Men superior to women?

I'm unclear as to what exactly needs to be 'fixed'?? Maybe I ended up with one of the non-poor specimens, as I definitely didn't 'settle' and I spend no time of my own whatsoever trying to 'fix' him and that's why I'm unable to see a problem...and he's definitely not stupid, to say the least.

 

Society is in flux. We've opened yet another Pandora's box (or maybe it's just the first one. Damn that thing had a lot of stuff in it!). If you put women on a pedistal you end up with a medieval view of gender roles. There are a lot of bad things that come with that. Domestic violence occures much less frequently in relationships where there is parity (i.e both people in the relationship have equal say in most decisions and there is a reasonable amount of overlap where one partner's opinion carries more weight). Domestic abuse is typically the result of power dynamics. When one side has most of the power a challenge to that authority will probably result in violence.

Women aren't superior to men and the opposite is equally not true. Both sides have different strengths and weaknesses. The exact combination is, of course, determined by the couple in question. How the combination of attributes is used is up to the couple. They can play games with each other, be dishonest with each other (and themselves) and make a mess of it, or they can be honest and work through their problems. I think that changing gender roles may contribute to some of the problems that we're seeing right now, but I think that there are other forces that are really playing Old Harry with American society. Among these are the decline of personal responsibility, the lack of real community in the vast majority of America, and (with a particular eye towards relationships) the "it isn't instantly perfect and easy" mentality that seems more and more prevalent. The last one is the result of the media and the lack of responsibility. The anonimity is a nasty one because people seem to think that that gives them license to treat others like dirt. I think a general decline in respect for others is the major cause of the problems that you're observing, Schmika, not gender ambiguity.

As time passes I think we'll figure out the gender role thing. Personally, I think we're definitely header towards more androgeny. Trying to run back to the "way things were" won't work. That system was broken and unable to handle modern problems/situations. If it were capable of handling those situations I don't think that we'd be having this discussion.

 

I don't recall saying anything about images of beauty.

I don't know about Asian female physiology, but in western women the pelvis is wider and slightly tipped compared to men. We have a lower center of gravity. (There's an old parlor trick involving a chair that proves it but I don't recall the details.) That means we must tilt our hips back and forth when climbing ladders or stairs and it causes us to swing slightly side to side when we walk. It's part of the skeletal structure, not a social bias. Western men tend to find this movement attractive.

There are more physical differences but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

 

I think Rex Stout's character, Archie Goodwin, says it best:

Ditto on gender. (Though I doubt Archie's boss, Nero Wolfe, would agree with me -- he alway resented Jane Austin because she proved that a woman can write just as well as any man.)

 

Bingo. Very well said, Tripp.

 

As a science instructor I deal with these kinds of questions from students on an almost daily basis.

"RACE" - there is only one "race" (species), human. Skin pigmentation is a mutation on an allele. Those with more pigmentation ("people of color") had ancestors who lived closer to the equator and developed more pigmentation as a defense mechanism against high incident of ultraviolate radiation. Those with less pigmentation ("people of pallor") had ancestors who lived closer to the poles and developed less pigmentation as a way to capture more UV for vitamin D synthesis. The only "white" people are albinos (lack pigmentation) and must stay out of the sun.

GENDER - every human fetus starts out female (every human, male and female, have nipples). As gestation progresses, hormones, based on genetics (XX or XY) push physiological characteristics to male or female. There are a few inbetween, but most humans end up as male or female.

QUALITY - more males are born, but have a higher motality rate (again based on the characteristics of XX and XY). Males tend to participate in more risky behavior (diet, activities) and tend to die off with time. Females tend to enjoy a longer life.

SUPERIORITY - this assumes good judgment with time. Males tend to be impulsive, hence do not think and act long term compared in general to females. More than 52% of medical students are now female (better long-term academic performance) and we are seeing major changes in medicine as a whole. Who first cataloged all the visible stars (a female at Harvard, who was denied a PhD by male professors). Who discovered the polio vaccine (female). Who discovered the DNA helix (female) while credit was given to Watson and Crick.

"Superiority" indicates behavior, not gender. Women have been constrained in many cultures for a long time. Women also are subject to a child-bearing crunch when it comes to career ladders. Women should be considered "superior" for being able to juggle and handle both pathways.

What ends up being "superior" is those behaviors and characteristics that nurture long-term sustainability, not short-term glory. Social support systems involving both genders are superior to single gender systems (think of armies vs. families). This is a nonquestion that popular culture doesn't understand. Two genders ensure diversity and sustainability. We need both.

 

Just a little trivia associatied with the lower center of gravity that women have. One of my collegues is a former Air Force Flight Surgeon and flew F15E fighters (391st Fighter Squadron aka Bold Tigers). According to him that lower center of gravity leads to women as a whole having better G tolerance than men. On average men can handle 3.8 G's without difficulty but women can handle 4.2 G's without difficulty.

 

To understand "how" or "why" regarding the topic herein,
requires one to first work out within themself to some
extent that which is blocking one's ability to understand
"how" and "why". The blocks are elusive because they
are made from the very topic that is attempting to be
answered. Human tendency is to try to find an answer
before removing the blocks, and so the answer is continually
inaccurate more or less, depending upon the blocks.

One thing I have seen from experience, is that a new way
of thinking, when first pursued, sometimes leads to a wide
swing in that individual, such as when one sees that A, which
has long been held to be true is found to be false, an opposite
position B is now held with fervency. This fervency
can turn an adherence to B into a blindness of B, and A.
Time and experience tend to bring a balance that is closer
to center, and because of the experience, a clearer view of
both A and B are gained.

If A = "Males are superior to females"
Then B = "Females are superior to males"

The answer lies at center (as Tripp has posted first), but it may
take many swings over time for us to arrive at that final answer.

 

Pure and simple, women have what men want. It creates most human inertia.

 

Heh heh. That's pretty much my mantra.

Schmika, I'll agree that something's afoot. There are undoubtedly many contributions to the problems that you mention based upon your experiences. I don't think that people can be "fixed" (unless they see a Veternarian ). They have to be raised properly or be above average in perception. That's one of the things that used to always make me laugh when I was in the army. The army has tried (bless it's cotton socks) to instill values in its soldiers. We were always told that our soldiers should have these Army Values cards on them at all times. I always refused to carry the bloody thing because to me it was silly. If you haven't already got the values instilled in you what good is the card? The fact is, the Army can't instill those values. Parents and communities instill values in children as they're growing up. If an 18 year old private is a dirt bag, then there's not much that Soldier's NCOs can really do.

OK, that was a long winded way of saying that women (and men), mums (and dads) should be "fixing" their kids by raising them properly. Trying to "fix" a mate almost never works. You can change yourself but you can rarely change others. That has to come from within, not without.

 

As the father of two daughters and working in a "female" profession (NP), I just had to read this thread.

Obviously, men and woman are different. But this thread seems to agree that that difference is not all internal. That's refreshing.


I'm writing this post because I've been looking for a quote for many years. I remember as a kid reading a quote from someone who was described as a Civil War General.

What I remember him saying was something to the effect that "Woman are superior to men in so many ways, it's a good thing we at least have the law on our side." (Something that is not as true as it once was.)

I've tried to use Google, but no hits. So either my memory is wrong, or the quote is so obscure that it hasn't been spidered yet.