Bow before us, normals!

[Darth InSidious]

Quiet wench! Get back inside your tortoise shell like a good lass, and leave this serious matter of debating to us men.

[Slowtrain]

Perhaps women are not inferior to men. But think about this: what do women do better or equal than men?

 

There has never been a female chess world champion (only one woman in the top 100 right now, at rank 46).

Most inventors and scientists are men.

 

Men run faster (at all distances), jump higher, jump longer, swim faster (at all distances and disciplines), throw longer (at all disciplines) and so on.

 

Men found America, climbed the Himalayas, explored Africa, built and flew the first airplane, took the first step on the moon, sent the first telegraph across the pond, took the first photo, built the first car and so on.

 

...

 

Exactly why are we forced to think the sexes are equal and men are not better when all the evidence points to the contrary? And it's extremely politically incorrect to point this out (I feel bad just from typing this!) and there are lots and lots of explanations to be found why things are the way they are. But it doesn't change the fact: I'm struggling to find something where women are equal or better than men. In the real world, where we live and exist, men ARE superior to women, according to the measurable accomplishments we have at hand.

 

Except aiming sports (skeet, archery). Females seem to have great aim.

 

 

Ps. I love women.

 

 

 

1) Opportunity. For a long time women were barely allowed to tie their shoes, let along captain a ship. That's sorta changing now.

 

2) You're valuing things from a male-orientated perspective, which will naturally be affected by 1)

[Moose]

Hmm so what you're saying is we should settle things with a boxing match?

[mkreku]

I don't like these suggestions I am getting. One is physical strength. Basically you're saying men were stronger at the beginning and that's all there is to it. Men got the upper hand at the beginning of time and since then women has had to fight an uphill battle. It's too simplistic. If physical strength was the major factor, we'd all be ruled by monkeys by now.

 

Another says opportunity. Also too simplistic. Sure, opportunity is like Columbus being the first to discover America; it held importance for a few hundred years. But opportunity all throughout our known history? I doubt it. Just ask yourselves: how did women end up in the situation where they were barely allowed to tie their own shoes? How could women let themselves end up in that situation? Why didn't men end up in that situation instead of women? Coincidence?

 

And how about modern times? Women have every opportunity to make something of themselves in today's society (in most western countries, at least). Much more so than men in some cases (women on average get better grades in school than men)! Yet, the majority of our scientific breakthroughs are made by men. Why?

[Meshugger]

Men rule since they can work in teams for a common goal more effeciently than women, and they are physically stronger.

 

No they can't. Men work towards their own goals, which might, in effect, help the team as well.

 

Please elaborate on that a bit more, that got me interested

[Meshugger]

I don't like these suggestions I am getting. One is physical strength. Basically you're saying men were stronger at the beginning and that's all there is to it. Men got the upper hand at the beginning of time and since then women has had to fight an uphill battle. It's too simplistic. If physical strength was the major factor, we'd all be ruled by monkeys by now.

 

Another says opportunity. Also too simplistic. Sure, opportunity is like Columbus being the first to discover America; it held importance for a few hundred years. But opportunity all throughout our known history? I doubt it. Just ask yourselves: how did women end up in the situation where they were barely allowed to tie their own shoes? How could women let themselves end up in that situation? Why didn't men end up in that situation instead of women? Coincidence?

 

And how about modern times? Women have every opportunity to make something of themselves in today's society (in most western countries, at least). Much more so than men in some cases (women on average get better grades in school than men)! Yet, the majority of our scientific breakthroughs are made by men. Why?

 

Maybe it has something to do with what i heard the other day:

 

When a man sees his friends girlfriend, he thinks: "Man i have to get a beautiful woman just like her". When a woman sees her friends boyfriend, she thinks: "Man, i have to get him!".

 

Bro's before ho's, and all that.

[Hurlshort]

Speaking of bros, women seem to really have trouble with other women. Sure, they might have a couple female friends, but they probably have twice as many women that they despise.

[Tigranes]

And how about modern times? Women have every opportunity to make something of themselves in today's society (in most western countries, at least). Much more so than men in some cases (women on average get better grades in school than men)! Yet, the majority of our scientific breakthroughs are made by men. Why?

 

Well, you can only go back as far as the 70s / 80s to say that there was 'pretty even' opportunity, and the 90s / 00s to really say 'equal opportunity everywhere'. That doesn't give them a lot of time, does it? Only right now are we seeing women who actually grew up with equal expectations and got education in such a climate. Even then, scientific breakthroughs - from what I hear of people in research careers you still have a predisposition towards having male PIs.

[Trenitay]

No they can't. Men work towards their own goals, which might, in effect, help the team as well.

 

Please elaborate on that a bit more, that got me interested

 

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I'll try.

 

I'd say men aren't better at working in a team than women, they're just better at making their goals happen. If it requires them working in the team, then so be it. The team is means of achieving a greater goal, something they can't get on their own. I believe if one man could take on a whole NFL team, they would. They don't need the team so what's the point of sharing with all those other people. Women are less able to work to achieve their goals, because they have a more difficult time dealing with obstacles. Whether they're people or some other barrier, they just have a hard time working in less than ideal conditions. Like I said before, they don't work in teams better by nature. It's a matter of goals and obstacles.

[Winterwolf]

Men found America, climbed the Himalayas, explored Africa, built and flew the first airplane, took the first step on the moon, sent the first telegraph across the pond, took the first photo, built the first car and so on.

 

Why are you swedes such white supremacists? It's like men and women never lived in Africa and America before the mighty whitey? Like, I'm thinking, you're a women and you live in Africa like several hundred years before the mighty-whitey exploration age and you're into hunting-gathering, you pretty much explore and everything. Men discovered America - yeah, because they lived there... with women.

 

Also Amelia Earhart. Airplanes and stuff.

[Meshugger]

Men found America, climbed the Himalayas, explored Africa, built and flew the first airplane, took the first step on the moon, sent the first telegraph across the pond, took the first photo, built the first car and so on.

 

Why are you swedes such white supremacists? It's like men and women never lived in Africa and America before the mighty whitey? Like, I'm thinking, you're a women and you live in Africa like several hundred years before the mighty-whitey exploration age and you're into hunting-gathering, you pretty much explore and everything. Men discovered America - yeah, because they lived there... with women.

 

Also Amelia Earhart. Airplanes and stuff.

 

I dunno if he's acting on racial supremacy. The latest advantages in modern civilization have come from the westerners, which often happen to be white. Lately though, the eastern civilizations, or eastern cultural hemisphere have flexed their muscles.

 

Amelia Earhart was a pioneer for women at her time, but she didn't invent the airplane, which mkreku was talking about.

[Meshugger]

No they can't. Men work towards their own goals, which might, in effect, help the team as well.

 

Please elaborate on that a bit more, that got me interested

 

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I'll try.

 

I'd say men aren't better at working in a team than women, they're just better at making their goals happen. If it requires them working in the team, then so be it. The team is means of achieving a greater goal, something they can't get on their own. I believe if one man could take on a whole NFL team, they would. They don't need the team so what's the point of sharing with all those other people. Women are less able to work to achieve their goals, because they have a more difficult time dealing with obstacles. Whether they're people or some other barrier, they just have a hard time working in less than ideal conditions. Like I said before, they don't work in teams better by nature. It's a matter of goals and obstacles.

 

That's actually interesting. I was always under the assumtion that men had it easier to form teams more quickly than women because they had the precondition of working as team from the days of being cavemen. When on the hunt, you had to count on each other and cooperate in order to succeed. Add this cycle for several generations and i would've even go as far to say that it is a natural instinct.

 

Sure, every hunter in the team would've claim the whole prey for themselves if they could, but that was not the option, so they had to cooperate. That's the distinction that i am looking for; men can cooperate as long as it is beneficial for each one of them; women less so.

[Walsingham]

I think that if anything proves there was an unhealthy bias against women and infavour of men it's Scott of the Antarctic. If a women had suggested any kind of epxedition to the antarctic it would have been refused flat. But Scott suggested going WITH HORSES and it was like 'oh that's fine'.

 

Or at least that's what my Norwegian friend says.

[mkreku]

Why are you swedes such white supremacists? It's like men and women never lived in Africa and America before the mighty whitey? Like, I'm thinking, you're a women and you live in Africa like several hundred years before the mighty-whitey exploration age and you're into hunting-gathering, you pretty much explore and everything. Men discovered America - yeah, because they lived there... with women.

 

Also Amelia Earhart. Airplanes and stuff.

If I had been asking about which race was first on each continent, your "argument" would have been worth noting. But since they have nothing to do with the differences between men and women, I'm not sure what kind of answer you seek from this?

 

Also, Amelia Earhart is a good example! She was the first woman to fly over the Atlantic ocean, this is what made her famous. But the same voyage had already been undertaken by Charles Lindbergh a decade earlier! So why would you be famous for doing something someone else had already done before? Unless you were at some sort of disadvantage from the beginning that would make your journey more difficult than the ones previously undertaken, of course. What was her disadvantage? She was female.

[Winterwolf]

If I had been asking about which race was first on each continent, your "argument" would have been worth noting. But since they have nothing to do with the differences between men and women, I'm not sure what kind of answer you seek from this?

 

Because you said:

 

Men found America, climbed the Himalayas, explored Africa,

 

I'm not arguing with the rest, it's just this part bothered me because there was a native population (male and female) doing this in those places several thousand years before already.

[mkreku]

I am comparing great accomplishments made by men to those made by women, and you're upset because people were living in those places before the explorers came? Gee, I'm sorry, but even though the indigenous people were there first, history still considers these explorers as great men and their deeds as great accomplishments.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Your history.

[Gorgon]

I was thinking how this forum needs an accomplised feminist to take up the challenge, it's all pretty one sided.

[Purkake]

I was thinking how this forum needs an accomplised feminist to take up the challenge, it's all pretty one sided.

All the geniuses here scared the women off on the first page.

['GM']

I was thinking how this forum needs an accomplised feminist to take up the challenge, it's all pretty one sided.

 

We don't need an accomplished feminist to state the obvious... but I am inspired to speak up all the same.

 

So to those of you who just can't seem to figure out why women didn't do any of those 'great' things, this is for you. From the dawn of time men have had the physical strength over women. And that, as I see it, set the course in their favor. Look how women were treated throughout history. Often beat into submission... beat or restrained. Even if they weren't the cause of the man's displeasure. Just a convenient target. Women didn't have the physical strength to protect herself and no one as her advocate. She was often either pregnant or raising babies or both. Fat chance to do anything worthwhile in that situation. She learned early on that submission to men was the most peaceful and safest route. Her lot in life. Men didn't have a trail of children to burden them as they set about doing whatever it was they wanted to do, like 'discover' something. The only ones to challenge their authority were other men, none of which would even dream of seeking a woman's opinion. At least not publicly. So of course they made the laws... in their favor.

 

If women had been endowed with equal or stronger physical strength they would never have put up with the repeated knocking around. And since physical strength inspires respect, a woman would have been greatly respected, her opinion of importance. She would've had a part to play in the exploration of the world and all that man stuff.

 

Then gradually it became understood that women are people too! And have feelings and intelligence. We are now gaining respect, and have a voice in decisions to be made. There are laws in place that protect her from abuse, although it does still occur all too often. We are involved in just about everything now. We're hardly and resilient. We've come a long way. I think that is quite an accomplishment in itself.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Of course all these implausible, deterministic, theories fall apart once you mention that matriarchal societies used to exist.

[Hurlshort]

Of course all these implausible, deterministic, theories fall apart once you mention that matriarchal societies used to exist.

 

Unfortunately most matrilineal societies still relied on a male leader. It just meant that the line of succession was dependent on the woman rather than the King. So basically the King's sister or aunt would carry the heir.

 

A true matriarchy is fairly unheard of.

[Winterwolf]

I am comparing great accomplishments made by men to those made by women, and you're upset because people were living in those places before the explorers came? Gee, I'm sorry, but even though the indigenous people were there first, history still considers these explorers as great men and their deeds as great accomplishments.

 

No, I am upset because:

 

1) 12 000 years ago, a group of humans (men, woman, children) crossed the Bering Strait and discoverred America

2) entire nations (men, woman, children) have explored Africa since the dawn of time

3) people who live in the Himalayas pretty much cross them daily

 

and suddenly, when some rich white kid repeats their thing it's suddenly a great accomplishment of the male sex.

 

Your history.

 

Exactly.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Winterwolf

[Rosbjerg]

Of course all these implausible, deterministic, theories fall apart once you mention that matriarchal societies used to exist.

 

Unfortunately most matrilineal societies still relied on a male leader. It just meant that the line of succession was dependent on the woman rather than the King. So basically the King's sister or aunt would carry the heir.

 

A true matriarchy is fairly unheard of.

 

Today yes, but go back at the dawn of the agricultural revolution and you'll find quite many.. after, we saw modifications and merging of patriarchal and matriarchal societes, especially in monarchies; like the cognatic succesion - allowing queens, the absolute primogeniture - which allowed the eldest child (regardless of sex) to inherit the throne or the egyptian variant which alternated between male and female.

 

As history progressed rule would drift more and more towards the eldest son (and "classic" hereditary succesion), because a male heir could lead the armies as society became more male-oriented.

[Meshugger]

I am comparing great accomplishments made by men to those made by women, and you're upset because people were living in those places before the explorers came? Gee, I'm sorry, but even though the indigenous people were there first, history still considers these explorers as great men and their deeds as great accomplishments.

 

No, I am upset because:

 

1) 12 000 years ago, a group of humans (men, woman, children) crossed the Bering Strait and discoverred America

2) entire nations (men, woman, children) have explored Africa since the dawn of time

3) people who live in the Himalayas pretty much cross them daily

 

and suddenly, when some rich white kid repeats their thing it's suddenly a great accomplishment of the male sex.

 

 

Because western men crossed mountains, valleys and continents, which was unknown to them If a Himalayan female sherpa crossed the alps, then all the kudos to them.