The Elusive Goal of Sexual Equality

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

(Investigator 188, 2019 September )


 A push among the American female Presidential candidates for women's rights, especially the equal-pay-for-equal-work mantra, that requires expensive bureaucracies to insure this goal is achieved. If in fact women are widely paid less for the same work, as an employer I would save a great deal of money by hiring only women. To pay a man more money to do the exact same work is poor business practice. Many reasons exist for different pay between the sexes.
   
One foremost reason is men's tendency to gravitate toward higher-paying, but less-desirable jobs like factory work, while women, because of their nurturing nature, gravitate toward more-desirable but lower-paying jobs like social work. Another fundamental factor is repeatedly confirmed by a fertile area of research by psychologists and physiologists comparing men and women. So far, the overwhelming conclusion of thousands of studies is that women and men are intrinsically different. Scripturally, God created Adam and next Eve to serve a specific role:

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man…  That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh (Genesis 2:4-3:24).


An Example that will Not Change
   
From my experience working for the Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan I have often observed the following. If a man neglects to pull the shade while undressing for bed and the young lady next door happens to notice him, he could be arrested for exhibitionism. But if a woman forgets to pull the shade down while undressing for bed, and a young man happens to see her, he could well be arrested for being a "peeping Tom," i.e. voyeurism. I have never heard of a woman arrested for voyeurism or learned of a man being the victim of voyeurism. The implication is, if the woman is undressing, the man is looking at her for erotic reasons. But if the situation is reversed, i.e., a man undresses where a woman may see him, he is undressing for erotic reasons. In both cases, the male's behavior is sexual, the female's is not. Given the rash of men accused of behaving improperly towards women, rare on the other side, and the fact that this is how it has been for the past 2,000 years, I doubt if it will change any time soon. The courts usually rule consistently in this way, and most people believe, and act, on this conclusion.
   
The irony is exhibitionism among women is common—and often in an open, flagrant direct, purposeful way. But very rarely are women arrested for this offence. Door-to-door salesmen, mailmen, and even the newspaper carriers and doctors are common victims of clear, overt exhibitionism on the part of females. For example, one veteran mailman stated "some of these women think that since you work for the Post Office you ain't got eyes. They come to the door huggin' a robe around 'em, but when they have to sign for a package, they let go." 2


The Streaking Fad of Yesteryear
   
Another example is, if the streaking fad involves a young attractive woman running nude through the local high school football game, everyone looks to get a glimpse of her. But if a young man does the same thing, the sick pervert will likely be arrested. In a small town where several rapes were committed, the rapist was described by several victims as a male about "6' 2" tall, 180 pounds, medium built, dark black hair, clear complexion and good looking."  The result is young girls will venture out only with a chaperone. But what happens if several young men reported they were "molested by a young, 5' 4 '', 120-pound woman with blonde hair, clear complexion and a voluptuous figure"? Males go about their business wandering about the town freely, rarely with chaperones.


An Actual Case History
   
A young woman ran into a small-town police station screaming she had been "raped." Immediately, a call mobilized the entire police force in an attempt to apprehend the rapist. The policeman, with a feeling of horror, thinks: "What if this happened to my daughter?" As many of the police have at least one daughter, and most every parent thinks of his daughter in this situation, the motivation to apprehend the perpetrator is very high.
   
Later, a young male runs into a police station saying he has "just been forcibly raped by a young woman." The police ask for a description and are told that she is about 5' 4", 120 pounds, blonde hair, blue eyes, and a clear complexion." The officer on duty yells: "Oh really? Where is she?" The chief may insist on handling the case himself, but most likely, the officers will laugh and consider locking the man up in the friendly neighborhood mental hospital.
   
So much for equality. These things happen, and, in the past at least, tended to be the rule, as anyone with a fairly long tenure at a good-size court like Detroit’s, the author's alma mater, is fully aware. Is this case realistic, or over generalized, or just plain wrong?


Male Machoism or Concerned Assistance?

John, a 29-year-old fireman was in a restaurant with his steady girlfriend of two years named Joan. Joan, 24, was a RN and chief cardiac surgery nurse. Friends often said that they are an extremely attractive couple. Joan was homecoming queen in college and at one time wanted to become a professional model but felt in the long run medicine would be a more stable and rewarding career.
   
After about 20 minutes into a delightful dinner, two young men came in and sat down at the table directly in front of where Joan was sitting. As the evening progresses, they were obviously making a point of staring at her. All of a sudden, one of the young men got up and gave her a card which read, "My place or yours?" Somewhat embarrassed, Joan gave the card to John, who by now was somewhat agitated with the situation that was now interfering with what started out to be an enjoyable evening.
   
A few minutes later, the other man gave Jane another card which read: "You’ve got a nice body." At this point John looked at them, obviously very angry. Then it became obvious they were both drunk and the obnoxious behavior became worse. But before John could turn around, they both lunged at Joan. John, who was in very good physical shape as required for his job as a fireman, quickly and firmly slugged both of them. John was both bigger and older than they, leaving both men ending up on the floor.
   
Immediately Joan ran outside, and John followed. When outside Joan expressed her anger at John, implying he overreacted without giving her a chance to take any action herself. Furthermore, his action overtly implied that he assumed, as a woman, she would be unable to handle the situation herself. She felt this was a put-down because he was implying by his actions that she was weaker, less capable than he. She further stressed that she felt John treated her as chattel and was degraded by his actions. They couple parted and later found out the two men were arrested for being 'drunk and disorderly' and the fireman was given a free meal for his actions. The event also ended John and Jane's relationship.
   
If a man helps a woman carrying packages, opening doors, putting on her coat, etc., he is practicing "chivalry," in essence; some women complain, putting her down by implying that she is not capable of doing these things herself, is "weak," and thus needs help. On the other hand, if a man "needs help" in such areas as cooking, sewing a button on his shirt or similar tasks, he is "exploiting women." A man is condemned if he seeks help from a woman and, likewise, a man is condemned if he attempts to reciprocate—and to help a woman.


Toward Complete Equality
   
The struggle against racial, ethnic, religious and sexual discrimination has been a long, hard fight. One of the many examples of this fight currently occurring is the so-called home-coming queen contest at universities. One case which achieved much notoriety occurred at Bowling Green State University when I was a professor there. The case concerns a student, senior Rock Ross, who filed a complaint with Myron N. Chenault, Director of Equal Opportunities Compliance, to the effect that he had "been sexually discriminated against." Chenault said the king and queen contest may be a violation of title IX of the 1972 educational amendments which forbids gender-based contests.
   
The complainant was allowed to move forward. A member of the screening committee asked him why he did not run for king, a statement that was the basis of his complaint because, Ross claimed, this question was not asked of any other candidate. Ross wanted to run for queen, not king. Requiring him to run for king, and not queen, would be discrimination. According to Joyce Bresler, all candidates were asked the same questions. Nonetheless, Ross "did not rank high enough to be a finalist in either of the categories." The reason Ross was running, though, was, according to his statement, "a contest like this tends to endorse and perpetuate sexual stereotypes." And, indeed, it does. He felt there should either be a homecoming person, or no election. One should be elected purely on the basis of qualifications, and not on the basis of irrelevant factors as sex. As it is presently structured, "home-coming queen" is blatantly a sexist contest, which permits only females to compete. People should be elected or appointed to any and all positions solely on the basis of personal qualifications, not on the basis of sex. We must stop discrimination on the basis of sex, he stressed, by any means necessary.
   
Sexism is, without a doubt, still with us. For example, who does a male generally ask out for a Friday night date? Is it not usually a female? Is not this blatant sexism and discrimination? Should he not select a date for his or her personal qualities, and not irrelevant criteria such as whether a person happens to be female? Even for sexual partners, most of us grossly discriminate, refusing to become sexually intimate with a person just because of that person's sex. Realistically, though, as long as there are physical differences between the sexes, discrimination will exist. To eliminate sexism requires elimination of the basic differences between the sexes. Only through hormonal shots, physical exercises and surgery we can achieve full equality. Full equality will be a reality only when all differences are removed. These equalitarians believe to achieve this dream of full equality, we must blur the differences by whatever means are necessary.
   
Twenty years ago, I wrote that women could be put on strenuous athletic training programs to develop their muscles equal to a man's. Shots of human growth hormone (HGH) could increase a female's height to be equal to a man's. Surgically giving both males, and females, both sets of sexual organs would further facilitate full equality. The designation of male and female, the ideal is, would eventually disappear, and we would all simply be persons. A pervasive difference between males and females is that females have larger breasts than males, a difference that could easily be eradicated by giving female hormonals to reduce their breast size and males hormonals to facilitate development of their breasts. As we eradicate the differences between males and females it naturally follows that full equality will gloriously emerge. Once the causes of sexual discrimination are gone, then we can work on the factors that cause other discrimination types, such as intelligence.
   
I originally wrote this to illustrate where the extreme egalitarian movement was going and am shocked to learn that this nightmare now has been lived out in the trans-sexual movement. In many areas of women's athletics biological men are winning the top prizes, discouraging some of the best female athletes from even attempting to continue in their chosen sport. Women simply cannot compete with biological men. Furthermore, long-term use of powerful hormones in an attempt to change sexes has unknown effects, but from what is known now use will likely have several detrimental health effects.  Furthermore, the trans-sex issue is more psychological and once sex transition surgery is completed it cannot be undone to the chagrin of those who regret it.


Where will it End?
   
Surgery, hormone shots, selective breeding, etc., can be used to eliminate another pervasive form of discrimination—heightism. One could argue that only when all mankind are the same height will heightism no longer be a basis to exclude, judge or condemn. Racism, another form of discrimination, will only be forever eliminated when racial differences are eradicated. Research on skin pigmentation and melatonin is already underway and promises to eradicate difference in the skin that have caused so much hatred throughout history. Facial differences which have caused division must likewise be surgically eradicated. The type of face we as a nation want could be put to a vote, then the wonders of plastic surgery could transform each man, woman and child by facial reconstruction to fit the democratically-decided mold.
   
The extreme egalitarian advocates argue that only when all differences between humans are totally eradicated will full and complete equality ensue. Until then inequality will be a tragic but pervasive evil that will hound us until we can say we are all fully and unequivocally equal in all ways. The false promise is human happiness then will abound. The differences which divide mankind that cause hatred, wars, murders, jealousies and feuds will no longer exist. Man will then be fully equal, and only then, they claim. This lie is for now causing much harm that research is now eloquently scientifically documenting. Some advice from 2 Corinthians 10:12 "we wouldn't dare say that we are as wonderful as these other men who tell you how important they are! But they are only comparing themselves with each other, using themselves as the standard of measurement. How ignorant!"

And the New King James reads; "For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."
   


1 Patrick Lee and Robert Stewart. 1976. Sex Differences. New York, NY:  Urizen Books.
    Daniel Weiss. 1991.  The Great Divide. How Females and Males Really Differ. New York, NY: Poseidon Press.


2 Detroit Free Press, October 24, 1976.

3 Ray Hacke. 2019. "Built-in Advantage." World Magazine, June 29, pp. 79-80.

4 Walt Heyer, 2013. Gender, Lies and Suicide. New York, NY: Make Waves Publishing. See also Waltheyer.com for a wealth of studies and case histories on what he calls the lie of the transgender movement, which he was once an active part of.


http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/

http://ed5015.tripod.com/