Why is there an assumption that men are biologically superior to women?

Question

Ok I get the *outward physical* strength argument, as it applies to men being "stronger"

Yet why do we ignore women's *internal physical* strength, such as our stronger immune systems and longer life-spans?

Is outward physical strength seen as the superior assest simply because it is a male dominated attribute?

If attributes were reversed, would internal physical strength be seen as superior?

Do these differences imply biological equality, not inequality, in that what one lacks the other has, and vice-versa?

Oh for crying out loud, toss the personal arguments. This is not a personal question, it is an attempt at learning viewpoints on this social phenomena.

See, That is exactly what I am referring to O: "men are physically stronger. men are clearly biologically superior as a group"

Yes I suppose in regard to outward physical strength, but my argument is that internally women are physically stronger.

Why is it that outward physical strength is considered superior? Is it just because it is a man's strength? Why do we undermine women's biological strengths, and declare that outward strength is "superior"?

Thanks for the book recommendation zvezda_soleil, I'll have to check that out.

more and more ignorance, I love how you ignore historical fact by claiming men's life spans have suddenly become less than women's as though this is some sort of recent phenomena.

On the contrary, statistics dating back to 1850 (*ahem* PRE feminism) declare that men's lifespans have always been shorter than womens.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Answer 1

I think the original reason was that women got pregnant, and were thus weakened at times. I agree with you, however. Definitely, if attributes were reversed, internal strength would be seen as superior.

Notice how, on average, black men are bigger (and often stronger) than white men, and it is made into a negative, "animal-like" trait. It's culture, and it has nothing to do with biology.

Oh yes, and don't assume anything about the physical strength too quickly. Read "The Frailty Myth" by Colette Dowling. It's very well researched, and it basically proposes that, while men are a bit bigger, and on average a bit stronger, the difference is not nearly as great as our culture makes it.

Answer 2

Well, it is true biologically superiority is there for women until they stop menstruating that is (menopause). The female hormones especially oestrogen is supposed to help women to age a few degrees slower than men. For example if two children of almost identical date of birth are there, till 45 - 50 both may be chronologically same, but biologically the woman has not aged that much as a man has. The difference is (mine subjectively), about 5-10 years. So much so, at age 70 or so the man is quite debilitated physically, but the woman is still about 55 - 60. No wonder women outlive men and are quite active and healthy well past 70 and 80 while men all die off in the early 80's There are exceptions ofcourse, but they are quite a minority. Check it out with all people you know.

Answer 3

You ask if outward physical strength (a male trait) is seen as more important because this is a male dominated world.

I submit that it is a male dominated world *because* outward physical strength objectively *IS* more important.

If attributes were reversed, outward physical strength would still be seen as more important, but it would be a female dominated world.

It's true that each gender has some advantages over the other. But that doesn't mean they're exactly equal. The areas where men are superior might be worth more than the areas where women are superior. Or some might say the areas where women are superior might be worth more than the areas where men are superior.

Also note that there are a lot more differences between men and women (on average) than just outward physical strength, immune systems, and life spans. Men tend to be braver, more confident, more aggressive, and less overly emotional. And reproducing is easier for them than it is for women. Those are all hugely important qualities. Women tend to be better nurturers. And that's important. But it doesn't really help if you're trying to take over the world.

Answer 4

When ppl read the bible in the old days they read 'man' to mean the male species, not mankind...and of course 3000 years later we still see man as the 'bread-winner'...the head of household. Women were not allowed in schools in the days that all this crap was written about men being superior...
the 20's and the 30's laid the groundwork that said women were not as able to go to school, get an advanced degree , vote, own a home or even hold a job!

Naturally I found all of this very offensive as my mother did just fine raising us after my parents divorced. She went to school, got a degree and finished raising us completely by herself....but she also taught me to take care of myself...there is no woman in my household, yet I cook, bake, clean, do laundry and scrub toilets. There is no scientific proof that a male is any better equipped to handle lifes situations than women.

Answer 5

If your puny female mind can't comprehend it I can't explain it to you. Just kidding.

I think the real reason that assumption persists is our society highly values the ability to make money and will actually relate that to biological superiority. If you are finacially successful and powerful therefore you must be the most talented therefore you must be biologically superior. Or so the logic goes.

Now women are just as capable of making money as men but many of them get sidetracked when they have children in a way that men just don't. In a capitalist society the money source is seen as dominant and superior. Though many women do hold high level jobs and act as bread winners for their families, there are still many more men who do that than women.

Our society values results more than potential as evidence of biological superiority. To be viewed as superior you must have very obvious displays of power. For example, though many women are capable of holding positions of power in our government, how many actually do when compared to men?

Though from a strictly scientific standpoint women have biological traits that are superior, the ones in which men tend to fare better, ie strength and agressiveness (although I'm not entirely sure agressiveness is biological so much as sociological), are much more obvious displays and imply a certain degree of superiority in the eyes of society at large.

Answer 6

You should look at the data more carefully at the link you provided. For some age groups the males' life expectancy was higher. On average, they were virtually the same at the turn of the 20th century.
___It takes a pretty superficial reading of history to call 1850 "ahem- pre-femininism". Considering the themes of feminist epistemology and ethics, the feminizing of Western thought is one of the central themes of the Modern Era, that is, since the Renaissance. The feminine operates more covertly than the masculine, and so the more overt forms of feminization reveal themselves late in the game. And don't forget about Mary Wollstonecroft, Seneca Falls, etc. Even earlier, there are feminist themes in British Restoration drama. And the Romantic literary movement, which began in the 18th century, moves in the direction of intellectual feminization.
___Humanity has two halves, and viewing human history through a self-indulgently feminist lens, and treating that view as if it's fact, is to omit an authentically masculine perspective. You wouldn't take one of those women writers of the 12th century or of Antiquity, and take her historical perspective as being fair to feminist perspectives. If you want a balanced assessment of gender and history, you have to hold up the perspectives of todays feminist history against the views of those phallocentric dead white men, and reconcile the two.
___As for the question you asked, if there's only one person who assumes that men are superior to women, then "there's an assumption that men are biologically superior...." You make it sound as if its a generally-held assumption, as if most or all people assume it. One could equally well ask the opposite, since "there is an assumption that women are biologically superior to men," and this assumption is the one of the two that gets more respect in the circles of academic conventional wisdom.

Answer 7

Because internal strength is a longterm asset and lets say in the wild, a man will be more useful due to the fact that he can lift more and be more physically able to survive.

Answer 8

That assumption is wrong. Males are inferior actually, because they have a Y chromosome. More male babies die at birth. Females live longer. In extreme adversity, such as was experienced by the Donner Party in 1846, the women had a much higher survival rate than did the men. I am a male, and I have no trouble accepting this.

Answer 9

Patois, a slight correction:

Male and female physical fitness standards are the SAME in the US Army and Navy. That represents a change toward equality since I was in.

Air Force situp requirements are still slightly more stringent for male servicemembers.

...just keeping you honest, that's all.

Answer 10

well i can understand your feeling, and the world on the whole does take that stand, (i do not) i think its because outward physical strength is used literallyy every single day. and that makes it easier to see it as more important. there are other qualitys not touched on even in your question, women are born with roughly 3 times the pain tollarance of men, a less pronounced madoulah oblahanghatta, wich leads to less hostile actions (in most cases) a more pronounced temperal lobe (better memory function) hell i give much respect to women, i see them as the equal if not supirrior to men in a multitude of ways. as frustrating as it is. just remember, even if the rest of the world sees it as more important, there are people out there who know better, find some sollace in that knowledge. best of luck. bye!