Women provide value to male action. They do not need to act themselves to be valuable, they just need to be. Many of the things that we value a women for doing consist in creating a larger extension of herself. Women are not objects, because objects are means.
This is a simplification, maybe even a radical simplification–it isn’t the truth, but glimmers of some greater light that is the truth. To the extent the simplification is accurate, its true hylomorphically or statistically or mythically or as a melody around which we construct ourliving counterpoints.
It’s also from a man’s perspective. What is the right simplification from a woman’s perspective?
Men provide value of female existence (not of action) and children provide value of female action.
The woman’s existence is her action, in a Taoist way. Action through inaction. It makes sense of Peter’s puzzling teaching that our women master their unbelieving husbands by submitting to them.
Lehi says there are things that act and things to be acted upon. The acting thing is partly determined by the thing that is acted upon: the thing that is acted upon sets the metes and determines the bounds of the actor’s possibilities.