Oriet said:
Considering that with scientific advancement, women will be able to (if not already able to) become pregnant and thus reproduce without men. Men, however, cannot do the same. Now tell me which is superior. (Oh, and don't say that it was men who made the technology, because there's plenty of female scientists only held back by the misogyny of male rulers.
Oh no you di'nt! Female scientists being held back by the "misogyny of male rulers"? Oh for fucks sake, what a bunch of bullshit. It isn't men that keep women out of Science, shown by the fact that there is an increasing amount of women entering the fields of science. Sure, the "male rulers" did in the past, but that isn't how it is anymore.
Statistically speaking, men tend to be more interested in the Sciences, and are generally better at the things which lead to high proficiency in those fields. That isn't to say that women can't do the same, its just statistically speaking, it usually isn't the case. That isn't to say women can be just as good, or better than men in these fields, it just isn't too likely. And there are things that women statistically appear to excel at, and do better at than men. Sure, it's easy to say "Men have it better" if you only look at the top of the social spectrum, but look at the bottom. Look at the majority of prison occupants, people who die early, and those with mental disabilities. Men FAR outnumber Women in these areas. Men and women aren't precisely equal, we're just different.
But hey, I'm arguing with what appears to be a fundie (a fundie feminist, but a fundie nonetheless). By entering into an argument with someone who is this irrational and close-minded, I've already lost, because everything I say will fall on deaf ears.
