Having posted the more objective thing that supports the title you are trying to make out to be some indefensible thing, we can go full on 'sexist' and look at general tendencies and what 'superior' means.
You used 'superior' toake it even harder to defend than 'better' but you made a fatal error.
Men are not better than women, since we are not even as a species better than ants but... Superior? We are.
If you put 200 women, not selected to specifically contain outliers and 200 men in any scenario, you will find the women gather together better but the men do far more with any gathering in the long run.
Every second of a man's day that isn't just him goofing off is spent to survival and evolving, even lazy bums have this instinct in them. What makes men capable of being lazy bums where women struggle to cope as that (ever noticed you have far less female hobos?) Is not some sexist notion that women can just become prostitutes easily instead. It is that women are better at flowing with life, men are better at analysing how much they need to survive and calculating if they want to be fighting for it or fighting for more (and going with that decision).
What I am going to tell you will even explain why men are on average prone to be more alpha or leader like than women, it is the same reason that the laziest losers are men and this is something not understood even by most psychologists today.
Men analyse constantly the best use of effort to reduce the need to put in more effort later. This instinct is something I call calculated laziness and I have barely ever come across or heard of a woman that has behaviours that imply she does this. Almost all men above 95 IQ let's say, have their brains constantly running in the background analysing what they can do to reduce effort later. They then have their brain run a second layer of thinking which asks despite what I can reduce later "how much can I greed right now and afford short term pleasure and laziness?"
This is so innate to all males, even a lot of boys once puberty hits, that they assume it's just so ordinary for females to do and that everyone does it. This is wrong.
It is an instinct we could dub 'managerial instinct' because what I am hinting at is this:
If you leave a group of 400 people in a survival situation, 200 of each sex, not gender alone it is XX Vs XY, you will find that the men consistently outplanned and outthought the women in frequency but maybe didn't outplay or outdo them as consistently.
The reason is threefold:
- Men are prone to fight each other more viciously than women are with each other. It is likely the men will seek to eliminate male rivals before female ones often, letting women pivot around such rivalries.
- Because women lack this instinct to constantly analyse minimum effort requirements and adapt to momentary greed opportunities, they are able to easier flow with situations, even if it's to their detriment later. What this means is that they easier will obey other leaders, make it female and just flow with things often rather than plan to coup, destroy or whatever else. This lets them actually survive more by sheer well built relationships and others coming to their defense that they obeyed and went with the flow of. Men don't tend to as easily and consistently go with eh flow of others' plans, making it a consistent meme almost that you'd see men iutplayung themselves by risks they took to eliminate either women or other men, due to women having a superior network of trusted people they kept going with he flow of and nurturing while the men were often aggressive and resistant to go with the flow. What I am saying is the tyrant leaders and brave rebels will likely both be men, the women will be very capable of working with either to suit their agenda but much more likely will side with the tyrants if the tyrants healthily reward obedience. This is linked to the women not having much instinct to plan ahead to topple it not worry if they're having to keep do more than the minimum btheh should be needing to doz Vs the other 399 people there, whereas the men will consistently be analysing that even if they're voting to work harder.
- The men will, as I just said, opt at times to be suckers. While women will go with the flow in a true sense often, men will do it but keep tabs. The moment they feel screwed over they'll be the first to angrily protest. This will lead to turmoil, making women again able to play the middle.
Over time you'd see that if resources are limited, the men 'in charge' fight harshly with the men rebelling against them. The women will keep the men fighting at first but eventually they want strong men doing some of the hard labour and want men even for sexual reasons or whatever, I mean some men are fun to be around. At that point, things will drastically shift. The men left will realise they no longer need to fight each other off as those left are happy with the current regime and instead impulsive microaggressions between the women will probably begin to erupt as the decider of who dies next, if we assume there aren't set tasks if a game show regime altering this.
Eventually, it's a question if who'd sacrifice for who, social ties, love formed etc. The men could outlive the women in theory but probably will take the bullet except for the sociopaths (but most of them would be eliminated by the revel Vs tyrant rivalry stage) the women will also struggle a lot emotionally and even physically because they didn't calculate minimum strain in the days or weeks prior.
Men are not better than women, but they are prone to constantly analyse what the situation around them is and the minimum effort needed for long term gain. That doesn't mean male 'suckers' that work too much for too little gain do not exist, they just wrongly calibrated their calculations.
Women would be spending more time seeing how to reduce stress and enjoy their life in a more today Vs tomorrow sense for most of the survival scenario. Ironically, that actually suits a survival scenario better than the long term planning instinct of men.
You can say I am talking shit, you would see exactly what I am saying happen if it occured.