Women will never be politically or socially liberated. The main reason is that they do not have a common base from where to present a common front, and from where to marshal out their cause, and secondly owing to the nature of the “enemy”- male domination. Sentiment comes into play – emotional attachment between the sexes. For married women, their children and other young relations must be put into consideration. For a struggle to be effectively carried out, an image of the “enemy” must be formed – negative of course, so that each time it is perceived or conceived, fuel and blood would be drawn from the hearts of those fighting against it. This was fully comprehended by those giants of the intellect, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. They discarded the mystic and spiritual aspects of man in their forming a mechanistic symbol of him. Thus reducing the problem to that of class variation and as such advocating the universal unification of the working class or proletariat for their own liberation. Their theories could as such be fashioned within a given ideological framework and perspective. And communist systems could now be built on definite ideological frame works. In the West, women liberation extremists have cultivated the above mentioned characteristic and approach, but what about the devoted house wife, the young inexperienced woman who has just fallen in love and whose whole life revolves around the newly found” Mr. right”? Can she form the above mentioned symbol of men and still be faithful and true to her sweet heart?
The question now becomes, do those who embrace the: liberation”: struggle wholeheartedly neglect the contributions of those who are devoted to “their men and go ahead with the struggle? But who has ever won a struggle without gaining at least the sympathy of “its masses? If such is the case, should these extreme women “libbers” become fanatical or fascist in their approach – winning over the hearts of their fellow “oppressed” sisters? Should they become fanatical and vow to have nothing to do with men and under the aegis of the devil achieve the impossible, what would be the fate of human continuity? Or should they take a fascist approach, by seeing men as objects to be used when necessary, and discarded when no longer of value. What would be the mental, moral, ethical and spiritual disposition of posterity? May be they can take a third step, which is employing reason at all costs, heeding the doctrine of Socrates and other dialecticians and shut the doors to their instincts, with its lusts, loves and desires. That is, maintaining a stiff upper lip (suppression of feelings) as was characteristic of the British before the open out pour of emotions by British citizens after the death of the golden–hearted Diana Princess of Wales. In their words “she was there for us”. Where this would lead, I do not know.
Now talking about a base from where to carry out their campaign, with all the cut-throat and killer instinct that is characteristic of the “civilized”, “cultured” and “noble” Western people (the dangerous word terrorism should never be used, even if the course of action depicts it). A base is the cortex of a struggle’s brain. This, the Zionists understand. That is why they would employ any conceivable means to destroy Palestinian Liberation Organization bases around the Arab world. Women can never win political and social equality by persuasion, for obvious reasons, (power is not negotiable) nor by the vote for their inability to unite all facets of womanhood. Even if women won the vote, they would face the reality that the “communists” faced – some could be considered more equal than the others. Well, the Indira Gandhis and Margaret Thatchers got in by the vote (though not by the exclusive effort of women “libers”), but the sex inequality had persisted in their societies. Can women at the top open the doors to their masses? The envy inherent in their nature sayeth No!
As a matter of fact, women made their greatest social and political gains during times of war when the men went out to kill one another, leaving openings, which were hither-to considered non- women, jobs which the women “manned” effectively. Thus enabling them to have what was close to being a base. They must have used the opportunity to unconsciously re-access their situation, as they worked out ways of solving the problems of the time with little or no hindrance from the men.