A man and a woman are made to come together by natural desire, right? Reproduction depends on it just as it does in any species, right? (No, not necessarily enough to apply a different role to each sex.) Their unification completes them. But is this arrangement meant to be conditional? Can men and women unite without some kind of selfish role expectation placed on one by the other?
Or, do we ask what can I do to increase the unification in making our shared existence more valuable as a whole? Selfishness has no place in the unified arrangement, but that seems all that is offered now as the demented standard expressed amongst modern-day women. And this is despite equal employment opportunity (EEO).
Under the current situation neither sex is enacting a role expectation other than the man (limited as to if and when he can) since that basic counterpart feature has been severely limited by women’s liberation to include EEO. Female hypocrisy exists in expecting more from men. In most cases now, each sex must enact roles of the other sex responsibly due to being single anyway since the standard now is not male/female unification. The effect occurs both before and after marriage (if ever married). The percentage of unified time compared to the past has significantly decreased.
No point exists in having a sex role designation other than as a selfish expectation placed on men by women which only exits due to men not yet being liberated. Just like a single father or a single mother, both (when given equal custody) take on the traditional role expectations of the other, so the standard is already in place by proxy. Thus, role expectations are obsolete and archaic. Getting together with the opposite sex would still be for physical, emotional and mental need, desire, pleasure and completion of one’s life as an adult human being. But given modern-day conditions, does this opportunity even exist? Save for greed and selfishness becoming of a character built upon materialistic values that harbors misandry and the willingness of the male to tolerate it from his partner, often due to sexual access, no incentive exists for the sexes to get together. This is the common standard compared to those bound by selfless intentions who want to improve the enjoyment and enhancement of one’s life and fulfill each other’s situation, which is very rare. The robotic effect (absent of human attachment to the person) is inadequately explained or, worse, excused for women (hypergamy) and complements a selfish goal or robotic sex-role existence. Unification is vital to the best survival of a people–a life well-lived. Selfishness will not bring this to be. Needing someone for a use is not compatible under the premise of having equal value as a person and counters the basic premise of what makes us human and having attachment to the person and individual. And the person is what drove us in the past to unite. If we were a lesser species this would not be the case.
Humans, to put it lightly, are a social species, one that depends on love and affection to survive, in fact vital to our human health to adequately survive–tactile human touch, sexual relations not excluded. Or, what, are we made to only come together to reproduce like certain other species do such as lizards or fish, say salmon, do? No attachment is needed in these arrangements. Instinct/nature is indicative of entirely scripted roles.
Salmon migrate and spawn which is a process that takes place after traveling from the sea, a trek that involves the female laying her eggs and the male shortly thereafter ejaculating his sperm to fertilize them. And that’s it. They both die afterwards without any physical contact with each other at all during the whole reproductive process–plain and simple. (Ironically, this is what is similarly happening between humans today.) They have never advanced beyond biology. But it’s a consistent and reliable existence, right? Robotic. Again, no attachment is needed in this arrangement. This is basically the opposite from the way humans are made. Humans die without it, as is the case from childbirth due to the nurturing and care required in the making of a complete human being. And a major difference too is that human offspring take over two decades to fully develop into adults (21-23 years is the official figure). Yet even after this point they continue to further develop, physically and intellectually. Thus, a quarter of a human’s life is spent developing. This process requires a joint commitment for it to work out. It does not take place as it does in a species that completely develops by itself. (Although not ideal, this process can still be arranged if couples are granted joint custody, although separate but cooperative with each other in today’s society.) But nature’s intention was for humans to bond with each other more than any other species, even to have sex for pleasure (bonding) and as a basic human need cast into biology, physiologically forming each sexes’ sexual parts designed for the other’s pleasure–different than any other species on earth. (Male and female humans will often reproduce, usually unintentionally, prior to their full adult development.)
[Author’s Note: Another hinged issue is the influence that education provides to shape us as humans. For the 13 years of time spent, I believe that we should have more to show for it, especially due to the politics affecting such influence opposing the very families who should determine what’s being taught to their own children.]
The most important feature distinguishing the human species is the sexes caring about each other in unification–love. Without this we are doomed. Love is taught through care, kindness and instilling a conscience and applying that conscience in a rational reasoning process to everything we do.
This important element is transferred to the offspring for generations to come. (Oh, by the way, none of this is programmed in us bio-genetically via evolution but has to be taught per social influence.) Quite the cliché, “make love, not war” is still not a bad idea. Humans are a social species like no other. Although biology has set developmental stages with a brain of no match, an environmental influence is what has allowed humans to advance far beyond any scripted biology or any other species.
Again, we are not reptiles or fish. Biologically based evolution is limited when it comes to humans. (Laws and ethics, everything that makes us human, including horrible qualities too, comes from a social or environmental influence or construct. (Pay attention here in that humans have no moral compass in their genetics that even holds them to a neutral stand as in any other species. This is the scary part. Some say that religion has helped to keep humans on the ethical path because with humans basically being a social construct themselves, they can just as easily go the wrong way too. But although this may have been the case, religion hampers the intellectual capacity of its flock and harbors a dictatorship element intolerable of differences, even condemning those thinking outside this dictated box, ironically even resulting in wars due to mere differences from other people and religions. Being a true intellectual (an independent thinker not bound to or by others) doesn’t allow other people to think for you.
A freedom of intellectual expression is necessary under the guidance of what is ethical outside of religion, based on facts and truth. This is where education and advanced thinking is derived and where fair laws and liberty and equal justice for all come from.
We are placed with certain biological characteristics, sure, but these are so basic, especially in an advanced species and a society created by it, that they in most cases are miniscule with any other characteristics applying to both sexes under the terms of adulthood, thus holding each sex to mutual adult accountability. (As for this feature in biological equivalency even the female salmon travels the same route and experiences the same risks, trials and tribulations as the male enroute to spawn.)
A modification of traditional sex roles can work, but this, given today’s advanced society, is only if the arrangement is agreed upon by an individual couple’s preferences rather than by an applied standard forced on everyone. A complementary arrangement is key, but an equal one arranged at a couple’s discretion is what’s important in which case their main focus is on making the union work. They both value love and kindness as a basic premise to our human existence.
Imbalance results when women have been liberated and men have not. Men are like little boys who are scared as wild animals being persecuted or hunted for material values that we have attached to their existence in order to qualify them as worthy to exist (‘real men’). Otherwise, they, without any of this assigned value, are deemed “useless” as a menace or threat. This is what the state of men has been reduced to–an existence defined only by use and disposability per a blind servitude to women. Any closely comparable role women have not only been liberated from but have been exonerated from equal accountability to men. Now they equate to children with special privileges, exclusive female power and protection over men, yet without accountability to men which has no business being included in liberation. Accountability is equally shared with men in both men’s and women’s liberation. (Mutual effort and equally approaching men in the dating scene, paying on dates, fair, non sex biased laws, etc., are all included in such practice.) Thus, you assume accountability for yourself as an adult human being, or you must be treated as a child without the adult privileges that come with that status.
As adults do women not drive cars? Of course, and no daily applied adult responsibility rates higher than this which demonstrates how our human advancement goes far beyond biologic evolution applying to both sexes. But due to cultural female bias women are provided the privilege without full accountability. (Part of operating a motor vehicle should include understanding and maintaining it, how to change a flat, etc.) Equality of the sexes is applied as a standard to traffic laws, so why not to everything else? A woman is held accountable if driving under the influence, yet not if she has sex with a man if she is then under the influence? Both sexes are equally involved in each of these activities, yet in the one not only is an accountability exception made for the woman but the man is criminalized for it.
Instinct exists in courtship rituals in nature. It’s not taught, it’s instinctual, whereas culture doesn’t exist in animals, only in humans, and that’s taught. Per cultural/social influence we need to rewrite the script for men and women so it’s fair and balanced.
Alan Millard continues to be a prominent men’s equality advocate since the early ’80s. He began writing his first book, Equality: A Man’s Claim, in the Spring of 1983. He has been thereafter continually affiliated with the major men’s rights organizations and has contributed many articles, radio, and some television broadcasts. His work includes research conducted through his graduate and doctoral coursework and knowledge acquired through his independent studies and colleague associations as a university professor. He heads the group Men’s Equality on Facebook. He is the author of three books addressing men’s equality concerns. His most recent book, A Flaw From Within: How Women’s Higher Status Defies Equal Justice, Violates Men, and Destroys Society, is available through Amazon.