If the law of creation has designed every organ...

If the law of creation has designed every organ, the eyes, the ears, the legs, the hands and the spine in a particular form, it is not because it has given a preference to two eyes, for example, and has unduly discriminated in their favour, showing cruelty to one part as compared with another. Is it a question of symmetry or one of imperfection and perfection?

One of the things which surprise me is that some people insist that the difference between men and women in their physical and psychological make-up should be depicted as women being imperfect and man being comparatively perfect. This would show that the law of creation had some ulterior motive in creating woman an imperfect being. The idea that a woman is an imperfect creature arose among the people of the West before it did among us Easterners.

Men of the West were quite unjust in their jeering at women and in calling her imperfect. Sometimes, they claimed to be representing the Church and remarked, ‘A woman should be ashamed of being a woman’. Sometimes, they said ‘A woman is a being who has long hair and is short of understanding’. ‘A woman is the last of all savage beasts that man has tamed.’ ‘A woman is the last link between animals and human beings,’ and so on.

More surprising than this is that a section of the people to the west have recently done a complete volte-face, and now want to prove by one thousand and one different arguments that man is an imperfect, inferior and humble being, and that woman is perfect and superior sex.

If you, my dignified reader, had gone through the book “The Natural Superiority of women” written by Ashley Montague, which was serialized in Zan-e ruz , you would have seen how strenuously and with what shower of nonsensical talk the author wanted to prove that woman is more perfect than man.

That book, in so far as it presents the results of the discoveries of medicine, psychology or social statistics is very valuable, but when the writer himself proceeds to draw “inferences” and wants to deduce conclusions in support of his theory, which is represented by the title of the book, he goes to the extremes of nonsense.

Why should they consider woman to be so inferior and worthless an object one day, and then be obliged the next day to make amends for the past and do away with all deficiencies and defects from the face of woman and transfer them to the face of man?