She is saying that men can be without women, but women cannot be without men. She says that because that is how history has been and I think that is not true. I think that women can have a persona without a man. She says that women and men have never shared this world equally. I think that this will help me with my paper because I disagree with her statements. I think women in America today are stronger and don't need to relay on a man for support or anything else that she mentions. I think that she is arguing that men and women are not equal and never have been equal. That women are catching up to men but are still not their equal. I think that her arguement is nuanced because she is going off of history. She is drawing her conclusions and statements from the past, that men have been the stronger of the sexes and that women are dependent on them. I think that she went about it in a way that doesn't beat you over the head with her ideas but she is simply stating them in a way that gets her point across.She is jsut saying that men and women are different and have always been so.