Of Crying Versus Not-Crying, Some Men, and Some Women

My paternal grandfather was a spry, elderly, widow ever since I first knew him.  He was known for enjoying walking long distances.  He didn't drive, so that was part of his reason for walking.  Enjoyment was very much his other reason, though.  In fact, something he enjoyed was to start out early on Sunday mornings and make the twenty-six/thirty mile walk up to visit his my uncle and his family.  In the evening he'd be happy enough to get a ride back home, but he always said how he really enjoyed the long, early-Sunday, walks.

He didn't make those super-long walks every Sunday.  On some Sundays he'd walk to our house instead.  That was a far shorter walked, although even that one involved coming from a different city.  

During the week he'd walk around his own city, as far as I know.  He loved meeting and talking with old friends.

He was seventy-seven when he fell on ice and broke his hip.  Everyone believed that was the end of walking days.  After all, hips don't always return to "completely OKAY" when they've been broken in one's seventies.   Everyone was wrong.  As soon as my grandfather was able to walk with a cane he began venturing out for those walks once again - although, of course, with the cane.  The post-hip-break walks started out local, but it wasn't long before my grandfather was doing his super-long, Sunday, walks to his son's house again.

This was someone who wasn't about to let anyone/anything keep him down, and maybe he shouldn't have been quite such a "fighter" in that way; because it would be one of those walks that would be the cause of his death.  He was eighty-one years old when he was struck and killed by a bus when he was, from what I heard, standing too close to a stopped bus to be seen by the driver as he pulled away.

This was, of course, devastating not just to my father and his brother, but to all of my grandfather's children.  I was ten at that time.

At the funeral, I looked around at all the people there, and looked down the rows of people sitting in the old, Catholic, church that my grandfather had attended all his life as far as I know.  Everyone around me was crying.  My father was sitting next to me, so it took looking up at his face to be able to see how he seemed to be doing.  To a ten-year-old, of course, losing a parent is the biggest horror one can imagine. 

After noticing that my uncle was outwardly sobbing, I looked up at my father and saw that he wasn't crying.  At ten, I immediately assumed that "more crying means loving someone more", so a part of me felt as if I was discovering that, maybe, my father didn't quite love his father as much as his brother did.  It was a momentary "discovery", and I was awfully upset, myself; so I suppose I kind of tucked in the back of my mind this awareness that there might be something that made my father love his own father less.  Maybe I thought I'd ponder the matter at some future time.  Maybe I didn't want to think about it at all. 

Either way, I was ten; and it would take me another thirty-plus years before I would come to understand my father better.

I was just a little past forty when my mother died.  Besides older relatives and friends, there were a lot of young people at my mother's wake and funeral.  There were her grandchildren, but there were also a lot of younger people who had seen her as a mother-figure.  As I'd done over thirty years earlier, I looked around to see how people seemed to be holding up.  I don't know why we do that, or even if all of us do that.  I guess it was mostly because I was looking to see if there was anyone who might need my emotional support, particularly since there were so many young people in their early twenties and teens.  So many - most or all, maybe;  don't know - were crying.  I was not.

Although there were a few reasons I wasn't crying, two of them were main reasons.  One was that, just as I'd feared all my life, losing my mother was such an overwhelming horror and grief, I knew that if I allowed one tear to be shed so many more would follow that I wouldn't be able to stop them.  In fact, I knew, too, that the horror and grief was so overwhelming it felt as if they filled the entire universe and were far "too big" and too all-compassing for crying to be enough anyway.

The other reason I wouldn't allow myself to cry, however, was that even though it was my two siblings and I who were the ones who had been closest to our mother, I knew that a lot of those younger people who loved her too would be looking to see how I was doing; but I knew, too, that I needed to be a strong adult for all those younger people who had so often looked to me for emotional support and/or guidance - and if not either of those, then in some cases looked to me as a role model.

In my place as a grown-up, but also having recalled how it felt to be very young and to see most of the adults in one's life falling apart in their grief; I knew that I needed to remain that grown-up, even though it was I who had lost my mother.

I finally understood that not-crying doesn't mean "loving less" or "being less upset".  I finally understood my father's composure at his own father's funeral; and although I'd always respected, admired and absolutely adored my father; I finally learned how a sense of responsibility to, and caring about, those who may need our support can be the thing that gives us the strength not to cry regardless of how absolutely and overwhelmingly grief-stricken we are.'

How Strong and Assertive, But Non-Aggressive/"Loud" Women Were Abandoned by The Women's Movement

There are so many people who just kind of take for granted that The Women's Movement, at its height, made enough strides for women that today's women don't have much to worry - or complain - about.  While there's no doubt that a whole lot of progress has been made with regard to things like laws/policies; it can be out-and-out disturbing to the person who is aware of a more hidden type of inequality to see exactly how little progress has actually been made by/for women.

How Stronger and Assertive, But Not Aggressive/"Loud" Women Were Abandoned by The Women's Movement 

Thoughts in Response to a Forum Thread I Once Ran Into

This is a post I've written in response to a forum discussion about the fact that, even with progress having been made, women today still don't have equal power in this world.

The title of the thread is, "I'd Hate to Be A Woman".
The OP (original poster, for those who don't frequent online forums) pointed out that the intent of the thread (discussion, again for those who don't frequent forums and know "forum terminology") was intended to start a discussion about the fact that many women don't view themselves as more than "second-class citizens".

That thread aside, I've recently become aware of a few authors who suggest that the reason women have taken so long to become "first-class citizens" (at least in more ways than some of them may have, or at least in higher numbers than many have) is the fault of women, themselves.

This post is a matter of responding to that thread, and then some. The first part of what follows is my direct (and inspired by that discussion) response. The latter part of what follows is more the "then some".

Here's the response to the discussion:

The OP's premise here is very much centered on how others (particularly over history and not necessarily in the present) view and treat women. Today, women do still deal with people who view women with ignorance, aggression, and an oppressive attitude (but women aren't the only group who deal with that, and men are in some of those groups as well).

Who we are, and whether we like who we are, isn't about how others view us or treat us. That's about others. Who we are and whether we like who we are is about us - not others. Those of us (women or men) who know that what we are is well worth respect and value, and who know that we are often/can be equal and/or better than a lot of other people (men or women) in a lot of ways, place value on what we are and generally like what we are for those things.

The questions posted:

"Why don't women vote for women?

A:   Many women have been raised to actually believe women aren't capable of high office. Also, there are a lot of men women won't vote for either. A lot of people don't like the choices that are put out there and choose the least of two "evils".

Why are gynecologists in the western world mostly men?
Why is equality taking so long?

A:   I'm guessing there are several reasons related to how the school systems haven't always valued girls, women not wanting jobs that involve being in call, and maybe even women not finding the specialty a particularly "life-saving" one (as compared to other medical specialties). Either way, that's an isolated point/issue that doesn't reflect the larger picture women face.

Why are most religions trying to demean women?

A:   "Ages-old ignorance and believing words that written by men who thought the way men thought thousands of years ago (and THEN - scaring everyone else into thinking if they don't believe those words they're going to hell).
"
Why do women in the first world not stand up for women in the third world?

A:   Give examples of how you would propose more women do that, and consider the reasons many men don't seem to be able to do much for women (or men or children) in third-world countries either.

Why are there no purely female issues or parties in politics"

A:   In a fairly enlightened country, most people view all areas of politics as "human areas" (either "family-related" issues, "community-related issues", "business-related issues", or "tax-spending/collecting issues"). Abortion already is a huge issue and has been for decades. So what are those "specific-to-women" issues - whether public buildings have enough feminine product machines in the restrooms? whether there are lactating rooms required in all businesses? fighting breast and ovarian cancer? (Most people also view prostate cancer and testicular cancer as serious issues and common aims. So are the ever-universal heart disease and diabetes.) Most people are aware of these problems. There's only so much any government can do about them (and if it doesn't do what it can it's often because of lack of resources).

and here's the "Then Some":
None of this stuff, by itself, is the measure of how women are viewed in society. Having said that, what IS the measure doesn't show up in the public eye much of the time. It isn't about what laws have been written in an attempt to guarantee equality. What IS the measure of what women live with each day and how others view and treat them has nothing to do with anything political or any of the issues everyone can see discussed over and over again. It has to do with the small, day-to-day, ignorance that women deal with because people keep looking to the wrong problems and in the wrong places for solutions to any of the ignorance and oppression women do still have to fight off and deal with today.

Having said ALL that, though, the trouble is not just because some women do still believe they're second-class citizens. Even for women (like me) who have always had all kinds of people who respect and care about them in their lives, and who tell them they can do anything they want to do; and even for women who know how capable and strong or intelligent they are; it can be a real challenge getting past the ignorance and superior attitudes of even the otherwise and seemingly most respectful people. Hateful and obviously hostile attitudes toward women are often easier to fight than the more hidden, insidious, kind of misogyny that disguises itself in either thinking women need protection from their own thinking; or else is so ingrained in some people's hard-wiring that they can't/won't get past the fact that a woman is a woman.

I could write a book (kind of started one here, it looks like :lol:) about what people still don't get about women. I can tell you, though, some of the things in human nature that have meant women have remained oppressed (to this day, and in perfectly nice suburban homes where it sure looks like everyone around them treats them well and thinks well of them) are the things that have always been, and remain, a reason women (in general) don't seem to have equal power in this world (and in their own, smaller, world). In so many cases, it has truly nothing to do with how women view themselves; and everything to do with how those around them view them.

Yes, the world is full of women who don't believe people of their own sex can possibly be anything but second-class citizens (although many will "grant" that women can be "first-class citizens in their own womanly way, but not in the same way as men "always have/always will" be simply by virtue of their anatomy and/or "nature"). Sometimes you can't blame some of those women because they weren't raised to even think in terms of being equal. Their range of abilities wasn't nurtured. Instead, all anyone nurtured into them was nurturing, itself. Many women were directed either into being stay-at-home moms or else into professions usually associated with care-taking roles. Many girls were raised to hear, "If you're only going to be a stay-at-home mom at some point anyway, there's really not much point in spending a lot of money on getting a college education." A whole lot of women were raised being told, "Dad is the head of this house, and no matter how stupid about one thing or another Dad may be, what he says goes."

When I was in school in the late 1960's, teachers and classmates generally saw the kids who excelled in math and science as "the smart kids". It was a time in society when technology was "the big thing" and when kids headed into fields in technology were seen as those headed into careers that would earn the "Big Bucks". Excelling in verbal skills (generally associated with girls, both then and now) wasn't seen as anything other than "nice". The school world seemed to have life and intelligence all summed up in a nutshell: "The kids (most often boys) who excel in math are generally headed into technology, maybe medicine - where they'll make lots of money." "Everyone else" (the non-math-wiz boys and most of the girls) are the "not-quite-so-academically-outstanding" (sometimes even the "not-particularly-smart") kids and can settle into less lucrative fields (and if they're girls, if they work at all).

The role of words and verbal skills in the founding of the United States was generally respected if anyone took the time to think about history at all, but whether or not anyone truly valued the ability to use words often remained within the context of only those Founding Fathers (who were, of course, "men of words and principle and courage and brilliant thinking", as far as a whole lot of people were concerned). However, how important skills like verbal skills (and the thinking that can be behind them) was, to a lot of people in a lot of average schools (teachers and students alike), was a "that-was-then/this-is-now" kind of thing. Words had had their time, place, and day.

Technology was just beginning the process of claiming its own time, place, and day in this world. So, just at a time in American history when The Women's Movement was gaining momentum, technology swept on in as well. Sure, words (those written by men) had come in handy when the nation was in the process of being established. Here we all were, though: In a well established and mature and thriving nation that no longer really needed words as it once did. After all, with the exception of Abraham Lincoln, political leaders got less powerful people (sometimes even women) to write their words for them. People (at the time still predominantly men)in business (even those capable of thinking up their own words, and even when their words weren't anything more powerful than a simple business letter) got the less powerful (and "clearly less capable") to type those words for them. Ah! - A great use of those otherwise not-very-impressive verbal skills girls often have was to be able to check the spelling of those more "worthy" and "respectful" people whose words they typed.

In spite of all that, I see others' ignorance about women as their weakness and lack of intelligence - not mine. I'm pretty darned happy that I'm a woman (even if this post is a sign that I live with a life-long need to vent anger at what I've lived with, and even if I learned a long time ago that if I want my words taken seriously and respected, I'd better not attach a picture of my un-intimidating and completing-lacking-in-any-traits-associated-with-males face to them).

Live and Learn

Having hit my teen years and early adulthood in a time when the idea that girls/women could want "more than just being a wife and mother" had largely taken hold among a lot of young women of my generation, I'd like to say that in a "Post-June-Cleaver" era I came of age at one of the best times in history (and America's history).  I'm not sure that's true, by any means; because women born around the time that I was did not inherit a society that had particularly (or completely) embraced the concept of "women as equal".

For women my age there was still a lot of over-coming to be done.  On the other hand, women of my age (then and now) hadn't come of age in a time when some things could just be taken for granted by women.

In any case, I hit my late teen years and early adulthood, looked around, and saw that so many of the women who had contributed to big strides being made on behalf of women were "the kind of women" many people often associate/associated with Feminism, which is/was the "typical, stereotypical" feminist who saw wearing make-up and a bra as sign of male oppression, and who had learned that trying to communicate in a softer, "feminine", voice amounted to nobody's paying much attention to what was being said.  Much of what was being said was important and correct.  One problem was, however, that with that "important and correct" stuff that was being said often came messages that weren't quite as correct.

In any case, having grown up in the smaller world of my childhood family (and parents), in which it had seemed pretty much taken for granted that girls could "be anything they wanted to be"; but also having grown up in the larger world in which girls (and particularly girl students) weren't particularly of the sex known for being encouraged to achieve; I had to sort my way through the vast mix of messages being sent to young women (and society in general), and figure out what seemed right to me.

At the time, I considered the very vocal and well known feminists (many of whom seemed to have an aversion to "anything at all feminine", and many of whom seemed to eschewing make-up, wearing things like flannel shirts, and not "getting into" hair-styles that would, to them, indicate yet more that women were the "victims of male oppression" if/when they even tried to look their most attractive.

As much as I very much agreed with a lot of "main thinking" of vocal feminists (at least when it came to women's rights, women's equality, and the fact that women had certainly been opporessed throughout history), something I saw as being misguided was the belief that the woman who simply wanted to look her prettiest when she looked in the mirror did so because she wanted to attract men.  My thinking at the time was that most "normal" people (women or men) generally liked to like what they saw in the mirror, and that it was perfectly normal (and common) for women to want to look their most attractive and yet have that aim without particularly be interested in whether they attracted men (or even just one man) or not.

My thinking back then was that I didn't (or shouldn't) have to reject anything associated with being a woman and/or with femininity out of the belief that "all things feminine" (or at least associated with women) necessarily had to be the evil plot of men who were out to keep women oppressed (consciously, sub-consciously, orchestrated, conspired on, or otherwise).  After several years of paying attention to some of the messages that were being sent (and some of the things that were out-and-out being stated), I arrived at the thinking that I shouldn't have to be "a fake man" (in other words, refuse to be/do anything that men werent/didn't do) in order to be taken seriously.  To me, it wasn't "feminism" to tell women that the only way to be taken seriously was to try to be like men.  My thinking was that I would wear my make-up, try to have a hairstyle that would make me look my most attractive, and keep wearing the feminine-looking skirts that I was happy to be able to wear once I was out of high-school and no longer worried about what was cool or not to cool to wear.

At the time, my thinking was that I was sure of myself as far as my own strength and intelligence went.  I thought of myself as "representing my own sex", and my plan was that "the world will figure out that someone who looks, sounds, and moves the way I do can be someone who should be taken seriously."   In spite of very much sharing so many of the aims and beliefs of The Women's Movement, my aim was to be strong enough to enjoy and respect my own femininity and "show people" that women didn't have to give up looking, acting, or being feminine in order to be people who could/should be taken seriously.  To me, trying to act like men wasn't the way to "honor" femininity.   I knew I risked having a lot of people think I was the "old-fashioned-thinking" kind of woman.  I had to make peace with that.  After all, I had a voice and some perfectly fine verbal skills.  I knew I couldn't change the world all by myself, but I figured that in my own circles I might eventually be able to get a few people to realize that women who looked and acted like I did (and it wasn't that I went around wearing ruffles and pink ribbons, by any means, because I dressed much the same as a lot of other young women did) could certainly be worthy of the kind of respect that a lot of grown men had come by without even trying.

Sitting here today, a few decades later, I like that I was that sure of myself back then; and I really like that I didn't buy the lines about rejecting everything associated with being a woman and, instead, only embracing things traditionally associated with men.  The thing is, though, that sitting here today, I can see now that my belief that I didn't/shouldn't have to give up, or reject, all-things-feminine in order to be taken seriously was a belief that (while, I think, still correct in its own way) was, in a lot of ways, misguided.  Well, it wasn't misguided when it comes to whether or not women should have to be "fake men" in order to be taken seriously.  What was misguided was my belief that by remaining my old, feminine, self would allow me to "show people" that someone like me could be strong, smart, and very self-reliant.

Four decades of an adult life as a woman who thought she could "show people" that solid, "un-emotional", ideas and strong constitution could be expressed in a softer, higher, voice has shown me that even forty years of society's changing attitudes, policies, and laws has not amount the kind of changes that women need in their day-to-day dealings with other people and the world in general.

In other words, forty years ago I believed I could "show people" that someone didn't need to look, sound, or act like a man in order to be worthy of being taken seriously and being equally respected as a capable human being.  I was wrong.  The fact is feminism didn't even seem to recognize that women like me existed, so a lot of women like me were completely abandoned by it.  The "anti-Feminist" type of women certainly haven't been on the side of women like me.  So, I've been much felt like the proverbial "man-without-a-country" (or maybe it would be more accurate to say "woman without the back-up of one or another stereotypical group").

On the one hand, I don't for a moment regret that I've approached my adult life in the way that I have.  On the other hand (and as someone who hates to admit it but must - even needs to - if she's honest), I'm sitting here and looking at decades of one form of subtle (and often no-so-subtle) oppression in my life or another, and feeling both saddened and amazed that in all this time so little remains understood, discussed, and addressed when it comes to women and the ways (intentional and unintentional) they so often remain so far from free of oppression and/or prejudice.

A Woman's Right to Equality

Note:  This is something I wrote awhile ago, but I thought it may be appropriate for a site aimed at women.

Every time a discussion turns to equality between the genders, people who are unable or unwilling to consider the idea that men and women should be seen as "equal" will inevitably bring up three tired, old, arguments:
1. "Men and women are different, so they cannot be equal - so let's not pretend otherwise."
2. "Men generally have more physical strength than women, so men and women cannot possibly be equal."
3. "Since Nature has designed women to have the babies, women's skills are best suited to raisiing children and caring for families; and women should be 'honored' for, and happy with, their 'special' role in society."
The reason these same, tired, arguments come up as surely as the sun rises each morning is that they contain some truth. In fact, the partially accurate aspect of these arguments is pretty much the only thing to which those opposed to equality for women can desperately (or arrogantly) cling. Yes, we are different. Yes, men are generally bigger and stronger. Yes, woman have the babies. The "grasping-at-straws" aspects of those arguments are, however, that those isolated differences are not good enough reason to view half of the human population as "less than equal".

The first argument is smoke-screen argument. Most people who see that women and men should be seen as "equal" don't claim that they are "the same". We all know that the two genders are different. (To borrow a slang expression from a generation younger than my own, "Duh!") If they weren't different there wouldn't be two different terms for describing members of each gender. We all know that when we hear, "woman", it means a "female human being"; and when we hear, "man" (unless it is being used to describe all mankind), it means a "male human being". Now, if we say, "giraffe," or "koala," we pretty much know that we are no longer talking about human beings.

So, having established that men and women are the two different "varieties" of human beings, we need to ask why, on Earth, approximately one half of all people in the world should not be considered, "equal".
Sure, the two sexes are different. Then again, so are eye colors, hair colors, skin colors, and languages. Oh - are eye colors and hair colors superficial things that can't be compared to the physiological differences between men and women? These things were not considered "superficial" back when Hitler was in power, and back before people learned how ignorant and evil such thinking was. Back in Hitler's day (which, of course, came after the time when women in the US finally won the right to vote), it was actually believed that some coloring and features were the indication of a "superior race". Modern cultures of today find such thinking either insane, grossly ignorant, or both.

Some people would consider skin color as superficial. Others call attention to the fact that different races or nationalities actually do share some characteristics deeper than skin color. One race or nationality may be at risk of one medical condition or another while the other races are not. Sometimes these risks are related to lifestyle, but some are genetic.

Does being at higher risk of Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell, or Cystic Fibrosis mean one group is less deserving of respect or of being valued as human beings? How about actually having a disease (any disease)? Does that make someone less of human being? Does belonging to a group that may be at higher risk for a particular medical condition mean everyone in that group HAS the medical condition? Does it make them less intelligent, less emotionally strong, or of inferior character?

If we go back to realizing that, when all is said and done, skin color really is a pretty superficial thing, we should think, too, about how it was only in January, 2009, that people around the world were moved to tears when an African-American man was, after all these years, the first to become U.S. President. One might ask why it took so long, after African-Americans fought for equality in the 1960's. I am old enough to remember that there were, as recently as the 1960's, an awful lot of Americans who just were not going to see African-Americans as "equal". I am also old enough to see that most people (still not all) know better these days. Hillary Clinton's historic run showed the women have come a long way when it comes to being seen as "equal" ; but let's face it, the former First Lady's respectable showing was seen by many as a matter of her being boosted up in order to break that glass ceiling. Perhaps more worth mentioning is that fact in 2008 there was still a glass ceiling to be broken. A whole lot of little girls born even today will still be running into glass ceilings and closed doors from the day they're born, because who and what we are begins with our parents and teachers. Until all parents and teachers accept the idea that girls and women are "equal", those glass ceilings will loom, and those closed doors will continue to lock out.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about any differences in personalities or thinking that may exist between men and women. Not all women think alike. Not all men think alike. People have unique sets of talents, personality traits, and thinking styles in varying degrees and combinations. When it comes to some studies that claim one gender has one trait/ability more than the other, keep in mind that many studies are done on existing people - not on the brains of newborns or fetuses. While it is not for me to attempt to claim that there is not one, single, difference in the thinking or personalities of men and women, I do know that my own three children provided me with enough anecdotal evidence to question the validity of many studies.
Before I began building my family, I believed that the way to nurture children was to nurture "humans first", while trying to help each child like his own gender. My belief was that if we raise "humans first" and let Nature take care of the rest when the time comes (adolescence), we would raised well adjusted children.
When my first son, who was adopted from infancy, came along I followed the plan I had so carefully considered before having children. I gave birth to my other son and a daughter later. Without wanting to see as if I was approaching child-rearing as a "science experiment", I couldn't help but realize that I had my own little Nature/Nurture experiment, as well as a sampling of a gender study. I went about what I believed in my heart was the best nurturing I could offer; and I began to notice that all three of my children had very similar dispositions, preferences, strengths, and levels of maturity at any given age.

As each child reached adolescence Nature took its course, and each child "branched off" in the direction of his own gender. My sons are masculine. My daughter is feminine. They all share traits that are generally believed to be associated with one or the other gender. They also have their own, individual, personality traits that aren't particularly associated with their gender.

The point is that while my own little "science experiment" does not a study make, I have seen for myself how wrong "the world" so often is when it comes to gender differences. Further, my children are not the only people I (or you) know who have traits that may be believed by some to "belong" to the opposite gender.
It is not for me to say that there are absolutely no personality/abilities differences between the genders; but I am very confident that any such differences have been, and continue to be, grossly exaggerated in terms of degree and/or importance.

What about that pointing out of the fact that men usually have more physical strength " and larger builds "and so men and women cannot be equal"? You won't be surprised that I will first bring up that some women are physically stronger than some men. "That's not most," you think. I don't argue that it is - only point out that criteria for equality cannot logically be physical strength or body size. Some women are bigger than some men. What about people with dwarfism? Are they "less equal"? Are men with dwarfism equal to men of average height? Is the five foot/four-inch woman with an IQ of, say, 160 "less equal" to the six-foot man with an IQ of 110? Which one of those individuals would you prefer become President? Should IQ be the measure of who is "more equal" than someone else? If it is, then all women with IQ's that fall on the shallower end of the bell curve would have to be "more equal" than any men or women with IQ's falling within the "fatter" part of that bell.

The "we're different" argument doesn't make a shred of sense. Yes, we're different. We - all of us - are different. Like my little family of three children, we all are individuals but we are also the same in so many ways. A five-foot/one-inch woman is not likely to make much of a basketball player, but a hulking man isn't likely to make much of a ballerina either.

Should the petite, 100-lb, woman be allowed to play basketball if, by some chance, she could actually play better than "conventional" players? If, theoretically, that same woman were able to out-perform candidates for job as firefighter, should she be given the job? This is where those who just don't want to see women as equal will say, "IF such a woman existed then maybe she should be given equal opportunity, but she would be an exception."

Well, regardless of our gender, many of us are "exceptions" in one way or another. We all have different talents and abilities. If we happen to have exceptional talent or ability in something that is generally associated with the opposite gender, is there some reason such extraordinary ability should be disregarded? More importantly, doesn't the fact that exceptions exist simply prove that there are far fewer "rules" about which gender does what best (in areas separate from that ever-present reproductive one) than many people believe?
And, speaking of reproduction: There is that argument that women have the babies "so Nature designed women to have talents that best suited for child-rearing and taking care of families". Let's look at Nature: In the animal kingdom (although, of course, there are exceptions), the most common behavior is that the males father the children, may hang around for a certain amount of time, and then move on to the next family. Some animals, of course, do live in packs. Not all. Whether it is a mother cat with her kittens or a mother duck with her ducklings, in a good number of species it is the mother who raises and teaches her offspring, as well as just giving birth to them. My neighbors and I enjoyed a Summer of watching a wild-turkey mother and her babies take their morning and evening walks up the street. We watched from the time the babies were very small until they were just about the same size as their proud mother, who continued to "call" any of her "children" when they strayed.

The point is that while there are exceptions in the animals kingdom (as with human beings), it is often the mother to whom Nature has given the responsibility of not just having, but raising, offspring (both male and female offspring). Since so many female animals not only have and then feed their babies, but also raised them to adulthood (all the while, teaching them the ways of the world and survival), can we not assume that mothers (of any number of species) must be pretty knowledgeable about, and skilled with, life? Some people will readily agree that females have skill in teaching, as well as feeding, but if the care and raising of offspring has been entrusted by Nature to mothers as often as it is, how "less than equal" can be the skills that are required for "building" the next generation of a species?

When human babies are born they are born with only the potential to develop brain connections that will later determine not only the ways in which their brains are "wired", but some of their abilities and personality traits. In the first three years of life how a child is nurtured can affect how his immune system and stress response system will function for the rest of his life. Women aren't just feeding and loving their babies. They are "building" the brains of their children - boys and girls. Unless circumstances change the usual way things are done, today's men were yesterdays' little boys who had their brain development "built" by a woman. If Nature entrusted women with this role one would assume that the role goes well beyond "building another woman" and onto "building a human being". When boys grow up to be emotionally strong, intelligent, and of good character it isn't an accident. They learn those things not from a mother who "only knows about women's stuff", but who is skilled at "being a person". In other words, if anyone is "less than equal" it is not women.
Then, too, there are women who completely lack maternal instinct or ability to know how to do a good job of nurturing. There are those exceptions again.

Does not being a "natural mother" mean a woman can't run a company or run a marathon? Most people agree it does not. Aren't there men who are more loving, more skilled, and generally more capable of being a parent than women? If nurturing "belongs" to women, are such men "less than equal"? Who would be "more equal" - the non-maternal woman who builds up a multi-billion-dollar empire, or the "maternal" father who is a far better nurturer but who works as, say, an insurance salesman or auto mechanic?

Women have the babies, and that is both wonderful for them but inconvenient in a lot of ways. Pregnancy, after all, lasts for nine months (most of the time), and that can create "issues" in some employment situations. Although it takes four or five years for a child to begin school and require less time from his mother, children take up a lot of time, energy, and high-quality care in the first four or five years life. Children always need their mothers, of course, but as they grow they need their mother's undivided attention in smaller and smaller increments. All this makes having the babies inconvenient and challenging, in terms of careers or even just day-to-day living; but does the fact that women have the babies mean that they cannot, in all other ways, be equal to men? Does having a baby or two (or four or six) remove women from the human race? (because if it does not then what it is that would make them "less than equal"?)
Are we different? Sure we are - but not so different that my son doesn't seem to be a clone of me when it comes to many of his abilities and traits; or not so different that my daughter doesn't at times seem to be a clone of her father when it comes to similar things. We aren't so different that if I take, and get an "A", in the same accounting program a man does, that I will not be every bit as good an accountant. Female animals are often feared because of their instinct to kill to protect their offspring. When a female animal kills is her victim "less dead" because the otherwise non-aggressive female mustered up the courage and strength to attack when necessary? Is she, as a killer, "less equal" than her male counterpart because her motives are "nicer"?
When people talk about "equality for women" they aren't talking about "not noticing" that a five-foot/two-inch woman most likely does not belong on a football team. They aren't even talking about who likes Playboy Magazine and who doesn't. Women and men are different, but all people are different. Who is more different - a German woman raised by wealthy parents who are physicians and an American man raised in similar circumstances, or the same German woman compared with a woman raised by a parents in a primitive tribe of people, far from civilization?

Most of us don't live in a primitive tribe, and most of us have evolved well beyond the biological hard-wiring of animals who live in less complex societies. Women are actually said to generally say far more words each day than men do (although, again, there must be exceptions). If women were given the "gift of gab" (that is actually also a leaning toward being able to share knowledge and promote understanding between people); wouldn't it seem to follow that in a society where words are so often more powerful than fists, Nature just may have planned that women should eventually lead the world?

A lot of men have not intellectually/emotionally evolved to the point where they have overcome their aversion to the idea of ever having women in powerful roles in society. Many women who have been taught otherwise, or who lack the self-confidence, strength, education, and/or intelligence to expect to be seen as "equals" are also made to feel uncomfortable by women who expect (and deserve) to be seen as "equals". There are, without a doubt, a lot of people in this world who are emotionally invested in making sure that women are never seen as "equal". It is said that even on the biological hard-wiring level, male sexuality is aimed at dominance; and female sexuality is expressed in competition with other females.

Yes, we men and women are different (that's for sure). The trouble is that we human beings have evolved to where we have complex, educated, societies; and brains that, even if rooted in a long-ago, simpler, biology, are developed enough to be called, "human".

When I think of my beautiful, intelligent, strong, capable, sensible, and talented daughter; the thought that anyone on this Earth would consider her "less than equal" is enough to turn me into every bit the warrior that any mother in the animal kingdom becomes when her offspring is threatened.

Today so many of us see the horrible, horrible, crimes and sins of the racial injustice, inequality, and cruelty that stains the fabric of U.S. history. The sickening thing is that so few of us still don't see another version of crimes and sins that have been (and in spite of progress in the workforce, often continue to be) perpetrated against the human beings who happen to be of slighter stature and happen to be the ones to have the babies. Even more sickening is the fact that so many, who do see the ways in which women are not seen as equal, still don't believe there's anything wrong with that.