But, men are just as needed in helping to ''create'' life, as women. Yes, a woman's body is responsible for pregnancy, but I don't see her value as above a man, based on this biological trait. I see their value as equal, albeit their biological functions are different.
Technically, I agree with you.
There is no values, simply a biological transformation. Love is not necessary in that type of scenario. But that is not human reality.
Man naturally heads over his wife and family, and his wife naturally understands that as she now has a child to develop. It is better if the man provides for his family, so that his wife can be a full time mother, for the sake of the child, and the structure in which the child is to develop.
That’s what is meant by “submit”.
Not that the woman must obey every demand. That is totalitarianism, and the family structure becomes less than ideal.
Emotional ups and downs can be derived from hormonal differences, but men can be every bit as emotional as women, in different ways perhaps.
So you would be okay with an emotional man, rather than a man who evaluated a situation before acting irrationally?
Emotional ups and downs, is not what I was referring to. I meant just straight up emotion.
Reacting irrationally to situations, becoming angry over situations that could be resolved without resorting to anger.
If you're at a funeral, aching over the loss of a loved one, would you exhibit emotion? Would you cry? Or would you feel ''less than'' a man for doing so?
Shedding tears for the loss of a loved one, is called grieving, it is a distinctive, and natural emotion. It doesn’t mean the man is an emotional man. After the shedding of tears, a logical man becomes restored, and does not carry that emotion into his everyday life.
I think sexism is due to the man losing touch with his nature, and submitting to his own thoughts, and those that lend to his own understanding, which if governed by his emotions.
There should be no reason for a man to feel threatened by his wife, even when if she is more successful in life, unless he is consumed in his thoughts governed by emotions, or the women figuratively beats him over the head with her success, making him feel useless. That, by the way, would help in creating more emotions.
Emotions in men is destructive.
Having said that, I don't (personally) believe that one's contributions to society determine his/her worth. That too is a societal construct. Example being, Jeff Bezos is a billionaire and Founder of Amazon - does he have more worth than say a man who is a ''starving artist''? Value isn't something we gain through the roles we perform, it's who we are. If that weren't the case, where would the striving end? (Not that we shouldn't strive in life to pursue dreams, etc but hopefully, you know what I mean.)
One’s contribution to society is an extension of who they are. Every living being makes a contribution to society, we have no choice but to.
Jeff Bezos’s contribution to society is greater than a starving artist, Bezos, can influence more people in one go, thereby changing the course of society. But it could just as easily be a woman who becomes a great influencer of society, we can take Beyoncé as an example.
So that is not the value. The value is, IMO, the intention behind such great people. Ghandi and India, are both great in the sense that they have left a sizeable mark on the world, but they have vastly different intentions.
