Ya know, I like to consider myself a really tolerant person. I don’t judge people for having weird beliefs or fetishes, so long as they don’t commit criminal activity or try to restrict the freedom of others. However the one thing I do hate, is people who try to revise history or the truth, when trying to pass them as the real thing. I bring this up, because I was in a seminar about women equality (a job mandatory thing). So the lecturer ¬ñ who was a woman ¬ñ was explaining how men being superior to women in anything was false. Well that bothered me, because that statement was false.
I foolishly raised my hand, she called on me to speak, and I said, “Men are physically superior to women in general athletic performance.” She smiled and said that was false, giving examples of how women in the Olympics could out perform most men on the planet. “True,” I replied, “but comparing an Olympic woman to a regular person, is as fair as comparing an Olympic man to a regular person. Among Olympians: the fastest, the strongest, the most endurable: all record holders belong to men. We can all go look it up on Wikipedia.”
Oh boy, did that get her livid. She was rambling on all sorts of things that, quite frankly, made no sense to me. Now I thought I was alone on this, but then another man in the crowd pipped up, and then stated that while there were strong Queens in the past, until people because more enlightened, women were living under the heel of men because men were physically stronger and used brute force to keep women in line. In fact, there are entire nations where women still are, because they haven’t accepted this enlightenment.
The lecture then stated that men have always held more guns and swords than women.
I then voiced again and said, “Okay… if you want to simplify it that way, sure. But in a battle between equally trained armies of men versus women: men will repeatedly prove they can march further, carry more supplies, and manually pull more equipment than women. That’s a massive tactical advantage, unless the woman army has superior leadership over the man army.”
She threw me and the other guy out. I was mildly surprised to see that about another half dozen men got up and left with us. So we all walked to a bar across the street and increased our male chauvinism.
Now don’t get me wrong: I don’t think that men are superior to women in terms of social status. Women can be or do whatever they want… but to outright ignore that there are things men are superior in to women (and vice versa) is pure ignorance. I don’t want they’d call that… sexual prejudice? I know that the woman’s job and the point of the lecture, was to teach that men should treat women as equals, and I’m all for that… but to say men aren’t superior in something? That’s only discrediting the argument. There’s centuries of documented sports, biological research, and just plain human history that show men have an advantage when it comes down to physical attributes outside of actual child birthing.
And we can sit down and argue “new evidence” than women are equal to men in body performance, because they have an unfair population pool to base research off, but does not explain why the physically fit men could regularly outperform the physically fit women in the various military commands I’ve served in the past… unless… GASP… that’s just how it actually is in real life (because the military uses extensive population pool standardization for enlistment – aka Boot Camp). Or the women were just holding back, were ordered to hold back, or didn’t train as hard as the men. :roll: There’s reasons why men aren’t culturally and legally allowed to hit women in most Westernized nations, but physical strikes between man-versus-man or woman-versus-woman aren’t seen in the same negative light.
I HATE revisionism.