It is Jan 25 2005 already. I have been here in Lakewood nearly two moths and I suddenly find myself undergoing a philosophical metamorphosis in the last week or so. It all started with the "world almanac" videos on the big bang, the sun and the planets. Following are some of the resultant ideas:

Just like we humans as a species are not an independent, autonomous element of nature, so are women not an independent genre within the human species. Women are weaker than men in physical as well as mental capabilities. They are created to "serve" men just as lower elements in the biological evolutionary chain exist in order to serve elements higher up in the chain. It is very obvious that -although plants create starch via photosynthesis for their own survival and not for us- we are "entitled" to help ourselves to this precious food source. Why? Doesn't the plant have "rights" just like there are "women's rights"? The answer is is an emphatic no! Plants do not have any rights of their own when it comes to serving organisms higher up in the evolutionary chain. In fact, they do not have any right to even "exist" if not for these higher elements in nature. Since we see that the ultimately all organisms strive to achieve the elusive life qualities and sophistication of higher organisms, we can therefore say that their entire life as a plant is a mere "preparation" for what's to come, a means to an end. Just like there's no sense in spending money, time and effort in preparing a meal that will never be eaten, it is likewise futile for a lower organism to live out its life without contributing in some way to the survival and progress of higher organisms, notwithstanding how puny this contribution may be.

Therefore, since it is obvious that women are less developed as a genre than men, we therefore can logically conclude that they are created to "serve" men. How do they serve men? No, I'm not talking about serving as housewives, secretaries or providing sexual pleasure to men. These are all legitimate roles for women but they're not the primary role. Women's primary role is simply to produce babies. They are not built to be strong or smart. They are built to be fertile and release fertile eggs every month so that the man can fertilize one at his wish, whenever he feels the time is right. Breastfeeding is already a function that is NOT exclusive to women. This is evident by the fact that men are created with breasts as well; they are just dormant and not active as long as the woman assumes her traditional role of nursing the baby.

In the Bible (Torah) the story of man's creation goes "God cast a deep sleep upon man and he took one of (the bones of) his sides and he filled in flesh in its place. He fashioned her into a woman and brought her to the man. Man said 'this time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, this shall be called woman'". This is an extremely simplistic account; it does not state exactly how a bone from a man turns into a woman overnight. We now know that such kind of development is possible through evolution but that would take millions of generations. Still, the biblical account of woman's creation reflects man's instinctual knowledge that the woman is an integral part of the man and acts as a complement to the man, NOT as an independent genre. And this is why until recently women have had no rights; their rights and properties were tied to their husband and/or father.

According to my PS (primary/secondary) theory of matter evolution, developed 2-3 days ago here's how it works: Primary matter "advances" to create secondary matter and then Primary matter and Secondary matter unite to perpetuate this advance by producing offspring of the new kind. This process holds true in all levels of nature, not only in Biology. For example, the first element ever was probably Hydrogen. The very first hydrogen atom then goes on and makes a tiny "advance" and then perpetuates that advance by generating some more hydrogen atoms. It's a three-step process: 1- creation, 2- advancement, 3- perpetuation. Eventually, all these tiny advancements achieved over many "hydrogen generations" will add up and convert the successful members of the element into a more advanced element, such as Helium. Why then do we still see hydrogen atoms around us? To answer that we should ask ourselves why do we still see insects and chimpanzees around us? Haven't these organisms heard of the remarkable feat of genius called "humanity"? The answer is, they have tried but failed! We all know that out of the thousands of students entering college, very few manage to graduate and become successful in their field of study. What happens to all the rest of them? They fail and drop out! that's what survival of the fittest is all about.

Just like any human social contest, those who don't win, don't necessarily lose. They usually are given a "second chance" to demonstrate their achievement and they will sometimes have many opportunities throughout their lifetime to do this. Still, as soon as they have failed the first contest they are failures relative to the winner/s of the contest and they will remain failures forever as long as they cannot demonstrate the desired capability. These human failures remain "alive" and live amongst us -in fact, all of us are guaranteed to be failures in some regards- yet they are not as alive and happy as the winners. Yes! you heard me right. The loser is comparable to the chimpanzee who didn't make it. The chimp is dead when compared to a human and so is the human individual who failed compared to the individual who has successfully made the leap forward.