CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Women lives longer than man. Among the world’s population of those who are over 100 years old, 85 percent are women, according to the New England Centenarian Study. In general, women continue to live five to 10 years longer than men as well.
How does living longer make women better? True you'd need to know or do certain things that would make you live longer but it altogether doesn't mean that women living longer make them better.
As "women" is plural, and "man" is singular, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, and all that.
Seriously, it is your debate title, take two seconds to proofread.
Technically though women are more valuable to society (in spite of third world philosophies on the situation).
In order to continue the human population you only need a handful of men as we produce sperm at a ridiculous rate and could technically impregnate several women a day.
Women on the other hand are only capable of a limited number of offspring, and that only once every 9 months or so.
So women are more important, thus better than men, from a biological perspective.
even know i am a 13 year old guy i know that you shouldnt ever disgudge a girl even know they could be small and helpless they still have the same pertental as an man or young boy if they believe in their self.
living ten years more than men doesnt mean that women r better than boys......its better to live fr 50 years doing something worthy than living 100 years doing nothing.........................
From what I've seen, I don't think that women are better than men. I think they're equal. Back in ancient times, women were put down as weak and inferior but nowadays women have been able to show that they can compete with men.
No. I know this day and age everybody says that women are equal to men blah blah blah and the mentally we're the same but we all know they're not. Physically they're weaker too. That means that men are better then women. Simples.
No, that means men are different than women. Different does not mean better, or worse.
Men and women are not identical mentally but each sex has its own strengths. The same is true for men and women physically. Men have more muscle mass but women can have children.
Why do you think they need to be ranked hierarchically?
Physical and mental superiority imply general superiority, surely?
Tell me why you believe male mental abilities are overall superior to female mental abilities. Then tell me why you believe strength is the sole determining factor of physical superiority, or what other claims to physical superiority males have.
Women cannot have children without a man or a man's gamete.
And men cannot have children at all. The woman is the one who turns the sperm from a zygote to a baby. Men are physically incapable of incubation.
Because that is the purpose of this debate.
The answer to the question can be 'no' without asserting that one sex is better than the other. Is it a difficult concept that men and women contribute invaluably to both relationships, society, and the species in general, and if one or the other were absent from the equation, we would suffer greatly? If a two-piece machine cannot function without one of the pieces, how do you determine which one is 'better' than the other?
I started to work on some specific counterarguments but I found myself puzzled because I think I am misunderstanding what you are disputing.
"No, that means men are different than women.
Physical and mental superiority imply general superiority, surely?"
This exchange led me to believe you think males are physically and mentally superior to women. When I disagreed with both counts, you apparently have no opinion and no desire to determine which sex is superior to the other. If the latter is true, then I am not sure what we disagree on.
If the latter is true, then I am not sure what we disagree on.
We disagree on several key issues:
-Any superiority implies general superiority (such that if two otherwise equal people were disparate in strength, the stronger would be superior).
-The fact that women incubate the foetus and that men do not somehow makes women more important in the process of reproduction.
-That a sperm is a zygote.
If I have misrepresented or misinterpreted your views, then I apologise.
This exchange led me to believe you think males are physically and mentally superior to women.
Men are statistically physically superior to women (both sexes being vital to reproduction, strength is the most convenient measure of this).
Again, statistically, men have larger brains than women, relative to body mass. While my understanding of biology is not yet advanced enough to pronounce this an indication of superior intellect, I suspect that yours is not advanced enough to make a contrary pronouncement.
The above are facts, but I would be remiss if I were to let the matter lie here. I do not know what superiorities women claim to have, so I could not make a balanced deduction. If you know of any, please inform me of them.
Also working in women's favour is the fact that I consider them (some of them anyway) to be very attractive, such that I would give them aesthetic superiority over men. I believe this negates men's physical superiority, so the only argument left is that of intellect, upon which I cannot elaborate for the reasons previously expressed.
It is thus that we are left in a quagmire, to which I can see only one solution; the accurate definition of the superiority we are discussing. Socially, women are equal to men, in that they raise our children whilst we (traditionally) provide food. However, to state that the sexes are equal is to say that they are exactly the same, which would be a fallacious declaration.
-Any superiority implies general superiority (such that if two otherwise equal people were disparate in strength, the stronger would be superior).
To turn this on its head, we are easily more intelligent than field mice, and stronger, but it doesn't follow that we are superior organisms. Field mice evolved to be better at a different niche and it follows that they are more prolific than us as part of that, for example.
Gender disparity is a more subtle version of this. The genders evolved different roles and this can lead to extreme divergence in appearance and behaviours. It also falls on its face because women are genetically the same as males excluding the Y-Chromosome (of course, having two X-Chromosomes allows for genetic redundancy in case one has a critical mutation). So the argument is more about which gender expresses more of the human traits we deem valuable.
Men are statistically physically superior to women (both sexes being vital to reproduction, strength is the most convenient measure of this).
It doesn't really matter because this doesn't mean that a woman cannot become as strong as a man or that a man cannot be weaker than a woman, just that there is a trend towards this.
Again, statistically, men have larger brains than women, relative to body mass. While my understanding of biology is not yet advanced enough to pronounce this an indication of superior intellect, I suspect that yours is not advanced enough to make a contrary pronouncement.
A larger brain is due to differences in body size, mostly. Brain size usually correlates with body size (a simple rule, yes there are exceptions which I am about to elaborate upon).
The inferior-parietal lobule is larger in men on average, and its size is correlated with mental math abilities, selective attention and perception, and manipulating spacial relationships.
However, in women the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and superior temporal cortex (Broca's area and Wernicke's area respectively) are larger on average, and these areas seem to correlate with language skills.
The point being that gender seems to express a tradeoff on average with brains but recall that when dealing with individuals this is hardly useful information. This sort of information best helps us understand trends in populations, not individuals because trends average out abnormalities, while individuals do not.
I should also add that brain size can correlate with muscle mass, in that it takes more neurons to control more muscle cells. Males are typically more muscular than women.
It is thus that we are left in a quagmire, to which I can see only one solution; the accurate definition of the superiority we are discussing. Socially, women are equal to men, in that they raise our children whilst we (traditionally) provide food. However, to state that the sexes are equal is to say that they are exactly the same, which would be a fallacious declaration.
Correct, they are not equal, however the gender differences seem to imply tradeoffs while working with the same amount of average fitness. In other words we are on average equally evolved (and ignoring exceptions) share similar fitness, so the genders employ evolutionary thrift in different ways because they both have relatively the same environment to work with.
Also working in women's favour is the fact that I consider them (some of them anyway) to be very attractive, such that I would give them aesthetic superiority over men.
I find both attractive, so I guess that negates your subjective argument.
Forgive the truncated answer, but I do not opine either way, biologically, making a response to your more technical points rather pointless.
Field mice evolved to be better at a different niche and it follows that they are more prolific than us as part of that, for example.
You very recently stated that numbers do not imply superiority.
It doesn't really matter because this doesn't mean that a woman cannot become as strong as a man or that a man cannot be weaker than a woman, just that there is a trend towards this.
When comparing two things, the mean is the only practical way to do it.
The inferior-parietal lobule is larger in men on average, and its size is correlated with mental math abilities, selective attention and perception, and manipulating spacial relationships.
However, in women the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and superior temporal cortex (Broca's area and Wernicke's area respectively) are larger on average, and these areas seem to correlate with language skills.
The point being that gender seems to express a tradeoff on average with brains but recall that when dealing with individuals this is hardly useful information. This sort of information best helps us understand trends in populations, not individuals because trends average out abnormalities, while individuals do not.
Thank you.
I find both attractive, so I guess that negates your subjective argument.
I imagine that must be very convenient, effectively doubling the pool of viable mates.
You very recently stated that numbers do not imply superiority.
Not in the absolute sense, no. They can only suggest superiority for a given attribute, in the case of field mice they have superiour fecundity.
When comparing two things, the mean is the only practical way to do it.
Correct, but for populations you must remember that taking the mean gives an answer with a specific context which precludes its utility for individuals.
I imagine that must be very convenient, effectively doubling the pool of viable mates.
You'd think so, but it makes it easier to fall back on the same sex for sake of familiarity rather than become an expert at the opposite sex.
Correct, but for populations you must remember that taking the mean gives an answer with a specific context which precludes its utility for individuals.
This did not mean so much to you when you were arguing about maturity.
You'd think so, but it makes it easier to fall back on the same sex for sake of familiarity rather than become an expert at the opposite sex.
I find the mystery quite charming. What do you find attractive about males?
This did not mean so much to you when you were arguing about maturity.
I had at least two such discussions. In the first I defined maturity as the average behaviour which characterises an adult age group. Immaturity would be the average behaviour found in a juvenile age group.
In the second discussion, I took my many experiences and condensed them into a hunch which made me think a person was pretending to be older than he actually was. I did not claim absolute knowledge, just likely knowledge.
I find the mystery quite charming. What do you find attractive about males?
I find it intimidating at times, to know that you're very different and cannot really empathise with a person on the physical level. Also curious, because here is a person who is different from you but a part of you. It is cliche to think that way, but it is true. Females are, despite being different, the other half.
Males on the other hand are easy to understand. I expect that the attraction comes from the personality though. Granted we all experience lust, but moving past that, gender becomes irrelevant. A person with a wonderful, warm personality invites you to care about them, to protect them, and when it comes to it, make them feel good physically (which is what sex has become in the last decades, pleasure, less about procreation).
I can't really understand how a person is prevented from making that final step in connection. If we enjoy a person on every other level, then what is the barrier to sex with them about? If you both care about each other then it is just one more level of closeness.
But then again, I find myself able to overlook just about any body type.
I find it intimidating at times, to know that you're very different and cannot really empathise with a person on the physical level.
I surmise that there is a need for the difference in us. Women need the insurmountable edifice that is man, men need the impenetrable quagmire that is woman.
Also curious, because here is a person who is different from you but a part of you.
The union of iron and carbon produces a superior alloy.
Females are, despite being different, the other half.
I suspect the answer lies in the attachment to central symmetry (the same but opposite). Perhaps the shape, if you will, transcends gender.
Males on the other hand are easy to understand.
I find our (males') need to share our findings with each other to be very endearing. From primitive fire, to sexual encounters, to wave-particle duality, we relish in exchanging experience and knowledge. The classic scene:
Caveman one: Ugh!
Caveman Two: Ugh?
[Caveman One shows Caveman Two the pointy rock]
Both Cavemen: UGH!!
Granted we all experience lust, but moving past that, gender becomes irrelevant.
I have only recently looked up from my books to behold the females, so I am struggling to overcome the former. Thus I can not comment on the latter.
A person with a wonderful, warm personality invites you to care about them, to protect them, and when it comes to it, make them feel good physically
Nor can I comment on this, for I am busily engaged in the assault on a seemingly impenetrable sheet of ice which has thus far prevented me from experiencing these things.
I can't really understand how a person is prevented from making that final step in connection. If we enjoy a person on every other level, then what is the barrier to sex with them about?
I don't understand it, but I have no right to comment on this either (frustratingly); I feel that it is something that belongs to others, not me.
But then again, I find myself able to overlook just about any body type.
I surmise that there is a need for the difference in us. Women need the insurmountable edifice that is man, men need the impenetrable quagmire that is woman.
Yes, this is what I said in fewer words.
I find our (males') need to share our findings with each other to be very endearing. From primitive fire, to sexual encounters, to wave-particle duality, we relish in exchanging experience and knowledge. The classic scene:
I think this holds true for modern women as well, but that is more complicated.
I have only recently looked up from my books to behold the females, so I am struggling to overcome the former. Thus I can not comment on the latter.
Nor can I comment on this, for I am busily engaged in the assault on a seemingly impenetrable sheet of ice which has thus far prevented me from experiencing these things.
I don't understand it, but I have no right to comment on this either (frustratingly); I feel that it is something that belongs to others, not me.
You're going to smack yourself in a few years when you finally open up and realise that you missed out on a critical period of exploration and experimentation, and all your peers are far more experienced than you.
Whereas I overlook all but the good ones.
The good ones are quite often the bad ones. You'll see this yourself.
Have you noticed yet that certain women find you alluring because of your articulate and exceptional nature?
What time do you usually write on create debate? I usually do so between 5:30pm and 6:10pm.
You're going to smack yourself in a few years
I already am. I have subjected the problem to the most rigorous intellectual examination I can muster, but thus far I have arrived at the same conclusion; the yawning social divide betwixt us has resulted in two separate truths. The brazen, ignorant and contented on one side, sooner blossomed but imminent victims of the winter; the other closeted away in marble towers, closer to the stars but asphyxiated by the altitude. One day my tower will come tumbling down and I will be stricken among the ruin of the environment I threw up to fend off what I deemed to be foolish nonsense.
I have no way out.
...realise that you missed out on a critical period of exploration and experimentation
I can but watch it slip away, for 'twas never within reach.
and all your peers are far more experienced than you.
As I am fond of saying, I have won every battle but they have won the war.
The good ones are quite often the bad ones.
I see.
You'll see this yourself.
I cannot but wonder how; it is an alien thing to me.
realise that you missed out on a critical period of exploration and experimentation
Is it really so important?
Have you noticed yet that certain women find you alluring because of your articulate and exceptional nature?
What time do you usually write on create debate? I usually do so between 5:30pm and 6:10pm.
I am usually on somewhere between 6pm and 8pm your time, then again around at some time between 7am to 11am your time. Unless I'm bored, or waiting for something in which case I will check between those times.
I already am. I have subjected the problem to the most rigorous intellectual examination I can muster, but thus far I have arrived at the same conclusion; the yawning social divide betwixt us has resulted in two separate truths. The brazen, ignorant and contented on one side, sooner blossomed but imminent victims of the winter; the other closeted away in marble towers, closer to the stars but asphyxiated by the altitude. One day my tower will come tumbling down and I will be stricken among the ruin of the environment I threw up to fend off what I deemed to be foolish nonsense.
So much drama. I said the same thing you know? What I found is that through much trial and error in failed relationships and mistakes made that in hindsight were obvious, having a fulfilling life with other people merely requires that you extend and open yourself them and accept them for their faults.
You're very comfortable looking down on others as inferiors, and feel satisfied in keeping a distance because their affairs are often trivial but that misses something that you must experience to know it. I would be quite insane right now if I remained alone and distant, very likely dead from suicide.
At the heart of it your choice is to remain alone. If you choose to leave your comfort zone, and decide to drop the pretention, through trial and error you'll find some people worth knowing. Advice: the intelligent aren't the only ones worth knowing.
I can but watch it slip away, for 'twas never within reach.
It was always within reach. You just haven't let yourself make the necessary personal sacrifices.
As I am fond of saying, I have won every battle but they have won the war.
Who allowed that to happen, though?
I cannot but wonder how; it is an alien thing to me.
Probably in six to twelve years you'll finally realise through lonliness how wrong you were to keep distant from people, and then you'll start to become more extroverted, and some of those pretty ladies (who are now your age) will feel secure in following you because you are well-spoken, deep, and authoritative. However many of them will have no clue how hard your life was, being that you are introverted and (honesty here) not a model of perfect manly anatomy. Therefore they might expect to be spoiled by you like so many previous boyfriends reinforced, and they will lack that empathy with your situation that you need.
This isn't the only possible outcome but it is a common one.
Is it really so important?
I can't speak with absolute knowledge on the subject but it is one of the things that I frequently regret about my youth.
No.
Speak in public with confidence, have a presense in the rooms you enter, and keep a watch for certain body language and the special ways that women imply that they are interested. You'll be surprised.
In my day I completely ignored many hints at interest (either in friendship, or possible flirtations) by my fellow young woman and man. I was completely oblivious.
I am usually on somewhere between 6pm and 8pm your time, then again around at some time between 7am to 11am your time.
I see you anticipated my plan.
So much drama.
I'm rarely happy unless what I say is overly dramatic and possessed of at least some form of imagery.
I said the same thing you know?
Of course you did. It it the perpetual tragedy after all.
through much trial and error in failed relationships
I have no general stratagem in this regards. That is to say that I know not even how to proceed to a point where I might possess something that could fail, let alone watch it do so.
having a fulfilling life with other people merely requires that you extend and open yourself them and accept them for their faults.
The ostracism is not my artifice. I have made many attempts, but they have all failed.
You're very comfortable looking down on others as inferiors... At the heart of it your choice is to remain alone.
Not quite the truth. Such is the structure of society in my... area, as it were, as renders it nigh impossible to penetrate such circles as would expedite my present relief. You could say that mine is not the traditional role as the outcast. It is the result of neither of aloofness nor physical deformity. I consider myself amiable enough, much given to mirth at every possible moment (indeed, the roars of my peers and I can be heard by all around), but I surmise that my present situation is born of the difference in schools betwixt my former peers and I. I have been separated from that group in which I was naturally a part and I have been left behind to watch as they slip into lives of fecklessness and dissipation. By the time I returned to them, I found that we no longer had much in common - I have neither smoked nor availed of alcohol or narcotics. As such, there is little I can add to their company when they chase away the hours of the night inebriated and swimming through drug-induced fantasies. This is the second of the things I cannot as yet obtain. I do not desire to frolic about in such a state, but I have of late felt that there is something amiss. I found that an active social and romantic life is the only thing I lack, so that must be it.
Advice: the intelligent aren't the only ones worth knowing.
I do not know how to speak with those who are not. Do you?
make the necessary personal sacrifices.
Such as?
Probably in six to twelve years you'll finally realise through lonliness how wrong you were to keep distant from people
I thought as much.
and some of those pretty ladies (who are now your age) will feel secure in following you because you are well-spoken, deep, and authoritative.
They have hitherto showed little interest in my speech, mine humour or my authority.
However many of them will have no clue how hard your life was
I have never consciously desired sympathy for my lot in life.
but it is one of the things that I frequently regret about my youth.
I am already regretting it.
keep a watch for certain body language and the special ways that women imply that they are interested.
I'm rarely happy unless what I say is overly dramatic and possessed of at least some form of imagery.
Believe it or not, youth is fraught with this. And women too at any age.
I have no general stratagem in this regards. That is to say that I know not even how to proceed to a point where I might possess something that could fail, let alone watch it do so.
You find a person that interests you in some way, talk with the person. If the person seems engaging and not off-put you might do this on a regular basis, talking about common interests. Eventually you might ask to talk over a cup of coffee or tea (if you're adults) but if adolescents you may talk with each other over lunch.
You'll make mistakes, maybe in misreading the person's interest, or talking too much about yourself, or in judging the right topics.
The ostracism is not my artifice. I have made many attempts, but they have all failed.
So you continue trying, learn from the mistakes.
You could say that mine is not the traditional role as the outcast. It is the result of neither of aloofness nor physical deformity. I consider myself amiable enough, much given to mirth at every possible moment (indeed, the roars of my peers and I can be heard by all around), but I surmise that my present situation is born of the difference in schools betwixt my former peers and I.
When I was your age I graduated my school, which meant leaving an important friend behind. I was never social, and the only reason I had him as a friend was that he chose me about a decade prior and I accepted him. I attempted other friendships but they ended early. Anyhow, I kept him as a friend by staying involved in his life. He wasn't as immature as your friends, admittedly, but because I kept in touch with him through those years we are still friends to this day.
I do not know how to speak with those who are not. Do you?
You find a common interest. An intelligent person might have many interests, a normal person might specialise in a few. Also, to a normal person knowledge isn't so much a competition, they accept their limitations so you need not remind them of their inadequacies at each mistake.
For example, I enjoy apples, so I may have a conversation with a grower about the different cultivars and which is ideal for baking. We may discuss the idea pie recipe. He may teach me something new, for example the fertiliser to use at this time of year, if any.
Such as?
You may have to start exercising and weight-lifting, taking time away from other interests. Then you must learn to be genuinely warm. You must sacrifice your pride in being smarter than others, because this just makes you seem obnoxious when you may not intend it.
They have hitherto showed little interest in my speech, mine humour or my authority.
Did you pay attention to the signs? Also recall that I'm talking about you as a 22 year-old. Young women are not as interested in smarter men.
If someone asks you for information on a subject, or help of a difficult subject, or compliments your knowledge. These are examples of signs that you have respect.
I have never consciously desired sympathy for my lot in life.
It's not about what you desire, it's about the ability of someone else to understand where you come from.
Such as?
Being followed, asked silly questions frequently, giddiness, frequently coming to you for information, interest in things you're writing about, and so on.
Body language may be indicated by grins while talking to you, the eyes might look away when facing you which might mean the girl doesn't want you to know how she's feeling.
-Any superiority implies general superiority (such that if two otherwise equal people were disparate in strength, the stronger would be superior).
What if the other one is faster? Has better vision? A more complete immune system? All three?
-The fact that women incubate the foetus and that men do not somehow makes women more important in the process of reproduction.
I realize the reproductive process is impossible without the contribution of both sexes. My contention is that the time and energy contribution is vastly unequal.
-That a sperm is a zygote.
I realize that. I wrote that sentence awkwardly. My mistake.
Men are statistically physically superior to women (both sexes being vital to reproduction, strength is the most convenient measure of this). ... If you know of any, please inform me of them.
Physically:
-Females have a longer lifespan.
-Babies born prematurely have a better chance of survival if they are female.
-Females are far less likely to inherit x-linked disorders such as MD or colorblindness.
-Females have better vision when it comes to distinguishing color.
-Pound for pound, the uterus is the strongest muscle in the body of either gender.
Mentally:
The size difference is negligible, even proportionally - about 4%, or 100 grams. I am not aware of any evidence that states that one sex's brain has an overall higher capacity or processing ability.
-Females on average have a higher vocabulary than men.
-Females have a larger hippocampus, improving memory and verbal communication.
-Beginning in infancy, females are more empathetic and better at recognizing emotions and relationships in others.
-A search of "sex differences in the brain" brings up plenty other interesting examples of the mental strengths of both genders.
Also working in women's favour is the fact that I consider them (some of them anyway) to be very attractive, such that I would give them aesthetic superiority over men.
I have noticed that both sexes often profess to find women more attractive than men. I don't see why heterosexual women would find a woman preferable than a man of comparable attractiveness so I wonder why this is. That is another issue though, I think, as aesthetic tastes are hard to debate.
It is thus that we are left in a quagmire, to which I can see only one solution; the accurate definition of the superiority we are discussing. Socially, women are equal to men, in that they raise our children whilst we (traditionally) provide food. However, to state that the sexes are equal is to say that they are exactly the same, which would be a fallacious declaration.
In order for one sex to be generally superior to the other, one would have to take stock of every measurable trait of the mind and body, keep a score of which sex is exceeds at what, and somehow quantify the results to factor in importance. Importance could mean any number of things, such as survival utility or use frequency.
I think 'equal' in a social sense has a more flexible meaning than 'equal' in a mathematical sense. The Declaration of Independence, for example, states that 'all men are created equal'. I do not think this means that everyone was created identically to everyone else, just that no one is inherently superior or inferior. I would not claim that sexes are identical, just that neither is superior or inferior across the board, and individuals should be treated equally based on their exhibited abilities, not the perceived abilities of their gender.
Look tbh I couldn't give a monkeys. I know the difference between men and women. I just hate these faggots and feminists who go around saying that men and women are equal. We're not. We shouldn't be treated equally either. I just say all that shit to wind these feminists dickheads up. It always works.
Someone has started a small company and they have two employees working for them, in occupations of comparable expertise but varying qualifications. The employees have different jobs but the jobs are equally important to keeping the company functioning. The owner may treat them differently by calling on their expertise in the situations that call for it, but since their jobs have equal weight, if one is given general preferential treatment, it will not be for the occupation they hold.
Do you understand how this is completely possible, and how it could apply to sex rather than occupation?
Doesn't work. I can see what you're trying to say but it doesn't work.
Don't worry I don't think it's just people of different sexes that shouldn't be treated equally. I don't think anybody should be treated the same. No 2 people are alike and so the ways of treating each person should differ aswel. You can categorise people into groups and subgroups and each of them have ways of being dealth with/treated. If you look as men and women as human (1 group), then yes they should be treated equally - but when you say that men and women should be treated equally - they shouldn't, because they're different.
Maybe you can elaborate on why the analogy does on work. And maybe I am misstating my point.
I do not think everyone should be treated identically regardless of the things they prove to be good and bad at. I think everyone should be treated equally until they prove otherwise.
If you take a list of traits stereotypically ascribed to any demographic (or subgroup as you defined it), and ascribe every one of those traits to an individual in that subgroup, you are bound to be incorrect a healthy percent of the time. No (or very, very few) individuals in a subgroup comply with all or even most of the traits ascribed to them. This very habit results in a lot of unfair frustration and loss of opportunities for marginalized demographics.
There is a larger difference between two individuals of the same demographic than there is between the average differences between demographics, so how can you chose to deal with someone based on their subgroup?
Actually most stereotypes tend to be pretty accurate. Black people DO like fried chicken. Maybe a small minority do not, doesn't mean we should stop saying they like fried chicken because a couple don't. In the same way stereotypes of men and women tend to be correct. Men are better drivers than women. Men are better at making decisions. Mens characteristics are suited better towards leading than women. It doesn't mean all men are better at any of these things, but it does mean that most are. I am basing this on stereotypes, but that's because stereotypes tend to be pretty accurate.
"We were not surprised to see that men have slightly more violations — about 5 percent — that result in accidents than women," said Raj Bhat, president of Quality Planning. "And because men are also more likely to violate laws for speeding, passing and yielding, the resulting accidents caused by men lead to more expensive claims than those caused by women."
Black people DO like fried chicken.
So do white people. I doubt there exists a gene in the human body that connects a high concentration of melanin in the skin with a predisposition for fried poultry. If there even is a correlation, it is probably due to income level; fried chicken tends to be cheap and black people make up a disproportionately large percent of the population under the poverty line.
----
Wrong 2 out of 4 times and those were just the ones I tried to verify. I will concede to 1 out of 4 if you can provide evidence besides assumption for black people liking fried chicken more than other races, since the only results I got were yahoo answers. Not a very good score though either way though.
But disregarding how many of your stereotypes are right or wrong and moving on to the principle of it, because I know you could have said 4 things that happened to be statistically supported. You may be able to accurately guess one or two traits about a person based on whatever demographic you choose to generalize by, but every consecutive time you do, you stand a better and better chance of being incorrect. Even the sources I provided only use averages, and an individual's abilities probably don't match up to the average of their demographic even most of the time.
It is easier to stereotype and it may be human nature to do it, but that doesn't mean we should be dishonest with ourselves about its accuracy and how it unfairly effects those people stereotyped.
Men are better drivers than women. It's a fact. Women are more careful drivers than men. That's a fact. There's a difference between the two of them.
I think you'll find all black people will agree to the stereotype. Except for those self hating type.
I'll make this pure and simple. I can't even remember the point of this debate now tbh but it is simply impossible to address everyone individually. That's why you MUST categorise and stereotype. It doesn't mean every black person I see definately likes fried chicken. He/she probably does though. Doesn't mean every black person I see will try and break into my car. But I'd rather not take the chance.
Actually most stereotypes tend to be pretty accurate. Black people DO like fried chicken. Maybe a small minority do not, doesn't mean we should stop saying they like fried chicken because a couple don't. In the same way stereotypes of men and women tend to be correct. Men are better drivers than women. Men are better at making decisions. Mens characteristics are suited better towards leading than women. It doesn't mean all men are better at any of these things, but it does mean that most are. I am basing this on stereotypes, but that's because stereotypes tend to be pretty accurate.
Ah, I see your point.
It is true that Indians almost unanimously reek of curry, are cheap, have thick accents when speaking English, are complete gossips, worship cows, and on average the men have smaller penises than the Chinese (No wonder the women prefer Europeans and Blacks)...
Yeah, we have argued sexism before...as long as he is saying something besides insults, I don't mind, because at least it helps me expand my understanding of the subject.
No man is not better than a women because they do all the household chores manage the house clean the house take care of the children and so on Can men or boys do all such things ????? I just disagree that men or boys are greater then girls
First things first... The title is bothering me... women better than man? The Plural is men. Second, The Idea that any sex is better than the other is an outdated, and frankly, stupid idea. Each sex is different in its own ways, as set for our roles in society, and nature. Neither the superior.
I know that my logic has several flaws but I'm basically right
If you know before posting that your "logic has several flaws", then perhaps you should devote a few minutes to identifying and eliminating those flaws. Your post displays a serious lack of awareness on gender inequality in the past.
Ok, i have the utmost respect for women but man was made to look after women they are not better but more built to be stronger than women, in the garden of Edan, God took a rib from Adam's side and made a woman. When Adam awoke the following morning, he found a wife, Eve, lying asleep beside him. Adam was so happy. He took her hand and she woke up. She looked up at him and smiled. Women came from man man protects the women and women protect the children, not to be sexist but thats what life was life for centuries.
No. Only feminists believe that. Of course they deny it but the fact that they believe that women are better and deserve better is evident based on their actions.
Create debate? We're better than you are, ner, ner, ner, ner-ner....
"Why do you think they need to be ranked hierarchically?
Because that is the purpose of this debate."
This is not debate. It is a playground argument. Women and men are two sides of a coin. They have diverging behavioral traits in certain areas because that is what happens in nature. It is a result of sexual reproduction which, by the way, without which we would not exist. Why would both the male and female of the same species be physically large for example, it would be pointless as is shown quite well by a casual glance at the rest of nature. Where these divergences and specialisms occur, women and men are want to look at their "superior qualities" and cat call at the "other side".
There is no other side. We are on the same side, where one sex may have weakness, the other invariable has strength. It is called equilibrium and it is on of the main driving forces of, well.... every process in reality.
We are animals that evolved to be the way we are as a result of small genetic advantages becoming bigger, the idea that there is a moral element to this, that somehow one could be better than the other. It is as idiotic as arguing that a ball is better than a tennis racket. You could of course argue all day on this subject but at the end of it, it is a pointless argument, there is still no game without both.
