Women are inferior to men?

[lolDeath]

Pretty much right here, but I'm going to point out that men are naturally stronger than women. No, that isn't me being biased, its a proven scientific fact. It's not like a half and half thing either. A man and a woman who have a very similar lifestyle will still be unbalanced in the end. This is due to several biological factors.

Now, this doesn't mean Men are superior, or anything of that sort really, especially with the increasing lack of need for strength in our society, but might in many ways account for the dominance of men in more ancient society.

And women have better reflexes usually. =p

Physical strength is not so important in this time. People use chainsaws to cut down trees even, anyone can do it. I just don't really think things that don't matter any more really count as superior traits.

[Nightmare]

Here's where the difference is. I don't believe in quantifiable intelligence, and as far as I'm concerned strength and any other physical (as well as mental) qualities can be changed with effort.

I don't really believe in quantifiable intelligence either, but surely, you can tell between a mental handicap and a normal person, can't you? I'm stretching it a bit, but you can see what I mean.

And of course, physical qualities (and perhaps even mental ones) can be changed with enough effort. There is, however, the inherent strength some people possess that others have less of it. Can this be changed too? Just curious.

[Defeatist Elitist]

And women have better reflexes usually. =p

Physical strength is not so important in this time. People use chainsaws to cut down trees even, anyone can do it. I just don't really think things that don't matter any more really count as superior traits.

Exactly. As I said in my previous post, strength is becoming more and more of a non factor in our daily lives. Honestly, the main places where it REALLY matters is sports, where it is and always will be separated. It would be horribly unfair otherwise.

[deleted35362]

Women can be attractive and men can't

[lolDeath]

Women can be attractive and men can't

lol.. This is a joke right?

I can disprove this with how amazingly gay I am for Chris Corner.

[deleted35362]

It's my opinion.

[GKSB]

In regards to trends in the mental 'strengths' of one sex or another, those are skewed by social conditions; they aren't representative at all of any sort of neurologically proven differences. In fact, I'd say anything you cite about how women might "have been shown to be better in the arts/humanties, more emotional, interpretive elements, with no true correct answers." or how men are "better at Math and Sciences", is no different than saying that white people have been proven to be better at intellectual achievements than black people, who are better at sports. It's sociological, they've grown up in different environments and with different expectations and pressures and all that terrible baggage (to make a generalization for the sake of demonstration); nothing prevents any crossover except society. The same is with men and women. After all, it's pretty freaking rare where boys and girls, while growing up, are treated similarly; and the way you think is most malleable in childhood, the result being the difference we see today.

I mean, if it actually were biological, wouldn't we see far fewer cases of crosses between sexes in 'interests'?

Edited March 3, 2009 by Crepe Knight

[lolDeath]

@April, your opinion contradicts a common occurrence. This is like saying black people don't watch TV.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Death

[YokaiKnight]

And women have better reflexes usually. =p

I actually didn't know that. Out of curiosity, do you have a link to a study or anything?

[lolDeath]

I actually didn't know that. Out of curiosity, do you have a link to a study or anything?

None that I can find a link to at the moment, apparently, being as Google is wanting to spit out all kinds of weird shit.

I'll note though, from what I recall (I saw this ages ago) the difference is not very large. I used that to compare to the fact that men are generally stronger. My point being neither of those things are.. just completely forgot the word here.

Anyways, I'll get in touch with a couple of people that I've discussed it with and see if they remember where it is.

[Hero]

I don't really believe in quantifiable intelligence either, but surely, you can tell between a mental handicap and a normal person, can't you? I'm stretching it a bit, but you can see what I mean.

And of course, physical qualities (and perhaps even mental ones) can be changed with enough effort. There is, however, the inherent strength some people possess that others have less of it. Can this be changed too? Just curious.

Of course there are some limitations physically, since different bodies are shaped differently and all, but I would say that 90% of someone's strength is determined by training, and by simple attitude and lifestyle.

Similarly with intellectual capability, except that I believe that all people who haven't had some kind of physical accident has the same potential within their own heads. Even if this might not be true empirically, it is effectively--studies have proven that most people use much less of their brain at any given moment than they could.

Since what has been discovered about how the brain works is so limited and so questionable, I think it's a losing game to try to rank people by potential in anything.

[Nightmare]

Of course there are some limitations physically, since different bodies are shaped differently and all, but I would say that 90% of someone's strength is determined by training, and by simple attitude and lifestyle.

Similarly with intellectual capability, except that I believe that all people who haven't had some kind of physical accident has the same potential within their own heads. Even if this might not be true empirically, it is effectively--studies have proven that most people use much less of their brain at any given moment than they could.

Since what has been discovered about how the brain works is so limited and so questionable, I think it's a losing game to try to rank people by potential in anything.

Ah, I see what you mean now, and I agree with you.

[GKSB]

Similarly with intellectual capability, except that I believe that all people who haven't had some kind of physical accident has the same potential within their own heads. Even if this might not be true empirically, it is effectively--studies have proven that most people use much less of their brain at any given moment than they could.

That's a myth that's been going since the early 1900s. It's ridiculous to think that we would have an organ that consumes over 20% of the energy we take in, and not use it. You are aware of all your senses at any given time, yes? Since your brain is divided by sense, you are using, at the utmost minimum, the great portion of your brain dealing with sense (occipital and temporal lobes alone take up probably 30% of your cranium). The lower brain isn't used for conscious thought, it's always 'running' to maintain involuntary body functions like heart-rate or keeping track of time (internal clock). The frontal lobes are probably working, since you are conscious; that's most of the brain we've covered now that must be functioning. I can go further but why bother.

I really hate the "we only use 10% of our brain" myth. It makes no sense whatsoever, and certainly isn't founded on any of it.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Crepe Knight

[California Mountain Snake]

Similarly with intellectual capability, except that I believe that all people who haven't had some kind of physical accident has the same potential within their own heads.

In terms of early childhood, then yes I agree with this. But educational studies have shown that as we mature our learning habits become cemented. Early education, reading and speaking to your child, and in general interacting and exposing them to intellectually stimulating inputs (relative to a child) has proven to vastly improve a child's learning capabilities, whereas a lack of that can make them below average academically later on.

This is why social classes are natural sticky, even in a meritocracy like America. With expanding financial aid initiatives and need-blind school admission policies, it is becoming easier and easier to get into a top college, even if you come from a poor background (sometimes its even an advantage). But it doesn't change the fact that most Ivy League schools are still dominated by upper-class students. And although some may claim it's due to legacies (much rarer than people think), the real reason is that most of these kids at these schools are the sons and daughters of professors, businessmen, philosophers, in general parents who value their livelihood because of education. This allowed the vast majority of them to be raised in a household which valued learning and intellectual pursuits rather than worrying about paying the bills or how you were going to take care of your kid between your two jobs.

It's a multigenerational problem. The first parent to go to college usually sets a precedent down the line for continuing education in their family. People are born with the same intellectual potential, but that potential is very rarely exploited in one lifetime, and most often grows over the course of generations of increased family involvement in education. It's fairly deterministic viewpoint, but it is helpful in explaining why poor communities and previously subjugated ethnicities continue to remain "stuck", despite increased financial aid, need-blind admissions, and policies like affirmative action.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Black Knight

[Inactive Account]

Technically we are equal, but women have this general idea that if men do it, they should do it too. Just because men do it does not mean you have to prove your worth and do it too. Just because we can do x job does not mean you should.

I don't know if it's a "should do" anymore, but more of a "should have the option to do".

Of course women are inferior to men. The real question of today's society is why a woman would get a vote, but why our nation's hardworking horses aren't given more (never mind the same) rights than women. They certainly do more for or country on a daily basis.

I sincerely hope you're joking there. Sincerely.

Actually, I am pretty sure men have been shown to be intectually superior in fields of Math and Science - more definate areas of study, while women have been shown to be better in the arts/humanties, more emotional, interpretive elements, with no true correct answers.

Statistically that may be true, but there will always be exceptions.

I also find it ironic that in the past, even though the idea of women being more creative than men existed, the powers that were still wouldn't publish novels by women or take any art done by women seriously.

[YokaiKnight]

I sincerely hope you're joking there. Sincerely.

Equestrian rights is not a joke. It's time we gave the vote to someone who actually deserved it, not just people who like to wear dresses.

[lolDeath]

If that were the case I'd imagine the middle-class white male should probably be the first to go. ;)

[Destiny Hero]

Men are superior to women. Women can't even take their shirts off, and it must be pretty freaking annoying having to carry around two huge lumps on your chest. Also, they have to have the baby, and they have to take it :U

As long as the men aren't retarded perverts, they're superior.

[Mufasa]

Men are superior to women. Women can't even take their shirts off, and it must be pretty freaking annoying having to carry around two huge lumps on your chest. Also, they have to have the baby, and they have to take it :U

As long as the men aren't retarded perverts, they're superior.

That doesn't make them superior or inferior. Just different.

For example: Women can't have adam's apples. However, men can't bleed for several days without dying.

[Bohemund]

Men are physically stronger and can see better than women. Women have better hearing and longer lifespans. Intelligence is actually pretty equal; women are just making up for what they weren't allowed to do a century ago.

[Jyosua]

Men are superior to women. Women can't even take their shirts off, and it must be pretty freaking annoying having to carry around two huge lumps on your chest. Also, they have to have the baby, and they have to take it :U

As long as the men aren't retarded perverts, they're superior.

Enjoy your warn.

[lolDeath]

Men are superior to women.

No we aren't, but aren't you the little sexist.

Women can't even take their shirts off, and it must be pretty freaking annoying having to carry around two huge lumps on your chest.

Anyone with two arms can take their shirt off, and them being annoying is both subjective and nothing to do with any form of inferiority.

Also, they have to have the baby, and they have to take it :U

Cool. Have to get random erections makes about as much sense as an inferiority.

As long as the men aren't retarded perverts, they're superior.

No. Just no.

You have clearly displayed an extreme lack of sense. Educate yourself or please do not reproduce, but then again, why would you want to be with something inferior for? Maybe you are just a homosexual in denial or something, if you like men so much more than women.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Death

[deleted35362]

@Jyosua

That comment would be more suitable to be said in a PM.

Meh, I dunno. Back then men considered themselves above

women but events in history have proved that statement

to be wrong.

[Rehab]

So, General has some weird threads in it.

While I don't know anything about, uh, I guess the science of superiority? I'd tell that guy he's being a pointless hater.

[General Spoon]

Women can lift cars off their children. I think that deserves to be thrown out there.