Adam Eyves
3 min readFeb 4, 2023


Would you mind breaking this down with me like friends over coffee? I think my point is getting lost in feminist ideology, and I think your response might be helpful to other readers.

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 is easy for me to do so.

Now she is perfectly capable of getting the box down herself, but she will need to get 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, and I doubt any sane woman would take issue with that.

I'm reading between the lines here, but if I understand your comment correctly, the issue (using this example) is when a man says a woman is not allowed to take the box down because it's a man's job. I agree that this is 100% wrong and sexist.

Of course, women have always worked in fields, plowed, and harvested. You are perfectly correct that "the farm doesn't care if you are a woman or a man and that everyone helps on the farm." Communities that share these types of responsibilities do so because it fits the natural order of that community. No one should tell women they can't participate, and both sexes should share the fruits of their labors equally. 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 are geographical, and as a result, those orders in India may be very different than in the Philippines (where I live part-time), which are very different than those in the US, where I also live. It's also not for me to judge how other societies define their natural orders.

And this is a problem that feminists face. Whose version of society represents women perfectly? Which feminist version is the correct one to fight for? I'd be curious about your thoughts on this.

Is our society perfectly egalitarian? Not yet. Equal pay for an equal job done is only fair, and women should keep fighting for that, as well as other imbalances. They deserve that. But hate-filled, weaponized feminism is just as bad as oppressive, toxic masculinity. They both represent extreme ideologies. I don't think either of us is speaking from those perspectives.

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. That's a good thing for society, and we should embrace it without shame. Should we liberate oppressed women? Of course, just as we should liberate oppressed men and children. We should fight to right all wrongs.

As for, "The USA is not the world and that's why y'all are ignorant about sexism. You guys have extreme ideas of gender roles but the rest of the world has kinda okay with growing out of it."

You're funny, and I get your point, but you are parroting feminist ideologies and not thinking objectively. Muslims represent 1.9 billion people on the planet. Under Islam's patriarchal religious structure, Muslim women alone represent the largest oppressed women's group on the planet by feminist standards.

To further my point, name one Muslim country you would prefer to be a married woman in that supersedes how women are treated in US society. Consider that our freedoms here in the US allow women the right to publically criticize how they are treated. Those rights don't exist in most Muslim countries. So don't forget to count your blessings.

Also, it's kind of trendy right now to bag on the US, but I'm curious as to what extreme gender roles you think we have here.

Hope to hear from you again. And your art is incredible. You are super talented!! :-)

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.