From considerations of their distinct and unique body anatomy, basic intuition, style and taste, emotional display and caprices, the proclivity towards conflict of interest cannot be ignored as it simultaneously poses a question of the need to entertain a union of both entities as well as an acceptance of the possibility of incongruity of such a union.
Still, it may be that the law of science on the attraction of unlike poles has its finest example buttressed in the union of man and woman. This is not to say that like poles in this case do not attract. Actually this reality is an exception that is as glaring as the sun burning on a medieval slave’s back. But In this particular topic of discussion I beg your indulgence for ignoring all exceptions for I consider them to be boundless extremities that only serve to complicate already difficult matters.
The issue here is since we find that the union of man and woman is an undeniable force of nature that must be entertained, wherein lies the solutions to the imminent ills that must plague this union? Also of pertinent interest is the issue of the side that most profoundly instigates these ills.
All facts considered, the woman holds the key to the stability hoped for in a union. The manifestation of such ills that trouble a union of both entities is solely dependent on her willingness to use her “resource key” to the benefit of the union…If you agree with that right there then I just had you! On the real, all facts considered, the stability hoped for is but a Piper’s dream and in considering the possibility of congruence in this union as in any other, role playing of both parties involved is as important as the union itself. Hence, the stability of the union is an equal priority issue requiring equal resource pooling by both parties.
Here is one paradigm to consider;
It’s an indubitable fact that it is a man’s world. Beyond the ubiquitous standards of common existence that embraces this verity, the Christian religion (and indeed a number of others) assert that everything was made to be subject to man, even more so his woman. Hence, man holds an ultimate veto (so to speak), leaving women at the mercies of his kind graces. To this end, that a union of both genders be sustained and blossoms depends on the willingness of the woman to accept this divine logic. It then becomes a woman’s place by default to support and indulge a man’s basic character. This paradigm of male superiority presupposes that he would hardly accept her excesses which may tend towards exercising the same prerogatives his veto allows for. Where he indulges her excesses, it breeds laxity, disregard and nonchalance towards his role in the union. This undermines his essence and limits the intent of the woman’s virtues where she has any.
Consider a second paradigm that may spring from a female perspective;
Yes, it may be on point to assume that a woman ought to be “subject” to a man in the union. Howbeit, this depends on the margins of definition annotated to the verb-subject. If we can agree that the congruence and continuity of a union of both genders can be sustained only by role playing and resource pooling having equal priority to both parties involved, the integrity of each persona must be maintained. To ensure this, one way may be (for the male) to accept that women, also being human, also possess idiosyncratic tendencies which must also be entertained as much as their counterpart’s, even where they may be considered excesses. Another way would be for the man, aware of his partner’s subservience, to exercise a fair level of restraint in pursuing his whims, especially where it can hurt the stability of the union. He must out of respect for her and the union itself limit his words, thoughts and actions to all that promotes an interdependent and synergistic co-existence. To this end, the dignity of the woman will be maintained as will the integrity of the man (even at the expense of his ego). After all, the modern world has also seen women excel in all endeavors where men have thrived, even in the face of malicious bias, grudgingly muted by the success of their prolific antecedents.
At the end of the day, by positioning at the midpoint of both ends of the stick of these distinct perspectives, as I see it, the only fair and objective option to consider is that of CHOICE. What recourse taken towards maintaining the stability of a union should be to allow both parties, regardless of superiority preference to decide what paradigm to submit to. But then we realize that the decision of what paradigm to submit to is actually a question of whether the woman is willing to accept the excesses of a man’s basic character and still maintain her dignity by ignoring her own tendencies. That being said, the success or failure of a union becomes more of a woman’s decision, though unconsciously. Need I mention here that where “true love” is present (assuming it does exist), both paradigms are unified by virtue of true love’s selflessness. Still, it boils down to choice. But the choice of who plays a more active role in defining the appropriate paradigm to assume naturally falls on the woman, giving her an undue advantage which automatically evens out the advantage of the man bordering on superiority.
