I read Antares' 'Unity is plural' (Nov 26) in Rentakkini and while it had a predominant environmental theme, it was sprinkled with points I find highly biased. His creativity in promoting nature causes in his article is appreciated. Still, I could not help but frown deeper as I read further.

He uses the examples of the male and female aspects in which I must say is completely stereotypical. I will not blame him as this is the current mindset of society which leads us to believe what the roles of women and men are. Antares is a product of our patriarchal society. But let me say how wrong he is!

He illuminates men as competitive, striving to win with survival instincts, while women as usual are depicted as gentle, caring, cautious and forgiving...*yawn*! I'd like to ask this question: Has there been a time when men and women were given equal opportunity? Never. Aside from horrible war times perhaps.

A typical mother would dress her little girl in lacy pink skirts and place her in the doll corner to assemble Barbie's kitchen set. Her son would be allowed to run around, making noises as he shoots his imaginary gun. This conditioning of children later leads to the (mistaken) assumption that boys are like that whereas girls are like the opposite.

It is wrong to say that generally women are softer. There are plenty of women who are competitive, bloodthirsty and aggressive. This is not a fluke of nature as most men like to think. I believe many people can speak from their own experiences.

Women and men do not have a set of preset behaviours. As individuals perhaps, but not as a collective sex. A girl isn't necessarily born with motherly instincts and a liking for pretty clothes. She grew up to be like that with people around her as examples, or because she was told to behave or brought up that way.

And in this sickeningly patriarchal society where women are supposed to behave in a certain way as defined by men, you will find many women turning to such traits just because that is the way it is.

When a woman is having dinner-date with a man, she will probably find it very flattering when he offers to get her drinks or leads her across the road. Yet when there are no men around, women readily get their own drinks or cross roads on their own with nary a thought.

In short, a woman becomes a little weaker in the presence of a man. To be feminine is to be weak. The 'pressure' on acting and thinking is shifted to the man.

This is not gallantry; this is a behaviour taken from Victorian times when women were so frail, they needed every ounce of energy to breathe during their menstruation, which was why men had to extend a 'gallant' hand and help them get off carriages.