On Men, Women and Relationships
In this essay, I explore relationship dynamics, the role men and women have for each other, sex, sexual dynamics, social structures, a word on abstinence and celibacy and finally a word on how we ought to treat ourselves, others, and our opposite sex given our role as human beings. This essay is a response to a strange uptick in unhealthy mentalities both sexes have gained toward each other these past two decades, and a moderate comment on what I perceive as social engineering. I believe social media is partially to blame (a petri-dish for spreading information; some better and some worse). More on that in a later essay.
It is strictly necessary for the two biological sexes be in harmony in order to achieve any kind of flourishing.
No less, the two biological sexes require on one another for progeny. It is the case that they rely on each other for the continued existence of the other e.g. perpetuity of humanity. Adjacent, the biological sexes are balanced by an existence of a masculine and feminine mental: both of whom require each other to continue to exist and complement one another. It is the case the masculine thinking oft comes from men; and women inhabit feminine thinking. More on this later, but these can be classified as the dominant types.
There is such thing as men believing they do not need women and women believing they do not need men. This is typical perversion of values. Neither sex is above reproach nor is above the Law (greater definitions later but let’s establish a base lex talionis just as a primitive definition). Violence committed against women should be considered violence committed against daughters; violence committed against men should be violence committed against sons (Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne facias). The mutual hatred and suspicion each sex has toward each other, something called a “gender war”, termed recently in the last decade, is an outward showing of our failure to get along.
The idea that women are less competent in intelligence is damaging to men. It, 1) not only disqualifies half the human race in being taken serious, but 2) creates a system of values where men are valued for what they can provide instead of who they are. 3) it subjects the female sex to menial tasks based off the justification they cannot handle themselves and 4) dissolves meritocracy.
In the same vein, to assume men are unthinking automatons devoid of any kind of aspiration or emotions is similarly damaging to women. The phenomenon that men are only to be used for their resources, that a woman is able to hide behind a man as a crutch for her own laziness (e.g. sin of sloth), to be with a man as a way to not mature mentally: e.g. “peter pan” syndrome (man dealing with an eternal child), or to simply have a man to make up for one’s own perceived deficiencies (e.g. parental issues) is an unacceptable dynamic men face as well. All of the aforementioned are damaging because the woman is not received a real authentic human experience. These things can be seen as lesser, more base, and even perverse.
The unfair treatment of one or both of the sexes is unacceptable: ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The Law is impartial. The purpose of this document isn’t intending to be a feminist piece or a journal of male liberation. We must think critically if we have the right intention to bring good harmony to both the male sex and their female counter-parts; vice versa. The best outcome is where two win, and not one: audi alteram partem.
The male and female sexes currently are presented challenges regarding one another. Are these issues purely educational, e.g. a product of one’s environment, or do they have some sort of biological bedrock? Furthermore, if they were either how would we best navigate knowing that information for the benefit of our both sexes?
(PMCID: PMC7930971; PMCID: PMC11540993). One common argument for the superiority of men to women are physical differences: e.g. strength, size, endurance. Replicated through scientific studies, data seems to suggest that it is unfortunately the case that the sexes are not physically equal. Even without proper training a man is still significantly more resilient to himself than he was prior to puberty. The male class of hormones, androgens, e.g. testosterone, direct a young man’s development during puberty and continue to play a significant impact for the rest of his life. Conversely, estrogens, e.g. estradiol, promote the development of primary and secondary female characteristics. These estrogens do not interact with the body the same way androgens do, and so we obviously see different physical outcomes.
”What do we do with this information”? is a question that I and other men ask ourselves when presented this sort material. The physical differences are marked enough to produce an noticeable difference in outcomes. It would be an ignorant thing to ignore the marked diversity in present within our two sexes, therefore. How, then, do we structure things the best way for men and women?
The Law always intends what is reasonable. We ought to consider this in answering our question in the last paragraph. I can go into detail about what specifically I intend to say by “Law” but let us make it a simple thing and just apply the Golden Rule: do not do unto others what you do not wish done unto yourself. This definition is important from and often similar interpretation to “do unto others what you want done unto yourself” but should be interpreted very differently. The Golden Rule does not enact morals, but merely enforces justice. Justice is a form of retribution, and doing good unto others cannot be seen as a just act but a necessarily good one. E.g., goodness cannot be forced by virtue of it being voluntary, therefore to not do unto others as you would not like to be done allows us to create a more precise definition and avoids any kind of “pay it forward” mentality which individuals are not obliged to reply. To do something under compulsion is coercion, and that is unjust (the Law through its substance cannot contradict itself).