Men and Woman - Controversial.

"Woman need men to survive because everything around you was created by them such as infrastructure." No, not as in being created. In other terms, I don't see the point here. Men had an unfair advantage where woman were not allowed the education nor opportunity at that time to create such things. But men had that opportunity. Would it have been possible with time and education? Yes. You can't simply are looking at something like woman had the chance at the time. Think about the origin. I don't see what you can base this off? And to say woman needed it to survive is simply false. If woman had the education and opportunity, things would have been discovered. We as a society would have found a way to live even if some things like the roads weren't invented. It's even possible they thought the same things or would've thought the same things, but we're denied the idea or did not speak in "respect". 

So, the real question. How do you see this? I'm curious in responses on the opposing side because every time it is mentioned it gets avoided. 

Women pretty much have the intellectual capacity to fill these roles, but they're just not interested -- that's always been the big issue. The vast majority of women don't have any interest in designing/building skyscrapers, bridges, IT infrastructure, maintaining sewerage etc., even if they probably could. Most women aren't interested in cut-throat, tournament style competition to make it to the top. Most women are happy raising a family and maybe working on the side, usually part-time, or maybe being involved in the community with volunteer work or community building. 

Yes, there will be the odd exception.

We also know that when women have the freedom to choose any job, when they finally got that opportunity to create things or go into male fields, they're actually more likely to choose the stereotypical female ones, rather than the atypical ones: Sci-Hub | Sex Differences in Personality Traits and Gender-Related Occupational Preferences across 53 Nations: Testing Evolutionary and Social-Environmental Theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 619–636 | 10.1007/s10508-008-9380-7 

Without men, a lot of these essential roles will at least struggle to be filled by women, if not fail to be filled. This isn't even mentioning the essential low status, gritty jobs that a decent number of men will fill, but women won't touch. Women bang the pots and pans for equality when CEO positions are on the line, but not when it's a chance to become a garbage collector. 

So yesterday was.

Now is and then the future.

What if yesterday.

Women should not be in education.

They are baby factories and should care for babies. That is good and makes sense.

" Barefoot and pregnant", am I right?

And most certainly in the kitchen.

And also doing everything else that Mr Lazy won't do.

And in some ways, the deaths of those slaves brought us a better system, but that doesn't mean we should slave people to death. These infrastructure are not(at least I hope so) meant to prolong solely the patriarchy, they are built to convenience the entire humanity. At least for the last century or so.

"Yes, hello. Yes this man right here. He's another Andrew Tate wannabe-"

Haha

I don't know whether I should comment or not.. I can't tell what side your on. 

Hard to tell, however mostly for the main part I don't think men are needed to survive in those terms, or even back then. It was patriarchy at that time, and may or may not be now. 

Well, men 'or women,

Need each other to reproduce,

In History/Mythology

There were the Amazons 'and the Gargareans

. .

Though I suppose since there is mythology involved, either men or women could have just sprung out of the ground.

Still, back on the topic,

Matriarchal societies have and do exist.

I 'do think men and women have different tendencies of body and mind,

Though I couldn't say how much of the mind is nature/nurture,

I'm sure either sex could survive in communities 'just of their own.

. .

But, as we 'seem to be different in a number of ways, we might be able to build a 'better communities together,

Both filling niches in society according to our abilities,

'Both filling 'certain niches 'better on average than the other sex would.

Why would I be on a side?

I was just reflecting upon the futility of reminiscence.

Can you believe that women got the right to vote in the USA in 1920?

Does a fact require belief?

Do you believe that there will be a female president one day.

I would propose that it's more likely there will be than won't be.

Though given the current state of society, a Transwoman might beat her to it.

Woman X x ---> old news

Man X y --> old news

Intersex/hermaphrodite is some combination of the above ---> old news

Woman is most complex entity of Universe, barring ideas of two or more women and man and woman etc, Universe and some or all black holes that may contain the Gravitational --if not also Dark Energy-- encoding for all that exists in Universe, in some seemingly 2D like fashion/lattice.

Quantum entanglement { superposition } .....( | )(---)( | )(----)( | )(---- wherein particle A is | { vertical } and particle B is ---- { horizontal relative to particle A.

...........space.......................Universe>(@)<Universe........................space......... ---> old news

/\ = represents female  / * * \ ----> old news bilateral female internalized ovaries * *

Y = represents male * Y * ---> old news bilateral male externalised testes * *

\Y/ = representation of birds-eye-view of tetrrahedron that has three sets of male-female precessed orientation http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/figs/f2708.html   ----> old news

If the vast majority of leadership and government roles are dominated and have been dominated by men since time immemorial, don't you think there must be a reason? Some advantage that men have?

Bigger muscles,

More aggression,

Which mattered more when Earth had more wild animals, warring tribes, primitive weapons.

Precedent,

Happening to be often in charge due to the above,

Law, history, religion, gets written.

Not having to carry the kid,

Not having to be laid up with a kid for months on end,

Not dying in childbirth, (Possibly women had a higher chance of dying when young, than men) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2949079

. . .

Just guesses though,

Retroactive perspective.

Likely are reasons as well, when societies end up matriarchal.

I just watched the BBC " The Fall : again, with Gillian Anderson. If I didnt get it the first time I did this time, it was all about men vs womens viewpoint.

The serial killer violence of movie is diffcult to watch. If a person can get past that the other theme becomes obvious.

One of the lines Gillian --the SIO in investigation states--- after the devestated wife attemtps to take her own life, is that ' women more often use their anger to hurt themselves or those who are etentions of her self', in this case it was her children.

Whereas the more uses anger more often against others.  So there are many tidbits like these and other showing viewpoint of woman vs man in similar situations going on in the movie. There is probably a reviews{s] that explain this primary theme of the series.

My two cents:

It is a man's world due to the aggressiveness and strength of a man.  The woman is more a nurturer and will care better for family than a man will.  The two working together for a common goal will always be the best pair, but one cannot take on the role of the other, and if they do, it is rare that they will succeed in the roles. Women are not dumber or inferior for this reason, it's just that their roles are not as "glorious" as a man's role. Women see the public recognition that a man gets for work or inventions or public service and she wants to be recognized too.

Really, if men could just be good men, most women would be happy with being a stay at home mom and housewife.

BTW, I think Andrew Tate is a chump.