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.

Well there's your problem right there, Bernard...

"For two things to be equal they must be the same ..."

That isn't true physically, practically, philosophically, ethically or religiously.

For example (and I acknowledge it is three not two but that only reinforces the point), try explaining the Trinity using that criteria. Which of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is not equal to or the same as the others?

If you had said ""For two things to be identical they must be the same..." the article might have been more interesting.

I did enjoy, "It begins at a subliminal level where the message is diffused that one's gender is a social construction, meaning that a woman is a woman because she was dressed in a skirt and given dolls as a child, and a man is a man because he was dressed in trousers and given toy trucks." because it starts to explain the apparent confusion of so many clergy who wear frocks.

I decided this sentence could be improved...

"The more we focus on false notions of power equality the less happy and satisfied we will be."

to:

The more we focus on those with false notions of power the less happy and satisfied we will be.

if quotas worked then we would of not just had 5 years of incompetence and disfunction in this country. What a breath of fresh air we now have. Generally woman are not designed to lead. There are however exceptions like in the case of Thatcher who made many of the men look emasculated. No matter how hard the Emily's listers rail against God's order of things people know instinctively what the natural order of things should be. Dominating women in a society are a disgrace.

People will never cease to amaze me. The author has clearly invented a time machine and lauched himself forward in time from the 1950's to the present day.

Note to Author, Not all men think alike, not all women think alike and to even get into the whole men and women don't think alike is childish. If we are truley drawing apon the best people for the job then the split between the sexes would be on average 50/50 when it's not we should have a look when it's not even close we should ask questions.

Not sure whats hard to understand?

" Dominating women in a society are a disgrace."

Grammar, runner...

"Dominating women in a society IS a disgrace."

Men and women aren't the same!
Really?
Have you just noticed or has somebody taken the time to point it out?
Fortunately this is true, and it has been fun finding out just how different we are.
Women are generally better looking, with all the bumps in the right places.
They have a higher pain threshold, are more intuitive and generally mature earlier.
Boards with no women generally make more commercial mistakes than ones that include more than the occasional token female!
Men and women are wired differently, and react differently to the same stimuli.
Women can and do multitask and take in the minutia, whereas men see the big picture and delegate the detail to those more competent.
Men are usually stronger and faster physically, but not necessarily mentally.
Men are usually less patient and less forgiving.
Men are less curious or concerned about their neighbor, or what the neighbor has.
Men get past emotional upsets by shutting it out burying it, women are drama queens and seem to want to tell the whole world just how upset they are, and in so doing, often upset the more private male?
Demand that you give so and so a piece of your mind, or discipline that child, you know the one she comforts afterward!
But after all said and done the differences are essential and complimentary!
However, ask any woman who she'd rather work under, and it's usually not another woman?
Women outnumber men as voters and shareholders, and usually mold young formative males at their knee.
So if there are not enough women in our parliaments or in our boards, who is ultimately responsible?
Rhrosty.

I checked out the authors website which did not contain one iota of Wisdom. On the contrary it purveyed the standard party-line as promoted by the usual patriarchal right-wing "catholics", especially that of the deeply misogynist opus dei.

The misogynist patriarchal culture that the author promotes has been involved in a war against the Feminine Principle and thus against the bodies of living-breathing-feeling human beings, especially those of women for over 3,000 years.

Everything about woman, in other words, everything about the domain of feeling and the senses, and pleasurable association WITH the feeling and sensual domain, or sense domain, is corrupt at the present moment, and opposed. Not just the Divine Spirituality , but WOMAN is opposed - that which woman IS, that which She incarnates, that which her pattern is about. The "She" altogether requires mankind to be integrated with it, as the feeling-core of life. The restoration of The Pleasure Dome as the context of human life. The complete restoration of it. The liberation of the human disposition from the opposition to woman, to Shakti, the Goddess, to feeling, to the art of all the senses, glorifying and turned towards the Divine Condition of existence. Done in temple, done in bed, done at meals, done in community. The Pleasure Dome must be restored!

Obviously members of opus dei who practice bodily-mortification are FAR removed from The Pleasure Dome Principle.

If you are full of Shakti and all the yin that is Woman, combined with it, then the male or yang force is made whole, is gentled, is integrated with what it refuses via its hard-edged mentalizing, and physical hardness, and its brute intentions relative to what appears to be the controlling force, the force of nature, the force of the cosmos, the force of whats simply happening.

You are all male-like, utterly defended against it. You tend to THINK your way, and bully your way, into some control over all of it - that you will never have, by the way, because it will destroy you long before you ever come to that point of absolute control

A good article.
It appears clear that Mr Toutounji is familiar with the current discourses in the academe that have seeped down into almost every nook and cranny of society: Equality and power relations. These two topics dominate academia, particularly the social sciences and Humanities departments. They are taken a priori as the holy grail of societal achievement.

What is equality anyway? Equal is regards to what? What is the measure of judgement that makes us equal? This is rarely answered. Academics and "progressives" resort to metaphysical presuppositions that have no basis in empirical analysis. Empirical data reveals that people are not equal, not between the genders, not even between individuals. Everyone has their own unique talents, gifts, attributes, attitudes, impetus, and temperament.

And what of power relations? The reduction of phenomena to "power relations" tells us nothing of the phenomena itself. Power is everywhere; it pervades every aspect of our existence. This is no secret. But what has occurred in the academia and amongst "progressives" is that all relations are analysed through the lens of a power imbalance. The "argument" goes like this: You have more power than me, therefore you are bad; if we make the power balance equal a happy and harmonious existence follows.

This is flawed reasoning because there are reasons why a power imbalance is in place to begins with. And it goes back to the point about people having different talents, skill, attributes etc. It would be ludicrous to have a hospital run by people who have no skills in nursing, medicine, or administration. It is the same with every aspect of society, from employment to sports. People are in the position they are in because they possess the skills for that position.

Of course the sexes are different, almost every child can tell this by about age 3.

Men think, women feel. Obviously this is not 100% true, only 99.9%, or there would never have been a Margaret Thatcher. We also have also hit the jackpot. When Abbott was selecting his cabinet he went for one of the 0.01% in Julie Bishop, a very smart thinking lady. Compare her to Gillard, who used to get her knickers in a knot over the most ridicules things.

Women are more nefarious too. This was highlighted by a recent report from a genetics laboratory. They reported that in just under 10% of their tests they found men were supporting children who unknown to them, were not a product of their genetic material.

10% folks, & I have not heard of a single case of a woman supporting a child unaware it was not genetically hers.

I rest my case.

Every aspect of human culture and all moment to moment face-to-face human relations are patterned and circumscribed by power relations most of which are completely unconscious - sometimes justified as the "natural order" of things.
What do you think politics is all about - the stuggle to both resist power, and to gain power - nothing more. Seems like an essential research topic to me.

We are all quite literally involved in a deadly war/drama of all-against-all-and-everything.
This essay describes the situation
http://www.dabase.org/p5egoicsociety.htm
Unfortunately, and inevitably this deadly drama is no longer tenable, indeed it has brought the entire world to the brink of an horrific catastrophe - which is why the Not Two Is Peace book was published.

It is time to grow up.

Meanwhile, as with everything else the above "Philosopher" thoroughly investigated the Shakti dimensions of our existence-being. This reference dscribes His adventures, investigations, and the summary findings of His investigations.
http://www.beezone.com/shakti/TheShaktiHerPlaywithAdiDa.html

Daffy, how would this new way of life be implemented? Wouldn't it take coercion of some description, thus setting up a power relation of the "enlightened" over the "non-enlightened"?

As I said, power relations are everywhere, and reducing all phenomena to it is self-defeating.

Hi Bernard

If one reads your biography on your website http://foolishwisdom.com/who-is-bernard-toutounji/ one notices that you are steeped in Catholic (and a bit of Greek Orthodox) theology.

In both Churches women are not so much different but held to be inferior.

For example that are barred from becoming priests let alone Bishops.

Is that because, as the Bible teaches woman are symbols of sin?

Adam and Eve, snakes, apples and Eden onwards?

I don't believe in your Bible :)

Cheers

Pete

I liked the article and feel that some of you posters are being a bit mean.
While many people have bemoaned the lack of woman ministers in the Abbot government, I haven't heard any anyone point out which liberal woman MP's should have been included. Perhaps that’s because there were no appropriate ones.
I suspect that most women who wish to make a career out of politics would more likely be attracted to the left wing parties such as Labour and Greens. The Greens in particular appear to be quite dominated by women and gay men. I would hate to think that Abbot would choose a woman minister over a man simply to increase female numbers.
In any case, the author is correct in pointing out that women and men are different, and are attracted to different things.
No-one complains of the lack of female truck drivers or plumbers, even though women are just as capable as men of doing those jobs. Likewise no-one complains about the lack of female prisoners. Should the police be targeting women criminals to get the numbers up?
Of course it would be nice to see more women in positions of power, but only if they are equally as competent as the men and want to be there. Likewise it would be nice to see more men staying home to raise the kids. Unfortunately, no so many men appear to be attracted to this role, just as not so many women are attracted to being Liberal Party MP's or to being CEO's of major corporations.

In areas such as medicine, more women are graduating than men. This is one of the toughest courses to get into and requires a great deal of hard work over many years to succeed in. Why do we see so many women doing so well in this area but less in right wing political parties or corporate board rooms? Perhaps because more women are attracted to this line of work.
If women can succeed in this most demanding of occupations, they certainly have the capacity to succeed in politics. Perhaps, just like driving trucks or fixing toilets, this is simply not an area that many women want to succeed in.

Of course men and women are not equal!

That’s why …

- men rape women, but women don’t rape men (at least 99% of the time)

- at least 80% of crime worldwide is committed by men

- women represent 40% of the world’s labour force and 50% of the world’s population but hold just 1% of the world’s wealth

- women earn about 60 cents in every dollar that men do – up or down, depending on the country

- at least 90% of the world’s weaponry is accessed, owned and controlled by men

- the people who claim that gender equality doesn’t really matter, because men and women are inherently different and have different gifts to offer the world, are usually men.

A highly qualified female Liberal MP who should have been in Abbott's Ministry is The Hon Dr Sharman Stone MP

Why was Dr Stone left out of the new Ministry?

•Elected to the House of Reps 1996, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013.

Her past Ministerial appointments include:

•Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from 21.10.98 to 26.10.04.

•Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration from 26.10.04 to 27.1.06.

•Minister for Workforce Participation from 27.1.06 to 3.12.07.

see http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=EM6#biography

Pete

Rhysjones "<In areas such as medicine, more women are graduating than men. ..Why do we see so many women doing so well in this area but less in right wing political parties or corporate board rooms? Perhaps because more women are attracted to this line of work."

Women have fought long and hard to break into the formerly male dominated medical profession, and are now leading their field in many areas. But it has not been achieved without years of bullying and harassment of women by men in many cases...I have seen it many times in health facilities over the years.

They have at least been given the chance in medicine, but not so for politics.
How can women get 'experience' in the top political jobs if they are never given the chance?

Abbott placates his critics again by saying there are 'fine women knocking at the doors of politics" , so they must be out there. Big of him.

You can't tell me they couldn't find even ONE more woman to add to the front bench from the whole Colition party?
Yeah right...

Killarney, I love your work :)

Look we've already established that sexual equality is factually, rationally and ethically false.

It's factually false because it's not true that men and women are factually equal, and not even the equalitarians are claiming they are.

It's rationally false because there's no reason why the sexes should, and there's no way they could, be treated as equal as a matter of value, when they're not factually equal. (All it means is that you'll be inappropriately treating unequal persons *as if* they were equal, when they aren't. Of course if they really were equal, no law would be necessary to force people to treat them as if they are: it would never occur to anyone to treat them otherwise.)

It's ethically false because any attempt to enforce these beliefs rests on using aggression - "policy" - to force everyone else into obedience. So it creates two unequal classes thus contradicting itself at the same time as it claims to be a doctrine of liberation and equality!

The equalitarians, in persisting with their yarble-yarp of ignoring these categorical disproofs of their confused belief system, are either stupid or dishonest. There's no other logical possibility.

The shallow-brained hypocrisy of an equalitarian urging someone to be employed merely because she's got a vagina just defies belief.

Gender can be left out of this altogether. No two people are equal in their 'giftedness' or in ability, character etc. We are all influenced and molded by our upbringing and prevailing social norms. That is not to say there are not some inherent differences between men and women. It would be impossible to say how much is 'biology' and how much is learned with any sense of certainty. Clearly both have an influence.

It would be a poorer society that limited options purely on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, religion and which dictated people must fall rigidly into specific roles as defined by others.

It's about respect and dignity and having access to opportunities while at the same time not expecting people's collective decisions have to ultimately prove some sort of measure of 'equal'.

The best environments foster a variety of options and values people at all levels of society without discrimination.

People usually sort themselves out. As a young adult I was influenced by a society where woman were encouraged to be ambitious and break the glass ceiling. I pursued that mindset for a while but never felt quite comfortable. It was not until I had children, staying at home that I was content with simpler things. Raising my kids, tending a garden, growing things, trying a small business, getting involved in some cause or another. Sorry to get all philosophical but ambition is for me a bit of an empty vessel without a sense of purpose and what is if for. Is there a higher purpose. For others ambition and career are important and my choices nor yours should attempt to dicate what is right for others.

It is a lucky person that can find their own way and work out what is right for them. Even sacrifice or compromise can unexpectedly bring its own reward.

pelican,

That is a fair statement.

Just as a side comment and not wishing to qualify anything you said, I would like to see more pioneer history made known. I know from the lives of my mother and the women in the family before her what women are capable of. They are role models.

There is nothing to be gained from the gender war. Well, nothing for the general public that is, but there are those who continue to 'earn' their daily bread (a lot of it too!) from stoking the faux conflict.

OTB
Thanks for your measured response.

I agree that there is much to learn from pioneer women and many of the hardships they had to overcome.

As for the gender wars, it has come time for people to accept that men and women now have equal access to various opportunities. In those areas where there are more men than women (or vice versa) there are often compelling reasons which are overlooked and not included in any deep analysis. Rather there is a tendency to immediately jump to the gender discrimination route. In some cases discrimination might be part of the story but in many cases that one reads about, there is a real failure to raise other factors which may be closer to the truth.

It does women and men a disservice to push the idea of equity as measured only by statistical outcomes without identifying all the 'whys'.

pelican,

True.

In combat I would not like to carry an even heavier pack because affirmative action decreed that special units had to have women as well.

Similarly and without exception I expect the commanding officers of such units to have have gone through the very same selection process, training and field experience as those they command. The reasons are compelling and have nothing to do with 'sexism'.

While all must have equal opportunity, equality of outcomes is rubbish and in some cases downright unfair and discriminatory. Affirmative action, affirmative action targets and especially 'positive' affirmative action are impractical ideological lunacy, serving only to keep some show pony billboard feminists in their cosy sinecures in academia and the public bureaucracies.

But then, I suggest that relatively few men would do their best work in child care centres.

Vive la difference!

Equal opportunity is one of those things that sounds good at first, but when you actually think about it, it turns out to be just as much nonsense, and anti-human, as equal outcomes.

Everyone in the world can’t have an “equal opportunity” to enjoy the view from your bedroom, can they?

A lame person and a gifted athlete can’t have an equal opportunity to win the sprint race, can they?

A mentally retarded person and a talented mathematician can’t have an equal opportunity to be a professor of mathematics, can they?

No. And there’s no reason why they should.

Even if we were to enforce equal opportunity by law, and provide for real equal opportunity by drawing lots for who should get the job, the result will be wrong in ethics, or rational values of fairness, for three reasons.

First it will be an injustice to the most meritorious applicant who misses out on the job in favour of a worse, or even completely incompetent applicant.

Secondly it will be a disservice to the consumers of the service, the satisfaction of whose market demand is hijacked by officious meddlers.

Thirdly, it will involve an infringement of the property right of the employer on the basis of arbitrary moralising which is an abuse of power.

The very fact that equal opportunity, like equal outcomes, cannot ever be realised in practice, and any attempt to do so involves the unequal use of aggressive force, make it morally wrong.

It may be said that an ugly old man can equally perform the duties of a waiter as a pretty young girl: asking what guests want to eat, bringing and removing dishes etc.

But the customer and the entrepreneur are the only ones competent to know the essential criteria of the services to be performed; and in preferring good-looking to plain or ugly, they offend no-one else’s right, because there is no right to violate other people’s freedom of association on the basis of the intellectually and morally bankrupt dogma of equal opportunity. The officious meddler does not and cannot know better.

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.