Men and women are not equal

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

OK, I'm quite confident that I'm going to receive a backlash for this, but oh well. Men are physically superior to women. Why do some women feel the need to act like men and be something they're not?? I understand that not all women are dainty and I'm fine with that, but it really irks me when women try to be all tough and think that they are just as strong as men. It's actually quite insulting. Now I know some jacka$s is gonna say that I want all women to be subservient to men...yada yada yada. This is not my attitude. I love women. I think they are superior to men in many ways, but physical strength and prowess is not one of them. I also accept that there are exceptions to every rule, and therefore are strong women out there, but this is the exception. For example, I think the US army is absolutely correct in not allowing women to enter infantry and other direct combat positions. Would anyone seriously argue that a platoon of women could go up against a group of Taliban??? I've been told that these are very old-fashioned beliefs that will soon be obselete, but I disagree. I even heard one argument that women are physically weaker only because they have been opressed by men for so long. If they had the proper training they would be just as strong as men. I believe this has been proven wrong as women body builders are not as strong as their male counterparts, etc.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,916 • Replies: 24

No top replies

Hi John Creasy,

I happen to agree with you. Women are not physically equal to men. Yes, there are some exceptions to the rule. There always are exceptions to any rule. But in general, I think your statements are right on.

I don't think that you are putting women down in any way. I think you are just recognizing the reality of it. There are women smarter than men. There are women stronger than men, etc. Always exceptions.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a platoon of women going up against a group of Taliban fighters. But, make it a group of women Taliban fighters, and I would reconsider. Laughing

0 Replies

I'm not going to give you any backlash, but you might try revising your 2nd sentence a little bit...

Men, in general, are brute physical strength wise, stronger than women.

However, when you said "physically superior" my first thought was overall physical condition.

If that's what you meant, you would be incorrect. Until menapause, woman are typically healthier and less prone to disease than men. But I'm not going to get into all that, since that will start a whole 'nother debate.

Other than that, I have no opinion on women in combat at this moment.

Just wanted to clear up that wording.

0 Replies

I'll respond just to the physical part of it (I'm not even going to speculate about what your possible underlying motives for discussing this may be, you don't sound like The Man, but who knows... Wink

): It's just plain old scientific fact that women can't build as much muscle mass as men, we don't have as much testosterone. That's that. But of course a woman who does build up a lot of muscle can be stronger than a man who doesn't.

But you also mentioned physical "prowess." I think I'd define prowess as being adept at something. That to me could be seperate from just physical strength. I would say women can be just as physically adept at some things as a man, there are plenty of sports where that's demonstrated. So I disagree on prowess.

0 Replies

though I dont agree with the WAY you said it-
( example.. being superior. .)

I agree that women are not BORN , or naturally geared to be stronger then men.

No way.

Our genetics dont make us stronger with out outside assistance.. - body building being an example.

I do and DONT agree with women being on the front like of a war.

Women can pull a trigger on a gun just as men can.
That doesnt take physical strength.

Planning a form of attack , stealth, patience and teamwork doesnt require physical strength either.

Hand to hand combat.. thats a diffrent situation . And with that being the example, I would question a group of women in war too.

Not that women are not CAPABLE.. because any human who is free of a physical handicap, can be physicaly dangerous with the proper training.
I just dont see women being the first choice.

as with all tasks, it really depends on the individual.

But I will agree, women are NOT the first choice.

0 Replies

Re: Men and women are not equal

John Creasy wrote:

I believe this has been proven wrong as women body builders are not as strong as their male counterparts, etc.

...but women body builders are a stronger than a whole lot of men...

If strength is your concern, why not make that the threshold rather than gender? As in, people who wish to serve in combat must pass some sort of physical strength test -- and if they do, they may serve. That probably would end up with more men than women, but not NO women, by any means.

I'd think Lisa Leslie would be able to pass pretty much anything a run-of-the-mill male recruit would be able to pass, for example.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Leslie_170_020730.jpg

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

Until menapause, woman are typically healthier and less prone to disease than men.

Yes, I agree that women generally have less health problems for certain biological reasons, like testosterone, etc. You would be right if that was what I meant. It's not. I meant strictly in terms of strength and agressiveness. Don't get me wrong, I think women can be vicious in some ways (my wife can tear me a new one in an argument!) but physically, not so much.

0 Replies

I think its quite obvious that a huge percentage of women are not physically stronger than men, and I dont understand why any 'woman' would want to be....

as for women not being 'allowed' in combat ,I think sucks, Im sure there would be a lot of women out there who could do just as good a job as their male counterpart in the armed forces.

0 Replies

shewolfnm wrote:

though I dont agree with the WAY you said it-
( example.. being superior. .)

I agree that women are not BORN , or naturally geared to be stronger then men.

No way.

Our genetics dont make us stronger with out outside assistance.. - body building being an example.

I do and DONT agree with women being on the front like of a war.

Women can pull a trigger on a gun just as men can.
That doesnt take physical strength.

Planning a form of attack , stealth, patience and teamwork doesnt require physical strength either.

Hand to hand combat.. thats a diffrent situation . And with that being the example, I would question a group of women in war too.

Not that women are not CAPABLE.. because any human who is free of a physical handicap, can be physicaly dangerous with the proper training.
I just dont see women being the first choice.

as with all tasks, it really depends on the individual.

But I will agree, women are NOT the first choice.

I absolutely agree. Maybe superior was the wrong choice of words.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Chai Tea wrote:

Until menapause, woman are typically healthier and less prone to disease than men.

Yes, I agree that women generally have less health problems for certain biological reasons, like testosterone, etc. You would be right if that was what I meant. It's not. I meant strictly in terms of strength and agressiveness. Don't get me wrong, I think women can be vicious in some ways (my wife can tear me a new one in an argument!) but physically, not so much.

I agree.
Testosterone levels have alot to do with that.
Women do not carry NEAR the amounts as men do.
There for , on a basic genetic level, men are MUCH more suited for combat, problems that involve strength, and aggressiveness.
Hands down.

But as mentioned before, women can train and be equal physicaly.. but I do agree that geneticaly, it is a bit out of our league.

ok.. i will stop agreeing so much now. HA

0 Replies

Re: Men and women are not equal

sozobe wrote:

John Creasy wrote:
I believe this has been proven wrong as women body builders are not as strong as their male counterparts, etc.

...but women body builders are a stronger than a whole lot of men...

If strength is your concern, why not make that the threshold rather than gender? As in, people who wish to serve in combat must pass some sort of physical strength test -- and if they do, they may serve. That probably would end up with more men than women, but not NO women, by any means.

I'd think Lisa Leslie would be able to pass pretty much anything a run-of-the-mill male recruit would be able to pass, for example.

Yes, I think a woman bodybuilder is stronger than most men who do not work out. As far as the physical stength test, that is already the case. Recruits need to be able to do a certain amount of push-ups, sit-ups, etc., etc. The female recruits are only required to do about half as the males. If you held them up to the same standards, VERY few women would make it. A strong, well-trained woman could be dangerous against a man that was untrained, but I don't think she would stand a chance against a man with the same training.

0 Replies

But why not just hold them up to the same standards rather than making it gender-based?

Very few is still more than zero.

I think a strong, well-trained Lisa Leslie type would have every chance against a similarly sized (or smaller, as is more likely -- she's 6' 5") and similarly trained male.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

But why not just hold them up to the same standards rather than making it gender-based?

Very few is still more than zero.

I think a strong, well-trained Lisa Leslie type would have every chance against a similarly sized (or smaller, as is more likely -- she's 6' 5") and similarly trained male.

Well that's a good question. I still am very against women in infantry positions. I don't think that Lisa Leslie would stand a chance against a man with the same training unless he was exceptionally weak or something.

0 Replies

Look at those arms, man! ;-)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Look at those arms, man! ;-)

lol, she is kind of diesel, but I still think I could take her!!!

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I think a strong, well-trained Lisa Leslie type would have every chance against a similarly sized (or smaller, as is more likely -- she's 6' 5") and similarly trained male.

There's not that many woman who are over 6 feet tall though.

If women were to enter combat, would you want to make a policy that only women, let's say over 5'8" be in combat?

What about the woman who's 5'7" with just as much muscle.

Of course with men the line is drawn somewhere too, but if I were a mother, I'd be wishing my daughter wouldn't grow any taller than 5'

John, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that's what you meant, I should have worded it as "I know that's not what you meant, but....."

Yes, the average woman walking around has nowhere near the physical strength of a man.

That's why I keep one around the house, to open pickle jars.

0 Replies

I think a strength test could cover any height requirements -- if someone was too short (man or woman), they probably couldn't do it.

At any rate, I don't dispute that taken as a whole, men tend to be stronger than women. That doesn't mean that there aren't women who are stronger than a whole lot of men, including their likely opponents. So it would make more sense to me that, rather than going by gender, a set of tests based on what skills people would really need for combat would be devised, and then whomever passes them, passes them.

If the tests are reasonable and it ends up with a combat force that is 90% male and 10% female, I'd not object.

0 Replies

Don't mess with the ladies, IMHO... :wink:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=964893#964893

0 Replies

The AVERAGE woman may not be best suited for hand-to-hand combat, but I believe a good number of women could be found for whom hand-to-hand combat would not be a problem. There are a lot of men that probably shouldn't be in hand-to-hand situations either.

Societal pressure has punished the average woman for being aggressive, so she has learned to not be feisty. That can be trained out. Besides, I rather like the idea of warriors seeking less violent or negotiated solutions.

I do support women in the military. Hand-to-hand combat is rare these days-- women as riflemen, combat pilots, tank crew, naval personnel- I see working out fine.

0 Replies

That's a good summary, I agree.

0 Replies

Men and women are not equal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know