Re: Women are vastly superior to men

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Dustbin, Apr 10, 2005.

  1. Dustbin

    Dustbin Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > We are much less aggressive than men. If men didn't exist there would
    > be no war, and very little crime.

    This is simply wring. It has been shown that
    women caused the first wnaton warmongering.

    And, crime is defined socially. That men commit
    most crime is not a biological fact but one
    rooted in social organisation.

    The State has spent many decades criminalising
    the anti-social behaviour that tends to be
    vharactreristic of men while not criminlising
    the anti-social behaviout of females.

    > Women are better socially. We are more empathetic, better listeners,
    > and more aware of non-verbal communication and other subtleties.

    It is an assumption that these particular
    qualties should define superiority.

    I could define horses as superior by claiming
    that their particular qualities qualify them for
    > Women give off less body odour than men.

    Firstly, that may be questionable as a fact; and
    it may be neceassary to reproduction that men
    give off more pheromones.

    Secondly, you are again assuming what qualities
    constitute the basis for superiority.
    > Women have higher stamina.

    Firstly, this is not consistent with recnt
    Pentagon reaseach showing that men can run
    faster and longer than women.

    Seconly, it assumes that stamina is a
    qualification for superiority.

    Notably you wish here to select a generally male
    trait to support your contention that females
    are superior.

    When it suits you, physical (male) traits prove
    superiority, and then when it suits you female
    traits qualify for superiority. There is
    demonstrably questionable objectivity to your

    > A smaller percentage of women are homosexual than men. This just shows
    > that, in general, we are more secure in our sexuality.

    Firstly, this does not demonstrate sexual
    insecutrity since you cannot be sure whether
    male homosecuality is biological or
    psychological. Furthermore, your contention that
    male homosexuality may more prolific than female
    homosexuality could be an endicator that it is
    biological not s0cial.

    Secondly, thanks to the Victorian falacy you
    cannot be sure than there *are* more male than
    female homosexuals.
    > Women can multi-task, and don't have to think about sex every 20
    > seconds, unlike men.

    That women can make a mess of two things at once
    is not indicative of superiority; that men can
    put the mess right - one thing at a time - *is*
    indicative of our superiority.
    > Women are much better drivers than men.

    Not true.

    Women cost less when they have an accident
    because they are slower drivers. But they have
    more accidents. The total cost to the insurer -
    who defines things in his own terms for his own
    benefit - is lower for female claims than for
    male claims.

    But, men can driver faster and still have fewer
    accidents than women - requiring greater skill.
    > I could go on, but I've said enough. The Bottom line is that women are
    > much better than men in ever way!

    You have not offered one single substantial
    basis for your contention.