Although no doubt gender is partly a social constuct, men and women are constituted differently.  Within those differences "falls the shadow". To the shadow in that dialogue "equality" can bring no light.  In natural science we speak of symbiosis, in law we speak of consideration, in geometry we speak of complementary angles, in mysticiism we speak of yin, yang, and wholeness: holiness.  Where is there equation in any of these?  Where is there equation in the ambiguity, paradox and mystery that underlies all reality?  Only in the virulent culture of victimization sparked and fuelled by feminism do we try to impose the square peg of equality into the round hole of biological distinction and in the name of justice.

What both men and women fear, and fear equally, is our inherent unworthiness of love or meaning in a transcendent sphere.  If there is not a transcendent being who makes gain of the pain of otherwise fear inspiring natural processes (my God! I have no control over losing this part of my body!) then the only meaning remaining is fear itself.  Men and women, although both symbiotic and complementary, are different.  Fear is the equator for both genders -- fear the adversary, fear the devil, the evil one, the enemy -- fear the vessel of separation from wholeness or holiness.  As love is the vessel of all that is hallowed.

Men and women are different beings.  Too much of the "dialogue" so far in this new venture -- this paradigm shift -- appears to be abut power as conceptutalized by feminists -- that is to say, that if intrinsic gender difficulties are truly acknowledged at all, they only reflect female as host and male as parasite.

In natural science and what is described in nature as symbiosis you see a template for gender relationship.  Those discrete and separate beings involved in symbiotic relationship derive mutual advantage from their relationship with one another -- strength complementing weakness complementing strength complementing weakness.  Human beings breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.  Trees "breathe" carbon dioxide and "exhale" oxygen.  Such a relationship can appear parasitic in that one party to the relationship gains at the expense of the other (the trees are taking our carbon dioxide -- our power -- the arboreal chauvinist pigs!)

If you see only the loci of a relationshp that are the gains of one party at the expense of the other, it will appear parasitic.  That is how feminists have looked at gender and that is how they have sold it.  The template of equality tries to change change to make them equal with humans or human beings breathe carbon to make them equal to trees.  For just so long as the intrinsic differences between men and women are not acknoledged as premises, so is dialogue doomed to parallel monologue.

A hypochondriac goes into a physician's office complainging of a rare liver disease.

The doctor examines the patient and finding nothing wrong says:

"You are perfectly healthy.  Did you know that the disease of which you complain has no symptoms?"

"Yes doc" says the patient "but can't you see?  That's exactly what I have. 

I have long hated the context of conversations I have had or seminars or workshops which I have attended in which the noun "dialogue" is converted to the verb "to dialogue".  And I don't like the use of acronyms -- period.  Such use is bureaucratic in the ultimate degree (SUBUD) particularly betrayed as such by the lack of creative imagination (LOCI).  I react similarly to popular songs the lyrics of which resort to spelling.  A camel is a horse desgined in a committee (CAHDIC).

I once wrote an EVERYMAN column in response to some reader's criticism I had received in which I expressed the views that the thematic nature of that magazine and it's mythopoeic masculine perspectivbe was the only venue in which my column could have a niche.  If this column is published in GRIP it will be my last (IWBML) as I see no niche here for me

Cam McCannell is a political correctness challenged trial lawyer living in Regina, SK.