Complementary Sex Roles Hold Society Together by Alan Millard

A species is served best by what secures its progeny (biological premise or creation). Something not fully realized is that our progeny’s perpetuation is dependent on another person’s progeny’s perpetuation, and that means the best arrangement that benefits each of these people (half-units) simultaneously serves as the best preferential outcome for both, even if it’s not immediately realized. Two can not occupy the same role (niche’) and be as successful as two in complementary roles who work together in tandem as a team (complete unit). Equality of the sexes doesn’t mean being the same because we are not the same but opposites in a pair of two equal parts.

The brain itself reflects a very similar arrangement. Besides having both a right and left hemisphere, the brain requires a basic ability to function. For a mind to think, a person must have memory content. But having a memory isn’t enough. A person must not only have something there but be able to use it. This requires reason and application, like a motor requires a transmission to put a vehicle into motion. Thus, both are essential to engage the mind to think—like a tool box and someone who knows how to use the tools and for what purpose they are used. But male and female brains are different too which also reflects a bio-social component at the most basic level of our human existence.

The smallest human unit/component necessary to perpetuate life involves a very similar arrangement existing between a man and a woman, with one known best for reason and the other more prone to memory1 (Other complementary sex differences exist, as long as they are not used against the other half of the sex population.) As a part of the complementary arrangement created by nature, neither role incumbent is better than the other nor is therefore to have privileges or a status above the other. They exist as equals. When members of the opposite sex tear down the other sex, they are tearing apart that portion of the other for whom they are biologically designated to complement, destroying a part of themselves as a whole in the process. The complete unit being essential to our existence—a biologically proven pathway to perpetuating human life—is now purposely being destroyed due to indoctrinated hatred that does not exist in any other species. In addition to creating a much poorer quality of people in this self-destructive process, it’s pathetic that humans think of themselves to be so smart yet foolishly deny their existence at such a basic biological level.

An excerpt from the book A Flaw from within

2 Replies to “Complementary Sex Roles Hold Society Together by Alan Millard”

  1. I see a lot of opinion to the effect of “equality isn’t sexy.” There’s talk that the “egalitarian” marriage is a rather sexless marriage, and talk of women not getting “turned on” by men who are merely their “equal.” But, I think it is INequality that is not sexy. It is marriages within which the feminine is everything and the masculine is nothing, where she has it all and he’s got zilch, those are the sexless relationships.

    I think what talk of “egalitarian marriages” lacks is any comprehension of all that women take ownership of all along the Love-Axis. Beauty, grace, goodness, home, family, parenting, nurturance, social calendar, social fabric, moral authority, shaming, eroticism, greater average verbal/emotional acuity . . . women have all kinds of power along the Love-Axis, it just goes undefined as power. Also, female modes of power go unrecognized, unprotested and unchallenged. So, when women hold tight to all the above while simultaneously gaining equality in intellect, competence, prestige, toughness, strength, courage, income (all things along the Respect-Axis) . . . the result bears little resemblance to true equality and that is what’s not sexy. It is inequality that is not sexy.

    In his essay “I Am Man, Hear Me Bleat,” Fred Leebron explains what the men of his generation typically do:
    “We seek out and partner up with women who will have careers at approximately the same level as ours. But you know what men give up when they venture into this kind of so-called equality? They give up equality. Why? Because there is no such thing as equality. Because men have long recognized that women are their domestic superiors, and perhaps that’s why we’ve so staunchly and unjustly guarded our castles of work.”

    The problem isn’t that men staunchly and unjustly held their ground—far from it. The problem is that men gave it away upon demand and asked for nothing in return. Leebron expresses the dilemma faced by the modern man entering into the basic “all other things being equal” relationship. Fred observes his wife taking ownership of parenting and declares, “I can’t compete with my wife in this arena. She can compete with me in the career arena, sure, but I can’t compete with her in the parenting arena.” And that’s because society has gone to great lengths to ensure (even force) female equality in the male realm, but has done nothing to create male equality in the female realm. The result is what I call female-only “equality,” which isn’t equality at all. Women aren’t attracted to men who are often less-than, but never more-than. Sex dries up accordingly.

Leave a Reply