In defence of women

Egerton Chang, Contributor

Once upon a time, there was a place called Fantasyland, where women and men lived in virtually equal numbers. The women and men co-operated for the most part. You see, they could eat anything and everything they wanted. But they had to eat together - meaning that in order to eat, one woman and one man had to eat together. A woman could not eat alone, nor could a man eat alone. For the storyteller made it so. Neither could a woman eat with another woman, nor could a man eat with another man.

And they lived comfortably.

Some women and some men were greedy, but they still had to eat one woman to one man. Others had to make do with whatever they got, but they still had to eat one woman to one man. Occasionally, a woman or a man would try to eat alone. If they tried to do this, they would have to go hungry until they could find a member of the opposite sex to eat with.

So, if they ate once, then one woman would eat with one man once. If they ate twice, then women and men would eat twice. If they ate 10 times, then women and men would eat 10 times equally, and so on.

Eating too much

From time to time, there would be arguments about which woman was eating more than normal. Over the years, there would be reports in the news media to that effect. (In fact, there were newspaper reports and TV coverage about one Tigress Woods and one Charlene Mattress eating with a number of men in their days). Nevertheless, even if that was so, one or more men were also eating more than their fair share. It seemed ironic that while the women would be sent to an eating-disorder clinic, it was rare that the men so caught were also sent there.

Over the years, the inhabitants of Fantasyland would eat millions and millions of times. However, if woman as a whole ate 6,969,069 times, then men would eat exactly 6,969,069 times, no more or no less.

Now, welcome to the real world. Once upon a time, there was a land called Earth, where women and men lived in virtually equal numbers. The women and men co-operated for the most part. You see, they could have sex whenever and in whatever position they wanted, but they had to have sex together, one woman to one man.

To the extent that women are bad, then it is axiomatic that men are equally bad. To the extent that they are good, then men are equally good. If women as a whole had sex 6,969,069 times, then men as a whole had sex exactly 6,969,069 times, no more or no less. Sure, a few women are oversexed and not only do it more times, but also have more sex partners, but so do a few men.

In a small circle of friends or acquaintances, say 20 or 30, it is possible that the 'law of small numbers' - otherwise called 'hasty generalisations' - may apply. (An example of 'hasty generalisations' may be given as: Person A travels through Town X for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. He returns through Town X. He sees 12 people, again all children. Person A returns to his town and reports that there are no adult residents in Town X). In that group of 20 or 30, it is possible that women may in fact be greedy, so much so that they eat with men outside the circle. It might be fair, yet hasty, to conclude that women ate more times than men.

It is axiomatic, however, that somewhere, there exists a similar group where the men ate more times than the women. It is indeed manifestly self-evident that once it is defined that sex involves one woman to one man, then women as a whole cannot have sex more times than men as a whole.

If you are confused, just substitute 'eat' for 'sex', or vice versa.

So, why is it that men, more than women, have been branded the villains in this piece? Maybe it is that men like to boast so much. Or perhaps women are more secretive (or less talkative) on this subject.

I think I have spoken about eating (lol) far too often for one column, so I will leave the reasons why men have been given the stick where sex is concerned to you.

First Gift from a Taxi man

Talking about sex, I remember vividly when my first wife was in the maternity ward with our first child. I was in the waiting room with another new father. He turned to me and asked, "What did you get?" Of course, he meant what sex baby did I get, boy or girl. The impishness in me had visions of putting my hand in a 'grab bag' and pulling out a surprise. I was, therefore, tempted to say "a teddy bear". I resisted that, however, and said, "A girl".

She was born at 'Royal Vic' in Montreal, the same hospital where Prime Minister Sir Donald Sangster died. Now Montreal, as its name suggests (Mont Royal - the name given to the mountain by Cartier in 1535), is located on a hill, and the Royal Victoria Hospital is situated at the very top. Even though my daughter was born in April, snow and ice were still on the roads and taxi men were wary of taking women who appeared pregnant up the slippery hill, for it was not unknown for babies to be delivered in taxis. Because of this and other reasons, taxi men had been given a bad name.

So, in order to catch a taxicab, my wife had to hide in the shadows while I hailed one. She would then run out when it stopped.

Anyway, it was a nice touch when, on leaving the hospital in a taxicab, the driver gave us a quarter and said, "Give this to your daughter and tell her that her first gift was from a taxi man."

Egerton Chang is a businessman. Feedback may be sent to e_rider69@hotmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.