Yuval, I can only hope that you were making a joke. Or should I worry that you have been subjecting yourself to way, way too many hours of Lifetime, Oprah, Rodham or, perhaps, the more saccharine works of Louisa May Alcott? The idea that women are in some way men’s “spiritual and moral” leaders is, I have to say, as nonsensical as saying that, no, on the contrary, men are women’s “spiritual and moral” leaders.

I suppose (if we ignore countless exceptions to the rule, and the complications of the nature/nurture controversy) there is an argument for saying that men and women have a tendency to have differing attitudes to questions of spirituality and morality, but I would be curious to know on what grounds you would base the assertion that one sex has “leadership” (whatever that may mean) over the other in such matters. Citations of sermons by simpering clergymen and/or the wilder claims of some of this country’s more over-zealous feminists will not count as evidence in this respect. In return, I will overlook the always entertaining ties between America’s 19th century suffragettes and spiritualism.

As to men being “animals,” and that rather zany definition of civilization, good grief. I realize that you were speaking figuratively, but, well, I think I’ll just pass over that aspect of your post in silence.