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