| . . . . .The thing that bothers me the most about the battle of the sexes is this: If out of all of the people in this world, why is it always that the man is to blame? Men are the dogs, but women are bitches because men made them that way. I believe this thought goes all the way back to the concept of Adam and Eve. In Genesis it says that woman was made from man. Thus women are not fully responsible for their actions because she was made from man. If it were not for man, then why would women be so wrought and messed up? If you look at this from a genetics standpoint, all mammals are inherently female. The require the Y chromosome from the male to make the offspring male. In other words, it takes one to make one. In earlier forms of life, all of the populace are female and they only bear female offspring. It goes to show that females are obviously the earliest form on this planet; those cute little incubators. So is it possible that women brought forth men for diversity? Is it possible that men did not ruin the party, so to say. We were invited and we are having a good old time. Could it be that this whole idea is so misconstrued that it is now impossible to recenter it? Two thousand years or more in the making and we believe that we can pin the problem on men in general or we can pin it on women in general. What is the whole purpose of sexual reproduction? Diversity! |
| . . . . . What do you get when you place one million individual, functioning beings mixed in the same locale? Of that million, say that half are male and half are female. So five hundred thousand a piece. Ok, lets also say that a part of each of these halves is homosexual. Let’s say thirty percent of each population is homosexual. So combined, you have a homosexual community of three hundred thousand. Of this entire population, what main group has more problems per capita? The straight community? The gay community? The lesbian community? Would the straight community have more problems because you combine the male and female of the species? Or would either of the homosexual groups have more problems because they are with the same member of gender? This begs to argue the individual temperaments of the different groups, doesn’t it? |
| . . . . . I mean since we are all sentient beings in this little simulation. Would you have to account for mental anguish? How would you account for this and exise this from our populace? Let’s say that ten percent of our population is truly under a genetic mishap. There are no environmental factors playing out in their mental anguish. Let’s excise one hundred thousand from our populace, and to make things even lets also divide that evenly among the genders. Now all we have are environmentally affected mental disorders and the relatively normal populace. What is the main fiber that bears the most strain when it comes to the battle of the sexes? Could it be that we all have the ability to hurt one another? Not even in a deliberate fashion, just maybe because of miscalculation or blindness to a situation. Or if you rally the old fashion hurt caused intentionally, we will not leave that out. |
| . . . . . Let us remove ourselves from this situation for a moment. Let us concentrate on labels for a moment. What is a man? What is a woman? The differences lies in sexual organs and hormones. All the rest lies in secondary traits. Our bodies are basically the same. Work the same, function the same. Primarily. |
| . . . . . Now that I have said that, what would we have to blame if there were no male and female? Do you think in a society of females there would be no arguments of clashes of interest? I don’t think so. So where does the issue of sex come in? We all have to bear in mind that we have been socialized since before we were even born. If this comes to mind, could it be the society and not the gender that we should be concerned with? I know what you are thinking. If society is to blame, then who set up society? Whoever did this is to blame. Societies are made of both female and male subjects in our species. Is it not possible that when humans started grouping together that we formed the basic infrastructure that is today our society? Could it be that things kind of fell into place? Could it be that both sexes played a part in the formation of society as it is today? What females can do, men must do. What men provide is the other half of the gamete and protection. Protection includes shelter, food, and any other requirement for a pregnant female. What a woman can do while she is not with child, a man must be able to do when she is with child. That puts males in a position to be the gathers and keepers of what is valuable for life: the resources necessary for sustaining his life, his mates life, and their offspring’s unborn life. Is this not the way in most mammal groups? In ape troops, is their not an alpha male? Then you might ask of packs of wolves, their alpha is a female. There will always be the exception to every rule. Like I said, what females can do, males must do. Societies are formed like a game of Tetris: once you lay down a layer and one brick is out of place, then you will not be able to fill out that layer and you have an uneven foundation. Do I claim that the way our society was formed was perfect and without flaw? No. In situations like the formation of structures, you will find that what works easiest is what works first. In this situation, a female is too far along to take care of herself and the needs of her unborn child. She must rely on protection and sustenance from her mate. Maybe this was the first layer in our society. It is not a complete line, but the gaps are crossed with the support of what was easiest at the time. |
| . . . . . Fast forward to the present. Traditionally, we believe that the man is the provider. Men secure the resources needed for his family to survive. So much of this is tradition and there is honor in this activity. Traditionally, woman are to be at the house and preparing the resources that the men bring them, to take care of the home, and to raise the young. Boys are to grow up hardy and girls are to grow up nurturing. The only thing that this leaves out is the neglect by the father in the household as far as child rearing and bonding as well as spousal neglect. A gap might be that the family breaks apart, an unsealed hole in the game of Tetris. Something that keeps you from scoring another line. Unsteady foundation, unsteady structure. The structure is flawed because it had to be constructed in a manner that was convient. It came from a natural heiarchy, but now we are trying to both break from that heiarchy and embrace it. One break away would be the acceptance of homosexual unions because they can not bear offspring. Another would be broken families or continued families. And one that embraces tradition is one that would be a part of the structure. |
| . . . . . Where is the blame then if we are all causalities of this flawed form? We can not start over from scratch because there are too many factions to come to a consensus. How can one be blamed because of their sex. Gender does not hold that much sway as many would have you think. The strongest force is history compounded daily for the last five thousand years. The problem is not who to point the finger at, it is what we can do to reform our problem. We were put here to be together whether it be as a straight couple or a homosexual couple. We were put here regardless of our gender, thus we must find a deeper thread than gender to solve our problem. We must reform ourselves. |