The Difference Between Men And Women

Note: this article speaks in generalizations. 

The essence of man can be found in Father Time:

• Just as time ticks away incessantly and is predictable, so men are predictable and flat.
• Time is consistent and stoic as are men, temperamentally.
• Time is a simple concept, easy to be understood and calculated.  Men are simple in thought structure and motive.
• Both men and time are nothing to look at.
• Time is logical, practical, rational, and unadorned.  Men share this degree of austerity.
• Time provides capability of life.

The essence of woman can be found in Mother Nature:

• Nature is not predictable.  Women share this volatility, usually in emotion.
• Nature is inspiring and complicated.  Women are also a source of fascination due to their intricacy.
• Nature is wild and not easily brought under the subjection of man.  Even when man believes he has achieved some measure of control, she will often prove his dependence upon her.
• Nature, above all, is the very epitome of beauty and wonder as are women.
• Nature, like women, is not always logical, but in the end, gives more than it takes.
• Nature provides purpose and enjoyment of life

Men are practical.  Women are romantic.  Practicality is the opposite of romanticism.

1. Men can provide the means to live.  They are hunter-gatherers, protectors, and problem solvers that operate as a simple machine would.  If the input is the same for a man, the output will likely never vary, either.  They have superior physical power over the woman.  Men are ugly, simple-minded, and boring.  This is practical.
2. Women can provide the reason to live.  They are nurturers and lovers with passion, admirability, grace and distinction.  They are more complex than men and not as able to fortify emotions from themselves.  They are the embodiment of magnificence, with a natural beauty that strikes awe into men.  This is the most base and animal force that attracts the latter to the former.  Women have superior emotional power over the man, which is more effective than the man's physical superiority because it is often used to sway his decisions.  Women are exquisite creatures of immaculate form, labyrinthine mind, and intriguing persona.  This is romantic.

Which, then, is superior?

Can time exist without nature, or can nature without time?

Even if one could exist without the other, its existence would be either so terrifying or so listless, that it would not continue on its own for long before chaos and self-destruction ensued.

Imagine a world where everything was perfectly logical.  No complications, no color, no feeling, no joy.  Everything would be in its proper place, and nothing would ever be out of the ordinary.  Some might jokingly prefer this, but only because the true form of such extremism could never be reached on this Earth.  It would drive mankind literally mad, and many would gladly end their own lives to be rid of a condition lacking in meaning.

Conversely, imagine a romanticized world where all was beautiful and involved, lacking all rationality and logic.  It would not take long before chaos permeated every moment and the entire existence turned into a nightmare.

Neither man, nor woman is meant to be without the other.  They are mutual ballasts.

Without practicality, life cannot be lived.  Without romanticism, life is best left unlived.

The Perfect Attitude Of Giving

          In an ecclesiastical setting, there is often a call to live up to a standard.  Standards, however, are not limited to things having to do with a church.

There is a standard of what makes a good man or a good woman.  This standard is hard to achieve without some theistic cognizance.  The providence of this type of revelation is and ought to be part of the main function of a church, because without some degree of moral guidance it is very unlikely that the proper definition of a good, strong man or a good, faithful woman will ever be attained.

When left to his own devices and wisdom, man ultimately comes to the conclusion that it is one's self that needs to be fulfilled and that this is the prerogative and perhaps duty of each individual: to secure his own happiness.  The problem arises in that this is never directly attainable without cost to the happiness of another.

            It is also a testament to the inherent foolishness of a wise man.  "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise," and "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes."

The wisdom of God will say that if we seek after the welfare of others before ourselves, then we will achieve happiness.  Even the foolish wisdom of the world can recognize this under the stipulation of some form of reciprocation, which ultimately brings the motive back to selfishness.

In this world, giving is often done only because there is a line of thought that:

• It doesn't have to continue any longer than one is inclined
• There may be some positive retribution
• Public acknowledgment will bring honor

This is where Godly wisdom dwarfs and confounds earthly wisdom.  Through heaven's eyes, a perfect attitude of giving entails two things:

 1.  It is never enough

• Though we have given much, if we are of the mindset and disposition of a good man or woman, we will never be satiated by the fact that we have given much.  There should always be a feeling that what we have done is inadequate.

 2.  It is a secret

• It is all too natural to desire recognition for the good we have done, but it is also a bit unseemly for a great man.  When a charitable deed is done, and the source is anonymous to everyone, though honor is never ascribed to one man, it is well-understood that the unknown perpetrator is properly deserving to be revered, because he has acted in a fashion contrary to human wisdom, with no selfish motivation, and in comportment with divine prudence.

Even in this selfless mindset, there is some personal gain in the form of something which every society believes in:

        - If you give good, good will be done unto you

As stated, every society has a form of this standard.

• Buddhistic, Hinduistic, and other eastern societies call it karma
• In America, we say, "What goes around comes around."
• The Bible teaches, "Give, and it shall be given." 

Yet even this cannot be an impetus of our good deeds.  We must act from a genuine preference for the fulfilling contentment of others before ourselves.

The best of humanity abide by such a standard, and how often are they found?