LIVING WITH WOMEN
 
CONFRONTING ILLUSIONS

ENOUGHS

COMMON MALE ILLUSIONS
BETTER DIVORCED
THAN LIVED WITH:

That an honest woman
can ever get enough shoes
or a house clean enough
or a man civilized enough
or be pretty enough
or secure enough
or loved enough
or for that matter 
have enough in her vocabulary

********

Facing facts inevitably involves confronting illusions which hide them. 

SUMMARY ADVICE

A. See three popular illusions: 
	1. Superior males/ inferior females 
	2. Gender equality 
	3. Woman as goddess

B. See three difficult realities:
	1. Female superiority/male servant-hood
	2. Female/male advantages
	3. Female humanity

C. Get realistic perspectives:
	1. Dis-illusion yourself
	2. Accept hard realities
	3. Practice applying new perspectives

EXPLANATIONS

1) Superior males/inferior females

	The most familiar, if not consequential, of prevailing male illusions is a belief in male superiority and consequently, female inferiority--at least in comparison with males. Popular religions, such as, Christianity and Islam, both idealize and support the practice of this belief. And, although the tide is shifting today as social glass ceilings are gradually being broken by females, many typical John Does today still deeply believe in male superiority (as established in the Bible), even if their marriages (or bachelorhood) and work situations are failing to support this primal premise. 
	My first observation aimed at improved "living well with women" is that this belief, no matter how widespread and religiously supported, is in fact an illusion. I conclude that no man who continues in its belief will be able to maintain for long a positive relationship with a women, even if she too believes in female inferiority. 
	Consequently, my first advice (to myself) is: See through this yet popular view of males as superior and females as the "weaker sex." Not only must wiser males recognize and own their actual male limitations as well as real female strengths, but also come to  see the darker side of femininity, including: buried kill-abilities as well as unconscious wiliness cloaked with innocent "love" but boiling down to managerial ownership of her man, literally. 
	We must also banish chauvinism, a phony stance of self-righteousness, reflected in beliefs that men are better and smarter than females; an abuse of limited male powers (e.g., left brain thinking and bigger muscles) in outwardly dominating (lording it over) females who quietly manage and manipulate our fragile egos. We need to escape the ultimately destructive and futile nature of this ancient male attempt to cope with female powers by overt domination, and to avoid falling for the temptation to evade relational responsibility by being chauvinistic, as typically evidenced in macho male behavior.

2. Gender equality

	Forget equality. Even though the notion of gender equality is an advance over egotistical male chauvinism, it yet holds dangerous illusions likely to undercut truly effective relationships. Facts are: men and women are hardly equal in any arena except inherent rights to be ourselves and equal necessity in conceiving babies. We are unequal in genetic directives, size, muscular strength, longevity, adaptability, relational abilities, mental capacities, social acceptability, personal interests, and much much more. 
	Ideas of equality easily seduce us away from clearly seeing actual differences and wisely coping with them in the best interests of us both as well as society at large. 

3. Woman as goddess

	Although illusions #1 and #2 are usually conscious, #3 is commonly unseen. Because this third illusion is typically unconscious, recognizing its reality and scope is relatively impossible--except to the degree of a man's unrepression. The more repressed one is, the less visible this belief. But, paradoxically, the less aware a male is, the more likely he is to blindly participate in this ancient idolatry. With increasing self-awareness, males typically begin to see our involvement in this commonly repressed illusion--that is, living as though woman truly has goddess-like powers. 

BACKGROUND

	All babies begin life with a mother who, for all practical purposes, exists as a functional goddess with a relatively impotent infant. Insofar as operative powers are concerned, a mother is, from an infant's perspective, essentially omnipotent--that is, she not only creates life but in early days she (or any surrogate mother) holds power of life and death with her baby in that she controls the food supply, protection, and sustaining nurture. 
	Although the theory of womb memory is yet unproven, I suspect these first nine months of internal creation, in which all elements of embryo survival are mediated from a Creatrix later to be called "Mother," are in some way imbedded in the beginnings of bodily, if not mental, awareness. Perhaps we all bear remnants of primal knowledge about early existence when She, like a real Goddess, was, as though by magic, bringing the gift of life itself. 
	But womb memories or not, when mind is first enlarging outside of uterus in the earliest days and weeks of life, long before conscious thinking and hence language is possible, the universal, existential situation could be accurately be described in terms of "infant" and "goddess"--that is, a relatively impotent one in the care of a relatively omnipotent She. 
	I speculate that in some as-yet-unpinpointed-way, long before language makes conscious memory possible, all infants retain an "imprint" of existence in the presence of a functional, if not named as such, Goddess. By the time consciousness has evolved enough to allow learning language and thus attaching symbols to perceptions (2-3 years?), such primal "imprinting" may be lost to emerging "thinking for one's self." Even so, I speculate, somehow we all hold deep images of beginning times when, had language then been possible, we might have called our primary care giver "Goddess" long before we later called her "Mother." 
	Relevant here, however, is perception of power, not simply language to name it. I theorize that every child experiences what must indeed seem like magical powers inherent in our goddess-like mothers long before we have words to symbolize the experience. Then, as consciousness expands along with our own emerging powers, including self-perception, we begin to see "mother" more realistically in the light of what we can do ourselves.
	But, and this is my point here: Even though we "forget" in the sense of not having names, such as, Goddess, for this One who first wields immense, magic-like powers over our very existence, I speculate that dawning perceptions of Her as such somehow remain in dark shadows of emerging consciousness.
	I further speculate that these pre-conscious "memories" or "impressions" of all infants are stronger in males than in females because whereas girls may soon begin to identify their emerging sense-of-self with their mothers' femininity and thus share her feminine powers, boys are socially moved in opposite directions (beginning with blue rather than pink--and all attached associations), that is, to, in effect, dis-identify self (as male) from mother (as female).
	Girls, in effect, soon begin to join ranks with their mother in shared genetic as well as social connections, while at the same time boys are guided away from feminine associations. Also, as soon as genetic masculine traits begin to become more evident (e.g., interest in guns versus dolls, etc.), mothers commonly begin to attempt control over such "anti-social" inclinations, while at the same time favorably supporting girls' "interest in babies," etc. These differences become even more pronounced as boys begin to evidence signs of masculine rather than feminine sexuality. 
	In summary, as girl babies are being guided and supported by their mothers into mysterious realms of femininity, with which they also identify themselves, boy babies are gradually being curtailed in embracing traits associated with genetic masculinity by mothers who yet hold extensive powers over our daily existence. 
	Obviously, fathers are tangentially available in most homes for boy guidance and identification; but in early life, when power images are being formed, "mother" typically remains the most immediately powerful figure ("Go ask your mother"). She can naturally nurture and guide girls-like-her into their larger shared feminine world, but, comparatively speaking, boys have far less support in masculine guidance.
	Consequently, insofar as gender powers are concerned, boys are not only typically less supported in embracing genetic propensities and associated powers by close-at-hand "male models," they are commonly under the influence and stronger direction of mothers with more legitimate concerns about "making them behave" so as to fit into family and social structures than with becoming natural boys. 
	Point here: Whereas girls may move with relative ease from early living with an external 
Goddess into more realistic relationships with her as mother and woman, boys during that same period of early development may easily continue to maintain, even to exaggerate, our sense of magical female powers, as we face her continued control over daily well-being. 
	Pre-conscious times of seemingly magical powers (e.g., to hold in arms and make fear go away, and later to kiss bo-bos and reduce pain, etc.) are phased into extended periods when she continues to exercise near complete control both of emerging masculinity as well as "permission" to "go out and play" or otherwise be a boy's emerging male self. 

	Whether or not my speculative analysis of how goddess-images first become "imprinted" on an infant's mind, later to become more exaggerated in boys than in girls, is correct, there is abundant evidence that males are far more likely to repress magical-images-of-mother and later resurrect and project them onto other females bearing signs of her likeness, than are females to do the same. 

	Before I leave speculating to focus more directly on evident consequences, I theorize that world history, beginning before recorded times, is also a reflection of these same family situations--that is, that in earliest, pre-recorded human history times, when matriarchies apparently  prevailed, only pointed toward in existing mythology, all males, boys and adults, lived openly with, in effect, female goddesses whom they outwardly served and "worshiped." 
	But as times changed and males somehow got the upper hand over "reigning" females, patriarchies came to dominate matriarchies, that is, "kings" came to replace "queens" in existing social structures. Then, I continue to speculate, male religions evolved in which earlier goddesses were replaced by male gods, in keeping with emerging male dominance over females in daily living. 
	Christian roots, for example, begin here with Genesis accounts of God as male and men (Adam) coming before and being the source of women (Eve from Adam's rib), over whom they, being first and "better," appropriately "reigned" in accord with "God's will." 
	
	But again, even if this brief analysis of gender in world history is incorrect, present social conditions, including popular religions, can reasonably be explained accordingly. I postulate, for example, that just as males have historically suppressed goddess images literally (e.g., Apollo over Gaia, etc., in mythology and in Greece) in favor of self-established gods, so boys today in effect repeat world history as we repress early goddess-images (seen in response to magic-like mothers) in favor of attempted male independence in adult life (often with support of popular male religions).

	Now back to the present subject. I have digressed to consider a speculative explanation for typical present day male/female situations with far more tangible evidence, namely, many observable relationships, such as, affairs and monogamous marriages, in which repressed males blindly look to lovers and/or spouses for magical rewards--like individual wholeness and personal happiness. 
	I conclude that these all-too-familiar fantasy-like relationships are rooted in boys' early repressions of goddess-like images of birth mothers (when such views were relatively realistic) but then denied while growing up and leaving home, only later to be blindly resurrected and, in effect, projected onto other females unwittingly chosen to represent her in adult life. 
	Often, as is equally common both in male-dominated religions, such as, Christianity and Islam, and local male/female relationships, "macho" type males cloak these deeper projections (along with hidden expectations) with attempted dominance over lovers and/or wives, as in trying to be "Lord and Master" or "King of the Castle," etc. 

PRESENT SITUATION

	I have noted this phenomenon as the third common male illusion and considered it last because it is also the least readily observable in typical male awareness today. Whereas ideas of male superiority (illusion #1) are relatively abundant, even in popular religions as well as existing social structures, and notions of gender equality (illusion #2) are only slightly less common, that goddess images still existing in the deeper minds of males (illusion #3) is yet commonly repressed. 
	Although less repressed males may see evidences of the phenomenon in their own relationships, even if they reject my graphic terminology ("goddess images"), more typical John Does, yet caught up in living out childhood patterns, are likely to take this notion as pure bunk.
	Even so, in support of my purposes in this essay focusing on "living well with women," I suggest that a measure of curiosity, before immediately dismissing this last observation, may be in order. Stated positively: I conclude that a man's success in truly living well with any woman, let alone many in society, will be dependent on his recognition of this illusion, plus learning to cope wisely with its ramifications in present relationships. 



1. Female superiority/male servant-hood

	The illusion of gender equality is a nice idea, and certainly a step above older errors like male superiority, but yet a long way from the often cloaked but observable truth of female superiority.
	Female superiority, as I mean here, is not about betterness, greater moral worth, or higher status in the eyes of gods. Nor is it meant to imply that man is inferior to woman in any judgmental sense. Rather I refer to greater genetic capacities, social advantages, and personal wisdom, especially about gender and relationships in the world.
	As Harry Belefonte sang, The woman is smarter, the woman is smarter; she's smarter than the man in every way--not only in head sense but also in creaturely capacities. 
	A man needs to recognize this primary difference, including his gender and social limitations, so as to make wiser use of limited advantages in achieving best possible living conditions under existing social circumstances (including our natural servant role in genetic replication). Although unsubstantiated cockiness backed by illusions of male superiority or obsequious submission may each temporarily bring certain male rewards among superior females, basically, for realistic, long term well being, careful use of available-but-limited male advantages is a wiser option. 
			
2. Female/male advantages

	Accept limitations and advantages.
	Learn to compensate for the first and moderate the second. 

	Typical male limitations include:

 a.) Left brain, logical thinking versus right brain holistic thinking and access to genetic wisdom (intuition, ESP, etc.). 

b.) Negative social acceptability of natural traits versus positive for females. Males are typically curtailed, if not disciplined for "being ourselves," while females are rewarded for similar self expressions.

c.) Power losses due to emotional repressions.

d.) Power disadvantages due to projections onto females, e.g., looking to women for emotional acceptance, sexual permission, personal wholeness, happiness and earthly salvation. 

e.) Verbal disadvantages include limitations of the best of logical thinking when confronted with the least of emotional forces, such as, female tears and self-sentimentality. 

f.) Vulnerability to a host of female wiles. 

	If a man does not see and accept that he is predictably vulnerable to being "done in" by these and other limitations, as well as over-kill by inattention to female advantages, he lives, I conclude, in constant spiritual danger. 
	
	In regard to # 2 (Gender equality), men might wisely recognize the width of the gender gap.
	Males and females share two basic similarities: urges to survive as individuals and to replicate ourselves (our personal genes). After that, the gap between genders in most all arenas of daily life widens into essentially opposite camps--that is, diametrically different traits.
	Specific areas of difference commonly include the following, plus many more:

MEN				WOMEN

Competitive			Cooperative
War makers			Peace makers
Hunters			Gatherers
Thrill seekers			Safety seekers
Sexual				Sensual
Left brained			Right brained
 Focused thinking		  Holistic thinking
Cool headed			Warm hearted
Reason oriented		Feeling oriented
3. Female Humanity

A. Get women in a realistic perspective. 

	Learn to see them as they are, rather than with jaundiced eyes. Take off your rose colored glasses. Examine yourself for sub-conscious projections you may have made onto females in general (reflective of un-faced repressions of your own). Most men I have known seem to have misguided ways of viewing women in general, and especially those they care more for or are personally involved with. Typically, I think, these erroneous images are easily learned with one's first mother and from prevailing social mis-messages.
	A proper male agenda is learning to see even our favorite woman as "just a woman"--that is, as a human being like all the rest of us, rather than secretly adoring her as though she were a goddess. Perhaps catching on to the irony of an observation by Mark Twain: "A woman is just a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke," may shed light on this commonly dark arena in male/female relationships--if we can do so without falling into the opposite error of blindly degrading and/or refusing to see their real powers, or into despair or disillusionment over the insight. 
	Ideally, a wiser man sees what a woman can and can't do/be in reality beyond our private beliefs, hopes, and unrealistic expectations of them--either exaggerated up or down, positively or negatively. 
	Realistic views of woman, past typically jaundiced male eyes in either direction, include these: a mother for mutual children (during child-bearing years); a companion in daily life; a sometimes sexual partner; a co-worker for sharing responsibilities for successful life in society.
	On the negative side, even the best of female partners may be a financial liability (e.g., "high maintenance" women); limited in sharing sexual interests; carry unacknowledged emotional baggage, often hidden and commonly unrecognized during courtship or early years of a relationship.

B. See, accept, and embrace differences.
 	
	Recognize, accept, and learn to cope wisely; rather than:

1) Trying not to see, while falling into illusions of equality or male superiority (with favorable judgments that male ways are real, right, and good, while female ways are "all in their heads," wrong, and bad).

2) Rebelling against female values, trying to avoid confronting them, and refusing to acknowledge their legitimacy in the overall living.

3) Trying to change women who reveal, exercise and embody female values--that is, siding with the professor in My Fair Lady, who lamented, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?," and then trying to make one so.

"Recognize" = Consciously look for gender differences, rather than avoiding these realities and necessarily reacting blindly when confronted with them. Every boy learns certain ways of coping with females early in life, beginning with his mother. But unless he consciously examines these patterns later, ingrained habits simply become reactive thereafter, whether or not they are effective with others not like one's mother.

"Accept" = Stop judging what you see and allow observed differences to exist openly and respectfully in awareness. Acknowledge that, though different--and often even opposite from yours, both sets of traits and values are real, useful in certain circumstances, and that's okay.

"Cope wisely" = Inevitably you will confront female differences in any cross-gender relationship. About this you have no choice. However, whether you cope blindly, based on nursery-learned habits, or learn to "use your head" and "act smart" rather than "dumb," you do have a choice. Opt for taking it. 
	"wisely" = Begins with recognizing and using your lesser numbered natural advantages to their best advantage, rather than being blind-sided by female advantages.

MALE/FEMALE ADVANTAGES

	MALE				FEMALE
-- Size and physical strength		-- Genetic capabilities (XX strengths)
-- Focused thinking			-- Emotional strength
-- Prioritizing abilities		-- Intuitive capacities
					-- Pussy power
					-- Adaptability
					-- Power of submission
					-- Word freedom
					-- Don't have to win
					-- Comprehensive thinking
					-- Mystery tolerance
					-- Social support
					-- Longevity (can wait)
					-- Goddess Mirror

	
DOUBLE X'S VERSUS WEASELLY Y BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES

	Biological differences rooted in chromosomes underlie other more obvious psychological and social advantages.
	Evolved roles in genetic replication, namely, males as sperm-suppliers and females as baby-makers, probably account for other major biological advantages for women. Obviously both gender roles are essential for self replication, but supplying a necessary sperm to impregnate an ovum is a relatively small offering in comparison with immense responsibilities for creating a baby and raising a child to adulthood. A father-to-be's five minutes of fun is certainly minor in comparison to a mother's 9 months of creation, labored delivery, and up to 18 years of nurturing their shared offspring. 
	Certainly, better fathers continue to participate in child rearing and "providing for the family," but all too often, major if not all responsibilities for guiding children to adulthood fall into female hands. 
	From an overall biological perspective, where genetic replication is the primary goal, males have evolved and continue to exist primarily as "servants" or suppliers of female needs as essential in baby-making and child-rearing. Just as animals, such as, bulls, "service" cows in initiating pregnancy, so human males, "service" females by supplying sperm to start the long process of self and species survival.
	Thereafter, male involvement in family life--that is, social structures existing primarily for creating and nurturing the growth of future gene-bearers, remains primarily "serving" other female and family needs, such as, providing security, supplies, and limited help in raising children. Even when we egotistically like to see ourselves as "Lord and Master" or "Head of Household," on analysis our functional male role is more clearly seen as "serving" responsibilities which remain primarily in female hands. 
	Additional female biological advantages enhanced by psychological and social elements include: adaptability, tolerance for pain, sensitivity, and longevity. On average, females prove themselves to be more adaptable to assorted circumstances and changes related to most social situations apart from physical survival in the jungle. 
	Perhaps as evolved in service of enduring pangs of childbirth, females, in spite of psychological appearances to the contrary, also have greater tolerance for physical pain than
typical males who try to "act tough." Also, as is obviously useful in the many challenges of child-rearing, females are typically more sensitive to immediate surrounding than are males who tend to be more focused on distant goals than on what is before our eyes.  
	Finally, statistics easily confirm that females on average live longer than males. After divorce or death of spouse, for example, husbands rarely survive as long (or well) as wives. 
	In summary: for these and other reasons, females with two X chromosomes in every cell are in fact better equipped and therefore more capable creatures than are males with only one X and a weaselly Y chromosome in our own 50 billion cells. Unfortunately the adjective superior has, over the course of time, acquired a baggage of positive judgments, while comparable inferior is typically seen as "bad." Therefore, using these terms in regard to gender differences easily results in familiar misunderstandings. 
	Were it not so, apart from judging either as better or worse than the other, we might correctly think of females as "superior creatures" with massively greater biological responsibilities in comparison with "inferior males" evolved primarily to serve them in our shared biological goals of genetic replication. 

	Now back to female advantages. These typical, unconscious projections of early repressed goddess images form the basis for this last major female advantage over those of males. Commonly, the assumed male mode of acquiring these illusionary powers is the same as first learned with the original goddess. Most often this is through the medium of pleasing--that is, trying to secure female favors by doing that she desires, with the secret agenda of therefore acquiring her services--as may have first worked with one's mother.
	Whether or not a female consciously recognizes these typical projections as such, she can hardly avoid trafficking in them--that is, taking advantage of powers unwittingly granted to her via the path of male projection. And since grown boys are rarely aware of what we do in this regard, the extent of this female advantage is multiplied. 

GODDESS MIRROR

	This is probably the least conscious and most powerful of all female advantages, both with women who possess it and men who are blindly moved by it. In reality, women in effect inherit this advantage along with their female bodies and female traits which cannot but in some ways mirror or be reminiscent of a boy's mother. 
	Typically, something must happen in every boy's beginning (as best I can tell) at the time when mental development is first allowing the formation of images representative of outward experience. In these early months and years "mother" both embodies and mediates most external forces impacting a boy's existence, namely, the source of food, comfort, protection, and love, along with permission to openly activate inherited instincts. Or not to.
	In this position and role "mother," as she will later be called after language becomes possible, is, in practice, like an omnipotent being into whose hands (and arms) lie the essential forces of life and death insofar as a relatively impotent boy is concerned. 
	As his mental capacities develop, allowing for forming images (some studies indicate even in the first few days of life outside the womb), he perhaps first images ("learns to recognize") the physical face of this wonderful provider of milk and comfort. But soon he must begin to also form images of the unseen powers she wields over him, as in her presence and/or absence, plus the giving or withholding of her milk and other services.
	Although we as yet have no way of knowing just what these first images of power may be like, I speculate that they may best be summarized as what might later be called a goddess--that is, a seemingly all powerful creature who not only mediates bodily comfort and discomfort, but also personal happiness or its opposite.
	Names, of course, are irrelevant to this perhaps universal small boy experience. Call the image what you will; but the phenomenon itself becomes crucially important in a boy's days and years beyond the nursery and presence of this functional collection of forces I choose to call goddess.
	At first, before a boy's capacity for individuality (including language and naming) develops, a goddess image (or whatever else the phenomenon may be called) is experientially accurate. From the perspective of a boy child's relative impotence She, even unnamed, is truly goddess-like insofar as her powers impinge on his daily existence. 
	This, we might say, is reality for every small boy. Of course, a father figure and other impersonal forces, such as, light and dark, heat and cold, are tangentially present; but in the beginning a boy's primary encounters with external power come with and through his Creatrix who continues to mediate most personal as well as impersonal forces effecting his life.
	But what happens next, as mental development brings expanded possibilities for consciousness, is the crucial determining factor which will later become the basis for this female advantage being noted here. Ideally, as personal capacities for self-tending naturally evolve, along with consciousness itself, early goddess images will rapidly be down-graded as self-images naturally expand. The stronger (more personally capable) a boy becomes, the weaker (less powerful) his mother is seen to be. Previously accurate images of omnipotent goddess-hood rapidly change to less powerful images of limited personhood, as a boy's own powers develop.
	But I say ideally, because a different scenario seems to almost universally occur in boys' pilgrimages from infancy to manhood. Instead of allowing consciousness, and its assorted images to evolve in accord with actual changes in mother/son relationships, somehow a stoppage seems to occur. Consciousness is, in effect, turned in on itself instead of continuing in a linear, ever-expanding process.
	Rather than openly and honestly facing gradual shrinking of mother-powers (goddess images) in accord with increasing son-powers, it seems that expanding natural consciousness somehow gets frozen at the goddess image level. In psychological terms, boys opt for repression over expression as a favored mode of coping with mother-power in post-nursery days. Rather than consciously acknowledging our own expanding powers and self-responsibilities, and hence the diminishing of mother's (as the previously accurate goddess images phase into an illusion as such), sons commonly repress such knowledge out of conscious awareness in favor of keeping goddess images alive-but-"forgotten."
	But the second part of inward repression is outward projection. Goddess images repressed from a boy's conscious mind do not in reality "go away"; instead, they reappear "out there," most commonly mirrored in other females who bear similarities to our actual mothers (e.g., bodies with breasts, etc.). But just as repression is an unconscious move, that is, done "without thinking," so projection occurs unawarely. 
	"Blindly," we might say, boys unconsciously resurrect goddess images formed in early days (when they were realistic) and unwittingly project them onto females in later days. Were this a mental matter only, perhaps danger would be less; but along with resurrected goddess images, grown boys typically resurrect as present expectations the same forces we originally either experienced (or wanted to) with our first goddess. Blindly then, without realizing we do so, we come to expect these latter day "mirrors" to function like the first goddess--that is, to "take care of us," "provide for our needs (e.g., emotional and sexual, if not physical)," "understand us," "give us permission to go out and play (be ourselves)," and even "to make us happy."
	
	In almost all of these easily observable differences, females hold the edge in advantages, both privately and in society.

MALE ADVANTAGES
	Paradoxically, two long term male limitations turn out to be a short term advantages, namely, left brain thinking and emotional repression. 
	Left brain thinking reflects in better focus-ability, as in, aiming at game in hunter/gatherer eras of evolution, and greater skills in prioritizing accepted values. Emotional repression allows for greater ease in remaining attentive to conscious considerations without the distractions which emotions may bring (e.g., killing game for food without getting emotional about "poor little Bambi," etc.)
	In the larger picture, female whole-brain thinking (right as well as left hemisphere) allows for wider perceptions and hence greater awareness of immediate details, plus the input of emotional (right brain) wisdom (instinctive and sub-consciously acquired knowledge). This greater wealth of data allows for wider considerations in decision making, but has the disadvantage of consequently making it harder to decide quickly (as males are more apt at doing). Females, then are more skilled at making better long range decisions, but often have difficulty in making up their minds immediately. 
	Relevant here is the male edge in being able to focus more clearly on an immediate goal (e.g., aiming at "game" and/or winning) with less emotional distractions, and hence be better able to prioritize personal values. 
	"Prioritizing" means making value judgments quickly without being distracted by non-related or possibly irrelevant data, such as, distant facts and/or feelings. In this arena, males typically have immediate advantages over many females. For example, in purchasing shoes, males may go quickly to the kind we want, check for fit and comfort, check the price, and, if affordable, make a quick decision to buy. Females, with their considerations due to whole brain thinking plus emotional awareness, have a much harder time deciding. 
	First they must shop around to consider all available shoes, since "there may be a better pair at another store." They must also consider style, home wardrobe (matching colors with clothing), etc., etc. After trying on several pairs they must deal which they "like" the best. Actual afford-ability (monetary value) may be relatively ignored, especially if the shoes are "on sale."
	Male prioritizing abilities and female limitations in making quick decisions become far more significant in many immediate relational arenas, such as, budgeting money, house cleaning and decorating, child management, and especially in choices relate to male/female encounters (what is said and done with each other).

*******Facing facts inevitably involves confronting illusions which hide them. 

SUMMARY ADVICE

A. See three popular illusions: 
	1. Superior males/ inferior females 
	2. Gender equality 
	3. Woman as goddess

B. See three difficult realities:
	1. Female superiority/male servant-hood
	2. Female/male advantages
	3. Female humanity

C. Get realistic perspectives:
	1. Dis-illusion yourself
	2. Accept hard realities
	3. Practice applying new perspectives

EXPLANATIONS

1) Superior males/inferior females

	The most familiar, if not consequential, of prevailing male illusions is a belief in male superiority and consequently, female inferiority--at least in comparison with males. Popular religions, such as, Christianity and Islam, both idealize and support the practice of this belief. And, although the tide is shifting today as social glass ceilings are gradually being broken by females, many typical John Does today still deeply believe in male superiority (as established in the Bible), even if their marriages (or bachelorhood) and work situations are failing to support this primal premise. 
	My first observation aimed at improved "living well with women" is that this belief, no matter how widespread and religiously supported, is in fact an illusion. I conclude that no man who continues in its belief will be able to maintain for long a positive relationship with a women, even if she too believes in female inferiority. 
	Consequently, my first advice (to myself) is: See through this yet popular view of males as superior and females as the "weaker sex." Not only must wiser males recognize and own their actual male limitations as well as real female strengths, but also come to  see the darker side of femininity, including: buried kill-abilities as well as unconscious wiliness cloaked with innocent "love" but boiling down to managerial ownership of her man, literally. 
	We must also banish chauvinism, a phoney stance of self-righteousness, reflected in beliefs that men are better and smarter than females; an abuse of limited male powers (e.g., left brain thinking and bigger muscles) in outwardly dominating (lording it over) females who quietly manage and manipulate our fragile egos. We need to escape the ultimately destructive and futile nature of this ancient male attempt to cope with female powers by overt domination, and to avoid falling for the temptation to evade relational responsibility by being chauvinistic, as typically evidenced in macho male behavior.

2. Gender equality

	Forget equality. Even though the notion of gender equality is an advance over egotistical male chauvinism, it yet holds dangerous illusions likely to undercut truly effective relationships. Facts are: men and women are hardly equal in any arena except inherent rights to be ourselves and equal necessity in conceiving babies. We are unequal in genetic directives, size, muscular strength, longevity, adaptability, relational abilities, mental capacities, social acceptability, personal interests, and much much more. 
	Ideas of equality easily seduce us away from clearly seeing actual differences and wisely coping with them in the best interests of us both as well as society at large. 

3. Woman as goddess

	Although illusions #1 and #2 are usually conscious, #3 is commonly unseen. Because this third illusion is typically unconscious, recognizing its reality and scope is relatively impossible--except to the degree of a man's unrepression. The more repressed one is, the less visible this belief. But, paradoxically, the less aware a male is, the more likely he is to blindly participate in this ancient idolatry. With increasing self-awareness, males typically begin to see our involvement in this commonly repressed illusion--that is, living as though woman truly has goddess-like powers. 

BACKGROUND

	All babies begin life with a mother who, for all practical purposes, exists as a functional goddess with a relatively impotent infant. Insofar as operative powers are concerned, a mother is, from an infant's perspective, essentially omnipotent--that is, she not only creates life but in early days she (or any surrogate mother) holds power of life and death with her baby in that she controls the food supply, protection, and sustaining nurture. 
	Although the theory of womb memory is yet unproven, I suspect these first nine months of internal creation, in which all elements of embryo survival are mediated from a Creatrix later to be called "Mother," are in some way imbedded in the beginnings of bodily, if not mental, awareness. Perhaps we all bear remnants of primal knowledge about early existence when She, like a real Goddess, was, as though by magic, bringing the gift of life itself. 
	But womb memories or not, when mind is first enlarging outside of uterus in the earliest days and weeks of life, long before conscious thinking and hence language is possible, the universal, existential situation could be accurately be described in terms of "infant" and "goddess"--that is, a relatively impotent one in the care of a relatively omnipotent She. 
	I speculate that in some as-yet-unpinpointed-way, long before language makes conscious memory possible, all infants retain an "imprint" of existence in the presence of a functional, if not named as such, Goddess. By the time consciousness has evolved enough to allow learning language and thus attaching symbols to perceptions (2-3 years?), such primal "imprinting" may be lost to emerging "thinking for one's self." Even so, I speculate, somehow we all hold deep images of beginning times when, had language then been possible, we might have called our primary care giver "Goddess" long before we later called her "Mother." 
	Relevant here, however, is perception of power, not simply language to name it. I theorize that every child experiences what must indeed seem like magical powers inherent in our goddess-like mothers long before we have words to symbolize the experience. Then, as consciousness expands along with our own emerging powers, including self-perception, we begin to see "mother" more realistically in the light of what we can do ourselves.
	But, and this is my point here: Even though we "forget" in the sense of not having names, such as, Goddess, for this One who first wields immense, magic-like powers over our very existence, I speculate that dawning perceptions of Her as such somehow remain in dark shadows of emerging consciousness.
	I further speculate that these pre-conscious "memories" or "impressions" of all infants are stronger in males than in females because whereas girls may soon begin to identify their emerging sense-of-self with their mothers' femininity and thus share her feminine powers, boys are socially moved in opposite directions (beginning with blue rather than pink--and all attached associations), that is, to, in effect, dis-identify self (as male) from mother (as female).
	Girls, in effect, soon begin to join ranks with their mother in shared genetic as well as social connections, while at the same time boys are guided away from feminine associations. Also, as soon as genetic masculine traits begin to become more evident (e.g., interest in guns versus dolls, etc.), mothers commonly begin to attempt control over such "anti-social" inclinations, while at the same time favorably supporting girls' "interest in babies," etc. These differences become even more pronounced as boys begin to evidence signs of masculine rather than feminine sexuality. 
	In summary, as girl babies are being guided and supported by their mothers into mysterious realms of femininity, with which they also identify themselves, boy babies are gradually being curtailed in embracing traits associated with genetic masculinity by mothers who yet hold extensive powers over our daily existence. 
	Obviously, fathers are tangentially available in most homes for boy guidance and identification; but in early life, when power images are being formed, "mother" typically remains the most immediately powerful figure ("Go ask your mother"). She can naturally nurture and guide girls-like-her into their larger shared feminine world, but, comparatively speaking, boys have far less support in masculine guidance.
	Consequently, insofar as gender powers are concerned, boys are not only typically less supported in embracing genetic propensities and associated powers by close-at-hand "male models," they are commonly under the influence and stronger direction of mothers with more legitimate concerns about "making them behave" so as to fit into family and social structures than with becoming natural boys. 
	Point here: Whereas girls may move with relative ease from early living with an external 
Goddess into more realistic relationships with her as mother and woman, boys during that same period of early development may easily continue to maintain, even to exaggerate, our sense of magical female powers, as we face her continued control over daily well-being. 
	Pre-conscious times of seemingly magical powers (e.g., to hold in arms and make fear go away, and later to kiss bo-bos and reduce pain, etc.) are phased into extended periods when she continues to exercise near complete control both of emerging masculinity as well as "permission" to "go out and play" or otherwise be a boy's emerging male self. 

	Whether or not my speculative analysis of how goddess-images first become "imprinted" on an infant's mind, later to become more exaggerated in boys than in girls, is correct, there is abundant evidence that males are far more likely to repress magical-images-of-mother and later resurrect and project them onto other females bearing signs of her likeness, than are females to do the same. 

	Before I leave speculating to focus more directly on evident consequences, I theorize that world history, beginning before recorded times, is also a reflection of these same family situations--that is, that in earliest, pre-recorded human history times, when matriarchies apparently  prevailed, only pointed toward in existing mythology, all males, boys and adults, lived openly with, in effect, female goddesses whom they outwardly served and "worshiped." 
	But as times changed and males somehow got the upper hand over "reigning" females, patriarchies came to dominate matriarchies, that is, "kings" came to replace "queens" in existing social structures. Then, I continue to speculate, male religions evolved in which earlier goddesses were replaced by male gods, in keeping with emerging male dominance over females in daily living. 
	Christian roots, for example, begin here with Genesis accounts of God as male and men (Adam) coming before and being the source of women (Eve from Adam's rib), over whom they, being first and "better," appropriately "reigned" in accord with "God's will." 
	
	But again, even if this brief analysis of gender in world history is incorrect, present social conditions, including popular religions, can reasonably be explained accordingly. I postulate, for example, that just as males have historically suppressed goddess images literally (e.g., Apollo over Gaia, etc., in mythology and in Greece) in favor of self-established gods, so boys today in effect repeat world history as we repress early goddess-images (seen in response to magic-like mothers) in favor of attempted male independence in adult life (often with support of popular male religions).

	Now back to the present subject. I have digressed to consider a speculative explanation for typical present day male/female situations with far more tangible evidence, namely, many observable relationships, such as, affairs and monogamous marriages, in which repressed males blindly look to lovers and/or spouses for magical rewards--like individual wholeness and personal happiness. 
	I conclude that these all-too-familiar fantasy-like relationships are rooted in boys' early repressions of goddess-like images of birth mothers (when such views were relatively realistic) but then denied while growing up and leaving home, only later to be blindly resurrected and, in effect, projected onto other females unwittingly chosen to represent her in adult life. 
	Often, as is equally common both in male-dominated religions, such as, Christianity and Islam, and local male/female relationships, "macho" type males cloak these deeper projections (along with hidden expectations) with attempted dominance over lovers and/or wives, as in trying to be "Lord and Master" or "King of the Castle," etc. 

PRESENT SITUATION

	I have noted this phenomenon as the third common male illusion and considered it last because it is also the least readily observable in typical male awareness today. Whereas ideas of male superiority (illusion #1) are relatively abundant, even in popular religions as well as existing social structures, and notions of gender equality (illusion #2) are only slightly less common, that goddess images still existing in the deeper minds of males (illusion #3) is yet commonly repressed. 
	Although less repressed males may see evidences of the phenomenon in their own relationships, even if they reject my graphic terminology ("goddess images"), more typical John Does, yet caught up in living out childhood patterns, are likely to take this notion as pure bunk.
	Even so, in support of my purposes in this essay focusing on "living well with women," I suggest that a measure of curiosity, before immediately dismissing this last observation, may be in order. Stated positively: I conclude that a man's success in truly living well with any woman, let alone many in society, will be dependent on his recognition of this illusion, plus learning to cope wisely with its ramifications in present relationships. 



1. Female superiority/male servant-hood

	The illusion of gender equality is a nice idea, and certainly a step above older errors like male superiority, but yet a long way from the often cloaked but observable truth of female superiority.
	Female superiority, as I mean here, is not about betterness, greater moral worth, or higher status in the eyes of gods. Nor is it meant to imply that man is inferior to woman in any judgmental sense. Rather I refer to greater genetic capacities, social advantages, and personal wisdom, especially about gender and relationships in the world.
	As Harry Belefonte sang, The woman is smarter, the woman is smarter; she's smarter than the man in every way--not only in head sense but also in creaturely capacities. 
	A man needs to recognize this primary difference, including his gender and social limitations, so as to make wiser use of limited advantages in achieving best possible living conditions under existing social circumstances (including our natural servant role in genetic replication). Although unsubstantiated cockiness backed by illusions of male superiority or obsequious submission may each temporarily bring certain male rewards among superior females, basically, for realistic, long term well being, careful use of available-but-limited male advantages is a wiser option. 
			
2. Female/male advantages

	Accept limitations and advantages.
	Learn to compensate for the first and moderate the second. 

	Typical male limitations include:

 a.) Left brain, logical thinking versus right brain holistic thinking and access to genetic wisdom (intuition, ESP, etc.). 

b.) Negative social acceptability of natural traits versus positive for females. Males are typically curtailed, if not disciplined for "being ourselves," while females are rewarded for similar self expressions.

c.) Power losses due to emotional repressions.

d.) Power disadvantages due to projections onto females, e.g., looking to women for emotional acceptance, sexual permission, personal wholeness, happiness and earthly salvation. 

e.) Verbal disadvantages include limitations of the best of logical thinking when confronted with the least of emotional forces, such as, female tears and self-sentimentality. 

f.) Vulnerability to a host of female wiles. 

	If a man does not see and accept that he is predictably vulnerable to being "done in" by these and other limitations, as well as over-kill by inattention to female advantages, he lives, I conclude, in constant spiritual danger. 
	
	In regard to # 2 (Gender equality), men might wisely recognize the width of the gender gap.
	Males and females share two basic similarities: urges to survive as individuals and to replicate ourselves (our personal genes). After that, the gap between genders in most all arenas of daily life widens into essentially opposite camps--that is, diametrically different traits.
	Specific areas of difference commonly include the following, plus many more:

MEN				WOMEN

Competitive			Cooperative
War makers			Peace makers
Hunters			Gatherers
Thrill seekers			Safety seekers
Sexual				Sensual
Left brained			Right brained
 Focused thinking		  Holistic thinking
Cool headed			Warm hearted
Reason oriented		Feeling oriented
3. Female Humanity

A. Get women in a realistic perspective. 

	Learn to see them as they are, rather than with jaundiced eyes. Take off your rose colored glasses. Examine yourself for sub-conscious projections you may have made onto females in general (reflective of un-faced repressions of your own). Most men I have known seem to have misguided ways of viewing women in general, and especially those they care more for or are personally involved with. Typically, I think, these erroneous images are easily learned with one's first mother and from prevailing social mis-messages.
	A proper male agenda is learning to see even our favorite woman as "just a woman"--that is, as a human being like all the rest of us, rather than secretly adoring her as though she were a goddess. Perhaps catching on to the irony of an observation by Mark Twain: "A woman is just a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke," may shed light on this commonly dark arena in male/female relationships--if we can do so without falling into the opposite error of blindly degrading and/or refusing to see their real powers, or into despair or disillusionment over the insight. 
	Ideally, a wiser man sees what a woman can and can't do/be in reality beyond our private beliefs, hopes, and unrealistic expectations of them--either exaggerated up or down, positively or negatively. 
	Realistic views of woman, past typically jaundiced male eyes in either direction, include these: a mother for mutual children (during child-bearing years); a companion in daily life; a sometimes sexual partner; a co-worker for sharing responsibilities for successful life in society.
	On the negative side, even the best of female partners may be a financial liability (e.g., "high maintenance" women); limited in sharing sexual interests; carry unacknowledged emotional baggage, often hidden and commonly unrecognized during courtship or early years of a relationship.

B. See, accept, and embrace differences.
 	
	Recognize, accept, and learn to cope wisely; rather than:

1) Trying not to see, while falling into illusions of equality or male superiority (with favorable judgments that male ways are real, right, and good, while female ways are "all in their heads," wrong, and bad).

2) Rebelling against female values, trying to avoid confronting them, and refusing to acknowledge their legitimacy in the overall living.

3) Trying to change women who reveal, exercise and embody female values--that is, siding with the professor in My Fair Lady, who lamented, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?," and then trying to make one so.

"Recognize" = Consciously look for gender differences, rather than avoiding these realities and necessarily reacting blindly when confronted with them. Every boy learns certain ways of coping with females early in life, beginning with his mother. But unless he consciously examines these patterns later, ingrained habits simply become reactive thereafter, whether or not they are effective with others not like one's mother.

"Accept" = Stop judging what you see and allow observed differences to exist openly and respectfully in awareness. Acknowledge that, though different--and often even opposite from yours, both sets of traits and values are real, useful in certain circumstances, and that's okay.

"Cope wisely" = Inevitably you will confront female differences in any cross-gender relationship. About this you have no choice. However, whether you cope blindly, based on nursery-learned habits, or learn to "use your head" and "act smart" rather than "dumb," you do have a choice. Opt for taking it. 
	"wisely" = Begins with recognizing and using your lesser numbered natural advantages to their best advantage, rather than being blind-sided by female advantages.

MALE/FEMALE ADVANTAGES

	MALE				FEMALE
-- Size and physical strength		-- Genetic capabilities (XX strengths)
-- Focused thinking			-- Emotional strength
-- Prioritizing abilities		-- Intuitive capacities
					-- Pussy power
					-- Adaptability
					-- Power of submission
					-- Word freedom
					-- Don't have to win
					-- Comprehensive thinking
					-- Mystery tolerance
					-- Social support
					-- Longevity (can wait)
					-- Goddess Mirror

	
DOUBLE X'S VERSUS WEASELLY Y BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES

	Biological differences rooted in chromosomes underlie other more obvious psychological and social advantages.
	Evolved roles in genetic replication, namely, males as sperm-suppliers and females as baby-makers, probably account for other major biological advantages for women. Obviously both gender roles are essential for self replication, but supplying a necessary sperm to impregnate an ovum is a relatively small offering in comparison with immense responsibilities for creating a baby and raising a child to adulthood. A father-to-be's five minutes of fun is certainly minor in comparison to a mother's 9 months of creation, labored delivery, and up to 18 years of nurturing their shared offspring. 
	Certainly, better fathers continue to participate in child rearing and "providing for the family," but all too often, major if not all responsibilities for guiding children to adulthood fall into female hands. 
	From an overall biological perspective, where genetic replication is the primary goal, males have evolved and continue to exist primarily as "servants" or suppliers of female needs as essential in baby-making and child-rearing. Just as animals, such as, bulls, "service" cows in initiating pregnancy, so human males, "service" females by supplying sperm to start the long process of self and species survival.
	Thereafter, male involvement in family life--that is, social structures existing primarily for creating and nurturing the growth of future gene-bearers, remains primarily "serving" other female and family needs, such as, providing security, supplies, and limited help in raising children. Even when we egotistically like to see ourselves as "Lord and Master" or "Head of Household," on analysis our functional male role is more clearly seen as "serving" responsibilities which remain primarily in female hands. 
	Additional female biological advantages enhanced by psychological and social elements include: adaptability, tolerance for pain, sensitivity, and longevity. On average, females prove themselves to be more adaptable to assorted circumstances and changes related to most social situations apart from physical survival in the jungle. 
	Perhaps as evolved in service of enduring pangs of childbirth, females, in spite of psychological appearances to the contrary, also have greater tolerance for physical pain than
typical males who try to "act tough." Also, as is obviously useful in the many challenges of child-rearing, females are typically more sensitive to immediate surrounding than are males who tend to be more focused on distant goals than on what is before our eyes.  
	Finally, statistics easily confirm that females on average live longer than males. After divorce or death of spouse, for example, husbands rarely survive as long (or well) as wives. 
	In summary: for these and other reasons, females with two X chromosomes in every cell are in fact better equipped and therefore more capable creatures than are males with only one X and a weaselly Y chromosome in our own 50 billion cells. Unfortunately the adjective superior has, over the course of time, acquired a baggage of positive judgments, while comparable inferior is typically seen as "bad." Therefore, using these terms in regard to gender differences easily results in familiar misunderstandings. 
	Were it not so, apart from judging either as better or worse than the other, we might correctly think of females as "superior creatures" with massively greater biological responsibilities in comparison with "inferior males" evolved primarily to serve them in our shared biological goals of genetic replication. 

	Now back to female advantages. These typical, unconscious projections of early repressed goddess images form the basis for this last major female advantage over those of males. Commonly, the assumed male mode of acquiring these illusionary powers is the same as first learned with the original goddess. Most often this is through the medium of pleasing--that is, trying to secure female favors by doing that she desires, with the secret agenda of therefore acquiring her services--as may have first worked with one's mother.
	Whether or not a female consciously recognizes these typical projections as such, she can hardly avoid trafficking in them--that is, taking advantage of powers unwittingly granted to her via the path of male projection. And since grown boys are rarely aware of what we do in this regard, the extent of this female advantage is multiplied. 

GODDESS MIRROR

	This is probably the least conscious and most powerful of all female advantages, both with women who possess it and men who are blindly moved by it. In reality, women in effect inherit this advantage along with their female bodies and female traits which cannot but in some ways mirror or be reminiscent of a boy's mother. 
	Typically, something must happen in every boy's beginning (as best I can tell) at the time when mental development is first allowing the formation of images representative of outward experience. In these early months and years "mother" both embodies and mediates most external forces impacting a boy's existence, namely, the source of food, comfort, protection, and love, along with permission to openly activate inherited instincts. Or not to.
	In this position and role "mother," as she will later be called after language becomes possible, is, in practice, like an omnipotent being into whose hands (and arms) lie the essential forces of life and death insofar as a relatively impotent boy is concerned. 
	As his mental capacities develop, allowing for forming images (some studies indicate even in the first few days of life outside the womb), he perhaps first images ("learns to recognize") the physical face of this wonderful provider of milk and comfort. But soon he must begin to also form images of the unseen powers she wields over him, as in her presence and/or absence, plus the giving or withholding of her milk and other services.
	Although we as yet have no way of knowing just what these first images of power may be like, I speculate that they may best be summarized as what might later be called a goddess--that is, a seemingly all powerful creature who not only mediates bodily comfort and discomfort, but also personal happiness or its opposite.
	Names, of course, are irrelevant to this perhaps universal small boy experience. Call the image what you will; but the phenomenon itself becomes crucially important in a boy's days and years beyond the nursery and presence of this functional collection of forces I choose to call goddess.
	At first, before a boy's capacity for individuality (including language and naming) develops, a goddess image (or whatever else the phenomenon may be called) is experientially accurate. From the perspective of a boy child's relative impotence She, even unnamed, is truly goddess-like insofar as her powers impinge on his daily existence. 
	This, we might say, is reality for every small boy. Of course, a father figure and other impersonal forces, such as, light and dark, heat and cold, are tangentially present; but in the beginning a boy's primary encounters with external power come with and through his Creatrix who continues to mediate most personal as well as impersonal forces effecting his life.
	But what happens next, as mental development brings expanded possibilities for consciousness, is the crucial determining factor which will later become the basis for this female advantage being noted here. Ideally, as personal capacities for self-tending naturally evolve, along with consciousness itself, early goddess images will rapidly be down-graded as self-images naturally expand. The stronger (more personally capable) a boy becomes, the weaker (less powerful) his mother is seen to be. Previously accurate images of omnipotent goddess-hood rapidly change to less powerful images of limited personhood, as a boy's own powers develop.
	But I say ideally, because a different scenario seems to almost universally occur in boys' pilgrimages from infancy to manhood. Instead of allowing consciousness, and its assorted images to evolve in accord with actual changes in mother/son relationships, somehow a stoppage seems to occur. Consciousness is, in effect, turned in on itself instead of continuing in a linear, ever-expanding process.
	Rather than openly and honestly facing gradual shrinking of mother-powers (goddess images) in accord with increasing son-powers, it seems that expanding natural consciousness somehow gets frozen at the goddess image level. In psychological terms, boys opt for repression over expression as a favored mode of coping with mother-power in post-nursery days. Rather than consciously acknowledging our own expanding powers and self-responsibilities, and hence the diminishing of mother's (as the previously accurate goddess images phase into an illusion as such), sons commonly repress such knowledge out of conscious awareness in favor of keeping goddess images alive-but-"forgotten."
	But the second part of inward repression is outward projection. Goddess images repressed from a boy's conscious mind do not in reality "go away"; instead, they reappear "out there," most commonly mirrored in other females who bear similarities to our actual mothers (e.g., bodies with breasts, etc.). But just as repression is an unconscious move, that is, done "without thinking," so projection occurs unawarely. 
	"Blindly," we might say, boys unconsciously resurrect goddess images formed in early days (when they were realistic) and unwittingly project them onto females in later days. Were this a mental matter only, perhaps danger would be less; but along with resurrected goddess images, grown boys typically resurrect as present expectations the same forces we originally either experienced (or wanted to) with our first goddess. Blindly then, without realizing we do so, we come to expect these latter day "mirrors" to function like the first goddess--that is, to "take care of us," "provide for our needs (e.g., emotional and sexual, if not physical)," "understand us," "give us permission to go out and play (be ourselves)," and even "to make us happy."
	
	In almost all of these easily observable differences, females hold the edge in advantages, both privately and in society.

MALE ADVANTAGES
	Paradoxically, two long term male limitations turn out to be a short term advantages, namely, left brain thinking and emotional repression. 
	Left brain thinking reflects in better focus-ability, as in, aiming at game in hunter/gatherer eras of evolution, and greater skills in prioritizing accepted values. Emotional repression allows for greater ease in remaining attentive to conscious considerations without the distractions which emotions may bring (e.g., killing game for food without getting emotional about "poor little Bambi," etc.)
	In the larger picture, female whole-brain thinking (right as well as left hemisphere) allows for wider perceptions and hence greater awareness of immediate details, plus the input of emotional (right brain) wisdom (instinctive and sub-consciously acquired knowledge). This greater wealth of data allows for wider considerations in decision making, but has the disadvantage of consequently making it harder to decide quickly (as males are more apt at doing). Females, then are more skilled at making better long range decisions, but often have difficulty in making up their minds immediately. 
	Relevant here is the male edge in being able to focus more clearly on an immediate goal (e.g., aiming at "game" and/or winning) with less emotional distractions, and hence be better able to prioritize personal values. 
	"Prioritizing" means making value judgments quickly without being distracted by non-related or possibly irrelevant data, such as, distant facts and/or feelings. In this arena, males typically have immediate advantages over many females. For example, in purchasing shoes, males may go quickly to the kind we want, check for fit and comfort, check the price, and, if affordable, make a quick decision to buy. Females, with their considerations due to whole brain thinking plus emotional awareness, have a much harder time deciding. 
	First they must shop around to consider all available shoes, since "there may be a better pair at another store." They must also consider style, home wardrobe (matching colors with clothing), etc., etc. After trying on several pairs they must deal which they "like" the best. Actual afford-ability (monetary value) may be relatively ignored, especially if the shoes are "on sale."
	Male prioritizing abilities and female limitations in making quick decisions become far more significant in many immediate relational arenas, such as, budgeting money, house cleaning and decorating, child management, and especially in choices relate to male/female encounters (what is said and done with each other).

********