Men are traditionally warriors because warfare was traditionally fought in a way that relied primarily on strength and gave advantage more commonly to larger, more aggressive, and stronger people- who are usually men. As war and its tools evolved, female warriors became less and less at a disadvantage in any meaningful way. However society had not only adapted to having women fill roles that were left over after men were used for manual labors, but had begun to assume it was the norm. In most cultures “warriors” and the like are revered and have prestige which translate to status and privilege. An average woman may not be able to lift a granite block all day as well as an average man- but operating a fork lift or crane with “drive by wire” gives no clear advantage to either- or possibly favors the lighter for energy efficiency. So while it’s not inaccurate to say men usually have more developed muscle mass and certain physical traits that make them more suited for heavy or manual...
... labor, or any that any physical task including lifting a feather is easier when one has such advantages, in a modern setting with tools and where the ability to use brute force isn’t the paramount factor to success, it does not pan out on context. One can argue that when tools fail or where tools are unavailable the advantage is there to fall back on. However that logic would hold that a 1952 Eastern Bloc car is a “better” car to own than a 2019 BMW 5 series because the ford can run on potatoes and be fixed with house hold items. Those are great traits if you’re stuck without the tools of modern society- but I know I’d rather commute in the 5 series. Even comparing the robust AK to the AR series- the US and many nations still use the AR despite it being less suited for extreme conditions because when it works- it works better, and their data supports that the reliablitliy in extremes isn’t a major factor on a modern battlefield.
Ok... so legit... I came here to say something about this... and I still will. And I’m ausually against generalizing based on sex- but, you made me laugh so hard. This is... in my experience, completely accurate. So accurate that I got in trouble at the furniture store last night because I was extending a tape measure and using it to touch things that were 6-8 ft a way when I was talking about them. When she told me to stop I said: “you’re the one one who always says you can’t tell what I’m talking about when I point...” that’s when the fight started.... So anyway- wish I could upvote more than once just because even if not indicative of a general group, it’s relevent to my personal experience and so I found it funny on that level.
I have to disagree with the second comment. Women can and do cooperate- and in some ways and situations better than men (just as men do better in GENERAL in certain situations.) it’s not the popular truism that women are catty or hostile to other women though. It has to do with goals. Any group of reasonable people will band together to complete common goals. Dissent occurs when individuals have their own goals. Society tends to pit women against each other. To teach women that they are in constant competition for a limit amount of space at a table, for recognition, to demonstrate their value. What’s more, the “goal” put before them to unite them may not be their individual goal, or may only be a step towards their individual personal goal. Men tend to have little boxes mentally. Men on the whole are good at compartmentalizing. For better and worse men tend to be better at a single minded pursuit while women tend to have their minds on more than one thing at any given time.
So while a group of men are all rallied to a single goal, putting other issues on the back burner, and generally working out an internal power dynamic to the group- women are not just thinking about winning the game, they are thinking about things from other parts of life, social dynamics- and as far as finding a social structure for the group, women do t tend to be conditioned as men are. Women are not generally pushed to ideas of takin charge or being a leader. They aren’t generally taught to use force or strength or dominance in the same way as men to define social standing. The methods society has traditionally taught women are to use cunning, to suppress their fellow women to elevate themselves, to rely on material standing or other means of conspicuous display to “peacock” each other. So it isn’t that women inherently can’t get along with each other, it’s that society has pitted women against each other while trying to get men to work cohesively on a single goal together.
Women are better at thinking, strategy and debating.
Men are better at fighting and building
Men are better at Fortnite.
"WHICH TREE!?"
"THE ONE I'M POINTING AT!"
"I CAN'T SEE WHERE YOU'RE POINTING!!"