Welcome to ATWKS!

“Life is a series of experiences, each of which makes us bigger, even though it is hard to realize this. For the world was built to develop character, and we must learn that the setbacks and grieves which we endure help us in our marching onward.”

- Henry Ford

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Male Superiority Arguements

There are some men in this world, and some women in this world, that will go around claiming that their gender is superior to the other. Reasons vary from bodily advantages/disadvantages, emotional intelligence, academic intelligence, to societal contributions. However, let it be noted that none of these reasons are more tangible than the other, and thus, this makes it harder to weigh each of them out against each other in an objective manner. Though such claims of superiority are made by males, at least in North American society (because goddess cultures do not count with said male-dominant claims), said claims are also made by females. Since superiority claims are made more-so by the former group, we will take a look behind the reasons for it in the respect of males.

The most obvious first reason of all would be the fact that, yes, we, as females, are born as less of physically-strong specimens than men are. Because we’re born with about 10% less chance for muscle growth (or some shit like that, but you get the point), we don’t get stronger as quickly as men do. However, we have naturally more honed physical abilities than men… why do you see that the most famous dancers, skaters, gymnasts, etc are female? There’s that certain level of flexibility and endurance that match up brilliantly with the female body that we have. What we may not have in strength, we have in other physical abilities.

Secondly, there’s the “men have made more contributions” claim. This, however, seems like a sticky statement. Think about it: before the early 1900’s, women were basically put on the same level as an insane man. You weren’t allowed to get an education, you couldn’t get a job, and if you were married, you’d be considered your husband’s property, to put it plainly. Also, let’s say you were a chick in that time and you made the most incredible invention ever. However, a male friend or your husband decide to cash in on the situation and say that they did it. According to the customs of the time, no one would believe that the woman made the invention and would definitely believe the men over the women. Why not? They’re the ones with the education, and they’re not the ones who are considered property. Therefore, this argument is invalid because most of North American history and most other world history existed before the time that women were entitled to equal opportunities (which isn’t even established in lots of countries in the world to this day). It’s like this: it’s easier to master the guitar when you have a teacher and material to learn and study from, not when you have nothing at all besides the guitar itself.

The reasoning I hear less than the 2 listed above but still quite frequently with male superiority claim is what I like to call the academic claim. Yes, we know that men are more left-brain oriented than women, and thus, that’s why you see that a lot of math and science heroes are male (but we all love Madame Curie!). However, what men seem to have in academics, they lack in the ability to relate and communicate with people. It has been proven that this ability helps to increase one’s ability in academic performance and other areas of life, so is something that transcends merely having more friends or more sociability.

I’m not going to put some gay concluding paragraph with some kind of morale, because I’d rather hear from you and get some intelligent discussion started. If you have absolutely anything to say about what I wrote, or would like to add something, that’d be splendid. Thank-you for hearing me out.

10 comments:

Buffalo said...

Of course men are superior to women. (Just joking.)

Males, as a whole, have greater upper body strength than women have. That doesn't make them superior, only stronger upper bodies.

My ex was 5'6" tall and weighed a whopping 130 lbs. She was also very fit and had tremendous upper body strength. I used to get a kick out of watching a macho dude sit down at the bicep machine after we had finished our rotation. He'd start to lift without adjusting the weights, a smirk on his face because she was just a little woman. Usually he couldn't lift it without lowering the weights.

Physicality is a poor yardstick to measure superiority/inferiority.

Flora Korkis said...

Yea, it is a poor means to measure superiority/inferiority, yet sadly, those so-called "educated" chauvinists use it more than any other reasoning. This is why no one can take them seriously. Also, the other 2 reasons are heavily used, but I gave my reasons as to why they're invalid.

Buffalo said...

Chauvinism has little to do with intelligence or education. It is more about centuries old practices designed give entitlement to one gender - which can only be accomplished by diminishing the other gender.

Flora Korkis said...

I'm not saying they become stupid because they're chauvinists, I'm saying they're stupid if they willingly accept said ideology.

Buffalo said...

It continues because too many women accept it as their course in life. Those that do battle it often don't seem to know the difference between firmness and being shrill.

Flora Korkis said...

Accept what as their course in life?

Buffalo said...

For centuries society, religion, custom and culture has promoted the superiority of males. It still continues today, although not to the extent it once did.

When something is poured into you at an early age it is difficult to shake. Oft times it lives in your subconscious; you're not truly aware of it or its affect on you.

Women, for a variety of reasons such as this one, play into the superiority of males game.

Flora Korkis said...

Okay, well what did you mean by "those that do battle it often don't seem to know the difference between firmness and being shrill"? (Hah, this feels like the interview all over again) I think you mean that they don't know whether their "being a leader" makes them shrill bitches or not, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Buffalo said...

It means that rude confrontations rarely produce positive results. When being verbally attack, most people shut down; they don't listen to what the other person is saying.

This is not to say there isn't a time to raise hell. Most successful movements begin by making waves to focus attention on the cause. Once you have a persons attention you communicate in a more positive fashion.

If you want something from someone, say your parents, it is rarely productive to begin the conversation by telling them how stupid they are.

Flora Korkis said...

Ahh okay, now I understand what you meant.