The Question in the Forum And here I am, on a forum discussing a subject when the topic turns to that age old debate: Women can never be equal to Men. Now we have all heard this ‘human theorem’. It is so axiomatic that other than provide for entertaining debates occasionally, it is really accepted at face value. If I were in Maths class and were required to prove the theorem, I would say: Given: Men and Women To prove that: Women can never be equal to Men. Proof: Women cannot lift as much weight as men. They cannot run as fast. They have less physical strength…and well, I will not get into greater detail than that. Therefore, women are not equal to men. ------------------- Except I don’t buy it. The person I am debating with on the forum happens to be a woman, and more – a woman who considers herself a highly self respecting character and who believes that women are otherwise capable of anything they choose to do. She is also a patriotic American to boot. But she maintains, that women in the final analysis cannot be quite what men can be. In her own words, a woman cannot be an Alpha Male. I respond that the theorem itself is false. It is based on nonexistent parameters and is void ab initio i.e. such an argument CANNOT exist. There is NO BASIS for it. That a woman should not even THINK of TRYING to be an alpha male because that would tantamount to a mango wishing to perform the functions of a mustard seed or a horse trying to be a cat. The concepts of superiority and inferiority arise in the same genus. According to Darwinian theory, the superior race will survive over the inferior race. But Darwin failed to apply his own logic to his theories. He too concluded, and gave scientific weightage to the fact that women are biologically and intellectually inferior to men. The fundamental error in the argument is the one relating to survival. One can argue that men are superior to women (or vice versa) if either could survive on their own without the other….i.e. if the inferior female species were survived by the superior male species, then the male species should be able to continue the human race with purely superior male species, exterminating the female species altogether. But such a measure would prove self-destructive. And surely no evidence is required to substantiate this. If either species were to become extinct, it would lead to the extinction of the human race itself. Which proves only that the male female relation is a complementary one rather than a competitive one. Now I don’t care for Darwin or his theories and am merely using him as a well recognized popular theorist in this field. But whether it is Darwin who has given a scientific colouring to an argument otherwise mainly confined to religion, or whether social and religious customs constantly flood our lives with enough innuendos for us to have insidiously accepted this self explanatory proof …it is time to bust the myth. I could argue on other counts. That the activities one familiarizes oneself with are the ones one specializes in. That but for the stigma associated with women right from the time of birth, we cannot really project what women can achieve. But the moment you take up the argument on who can do what better, you become a victim of the argument….so I will not consider such an approach. A woman is. A man is. Their purpose towards one another is complementary. Any suggestion of a competition or of a winner is a phantom argument, without any fundamentals to support it. As stated earlier, it is an argument VOID AB INITIO.
Posted on: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:34:56 +0000