[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 superioirity. > 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 thesis. > 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. D.