Women are neither inferior, superior, or equal to men. Women and men are compliments to one another. At their very best, they complete one another. Women have talents, gifts, abilities, and insights that men lack due to fundamental differences--biological, cultural, intellectual, etc.vice versa.
I hate to paint in broad strokes as most ideologues will. In a rudimentary sense, one's answer to questions like OP's will depend upon whether or not one can acknowledge reality and how it is constructed. Some things within reality are without dispute--the sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering, King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, and so on. Again, I lack training in epistemology, but let's pretend that everything is either objective or subjective. Rayleigh's discovery strikes me as objective, scientific truth. The historical fact of King John strikes me as objective, historical truth. But what about the subjective? Often, I hear people say that simply because something is not factual or it is not scientifically verifiable or that it is a matter of opinion that it is not a matter of importance. They make questions such as "what is the worth of a human?" tantamount to questions such as "what is your favorite ice cream?" These subjectives may matter more than some of the objectives because they are likely the ideas under which we operate everyday. If I were to answer the question of what is life's meaning in the same way that Ionesco, Sartre, Krasznahorkai, et al. conceive of existence, my perception of reality would be pretty bleak. One could argue that in the bleakness that there is a freedom or a liberation that occurs, but at what cost? Tying it back to my point about women, I think fundamentally humans are unrepeatable, uniquely their own, have dignity, and are incommunicable. I want to come under the 2,000 character limit, but reductionist and elitist tendencies will only result in misery.
