If Men/Women are Equal, why do Men generally Rule the World?

Question

Positions of power etc....Is physical strength superior? Is that why one nation outlasts another or why the Native indians were pushed aside?
If that is so are the two really equal?

Answer 1

Men and women are never going to be equal. They never have been and never will be. It is physically impossible... hormones do alter a person's emotional stability, so you can't even say they are mental equals.

One always needs to be on top. Before Christianity, many very strong tribes had women in power or on equal status. Women were rarely able to hold lands still because they would be unable to defend them against a raid. It all makes sense to me... Christianity came into power partly by blood shed and partly by telling men that they could then have control over their women in every respect. Since then, men are more dominant as leaders as well as everything else. But Femi-Nazis refuse to take this to heart and refuse to admit that even when the Goddess was in power, women were still dependent on men.

So, not equal, and it is impossible to become so.

Answer 2

Because of physical strength. Although that isn't important now, it was to early leaders in small tribal societies.

Men, using their superior physical strength and perhaps a natural inclination to domination, became the first leaders at the earliest stages of society. The men would be the best warriors and hunters, and the best warriors and hunters would be the best candidates for leadership. Women were often tied down with childcare and organization of the home base, and wouldn't be able to distinguish themselves in a tribal society even if they were exceptionally strong.

Over time, these societies grew and spread, and the importance of physical strength became less important. But by that point, the idea of male leadership became firmly established in most people's minds. "All the leaders before have been men," the thinking went, "so our next leader should be a man, too." Thus, the pattern continued to this day.

True, some societies did have female leadership. But for a variety of reasons, they were destroyed by or integrated into more warlike, larger male-dominated societies.

In the strictest sense, men and women are not equal. But for the purposed of modern leadership, I believe they are. Many male leaders have never experienced combat, let alone served in the military. Leadership now depends on the ability to make good decisions and to convince other people to work together for common goals. Women are just as capable as men in these areas.

Answer 3

No, I don't think power is decided by physical strength at all! If so, we wouldn't have elections, we'd have arm wrestling contests! The only reason there are more men in power is because of old stereotypes. For a long time, women weren't supposed to be in politics, they were supposed to stay in the kitchen. And, I think it's still hard to get that idea out of most people's heads, that a woman can be just as good of a leader as a man.

And, I don't know what any of this has to do with Natives.

Answer 4

Because they can. You have nailed it on the head. Men, in general, are physically superior to women and they have always been able to bull their way down through history. Religions and governments endorsed this and set it into concrete and that is that.

As far as equality goes, that is a myth. My wife said we will treat and love our children equally. I said no we will not. They are different, they are not equal. We treated our children fairly. Each got from us what he or she needed. Same with people in general between the sexes.

There are great women leaders out there. I will never forget Margret Thatcher, the Iron Lady. Governor of Arizona ain't no push over either. I'm a guy. I'm not in those positions. So it goes.

Answer 5

I agree with "traff". Men have an ego issue. Women, although we can be vicious, don't feel the need to control the world as many men do. The fact that women arent controlling the world YET has become a flaw of society today. Women dont want war. Women don't want to see oppression and famine ESPECIALLY among children. If women were running the show, the only reason for war would be if a proposition was made from one leader to the other's "First Man"'!

Answer 6

Stronger doesn't mean better, physical strength was more important before, so men took most of positions of power and this situation doesn't give equal opportunity to women now,
And women are more family oriented and have to take care of our kids also so they have less time and opportunity again.
Also women at least for now are not so ambitious about power as much as men are.
But tell you something, even the most powerfull man of the world (U.S. president) is just a hubby at home.

Answer 7

Women usually run the home. If the wife isn't happy nobody is.
Not just native indians were pushed aside, so were women. Strength in numbers, If the Indians would have come togeather instead of there indian wars, nobody could have pushed through, when womens lib got togeather women earned their wright to vote and work. We need to stop the poor me attitude, swithch to poor you and do your part to make it better.

Answer 8

If Men/Women are Equal, why do Men generally Rule the World?

Because we let you.

Answer 9

Men and women ARE equal. If women are not in positions of power it is because no females have stepped up to the task, or there is some law in that area that prevents them from doing so.

And dont get me started on feminazis...

Answer 10

Men and women aren't equal. The idea is a ivory tower pipe dream. In a legal sense, yes, they are equal. In a matter of capacity and ability, they are not, nor would there be any rational comparison were politics not in play.

Men rule the world for three simple reasons: Physical superiority, physical consistency, and children. Mentally, men and women are equivelant enough that major differences in outcome aren't all that likely. Women are as capable mentally as a man. Physically, women are simply inferior. I know the word isn't popular, but how would you describe a 20% difference in muscle mass, lower strength, lower stamina, lower response times, a lower pain threshold, smaller, less powerful, less agile, and generally less capable? Its a hard pill to swallow, but it simply is.

These physical differences establish men as preferred for any action involving physical labor, stamina or durability, including construction, combat, food production, law enforcement, virtually any outside professions. The farther we go down the technology tree, the more dramatic and important this focus on physical strength becomes. Rationally, leadership positions within each profession would be chosen from those with the most relevant experience. As women aren't part of these professions, leadership would be drawn from those that are, namely, men.

Thus, we form a logical, rational basis for which men make up the overwhelming majority of many of the most critical professions and positions of leadership. However, as physical strength, prowess, stamina and durability become less important with the use of technology, these issues become less important and less acute. Thus, we've seen more women entering predominantly male professions as technology helps mitigate the gap that a general disparity in physical capacity creates.

The other half of the issue is physical consistency. While both men and women are equally suseptable to illness, colds, plagues, etc, when in perfect health, men and women have starkly different degrees of physical consistency. Mentration, cramping, water weight gain, pregnancy, morning sickness, actual child birth and the associated injuries are all part of a the life of an otherwise healthy woman. Many of these conditions, while completely natural, can effectively incapacitate or reduce the capacity of an affected woman. The period of effect can range from hours, to days or months.

Men in comparison, are much more physically consistant. Beyond issues of illness that effect both genders equally, men are simply not effected by the aforementioned list of conditions that involve women exclusively. This consistency results in men being more available to work, and once employed, more reliable. All other factors being equal, this consistency and reliability are dramatic advantages that rightfully result in more employment, and faster rates of promotion.

Unlike factors of physical strength and stamina which are slowly and slightly mitigated as technology increases, issues of physical consistancy are more constant, regardless of technology.

Finally, kidlets. Women bear children, and women care for children. While the child care duties _can_ be done by either sex, they are more effecientlyand effectively done by the woman who actually produces food in the form of milk for the child during its first year of life. Further, given the choice, most women actually want to spend time with their children. Thus, women, both rationally and by choice, spend more time with children. Time spent with children, though absolutely vital to society and species, can not be spent professionally at the same time. With less time spent working means less experience come promotion time.

Thus, rationally, logically, and practically the differences in outcome exist.