Sorry for the verbosity. I haven't pared down the useless words yet.
While pondering the implications of differences between male and female psychology, I was reminded of the motions of certain organs within the body, and how they maintain health throughout the organism by constantly working in two opposing wise: first, by acting in a wholly positive manner; and second, by acting in a wholly negative fashion. When either positive or negative is in excess, the opposing function speeds up, and balances out the entire system. This entire process leads to a state known as dynamic equilibrium, whereby the system is either too positive and working negatively, or two negative, and working positively, but the system averages out to perfect health.
I was reminded of this process, but I realized that male and female psychology is outward-facing, and functions so as to create a state of dynamic disequilibrium with the environment. It is like two builders, with one always building horizontally, and the other always building vertically. In such a fashion, both always build outward, and so long as some semblance of balance is maintained, there will be constant growth in all directions. However, in dynamic disequilibrium, it is important that no equilibrium is ever reached, or else the process grinds to a halt and one half begins to work in a viral frenzy. Dynamic disequilibrium, while being conducive to the constant unconscious growth of civilization, requires perpetual inequality.
This state of affairs, in particular the difference in psychology, implies total psychological differentiation: by total, I mean both completely pervasive in all aspects of the psyche, and practically invisible to the psyche (or else consciousness would immediately, and hastily, destroy the very process that lead to its creation). This means that, among other things, there are major concepts that are interpreted in radically different ways by the sexes in such a fashion that this difference will be denied -- if not remain unseen. I suggest for candicacy as a major conceptual disparity the concept of the Infinite, that very concept that leads many men to philosophy and science, and whose improper appreciation makes the entire apparatus of science seem superfluous and on equal ground to arts and religion (for the concept of infinite scientific discovery would be meaningless, in much the same way that infinite artistic or religious discovery is absurd).
If my assumptions to this point have been true, and this candidate is an accurate one, this would mean that roughly half the species has the capacity to understand the Infinite, whereas the other half barely has the potential at all.
Ethically, one may say that women should start thinking like men, since an understanding of the Infinite profoundly assists the individual. However, this position fails to consider the social implications: our species has become this powerful precisely because such an inequality exists. Women, therefore, are destined for an inferior understanding of reality.
But another position is tenable: social growth is near-viral and perpetually unequal. Dynamic disequilibrium is wholly unconscious, and although of great assistance to dominance over a planet, dangerous if perpetuated forever. It may be the best mindless Nature can do, but humanity can do better. Conscious restraint, assisted by intelligent planning, is superior in many respects. A third metaphor will be useful here, to explain what sort of restraint may be necessary:
A patient enters a doctor's office, complaining that one eye is much stronger than the other. What is his treatment? Why, the doctor covers the stronger eye, so that the weaker eye may strengthen in the meantime. Similarly, humankind must restrain any superiority that men have over women, until women have become as strong-minded as men.
