Forums > superior sex.

sikdragon

Nov 1 2005, 11:39 AM

QUOTE

Actually, I remember watching something that said women are better at speaking and comprimising than men are...perhaps they should be running the country more...

Compromise is loss.

QUOTE

Females are. they take more pain than men do.

I bet, none of you girls have ever felt a swift kick to the balls.

QUOTE

Most of the time, it's because MEN used to be the superior ones, until a few decades ago. No one traditionally votes for them much...
Look at Hil Clinton.

Just because someone has a penis, it doesn't make them a man.

Now that the truthful jest is out of the way...

Men are superior where it can be counted. All measures of superiority were made so that the strongest, smartest, fastest, and overall manly man could win. Women can't compete in the competitions that define greatness. Because, they were made to measure the man.

In reality if you compare them both it's like apples to oranges. Men(speaking of real men.) are logically superior. Women are emotionally superior.

fameONE

Nov 1 2005, 05:33 PM

The chauvinists of this forum will boldly state their claim that men are more superior. The feminists are going to claim that women are the dominant gender. The smart ones, will logically observe both sides and avoid it altogether (knowing that more girls than guys post in CB). But look at this way, a single gender cannot reproduce.

o0olaalaa

Nov 1 2005, 05:45 PM

i chose equal but...studies show that girls are smarter than boys =)

sadolakced acid

Nov 1 2005, 06:27 PM

biologically, males.

they're built for physical activity and sex.

females are built for having a baby.

mipadi

Nov 1 2005, 06:32 PM

QUOTE(BrandonSaunders @ Nov 1 2005, 5:33 PM)

The chauvinists of this forum will boldly state their claim that men are more superior. The feminists are going to claim that women are the dominant gender. The smart ones, will logically observe both sides and avoid it altogether (knowing that more girls than guys post in CB). But look at this way, a single gender cannot reproduce.

I think Brandon put it quite well. I stayed out of this debate mainly because I have no opinion--or rather, my opinion is that neither sex is perfect or better. I also don't see the reason for debating the superior sex--if we're going to get anywhere on any sociological issues, be it dealing with sex, race, sexuality, and so forth, there's a point where you have to admit that both sexes are outfitted for certain tasks, to the detriment of others, and that true equality means accepting that fact and accepting each other.

True feminism, incidentally, does not place females superior to males; the feminist movement originally espoused gender equality, not the promotion of women above men.

Heathasm

Nov 1 2005, 06:36 PM

QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Nov 1 2005, 6:27 PM)

biologically, males.

they're built for physical activity and sex.

females are built for having a baby.

wow, men were built for sex?

i think women are FAR more superior to men when it comes to sex

i dont think either is more smart than the other . . . but i do believe that men have more motivation and inititiative to be greater than average in whatever they do (which is a very good thing)

hard to say, really im undecided

mipadi

Nov 1 2005, 06:50 PM

QUOTE(Heathasm @ Nov 1 2005, 6:36 PM)

i dont think either is more smart than the other . . . but i do believe that men have more motivation and inititiative to be greater than average in whatever they do (which is a very good thing)

Ah, a product of biology, or society?

technicolour

Nov 1 2005, 07:07 PM

QUOTE(BrandonSaunders @ Nov 1 2005, 5:33 PM)

The chauvinists of this forum will boldly state their claim that men are more superior. The feminists are going to claim that women are the dominant gender. The smart ones, will logically observe both sides and avoid it altogether (knowing that more girls than guys post in CB). But look at this way, a single gender cannot reproduce.

Correctamundo.

Frankly, I find it stupid that people really have to argue about this. It doesn't matter what sex you are. You are what you are, now go make something of yourself.

But women really need to get away from the damn malls. And stop being ditzes. But we ALL know that that won't be happening anytime soon.

Heathasm

Nov 1 2005, 07:09 PM

QUOTE(mipadi @ Nov 1 2005, 6:50 PM)

Ah, a product of biology, or society?

society, for sure!

sadolakced acid

Nov 1 2005, 07:11 PM

i have a theory to why men can shop much easier than women.

men used to be the hunters.

when hunting there is not always a garuntee that if you pass up this animal a better one will come along. it's impossible to know. and, killing an animal was a bloody affair and would attack scavengers, which could inflict harm to prehistoric humans.

therefore, men are more likely to go in with a clear idea of whta they want to get, and if they find something that will suffice, they go with it.

however, women were the gatherers. they went out with the goal of getting as much of the best as they could. if you passed up some berrys, you could come back to it. there was not real need to choose only one, nor any urgency to choose at all.

therefore, men shop for something sufficient. women shop for everything great.

Spirited Away

Nov 1 2005, 07:34 PM

So we're learning about féminisme in my French culture class and I thought it would be appropriate to post an interesting find here.

Simone de Beauvoir wrote a book, entitled "Le Deuxième Sexe"—translated as the second sex, which entertained the existentialist idea that "one is not born, but rather becomes a woman". In other words, society created the culture of 'woman'.

Here is an English translated version of the book if anyone would like to have a better look: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...s/fr/2ndsex.htm

xcaitlinx

Nov 1 2005, 07:43 PM

woman and men are equal..plain and simple. without women, there wouldn't be men. there wouldn't be life period. i don't think this question is even that complicated or debateable. we need eachother to live and reproduce, therefore men amd women are undoubtfully equal in my eyes. i think it's ignorant for people to say that men are superior and that women are weak and helpless and can't do anything except cook, clean, and take care of children. it's the 21st century people.

technicolour

Nov 1 2005, 07:51 PM

^ That's cause we're not weak and helpless, well, some are but that's a diff story

and that men are superior? I think that's more their ego talking

sadolakced acid

Nov 1 2005, 08:27 PM

more men are mentally retarded than women.

but then again, more men are certified geniuses than women.

society? or biology?

AngryBaby

Nov 1 2005, 08:36 PM

this topic is funny lol. of course, sadly, its a man's world. if it wasnt, would we ever have a period of time where woman couldnt vote? or woman were property. or the little house on the prairie logic that woman should stay home and tend to the house. plus i mean look at other countries.
and this goes down to the primitive caveman ways, no matter how much smarter a woman is than a man, the man could always just say "well, i could still kick your ass"

btw im not stating who's actually more superior as a sex. i think we are equal mentally in that regard. the only thing that we are naturally different in is physical strength. guys are naturally stronger than girls, and thats where the "dominance" rooted from.

pshaa.shauna

Nov 1 2005, 08:42 PM

QUOTE(L!ckitySplit @ Nov 1 2005, 7:36 PM)

this topic is funny lol. of course, sadly, its a man's world. if it wasnt, would we ever have a period of time where woman couldnt vote? or woman were property. or the little house on the prairie logic that woman should stay home and tend to the house.
and this goes down to the primitive caveman ways, no matter how much smarter a woman is than a man, the man could always just say "well, i could still kick your ass"

I honestly have to agree with that statement, in a way. For instance, appearance does not affect a man when getting a job, on the other hand, tests have been done that show that women are more likely to get a job if they are attractive, or a man is more likely to get a job over a woman, even when the credentials disproove the choice. It's not right, women and men are equal, but that's how it works. People still deny it, kinda like how racism is barely here. <That's a lie, people just aren't open about it. Now if we were talking about insects....the woman almost always owns.

pandamonium

Nov 1 2005, 09:29 PM

I believe man and woman is equal but under the truth of it all, man is more superior cause look wo+man=woman and in the bible it said that Eve was made from Adams rib or something like that. Then everybody followed that and they made man seem more superior in ancient times and we just have grown accustomed to it, and followed through.

Paradox of Life

Nov 1 2005, 09:49 PM

Man is superior. The fact that women and girls have to try and prove themselves to be better than men says it all ("Girl Power!" "We can do it!"). Stop trying to deny it. It's true. Just today, the coach referred to easy pushups on your knees were called girl pushups and the real pushups were boy pushups. They told us we probably couldn't do boy pushups, but if we thought we could, we were welcome to try. It's just how it is. Men is the dominant gender. Name 1 extremely important female person. One that has the impact of-

Albert Einstien
Sir Isaac Newton
Martin Luther King
George Washington (and all the presidents for that matter)
Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Bach

I don't think any female icon can stand up to that.

sikdragon

Nov 1 2005, 10:41 PM

Margaret Thatcher was a great leader, I would have voted for her.

sadolakced acid

Nov 1 2005, 10:45 PM

QUOTE(Paradox of Life @ Nov 1 2005, 9:49 PM)

Man is superior. The fact that women and girls have to try and prove themselves to be better than men says it all ("Girl Power!" "We can do it!"). Stop trying to deny it. It's true. Just today, the coach referred to easy pushups on your knees were called girl pushups and the real pushups were boy pushups. They told us we probably couldn't do boy pushups, but if we thought we could, we were welcome to try. It's just how it is. Men is the dominant gender. Name 1 extremely important female person. One that has the impact of-

Albert Einstien
Sir Isaac Newton
Martin Luther King
George Washington (and all the presidents for that matter)
Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Bach

I don't think any female icon can stand up to that.

marie curie
madame tassiant
harriet tubman
mother teresa
margaret thatcher
a lot of women were skilled in music. why don't you hear about them? they married men who were skilled in music.

if you see something written by "bach", it might have been YS, or CPE, or YS's wife.

same with a lot of composers.

AngryBaby

Nov 1 2005, 11:06 PM

QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Nov 1 2005, 11:45 PM)

marie curie
madame tassiant
harriet tubman
mother teresa
margaret thatcher
a lot of women were skilled in music. why don't you hear about them? they married men who were skilled in music.

if you see something written by "bach", it might have been YS, or CPE, or YS's wife.

same with a lot of composers.

eh, but non of them have the impact of the guys she named =/

sadolakced acid

Nov 1 2005, 11:09 PM

well then...

errr.

queen victoria. queen elizabeth.

and helen! i mean, has a guy's face ever launched a thousand ships?

mipadi

Nov 2 2005, 12:07 AM

QUOTE(Paradox of Life @ Nov 1 2005, 9:49 PM)

Albert Einstien
Sir Isaac Newton
Martin Luther King
George Washington (and all the presidents for that matter)
Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Bach

I don't think any female icon can stand up to that.

Is that because women are incapable of such greatness, or because, historically, they didn't have the same opportunity to be great as men did?

fameONE

Nov 2 2005, 09:04 AM

QUOTE(sikdragon @ Nov 1 2005, 9:41 PM)

Margaret Thatcher was a great leader, I would have voted for her.

Margaret Thatcher had a penis

(joking)

I would have voted for her as well.

sikdragon

Nov 2 2005, 11:08 AM

QUOTE(mipadi @ Nov 2 2005, 12:07 AM)

Is that because women are incapable of such greatness, or because, historically, they didn't have the same opportunity to be great as men did?

Of couse they had the same opportunity. Every woman could've taken up a sword or a .45 and killed those that held them back.

zepfel

Nov 2 2005, 02:03 PM

QUOTE(sikdragon @ Nov 2 2005, 5:08 PM)

Of couse they had the same opportunity. Every woman could've taken up a sword or a .45 and killed those that held them back.

that's a stupid thing to say - the glass ceiling is frequently seen in our society.

religion (in particular, christianity) is irrelevant in this debate, since the bible/koran/other major religious formations were written or designed by men.
if A sells apples, and he says his apples are the best, you should approach his opinion with caution. such is the same in this debate.

and thatcher was awful, she ruined many industries through privatisation, kept the poor down with the poll tax and removal of welfare, and was completely ineffective at using her cabinet to achieve it's full potential, and controlling it's members.

xcaitlinx

Nov 2 2005, 04:41 PM

QUOTE(mipadi @ Nov 2 2005, 12:07 AM)

Is that because women are incapable of such greatness, or because, historically, they didn't have the same opportunity to be great as men did?

Exactly. women were treated a lot differently than men were back then. (are you people that ignorant?) i truly believe that there WERE women that tried to make a difference in history, but they were shut down by the dominant males who thought that (and some probably still do) they were superior. it's easy for one to say "they could've done anything that a male had done back then." they couldn't vote, they couldn't own property, and some couldn't even freakin leave the house lest speak out about all the sexism and voice their opinions. i find it offensive when some people are claiming that males are superior and always will be. it's also extremely disrespectful to claim that the only people that had major influences on history were males. rosa parks, for example, who died just last week, was a woman AND an african american who was a perfect example of a bold, intelligent, and strong woman.

AngryBaby

Nov 2 2005, 10:08 PM

QUOTE(brownsugar08 @ Nov 2 2005, 5:09 PM)

Harriet Tubman's contributions don't match up to the impact of the guys she named?

for african americans, but not exactly the world or america =/ martin luther king gave us rights and that changed alot of things in america. harriet tubman may have liberated alot of slaves, but she didnt stop racism and slavery and nothing changed in america then =/.

she just didnt make the same impact and when i say impact it effects everyone, not just one side.

AngryBaby

Nov 2 2005, 10:20 PM

she didnt stop slavery though^ abraham lincoln did

AngryBaby

Nov 2 2005, 10:36 PM

so that basically means she didnt have the same impact then.

Ington

Nov 2 2005, 10:45 PM

I'll tell you who's superior. I'm superior.

Actually, I think men and women are equally dumb.

AngryBaby

Nov 2 2005, 10:51 PM

no.ariel. no.

you wish you were superior.

but im actually the superior one.

thats right everyone, praise me.

sikdragon

Nov 3 2005, 04:02 PM

you can't prove anything using opinion. Your evidence on any account is subjective to the perception by which you define greatness.

Spirited Away

Nov 4 2005, 02:00 PM

QUOTE(sikdragon @ Nov 2 2005, 11:08 AM)

Of couse they had the same opportunity. Every woman could've taken up a sword or a .45 and killed those that held them back.

Society, and even the Bible taught them otherwise. To be woman, is to be docile and obedient to one's husband. Yes, they could've taken up swords and ran them through those who held them back, just as men did, but that meant rebellion and disobediance. That meant going against what society dictates as the 'nature' of women. To breach society's standards meant facing ostracism from not only society, but also family. Doing so may not be such a big deal in contemporary times, but historically, it was the unthinkable, something shameful. Because of this culture, women's development as scientists, adventurers, mathematicians, in politics and much more was held back.

No they did not have the same opportunities. It would have even been harder for a woman to hold a sword as easy and as normal as it would have been for a man, not because she's truly not fit for it but because men will dictate othetwise. Also, they don't even have the same consequences even if the opportunities to do so was were equal (in case you can explain it). The consequence of a man killing a man for disrepect is in old times was nothing except drama and gossip. The consequence of a woman killing a man for disrespect (or even rape) was a crime, punishable by death or imprisionment.

*stabs herself* were you being sarcastic? yes. yes you were. if not, grrrrr.

Weird addiction

Nov 4 2005, 02:05 PM

I'm too lazy to read your points, so i'll just err...

Men and Women are not equal. It's impossible. As much as this hurts, i'm going to admit it, men are superior to women, that's it. I know men would never know the "pain" of giving birth, or the menstrual thing but they compensate in other things. Like security, women always feel secure around men. Men are stronger physically/mentally. Most of the time, men are rational, they don't attach emotions to things like women do.

Sure, there've been great women in the past who did great deeds and whatnot but men have done greater.

NOTE: That's my opinion and it's KILLING me to admit it. Men, pfff

Mulder

Nov 4 2005, 08:31 PM

men are more superior in physical activites. theres no way around that.

but women and men are equal intellectually.

i refuse to believe otherwise.

Genuine_Essence

Nov 4 2005, 08:41 PM

Hmmmm i have ta say equal!

Weird addiction

Nov 5 2005, 12:51 PM

QUOTE(Genuine_Essence @ Nov 5 2005, 3:41 AM)

Hmmmm i have ta say equal!

...No kidding?????

sikdragon

Nov 5 2005, 10:50 PM

QUOTE

Society, and even the Bible taught them otherwise. To be woman, is to be docile and obedient to one's husband. Yes, they could've taken up swords and ran them through those who held them back, just as men did, but that meant rebellion and disobediance. That meant going against what society dictates as the 'nature' of women. To breach society's standards meant facing ostracism from not only society, but also family. Doing so may not be such a big deal in contemporary times, but historically, it was the unthinkable, something shameful. Because of this culture, women's development as scientists, adventurers, mathematicians, in politics and much more was held back.

No they did not have the same opportunities. It would have even been harder for a woman to hold a sword as easy and as normal as it would have been for a man, not because she's truly not fit for it but because men will dictate othetwise. Also, they don't even have the same consequences even if the opportunities to do so was were equal (in case you can explain it). The consequence of a man killing a man for disrepect is in old times was nothing except drama and gossip. The consequence of a woman killing a man for disrespect (or even rape) was a crime, punishable by death or imprisionment.

Why didn't women, clearly unsatisfied, form an army of feminists and march on the male headquarters? That's right, they need men.

Let me put it plainly, they could not pick up a sword, because the woman was unfit to. Swords were made for men.

Men are inferior in the ways that women excel. Women are inferior in the ways that men excel. This is a general rule as all humans are different.

This is by far the stupidest debate ever. It's like saying, which do you prefer cars or computers. It all depends on what you want to do. A car can't surf the internet with comcast 4 x faster than DSL. And a computer can't drive you down a dark desert highway. Simple as that.

Close this thread.

EDIT:Mostly i'm dissappointed that no one lauged at my joke. Swift kick to the balls, sheesh.

fameONE

Nov 6 2005, 02:12 AM

^ I chuckled.

And for once, I agree with you.

evanbunnell

Nov 7 2005, 03:36 AM

We excel in different areas. Strong men are stronger than strong women. Women who work with children are better at working with children than men who work with children are. Men and women are designed for different tasks. So, it would all depend on how you rate "better".

My view: No gender is better than the other, but we're certainly not equal.

Weird addiction

Nov 7 2005, 07:27 AM

^ The question isn't who's "better", it's who's "superior". If men/women aren't equal, then what are they? I agree with you when you say no gender is better than the other, but men are superior to women. Even the bible confirms it.

ParanoidAndroid

Nov 7 2005, 07:35 AM

^Why does everyone have to listen to what the bible says? It was a one-sided religion...

QUOTE(evanbunnell @ Nov 7 2005, 3:36 AM)

We excel in different areas. Strong men are stronger than strong women. Women who work with children are better at working with children than men who work with children are. Men and women are designed for different tasks. So, it would all depend on how you rate "better".

My view: No gender is better than the other, but we're certainly not equal.

TRUE THAT EVAN!

I agree, some women are better than men and some men are better than women. When it comes to heavy lifting, I must agree on that other person about how women can't lift it as well (generally speaking). When we moved to a different house, I could NOT lift one box on my own... While the men just lift them as they go. It's very shameful but true.

Weird addiction

Nov 7 2005, 07:51 AM

Ok then, the coran says it too... my point is that no matter how you want to see it, men are superior. I mean come on! i'm a girl, i feel secured around men than women. Men are rational.

Why is it that most of the time, you hear "i'll protect you" from a man more than a woman? Women hardly ever say that. Men are like our sheild.

emazing

Nov 21 2005, 12:39 AM

I agree that everyone is equal.
However, in many cultures and different time periods, the man has always been more superior. It has dated even back to the time periods when Jesus was alive, but it's shown less in this era we live in today.

vash1530

Nov 21 2005, 12:57 AM

men have the upper hand thru a historical perspective

not_your_average

Nov 21 2005, 03:31 PM

^ They have, indeed. That was a product of society, not biology.

Like mipadi, I stayed out of this debate for the same reason he did. In biological terms, we are different. Each sex needs the other one. We need each other for reproductive reasons. In societal terms, each sex is capable of making the same contributions, but it's really all about if you are willing to actually go out and do it.

verlorenrivets

Nov 21 2005, 03:46 PM

Hermaphrodites are the master sex on biological terms, and don't you forget it.

Spirited Away

Nov 21 2005, 03:52 PM

QUOTE(sikdragon @ Nov 5 2005, 10:50 PM)

Why didn't women, clearly unsatisfied, form an army of feminists and march on the male headquarters? That's right, they need men.
Let me put it plainly, they could not pick up a sword, because the woman was unfit to. Swords were made for men.
Men are inferior in the ways that women excel. Women are inferior in the ways that men excel. This is a general rule as all humans are different.

They were raised to believe that they need men = culture.

And though that is the general rule, not everyone follows it. Thus this silly debate

verlorenrivets

Nov 21 2005, 03:54 PM

No, this is a silly debate because hermaphrodites win.