bluesmama wrote:
> J wrote:
> > No, not as a whole. Complimentary to each other, yes.
>
> I'm just paraphrasing to make sure I understand, not trying to put
> words into your mouth. More like thinking out loud with your help.
>
> They are not superior, as a group, in all aspects, but they are in
some
> aspects. That would mean they are inferior, as a group, in some
> aspects. Excepting people of either sex whose abilities were not the
> characteristic ones for their sex.

Of course expectional individuals will violate the rule.

> So when in an earlier post, you said "nor are they equal in any one
> thing (for the most part)." you meant you believe there are no
aspects
> in which men and women are equal....or that those cases did exist,
but
> were rare - I'm not certain which you mean.

The case is rare or the differences are minute to the point of being
almost nonexistent.

> And that those differences are complementary, in which sense of the
> word - complementary as in providing a complement (something that
> completes the whole), or as in words or propositions so related that
> each is the negation of the other ("`male' and `female' are
> complementary terms")?

I believe the difference are complimentary. More men are type A
personality, complimented by the majority of women being more passive
and emotion oriented.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/5/05 5:01:14 AM ---