From an evolutionary standpoint, are women superior to men?

>smaller, more efficient body
>less prone to violence that puts themselves in danger
>more attractive than male counterparts
>in control of 98% of reproduction, and can control the other 2% with a snap of the fingers
>the "worst" thing that can happen to their genetic line is getting raped, in which case they still reproduce
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.

Attached: 1521054801684.jpg (800x533, 104K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher's_principle

>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

>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.

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

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.

Don't forget less prone to genetic defects

Attached: 1478818129146.jpg (768x1024, 122K)

>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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher's_principle

Bring born female is a genetic defect.

>less prone
more like more prone amirite?

...

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

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 is the right answer.

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.

Low effort bait

>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.

Stfu Schlomo
>>>/tumblr/

Attached: 1478463660697.jpg (1333x1000, 380K)

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

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

>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.

citation needed

>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

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.

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

Attached: 1521532625105.png (1064x1920, 759K)

If you think parasitism is superior to actual work then yes

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

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.

>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.

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

>le redpilled 15 year old

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.

i'm not 15
i'm 12

X-linked recessive disorders. Women have two X chromosomes.

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).

Shut up

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.

>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.

Attached: 1521660098519.jpg (739x673, 101K)

>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.

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.

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.
That's dumb as you would make retards real quick with that level of inbreeding.

good bait though

>that's subjective
It really isn't.

Attached: 1513475156489.jpg (1080x1080, 441K)

>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

>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

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.

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.

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

We need uterus farms.

>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.

>less violent
>good

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

>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.