The author puts forth his gripe in the penultimate sentence. He wrote: "The more we focus on false notions of power equality the less happy and satisfied we will be."

He doesn't want to take orders from a woman even though she may be more capable than he is. Why shouldn't there be power equality between men and women even though there are many differences. I am a man and want to have my say. It is reasonable to assume that a woman wants to have her say also.

"human persons"

Yes Bernard, we wouldn't want to rock the gender inequality boat any further, or more men will fall out :)

The lack of women in the front bench of our parliament is considered a disgrace by many men, as well as many women who don't consider themselves feminists.

I understand why some men feel uncomfortable with the notion of equality with women, but we have a long way to go before women feel completely comfortable with their place in society.

But don't worry, soon this thread will be overrun by the 'good 'ol boys' , who will all be nodding their heads vigorously about your article as they beat their chests :)

“However just because men and women are different does not mean that one is better than the other”

Yes it does. When two things are not the same, they are better or worse than one another in respect of their differences.

A rock is not the same as a banana. One is better for road-base, the other for banana-bread. It’s nonsense to claim they can be “different but equal” or “equal in value”.

To take another obvious example, it would be nonsense to say that, just because women give birth to babies and men don’t, “does not mean that women are better at giving birth to babies than men”. That’s exactly what it does mean.

Another example is sexual preference. People all over the world prefer sexual partners of one particular sex rather than the other. If the sexual equality doctrine were true, we could not say for a heterosexual, that a partner of the opposite sex is better; (or for a homosexual, a partner of the same sex). It’s nonsense. That's exactly what treating people with dignity does mean.

“in fact the very existence of humanity depends on these differences.”

Yes indeed. The doctrine of equality is an anti-human doctrine because it could only be realized a) by aggressive force and b) by the complete destruction of human society.

“we are always equal in dignity as human persons”

No we’re not, or if we are, it’s meaningless.

Suppose for example you want to build a stone wall. You can’t build it yourself, you’re looking for a contractor. The worth of a strong skilled young man stone mason, and an unskilled little old lady, are not “equal”. Neither is the reward or dignity they derive from the transaction.

The problem is thinking in abstract aggregate concepts, thoughtlessly borrowed from mathematics and applied to society, which have no meaning in reality.

If we say that people are equal in the abstract, we are talking about people abstracted from any concrete relations with each other. These are disembodied wraiths, not human beings.

I agree with the article and more especially with your comments Jardine. Society tells us that to discriminate is bad but the contrary is necessary. We discriminate all the time, be it in issues of safety, who we want our friends to be or whether we want terrorist organisations free run to kill and take hostages in our public places.

Discrimination is good for society. What is not good is forcing everyone to have the same self destructive views.

You are surely kidding, Suseonline?

>>But don't worry, soon this thread will be overrun by the 'good 'ol boys' , who will all be nodding their heads vigorously about your article as they beat their chests<<

This article is an embarrassment to men, everywhere. It operates at the intellectual level of a seven year-old, who latches onto a particular word, and uses it liberally but without understanding its meaning. In this case, however, I suspect the ignorance - of the word "equal" - is deliberate.

"...men and women are not equal"

Being "equal", Mr Toutounji, has absolutely no connection with the concept of "equality", in the context in which you choose to use it. Equality of opportunity, for example, applies just as much to gender as it does to race, financial circumstances or geography. It is this kind of equality that people start to notice with the absence of suitably talented women for Cabinet positions. (Although where Barnaby Joyce and Peter Dutton fit into the "suitably talented" argument is an entirely different matter again).

Your article merely reflects your highly circumscribed Catholic upbringing.

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" Ephesians 5:22-24

It has no more intellectual foundation than that. Which, as commentary on a major contemporary issue, is somewhat sad.