Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Gaddafi

53 replies

Qaran · 15/01/2015 18:26

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! :)
___

PAGE 1

WOMAN

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.

...to be continued...

OP posts:
Qaran · 15/01/2015 20:07

Well, some say being masculine or feminine is biological thing. Some say it's social conditioning. I won't claim to know. My guess would be a bit of both.

Either way I'm pretty sure men (or sexist men) took advantage of it, yes.

OP posts:
LineRunner · 15/01/2015 20:07

I think that 'submissive' is a cultural construct, not a personality trait.

But thanks all the same for asking.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 15/01/2015 20:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Qaran · 15/01/2015 20:03

NO, but the point is...that this doesn't make you superior to women who are not like you, just different, right?

OP posts:
Qaran · 15/01/2015 20:02

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 :)

OP posts:
BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 15/01/2015 20:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SunshineBossaNova · 15/01/2015 20:00
Biscuit
Qaran · 15/01/2015 19:59

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

OP posts:
BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 15/01/2015 19:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 15/01/2015 19:56

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

I can't be arsed, personally.

Qaran · 15/01/2015 19:56

EXACTLY!

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?

OP posts:
Monison · 15/01/2015 19:54

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...

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 15/01/2015 19:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Qaran · 15/01/2015 19:49

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)..it 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 :)

OP posts:
tribpot · 15/01/2015 19:39

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 · 15/01/2015 19:37

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 :)

OP posts:
Monison · 15/01/2015 19:33

Unimaginative, repetitive ramblings of a mad man.

LineRunner · 15/01/2015 19:31

Yeah. Right. Submissive.

Wrong web site maybe? Just a thought.

PatriciaHolm · 15/01/2015 19:28

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

Qaran · 15/01/2015 19:27

Hehe!

Really? that's what you thought? Why? :)

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 masculine..bit...by...bit.

IMO :)

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

OP posts:
cailindana · 15/01/2015 19:22

Bullshit.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 15/01/2015 19:21

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.

LineRunner · 15/01/2015 19:21

'Stains her beauty..'? Okaaaaay.

DisgruntledAardvark · 15/01/2015 19:18

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

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 15/01/2015 19:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread