This is the case of societies almost everywhere in the world today as they confuse the roles of men and women and endeavour to transform women into men. In harmony with nature and its subsequent purpose, men and women must be creative within their respective roles. To resist is retrogressive; it is directed against nature and destroys the basis of freedom, for it is hostile to both life and survival. Men and women must perform, not abandon, the roles for which they are created.

Abandoning their role, or even a part of it, only occurs as a result of coercive conditions and under abnormal circumstances. The woman who rejects pregnancy, marriage, beautification and femininity for reasons of health abandons her natural role in life under these coercive conditions of ill health. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood because of work abandons her natural role under similar coercive conditions. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity without any concrete cause abandons her natural role as a result of a coercive and morally deviant circumstances. Thus, abandoning the natural roles of female and male in life can only occur under unnatural conditions which are contrary to freedom and are a threat to survival. Consequently, there must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering women from performing their natural role in life, and so drives them to carry out men's duties in order to attain equal rights. Such revolution will inevitably take place, particularly in industrial societies, as a response to the instinct of survival, even without any instigator of revolution such as THE GREEN BOOK.

All societies today look upon women as little more than commodities. The East regards her as a commodity to be bought and sold, while the West does not recognize her femininity.

Driving woman to do man's work is a flagrant aggression against the femininity with which she is naturally provided and which defines a natural purpose essential to life. Man's work obscures woman's beautiful features which are created for female roles. They are 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. The natural embellishment in butterflies and birds and animal females exists to that natural vital purpose. If a woman carries out men's work, she risks being transformed into a man, abandoning her role and her beauty. A woman has full right to live without being forced to change into a man and to give up her femininity.

Physical structure, which is naturally different in men and women, leads to differences in the functions of the organs, which in turn leads to differences in the psyche, mood, emotions, as well as in physical appearance. A woman is tender; a woman is pretty; a woman weeps easily and is easily frightened. In general, women are gentle and men are aggressive by virtue of their inbred nature.

To ignore natural differences between men and women and to 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 women adapt to the same physical work as men at the expense of their femininity and their natural role in terms of beauty, maternity and serenity, are materialistic and uncivilized. To imitate them is as stupid as it is dangerous to civilization and humanity.

The question, then, is not whether women should or should not work, for this is a ridiculous materialistic presentation of the case. Work should be provided by the society to all able members who need work - men and women on the condition that individuals work in their own fields and not be coerced into carrying out unsuitable work.

For children to find themselves under adult working conditions is unjust and dictatorial. It is equally unjust and dictatorial for women to find themselves under the working conditions of men.

Freedom means that every human being gets proper education which qualifies him or her for the work which suits him or her. Dictatorship means that human beings are taught that which is not suitable for them, and are forced to do unsuitable work. Work which is appropriate to men is not necessarily appropriate to women, and knowledge that is proper for children does not necessarily suit adults.

There is no difference in human rights between man and woman, the child and the adult, but there is no absolute identity between them as regards their duties.

THE END! smile

grimbletart Thu 15-Jan-15 19:03:31

All that verbal diarrhoea to say "me tarzan, you jane".

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DisgruntledAardvark Thu 15-Jan-15 19:18:41

Did you join Mumsnet just to impart the glorious wisdom of Gaddafi to us?

LineRunner Thu 15-Jan-15 19:21:25

'Stains her beauty..'? Okaaaaay.

PuffinsAreFictitious Thu 15-Jan-15 19:21:47

I, personally though it was sensible.
Read it all and tell me what you think!
I would love to hear your opinion!

Ooooh, I don't think you would love to hear my opinion. I think my opinion of it might upset you a bit, and I have been well socialised never to upset men when they hold views similar to these.

cailindana Thu 15-Jan-15 19:22:48


Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 19:27:15


Really? that's what you thought? Why? smile

Well, I thought it was very sensible. I always thought Women don't need to be more similar to men to be equal. That is actually quite Sexist, because it clearly implies that men ARE superior and Women should catch up! lol

If a woman is feminine, more sensitive than usual, caring, sacrificial, submissive, weak physically...for example..I disagree that this makes her less than a man with the exact opposite characteristics. It only makes her different.

But some influential sexist men, tried to trick women into thinking that becoming more like them, would somehow "elevate" women to their (men's) level. Well, let me tell you this...Men have messed up bad, and NO woman should ever strive to be more like them.

That's exact;y the agenda now, slowly conditioning Women into becoming more

IMO smile

Sorry for the rant, I would love to hear your opinion too, plz? smile

PatriciaHolm Thu 15-Jan-15 19:28:58

What a lot of words to say "women should stay barefoot, pregnant and I the kitchen"!

LineRunner Thu 15-Jan-15 19:31:19

Yeah. Right. Submissive.

Wrong web site maybe? Just a thought.

Monison Thu 15-Jan-15 19:33:27

Unimaginative, repetitive ramblings of a mad man.

Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 19:37:33

Well, submissive is just a personality trait. You're born Submissive, that's fine, doesn't make you less than anyone. Is all I'm saying.

I used extreme examples to make my point that NONE of those should change the fact that you and everyone else are inherently equal.

The only think that differentiates people (as in better or worse) should ONLY be their intentions in general. And since we can't go into someone's head and know their intention...then no one should ever be called inferior or Superior.

PS: And I find your implication that Submissive people are inferior quite insulting, because I am...I tried to change, but I can't. It's like being gay, you DO NOT choose it. But I know you didn't mean it. So it's ok smile

tribpot Thu 15-Jan-15 19:39:26

Not exactly scientifically accurate, is it?

In the animal, plant and human realms, there must be a male and a female for life to occur from its beginning to its end.

Certainly not true in the plant 'realm', not sure what it means about life from beginning to end. Only biologically needed to begin.

The natural embellishment in butterflies and birds and animal females exists to that natural vital purpose.

There are loads of species where the male is the more highly decorative, the most obvious example being the peacock.

In all societies in human history most women have worked. Most of it has been physical work.

What you've posted is laughably goady bollocks. I'm hoping it's also a copyright violation.

Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 19:49:47

I think he means for Children to be born, maybe? Dunno

Well, I don't know about Peacocks really...but I'm sure you're right. What I do know is that if you tried to switch them to become the opposite way around (females attracting males) won't work very well, will it?

I have proof:
look at humans now and how confused they're getting lol (joking)

I really don't know why anyone would wish harm on someone like that with this copyright violation. I'm just trying to discuss what I thought about this article in a friendly way. I'm not trying to hurt anyone, only to help each other and learn from each other.

It's ok though, you must think I'm some kind of troll because it's not the usual opinion, and you must get a lot of trolls here too. So yeah, I understand smile

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Monison Thu 15-Jan-15 19:54:08

Why don't you run along and have a look at what some other dictators have to say on the subject to enlighten us lol/jokingsmile/look how friendly and reasonable I am being/oh go away...

Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 19:56:31


It's not about becoming more masculine...the real fight is making masculine or feminine traits equal. Whether in males or females. It should be irrelevant!

You know what I actually think...wait I'll copy paste it from somewhere else I wrote it ok?

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse Thu 15-Jan-15 19:56:52

Did any of you actually read all that?!!!

I can't be arsed, personally.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 19:59:57

My personal theory is a bit different, people always keep comparing
I believe that sexism is actually hating the feminine rather than the female.

Women were generally more feminine, so they got it the worst.So they took all the power from women. But I think the target was femininity. Look at masculine Women like Margaret Thatcher she wasn’t discriminated against. While see what happened to that very feminine boy with you in school, probably got it worse that the girls!

So yeah, as far as I can see, we are in the peak of Sexism right now. All the media does is attack anything feminine more than ever, Women are encouraged to be more masculine in so many ways. Amazingly that is seen as liberating women!

That, to me, is pure sexism…To see masculine things as inherently better. To aspire to have more masculine traits, is a sign of a society that has sexism in its very foundation!

Elevating masculine traits (ambition, competitiveness, dominance, etc.) above feminine traits (nurture, kindness, submissiveness, etc.) is the very heart heart of sexism, and we’ve been tricked to encourage it, thinking it is liberating women. While, as far as I can see, it is killing everything feminine in women and making them feel guilty for being themselves if they are feminine.

Femininity in men has been killed long ago, our last hope is Women now. Again, it is okay to have either traits in either sex, as long as we don’t see either as "superior" or "better".

They are just different and EQUAL traits. No matter what sex they are in!

Sexism is peaking, and women have been tricked by people who hate them, to be the main weapon attacking femininity.

That’s my theory lol

SunshineBossaNova Thu 15-Jan-15 20:00:36


Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Qaran Thu 15-Jan-15 20:02:27

You gals and guys should really read the whole thing, some parts sound weird I understand. But please try to finish it and then judge smile

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now