The Second Sex and the Distinguishing Mark of Trousers

Homo sapiens sapiens consists of two sexes: male and female. Over time, one of these sexes has been pushed into the position of the "second sex" by the other. With the trait of physical bullying, the male, who dominates the opposite sex, has become so captivated by the benefits of this role that, at the origin of the laws he wrote, he placed the principle of banning women and depriving them of all rights, rather than defining the individual rights of the human being. Thus, the male, taking the weakened position of women in society as a measure, declared his own narcissistic power based on this criterion.

PATRIARCHAL LAWS

They decided through laws what women should wear, how they should speak, whether they should learn to read and write, whether they could travel, when and whom they should marry, that they could never acquire property or a profession, and whether they could meet with their friends, as if they had no other problems in the world.

A multitude of elderly, dignified, bearded, turbaned, robed or unrobed clergymen, Catholic priests, and Jewish rabbis talk about these issues in their books, articles, television programs, and YouTube channels as if they were the biggest problem in the world. They talk tirelessly and with great hunger about a woman's dress, the length of her skirt, the thickness of her stockings, whether she can wear a bra, her hair, her eyebrows, her period, the hair on her legs, and the details of her sexuality. As if these self-evidently absurd attitudes were not enough, these mind-boggling fantasies are turned into laws and shackled to the feet of all womanhood.

These shackling laws, which we wish were a thing of the past, continue to be applied with full force in many countries around the world. Until the recent past, they were even written in the law books of many Western countries.

THE MOST UNFORGIVABLE OF SINS

The elderly, powerful, traditional male legislator never gives up his desire to keep women as slaves under his control, neither in the past nor now. He equates the idea of a woman seeing herself as equal to a man with defying God, and considers this the greatest of sins committed against him. Wherever he has the power, he punishes the woman who challenges him with death. The justification for the punishment is sometimes collaboration with the devil, sometimes witchcraft, sometimes a written book, and sometimes a declaration explaining that women are equal to men.

The patriarchal legislator, who has been practicing these situations on women for about 10,000 years, has studied the situation so well that he knows very well where and how to break a woman's self-confidence and freedom, and how to erase her character starting from childhood. We encounter these practices in the same way in a village in Ghana, a city in India, a town in Central Anatolia, or a Catholic community in Europe. The ancient knowledge of masculinity, which adopts the enslavement of women as a motto, is whispered from ear to ear, from generation to generation, like a cursed contract, regardless of religion, language, race, or distance.

WHY BEING ABLE TO WEAR TROUSERS IS IMPORTANT

One of these practices is trousers. I don't think any man has ever had the simple anxiety of wondering whether he would be able to be a free enough human being to wear trousers. So much so that trousers, which are perceived as a very natural, daily garment for a man, turn into a concept that must be fought for when it comes to women. Even 100 years ago, women could not even imagine that they could wear trousers. When they tried, their actions were violently suppressed, they were followed by the state, taken to court, received sentences, and more importantly, were pushed out of society.

You might ask why such a simple request brought so many women to the streets, why it became one of the symbols of feminism, and why many women cared enough about this situation to be thrown into prison and put on trial to be able to wear trousers.

Because trousers are not an ordinary symbol. In its simplest form, a woman wearing trousers can move freely, run, be mobile, for example, ride a horse, ride a bicycle, or use a motorcycle. What else can a woman do? She can run away faster when attacked, or kick, and she does not struggle in place with her body wrapped in layers of dresses. In other words, she can walk comfortably with self-confidence while standing on her own two feet.

In other words... the woman, whose back is whipped incessantly, until it bleeds, until it kills, by the laws written by the elderly powerful man, can suddenly turn her face, stop the hand holding the whip, and say, "you can no longer do this to me."

While feminism is attributed to women by men as if it were a hobby, men defend their patriarchal worlds as if this were their life's struggle. As if their power would only be possible as long as they can keep women under control, they shape all their laws around suppressing and banning women.

And they are right; we make up 50 percent of the world. The event I will share as a brief reminder shows how seriously men take this issue.

OLYMPE DE GOUGES “DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DE LA FEMME ET DE LA CITOYENNE“

The year is 1789, after the French Revolution, while men are granted the right to vote, women are excluded from this law. Upon this, Olympe de Gouges, who published the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen (Déclaration des Droits de la Femme et de la Citoyenne) in 1791, is killed by the guillotine by the French government that rejected women's rights.

Patriarchal rule-makers perceive what Olympe de Gouges wrote as a grave insult to them, and as treason against the laws and the state. Considering the laws they wrote over the blood of women and the order they established for the every whim and comfort of men, could they have been expected to act otherwise? I don't think so...

Looking at the sentences in the declaration, we see how violently the legislating male rejects the possibility of women being free and equal. What a great anger this is, that it reaches such an inconceivable dimension that it cuts off the head of the woman who says "I am your equal." We would almost say they are afraid of women...

Olympe de Gouges says in summary in her sinful sentences:

• Women are born free and have equal rights and duties with men.

• All laws must be applied equally to both sexes.

• Women have the right to participate in political decisions.

• There should be gender equality in marriage in terms of both rights and responsibilities.

• Women should have the right to own and manage property.

• Women should have the right to access public office and all professions in order to achieve true equality in society.

Aren't these principles so hard to understand and impossible to accept? How can a person with a conscience, mind, and judgment not accept the reasonableness of these requests? How can a person who defends the right to live as an equal and free human being condemn someone to death in the most violent way?

These are the sentences that this primitive and tyrannical group never wants the woman—whom they have uneducated, de-professionalized, stifled all abilities, dispossessed, prevented from being mobile, and banned from moving through thousands of years of oppression—to think about. Still, the methods of silencing those who try to shout have not changed.

THE INEVITABLE END …

However, our ability to speak out against thousands of years of despotism has only a 100-year history.

The old, ugly, powerful patriarchy should not be so sure of the stability of its throne made of skulls it has accumulated for thousands of years. Because this scream they are trying to stifle is not rising from afar, but from their own households...