Men better than women?
Scroll to see replies
I really don't understand the whole 'men are better than women' and vice versa crap. Both need the other to survive so whats the point in arguing about whose better?
Personally though, I think each gender is better at different things and it irritates me when women start complaining about not being treated the same as men, yet expects doors to be held open for them and such things.
Personally though, I think each gender is better at different things and it irritates me when women start complaining about not being treated the same as men, yet expects doors to be held open for them and such things.
Original post by BambieWambie
Women give birth to men, so there wouldn't be men w/o women.
Evolutionary wise. Also men are actually females as foetuses. They become male when testosterone is added. Badly constructed sentences.
Evolutionary wise. Also men are actually females as foetuses. They become male when testosterone is added. Badly constructed sentences.
This isn't a debate about who could survive without the other, or who's responsible for who's existence. Your post doesn't respond to the points in the post.
Besides, you say that as if there would be women 'w/o' (badly constructed spelling by the way
) men. You're absolutely right that men are initially a female foetus...your point being? So because men are initially a female foetus it means females are erm...better than men? What kind of logic is that
Original post by Lewroll
Men give sperm to women, so there wouldnt be women without men 
see what i did there
see what i did thereOriginal post by Imperatore
This isn't a debate about who could survive without the other, or who's responsible for who's existence. Your post doesn't respond to the points in the post.
Besides, you say that as if there would be women 'w/o' (badly constructed spelling by the way) men.
You're absolutely right that men are initially a female foetus...your point being? So because men are initially a female foetus it means females are erm...better than men? What kind of logic is that
Besides, you say that as if there would be women 'w/o' (badly constructed spelling by the way
) men. You're absolutely right that men are initially a female foetus...your point being? So because men are initially a female foetus it means females are erm...better than men? What kind of logic is that
I just felt like saying it. Btw, i couldn't be bothered to write without, thats why i used w/o, you knew what i was saying. That doesn't mean i cant spell! God!
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Imperatore
I've always been one for gender equality and believe there should be equal rights and no discrimination between genders.
Often when this question of man vs woman was asked whilst emphasising man having more contributions to society, more discoveries etc. I always used to say that this has been the case because women have been socially oppressed in the earlier centuries and weren't given the same opportunities to make a difference and achieve all those things so it's not a fair comparison.
Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?
When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.
Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?
I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.
Please share your views...
Often when this question of man vs woman was asked whilst emphasising man having more contributions to society, more discoveries etc. I always used to say that this has been the case because women have been socially oppressed in the earlier centuries and weren't given the same opportunities to make a difference and achieve all those things so it's not a fair comparison.
Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?
When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.
Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?
I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.
Please share your views...
If you're genuinely interested in this topic, I'd recommend the book 'Second Sex' by Simone de Beauvoir.. It essentially answers all your questions. Or just a summary online of the book, it is rather long to read cover to cover
Original post by BambieWambie
I just felt like saying it.
That suggests to me that you couldn't provide any reasoning to your objection to the points made in the thread.
What's your personal view on the matter? If somebody was to ask you who's better men or women what would you say?
Original post by warhol
If you're genuinely interested in this topic, I'd recommend the book 'Second Sex' by Simone de Beauvoir.. It essentially answers all your questions. Or just a summary online of the book, it is rather long to read cover to cover
I genuinely am! Thanks for the recommendation, will definitely look into it.
I presume you've read the book? If so, what would be your response to the points I made...is there any reasoning that would allow you to counteract that argument?
Men are fuelled by the hormone testosterone. This chemical encourages agression and is the reason why men have a higher proportion of muscle than women. This combination results in dominance.
To sum up; a desire to be dominant/agressive + the means to be dominant = dominance.
To sum up; a desire to be dominant/agressive + the means to be dominant = dominance.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Imperatore
I've always been one for gender equality and believe there should be equal rights and no discrimination between genders.
Often when this question of man vs woman was asked whilst emphasising man having more contributions to society, more discoveries etc. I always used to say that this has been the case because women have been socially oppressed in the earlier centuries and weren't given the same opportunities to make a difference and achieve all those things so it's not a fair comparison.
Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?
When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.
Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?
I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.
Please share your views...
Often when this question of man vs woman was asked whilst emphasising man having more contributions to society, more discoveries etc. I always used to say that this has been the case because women have been socially oppressed in the earlier centuries and weren't given the same opportunities to make a difference and achieve all those things so it's not a fair comparison.
Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?
When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.
Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?
I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.
Please share your views...
Most social conventions come from animal social structure: man hunts, mum home. Also, first societies were matriarchal wich means women were the centre.
Original post by Yawn11
Without men there would be no women!!
Adam gave up a rib for you bitches.
Adam gave up a rib for you bitches.
Sorry but men are a mutation from women. Proved.
Original post by Imperatore
That suggests to me that you couldn't provide any reasoning to your objection to the points made in the thread.
What's your personal view on the matter? If somebody was to ask you who's better men or women what would you say?
What's your personal view on the matter? If somebody was to ask you who's better men or women what would you say?
Well it depends, men a better at some things and women are better at others.
Original post by amsie/
men are ****heads 
Well that is not what your mum said to me last night...
If you catch my drift...
Seriously?
Ok I screwed her. And she liked it.
Original post by Meghaan
without women there would be no men
Wan to make more men? Call me. I have the key to open the lock inside you to create more men. ANytime. Anywhere.
Women are the weaker sex. They are physically weaker, more subservient to their emotions, and generally crave the safety and comfort that men can provide.
To quote the simpsons:
Marge: "Bart show some feelings for your sister"
Home: "Don't be silly Marge, boys don't have feelings, they have muscles."
Of course all people are on a spectrum of masculinity/femininity though.
To quote the simpsons:
Marge: "Bart show some feelings for your sister"
Home: "Don't be silly Marge, boys don't have feelings, they have muscles."
Of course all people are on a spectrum of masculinity/femininity though.
Original post by BambieWambie
Oops i meant embryo. But seriously, men come from women, women come from women, but women cant come from men and men cant come from men. You would be a woman if testosterone wasn't added. Do you believe in evolution?
Yes, yes I do
but dont forget the secret ingeredient in baby making, sperm
(edited 13 years ago)
The post above has it right, if you say that human society begin with cave people, men would be the hunters. That gave then authority as the hunter had the authority and power within their society. It evolved from there.
Women and men are not the same, so one cannpt be 'better' than another. Bananas and cats are not the same thing, so why do people feel the need to compare them to each other. The banana might taste better, as hard as the cat tries, it may never be as tasty as the banana, but wat if the banana wanted to be hairy!
Women and men are not the same, so one cannpt be 'better' than another. Bananas and cats are not the same thing, so why do people feel the need to compare them to each other. The banana might taste better, as hard as the cat tries, it may never be as tasty as the banana, but wat if the banana wanted to be hairy!
Original post by BambieWambie
Well it depends, men a better at some things and women are better at others.
Very true, I agree with that. I'm not one that subscribes to the notion of both women and men being equally capable of doing everything.
However, if this view was universally accepted then it would not lead to gender equality would it? Because it would lead to women being told they can't do something because men are better, and vice versa.
There's also the question of are men better at more things than woman are(or vice versa) and ultimately making them the generally better gender?
Original post by SoulfulBoy
Sorry but men are a mutation from women. Proved.
By who? Prretty sure I would've heard/learnt this.
Women produce eggs that need to be fertilized by sperm (produced by men) to make off spring.
Tell me how a woman alone could suddenly produce man?
Idiot.
Original post by LauriC
The post above has it right, if you say that human society begin with cave people, men would be the hunters. That gave then authority as the hunter had the authority and power within their society. It evolved from there.
Women and men are not the same, so one cannpt be 'better' than another. Bananas and cats are not the same thing, so why do people feel the need to compare them to each other. The banana might taste better, as hard as the cat tries, it may never be as tasty as the banana, but wat if the banana wanted to be hairy!
Women and men are not the same, so one cannpt be 'better' than another. Bananas and cats are not the same thing, so why do people feel the need to compare them to each other. The banana might taste better, as hard as the cat tries, it may never be as tasty as the banana, but wat if the banana wanted to be hairy!
I agree, so do you think the ideal notion of 'Gender Equality' is acceptable? If they're not the same then it can be argued that they should not be treated the same either, no? (I'm not implying this, genuinely asking you)
Original post by Imperatore
Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?
When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.
Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?
I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.
Please share your views...
Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?
When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.
Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?
I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.
Please share your views...
There's a very simple answer to this. When we first started to evolve into something recognisably human, day-to-day existence involved a large number of exhausting, physically demanding tasks (something which has, in fact, remained true until very recently). Men were a) physically stronger and b) weren't taken out of action by childbirth. As human social conventions developed, this physical superiority was translated into new forms of power and authority - cultural, moral and economic as well as physical. Society developed whole cultural systems to cement men's power even further and when they didn't get what they want, the threat of physical force could still prevail. There was never a 'clean slate'.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Single men ought to be taught about the reality of being men at a young age
- Is sex overrated
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
- I don't like communicating with men
- Height
- Blackpill v Bluepill
- Am I being unreasonable for feeling uncomfortable when my female friend goes on about
- Does Brown Guys Living in England like Brown Girls?
- I'm 19 and i have urge to lose my virginity. What advice can you give me as a male
- Why does 5'4 have to a deal breaker to women?
- Girls, why doesn't there seem to be interest in marriage & kids these days?
- (A Level Politics / Feminism) Help with 2 questions
- What feminine clothing itens wkll become commonplace for men to wear in the future?
- do girls like Pakistanis over Indians?
- Do you get fed up if you are not one of the good looking people
- Why are dating apps so bad for finding a real connection?
- Girls find only 20% of guys attractive
- Teenage girls as horny as teenage guys?
- Girls boxing, your views
- I'm almost 21 and have never been in a relationship
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 6 minutes ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 6 minutes ago
Airbus degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 25 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawTrending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
