/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9621839
>more attractive than male counterparts
that's subjective
>smaller, more efficient body
efficient in what nigga? Growing a baby?
>in control of 98% of reproduction, and can control other 2% with a snap of fingers
lol

>>9621839
>less muscle density, meaning when it comes to fighting off animals and other people they get fucked
>extremely vulnerable during pregnancy as they can't move fast or do much physical exercise
>can die giving birth
Yeah, maybe socially you have an advantage but If were talking survival skills, guys everytime.

>>9621839
>from an evolutionary standpoint
men and women are the same species so comparing men to women doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint

>>9621839
Smaller body isn't an advantage. They're also significanlty weaker, slower, less intelligent, and less successful, not to mention placed out of commission for 3/4 of a year each time they're impregnated.
>Statistically speaking half of men are trash and won't ever reproduce anyways.
The fact men are constantly being weeded out in selection means men are always improving. You see this with IQ tests for example where men are pushed to both the lowest and highest extremes through the incentive to experiment and take risks that aggressive selection creates.

>>9621839
Don't forget less prone to genetic defects

>Why aren't there like 3 women to every 1 man instead of it being half-and-half? Statistically speaking half of men are trash and won't ever reproduce anyways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

>>9621864
Bring born female is a genetic defect.

>>9621864
>less prone
more like more prone amirite?

>>9621866
>>>/r9k/

pregnancy is a huge drain on a woman's resources. it's the reason that women are oppressed in many countries.
>more attractive
lol another man who has no idea how to tell if a woman is wearing makeup
>less prone to violence
actually women have less strength than men of equal height/weight. any given man could probably destroy the average woman if he really wanted to.
>getting raped leads to reproduction
this implies that women only give birth to women. are you retarded

>>9621839
They are, but not for the reason's you're stating.
>smaller, more efficient body
being smaller is a secondary sex characteristic, it's not a female specific train so you can't give that to females.
>less prone to violence that puts themselves in danger
This doesn't make sense
>more attractive than male counterparts
LMAO no, men are more aesthetic, even though I am sexually attracted to women males are a more aesthetic form.
>in control of 98% of reproduction, and can control the other 2% with a snap of the fingers
THIS is why they are superior, Briffault's law.
>the "worst" thing that can happen to their genetic line is getting raped, in which case they still reproduce
This doesn't make sense.

In reality, this >>9621859 is the right answer.

>>9621839
If they were superior from an evolutionary standpoint there would be more of them: selection pressures would have ensured that populations that produced 9 women to every 1 man would be more successful than the 1:1 we see in humans.

Clearly there is something men contribute that is just as important to the survival of the species as the ability to birth children. My guess is that even though it only takes one man to impregnate several women, you still need several men to protect and hunt for those women while they are crippled by pregnancy and caring for their offspring. The fact that we're roughly equal in population is all the evidence you need that it's the optimal balance of these roles.

>>9621849
Low effort bait

>>9621839
>are women superior to men?
idk, but I do know something; the average woman is immensely more valuable than the average man, especially when women can entirely depend on the state to live comfortably, and if not comfortably they can gain employment to achieve their consumerist dreams, effectively removing their need for men. This inequality between the equity of genders is increasing exponentially due to the degradation of manual labour through automation in which lower IQ men are no longer required by society(women). The only remedy in this would be sexbots and artifical wombs.

>>9621839
Stfu Schlomo
>>>/tumblr/

>>9621839
>less prone to violence that puts themselves in danger
You don't get to choose when a dangerous animal/other human attacks you.

>>9622616
>in which lower IQ men are no longer required by society(women).
There isn´t a smart engineer or businessman for every woman, anon.

>>9621839
>can control 2%
lmfao no. women can only control numale pussies that think giving women the control = sex.

the day i give my wife the control over our relationship is the day she loses interest in me and leaves.

>>9621864
citation needed

>>9621839
>smaller more efficient body
Lower required input of energy, yes. More efficient at doing what?
>less prone to violence that puts themselves in danger
Also less able to hunt big game
>More attractive
Subjective? Also, girls are in their prime in their teens, while men are good pickings for most of their adult lives. The whole "men age better than women" thing.
>In control of 98% of reproduction
How whipped are you?
>worst thing is getting raped
true, although this counters the last point doesn't it?

>Men are sexually reproductive for as long as they can get an erection. Females get barren halfway through their lifespan.
>The older women get, the likelier they are of sustaining damage from procreating

Are women superior to men? Considering we both need each other to reproduce I would say no.We're just specialized in different ways

>>9621839
Personally I think the biggest flaw with female physiology is menopause.
Decreased estrogen significantly reduces bone mineral density in women leading to osteoporosis. Which can lead to broken bones from your average fall.

>>9621839
>feminist baiting
>Why aren't there like 3 women to every 1 man
the absolute state of sci

>Why aren't there like 3 women to every 1 man instead of it being half-and-half? Statistically speaking half of men are trash and won't ever reproduce anyways.
Human offspring has an absurdly long gestation and development period and demand investment from both parents.

>>9622618

>>9621839
If you think parasitism is superior to actual work then yes

>>9621839
>superior
>their entire lives involves in bargaining their vagina
lmao

>>9621839

Men brought women a thousand domestic conveniences so they could cook us more varied and delicious food in less time. What do we get in return? Endless roast beef.

>>9621839
>more attractive than male counterparts

This is objectively wrong. The greatest aesthetes in history have all remarked on how the male form is more beautiful than the female.

>>9621839
they are stupid and week and emotional and have a nice filthy period

My grandmother spent all day cooking and cleaning.
My mother spent half the day cooking and cleaning.
My wife is a parasite who orders takeout.
My daughter will be a parasite who orders takeout.
My granddaughter will spend all day cooking and cleaning.

Weak men make hard times, but add on the burden of useless women and whooowheee.

We are better in every aspect. But by law of nature the women have control over the gene pool. So everything that happens happens because women reproduce with retards. If you don't believe me then if a retarded man doesn't have children the next generation will not be retarded unless women allow it.

>Big guy, acts gangsta, dropped highschool
Women likey. ( But will eventually end up in a abusive relationship and will blame men for what she got herself stuck into )

>Ace grades, Timid and shy, Has a bright future
Outcasted by society

Think about it, no one cares if you are smart until you start doing something but no one cares if you are dumb just as long as you're doing something.

A scientist will never end up in history if he doesn't invent something revolutionary eventhough he is smarter than most of the human population and is outcasted and never have kids

But a dumb person can still act like a retard and females being females will mate with them

>>9624607
>le redpilled 15 year old

>>9621839
if you define superiority as the ability to tyrannically influence others for your gains then no.

Men can easily overpower women. We can rape them to secure our existence, and kill them if they are disobedient.

I can't think of any instance where women come out on top.

>>9624622
i'm not 15
i'm 12

>>9621869
>>9623111
X-linked recessive disorders. Women have two X chromosomes.

>>9624622

Nice argument, brainlet.

Yes. We could kill 99% of men and keep the rest in cages and milk them for their semen and the human race would be fine. You can't do that for women.
Women are the master race. Males should be smaller, docile and submissive to their female owners, like cute pets. Or would you rather be in the semen cages?

the future is female (if technology keeps progressing).

>>9626622
>>9626645
Shut up

>>9622616
Sure, I today’s and in most societies.

But it’s mainly because they are picky about who they mate with, and because laws (a social construct) protect this decision. I guarantee that if there were a non picky version of the human female most women would be useless.

I do not believe that all women are of little or of no use to men, there are many contributions made by women, the ratio of women’s contributions to men’s I don’t know nor care. But I feel they “hold power” or are better off due to society and social norms.

>>9621839
>From an evolutionary standpoint, are women superior to men?
From an evolutionary standpoint, nothing is superior to anything. As long as you are alive, you are fit to exist.

>>9621839
>smaller, more efficient body
More efficient in what sense? They are physically weaker, have fewer neurons and synapses, and produce a lot less wealth and innovation in general.
>less prone to violence that puts themselves in danger
Violence also increases the chance of having hundreds of descendants, if you are a Chad. Genghis Khan didn't spread his genes by being a pacifist.
>more attractive than male counterparts
They have a heavily front loaded sexual market value, and their attractiveness quickly fades after their 20s.
>in control of 98% of reproduction, and can control the other 2% with a snap of the fingers
Artificial wombs are not that far away.

>>9626732
Spoken like one who hasn't taken a genetics or evolution course, or really even basic bio. Evolutionary fitness is the ability to transmit information into future generations through heritable traits. A person is considered to be "Evolutionarily fit" when they have reproduced and their offspring has in turn reproduced. This can be modulated through complex interpersonal interactions such as when a single cell contributes to tissue. In other terms it means that you make sure people closely related to you, such as sisters or brothers, survive and produce grandkids. It makes you "evolutionarily fit".

In the strictest sense a mother passes on more information to the child as she gives a great majority mitochondria and cellular materials.

>>9626770
They also have better colour eyesight, with colour blindness being exceptionally rare and only women have been found to be tetrachromats meaning they can see another primary colour.
>>9626622
That's dumb as you would make retards real quick with that level of inbreeding.

>>9621839
good bait though

>>9621849
>that's subjective
It really isn't.

>>9621839
>being small and weak is "superior" because you can't hurt anything
>an inability to fight is superior
I hope you are eaten by a bear you stupid roastie

>>9626786
>That's dumb as you would make retards real quick with that level of inbreeding.
There is more than enough variation, and if not we keep 5% of m*les in the semen cages. Now be a good boy and get in your cage <3

>>9626809
Even 5% would be impractical. Plus then you would need to keep killing all male children or genetically select for females. At that point might as well genetically test then kill the lot of em and just build babies.

>>9626622
We could easily do almost the same with females. We couldn't kill 99% but we could kill say 90%, keep the rest in cages and just keep them pregnant from age 14-24.

>>9626814
>>9626809
also, good luck killing us males and putting us in cages you weak roastie. I'll just slap you and you'll start crying.

>>9626814
We need uterus farms.

>>9626809
>Attempt to breed strong, physically superior males out of the breeding population
>Weak, small, docile men suddenly everywhere in media, propaganda, news, etc
>Two generations pass
>Superior males not getting weeded out of the population
>butwhy?.jpeg
>Women divided on sexual mating preferences
>Superior males mating regularly
>Docile males reluctant to mate
>wecanfixthat.png
>Begin culling superior males
>Pass laws to enact worldwide culling
>Superior males slaughter viable docile male population after cull begins
>Incensed, continue with slaughter of female population that attempted to destroy them
>Remaining males and females are superior and viable, have less genetic defects, have been selected for perfect biological fitness
>No roasties or soybois
>shoggothorgytime.webm

Please do try. You win if you chip away at people's morals. You lose if you provoke us. Just throw us into the fire and temper us to be the stake aimed at your throat.

>>9621839
>less violent
>good

and that’s how you get killed by more violent tribes.

>>9621839
>From an evolutionary standpoint, are women superior to men?
No, women are, as of yet, not a species, they can not reproduce by themselves.

>>smaller, more efficient body
This seems pretty bad for anything that requires a lot of strength.

>>less prone to violence that puts themselves in danger
Both flight or fight are valid responses, putting one above the other demonstrates that you are absolutely retarded.

>>in control of 98% of reproduction, and can control the other 2% with a snap of the fingers
But this is false. No women can reproduce without a man.

>>the "worst" thing that can happen to their genetic line is getting raped, in which case they still reproduce
?????????????????
You know that a women can die without having children?

>Statistically speaking half of men are trash and won't ever reproduce anyways.
Statistically speaking that is false, I am not aware of any study that suggests that half of men don't reproduce but I am very much inclined to belief that this is false.

>Why aren't there like 3 women to every 1 man
Because, women have a "smaller body", thus are worse at fighting and need men to ensure their survival.

>>9621839
They are also:

Weaker.
Suck at leadership.
Rely on males to live.
Require males for reproduction.
Are generally less stable emotionally.
Are worthless while pregnant.
Have periods.
Have little to no interest and/or passion for scientific, philosophical and rational fields of study.

?

From an evolutionary standpoint, men and women are necessarily neither superior nor inferior to each other. From any evolutionary standpoint, the only measure of "superiority" to be spoken about is fitness, which is ability to reproduce and generate offspring. I guess the argument I'd intuit is that males and females are both required to create offspring and therefore one is not necessarily more fit than another, but as I type I realize it could be the case on a population level that females of the human species, and of most others, are in fact more fit than males.

After all, there is a higher number of women who reproduce than men who reproduce, so I'd say that women might actually be more fit?

>disrespecting women

You do understand that you do this because you cant get laid?

Stupid incel

>>9629061
Who are you quoting?

>>9621864
>>9621839
Females confirmed superior to men. MGTOW's on suicide watch.

Jesus fuck, I thought all the shit people said about /sci/entists being sexiest was dumb bait but looking at this thread I gotta wonder. I wonder who left the door to /pol/ open to let all these baseless assertions in. This could have been an interesting talk on evolutionary theory and how sex differentiation occurs, instead we get dumbasses stating "We equals" or "Womyn are da best 4 eva" and angry /pol/tards talking about how women are all sniveling scheming weaklings not worthy to serve at their glorious cheeto dust laden table.

Honestly it just makes me sad

>>9629510
>angry /pol/tards
Please don't mix us in with MGTOWs.

>>9621839

men have higher spread of intelligence than women, meaning there are more retarded men but also much more male geniuses, especially in STEM fields

retards dont matter, but it is the geniuses that push humanity forward

without men scientific and technological progress would slow down severely

there would be a lot less wars and violence, tough

>>9621866
This

>>9629510
>it just makes me sad
You could always go back to r*ddit

>>9626622
>We could kill 99% of men

it has to be grounded in reality for it to be believable you know

>>9623094
attn incels: listen to this anon

>>9621866
Hi Bortus

>>9621871
is this what you consider arguments?

>>9626795
it is you prancing homo

>>9626732
I like you

>>9631423
?

>>9621859
Male humans are more similar genetically to male chimps than they are to female humans.

>>9632214
This is a blatant lie

>>9629061
>hurr u cant get laid!!!
>women are perfect angels dont disrespect reee!!!!
Shut up you fucking faggot.

>>9621839
Pretty stupid to say one gender is superior to the other in evolutionary standpoint, considering both are needed for the species to exist. But I'd give the leg up to men for two major reasons: increased strength, stamina, and physical fitness is very useful for an apex predator and women have to bear the burden of pregnancy. In tribal cultures, pregnant woman aren't entirely bedridden or anything and still participate in a way that civilized pregnant women do not, but they are still at reduced capacities.


Of course, women have longer life expentacies , so one interpretation is that based on that fact alone, they are superior.