Are women superior to men?

Selected Version - Version 9 (Current Version) : 08 May 2010 | 09:23 | NADIA999

<< Older version | Newer version >>

All versions

Key

  • Text coloured Greenhas been added snce the previous version
  • Text marked red and striked-throughhas been deleted

Changes from Version 8 to Version 9

On the point: no group of people is superior to another

A group need not be 'uniform' to be superior to another. 
another$1 
You've just argued that all team sports/debate events are obsolete because all the team members are not the same( I would say 'equal' If you had referred to abilities and not uniformity/sameness/homogeneousness). 
uniformity/sameness/homogeneous-ness)$1 
 
Your 'highest' achievement in any form of a test reflects your potential/abilities.Oppression and genocide only result from  
from  
jealousy(I want to win, why did s/he win? s/he must be punished). Are you saying that men are too 'immature' to deal with anyone winning anything and thus should be shielded from the facts?  
facts?  
So, by your logic, the logic on the right, there should be no competition, since all competitions end in at least one winner and loser. And immature losers will start killing people since their egos can not handle defeat/their own inferiority.  
 
defeat/their-own-inferiority.  
The mutability of genetics does not kill the fact that you must(surgically, naturally(by birth) or otherwise) be a woman to give birth.

People in groups aren't uniform. There will always be exceptions - especially when dealing with gender, a large deal of which is to do with societal role, which can be changed by simply raising children differently, rather than actual genetics (genetics isn't THAT immutable any more). The only way to really measure superiority in a field is to measure the performance of individuals. and then who could we trust to make the test? whenever society has decided that one group of people as a whole is superior to another, it has resulted in oppression and even genocide.

Yes, because...

 

No, because... no group of people is superior to another

A group need not be 'uniform' to be superior to another. You've just argued that all team sports/debate events are obsolete because all the team members are not the same( I would say 'equal' If you had referred to abilities and not uniformity/sameness/homogeneous-ness). Your 'highest' achievement in any form of a test reflects your potential/abilities.Oppression and genocide only result from jealousy(I want to win, why did s/he win? s/he must be punished). Are you saying that men are too 'immature' to deal with anyone winning anything and thus should be shielded from the facts?

So, by the logic on the right, there should be no competition, since all competitions end in at least one winner and loser. And immature losers will start killing people since their egos can not handle defeat/their-own-inferiority.

The mutability of genetics does not kill the fact that you must(surgically, naturally(by birth) or otherwise) be a woman to give birth.

 

People in groups aren't uniform. There will always be exceptions - especially when dealing with gender, a large deal of which is to do with societal role, which can be changed by simply raising children differently, rather than actual genetics (genetics isn't THAT immutable any more). The only way to really measure superiority in a field is to measure the performance of individuals. and then who could we trust to make the test? whenever society has decided that one group of people as a whole is superior to another, it has resulted in oppression and even genocide.

 
22 February 2011