Women are just better than men... sorry lads, it's true!

Women are less likely to blow their money on booze, drugs, and prostitutes---the vices that keep people in poverty in poverty. That makes giving microloans to impoverished women safer than giving them to impoverished men. Does that make them 'better'?

Also, managers of Chinese sweatshops prefer to hire women because they find them more passive and less recalcitrant---does that make women 'better'?

Despite both cases, I'd still rather be a man---luckily, I am one.

 

I'm not making such a claim.

I'm saying that there's a huge demand in the world for a financing system for the poor that works as well as microcrediting. I'm completely baffled as to why microcrediting works as well as it does. The 'why' might very well be that they're giving the loans for women.

Yes, it does. Because it increases the chances of survival substantially and improves the society.

 

What about giving out a substantial sized loan to found a factory? The person in charge of that is going to have to be a forceful leader, with time beyond that which managing a family will allow---in other words, a man.

So are men 'better' now?

...

It should be noted that the reason I am happier for being a man is because that means I get to be romantically involved with women (as a man). I mean, girls...girls are...OK, I think I'm ready to move past my single-phase.

[ March 20, 2007, 19:36: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

It's not that it would necessitate a man to run a factory. It's not that it would take a woman to run a family. But the way that things are, the cultures of women and the cultures of men being different, men are more suited for some situations better than women, and women are more suited for other situations. As it is, the gender roles of women are more suited for survival and making societies better these days than the gender roles of men.

 

What constitutes survival and making society better? Those are big notions that require more explanation than just swinging the word around like a big hammer.

 

Gentlemen, gentlemen, women can "waste" as much money as we can. I'm sure they have their regrets as much as we do. Those tiny little imperfections work both ways and both sexes have them.

 

@Late-Night Thinker: Healthcare, clean water and sanitation. Traditionally and not depending of different countries cultures, providing these have been the responsibility of women.

Eradicating poverty? Grameen bank has already accomplished a lot in that field and majority of the banks partners are women.

Providing food? That's arguable. Agriculture is more likely being run by men, but in hunter-gatherer societies the main source of food comes from gathering, which is done by women, with the exception of inuits because of their reliance on hunting. However, women can run agriculture almost as well as men. It depends of how much women are appreciated in the society.

In a society that gives equal opportunities for both of the sexes, women are no better than men in general. A society that does not give equal opportunities for women as it gives for men benefits more from emphasizing the value of the feminine culture than claiming that men are better, or even that the sexes are equal. What's good and what's not is completely situational and dependent of the consequences. Both genders are needed, but feminine way of doing things is needed more, because the majority of the world runs on masculine ideals at the moment. This is an unbalanced way to do things. That's why women are more valuable. That makes them better.

 

Well let's explore this problem with a patriarch society. How would a female run society be any different, and mind you I will be citing history as there have been matriarch societies before.

 

@BTA: Yes, isn't it odd how overproduction of anything drops the value of the product? Or did you mean that providing clean water, healthcare, sanitation and I might add nurturing for children is odd?

@Shadow Assasin: A society run in a feminine manner wouldn't make it better. Just different. And the societies run by women have still been run by masculine principles. Of the amazons (both the old world and the new) and such there is a poor historical record, so not much can be said about them, except that they go to show that perhaps there has been some societies run by women in which they have participated actively in combat.

 

I will say this: As a young child, I sharpened the end of a broken broomstick by rubbing it repeatedly against the sidewalk; I then proceeded to chase bunny rabbits around my back yard while trying to throw the stick (spear) at them. So yeah, instincts matter.

But it also turns out that, as an adult, I am capable of having an abstract notion of myself within a social structure, and as such, I do what I think is morally correct rather than what some stone age impulse asks of me.

And it also turns out that women are adults too.

 

BTA, you lost me with calling male-domination ephemeral. I mean, male-domination has certainly not been ephemeral.

 

Yes it would, as would anything defined as "better".

 

I find this discussion to be just absurd and irrelevant. Neither gender is better or worse, they just have different qualities. Saying anything else is just silly.

 

Tee hee. Only Ironhawk Skylord has a clue to be fair! Most of you others need to learn to chill and not turn even the most silly thing into a bit serious debate and discussion. Sheesh!

Women are still better than men though.

 

Let me just say, of all the people I know, the women are just as nutty as the men, whether left alone, in groups with each other, or in groups with the other gender.

Also, my gf loves to pretend to swing around a big, heavy sword or club. Whenever we're playing games, she insists on picking the most massive hitting weapon out there, regardless of how good it is. So much for the 'male instinct'.

Ironically, this is from a skinny, shy, nerdy girl that may well not be able to lift 40 lbs over her head.