Purdah

Contents





II



Founding the Family




Now the question arises: What are the objects and requirements of nature? Has man been left in darkness in this regard so that what ever he lays his hands on blindly becomes the object of nature? Or has it been made possible for him to find out the real object of nature from its manifestation? Most people seem to hold the first view. That is why they do not heed the indications of nature even in passing, and declare whatever they please as the object of nature. That is, however, not the way of a seeker after truth. When he goes out in search of truth he takes but a few steps in the right direction and he finds nature itself pointing clearly by its manifestation to its own aims and objects.



We know that man has been created as male and female like the other species and endowed with sexual appeal which clearly aims at the propagation of the race. But that is not the only demand nature makes upon man; it also makes other demands. A little thinking will show what these other demands are and what is their specific nature.



The first thing is that the human baby, unlike the young ones of other species, needs much longer time and far more care and attention for its proper upbringing. Even if we consider it merely as an organism we shall find that it takes quite a number of years to develop the ability to satisfy its animal needs, like the acquisition of food and self-protection. During the first two or three years of its life it is so helpless that it constantly need the care and attention of its mother for its very survival.



But, man though he may still be in primitive stage, cannot be regarded as merely an animal. He must be civilized to some extent and used to some sort of community life. This naturally adds two more demands to the initial demand of bringing up the offspring: (a) making use of all available means of civilization for the proper development of the child, (b) bringing up the child in a manner and with a view to enabling it to carry on the functions and affairs of existing civilization and to replace the former workers.



Then, as the civilization goes on advancing, these two demands also go on becoming more and more heavy. On the one hand, the essential requirements necessary for the upbringing of children increase; on the other, civilization itself not only demands well trained and well educated workers for its survival but also it requires every new generation to excel its predecessor so that it may work for its growth and progress. In other words, it requires that every guardian should make an effort to enable his child to excel himself, and ideal demanding the extreme sacrifice of one�s sentiment of self-regard!



Such are the demands of human nature, and their first addressee is the woman. The man meets the woman for a short while and then affords to desert her escapes the consequences of that meeting forever. But the woman cannot do so. She is bound more or less for life in consequence of the union. After conception has taken place, she cannot evade the consequences at least for a period of five years. If however, she has to satisfy all the demands of civilization she will have to shoulder responsibilities of her short, pleasurable union with man for another fifteen years or so. The question is, how can one party alone be prepared to accept all the responsibility accruing from an act performed by two parties jointly? Unless a woman is freed from the fear of her co-partner�s infidelity, unless she is ensured her child�s proper upbringing, unless she is secured against the worry of procuring for herself the necessities of life, she cannot be persuaded to shoulder this heavy responsibility by herself. For a woman who has no protector and provider (Qavvam in the Quranic language) pregnancy is an accident, a tragedy, a calamity getting rid of which will naturally become an urge with her. Obviously, she cannot be prepared to welcome it.[26]



Thus if survival of the race and perpetuation and growth of civilization are important, the man who impregnates a woman must jointly shoulder the responsibility of the consequence with her. But selfish as he is by nature, he cannot be easily induced for the desired co-operation. In so far as the function of making the race survive is connected, he accomplishes his part of it as soon as he has impregnated his female partner. After that, the whole burden of responsibility has to be borne by the female alone without any assistance from him. The sexual appeal also cannot force him to remain attached to the same woman. He may desert her and have relation with the second, and the third woman, and thus go on sowing his wild oats. So, if it is left to his choice, there is no reason why he should come forward willingly to shoulder the responsibility. Indeed, nothing can compel him to spend the fruits of his labor on that particular woman and her child. After all, why should he prefer this unshapely woman to another charming lady? Why should he bring up and maintain a useless lump of flesh and spend sleepless nights amidst its cries and suffer loss upon at the hands of this little devil who breaks things, spread filth and heeds not?



Nature itself has solved this problem to some extent. It has endowed the female with a rare charm and sweetness of manner, with a supreme quality of making sacrifice in the way of love, so that she may enchant the male by breaking down his selfish egoism. It has also filled the child with a captivating force so that it may attract the hearts of its parents in spite of its highly annoying, destructive and foolish habits. But these factors by themselves are not strong enough to induce man to suffer losses, face troubles and make sacrifices for years together in the way of performing his natural, moral and social duties. Then man is not wholly free to act also he likes; he being closely followed by his eternal enemy, the Devil, who is constantly trying to turn him away from the path of true nature by endless, ingenious devices and temptations cleverly designed to appeal to people of all ages and races.



It is the miracle of religion that it induces both man and woman to make sacrifices for the race and civilization by curbing their selfish animality and turning them into selfless human beings. Only the Prophets of God understood the real object of nature and devised marriage also the right from the relationship between man and woman for sexual as well as social purposes. It was under the influence of their teachings and guidance that marriage became an institution among all nations in all the four corners of the world. It was under the impact of the moral principles preached by them that man could gather enough spiritual strength to endure hardships and suffer losses in the way of serving humanity, whereas a child could have no greater enemy than its own parents. Again, it was the social discipline brought in by them that gave birth to the family system whose grip makes mere boys and girls co-operate with each other and understand their responsibilities as husband and wife, otherwise the demands of their animal nature would be too vigorous to be prevented from indulging in free sexual gratification by the mere sense of moral responsibility without any external discipline. Sexual lust is an anti-social urge, which tends to produce selfishness, egoism and anarchy. It lacks stability and sense of responsibility and urges man to temporary pleasure only. It is, therefore, no easy job to subdue it and press it into the service of community life, which demands patience and perseverance, devotion and sacrifice, constant toil and responsible behavior. It is the law of marriage and family system alone which can tame this monster and turn it into an agent for lifelong co-operation between the husband and wife, and thus help in the building up of community life. Without it there can be no community life whatever. Man may start living like animals, and eventually the human race may cease to exist on the earth.



Thus, the way that nature wants to open for the satisfaction of man�s natural urges, preventing at the same time his sexual urge from running wild, is of marriage between the man and woman leading to the establishment of the family system. All the machinery that is required to run the great factory of civilization is produced in the small workshop of the family. Also soon also boys and girls attain puberty, administrators of the workshop become anxious to pair them off also suitably also possible, so that their union may bring forth the best possible generation. Each child is looked after and bred with unusual care and sincerity by each worker in the workshop so also to mould it into also good shape also possible, also soon also the child opens its eyes in the world it is provided with an atmosphere of love, protection and care within the family. Indeed, only the family circle can provide for it the people who not only love it but also desire from their innermost heart that it should attain a higher status in life than that of its birth. Only a mother and father in the world can cherish the desire that their child should excel them in all the possible ways. So they make unintentional, unconscious efforts to shape the next generation better than their own and thus pave the way for human progress. There can be no question of their being selfish in this regard also their only ambition is to see that their child is shaping well. That it should emerge also a successful, fine human being is the only reward they expect of their care and labor. How can one find such selfless and sincere worker outside the family workshop?- workers who would not only work without reward for the betterment of humanity but also would spare their time, forego their comfort and spend their energy and capabilities in the service of mankind, who would sacrifice their all for the sake of the one who is going to benefit others, and who think their only reward is the consolation that they have provided good workers to others. Is there a holier, more exalted institution than this for humanity?[27]



In order that the human race may survive and civilization develop hundreds of thousands of such couples are needed every year also may volunteer to shoulder the responsibilities of such a service, and marry with a view to establishing more and more workshops of this kind. The great factory of the world can continue to function and develop only if such volunteers continue coming forward to provide suitable workers for it. If new workers do not come forth, and the old workers are rendered useless by natural factors, useful men will become day by day rare and ultimately the whole gamut life will cease to exist. Every man who is working in this factory has not only to o on working till his death but has also to provide men like himself who will fill the place vacated by him.[28]



If we consider marriage from this point of view we shall find that it is not only the lawful way of satisfying the sexual desire but indeed it is also a social obligation. Therefore, the individual cannot reserve the right to marry or refuse to marry according to his own sweet will. A person who declines to marry without a good reason is disloyal to the community, its parasite and robber. Every man who has been born on earth has benefited by former generations right from his birth to attaining maturity. He has been able to survive, develop and shape also a human being solely because of the institutions and traditions evolved by them. During this period he has all along been receiving but has given nothing. The community has spent all its resources and all its energies on developing his innate faculties in the hope that when he grows up he will repay the debt in cash and kind. Now if after attaining adulthood he demands for himself personal freedom and liberty of action and wants to satisfy his personal desires only, without accepting the responsibility entailed by his acts, he is in fact being disloyal and dreadful to the community. Every moment that he thus lives is being spent in perpetrating cruelty and injustice. If the community had sense it would regard this culprit, this black sheep of society also it regards thieves and robbers and forgers, and not also a gentleman or a respectable lady. Whether we wanted or not we have inherited the heritage bequeathed by former generations. Now we cannot be free to decide whether we should or should not fulfill the demands of the law of nature in accordance with which we have received this heritage; whether we should or should not bring forth a generation that may inherit all the wealth of human heritage and traditions; whether we should or should not rear and train individuals who may take our place also we were reared and trained for the purpose by others.





Contents





III



Prevention of Sexual Lawlessness





Besides providing the facility for marriage and founding the family, it is also necessary that people should be strictly prohibited from satisfying that sexual desire outside marriage. For without such a measure the object of nature, viz., marriage leading to the founding of the family, cannot be fulfilled.



Like the former un-Godly people, perverted people of the modern times also look upon fornication also a natural act and regard marriage also an unnecessary innovation of civilization. They seem to think that just also nature has created every ewe for every ram and every bitch for every dog, so it has created every woman for every man. It is, therefore, perfectly natural that whenever one feels the urge, whenever one finds the opportunity, and whenever two members of the opposite sexes mutually agree, sexual intercourse should take place, just also it takes place between animals. But this is indeed an utterly wrong view of human nature. These people look upon man also a mere animal. So whenever they talk of nature they always means the animal and not the human nature. The uncontrolled, unregulated sexual relation that they call natural, is perfectly so in the animal kingdom, but quite unnatural for man. It not only runs counter to human nature but in view of its ultimate consequences it also goes against man�s animal nature. For the animality and the humanity of man are not two separate, independent traits of his character, but the two have to merge together to make up his personality. Indeed, these two sides of his character are so closely inter-linked that it is not possible to reject the demands of the one without at the same time rejecting the demands of the other.



Fornication seems to fulfill at least the demands of man�s animal nature, because the object of the propagation of the species is achieved simply by the sexual act, whether it is performed inside marriage or outside it. But, also pointed out above, this act not only harms the object of human nature but also of animal nature. Human nature requires the sexual relation to be firm and enduring, so that both the parents may bring up the child jointly, and the man may support not only the child but its mother also well for quite some time. For unless a man is certain that the child is his, he cannot be prepared to face troubles and make sacrifices in the way of bringing it up, nor can he suffer it to inherit him. Similarly, unless a woman is confident that the man who is impregnating her willingly support her and her child she cannot be prepared to suffer the rigorous of pregnancy. Moreover, unless both the mother and the father extend full co-operation in bringing up the child, it cannot possibly attain the moral, intellectual and social stature required to make it a useful citizen. If men and women do not fulfill these requirements of their human nature and begin meeting only temporarily like animals, they in fact are also refusing to fulfill the demand of their animal nature. For they do not aim at procreation during the sexual act but only at seeking the maximum pleasure and gratifying their sex desire which in itself is against the purposes of nature.



Finding their position weak, the un-Godly people of the modern age put forward another argument. They contend that if two members of society come together to enjoy each other for a while, the society is not harmed. Why should it then interfere with their faith? Of course, society has every right to interfere if one party commits violence or fraud against the other, or becomes a nuisance to the community. But when there is no such apprehension and the matter is confined only to the jurisdiction over them. For if the private affairs of individual be meddled with like that, personal freedom will be reduced to nullity.



This concept of personal freedom is one of the absurdities of the 18th and 19th centuries which lies exposed at the very first ray of knowledge and truth. A little thinking will show that the kind of liberty being demanded for the individual cannot have any room in the community life. Those who ask for such liberty should go to the jungles and live there like animals. Human society consists in inter-linked, inter-dependent relationships between individuals who influence and are influences by others. Due to this mutual relationship no act of man can be taken also purely private. Such an act which does not affect others and society also a whole cannot be imagined. Not to speak of the acts performed with the limbs, ideas lurking in the mind also affect our body and, through it, others. Every throb of our heart and every movement of our body has far reaching effects, so far-reaching that we cannot possibly comprehend them all. How then can one say that a person�s using one of his natural gifts freely does affect anybody beyond himself, that nobody should meddle with his affairs and that he should have complete freedom of action? If I, for instance, cannot be allowed to move my stick in any manner I like, to move my feet and trespass anywhere I please, to drive my vehicle in any direction I choose, to heap up also much filth in my house also I wish, how can my sexual desire only be allowed to have its own way? If all other personal affairs of my life have to be governed by social discipline, why should my sexual urge only be exempted from the honor of being regulated in a discipline? How can I be set at liberty to use it in whatever way I please?



The argument that the pleasure sought by a man and a woman in a private place does not at all affect society is just childish. Also a matter of fact, such an act not only harms the society to which they directly belong, but also it harms the whole of humanity. Its consequences do not remain confined to the present generation only they are transferred to future generations also. The social chain in which mankind is bound has not left any individual free from its hold in whatever he does or wherever he be. Whether behind closed doors or in the protection of walls, he is also much linked with society also in the market place or in company of others, when, therefore, he is busy squandering his sexual energy aimlessly for temporary pleasure in a secret place, he is in fact sowing the seeds of anarchy and disruption in society, depriving it of its rights, and harming it morally, materially and socially. In his selfishness he is striking at the root of all those social institutions by which he benefited also a member of society, but has refused to support their maintenance and survival. All institutions from the municipality to the state, from the school to the military, from the factory to the center of scientific research, have been established on the trust that every individual who is benefiting from them will contribute his due share for their survival and progress. But when this dishonest person used his sexual energy without any intention of procreating and bringing up children, he in fact in his personal way hit a blow at the root of this system. He broke the contract by which he was bound as a human being; and he tried to shift the burden of his responsibility on to the shoulders of others. He is no gentleman: he is a thief, a cheat, a robber. To allow him any concession is to commit a crime against the whole of mankind.



If we correctly understand the place of the individual in the community there will remain no doubt in our minds that each endowment of nature to us is not meant to be solely used and enjoyed by us personally, but it is a trust with us and we stand answerable for it to all humanity. If we destroy ourselves or any of our natural gifts, or abuse them it is not destroying or abusing something of our own; it is rather destroying the trust and harming mankind as a whole. Our very existence in the world is a clear proof of the fact that others went through hardships and shouldered responsibilities to transfer life to us; and that is how we came into this world. Then the state provided us the security of life, health department protected us against disease, hundreds of thousands of people preserved day and night to provide us with the necessities of life, all the social institutions endeavored to develop our natural gifts and educate them, thus making us what we now are. Shall we indeed be repaying all this justly if we harmed or abused that life or those gifts in the existence and development of which so many other people played a vital role? To commit suicide is forbidden on this very account. The masturbator has been condemned by the greatest of sages of the world for this very reason.[29] Homosexuality between the males has been declared a grave offence on this very ground. Likewise, fornication is not merely an individual�s seeking pleasure and having a good time, but a crime against the whole humanity.



The following, in short, are the social crimes that emanate from the commission of fornication.



First, a fornicator lay himself exposed to the danger of contracting venereal disease, and thus not only reduces the social usefulness of his physical energies but also harms the interests of the human community and race. Every physician knows that the wound caused by gonorrhea rarely heals completely. A famous doctor has said: � once gonorrhea, for ever gonorrhea�. It effects the functioning of the liver, urine-bladder, and testicles, and causes rheumatism and other diseases. It may lead to barrenness permanently and is contagious. As to syphilis it is fully known that it poisons the whole body. From top to toe nothing remains immune from its infection. It not only destroys the physical energies of the patient himself but also it infects numberless other people too, through various means. So much so that it infects the children of the patient and the children of his children. The incidence of blindness, dumbness, deafness and weak-mindedness in children is mostly the fruit of a few moments of pleasure seeking so madly craved for by a reckless, cruel father.



Second, every fornicator may not contract the venereal disease but he cannot escape the vices that go with fornication. Shamelessness, deceit, lying, dishonesty, selfishness, self-indulgence, indiscipline, promiscuity of thought, sexual perversion and infidelity, these are the vices that afflict a fornicator. A person who develops these vices does not reflect them in his sex affairs only, but carries them along into all his dealings with society. And a society which abounds in people with such vices cannot prosper long. Its art and literature, sports and entertainments, sciences and other branches of knowledge, industry and manual skills, ways of living and economy, politics and judiciary, military service and state administration, in short, all spheres of its life and activity must heavily suffer. In a democratic state especially each moral quality in the individuals must bring its effect to bear on the whole society. A nation the majority of whose people are temperamentally fickle and wanting in , selflessness and self-control, cannot attain political strength and stability.



Third, holding fornication as permissible clearly implies that prostitution should thrive uncurbed in society. A person who defends young men�s right to �sexual freedom� is in fact suggesting that there must remain in society a fair number of such women as are morally depraved and down-trodden. But the question is, where will these women come from? Naturally from the society, being daughters and sisters of the people themselves. Hundreds and thousands of such women each of whom could be the queen of a home, the founder of a family, the matron of several children, will have to be lodged in the brothel to serve a pressure releasing places for promiscuous men, like the municipal urinals. They will have to be deprived of all qualities of feminine nobility; they will have to be trained as flirts; they will have to be educated and prepared to sell their loves, their hearts, their bodies, their beauty and charms, every moment to a new debauch; and thus they will have to rest content in being an instrument for the sexual indulgence of others throughout their lives, without serving any useful purpose.



Fourth holding fornication as permissible inevitably harms the social aspects of marriage, ultimately resulting in the displacement of marriage by fornication. As a matter of fact, men and women who have a strong inclination for fornication are left with little ability to live an organized matrimonial life. For the vices of dishonesty, impurity of thought, sexual perversion and promiscuity that they develop and the fickleness of sentiment and lack of self control that generally characterizes them, are the very antithesis of the qualities required for establishing an abiding matrimonial relation. Even if they enter wedlock they cannot have that mutual regard and faith, that peace of mind and love, which is conducive of raring a good generation and building up of a happy home. Moreover, it practically impossible that the institution of marriage so essential for the community life will prosper in a place where facilities for fornication exist. For the people who enjoy all possible facilities for satisfying their sex desires without having to shoulder any responsibility therefore cannot be disposed to engage in the marriage bond and undertake the responsibilities in entails.



Fifth, if fornication be permitted, its prevalence will not only strike at the root of the community life, but will tend to destroy the human race itself. As pointed out above, neither the man nor the woman can possibly render any service for the propagation of the race during their free sexual relationship.



Sixth, fornication can yield only illegitimate children for society and race. The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate lineage is not merely sentimental, as some people seem to think. To produce an illegitimate child is indeed a most heinous crime both against the child and community for more than one reason. In the first place, illegitimate impregnation takes place at a time when both the sinners are seized by a fit of purely animal passion. People who have illicit relations as a rule cannot be imagined as having the pure human feelings so naturally enjoyed by the married couple during their sexual intercourse. They come together and mate under the impulse of their animal passion, and are utterly devoid of human feelings at the time. Thus an illegitimate child can inherit only the animal qualities of its parents. Moreover, a child who is neither welcomed by its mother nor by its father, who has appeared as an unwanted, unpleasant thing between its parents, who cannot enjoy the love and resourcefulness of its father, whose only stay in the reluctant, disinterested attention given by the mother, and who does not enjoy the care and protection of parental and maternal near and dear ones, will inevitably grow up into an inferior, imperfect human being. Neither will he develop character and other qualities nor will he enjoy the worldly means of progress and advancement in life. Being inferior in status resourceless, helpless and wretched, he is unlikely to become as useful a citizen as he would have been if he were legitimate.



Those people who favor free sexual relations put forward the plea for nationally controlled institutions for the upbringing and education of illegitimate children. They say that children produced by unmarried parents should be the responsibility of the state which should train them for the service of civilization. But by advancing such an argument these people in fact want to safeguard the freedom and individualist trends of the men and women, so that the objectives of procreating and bringing up of children are achieved without controlling and regulating their sex desires by the matrimonial discipline. But, strange to say, the people who hold the individualism of the present generation so dear, purpose a system of state-controlled education and training for the next generation that holds out no hope whatever of the development of individuality and growth of personality. In a system under which hundreds of thousands of children are bred and brought up together under one program and in accordance with one scheme, children cannot possibly develop and unfold the individual traits of their personalities. On the contrary, they are more likely to develop maximum uniformity and superficial similarities. Children thus nurtured and trained will have almost identical personalities just like the steel machinery molded at a big factory.[30] How debased and degraded is the conception about man held by these ignorant, foolish people! They want to turn out men like the Bata shoes. They perhaps do not realize that developing a child�s personality is a delicate fine art which can satisfactorily be practiced only in a small studio where each painting is the focus of the attention of each artist. The dignity and fineness of this art cannot possibly be maintained in a factory where wage earners are required to produce identical paintings on a very large scale.[31]



Moreover, in such a system of national education and training one will necessarily need workers who can assume the responsibility of bringing up children on behalf of the society. Obviously, only such workers can be suitable for this purpose as can exercise self-control with regard to their own urges, who are themselves morally disciplined, otherwise they cannot be expected to inculcate moral discipline on the children. The question arises: where will such workers come from? The very object which such a system of national educational training is proposed to be established is to afford men and women opportunities of freely satisfying their sex desires. Thus, when the very capacity among the people to exercise self-control and moral discipline has been destroyed, wherefrom can the society procure men who will instill moral discipline into the new generations?



Seventh, a selfish man who impregnates a woman by committing fornication, ruin her life for ever, miserable and wretched, she stands condemned in the public eyes for the rest of her days. To remedy this new moral principles suggest that all categories of motherhood, married and unmarried, should have equal status. It is said that motherhood anyway is worthy of respect. It is, therefore, inhuman on the part of society to condemn a girl who, in her simplicity or carelessness, accepted the responsibility of motherhood. But this is no remedy at all. It may help the prostitute, but for society it would be a curse, a misfortune. The contemptuous attitude of society towards an unmarried mother not only deters individuals from sinful and immoral acts but also it is an indication of the fact that the society is morally alive. If the married and the unmarried mothers are accorded equal status, it would imply that the society no longer distinguished between good and evil, right and wrong, sinful and righteous acts. Even if equal status was allowed, it would not remove the handicaps faced be the unmarried mother. One may regard the two categories of motherhood as of equal status, but nature does not grant such a view. Indeed they cannot be equal. It is against reason and logic, against justice and reality that they so be equal. How can a foolish woman who, under the momentary impulse of sexual excitement, surrendered herself to a selfish man who was not prepared to accept the responsibility of supporting her and her child, be regarded equal with a wise woman who kept her emotions in check until she got a noble, responsible man as her husband? One may get them the same status superficially, but one cannot provide that unthinking woman with the same sort of support and protection, sympathetic care and regard, peace of mind and love, as are so easily and naturally available to a married woman. From where will one buy her child fatherly love and affection of the paternal relation? At the most one may get her a subsistence allowance under the law, but do a mother and her child need subsistence allowance only in this world? Thus the recognition of equal status for the married and the unmarried mothers may console the sinning mothers outwardly, but it cannot save them from the nature consequences of their folly; it cannot protect and safeguard the real interests of their children in the world.[32]



In view of these reasons, it is in the best interest of the survival and healthy growth of social life that indiscriminate indulgence in sexual liaison so be absolutely prohibited in society, there so be left only one way of satisfying the sex desire, viz., through marriage. To permit individuals to indulge in illicit relationship is tantamount to committing a crime against society; it is rather an attempt to annihilate society. The society which lightly treats this matter and dismisses fornication between individuals as an ordinary affair, and is inclined to disregard the consequences of this sowing of wild oats by them is indeed an ignorant society. It is unaware of its rights; it is its own enemy. If it knew its rights and realized the repercussions of illicit sexual relations it would treat promiscuity as it treats acts of thefts, robbery and murder. Fornication is indeed a more heinous crime than theft. A thief, a robber or a murderer at the most harms one or a few individuals only, but a fornicator commits robbery against the whole society, even against future generations. The effects of his crime are far greater and more far-reaching than those of other criminals. So when it is agreed that the interests of society must be safeguard by the law against the selfish encroachments of the individual, and when, on the same grounds, theft, murder, robbery, forgery and such other acts of usurpation are held as punishable offences under the law, and thus their commission prevented, there is no reason why the law should not be made to protect society against fornication also and to hold it as a punishable offence.



As a matter of principle also, marriage and illicit relationships cannot co-exist in a social system, if people are allowed to satisfy their sexual desires without having to shoulder the responsibilities thereof, it is meaningless merely to force the marriage system upon society. It is just like holding a journey by railway without a ticket as permissible and at the same time establishing a system of purchasing the ticket for such a journey. No sensible person can follow both these ways at one and the same time. Obviously, either the ticket system should be abolished or, if it is to be retained, traveling without ticket should be regarded as an offence. Likewise, it is unreasonable to admit a dual policy with regard to marriage and illicit relationship. If the marriage system is essential for the proper growth of social life, as has already been established, it is also essential that fornication be held as an offence.[33]



Another characteristic of an un-Godly civilization is that it promptly grasps factors that yield limited, quick and concrete results, but it tends to overlook all those factors whose results are imperceptible because they are extensive and far reaching. That is the reason why theft, murder and robbery are held as serious and fornication as trivial. The person who collects plague rats in his house, or spreads infectious diseases is not held pardonable by the un-Godly society, for his act seems to be clearly harmful, but on the other hand, a fornicator who in his selfishness strikes at the very root of community life is held pardonable, for the results of his act are imperceptible, though inevitable. These people cannot understand why his act so at all be held as offensive. If the basis of community life be reason and knowledge of nature, instead of ignorance, no one can ever adopt such an irrational attitude towards life.







Contents



IV



Eradication of Indecencies





In order to prevent the commission of an act which is harmful for society it is not sufficient merely to declare it an offence punishable by law, but besides that, it is necessary to adopt the following four-point scheme also.



First, the mentality of the people should be so reformed by means of education that they begin to abhor the act and regard it as sin, and their moral self prevents them from committing it.



Second, people should be so trained morally and people opinion so organized against the crime or sin, that they look upon it as a vicious and shameful act and regard the culprit with scorn and contempt, so that the individuals whose training has remained defective or who are morally weak may be deterred from committing it for fear of adverse public opinion.



Third, all such factors in the social life as abet or incite or compel people to do the wrong should be eradicated.



Fourth, social life should be so organized that it becomes really difficult for a person to commit a crime, even though he be inclined to commit it.



As for the soundness and necessity of this four-point scheme, this is supported by reasons also. It is demanded by nature and the actual practice of the world confirms it. To prevent the commission of acts which are held as crimes by a society, this four-point scheme has more or less generally been adopted besides punishing the offences. Now if it is admitted that sexual licentiousness is fatal to community life so by regarded as a heinous crime against society, it should also be admitted that to prevent it, it is absolutely necessary that besides punishing it, the above-mentioned four-point reformative and preventive scheme should also be enforced. For this individuals should be trained, public opinion should be educated, sex stimulants should be eradicated from social life, all obstacles that make marriage difficult should be removed, and instead, such checks should be imposed on the relations between men and women that the inclination among them for illicit relations is curbed by strong social barriers. After fornication has been admitted as a crime and sin, no sensible person can utter a word of objection against this reformative scheme.



Some people concede all the moral and social principles on the basis of which fornication has been declared sinful. But they insist that to curb it only reformative devices should be employed instead of the penal and preventive measures. They say that by education and training people should be helped to develop an inner feeling, a powerful conscience, and moral self so that they are prevented from within from committing this sin. If, on the contrary, penal and preventive measures were adopted instead of the reformative ones, it would mean that grown-up people were being treated like children, and thus humanity would be disgraced. We do concede that the best and the most sensible way of reforming humanity is the one they suggest. Indeed the very object of culture is so to strengthen the people from within that they begin to respect the law of society, and their own conscience restraints them from violating the moral code. For this very purpose utmost attention is paid to the education and training of individuals. But the question is: Has culture succeeded in attaining its end? Have human individuals really become so advanced culturally through education and moral training that their inner self can now be safely relied upon, and does human society no longer stand in need of penal and preventive measures for its protection? Leave the ancient times that are called the �dark ages�. Consider for a while this twentieth century-�age of enlightenment�. Take the case of most civilized countries of Europe and America where every individual is educated and every citizen cultured. Has the incidence of crime and violation of law in these countries been prevented by education and training for the purification of self? Are nor thefts and robberies and murders still being committed there? Have the cases of fraud and forgery, injustice and corruption, become non-existent there? Do these countries no longer stand in need of the police, court of law, jails and censorship agencies? Have the citizens there become so responsible morally that they need no more be �treated like children�? If it is not so, if even in this age of enlightenment it has not become possible to leave matters of social discipline and order at the mercy of the moral sense of the individuals, if even today, �humanity is being disgraced� everywhere by all sorts of punitive and preventive measures introduced to stop crime how is it that people so feel disgraced with regard to punitive measures against illicit relations only? Why so they insist that in this regard only these �childish� people so be treated like to �grown-ups�? They may do well to search their hearts; may be they themselves have a guilty conscience.



It is said that the factors which are being regarded as sex stimulants, and thus required to be eradicated from social life, are indeed the very soul of art and aesthetics. Their eradication, it is contended, will be tantamount to depriving human life of grace and beauty. Therefore, whatever reform is needed to improve man�s social life and protect civilization so be so carried out that fine arts and aesthetics are harmed. We do concede that art and aesthetics are valuable things which must be protected and made to flourish, but social life and the collective well-being of man are even more valuable. It cannot be sacrificed to any art, any aesthetic taste. If art and aesthetics have to prosper they should follow such a course for their development as may be in complete harmony with the collective life of man and his social well-being. The art and aesthetic taste that leads man to his ruin and downfall rather than to his happiness and well-being cannot be allowed to prosper in society. It is not a private and personal view of ours, it is the demand of both reason and nature. The whole world concedes this view in principle and it is being followed everywhere. Anything that is deemed as fatal to man�s collective life or as likely to cause nuisance, is not tolerated anywhere merely for the sake of art and aesthetics. For instance, the literature that cause sedition and chaos, and incites man to kill and plunder cannot be endured merely for its literary charms and merit. Similarly, the literature that induces people to spread cholera and plague is not tolerated anywhere, the cinema or theater that urges people to break the law and rise in revolt cannot be permitted by any government to give public performance. The pictures that reflects feelings of injustice, iniquity and chaos, or in which universal moral principles have been broken cannot be received well by any law, and collective conscience, no matter how artistic they may happen to be. A pickpocket�s art is indeed a difficult fine art, which displays the greatest skill of the hand, but nobody wants it to flourish. Fake currency notes and documents are prepared, with an astounding skill and intelligence, but no one really desires this art to thrive. Man has shown great ingenuity in the arts of forgery and fraud, but no civilized society worth the name was ever prepared to appreciate these arts. Thus it is universally admitted that community life, its peace and welfare, are more valuable than any fine art, any aesthetic taste. It cannot be sacrificed to any art. The one thing about which opinion seems to be divided is that what we regard as harmful to the well-being of society may not be regarded as so by others. But if the viewpoint of the other people in this regard falls in line with ours, they will also feel like imposing the same restrictions on art and aesthetics as we do.



It is further argued that segregating men and women, and imposing curbs on their faces intermingling in society with a view to preventing illicit relationship between them is tantamount to attacking their morals and character. It implies that every individual is being regarded as of doubtful characters, and so, the people who desire to impose such curbs have neither faith in their men nor in their women. It also sounds very reasonable but let us take this argument a little further. Every lock that has been put on any door implies that the master of the house has taken the whole world for thieves. The presence of any policeman anywhere testifies that the government regards all its subjects as scoundrels. Any deed that is prepared at a transaction suggests that one party doubts the integrity of the other. Every preventive measure that is adopted to stop incidence of crime signifies that all the people who may be affected by it have been taken for possible criminals. Thus, according to this argument every single individual is being regarded as a thief, a scoundrel, a dishonest fellow and a person of doubtful character every moment, but nobody seem to feel at all offended by this insult. Then, how is it that with regard to all offended by this insult. Then, how is it that with regard to only sex affairs people should have become so sensitive?



The real cause of all this is not difficult to find. The people who still have some vestige of the old moral concepts left their minds regard fornication and sexual anarchy as vicious but not so vicious as may need to be absolutely eradicated. This explains the difference between our respective viewpoint with regard to the introduction of reformative and preventive measures. If the knowledge of nature dawns on these people and they realize the correct nature of the problem they will have to concede that as long as man remains with the element of animality in him, no civilization that holds the general well-being of society dearer than the personal desires and lusts of its individuals can afford to overlook the importance of these measures.







Contents





V



Correct Relationship Between Man and Wife





After founding the family and eradicating sexual lawlessness, the necessary prerequisite for a clean community life is to determine the correct nature of the relationship between man and woman. This implies the determination of their rights and responsibilities, their status and duties in the family circle, strictly according to the principles of justice and fair play has always baffled him from the earliest times.



Some nations have given woman the position of governor over man, but no instance is found of a nation that raised its womanhood to such a status and then attained any high position on the ladder of progress and civilization. History does not present the record of any nation which made the woman the ruler of its affairs, and won honor and glory, or performed a work of distinction.



Most nations in the world have made man the governor over woman, but man has generally abused his higher position. The woman at his hands has been reduced to bond woman and inhumanly treated: she has been deprived of her economic and social rights, and she has been made an instrument of sexual indulgence. Outside the family circle a section of women was no doubt acquainted with knowledge and culture, but they were in fact educated and trained to satisfy man�s sexual demands in a more gratifying manner. They were trained to provide man with the pleasure of the ear by their music, pleasure of the eye by their coquetry, and the pleasure of the body by their sexual attractions. As regards woman, this was the most disgraceful device invented by man in his selfishness, and the nations which adopted it were doomed to a tragic end.



Modern Western civilization has adopted a third way. This is the way of equality between man and woman, of their equal and similar responsibilities, of competition in the same fields of activity, of winning one�s own bread and attaining self-sufficiency in all respects. This social reorganization in the West has not yet attained all its objectives on account man�s natural superiority in every field. Nowhere in life has the woman been able to equal the man. Moreover, she has not been given all those rights that should have accrued from perfect equality. But whatever equality has been attained, it has already corrupted community life. The details of tragic consequences have already been given in the foregoing pages, and therefore, no further comment is needed.



All these three social systems are devoid of justice, balance and proportion, because they have not taken any guidance from nature and have thus failed to adopt a way in accordance with its will and purpose. A little straight thinking will show that nature itself points to the correct solution of these problems. It has in fact all been due to the strong influence of nature that the woman could neither fall below nor exceed beyond a certain limit in spite of her own inclination and the utmost efforts made by man in that regard. Both the extremes that man has followed are the outcome of his defective reasoning and perverted thought. But nature likes the way of justice and fair lay and it itself points to the balanced middle course.



None can deny the fact that as human beings man and woman are equal. Both make up the human race together as its equal constituents parts. Both are equal partners in building up community life, creating and bringing about civilization, and thus serving humanity. Both have been endowed with hearts, brains and reasoning power, and both posses feelings, desires and other human urges. Both stand in need of mental and intellectual training and education so that they may duly contribute to happiness and welfare of society. In view of these facts the claims for equality is absolutely justified, and every good civilization is duty bound to afford its women also the opportunities along with men of developing this natural abilities. They should also be provided the facilities for educational advancement; they should also be granted an honorable place in society so that they may also develop self-respect and thereby their latent human qualities. The nations which have denied their womenfolk this kind of equality, which have kept them ignorant and illiterate, and which have deprived them of social rights, have ultimately themselves been doomed. For to debase and corrupt one half of humanity is to debase and corrupt the whole humanity. How can wretched, uncultured, ignorant and illiterate mothers rear and bring up children who would turn out to be proud, cultured and enlightened human beings?



But the other aspect of equality is that the man and the woman should have the same field of activity, that their activities should be similar, that they should have to shoulder equal responsibilities in all spheres of life, and that they should have identical positions in society. In support of this view it is said on the authority of scientific observation and experiment that man and woman are equipotential as regards their physical strength and ability. But their being equipotential in this respect is not a sufficient and strong enough basis for the claim that nature also requires them to have the same sorts of pursuits. For such a claim cannot be justified unless it is established that both man and woman possess identical physiological structures, that both have been entrusted with similar duties by nature, and endowed with similar psychological disposition. The scientific research that has been carried out so far does not lend support to any of these hypotheses.



It has been established by biological research that woman is different from man not only in her appearance and external physical organs but also in the protein molecules of tissue cells.



From the time that sex formation of the foetus starts, the physiological structures of the two sexes begin in develop differently. The female physical system is evolved in order to bear and bring up children. It is to meet the requirements of this end that all physiological changes take place in the female body from infancy to maturity, and it is the demands of this very end that determine its future course of development also.



As soon as a girl attains maturity, menstruation starts affecting the functioning of all her physical organs. The investigation made by famous biologists and physiologists show that during menstruation the following changes take place in the female organism:



The power of resistance in the body decreases with the result heat is lost unduly, resulting in fall of temperature.
Pulse weakens, blood pressure falls below normal and corpuscles decrease.
Endocrines, tonsils and lymphatic glands undergo changes.
The process of protein metabolism suffers a setback.
The release of phosphates and chlorides slows down and the process of gaseous metabolism deteriorates.
Digestion becomes difficult, and proteins and fats are not easily assimilated by the body.
Respiration slows down and the vocal organs suffer changes.
Muscles become lethargic and feelings cold.
The ability to concentrate weakens.


These changes render an otherwise healthy woman very nearly sick. Hardly 23 percent women have painless discharge of the menses. Once 1020 women were taken at random and subjected to investigation. It was found that 84 percent among them suffered from pain and other troubles during menstruation.[34]



In view of these facts it can be safely asserted that a woman during menstruation is indeed unwell. It is a kind of disability from which she has to suffer every month.



These physical and physiological changes necessarily tell on her mental powers and the functioning of her vital organs. In 1909 Dr. Voicechevsky carried out research and came to the conclusion that during menstruation a woman�s power of concentration and her mental abilities in general suffer a setback. Professor Krschiskevsky�s psychological observations led in to the conclusion that a woman becomes easily irritable during this period. She becomes emotionally cold and unstable. Sometimes she even loses the ability for reflex action; so much so that her conditioned reflexes become disordered. Due to this she begins bungling in matters of daily habit. A lady tram conductor, for instance, would issue wrong tickets and get confused while counting small change. A lady motor driver would drive slowly as if under strain, and become nervous at every turning. A lady typist would type wrongly, take a long time to type and omit words in spite of care and effort, and would press wrong keys inadvertently. A lady barrister�s power of reasoning would be impaired and her presentation of a case would lake logic and the force of argument. A lady magistrate�s comprehension and ability to take decisions would both be adversely affected. A female dentist would find it difficult to locate the required instruments. A female singer would lose the quality of her tone and voice; so much so that a phoneticist would easily detect the fault and its cause also. In short, a woman�s mental and nervous system becomes lethargic and disorderly during menstruation. Her limbs do not quite obey her will, rather her will and the power of taking decision are overwhelmed by some involuntary force within her. Thus, she begins behaving as if under duress. She loses freedom of action and thus rendered unfit to undertake any work of responsibility.



Professor Lapinsky writes in his book, The Development of Personality in Woman, that during menstruation a woman is deprived of her freedom of action; she becomes a slave to involuntary behavior and her capacity to do any thing at will is considerably reduced.



All these changes take place in an otherwise healthy woman, and they can easily take a serious turn, there is evidence to show that a woman loses her mental balance during this period. She becomes easily irritable and furious, behaves at times in a silly and wild manner, and may even commit suicide. Dr. Kraft Ebing writes that a woman who in her daily life may appear to be polite, polished and sweet-tempered, changes outright during menstruation. During the �low� period women have to pass through a terrible ordeal indeed. They become ill-tempered and quarrelsome. Servants, children and husbands complain of their quick-temperedness. Even strangers sometimes receive rude treatment at their hands. Some other authorities on the subject have been led to the conclusion that most crimes by women are committed during this state. A good, righteous woman may commit theft and then feel remorse. Weinberg says on the basis of his observation that 50 percent of women who commit suicide have been those who were having the menses. In view of this, Dr. Kraft Ebing is of the opinion that before trying a young woman for a crime the court must ascertain that the crime was not committed during menstruation.



More terrible than menstruation is the period of pregnancy for the woman. A pregnant woman cannot undertake any work of mental and physical exertion, which she could easily undertake at other times. If a man is made to pass through the rigors of pregnancy, or for the matter a woman when she is not pregnant, he or she will be pronounced a sick person by all standards. During pregnancy a woman�s nervous system becomes disordered and remains so far months together. She is mentally deranged; all her mental and psychic energies remain continually upset; and she remains hanging between health and unhealth, and a little carelessness can cause her serious illness. According to Dr. Fischer even a healthy woman remains subject to extreme mental derangement during pregnancy. She becomes fickle, mentally disturbed and unwell, with the result that her capacity to understand and think is seriously affected. Havelock Ellis, Albert Mole and other writers on the subject are agreed that a pregnant woman, especially during the last month of her pregnancy, cannot be expected to undertake any work of physical or mental exertion.



After delivery has taken place a woman remains exposed to various troubles. Her internal wounds may easily become septic. Her muscles begin to contract and return to pre pregnancy condition, and this upsets her whole system. If every thing goes well, it takes her several weeks to return to normal. Thus, after impregnation a woman remains sick or nearly sick for about a year, and during this period her general efficiency is reduced to half, even to less than half.



Then comes the period of suckling when she does not live for herself but for the trust that nature has placed in her care. The best of her body is turned into milk for the baby. Her share from the food that she takes is just that much as can keep her alive, the rest being diverted to the production and supply of milk.



Then for a long time to come she has to pay the fullest attention to the bringing up and training of the child.



A substitute found in the modern age for feeding at the breast is to feed the child artificially. But this is no solution, for there can be no real substitute for the food that nature has placed in the mother�s breasts for the child. To deprive the child of this natural food is to be inhuman and callous. The specialists are agreed that for the proper development of the child there is no better food than the mother�s own milk.



Similarly, nursing homes and nurseries have been proposed for the bringing up of children so that mothers may wholly devote themselves to outdoor activities. But the fact is that no nursing home can provide and make up for mother love. The love, the kindly regards and good wishes so badly needed by a child in early childhood cannot be evoked from the hearts of hired nurses. In fact, these new ways of rearing children have yet to be tried out and tested. The generations which have been brought up in those ways have not yet attained maturity and shown results. Their character, their morals, their achievements have yet to be tested by the world. It is, therefore, too early yet to claim that the world has found the right substitute for the mother�s lap. Thus, the view that is still held is that the mother�s lap is the best place where a child can be most naturally nourished and brought up.



Now any person with a little common sense can understand that though man and woman are equipotential as regards their physical and mental abilities, they have not been entrusted with equal responsibilities by nature. For the continuance of the race man�s only function is to impregnate the female. He is then free to have any pursuit in life. In contrast to this, the woman has to bear the whole burden of responsibility. It is to bear this burden that she is fashioned right from the time when she is a mere clot of blood in her mother�s womb. Her whole constitution is so build as to meet the requirements to this end. Monthly courses which continue to recur throughout her youth render her unfit to undertake any task of major responsibility or one involving physical or mental exertion, for three to seven or ten days in every month. She has to pass through the ordeal of pregnancy stretching almost over a year, when she does not quite live her own life. Then the two years of suckling are no less terrible when she feels humanity on her blood at the springs of her breasts. She has to pass sleepless nights and troublous days, especially during the early years of the child�s development. During this period she in fact has to sacrifice her comfort and peace, her ease and desires, and everything that she would dearly love to have, to the well-being of the coming generation.



In view of these facts, let us now consider the demands of justice and fairplay. The question is: Will it be just and fair to demand that a woman perform all these natural functions in which man is not, and cannot be, her partner, and also shoulder those social responsibilities equally with him for the carrying out of which he has been absolved from all other natural duties? Will it be just and fair to require her to undergo all sorts of hardship set for her sex by nature and also to earn her living in the economic field? Will it be proper and right to make her take equal part with man in defending the country, establishing peace and promoting the cause of industry and commerce, agriculture and administration of justice? Above all, will it be just and right to require her to allure men�s hearts also by her presence in mixed gatherings and provide them with means of entertainment and pleasure. It is not justice, it is shear injustice; it is not equality, but shear inequality. Justice and fair play would demand that the one who has already been burdened by nature so be given light duties in society, and the one who has no such natural duty so be required to shoulder all the important and heavy social responsibilities including the duties of supporting and protecting the family.



Not only is it unfair to load woman with the outdoor duties, but she cannot in fact be expected to perform them with manly vigor. These duties can be suitably carried out only by those workers whose efficiency does not waver, who can perform them equally well at all times with persistence, and whose mental and physical abilities can always be relied upon. But the workers who are rendered unfit, or nearly unfit, for a number of days every month, whose capacity to work falls short of the required standards time and again, cannot be expected to shoulder these responsibilities. Imagine for a while the plight of a land or a naval force which wholly consists of woman. It is quite possible that right in the midst of war, a fair number of them might be down with the menstrual discharge, a good number of delivery cases forced to stay in bed, and a fair percentage of pregnant ones fuming and suckling uselessly. One may say that the military service is rather too strenuous for women. But one may ask: Which is the service among the police, judicial, administrative, foreign, railway, industrial and commercial services which does not require steadfast, dependable capacity to work? Therefore, the people who want a women to undertake manly duties perhaps want to `defeminise` them all and finish off the human race, or perhaps they want that a certain percentage among them should always be set aside to be `defeminised`, or perhaps they want to lower the general standards of efficiency in all affairs of life.



But adopt whatever attitude one may, to prepare woman for manly jobs is utterly against the will and design of nature. It neither helps humanity nor the woman herself. Since biologically woman has been created to bring forth and rear child, psychologically also she has been endowed with such abilities as suit her nature duties. This explains why she has been endowed with tender feelings of love, sympathy, compassion, clemency, pity and sensitiveness in an unusual measure. And since in the sexual life man has been made active and woman passive, she has been endowed with those very qualities alone which help and prepare her for the passive role in life only. That is why she is tender and plastic instead of rough and rigid. That is why she is soft and pliable, submissive and impressionable, yielding and timid by nature. With these qualities she cannot be expected to function successfully in the spheres of life which demand firmness and authority, resistance and cold-temperedness, and which require the exercise of unbiased, objective judgment and strong will-power. To drag the woman into these fields of activity, therefore, is to abuse her as well as the fields of activity themselves.



This will bring about the woman�s downfall and not her advancement in life. Advancement is not curbing one�s natural endowments and creating instead such qualities artificially as do not form part of one�s nature. Real advancement consists in developing the natural gifts, polishing and refining them and providing for them better and over increasing opportunities for action.



This will lead to the woman�s failure and not to her success. Man and woman are not equipotential in all respects of life: in some woman is weaker than man, in other she is naturally stronger than he. The modern man wants the poor woman to compete with him in those fields where she is weaker by nature. This will inevitably keep the woman suppressed and generally inferior to man. Try however hard he may, it is impossible that geniuses favorably comparable with Aristotle, Ibn-I-Sina, Kant, Hegal, Khayyam, Shakespeare, Alexander, Napoleon, Salah-ud-Din, Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi and Bismarch will come forth from among women. Similarly, all the men of the world together-however hard they try- cannot produce from among their sex even a most ordinary mother.



It is not even useful to the well-being of human society. Man�s life and civilization on the earth stand as much in need of coarseness, vehemence and aggressiveness as of tenderness, softness and plasticity. Good generals, good statesmen, and good administrators are as necessary as good mothers, good wives and good house-keepers. To ignore or discard any of these aspects is tantamount to harming and corrupting man�s social life itself.



This is the division of labor which nature herself has devised between the sexes. All the researches that have been carried out so far in biology, anatomy, psychology and sociology point to the same division. Bearing a child and shouldering the responsibility of rearing it is decisive factor which delimits the woman�s field of activity in human social life. No man-made device can alter or affect the will of nature in this regard, thus a righteous civilization is the one which jealously guards this natural division of labor, which provides the woman her rightful and honorable place in society, which recognize her social and economic rights, which loads her only with the domestic duties, and which makes man responsible for all outdoor duties including the duty of supporting and protecting the family. A civilization that disregards this division of lab may show temporarily some sign of material progress and prosperity, but it will surely meet a tragic end eventually. For when the woman is loaded with the economic and social responsibilities along with the man, she will throw off the burden of her natural duties and thus bring social life as well as humanity to grief. The woman can, if she strives against her temperament and natural physical structure, carryout with some success all the duties assigned to man by nature, but man in no way can make himself fit to bear and rear children.



Keeping in view this natural division of labor, the following will be the distribution of duties for man and woman in the social and family organization.



Earning a livelihood for the family, supporting and protecting it, and carrying out to the laborious sorts of social duties should be the responsibility of the man. Thus his education should be such as may enable him to perform these duties in the best way possible.
Bringing up children, looking after the domestic affairs and making home-life sweet, pleasant and peaceful should be entrusted to the woman. Thus the aim of her education and training should be to prepare her for these duties.
In order to maintain the family system and save it from confusion some one must be entrusted with necessary authority within the legal limits so that the family does not turn into army without a leader. Such a one can only be the man. For the member whose mental and physical state becomes unstable time and again during menstruation and pregnancy cannot be expected to use such authority with wisdom and discretion.
To maintain this division and the pattern of education and training there must be some safeguards provided in the social system so that foolish and senseless people do not disrupt the clean community life by confusing and mixing up the different fields of activity of the two sexes