Don't be such a tease, Peter. Tell me what it is that women do *that's not socially constructed, that is by nature sexual, and that men don't do?* that *causes* gender inequality, and while you're at it, tell me how and why it justifies that gender inequality?

You don't mean bleed, do you? Like the Alice Cooper song...Only women...

I asked you first.

Are you honestly arguing that there is no significance in the difference between male and female?

Jennifer,

Thanks for your beautifully graphic definition but my question was in all innocence.

Once I followed a course in Biology and from it I gathered that sex is the resultant of the interaction of genetic, hormonal and environmental inputs so that the resultant male or female are not beings at the opposite ends of a stick but anywhere between those ends.

Apparently it is a bit like the various degrees of virginity as claimed by the sellers of olive oil.

Peter you ask me: *Are you honestly arguing that there is no significance in the difference between male and female?*

I don't know how you came to that conclusion - I'm arguing that the gender roles imposed on women and men solely because of our biological difference inevitably lead to inequality.

I don't know what the inherent significance is in the difference between male and female - the significance is created by the gender roles a culture imposes. In itself, the fact that we are biologically different isn't significant, but what is made of it by a culture is.

Our culture uses biological difference to justify an inequality between women and men that is neither "natural" nor "normal", but constructed.

Why is the fact that a woman can give birth and a man can't grounds for social inequality in either instance?

Briar rose, if you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking very closely.

There is something about giving birth that changes most women very greatly. I believe it is probably a hormonal thing. Most of them go from being an individual to being a "mother". Protection of their offspring comes first, middle & last, & that includes a total change to their attitude to any thing that may endanger themselves, & thus leave the offspring exposed.

I have seen exactly the same thing occur in urban elites, suburban & country folk, bush kanaka villages, & even islander communities. I found it strange in islanders, where in general the whole village raise kids, once they are off the breast, & some as young as 3 or 4 will not come to the parents home for days.

Even there, after child birth most women stop doing even mildly dangerous things, like climb coconut palms, or go on fishing trips.

Closer to home I have seen so many lady equestrians, top eventers, at the high end of the sport, continue through marriage, but never get on a horse again after child birth.

It is not that long ago that a woman who returned to even totally safe but competitive sport, after child birth, was given the title "super mum". Think about it.

Hasbeen.

Interestingly, I get your point.

When i was twelve, i climbed almost to the top of a Norfolk Island Pine just get the view of the beach in front of me and look out to Rottnest Island. I was prone to taking risks just for the experience of living.

Moving on - I noticed that when I became a mother, there was no chance that I would indulge in that way...and the thought of my children emulating my adventures fills me with horror.