Responsibility has always been an interesting idea for me. There are two kinds of responsibility really. One which you decide to have and which that you don't. Responsibility is very similar to accountability, basically taking control of seeing something through to the end is 'getting it done'.

This means you have choice as to how and which means you will go about achieving this. That said, in most cases these choices are those that will see this ‘thing’ through in the way you want. And this might be the specific way you want it to be done to 'get it done'. So essentially, its about having options and more importantly choosing your options all along the way. That’s the power of responsibility. This process of continual choice/ selection is essential. With this ability to choose, you have the additional requirement that your choices do in fact help and do not hinder the process of 'getting it done' because at end end of the day, getting it done and not getting it done is the result that is associated with you.

You can become responsible by choosing to such as having a child, getting married or hiring a person in which case you've decided that you'll try to make the right choices along the way for these goals to be achieved. Raising a child, a marriage, running a company, all needs to be successful. So taking ownership of this responsibility is a big deal.

On the other hand, not having these goals would not necessitate the responsibility and the need for choice selection that comes with it.

Apart from having to make more choice selections and taking ownership of the result, why would you want responsibility? Simply put, to achieve goals. But more than this mostly it’s your goals.

Another reason perhaps is the possibility of achievement being rewarding. Also, perhaps being more 'useful' resource and having more say in things that affect you and others in reaching your goal is what you want. Further more, your opinion being consulted more often and being exercised is desirable : being useful to others is also desirable. Perhaps all this gains you respect.

All these aspects of having responsibility are possible reasons why you additionally want responsibility. But what if you are given responsibility? What if the goal is not yours? Do you still want these effects of responsibility?

As an example, perhaps you will gain respect and 'usefulness' and this is why you accept new responsibility. Perhaps if someone's  end goal helps you reach yours, then there is more reason to take the responsibility. But surely responsibility in pursuit of the side effects,namely respect etc… is going against the ideas behind responsibility itself: reaching your goal? Having to be consulted, being held accountable, being involved in every aspect, is quite a load both physically and psychologically. Something you'd be OK with in pursuit of your goal but would you be so happy if it was in pursuit of someone else's? The selfish gene in effect?

Perhaps for loved ones, you might be OK to take responsibility in order to help them achieve their goal. But if not, surely the seemingly added benefits of responsibility are moot if they jeopardise your happiness as they may contribute to stress and strain etc.…?

Finally, when considering the question, "why do you want responsibility?" Is it to reach your goal or others? Or indeed is it for respect or something similar? And of course, will it make you happy?

Nothing reminds me more than Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" of the deception that loving a woman is enough. That is the great weakness of all men.

Men are loyal to that idea more than to most things, even themselves. And this is good for a marriage.

Men and woman share a few basic instincts when it comes to coupling. First, the need to reproduce and the need to nurture/protect. Over and above that, instincts vary.

I think it's of men's instincts, to love first, then make love and then to protect. But a woman's are first to be protected, then to have children and then nurture them. Love is not essential for a woman, it's useful. Reproduction is a shared goal and leading up to and beyond that, it seems to fit well with both genders basic instincts.

But why does a man even want to protect a woman. The answer to this question is Love. A man protects a woman because he has come to love her, appreciate her, admire her just like a man who makes a crude hunting knife comes to appreciate it, as it serves him well over time or can see the benefit in its purpose and construction. He protects and cares this for it. He becomes to love the knife.

For instance, it's a mans instinct, I think to protect while it's a woman's instinct to nurture. Thus protection while raising nurturing and raising children is desirable for a woman. Less so for a man. When a man loves a woman, this is great for a woman. Then again, I am a man and am I too subjective? Perhaps.

But a man's Achilles heel is that he becomes to love her. Without love, it doesn't affect him if he does or doesn't protect her. Yet it's important for a woman. A woman's needs not a man for his love, but for his protection but a mans love can ensure this. His love is useful to a woman or it's not. If not it can be caste away. This is what a man must deal with. Not a woman. This is the essence of our instincts, I think and love is just an auxiliary force that binds men to woman. A woman love is very much an after thought. A woman's love is driven by admiration of her partner, loyalty etc... This ultimately holds a relationship together.

Sure, other instincts lead off from these two base instincts(protection & nurturing) but have less to do with establishing a relationship between a man and a woman and more to do with life and living which is not what I'm talking about here(like the new to eat)

To love is to protect.

So it's not enough for a man to love a woman, for a woman to bare his children. This is the romantic fallacy that plague the great men of the world. It will continue to plague them in the future as it has done in the past to considerable detriment of men. It's too bad, but it's not catastrophic - it's the way it always has been.

One of the side effects, I believe of this protection/nurture man/woman bond is that of love, trust loyalty, admiration etc. mentioned above, all which make the bond that much stronger.

I like the great Gatsby because of this. I had thought I might title this "The volatility of woman" but thought better of it.

It's interesting how much focus is centred around traits of men that make them more suitable for relationships, marriage, children, family life etc. but less is dedicated to the traits of woman, especially from a mans perspective.

Funny thing is, I've not ever really thought about it that way before. I'm a big investor in looking after yourself. Also trying it out first, being proactive not reactive. I'm not one for moaning or crying or being down because life is unfair. That said, I think that there are a large number of woman that aren't that way. I wonder if it's a man trait to be that way. I hope not because a woman's ability to live this way I think is critical to survival. For example if the man died, the woman should function without the man. Then again, perhaps the woman just finds another man. In which case it really is the woman finding the man, not the man finding the woman. This might coincide with the norm I originally described. Men don't need woman to function. Woman need men to function, especially true if you consider procreation an essential woman feature. It's a feature fundamental to the human race so to speak as to living because the body is adapted to change dramatically to aid this function.

So, it might seem that woman have more riding on men to help realise this feature than man does nearly making it possible. Couple this feature with a woman's instinct to nurture children and well, men seem less and less critical to the human race than woman. Certainly because they don't feature as prominently as woman do in terms of aiding the human race.

Are things more equal in terms of the contribution to the human race than the one sided picture this far painted? Might men's ability to protect yield as much weight as childbearing? Perhaps it does indeed. If all being equal, what incentive does the man have to conceive and protect? Not much, so little perhaps that it's in a woman's advantage to find a man that does indeed wish to participate this way in a woman's circle of life.

Then indeed its a woman that finds the man, not the other way around. Or at least the other way around makes less sense for the human race. This is to say perhaps that all men should have at the very least conceive and protect when it comes to a woman choosing a man. Provided all men have this instinct, all men are up for and suitable for this role.

By default men a bigger and stronger so this comes naturally. Men have an ambition to mate. This too is natural. Which brings us logically to the conclusion that men provide to woman and woman provide to men. While this is true and universally accepted, it doesn't say that a particular man is willing to serve one or both of his purposes, obviously making him unfit for purpose from a woman's point of view. Same goes for woman but less so because a woman can't decide as easily perhaps as a man can to ignore their features. I man is more likely to be childless, out of desire not to have children than a woman. In this regard, even though choice is entirely ones own, a woman's features makes that choice so much more difficult than a mans.More reason for a woman to find a man that want children.

I'd almost go so far as to say woman need children and men don't.

So back on track now, it's probably not important for a man to evaluate a woman's traits and it is for a woman to evaluate a mans traits. Which is a good thing because I've never done that. Except for admiring a woman's obvious beauty, but that alone I think cannot be enough to make a man want to have children or protect. Surely a woman has to provide something else, something more fundamental to man, not children, not beauty, not a harmless woman to protect...surely something more(or does a man possess the need quenched by something woman dont provide?). Something fundamental to a man, beyond that woman want from a man to provide. What that is I don't know but I'd hazard a guess that it's to do with purpose.

Perhaps a man furfilling a woman's purpose is a mans purpose. That's why men seem to be one up on woman due to the lack of obvious purpose such as body changing, menstrual cycles etc...because the last piece of the puzzle is a mans desire to furfill a woman's purpose. Perhaps not.