Men and Women

As for the subject of men, in response to Monsieur Kropp, I would like to note that it is in fact scientifically impossible for one sex to be more advanced than another within a species. At least I would think. And also, sophistication, and any other word, means nothing without a real definition. While one definition might be greater contact with emotion, another might be a larger grasp on music, or science, or math. A speculation concerning only love or lust, is a lopsided speculation, although surely those are incredibly interesting topics to discuss with a woman one is obviously interested in. Many people have said that nature is the greatest sophistication that our earth has to offer (some people refer to this as god, and they have the right) so is a man's greater animal quality a negative mark-up on their scale of sophistication or a positive one? The process is complicated, and as sophistication is contrived, neither sex can gain an upper hand in anything, as both have ups and downs. It is, however, quite obvious, that the sexes are not equal. Different, and neither is greater than the other, but not equal.

For instance, the example of pregnancy and child birth. Yes, the man only provides the sperm, and the woman the egg and the birthing. But think on an animal level, in the wilderness or nature or however you term it, and place things far in the past. As with any species, humanity is driven by instinct, or you might say, the collective memory of its ancestors. That sentence is irrelevant, but I like it so I'm leaving it. In prehistoric times and before that, when tribes were the major political modus operandi, and homo sapiens and neanderthals were still dukin it out, males were (and still are) built genetically to be more athletic, stronger, bigger. The point is, the relationship is symbiotic. While pregnant, a woman cannot necessarily defend herself (or run fast) (or control emotions AT ALL, as far as the choir teacher is concerned) so the man would have had to do that. Without someone to gather, pregnancy would not be nearly as successful. Now, this seems irrelevant and women may seem better off, but truly there were and still can be equal roles played by man and woman. The woman was never meant to be the caretaker, as far as I can tell. That was the greed of men. Men were always meant to serve their child-carriers, as it is in nature often. The objective of all life is to procreate, and die. So I would say that motherhood as an example of superiority, is kaput. All things, when made base and returned to nature, are symbiotic and peaceful, or at least as they are meant to be.

I would also like to say that I despise the obsession with sex roles in literature and society. I think that perhaps too much thought is devoted to writing about and complaining about the topic, and too little is being done to make 'equality' happen. If women want to make as much money as men, they should probably be engineers and doctors and lawyers, not stick to the traditional professions of women, like teaching and writing and being stay at home moms. We make society, society does not make us.