Actually, the title of the thread is misleading, but I'm assuming it will draw the same posters who commented on a similar thread previously posted this month. In that thread, which belonged to Minimus, I posed the provocative question, the essence of which was whether women could ever achieve in any major field of the arts and sciences the precedents set by the greatest of men. By the responses, it seemed a lot of women thought I came off as a chauvinist. The truth is I was simply unconvinced either way. I am quite aware of the historical oppression and undervaluation of women but I have not really discovered any female figure in modern times that has equalled, say, those which I proffered as among the most exemplary men of history: Einstein, Shakespeare, or Michelangelo. Of course, neither has any modern male figure equalled them. So I suppose to fairly compare the sexes on this matter the contest would have to be staged on such a playing field as the present day affords. Yet this itself is contentious and any evaluation would be dubious, being without the objective benefit of that historical viewpoint by which we have been able to evaluate the long-standing worth of any timeless genius.
But it occurred to me today that all the possible answers I had envisioned to my question were of a vertical thinking that is essentially unsatisfactory. Either you can say 1) men are greater 2) women are greater or 3) men and women are equal. Empirically speaking, the first has more to support it than the second, yet remains unsettling; and the third remains unconvincing when one considers the intrinsic and dramatic differences between the sexes. The answer is something which I've heard a million trillion times before, though it never stuck. It hit me today and it is so obvious I'm sure every person person wielding common sense without the astigma of an agenda will say to me: Duh! The answer is that men and women are far from equal, rather they are so intrinsically different as to be considered different species. One provides what the other does not and vice-versa. The problems with each are related to the situations, roles, and circumstances. Men exhibit effortlessness in some roles where women must exert themselves. Women are preternaturally disposed to other roles where men are generally oafish. Exceptions arise, of course. And then the private issue is that of preference, i.e. "what do you prefer at times?" What I am NOT saying, in regards to the above example is that men are better suited to intellectual pursuits than women. I am asserting that the achievements of each are to be valued primarily within their gender categories and not against the opposite. When one does attempt to estimate the worth of one gender in comparison to the other in any category, then one will find oneself comparing apples and oranges. So which do you prefer, orange juice or apple juice? There are values distinct to both. Men and women are not equal, then, they are complementary. Equality is a loaded term, connoting all the wrong things.