Why Are Men Natural Leaders? Are They More Intelligent Than Women?

Are men really more intelligent than women? Why have men been made natural leaders? Why do we always rely on them to make vital decisions?

Well let’s start by analyzing the differences between the two sexes. Women and men aren’t the opposite of one another but on the contrary they complement each other: this means that one isn’t superior to the other when abilities are involved. If men are physically stronger, women are emotionally stronger; sometimes the strong will of women have made them able to go through tougher physical pains and struggles such as delivery and menstrual pain. What man could ever bear the pain of giving birth to a baby? Sounds strange but someone could say that all in all men aren’t as strong as they claim but that women, maternal instinct combined with the love for their loved ones, are better survival in tough times. But even at this point men are still made leaders in every department worldwide. The society has been patriarchal as long as we can remember and the justification has always been the hierarchy inspired by God to men in the Bible. However there are some societies where religions like Islam, Judaism and Christianity are unknown but yet the man is still the head of the home. Why?

The answer is more simple than it seems. Naturally men are instinctive: this means they are physical just like most of their needs. Like wild animals (no offense meant) their main preoccupations are to protect their lives and those of their loved ones and provide them with everything they need to be safe. That’s what we call “Survival Instinct”. Since their role is to protect lives, they have developed the ability to think faster (not necessarily deeper) than women, as it can take less than a second for a life to be broken. They might be insensitive to internal suffering but they sure perceive any type of threat to their safety. This said, we can understand why men are natural leaders but we still haven’t answered another important question: are they really more intelligent?

Being instinctive means thinking primarily of our needs, thus putting ourselves before any other thing. If we think just a moment of those people we repute to be intelligent we’d see they are those who somehow always do all they can to get what they want. Not just anything but the one which requires less time. Normally we say these individuals are smart because they know the easiest and fastest way to success, well men are just like that. Used to think fast when problems arise they give the impression of being smarter but they are simply instinctive because if we should consider every aspect of the decisions they make we’d see that only the antecedent has been considered and not the consequence. Whatever will be, will be. Women on the other hand, being more emotional, are likely to put themselves in other people’s shoes so they always reflect on what can happen if they should act this way rather than that way. This makes them quite slow in decisions making, but that doesn’t make them less capable: in fact they are accurate observers and analyzers.

Knowing this defect of ours of taking too much time to make a decision, we often let the men make those that are required immediately: finance; while we keep the others which concern a farther future to ourselves: getting married, creating a family; long term decisions to be precise.

After this brief but attentive breakdown of the differences between men and women, we can conclude by saying that both sexes are intelligent: men are fast thinkers, while women are attentive observers. However if the latter never think of possible reactions to their actions, the former also take too much time to act. All in all, they are on the same level. One can’t be without the other. The man would go on creating one disaster after the other, while the woman would get old thinking of what move she should make.

Ending: oh, yes! We sure complement each other!

RESPONSIBILITY

Last year I read a very interesting text exactly on this topic. Even though now I can’t recollect the name of the author (probably Popper), the concept expressed has been so far sealed in my memory. According to this philosopher, the responsibility of a man towards another was necessary only in a scenario whereby the latter wasn’t capable of responding of himself. He made examples which specifically underlined this idea: parents-children, man-environment. Until the age of 18, a parent is obligated to provide for his child: why isn’t there any obligation after the child has grown beyond this age? Why does the law bind us to respect and treat the environment properly? It seems then that this philosopher is right. Therefore, if it’s so, why should I take on the responsibility of someone else who can do it on his own? Why should I suffer from others’ irresponsibility? Wouldn’t it be better if everyone responded for himself? Of course, it would be, but as we all know, there is always a black sheep in every family. What if I didn’t give a damn about him and allowed him to do whatever he liked? Nobody would accuse me of abandoning someone who chose to live irresponsibly to himself. We are all humans, all equal, we all have our duties and have to hustle. There isn’t any room for the lazy ones who are always waiting on others to take their blames. I have never and I will never support those who discharge their faults on other people expecting these, on the law “Everyone responds of everyone” to resolve the situation. Exactly because I don’t accept this situation, I can’t also totally agree with the school policy and with the "law of parties" in Texas. Both penalizes me for someone else’s offence. 1st scenario: - I pay for my studies - I do my homework all by myself By what right can the school constrain me to pay for the stupidity of a mate who has never been serious with his studies? 2nd scenario: - a robbery - a stupid mate shoots and kills a man - I wasn’t aware of the situation as I was waiting inside the car Why should the law punish for an unfortunate coincidence (being at the wrong place at the wrong time)? Why have I analyzed these two situations? I just want to underline how institutions are promoting a very bad interpretation of the word RESPONSIBILITY. You can do, undo, or don’t do, who cares. There are always some Peters, James, and Johns who’ll be punished with you. This is what I called ETHICAL LAZINESS. Example 1: - I drink and drive. - I have an accident and kill somebody. Instead of admitting my mistakes, I accuse my friend who made me to drive drunk. Example 2: - I live my entire life on lies - My castle built of sand is finally breaking down I can always look for a kindhearted person to sustain it for me while I clean off the sweat from his forehead from time to time. NO! These situations are unacceptable. If you, my friend, acknowledge your errors, you are ready to amend, I’ll lend you a hand. But if you, not only you err, you also refuse to amend, I’ll turn my back on you.If you want others to answer for you, you have to answer for yourself, because as I said earlier, we are humans and we are equal, so how can you take the liberty to live above others? I am sorry, but I don’t agree and won’t let you do your selfish wish. When you make mistakes, admit and adjust. It won’t make you a loser, but will rather prove you are an adult but most of all responsible.

Love Me, Need Me, Possess Me!

My Ideal man has to be handsome, caring, loving and he has to love me very much, so much that he can’t stand being away from me, kissing me and holding me: so much that he can hardly bear seeing someone else talking to me. Hey, wait girl! You have got some issues. OK! Let’s start from the beginning. Your ideal man has to be handsome, well I agree. Who wants ugly children? True they say “monkey nor fine but e mama like am” but let’s face the truth, who can cope with an ugly child? So I won’t discuss this issue. Your ideal man has to be caring. This is necessary. I also want to be cared for, but of course not like a baby. Be very careful his caring doesn’t become paternal or else, uhm…uhm.. I can already see pots and plates flying over the house. Please can you avoid breaking that glass? Thank you. Your ideal man has to love you. This is obvious. So much that he can’t stand your farness, your kisses and your touch. Well I also want my darling to miss me when we are apart. If he didn’t, it would mean he doesn’t need me and if he didn’t need me, then he wouldn’t love me. Ah! Heartless love. How would I live if the man I long so much for didn’t need any part of me? I’d probably console myself with someone else. But if he loved me, so much that…did you say he can’t bear seeing another man around you?...well then there’d be a problem. Girl I have got absolutely nothing against your man being madly in love with you, but I do have issues with him being obsessed with you. Have you perhaps charmed him? Just kidding. Don’t you think if your love got mad over your male friendship, there would be a problem? I know that you love this feeling of meaning something to him, but wait, do you know what that someone thing is? I’ll make an example. I have got three barbies at home and girl I can assure you I have never liked anyone messing with my dolls because they are mine alone. And the same applied to their clothes. My dad bought me those dolls and I bought those clothes with my bloody money. Now I’ll ask: were you given as a present to him or did he buy you? Because that’s the only way his obsession can be justified. Jealous men are sometimes silly. They act like children who need attention. Obsessed men are always very mad, they act like beasts whose meal has been stolen. I don’t want to be the meal for any beast, so I’ll stay away from them. But I want my man to cherish me, to love me, to possess me like I possess him. Ah, girl, to hell with you. Are you nuts? Didn’t you read what I have just written? I have been trying to make you understand that possessive men are to be avoided and here you are saying that you want one because you are also an obsessed beast? That’s how I want my ideal man to be. Fuck you both!

Femininity And Masculinity Are Craps!

Femininity and Masculinity are pure crap How did I get to this conclusion? I’ll tell you. Ask any man or woman you know what it means to be feminine and masculine and then take a look at the world and check how many people, both men and women, actually correspond their description. I’ll tell you: very few. This is because when we define we list all the merits and never a defect. How many women in this world are actually always polite, respectful, submissive, dedicated to their home, children and family, well mannered, sweet, romantic, emotional, faithful etc…? How many men are always fearless, brave, bold, hardworking, provider of their homes, a symbol of protection, strong, resolute, never victims of emotions, rational, etc…? People still fail to realize that saying a woman should be feminine and a man should be masculine is like asking someone to give up her/himself to fit a stereotype of the perfect woman and man. What if a woman is not gentle nor polite? Does that mean she is not a woman? Instead if she is strong and resolute does that mean she is a man? What if a man is not brave and bold, does that mean he is no longer a man? Instead if he is emotional and respectful does that mean he is now a woman? Let’s be rational for once, men and women. Look around you. Haven’t you seen some women are eager to violence just like some men? Can’t you see some men actually prefer to use manners and not authority to solve issues? Not all girls like to play with barbies and baby dolls. Some like to play with Spiderman, or build a city with Lego or have a collection of game cards like Yugi Oh!, Pokémon, Digimon. They watch cartoons like Bay Blade, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Dragon Ball, Naruto and hate cartoons like Sailormoon, Tokyo Mew Mew, Winx, Witch Club. Simply because these last ones are more focused on emotions than on the use or logic. The main characters are girls who are constantly depending on men to get out of danger. In every episode of Sailor Moon, her boyfriend always comes to rescue her. This also happens in Winx and Tokyo Mew Mew. Now that things are changing why are we still trying to enslave girls with the idea that they can’t survive without the protection of a man? Then check the cartoons made for the boys. Women are always their weak point. How many times did Spiderman have to save Mary Jane? Or Superman had to save Louis, or Batman had to save the woman next door? Why are trying to enslave the boys with the idea that their duty is to protect women even at the expense of their life? What if a girl doesn’t like to be protected, isn’t she a woman anymore? What if a boy isn’t strong enough to protect a woman or he is too selfish to do that isn’t he a man anymore? Even before we were born we are given roles to play as if this life was a movie and we the actors. We are in a Plautus’s comedy where only fixed masks exist. There are no variations. It’s always the same old story, with the same characters and inevitably with the same end. Right from children there is the trend of trying to model a girl or a boy to fit into the category of feminine and masculine. Just by watching TV you can see the distinction of toy adverts made for the girls and those made for the boys. They use the guys to advertise the heroes and the girls for the little cutie dollies. How sad! I used to watch Sailormoon, Tokyo Mew Mew and other craps like that but today I am ashamed of myself for wasting my time with such shits. I fell victim of my emotions, allowed myself to be played by my enemies a lot of times. However I have grown stronger and unlike the female characters of those cartoons, I am not going to fall back so easily. This is not only my story. This is the story of boys and girls around the world who feel useless and unfit to live because they are not feminine and masculine. Even if I am not polite or submissive or emotional, I am still a woman and no one can change that. And even if you are not strong and resolute, you are still a man and nothing changes that. We have to be who we are and not interpret roles of what we are supposed to be. We are the architects of our life and selves. No one should do that for us.

Suicide

The first right recognized by the State to man is the right to live. Being a right, it could be thought that a man can choose to make use of it or not, but the matter is more complicated than it seems. Cicero wrote: “Men should remember that he wasn’t born for himself, but for his country and his family”; and this strengthens my idea that an individual’s life is not solely theirs, but as a citizen they have duties towards their country. Cato was placed in purgatory by Dante, because according to him and to many of his contemporaries, his act of putting an end to his life was to be considered heroic as he didn’t want to subject himself to Caesar’s tyranny. Freedom of conscience is also a right conceded by the State to every citizen, but is it really worth giving up the most important thing we have to protect our ideologies? Ideologies that come and go, that change continuously, are put in front of the only thing that it’s once lost, can’t be regained again. It’s clear that the price paid by Cato to keep his conscience intact is more valuable than what was really necessary. When you die, you are deprived of that thing that puts a man on higher level as regards to other humans: thoughts. Aristle imagined a God who has the only occupation of thinking for it was the only thing that allowed him to maintain his perfection. He also wrote that thinking was the supreme activity that made man what he is- We are “rational animals” and to be that we have to have our reason and to have a reason and to use it, we must live. “Life is our reason”: if we deprive ourselves of it, we degrade ourselves to beats. Around an individual there is a family, a community and a State that resent the loss: not economical nor political, but social. We are the society, so, if an that element constitutes it misses, the State also misses it. In this world dominated by social individualism, someone could say: “The life is his; let him do whatever he wants with it”. But can this someone, who states this, dare hurt himself? I am not able to give an answer. However I can make a consideration that occurs most times: this same person shall be the first to feel disgusted at the death of a suicidal. There is an ethical hypocrisy that hides under this absurd individualism. In this society dominated by the selfish “I”, important values are lost everyday, but if there is one that should never change, because what is sustains is always and only that and it doesn’t depend on other factors, is that of life. It’s necessary to have it to live like humans, it’s necessary we conserve it to transmit it to the future generation, it’s necessary we are conscious of it as a respect to the laws that guarantee it for us. When someone feels like he has arrived to the end, beyond which they can’t go and then they think there is no way out, they should stop and think. You are never useless in this world; the fact that you exist is already a great contribution, but it’s not enough. To be what we are, living beings, we have to live.

Conscience

Surely Thomas Moore was a great example of a man who believed till the end in “what he considered right”. Pay attention to the words between hyphens. I could have written “what was right”, ma I didn’t because I believe firmly in subjectivity. Even the laws aren’t objective, they are the voice of the majority. As hard as we try to eliminate this way of viewing ethics, I don’t believe we’ll achieve great results. Let’s remember than during middle age the just was the good and the good was the beautiful, so the three coincide. I don’t think that, if is this objectivity was alright, Machiavelli would have elaborated a new perspective. He wouldn’t have made a distinction between what was just and what was good and I agree with him on this. There shall never be ethical rules that’ll be accepted by everyone, just for the fact that men are different. It would be like saying that all humans think alike and act alike pushed by the same cause towards the same aim. There can be many ways to act well but we should never think that it must be ethically correct. Moore just like Dante associated the good to the just and here lies his mistake. It’s not that I don’t share his choice of not supporting the king (The schism between England and the Catholic Church), I admire him a lot for this. “So do you also believe he acted right?” – Yes, I do because that was what he conscience suggested to him. “So, do I have to blindly obey my conscience to be always right?” – No, you don’t. Simply because I believe that in dealing with the theme of conscience we should also take another one into consideration: the theme of responsibility. A conscious man is also responsible, in my opinion. There is no objective ethics so, consciences won’t be the same for everyone. Don’t forget that the environment in which we grow up, the family, school, friends, can contribute to form the ethical values of a person. I am not saying that humans are totally exposed to the influence of external factors with no way of protecting themselves because I am of the opinion that we have the innate capacity to distinguish between good and evil which don’t necessarily correspond respectively to right and wrong. For this reason when a person decides to listen to that little voice inside their head, they should be ready to face the consequences of what the decisions might comport. When you don’t calculate the pros and againsts of every choice you make, you damage yourself and those around you. Of what use is a conscience that doesn’t favor you? Think about that! “Isn’t this selfishness?” – You are right to say this is pure selfishness, because it is. In my view a man who knows what’s good for him, knows what’s good for his neighbor. “So, is there an objective good?” – There is nothing objective in this world. You can’t satisfy everyone at the same time: someone shall always lose. To conclude I’ll say: “Choose your song but be ready to dance to the rhythm”.

There Is No Ethical Relativism, But Anarchy And Fanaticism

I have heard so much about ethical relativism but somehow I still haven’t understood the meaning, contrary to what I previously thought. Therefore I am taking a step back to the Greeks when this way of defining ethics was proposed for the first time. The sophists were those philosophers who denied the existence of a supreme good to accommodate a new one: common (or relative) good. Other thinkers like Socrates and Plato never accepted this new philosophy and defined it as negative and dangerous: men were to find a point of contact that was satisfactory for everyone, no matter what the origins and the ideologies were. Now we would say that the Socrates were way too idealistic, while the sophists were more realistic because from our personal experience we have learnt that there is nothing that can be good for everyone. Using Saint Augustine’s idea, I’d say that it does good on a side, and less good on the other, if we consider the different grades of good. Today, even though we have adopted these ethical rules we have turned them upside down. I remember these philosophers saying that our personal good was to be sacrificed for the good of the entire community. I think that today it’s absolutely the contrary. There would be nothing wrong at all: after all men make the society, so happy men, happy society. However it isn’t like that. Had men have others in mind when they make their decisions, then there could be a correlation between the happiness of the individual and the happiness of the society. Instead there is a pure selfishness that leaves no space to anyone else if not to “Me, Myself & I”, so we can’t really talk about relativism. We are using the wrong word to classify a negative way of living and at the end we have stained a high ideology of life. This way of ours should be rather called fanaticism and anarchy: we are obsessed by happiness and we use any means to have it. There is no longer respect for legality and morality. While there is a price to pay whenever a law is broken, we are given almost complete freedom to make our moral choices. Maybe at this point religion could be the only way to refrain this impulse of man to make choices that are compromising to someone else, but I don’t think that’s necessary. I am not religious, but I still maintain the basic human principles. If I were to give a reason for this phenomenon, I’d say that whatever is happening today is the result of our inability to think. It seems to me that most people think more with their bodies than with their minds and they force their conscience to submit to their carnal needs. If we thought more, valued the advantages and disadvantages of every action of ours, there would be less inequality and more happiness. However, having this insatiable desire to have more than necessary and sufficient happiness to conduct a satisfying life, we deprive others of the minimum necessity to live happily. A good commander in a battle field before proclaiming a strategy against the enemies, make sure he has studied the ratio enemies killed and soldiers dead. He knows there is no joy in a victory whereby the battle has been won but thousands of families are morning, so as a leader he takes the responsibility of the lives of his men in his hands. If we, as well, were more responsible of others, there wouldn’t be such anarchy. A law is not necessary; common sense is more than enough, but we don’t think hence we’ll never understand. As much as I believe that, when a choice made by an individual strikes against him alone, there is no reason to worry, there are, however, choices of which consequences apparently are limited to the subject but when observed from a different perspective, they aren’t. Suicidal people aren’t the only to have lost something, but the family just like the entire Country has lost a member and a citizen. Maybe one in millions can be omitted, but in a family nuclear it’s devastating: even more when these people have their families as well. We don’t have any ethics today and that can be deduced from the meaning of the word itself: “Rules and norms that help a man to live peacefully in a community”. We are not living fine nor peacefully. We fight each other, we hurt each other, we don’t simply give a damn about others. How can we talk about Ethical relativism? The sophists lived relatively. All we have today is 100% pure ANARCHY.