In this monologue from The Dennis Prager Show, Dennis Prager argues that men and women are fundamentally different, a distinction he frames as evidence of divine design. He contends that these differences create a necessary tension and complementarity that make each gender essential to the other's full humanity, influencing marriage, personal fulfillment, and societal relations. Prager critiques the 1960s cultural movement that denied gender differences, claiming that such denial reduced relationships to purely sexual interactions and contributed to social upheaval. He emphasizes that while not every marriage is ideal, the existence of good marriages underscores the value of gender complementarity, and he distinguishes his respect for single individuals from a belief that they are inferior. Throughout, he weaves personal reflections on faith, suffering, and the search for meaning with a broader cultural analysis.
Chapters
Let me just make very briefly the case that I started with, that men and women are basically different, and why this is so important. Ladies and gentlemen, I know this sounds odd to you. This will sound odd to you, but I mean it from my heart. I have, as any thinking sensitive person has, I believe, my problems with God. Life is tough. God made an unfair world, there's too much unjust suffering, etc., etc. I have my problems. And God did not make his existence obvious and incontrovertible. There is a tension for any thinking person with regard to God, and I understand it. Ironically, one of the arguments I posit on behalf of God's existence is male-female differences. While it is true that male-female differences lead to inevitable tensions between the sexes. This is without question. And by the way, it is very important to know that, and I'll talk about that later, tension between the sexes. It is so interestingly constructed, male-female difference, that I am convinced it is not simply evolutionary. It is a matter of design, that men were designed in one way and women designed in another And while it is cause for problems, it is really the tension and the chemistry that make the other one necessary. I am of the school that a man is not fully human without a woman, and a woman is not fully human without a man. That is a deep belief of mine. It does not run against the following. Does that mean if you are widowed or could not find a mate or choose not to ever marry, that I think you are an inferior human being? No, I would never make such an audacious comment. Saddam Hussein is married. Okay, do I think the world of Saddam Hussein? Obviously not. And one of my dearest friends in life, two of my dearest friends in life, are single men whom I adore both as men and in their characters. I understand that. And with having said all of that, I still believe that the opposite sex fills the human void that exists when the opposite sex is not in one's life. But it doesn't mean that it's easy, and it doesn't mean that every marriage is made in heaven. At least a fair number seem to be made in the other area. All right, that this is also true And it must be recognized. And there is— while there is nothing as good as a good marriage, there is nothing quite as miserable as a bad marriage. All right, all that being said, why is it so important to recognize that men and women are basically different? In the '60s, for those of you who are products— no, I take that back. Those of you who were raised during the '60s I hope you're not products of the '60s, but for those of you like me who were raised in the '60s, you will recall that there was a massive effort made to deny that men and women are basically different. My challenge always to that claim, aside from common sense, but my— I had a different challenge. If men and women aren't basically different, then what could they ever get from each other outside of sex? One of the reasons that the '60s generation was known for its sexual profligacy, I am convinced, is as a result of the denial that men and women had anything other that was different. The only thing that she had that I didn't have was a different body. The only thing I had that her girlfriends didn't have was my different body. Then clearly the only thing that you could get from the opposite sex that you couldn't get from your own Was sex, or at least sex with the opposite sex. That's the only thing. I hope this is clear to you. The moment you deny that men and women are basically different, then clearly the only difference they have is physical. Well then, if that's the case, why not have the following arrangement? Men should have men friends for everything and women just for sex, and women should have women friends for everything and men just for sex. And that's, by the way, to a certain extent, what is exactly what happened in the '60s. Do you understand how the belief that men and women are not basically different undermines the desire to be with the other sex? I have nothing to gain from a woman. What do I need one for? Outside of satisfying sexual needs for a woman, what does she have to give me that my dear male friends can't give me? Nothing. But it's only when you argue that there is something a female has that a male doesn't have outside of sexual organs, and there was something a man has that women don't have outside of his sexual organs, that you can begin to say we need each other, we have something to give to the other. Ironically, it was in the name of progress and love and humanism that people denied men and women's basic differences. Ironically, I say, and yet it was the most dehumanizing, anti-male-female relating idea that men and women are the same. For the full episode of The Dennis Prager Show, go to pragertopia.com, sign up, and become a full member.
