Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected.
Infected people can spread measles to others from four days before through four days after the rash appears."
And this is why I don't support the anti-vaxxer movement. I think I'm pretty damn conservative... personal freedom and all that jazz.. But I don't think I support the rights of people to walk through common areas leaking a virus that will persist in the air for hours and hours. Especially something so infectious that the hit rate is 90% (as you mentioned). We have the technology to prevent these infections.. People who deliberately make themselves a haven for the virus/bacteria and then want to spread that shit all over the place... yeah.. NO!.
I suspect that researchers would classify this as a type of "tragedy of the commons" where anti-vaxxers hope/assume that everyone else is inoculated so they can skate on the defenses of others.. That's bullshit, IMHO.
You've kind of answered your own question here. If the intelligent people refrain from sitting down next to someone who is "leaking measles all over the place" then the Darwinian principle would still hold.
Really? You think you can always spot people carrying a disease? I suggest you read about Typhoid Mary. That broad infected at least 51 people with Typhus, even though she showed absolutely no symptoms of the disease (she was a carrier). She was a cook and leaked typhus bacteria all over the food she was handling. She was held in isolation for 3 decades to prevent further infections to the public and then she died.
Actually, it's typically not an 'overwhelmed your immune system' issue usually as much as 'the vaccine did not take,' or possibly 'guess what was among the germ definitions your immune system has decided to clean out!'
I'm not going to claim I'm any sort of a vaccine expert, but that seems to conflict with some of the literature I've read. It's certainly not applicable to every disease, but I do recall reading more than one paper which indicated that, even with vaccination, if one receives a viral load that is sufficiently large, it is possible to still get the disease.. One's immune system is simply overwhelmed.
Without vaccination the world would still have small pox.. More correctly, without very aggressive vaccination the world would still have small pox. If memory serves, in many areas small pox vaccination was absolutely mandatory, at least when cases of the disease had occurred nearby.
If we had allowed morons to decide, for themselves, the question of vaccination, I have no doubt it would still be present in the world. I do concur with many others that we should be constantly refining vaccinations to ensure that they aren't causing any long term side effects.
The problem with your theory is that you can get a disease, that you have been vaccinated for, if you're hit with a huge amount of the infectious agent. i.e. If you sit down next to someone who's leaking measles all over the place (coughing, sneezing, etc) it may overwhelm your immune system and you could get get sick.
In generally free societies, you get spied on for profit (if they can), and little-to-nothing more. The worst they do with your data to is sell what they learn about you to advertisers, who them toss up ads that hopefully get past ad-blockers and try to entice you out of some of your money.
How quickly we forget the recent past.. FBI... Hollywood.. FBI files on prominent actresses/actors.. Constant surveilliance to root out the "communist sympathizers". But then again, freedom of association has never been an American thing.. Hell, freedom of religion has never really been an American thing.. Oh sure, you could be a Protestant, but if you were a Catholic you couldn't hope to hold any high federal offices.. "You might bend a knee to the Pope" was the logic behind that, but I digress..
The US, starting mostly during the cold war, has had a long love affair with spying on it's own citizens for purely political reasons.
And the US these mentally ill people have been allowes to wait the system in their favor to the point where there's not enough left for everone else.
Your logic is flawed. The system isn't a pie that's divided up and portioned out. Brand new wealth is created constantly. The "pie" is constantly getting larger.. But please keep blaming the successful for your failures.
I really love how you have equated ambition and drive with a mental illness. I suppose the lazy or unambitious are virtuous?
That same drive that can create an real estate tycoon can also create a world class brain surgeon.. Or a piano virtuoso. Just depends on how the person chooses to focus it..
Your general "shtick" is that the successful people are out to get you and wanting to be the best is a mental illness. I'm done with you...
I don't think that's true. Otherwise people wouldn't bemoan the lack of women in STEM. They'd look to see are women getting the same chances, and if they were, yet the imbalance persisted, they'd let it go. But that's not what's happening, people are trying to force a balance in the work place.
At some point you have to accept that women just may not want to work in a certain field despite all the opportunity in the world......[snip].
Not sure how to read this.. In the first paragraph you seem to be arguing that women aren't getting the opportunities and in the second you seem to be agreeing that it's possible they are but simply aren't interested in the same jobs..
I'll hold comment until you clarify.. (and I accept the possibility that I'm just having a lack of reading comprehension at the moment). Because, to me, it seems your statement is self-contradictory.
Yes.... That's precisely what they want.. Shit, California was/is trying to mandate females on corporate boards.. MANDATE... So, like... What the hell does one do if you can't find a qualified & willing woman? Do you have to put an unqualified or unwilling female on the board? Mandating gender quotas is precisely Equality of Outcome.
How about instead of arresting people from a country that you are supposedly at peace with and then extraditing them to another country the both of you are supposedly at peace with, you send them back to their home country and let their home country deal with them however their home country sees fit.
What the actual fuck? That's not how international law works, asshole. You come here, you break a law, and you get punished here. If I go to China and steal a car, you can bet your ass I'd end up in a Chinese prison.
Next time engage your brain before your mouth. No country on Earth would be okay with what you are suggesting. ZERO
Disproven like Trump "disproved" that he had multiple business dealings with Russia to the American people, lying to your fat faggot face over and over again, lol? Tell it to the warden faggot, Trump has 20+ open investigations. He's fucked.
You want to get fucked too, I'm sure we can work something out with the inmates at ADX Florence to accommodate your faggot traitor ass as well, Junior.
For fuck's sake, just come out of the closet already. You are absolutely FIXATED on homosexual sex. It's all "faggot" this and "faggot" that... What percentage of your day is spent not thinking about gay sex? 2%? 3%?
Don't deny it.. Your actions speak louder than any possible words of denial... Come out, get a husband, drop the rabid anger, and be happy.
Not socialist. Capitalist with heavy taxes, but NOT SOCIALIST. Definitely a welfare state, but that's not socialism.Personally I think the USA qualifies as a welfare state too, but that's my opinion. Norway has one of the lowest rates of market regulation in the western world. It's not lassiez-faire but it's a hell of a lot less regulated than the United States.. Almost makes a case for less market regulation, doesn't it?
One of the accepted hallmarks of Socialism is collective ownership of production. Norway doesn't have that... So.. no...it's a Welfare State
Irrelevant. It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently based on any other criteria but job performance. Unless they are salespeople or professional negotiators, paying them differently based on "ability to negotiate" is illegal.
Bullshit. Well, let's say "bullshit for many jurisdictions". Asking for a raise is a negotiation. It's as simple as that. Now, if you said "All men get a raise after 2 months and women get a raise after 6 months" sure.. That's illegal as fuck.. But if you don't have scheduled raises and instead hand them out when an employee can justify it.. Well, the women (in general) aren't going to ask for them. Men (in general) will.. Giving people who can justify a raise is not illegal.. Just have your documentation in order..
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
Possible? This is settled science. This has been known for 20+ years.. Women SUCK at negotiation. They're terrible at it. But, they also have different priorities IN GENERAL (sorry for the caps, but some people can't seem to understand that when speaking about groups of people (women) in broad statements like this, we're talking about generalities and not specifics.
Oops, clicked reply on the wrong post.. Ignore the duplicate, this is the correct response
There's a difference between specifics and generalities. You are pointing at specifics and trying to use them to disprove the generalities.
If I said "men are stronger than women" (and they are, on average), and you pointed at some Olympic champion female weightlifter and said "Here's your proof that they aren't", you are still wrong.
The GP is absolutely correct regarding the biology of women. They have babies. They cannot afford to take risks.. A mother's first choice is always (generally) to flee with the child. She cannot confront males and she cannot confront childless females. She has to escape danger. A woman with a child will, generally, only fight if she's backed into a corner and has no other options. What relevance is all of this? Simply to point out that not only are we physically different, but we have different thought processes and priorities.
Males and females are equal in intelligence. The differences are how the apply the intelligence. Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Continually insisting that men & women are the same isn't enlightened. It isn't progressive. It's stupid. Neither is more valuable than the other, but the value is different due to the fact that men & women are different.
But, by all means, please keep insisting that men and women are identical. May I suggest you also join the Flat Earth Society? They seem to be a group that is also quite happy to ignore facts and the truth.
There's a difference between specifics and generalities. You are pointing at specifics and trying to use them to disprove the generalities.
If I said "men are stronger than women" (and they are, on average), and you pointed at some Olympic champion female weightlifter and said "Here's your proof that they aren't", you are still wrong.
The GP is absolutely correct regarding the biology of women. They have babies. They cannot afford to take risks.. A mother's first choice is always (generally) to flee with the child. She cannot confront males and she cannot confront childless females. She has to escape danger. A woman with a child will, generally, only fight if she's backed into a corner and has no other options. What relevance is all of this? Simply to point out that not only are we physically different, but we have different thought processes and priorities.
Males and females are equal in intelligence. The differences are how the apply the intelligence. Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Continually insisting that men & women are the same isn't enlightened. It isn't progressive. It's stupid. Neither is more valuable than the other, but the value is different due to the fact that men & women are different.
But, by all means, please keep insisting that men and women are identical. May I suggest you also join the Flat Earth Society? They seem to be a group that is also quite happy to ignore facts and the truth.
What DNS servers? As I understand it, only 2 or 3 of the 7 are located in the United States.. That means 4 or 5 would be unaffected by a US based "shutdown switch".
One way internet? Are you not aware that, while asymmetric, satellite internet is two way and has been for decades? 20+ years at least... The very first generation of sat internet used a phone line for upload and the dish for download, but that was a long ass time ago.
Yes, the upload speed is a fraction of the download speed, but it will get the job done. Hell, most internet in the USA is asymmetric.. Cable, DSL, wireless, etc.. About the only symmetric is fiber..
It's not though. The biological differences are relatively small and, like many of our other biological urges, are not difficult to overcome. Most of the aggression is part of a toxic definition of masculinity.
Bull. Aggression is built into us. Males compete for territory / mates / status / dominance. We've decided, as a species, that we're not okay with physical acts of violence (most of the time) so that aggression has to be redirected. That doesn't mean it's gone. It's still there, but is simply redirected to more productive tasks or, at least, less destructive ones.
The biological differences are not small.. Maybe when you compare a male and a female to a chimp or something.. Yeah, then the differences between the two people seem minor.. But when you're comparing a human female to a human male the differences are not small. The change required to get the difference may be minor but the end results are enormous.
Your average male is about 250% stronger than a female, somewhere around 6" taller, and possesses nearly double the mass. That sound minor to you?
We have the evidence now to prove that men/women simply are interested in different things. Give them maximum freedom to choose what they want to do, remove legal barriers to doing it, strip away as much of the fiscal pressure and, lo-and-behold, they will maximally self-segregate by sex.
Sweden has the most sexually segregated work force in the western world. PERIOD. Full stop. That's the facts. It's self-segregated.. Guess what? Women (as a whole) don't want to be brick layers.. They don't want to want to be tower climbers, they don't want to be a CEO. I'm sorry if this upsets you because you thought it would turn out different but facts don't care about feelings..
Put down your SJW playbook. It's like talking to a meme. Men and women (compared to each other) are WAY different. We evolved with different roles and after 100,000+ years of evolution, those differences are permanent. Women gathered, men killed. That's the way it was and that's the way we're still wired. We're working on the killing part, but it gets used an awful lot.. Men are expected to defend the woman. That's not societal, it's logical. You don't send in the 100lb 5'2" female to do battle. You send in the 6' 220lb male to do the killing. Biologically, women are far more valuable to "the tribe" than a man is.. 1 man can impregnate an awful lot of women in a year.. 1 woman can only be impregnated 1x per year (approximately). Although a large portion of that value is offset by the fact that one needs a large supply of men to keep the barbarians at bay. i.e if you need to boost your population or replace a lot of killed off members you better have a healthy supply of women.
Your assertion that the biological differences are minor is a load of horseshit. We're not equal physically. We're not equal mentally. This does not imply women are stupid or that men are smart.. What it means is that we process information differently and we come to conclusions via different methods.
Continuing to espouse the idea that our differences are societal or minor makes you look like someone who has no grip on reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't recall the bible saying the internet is permissible.. Nor electricity.. So.. yeah, you need to get off the interwebs. :)
Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected.
Infected people can spread measles to others from four days before through four days after the rash appears."
And this is why I don't support the anti-vaxxer movement. I think I'm pretty damn conservative... personal freedom and all that jazz.. But I don't think I support the rights of people to walk through common areas leaking a virus that will persist in the air for hours and hours. Especially something so infectious that the hit rate is 90% (as you mentioned). We have the technology to prevent these infections.. People who deliberately make themselves a haven for the virus/bacteria and then want to spread that shit all over the place... yeah.. NO!.
I suspect that researchers would classify this as a type of "tragedy of the commons" where anti-vaxxers hope/assume that everyone else is inoculated so they can skate on the defenses of others.. That's bullshit, IMHO.
You've kind of answered your own question here. If the intelligent people refrain from sitting down next to someone who is "leaking measles all over the place" then the Darwinian principle would still hold.
Really? You think you can always spot people carrying a disease? I suggest you read about Typhoid Mary. That broad infected at least 51 people with Typhus, even though she showed absolutely no symptoms of the disease (she was a carrier). She was a cook and leaked typhus bacteria all over the food she was handling. She was held in isolation for 3 decades to prevent further infections to the public and then she died.
Actually, it's typically not an 'overwhelmed your immune system' issue usually as much as 'the vaccine did not take,' or possibly 'guess what was among the germ definitions your immune system has decided to clean out!'
I'm not going to claim I'm any sort of a vaccine expert, but that seems to conflict with some of the literature I've read. It's certainly not applicable to every disease, but I do recall reading more than one paper which indicated that, even with vaccination, if one receives a viral load that is sufficiently large, it is possible to still get the disease.. One's immune system is simply overwhelmed.
Without vaccination the world would still have small pox.. More correctly, without very aggressive vaccination the world would still have small pox. If memory serves, in many areas small pox vaccination was absolutely mandatory, at least when cases of the disease had occurred nearby.
If we had allowed morons to decide, for themselves, the question of vaccination, I have no doubt it would still be present in the world. I do concur with many others that we should be constantly refining vaccinations to ensure that they aren't causing any long term side effects.
The problem with your theory is that you can get a disease, that you have been vaccinated for, if you're hit with a huge amount of the infectious agent. i.e. If you sit down next to someone who's leaking measles all over the place (coughing, sneezing, etc) it may overwhelm your immune system and you could get get sick.
Vaccines work best when everyone gets them.
In generally free societies, you get spied on for profit (if they can), and little-to-nothing more. The worst they do with your data to is sell what they learn about you to advertisers, who them toss up ads that hopefully get past ad-blockers and try to entice you out of some of your money.
How quickly we forget the recent past.. FBI... Hollywood.. FBI files on prominent actresses/actors.. Constant surveilliance to root out the "communist sympathizers". But then again, freedom of association has never been an American thing.. Hell, freedom of religion has never really been an American thing.. Oh sure, you could be a Protestant, but if you were a Catholic you couldn't hope to hold any high federal offices.. "You might bend a knee to the Pope" was the logic behind that, but I digress..
The US, starting mostly during the cold war, has had a long love affair with spying on it's own citizens for purely political reasons.
And the US these mentally ill people have been allowes to wait the system in their favor to the point where there's not enough left for everone else.
Your logic is flawed. The system isn't a pie that's divided up and portioned out. Brand new wealth is created constantly. The "pie" is constantly getting larger.. But please keep blaming the successful for your failures.
I really love how you have equated ambition and drive with a mental illness. I suppose the lazy or unambitious are virtuous?
That same drive that can create an real estate tycoon can also create a world class brain surgeon.. Or a piano virtuoso. Just depends on how the person chooses to focus it..
Your general "shtick" is that the successful people are out to get you and wanting to be the best is a mental illness. I'm done with you...
I'll give you the "also". There is some social pressure, but as Sweden is showing us, it doesn't account for a whole hell of a lot.
I don't think that's true. Otherwise people wouldn't bemoan the lack of women in STEM. They'd look to see are women getting the same chances, and if they were, yet the imbalance persisted, they'd let it go. But that's not what's happening, people are trying to force a balance in the work place.
At some point you have to accept that women just may not want to work in a certain field despite all the opportunity in the world......[snip].
Not sure how to read this.. In the first paragraph you seem to be arguing that women aren't getting the opportunities and in the second you seem to be agreeing that it's possible they are but simply aren't interested in the same jobs..
I'll hold comment until you clarify.. (and I accept the possibility that I'm just having a lack of reading comprehension at the moment). Because, to me, it seems your statement is self-contradictory.
Yes.... That's precisely what they want.. Shit, California was/is trying to mandate females on corporate boards.. MANDATE... So, like... What the hell does one do if you can't find a qualified & willing woman? Do you have to put an unqualified or unwilling female on the board? Mandating gender quotas is precisely Equality of Outcome.
Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who was washing Waldo Woo.
FTFY, dumbass.
Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo. https://quizlet.com/85772626/d...
Fixed that for you, asshole. GP was correct, you are incorrect. Next time you might not want to call someone a dumbass when they are correct.
How about instead of arresting people from a country that you are supposedly at peace with and then extraditing them to another country the both of you are supposedly at peace with, you send them back to their home country and let their home country deal with them however their home country sees fit.
What the actual fuck? That's not how international law works, asshole. You come here, you break a law, and you get punished here. If I go to China and steal a car, you can bet your ass I'd end up in a Chinese prison.
Next time engage your brain before your mouth. No country on Earth would be okay with what you are suggesting. ZERO
Disproven like Trump "disproved" that he had multiple business dealings with Russia to the American people, lying to your fat faggot face over and over again, lol? Tell it to the warden faggot, Trump has 20+ open investigations. He's fucked.
You want to get fucked too, I'm sure we can work something out with the inmates at ADX Florence to accommodate your faggot traitor ass as well, Junior.
For fuck's sake, just come out of the closet already. You are absolutely FIXATED on homosexual sex. It's all "faggot" this and "faggot" that... What percentage of your day is spent not thinking about gay sex? 2%? 3%?
Don't deny it.. Your actions speak louder than any possible words of denial... Come out, get a husband, drop the rabid anger, and be happy.
Not socialist. Capitalist with heavy taxes, but NOT SOCIALIST. Definitely a welfare state, but that's not socialism.Personally I think the USA qualifies as a welfare state too, but that's my opinion. Norway has one of the lowest rates of market regulation in the western world. It's not lassiez-faire but it's a hell of a lot less regulated than the United States.. Almost makes a case for less market regulation, doesn't it?
One of the accepted hallmarks of Socialism is collective ownership of production. Norway doesn't have that... So.. no...it's a Welfare State
There are only laws against discrimination in specific situations against specific protected classes of people.
I hope you understand the hypocrisy of that.
Irrelevant. It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently based on any other criteria but job performance. Unless they are salespeople or professional negotiators, paying them differently based on "ability to negotiate" is illegal.
Bullshit. Well, let's say "bullshit for many jurisdictions". Asking for a raise is a negotiation. It's as simple as that. Now, if you said "All men get a raise after 2 months and women get a raise after 6 months" sure.. That's illegal as fuck.. But if you don't have scheduled raises and instead hand them out when an employee can justify it.. Well, the women (in general) aren't going to ask for them. Men (in general) will.. Giving people who can justify a raise is not illegal.. Just have your documentation in order..
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
Possible? This is settled science. This has been known for 20+ years.. Women SUCK at negotiation. They're terrible at it. But, they also have different priorities IN GENERAL (sorry for the caps, but some people can't seem to understand that when speaking about groups of people (women) in broad statements like this, we're talking about generalities and not specifics.
Bullshit.. Sweden is our test case right now.. Maximum opportunity and maximum self segregation between the sexes in the labor force.
If we would just Define an amount that is considered enough.....
I hope you're joking.. Socialism doesn't work. Socialism fails 100% of the time. Repeat after me: "Socialism does not work"
Oops, clicked reply on the wrong post.. Ignore the duplicate, this is the correct response
There's a difference between specifics and generalities. You are pointing at specifics and trying to use them to disprove the generalities.
If I said "men are stronger than women" (and they are, on average), and you pointed at some Olympic champion female weightlifter and said "Here's your proof that they aren't", you are still wrong.
The GP is absolutely correct regarding the biology of women. They have babies. They cannot afford to take risks.. A mother's first choice is always (generally) to flee with the child. She cannot confront males and she cannot confront childless females. She has to escape danger. A woman with a child will, generally, only fight if she's backed into a corner and has no other options. What relevance is all of this? Simply to point out that not only are we physically different, but we have different thought processes and priorities.
Males and females are equal in intelligence. The differences are how the apply the intelligence. Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Continually insisting that men & women are the same isn't enlightened. It isn't progressive. It's stupid. Neither is more valuable than the other, but the value is different due to the fact that men & women are different.
But, by all means, please keep insisting that men and women are identical. May I suggest you also join the Flat Earth Society? They seem to be a group that is also quite happy to ignore facts and the truth.
There's a difference between specifics and generalities. You are pointing at specifics and trying to use them to disprove the generalities.
If I said "men are stronger than women" (and they are, on average), and you pointed at some Olympic champion female weightlifter and said "Here's your proof that they aren't", you are still wrong.
The GP is absolutely correct regarding the biology of women. They have babies. They cannot afford to take risks.. A mother's first choice is always (generally) to flee with the child. She cannot confront males and she cannot confront childless females. She has to escape danger. A woman with a child will, generally, only fight if she's backed into a corner and has no other options. What relevance is all of this? Simply to point out that not only are we physically different, but we have different thought processes and priorities.
Males and females are equal in intelligence. The differences are how the apply the intelligence. Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Continually insisting that men & women are the same isn't enlightened. It isn't progressive. It's stupid. Neither is more valuable than the other, but the value is different due to the fact that men & women are different.
But, by all means, please keep insisting that men and women are identical. May I suggest you also join the Flat Earth Society? They seem to be a group that is also quite happy to ignore facts and the truth.
What DNS servers? As I understand it, only 2 or 3 of the 7 are located in the United States.. That means 4 or 5 would be unaffected by a US based "shutdown switch".
One way internet? Are you not aware that, while asymmetric, satellite internet is two way and has been for decades? 20+ years at least... The very first generation of sat internet used a phone line for upload and the dish for download, but that was a long ass time ago.
Yes, the upload speed is a fraction of the download speed, but it will get the job done. Hell, most internet in the USA is asymmetric.. Cable, DSL, wireless, etc.. About the only symmetric is fiber..
It's not though. The biological differences are relatively small and, like many of our other biological urges, are not difficult to overcome. Most of the aggression is part of a toxic definition of masculinity.
Bull. Aggression is built into us. Males compete for territory / mates / status / dominance. We've decided, as a species, that we're not okay with physical acts of violence (most of the time) so that aggression has to be redirected. That doesn't mean it's gone. It's still there, but is simply redirected to more productive tasks or, at least, less destructive ones.
The biological differences are not small.. Maybe when you compare a male and a female to a chimp or something.. Yeah, then the differences between the two people seem minor.. But when you're comparing a human female to a human male the differences are not small. The change required to get the difference may be minor but the end results are enormous.
Your average male is about 250% stronger than a female, somewhere around 6" taller, and possesses nearly double the mass. That sound minor to you?
We have the evidence now to prove that men/women simply are interested in different things. Give them maximum freedom to choose what they want to do, remove legal barriers to doing it, strip away as much of the fiscal pressure and, lo-and-behold, they will maximally self-segregate by sex.
Sweden has the most sexually segregated work force in the western world. PERIOD. Full stop. That's the facts. It's self-segregated.. Guess what? Women (as a whole) don't want to be brick layers.. They don't want to want to be tower climbers, they don't want to be a CEO. I'm sorry if this upsets you because you thought it would turn out different but facts don't care about feelings..
Put down your SJW playbook. It's like talking to a meme. Men and women (compared to each other) are WAY different. We evolved with different roles and after 100,000+ years of evolution, those differences are permanent. Women gathered, men killed. That's the way it was and that's the way we're still wired. We're working on the killing part, but it gets used an awful lot.. Men are expected to defend the woman. That's not societal, it's logical. You don't send in the 100lb 5'2" female to do battle. You send in the 6' 220lb male to do the killing. Biologically, women are far more valuable to "the tribe" than a man is.. 1 man can impregnate an awful lot of women in a year.. 1 woman can only be impregnated 1x per year (approximately). Although a large portion of that value is offset by the fact that one needs a large supply of men to keep the barbarians at bay. i.e if you need to boost your population or replace a lot of killed off members you better have a healthy supply of women.
Your assertion that the biological differences are minor is a load of horseshit. We're not equal physically. We're not equal mentally. This does not imply women are stupid or that men are smart.. What it means is that we process information differently and we come to conclusions via different methods.
Continuing to espouse the idea that our differences are societal or minor makes you look like someone who has no grip on reality.
I stand corrected.