"The apparent contradiction between female dominance on the micro level and male dominance on the macro level cannot be easily explained within the context of a "weaker/stronger sex". I will postulate that being male first of all is some kind of nervous energy, something you need to prove. This will have both positive and negative results. Male numerical dominance in science and politics, as well as in crime and war, is linked to this. Women do not have this urge to prove themselves as much as men do. In some ways, this is a strength. Hence I think the terms "The Restless Sex" for men and "The Self-Contained Sex" for women are more appropriate and explain the differences better." (2083:AEDoI, p. 352.)
Here's where I beg to differ. We have just as much of a desire to prove ourselves, the difference is that we aren't capable. And this is not due to some oppressive system or power structure of men supported by global masculine solidarity. It is genetically determined. So, as a mental self-defense mechanism, most of us simply made a compromise: to live vicariously through husbands and children, just as I live vicariously through my characters. It is foolish and damaging both parties if we hate men for being better. That's what I and the book are agreeing on. But female introversion is not the a priori here. It is a consequence of the female condition, not an integral symptom of it. If it were, there would've been no feminist movement, indeed no conflict between the sexes at all. No woman would ever get the idea that it would be better if they were more like men.
It's no wonder why I spend each fourth week physically hurting and mentally beating myself up over it, and the other three hoping and (before I cut loose from Christianity for good) praying that it will not happen this month. No wonder why I "act out" in writing so much. It's more "willing, but not able" than "able, but not willing". Even the admiration of manly men, that most women (me included) experience, even if it's a taboo or a secret, reflects the desire to "own" some part of those men. Weakness will always despise strength but this loathing has a life of its own, it's its ow purpose, so to speak; without "evil", "good" (second meaning) can't exist, while "good" (first meaning; duellum->duonus->bonus, etc.) is not dependent on "bad" (schlecht). (Beyond Good and Evil, remember?)
(Incidentally, BG&E was also the first modern source to seriously suggest that mental functions and disturbances had to have a physical underpinning - essentially, the first example of a work attempting the deconstruction of "substance dualism" - which by the 21st century got so many holes in it that QualiaSoup was able to put the dot on the "i" with this educational video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2upDm-… . Of course, the authors of 2083 are mostly Christian, and as such, would not regard Nietzsche as any kind of a reliable source.)
Edit: I've gotta point out that the bottom of the same page (and the essay) in 2083 ends with this, which however is as true as you can get about this:
"There may not be any such thing as a moderate Islam, but there just might be a moderate feminism, and a mature masculinity to match it...Manliness can be noble and heroic...but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Many men will find it offensive to hear that Islamic violence and honour killings have anything to do with masculinity, but it does. Islam is a compressed version of all the darkest aspects of masculinity...[therefore] even a moderate version of feminism could prove lethal to Islam. Islam survives on the extreme subjugation of women. Deprived of this, it will suffocate and die. It is true that the West still hasn't found the formula for the perfect balance between men and women in the 21st century, but at least we are working on the issue. Islam is stuck in the 7th century. Some men lament the loss of a sense of masculinity in a modern world. Perhaps a meaningful one could be to make sure that our sisters and daughters grow up in a world where they have the right to education and a free life, and protect them against Islamic barbarism. It's going to be needed."
Once again it is proven to me that the "middle"/moderate position is not always wrong. Well done.