men and women

I absolutely forbid 50-50 relationships.
Those are the very highest probability of failure, everyone knew it when they proposed it.
That is why it was proposed… statistics.

The strengths of women (noting that you asked only of women… why exactly… seriously think about it?) as far as I cant tell, besides the obvious biological concerns, is their liveliness, attention to detail, memory, willingness to be an intimate part of another (sexually or not), raising questions that others might have overlooked, initiating things that should never have existed (aka “new life”), caring for things that newly exist (child or not)… probably others. It is not something I have analyzed, categorized, and pigeon-holed.

Basically, I see value in just about everything and everyone… except for anything that isn’t really there. I always seek the value first, not the reasons for condemning… but then they can’t be left out either.

Women are excellent devoted councilors, not leaders (not worth shit if not personally devoted).

what strengths do men have…

Well, you would never know it by the performance of men these days (having been long since feminized), but the more natural male, again besides the biological concerns, has a more strategic perspective. He isn’t so interested in attracting to himself (the self beauty concern) as much as accomplishing reach to the target (which is why they instinctively love projectile weaponry and hunting of various types). If not neurologically corrupted, the male will typically out perform that female in almost any task… except one (again ignoring the biological issues). The female, not being a strategic hunter as much as a strategic deceiver, is not involved in the hunters occupation and thus her mind is free to see and think about the things that the more strategic hunter doesn’t have time to thinking about… thus they make good councilors.

In short, the male is overtaxed with his male endeavors whereas the female is free to think of what the male didn’t have time to consider such as to give it more time and more consideration.

The female is a lotus flower and the male is a chess player.

now back to men and women getting together as partners…if i were fighting a war i would prefer a male-female team rather than a male-male team…guys just tend to get carried away with frontal assaults…that is a big problem to me…

I think what turtle is suggesting is that women could bring their passive-aggressiveness into the war zone. Interesting. What sorts of strategic advantages does female passive-aggression give in a war situation?

But then, you are far from being a strategist.
Or do you think that you are an educated strategist?

flannel you bring some clarification…i think not as many men would be lost by being sneaky…women tend to go around the ends…
they arent as locked in to beating the crap out of another guy…

Interesting turtle. So women should certainly be involved in directing military action, as they are sneaky creatures. What about on the front lines? Do women have a role to play there? Are will their breasts only serve as a distraction for the men on their team?

i dont know about that…what experience do they have in other countries like israel…

The survival of humans did not rely on Patriarchy. To say such a thing would give us pause to consider what it would have been like to have matriarchy or societies that were not dependant on either system. You might as well point to anything and suggest that was the reason for human survival such as warfare. Now consider what it might have been like if humans had resisted warfare?
So basically you have no good reason to make that connection, without some sort of particular reason. What is is exactly that is wrong with a woman leader?
I think it highly likely that were humans to have been matriarchal or gender equal we might well have done far better.

FJ, I’m not offended. Men can point out physical differences as long as they don’t attach any suggestion of one against another that leads to inequality between the sexes. For example, the male of most species is generally larger than the female–although not always true. What does size have to do with equality? Men are stronger than women. What advantage does that give a male over a female in life? Women can’t do maths and science as well as men. What a bunch of BS!

I’m saying that most gender differences, as experienced, are cultural. There’s no more feminization of men than there is masculization of women. We both have x chromosomes. (Women have 2 x’s and men have an x and a y.) X chromosomes come from our mothers, which means, generally speaking, men have what’s popularly called a ‘feminine side.’ This is nature, not bigger, stronger, smarter. :neutral_face:

Physical strength gives a lot of advantages. I can’t tell if you’re serious or not.

One must burn more calories if one is stronger or bigger.

the thread has to do with getting along and why that might be important for survival…

Why is it important for our survival that men and women get along??? Um… babies, perhaps?

Survival has not always required men and women getting along. Survival makes it without the niceties.

But doesn’t survival of a species require, among many other things, rapport within the species? And doesn’t rapport imply a certain amount of understanding, acceptance, leading to open, honest, communication between the genders that make up the species? Just asking… :slight_smile:

No, survival of a species doesn’t depend on that. There’s this species of scorpion in which the males and females don’t come into contact with each other for years, because the population is so sparse, and when they do the male just rapes the female and runs away.

So, the short, blunt, and accurate answer is ‘No, it doesn’t require that.’

At least not for that species of scorpion. :neutral_face:

But what would you say is the most fruitful approach: for men and women to get along and have babies together in a loving cooperative relationship, or for men to go around raping women and leaving them to fend for their offspring on their own?