A heart surgeon is skilled, but then so is an electrician/plumber/builder/engineer. If I need a house building, a surgeon is not much use, so the term superior appears to be redundant depending on the context. Likewise if you want to produce children a man has no superiority in relation to that process. I think that the term is flawed in any context.
I'll believe that one sex is superior to the other when that sex becomes capable of doing everything the other one does. So, when men learn to squeeze new humans out of their asses, they can be considered superior. When women learn to oppress men and take credit for everything they do, then women will be superior.
According to anthropological models, the muscle density between male and female humans as late as 20,000 ago were nearly identical. A Cro-Magnon woman could beat a modern man's ass pretty badly. And forget about a neanderthal woman. She'd rip us in half. They were shorter on average, but thicker, stronger, and faster.
Human women didn't start to get smaller and weaker than us until shortly after the last ice age when we started settling into agrarian societies and womanhood started to become more of a "stay-at-home-mom" affair. So you can't point at evolution as a solution to why woman are now physically weaker than men. The human genome between then and now is practically identical.
The more likely answer is social and environmental engineering. Secondary female characteristics are mostly passed down in the same manner as racial identity. Not as genetic information, but as secondary information carried by the genes. Modern human woman may be significantly weaker than men because their ancestors lost the need for thicker musculature. Oddly enough, the overall physical endurance of women is nearly twice that of men, probably because less mass requires less metabolic energy to run. Or maybe women need more endurance for child rearing.
Another thing about the differences between men and women is found in physical structure of their brains. Women have for more connective neurons running between their right and left hemispheres than men do. Not only does this seem to make them more intuitive, but it increases their ability to carry out multiple tasks at the same time, while men typically focus on just one or two tasks at a time. However, according to testing, although women are excellent multi-taskers compared to men, they tend to get more details wrong than men do when performing complex tasks. This may be why women of average are better at creative task while men excel in the technical areas.
Some scientists suggest that this division in cognitive structures may have occurred during the 100,000 years that modern humans spent as nomadic hunter-gatherers. Women did most of the gathering from what we can tell by the evidence. But I don't necessarily buy that explanation.
In terms of functional intelligence, for a long time women have always trailed behind men in the recordable IQ category. For a while, it was thought that men might be smarter than women on average. However, recently, statistics show that when younger women are educated separately from their male counterparts, their test scores are usually equal to or greater than the boys. This hasn't been adequately tested in adults yet, but it seems to suggest that teaching young girls in the same environment as boys is somewhat detrimental to the overall learning ability of females. It is not really that hard to understand the reasons why that may be.
For a long time in many cultures, not much of an emphasis was placed on the education of women. It was expected that most of them would be delegated to home-makers and wouldn't really need an advanced education like the men who were expected to run the work place. And even if you look at the schools now, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on getting the boys into fields like science and engineering, with a lot of women filling out the classes on the soft sciences like sociology and psychology. There are also still a disproportionate amount of women in fields like nursing, cosmetology, care-giving. Is it really because women are automatically attracted to these fields, or is it because as children they were encouraged to go into these fields?
As a child, if you're a boy, maybe your parents trying to get you interested in architecture and engineering because you could draw well. Your sister maybe were encouraged to go into nursing and fashion. In fact your sister could draw better than you, but they suggested she go into fashion instead of architecture. What was that about?
The ultimate answer as to why men are often viewed as superior to women for various reasons may be because that is the way we designed it.
I'll believe that one sex is superior to the other when that sex becomes capable of doing everything the other one does. So, when men learn to squeeze new humans out of their asses, they can be considered superior. When women learn to oppress men and take credit for everything they do, then women will be superior.
According to anthropological models, the muscle density between male and female humans as late as 20,000 ago were nearly identical. A Cro-Magnon woman could beat a modern man's ass pretty badly. And forget about a neanderthal woman. She'd rip us in half. They were shorter on average, but thicker, stronger, and faster.
Human women didn't start to get smaller and weaker than us until shortly after the last ice age when we started settling into agrarian societies and womanhood started to become more of a "stay-at-home-mom" affair. So you can't point at evolution as a solution to why woman are now physically weaker than men. The human genome between then and now is practically identical.
The more likely answer is social and environmental engineering. Secondary female characteristics are mostly passed down in the same manner as racial identity. Not as genetic information, but as secondary information carried by the genes. Modern human woman may be significantly weaker than men because their ancestors lost the need for thicker musculature. Oddly enough, the overall physical endurance of women is nearly twice that of men, probably because less mass requires less metabolic energy to run. Or maybe women need more endurance for child rearing.
Another thing about the differences between men and women is found in physical structure of their brains. Women have for more connective neurons running between their right and left hemispheres than men do. Not only does this seem to make them more intuitive, but it increases their ability to carry out multiple tasks at the same time, while men typically focus on just one or two tasks at a time. However, according to testing, although women are excellent multi-taskers compared to men, they tend to get more details wrong than men do when performing complex tasks. This may be why women of average are better at creative task while men excel in the technical areas.
Some scientists suggest that this division in cognitive structures may have occurred during the 100,000 years that modern humans spent as nomadic hunter-gatherers. Women did most of the gathering from what we can tell by the evidence. But I don't necessarily buy that explanation.
In terms of functional intelligence, for a long time women have always trailed behind men in the recordable IQ category. For a while, it was thought that men might be smarter than women on average. However, recently, statistics show that when younger women are educated separately from their male counterparts, their test scores are usually equal to or greater than the boys. This hasn't been adequately tested in adults yet, but it seems to suggest that teaching young girls in the same environment as boys is somewhat detrimental to the overall learning ability of females. It is not really that hard to understand the reasons why that may be.
For a long time in many cultures, not much of an emphasis was placed on the education of women. It was expected that most of them would be delegated to home-makers and wouldn't really need an advanced education like the men who were expected to run the work place. And even if you look at the schools now, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on getting the boys into fields like science and engineering, with a lot of women filling out the classes on the soft sciences like sociology and psychology. There are also still a disproportionate amount of women in fields like nursing, cosmetology, care-giving. Is it really because women are automatically attracted to these fields, or is it because as children they were encouraged to go into these fields?
As a child, if you're a boy, maybe your parents trying to get you interested in architecture and engineering because you could draw well. Your sister maybe were encouraged to go into nursing and fashion. In fact your sister could draw better than you, but they suggested she go into fashion instead of architecture. What was that about?
The ultimate answer as to why men are often viewed as superior to women for various reasons may be because that is the way we designed it.
