Adam Eyves
4 min readApr 7, 2023



I’m not voicing my thoughts to be right. I am commenting here because balanced truth matters to me. If I can learn something in the process, and it leads to a better world, then everyone wins. So shed some light, and I hope learning is a two-way street. I think this might be valuable to other readers.

Assuming it is, then hear me out. I will break this down in the most simplistic way possible, and not because I think you’re stupid. Instead, I am trying to see if we have common ground at a base level regarding societal “natural orders.”

Here is my point, and I will use my family as an example. In the natural order of my family structure, I am tall, and my wife is shorter. She often asks me to reach up and pull a box off the top shelf because she can’t reach it. So being helpful, I lift the box down for her because it’s easy for me to do so.

Now, she is perfectly capable of getting the box down herself, but she will need to go to the trouble of getting a ladder, which she does when I am not around, and of course, I allow her to do that if she needs to.

The above is an example of the “natural order” I am talking about — working within our unique male/female strengths — and I doubt any reasonable woman will take issue with that. Men historically went to war because they were physically stronger, which improved a society’s chances of defending itself. That’s just one example. Women do many things better than men. That’s normal between the sexes.

Now, I’m reading between the lines here, but if I understand your comments correctly, the issue you perceive (using my above family example) is when a man says a woman is not allowed to take the box down because it’s a man’s job. And I agree that this is 100% wrong and sexist, as women should have every right to express themselves in everyday societal activities alongside men.

Of course, women have always worked in fields, plowed, harvested, and all the things you mentioned. And as Priyanka Payal says in her response to my comment (and she is correct), “The farm doesn’t care if you are a woman or a man, and everyone helps on the farm.” Communities that share these types of responsibilities do so because it fits the natural order of those communities and improves a society’s chances for survival in radically harsh circumstances.

So, let’s take a breath. Are we on the same page so far?

As to our modern-day society, no one should tell women they can’t participate in a job (for example) as long as they can perform the job duties adequately. And both sexes should share the fruits of their labors equally if the job is done to the same extent, as this is only fair. And natural order is why there are women in construction, the military, or whatever, in every country where I have spent time.

But natural orders within societies are geographical and historically unique. As a result, natural orders in a particular country, and at specific times in history, may be very different than those in the Philippines, where I live part-time, which are very different than those in the US, where I also live.

So, to be clear, I don’t feel it’s sexist at all to point out that families and communities operate within their distinct strengths based on sex, meaning “natural orders.” That’s a good thing for society, and we should embrace it without shame.

It’s also not for you or me to judge how other societies define their natural orders, and we have no right to criticize them through the lens of modern-day radical feminism like here in the US. There were reasons these societal structures developed as they did, and they weren’t always toxic or viewed as oppressive by women.

And this is a problem that modern-day feminists face today. Whose version of society represents women the right way? Which feminist version is the correct one to fight for? I’d be curious about your thoughts on this.

To be clear, I am 100% in agreement with the classic liberal “first-wave” feminism movement, which aimed to create equal opportunities between women and men by eliminating patriarchal legal obstacles related to equality, voting and property rights, and so on.

But I differentiate classic liberal feminism beginning in the late 1800s from man-hating, weaponized modern-day feminism, which is just as bad as today’s oppressive patriarchy or toxic masculinity. Both represent extreme ideologies that don’t represent the viewpoints of US society as a whole.

Should we liberate oppressed women? Of course, just as we should liberate oppressed men (yes, it happens), children, and horses and dogs, for that matter. We should fight to right all wrongs. Are men creeps? Unfortunately, yes, many are. So are women. I’m sure you have your stories, and they may have shaped your thinking. But I’m not talking about outlier experiences here.

To your comment, “You speak as though you have expertise when really all you have is a stylized version of events you got an old B Western.”

That is a funny way to say that, and it made me laugh! At least I know you have a sense of humor. That’s good. And thank you for the compliment. I’ve always wanted to be a stylized writer. :-)

Seriously though, I get your points but be careful not to project feminist assumptions on me, which is not honest or fair. Confirmation bias is a powerful deceiver. Ask me a question, and I will answer you. Then you will know my thoughts.

As for “Show women some fucking respect,”: I just did by spending a couple hours of my time to understand where you are coming from and responding accordingly. I hope you show me the same respect.

Hate is easy. Love is hard. I really do hope to hear from you again. I don’t think we are that far apart.

As friends,




Adam Eyves

Writer, editor, storyteller, sailor, and coffee drinker. I think, I question, I imagine. I am a philosopher at heart, and a connoisseur of all good things.