Girls do seem to be worse at maths though, maths degrees are dominated by men, and the higher up you go, to masters and PhD, the more the ratio skews towards men. I’m not talking about mental arithmetic, which is what most people think of (mine is again rubbish), I’m talking about logical reasoning and understanding of abstract principles. Nearly all of my professors were men, and some of them I was in complete awe of their brilliance. There was only one woman in my department and she was absolutely rubbish. Shockingly bad. She was the type who learned everything by memory, and I swear I could beat her at her own exams.

Anyway I’m rambling now. Don’t think this is an anti-woman comment or anything, I just think that logical/mathematical ability is too influencial in IQ scores and yes, I think men are, on average, better at these. From experience though it’s very likely that women are better, on average again, at communicating, organising, multitasking, memory, and virtually every other brain function there is.

“would like to meet animals that can grasp legal concepts and write comments, care to share?”

That is out of the context of the point made. Re-read the post: the reference lies in the fact that Nature clearly defines masculine and

feminine inclinations (and of course, the gender-neutral ones). Will you maintain your are not subject to Nature’s Laws?

“[...]strength is not something one is born with, yet something one can obtain!!”

Yes, it is developed, but the genetic predisposition and exists, make no mistake about that: in men, higher testosterone levels, better

fat-to-muscle ratio, greater upper body strength, thicker muscles and joints, thicker skulls, etc. I don’t think that really needs to be stated; it’s

quite obvious. There is a reason for the admonition never to hit a woman; that admonition would be unnecessary if men and women were

evenly matched physically.
It is quite obvious that men are more physical disposed; few exceptions being say female bodybuilders who, after the testosterone shots,

narrowed hips, shriveled breasts, and Adam’s apple, don’t exactly qualify as women anymore.
This again still goes back to my point: why the self-delusion that we are the same (equal, yes; same, obviously not)? Why not recognize how

we complement each other?

Let’s agree to disagree, strength is not something one is born with, yet something one can obtain!!

Statistics are flawed for example a stay at home mom is not the same as a mother who attends university, so how can we compare them, well it is always easy to use sex.

Iq statistics,for a women I’m well above average, therefore to compare me to most men would be to throw them down 5 points and English is not my first language. I’m not here to judge but I think size is irrelevant as the saying goes the taller you are the harder you fall???

There will always be men and women who contradict the rules we know as human, I like a good challenge especially when its risky, competition is not just for boys, now why would I let you guys have all the fun?

“QUOTE”And what about the animal kingdom, where male and female roles are maintained? No sexism there, my friend”QUOTE”

“would like to meet animals that can grasp legal concepts and write comments, care to share?”

The truth is that these statistics are flawed anyway (for the most part when comparing women and men as a whole) because there is no control. If the amount of men and women in the statistics were completely even, then we may have something, but it’s just not going to work out that way. Not only that, but there is no way that we have access to every record of every male and every female on the planet. It’s just an educated guess to put up a statistic.

It holds with the saying: 70% of statistics are made up on the spot.

The differences between men and women are great tho. Competition will always exist. That’s why men are better

Ironically, the feminist movement – in the form that it took – that sought to achieve balance has also been the greatest poison for society and even women themselves.

Men and women are equal parts of the human race, but not the same. How do I mean? Two halves of an apple are equal, but not the same – a left half and a right one. A North pole and a South pole of a magnet are equal but not the same.

Men and women are COMPLEMENTARY in nature, not clones of each other. Each offers what the other lacks, to achieve completeness.

You could never have a whole apple pairing two right halves, or a complete magnet with two south poles, or both poles trying to act the same. The feminist movement should have sought equality and respect for women by emphasizing the value of the activities of women, not encouraging women to emulate men.

Take for instance, the idea of a “housewife” as a stigma. Exactly why is it simply assumed to be demeaning if a woman chooses to run her home and nurture its members? Is it because it doesn’t bring home a paycheck? Does it not require time, effort, skill, etc.? Would someone not be PAID to do it if no one else were available? Does that not then place a value on it (besides the fact that money should be neither primary nor sole goal, and some things simply transcend money)?

Consider that the nucleus of society is the home. As such, the nature of the home and its members reflects on society, whose members spring from a home or other. So, if a woman runs a home, and produces upstanding members out of her home, who then go on to influence society positively, does she not then in fact influence society? Why is such a noble task frowned upon, by women for that matter?

Consider that since the feminist revolution (in the form we have it), there has been a MARKED increase in schisms among both sexes, failed relationships, divorce, single-parent homes, broken homes, children from those broken homes, etc. You’d have to be quite selective in observation not to notice this. An unbridgeable gap immediately exists when women wish to part of what is feminine in them, simply because of a hitherto erroneous view that this part was inferior. Again, the problem is not the desire for equality, but the form it is being sought.

I’m not saying a woman HAS to be a housewife (though where there are young children her presence has no substitute), but it is insulting to womanhood if such a praiseworthy task is looked down upon, much less by women themselves.

By nature, men are driven more towards executing activities, while women toward nurturing activities. That is why, EVEN WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, you will find, say, more men construction workers than women, and more women nurses than men. And, needless to say, there are certain non-specific activities, such as the arts, music, etc. Note that “nurturing” is not to be taken in children/motherhood/family sense only, but everywhere where nurturing is predominant.

What does a woman really gain trying to emulate men, attempting certain things which she will 9 out of 10 times never be able to do as well as a man, things which she has to acquire and merely imitate, yet which come naturally to the man because Nature inclines him towards them?

And to the point that the patriarchal system is the reason for the difference: the domination-suppression of the past definitely has its effects, but it is ill-advised to think that men and women would be “clones” if otherwise. Surely you would not extend this to even physical organs, the ones unique to each sex? And what about the animal kingdom, where male and female roles are maintained? No sexism there, my friend.

Emphasis MUST be placed on the contribution of women as women, for society as we have it today is in great part a result of suppressing and/or rejecting such contributions.

Cast off the hypocrisy that is Political Correctness and UNDERSTAND reality!

I’m all for treating people as equals, that we can agree on. Everyone should have equal rights. But there’s a world apart between having equal worth as a human being, compared with having equal individual traits which you go on about. No amount of nurturing (as in Nature vs. Nurture) can change what we were born with. It’s kind of like saying that if we treat everybody as the same height, eventually we will be the same height. It’s of course a little different with traits you can’t directly observe at first glance. Like aptitude for academia, sports or in arts for example. You can actually level out that playingfield if you supress those who excel in an area and support and make apologies for those who are less than able. And suddenly people aren’t treated equally any longer, are they?

Maybe that’s not what you meant, but that’s what you’re actually saying. I doubt you realize that yourself however since you probably have formed your opinions on incorrect information. Information based on emotions (or lies for that matter) rather than science.

You might have a point that natural-selection has worked against women if you can prove that intelligent women systematically has had less offspring compared to intelligent men during the evolution of mankind. Since that can’t be done as far as i’m aware, you’re making that point from an emotional perspective. So it’s far from a fact. I’m also not sure if our genetic code has changed that much since the birth of our spieces. I’m certain that males have been taller and stronger than females from the get go, and likely, more intelligent. You could of course take it one step further and blame it on the pathriarcal society in our special ancestors

“Does it really scare you to imagine a world where everyone is what we today woudl consider brilliant?”

It doesn’t scare me one bit. But until we can genetically engineer our offspring that ain’t gonna happen.