i use the word "men" in the old... make that ancient context.

man=related to: mankind... i.e. men, and women, and children.
woman="from man..." i.e. PART OF man. *inclusive.*
women are not seperate from men. male-plus-female = man
women are equal, half of the whole being. "men" are the other half of the whole.
so i say "men" or "man" now, but since it works, i use "s/he" often, vs. "he."

you will find support of this even in the "traditionally" "misogynistic" bible. the hebrew word "ezer" translated into the word "rib" has more than one meaning. it also means "half" thus god took "half" of adam, and made it into eve.

you can go further into the symbolism, not just in judaic literature, but in pre-judaic mythology. god separates himself into god and creation. thus creation is half of, the "bride" of god.

separating things further, but sticking to the same idea, half of adam (man) becomes his bride. his half. his equal. i think "rib" is a very poor translation of "ezer." look how much symbolism is missed in one word...

but nevermind the bible, this symbol is in pretty much half of all religions, the cruciform predates christianity, and goes back far enough to suggest it was possibly once a symbol of this sort of mitosis. half, from half.

the other half or religions aren't even considered "religion" by modern "man" more like proto-religion. but that's typical, society always finds a way to denounce half of itself, more's the pity. the important thing is that i don't, and that was the point of the first paragraph. you can ignore the rest of my post if you like, and it may make my point more clearly.

also please understand, i'm not trying to support my claim using scriptures and mythology, i just think the parallels are noteworthy and interesting, especially since i feel such things are misused to paint women (wrongfully) as inferior or unequal. regardless, i hope i've one way or another managed to make myself clear: yes, ffs, of course the same is true for women.