The male, the female, the stupidity of the ego

What is it that makes up the difference between male and female, especially from a social point of view?
Now, there is no doubt that there are physical, physiological and biological differences and no one can dispute this fact. That there are "spiritual" differences linked more than anything else to a different type of sensitivity, this could also be true (mind you, I said "could"), but that there is a male superiority over the female, this is absolutely not true and it is undoubtedly part of that human "stupidity" we want to talk about.
An adulterous man, for example, an unfaithful man despite having sworn allegiance to his partner, in most cases is amply justified; and not only is he amply justified, but sometimes even the blame is given to his partner, who was unable to "keep" her man.
An adulterous woman - at best - is considered a "not serious" woman.
A father who cradles his little one, who also changes his "patelli", who feeds him and gives him the bottle is an exceptional father and pointed out by all as an example of "evolution". A woman who does all this (and remember that for thousands of years a woman has done all this) does nothing, according to many, other than fulfilling her duty and what her biological function is. But her biological function of her is to give birth to her children and she would not be obliged, in theory, to raise them on her, perhaps sacrificing herself, her own needs and desires on some occasions.
A man, a male who says the most absurd "nonsense" in this world, is taken into consideration; a woman, a female, who says the wisest thing anyone has ever said, just for being a woman, she is capable of being laughed at, and if that's not stupidity, tell me what we can call it!
"Okay, - you may say - but thousands of years of conditioning, of education, thousands of years of life of this kind have led men to consider themselves superior to women from certain points of view."
All this could be true as long as the evolutionary level of people was still low, and you do not believe that the things I have just said are part of a remote past because, unfortunately, we can still meet them today and maybe even in environments such as this, of people, that is, who are dedicated to spirituality.
But people who have reached a certain evolutionary stage (and you yourself can clearly ascertain this given the sensitivity for certain things, for nature, for example, music or art) because they continue to intimately make this distinction between male and female?
Io I would say (and I do not hesitate to say it) that this can only be stupidity!
It is therefore obvious, at this point, that something is not going the right way and that, if these differences still exist, we could also call these "preferences", it is because the individual still has something to understand; all the more so since today it is common opinion that certain "social" differences between male and female are the result of years and years of conditioning.
All the more reason, I say, to bring down these barriers!
Let us therefore try to understand where this "male superiority" comes from.
As I said before, there is certainly a difference on a physical, physiological level, whereby the male (having - I know - more developed muscles or a generally more robust skeletal structure) is more inclined to a certain type of activity. But this alone cannot be enough to justify male supremacy.
At the intellectual level there are no differences and if we want to talk about intelligence we can safely say that, stimulated in the same way, the male and the female come to have the same IQ, the famous IQ.
On a spiritual level, the problem cannot even be posed because it is totally absurd. Someone might ask why then the greatest spiritual Masters have always been men, and I answer you: can you imagine a Christ as a woman in a culture like the Jewish one of the time?
If you, however, had a little knowledge of the life of the Saints and their works, you could see among the many Saints some truly worthy of being a spiritual Teacher. But, since they are humbler than the male, perhaps even mortified by the phallocratic supremacy, their speech has practically been lost, so much so that one speaks of the Fathers of the Church and never of Mothers.
This only means that, in the past several millennia, women have not been offered the opportunity to show their spiritual abilities; if you just think that St. Augustine, one of the Fathers of the Church, stated that the soul of the male immediately makes contact with the body, while that of the female does it later…!
On an emotional level it is known that the female has a greater predisposition to sensitivity, to sweetness, a consequence of her ability to be a mother, which the male, unable to fully assume the experience and living it only as a reflection, cannot have.
But even this cannot justify such differences.
I don't hesitate to say it, but the real reason is on a sexual level, and everything we have seen so far is a consequence of it. Perhaps this statement will leave you a little perplexed, but - in reality - there can be no other logical explanation, even if, in truth, it is as logical as it is stupid; but one must never lose sight of the fact that the ego, ambivalent, presumptuous and blinded by need more than by the desire for its own affirmation, tends - in some cases - to behave in a way, to say the least, stupid.
So that when, for the first time, the man and the woman found themselves faced with their sexual activity, the male realized that he had an active role, of supremacy over the female who, playing her passive role , was subject to the male. The ego of the male, at this point, came out gratified, fortified, I would say almost exalted to such an extent as to create the misunderstanding that led the woman for millennia to submit to the will of the one who believed himself to be the most powerful, thanks to his own virility and sexuality.
The reason for so much supremacy, for so much superiority, arose precisely from this original misunderstanding, a misunderstanding that even today, as I said before, can be found, and that has led women to accept, for centuries and centuries, to remain in theshadow before starting to become aware of his own equality, from all points of view (except of course the physical and biological aspect), towards the male.
Because you see, dear children, the fact that in the course of sexual intercourse, the male apparently has (I said apparently, since it would have to be demonstrated) an active role, does not mean anything; simply, being the male and the female complementary in order to carry out a sexual activity, it was logical, and it could not be otherwise, that one of the two had a more active role than the other, but this cannot mean that the one who has a more active role is also superior. [...]
Thus we return to the ego, to that ego that, poor creature of the restless mind, flounders to value itself, to show itself as much as possible, to feel exalted, esteemed, appreciated by others, attaching itself to even the most foolish things like this one that we have just seen, in the hope of being able to continue living in illusion for a long time; unaware, perhaps, that sooner or later something will have to change, and that, either with serenity or with pain, sooner or later he will understand that Everything is truly One.
And if Everything is truly One, it is absurd even to think that there may be moral, spiritual, intellectual differences, and so on, between traveling companions. Vito