The phrase "Men are objectively superior to women"

[Roy]

1 hour ago, Jennjenn said:

So isn’t the one who survives the stronger one? 

Nobody (or not as many) would survive if women were tasked with the role doing the more physically demanding or dangerous things like hunting or fighting.

It's about utilizing the available resources and strengths as best possible for survival. Men and women are good and bad at different things, that's why distinctions are made, because they are useful to our survival. We live in an age where we are now insulated from nature and danger so we deconstruct these distinctions. Though the sexes seem to still graduate towards their inherent strengths (why fight uphill?).

When your village is under attack from an 800 pound grizzly bear who would you rather give your 3 only spears to?

3 200+ pound men?

or 

3 150+pound women?

 

 

 

[Jennjenn]

30 minutes ago, Roy said:

200+ pound men?

Do all men weight 200 pounds? Or is it that they like to identify themselves with the mystical 200 pounds 6+ feet tall hero of the movie 300? 

Also, in this prehistoric “fighting” don’t they fight only the men? They want to rape and keep the women and keep the land. Now the women are with stronger man reproducing stronger offsprings, the only ones dying are the weak men. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Jennjenn

[Danioover9000]

@Jennjenn

7 minutes ago, Jennjenn said:

Do all men weight 200 pounds? Or is it that they like to identify themselves with the mystical 200 pounds 6+ feet tall hero of the movie 300? 

   Your mind is making that comparison, that's the key issue you're missing. You're used to being self identified as a woman that any other self identification and worldview not programmed from upbringing is already threatening. 

[Forestluv]

38 minutes ago, Roy said:

When your village is under attack from an 800 pound grizzly bear who would you rather give your 3 only spears to?

3 200+ pound men?

or 

3 150+pound women?

Or three 60 IQ men?

Or three 150+ IQ women?

And are you assuming the 200+ men have various other skills? Alex Jones is 200+ pounds. I’d rather have a 150+ pound female javelin thrower than Alex Jones in that situation. 

[electroBeam]

2 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I’ll take three 150+ IQ women who figured out a way to prevent 800 pound grizzlies from attacking the village. 

IQ doesn't do shit for figuring that out, that sort of problem solving is in the EQ domain.

And in general, IQ is larger with men than women, and EQ is larger with women then men, so your original analysis supports men. 

[Danioover9000]

   All this because the OP didn't clearly contextualize the entire situations she heard the phrase 'men are objectively superior to women'. We don't know anything about the situations the phrases are used, we don't know from the OP the nature of her relationships to the men that uttered the phrase, we don't know enough to say they got defensive first or are provoked by OP's behavior/communication.

   So far, there's so little context that advice is limited down to 'don't be triggered by such phrasing'. I hope OP is willing to give detailed explanation of the context of the phrasing because guessing work isn't my strong suit and it saves time and energy for all involved.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, datamonster said:

And when survival is on the line it makes sense to let the physically strong ones do the most physically demanding job.

Context dependent:

If survival of a stroke patitient is on the line, does it make sense to have a physcially strong person? Or someone who is highly intelligent and experienced in medicine.

And notice how men tend to create physical confrontation like war and then say “we need physcially strong men to survive the problems we caused!!”. If more women were in power, there would be less need for survival through physcial confrontations. Yet men love to frame things in male-centric ways. 

 

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

IQ doesn't do shit for figuring that out, that sort of problem solving is in the EQ domain.

If I was stranded in the wilderness, I’d much rather be with a female with a high intelligence and extensive wilderness experience than a muscular man with the intelligence of a box of rocks that can’t find his way around a McDonalds. 

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   All this because the OP didn't clearly contextualize the entire situations she heard the phrase 'men are objectively superior to women'. We don't know anything about the situations the phrases are used, we don't know from the OP the nature of her relationships to the men that uttered the phrase, we don't know enough to say they got defensive first or are provoked by OP's behavior/communication.

   So far, there's so little context that advice is limited down to 'don't be triggered by such phrasing'. I hope OP is willing to give detailed explanation of the context of the phrasing because guessing work isn't my strong suit and it saves time and energy for all involved.

Yea, without any context it’s a groundless mess. Everyone is pretty much saying “It depends on context”

[Preety_India]

 

Can men give birth? 

 

[electroBeam]

5 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

If I was stranded in the wilderness, I’d much rather be with a female with a high intelligence and extensive wilderness experience than a muscular man with the intelligence of a box of rocks that can’t find his way around a McDonalds. 

I agree.

But there are cases where muscular strength is superior to intelligence and knowledge. 

Intelligence and knowledge are not absolutely superior to muscular strength. Whether intelligence, or strength is better for survival is context dependent too. 

 

But the original topic includes a much broader notion than just muscular strength. Its more abstract notions of a masculine vs feminine mindset. Where you could attribute courage, motivation, domineering, etc. To a masculine perspective, and love, compassion, etc to a feminine perspective.

And from such frames, the context for where a masculine mindset is superior to a feminine mindset is even broader. 

The bottom line is, just because masculinity is less evolved than femininity, doesn't mean femininity is absolutely superior in all contexts, or even most contexts. 

[Jennjenn]

22 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Your mind is making that comparison, that's the key issue you're missing. You're used to being self identified as a woman

It wasn’t me who mentioned the 200 hundred pound man. I’m just saying that many men like to think of themselves as a strong 200 pound 6 Feet tall men, when in reality very few men are like that. 
 

For me personally I get crushes on very funny, smart man. That idea of the 200 pound “physically strong” ideal male is outdated. No one needs that anymore in our current society. Now, a mentally, spiritually strong man with a sense of humor, that has lots of a value. 

[Jennjenn]

My answer to the op is that no, men are not superior to women.

Maybe at some point in our history physical strength was important but not anymore. And males that identify themselves with that outdated ideal would become insecure and say things like “men are superior”.  
 

in our current society what matters are all other types of strength such as mental and spiritual. And both men and women have the capacity to develop them as much as they want. 
 

 

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

But there are cases where muscular strength is superior to intelligence and knowledge. 

I see it more like developing a character with a spectrum for multiple traits. We would optimize the character for the environmental challenge. Creating an organism that had 100 muscular strength, 0 intelligence, 0 knowledge would simply be a pile of muscle - the muscle strength couldn’t even be used with a 0 intelligence, 0 knowledge. 

There are cases in which I would give a character a higher relative score for muscular strength, so it’s superior in that sense. For example, if we had 250 pts for a wilderness character, I can see doing 80 muscular strength, 60 constitution, 60 knowledge and 50 intelligence. Yet I could also see arguments for a different distribution. 

[Forestluv]

18 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Who says this? I doubt an intelligent person would say this, certainly not the men I have met.

C’mon. Men on average are more aggressive, physically violent and physically confrontational. If women had 90% of the power in the world, there would be fewer wars. There would be other problems, yet physical violence would decrease. 

Another experiment would be to decrease the testosterone levels of men down to 40 ng/dL and see what happens. Oh wait, we already know that. . . transgender women on average are significantly less violent and physically confrontational than Cis males. 

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Nope, but here is an interesting experiment .

I had a 20mm kidney stone and was told by women it’s on par with giving birth. Thank goodness for dilaudid. It was a rough ride.   

[w4read]

 

8 minutes ago, Jennjenn said:

Maybe at some point in our history physical strength was important but not anymore. And males that identify themselves with that outdated ideal would become insecure and say things like “men are superior”.

The word "superior" is rather arbitrary and is, as many people have already pointed out, dependent on the context. But I do think that things like physical strength and other more general differences between men and women can play a pretty big role in certain context in todays society. If I, as a man,  for example, approach a woman in the club or on the street I would have to be aware of the fact that that could potentially feel threatening to her if I didn't respect her boundaries. Because if I didn't I could potentially harm her. I don't think that dynamic would be there if women in general were physically stronger than men. But again, to say that that makes men superior to women would just be a stupid and arbitrary statement.

[electroBeam]

9 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I see it more like developing a character with a spectrum for multiple traits. We would optimize the character for the environmental challenge. Creating an organism that had 100 muscular strength, 0 intelligence, 0 knowledge would simply be a pile of muscle - the muscle strength couldn’t even be used with a 0 intelligence, 0 knowledge. 

There are cases in which I would give a character a higher relative score for muscular strength, so it’s superior in that sense. For example, if we had 250 pts for a wilderness character, I can see doing 80 muscular strength, 60 constitution, 60 knowledge and 50 intelligence. Yet I could also see arguments for a different distribution. 

Environmental challenge is one way of seeing it, but it misses the time/evolutionary component. Those optimal distributions change depending on the level of development of the social organism, and there's a good chance that, if you were to look at all those distributions in 1 sweep, they'd optimise each other, or at least compliment each other. 

Hence why it may be important to see this topic more along the lines of, how do the distributions work together to make each distribution the most superior they can be in different contexts, or in other words, how does the superiority of men in a particular evolutionary stage, help women be superior in another. 

[Jennjenn]

30 minutes ago, w4read said:

I don't think that dynamic would be there if women in general were physically stronger than men

Is not the physical strength, is the history of using it to hurt and abuse others that causes that dynamic. 

And we can’t say that abuse happens because women don’t have the physical strength to defend themselves, because that would be us blaming women for the acts of men. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Jennjenn

[w4read]

15 minutes ago, Jennjenn said:

Is not the physical strength, is the history of using it to hurt and abuse others that causes that dynamic.

I agree. But then it does still play a role in some kind of indirect sense, because the dynamic probably couldn't exist if there wasn't for some sort of power imbalance, which I'm just guessing come from the fact that men in most situations would be physically stronger.