V.           Why Women Have More Faith; Why Men Pursue; and Why, for Equality’s Sake, a Sexual Harassment Double Standard Is a Paradoxical Necessity

Besides other subjects, this and the next few segments regard (1) certain, now-unrecognized triggers for on-the-job sexual harassment that should be considered in order to be fair to all, that is, fair both to women and to men; and (2) the need to reassess how the sexes intermingle in our workplaces since, as will be shown, men and women cannot rightly be held to the same standard of restraint when it comes to forward, forceful, or aggressive sexual behavior. (Thes segments are not primarily about the awful and tragic damage that sexual harassment or rape can inflict.)


Faith is vital for human survival because it increases optimism: those with faith both expect and search for improvement in trying circumstances. In contrast, those who have little faith or are hopeless may miss a bettering opportunity due to either eyes being closed (literally or metaphorically) or a lack of effort. Further, higher faith and optimism equal more happiness. In contrast, with less faith, there is greater depression and even suicide.

Theologically, the deeper a person’s faith, the greater likelihood that miracles will be wrought in such an individual’s life (who doesn’t want that?). In fact, even via commonsense, one can see that more miracles would be created for those with a profounder faith, since such persons would more eagerly look for opportunity.

Women have more faith than men. (Is this why men generally have higher suicide rates?) To give two examples, study after study has shown that women are more religious (having a “faith” is being “religious” since religion is not science); and, advertisers, as a rule, gear adverts more towards women. How does this last tidbit explain that women have more faith? To get someone to buy, the advertiser must convince that someone to have faith in what is for sale! Hence, those with a greater propensity for faith may be more easily convinced. (And, if some can be more readily swayed, is it fair that all have the same voting rights—especially when there is a greater and greater concentration of mass-media power into fewer and fewer hands?)


Regarding the literal composition of faith, every letter in Hebrew, the Older Testament’s original language, has a meaning; and, the letter-by-letter construction of each Hebraic word intuitively reflects the noun, verb, or part of speech being described. (Even if you have learned or taught Hebrew, you may be unaware of the previous. Nonetheless, those statements are true; and, if you have been unaware, what fascinating studies lie ahead!)

Hebrew’s five-letter word meaning “faith,” emuna, starts with a smaller, two-letter word, em, which means “mother.” When “mother,” em, is combined with the meanings of emuna’s final, three letters, una, the semiotic assertion is that every human’s level of faith is determined by the care—or the lack of such—provided to that person in infancy by his or her mother or mother-like caregiver. That is, if, when a baby cries, he or she, as a rule, is quickly seen to by the mother and soothed, such a baby will grow to have greater faith than a neglected child.

Emuna’s letter construction, also, implies the following: mothers, due to their intimate, long-term interactions with their children, perfect their own faith skills via their first learning, and thereafter, their knowing both under what circumstances and for how long their children can be left before being seen to.

By nature, and for the sake of increasing the faith levels of children, men are meant to work and to provide their wives their needs so that mothers can devote themselves to the young. As already mentioned, by such mother-to-child attentions, the faith of offspring, because they are well cared for, will be highest, which is best for all involved. (To give another instance, children with greater faith are more obedient to authority, as their benevolent authority has well treated them. In return, they better care for their parents as their parents age and require assistance.)

Why should not mother work and father become “Mr. Mom”? Besides milk-producing ability, a woman and not a man is meant to be an infant’s primary caregiver because a woman, more sensitive than a man, can better detect an infant’s sometimes-minuscule needs. Because men’s sensitivities are not as fine-tuned as women’s, a father doing the job of a mother leads to neglect of the children because a mother, too valuable, cannot be replaced!


A crucial element of faith is an expectation of what is to come. Therefore, it makes additional sense that women have more of this all-important commodity. Why? . . . Because women need more faith:

From a reproductive, biological perspective, women must make future predictions about the worthiness of a mate in a way that men need not. After all, men do not become chained to their progeny as do women literally: if a man felt that he had made a mistake about the worthiness of his mate, he could, thereafter, pick himself up and leave. A woman, however, via her umbilical cord, becomes physically attached to her child. Moreover, before birth as well as after, a female must go to great lengths to provide for her baby.

Because childbirth is an enormous investment, a woman is meant to use her acumen to discern who is the best mate. That is, she is to determine into whom she is to instill her faith, which is her expectation of who will most adequately provide for her and her future progeny. In fact, because faith is exceedingly important to a woman, it makes added sense that women, biologically, would have more of it. After all, women’s brains, over the eons, would have more honed their much-needed faith skills to predict, with greater and greater accuracy, which mate would meet expectations over time.

After accepting a mate, a woman, also, is meant to have faith that her decision will prove itself correct. Faith gives comfort; and, it is best for future generations if a mother or an expecting mother is not troubled. This is because any children would be neglected in whatever measure a mother’s worry diverts her concern from her young to whatever issue is so worrying. (For this reason, in trying circumstances, a husband, when speaking to his wife, might be meant to sugarcoat the truth.)

Considering all the above, whom is a woman to trust? She should, of course, place her confidence in a man who is devoted to her! A woman rightly instills her faith in a man who will reliably provide and never leave her. So, what is one way for a woman to determine if a man will be enduringly devoted? If, when courting, he pursues her even if she plays hard to get. For this reason, a woman, by general social convention, is meant neither to ask out a man to a date nor to ask a man’s hand in marriage. After all, in the face of such an aggressive female tactic, a woman cannot determine whether the man is genuinely dedicated. Rather, an asked-out man may go along only because the woman is an easily obtainable pleasure. And, a man that is around only because the pickings are easy is not the type who will stay around when the going gets tough—such as when heavy demands are made on a father to provide for his family.


Of interest, devotion, a basis of love, is a form of objectification in that one is devoted when affections are singularly and not nebulously or multiply directed. Love, a choice of one above the rest, cannot exist without objectification since amorphousness, objectification’s opposite, does not contain any sufficient character that can be devotedly loved.

A poem:

Love Objectifies; Hate Ignores

Love, choosing one above all others,

unavoidably objectifies.

Hey, you, feminist woman over there,

lip-sticking your facial objects with makeup,

you, assuredly, want to be noticed

(even if only by yourself) and loved!

But can an impotent man imagine your gripe?

The more a woman is objectified,

that is, the higher the pedestal,

the greater anguish of each period:

Waste of the most sought, and thereby, loved object.


At the time of this book’s publication, the media has much reported about on-the-job sexual harassment against women by powerful men. While such abuse can be horrific, what type of behavior, exactly, is crossing the line into sexual harassment? Moreover, if, by nature, both men are meant to pursue woman and woman are meant to be standoffish, can it be fair that men and women exist in the same work environments without a double standard as regards to what is sexual harassment from a man’s as opposed to from a woman’s perspective? If a man, naturally more sexually aggressive, is hardwired to pursue so that he can prove his devotion to an even-uninterested-acting woman, is it fair to hold men to the same no-sexual-contact-in-the-workplace standard that women are held to, when women, hardwired to be more passive and difficult to approach, have an easier time abiding by such a standard? No. Holding both men and women to the same standard cannot be fair.

(Importantly, these expressed views are not to excuse any individual case of sexual harassment that has either caught the public’s attention or has remained hidden. Rather, these opinions, not speaking specifically, speak in broad, theoretical terms.)

Furthermore, there is ample social-scientific evidence that men naturally have higher sex drives than women. To quote, at the least, from WebMD.com on this subject, “Study after study shows that men’s sex drives are . . . stronger than women’s.”

Actually, considering how much a woman must invest in childbirth, it seems fair of Nature to have an average woman’s sexual drive at a lesser level than an average man’s. After all, if a woman’s drive were higher, she could be pressured more readily to copulate with a subpar, male specimen. Because women have lesser sexual drives, they can be choosier about their mates.

Continuing with a question already similarly posed, can it—now, considering sexual drive differences—be fair to hold men and women to the same standard of restraint from on-the-job sexual contact? No. It cannot, in this other regard, be fair to keep them at an identical bar when men, referred to as having a “one-track minds,” have greater sex drives to the degree that it is generally tougher for men to refrain from sex. In fact, because it is more onerous for men to abstain, holding men and women to the same criteria of what is and what is not sexual harassment could be, to men at the least, cruel and unusual punishment!

Furthermore, commonsense and study after study have, also, shown that women are more sensitive than men. (Again, women need more sensitivity to better care for the minute needs of offspring.) Therefore, an off-the-cuff remark or a touch made by a man to a woman might be naturally perceived as appropriate to the man—but inappropriate to the more-sensitive woman.

It has been said that women are from Venus and men from Mars. However, due to women’s extra sensitivities and their often picking up on invisible-to-men cues, I, the author, more consider men and women to exist not in different worlds but in parallel universes! (Sensitivity studies between men and women sometimes do not fall out on a bell curve. That is, the least sensitive woman may still be more sensitive than the most sensitive man.)

Considering all the previous, both because a double standard is required to be fair and because a double standard is itself unfair, there has been, traditionally at the least, both a sexual division of labor in the workplace and more stringent rules of social decorum and dress that should be followed so that the needs of both sexes are respected.





Click to return to the previous page

Click to return to the start of "Selected Other Writings" and its Table of Contents