You are completely blinded by your male perspective on this one, and you're also forgetting that men occupy both ends of the bell curve.
One very important thing you have to understand is men are always about "works" because those works are status signifies... to women. It's part of male psychology. Successful males will always generate a status signal.
Where you're wrong:
Emotional IQ: But the greatest poets, musicians, and artists in history are men.
Those have nothing to do with one another. EQ is about managing social-emotional networks by understanding the psychological perceptions of all participants, and fostering an emotionally positive environment by doing so. Women are better than men at it.
Social aptitude? But the greatest leaders and organizers in history are men.
This is a huge one you're misunderstanding. Social aptitude has nothing to do with organizing. The kind of leadership you're thinking of is based on Charisma... which is absolutely a male trait, but that's not what Social Aptitude is. It's about forming, navigating, cultivating, and maintaining social networks. Women are superb at this. Men rarely even recognize the need for one. It's a night and day difference. This is one of the reasons why women remember other people's anniversary dates. They are aware of the socio-emotional impact of these dates and their influence on relationships within the social network that they've woven.
Child rearing? Single mother households are a plague on society.
Single parent households are bad generally. Single mothers are just particularly bad. Single father households might bring the kid up physically to not be a criminal because they won't be fragile, low-time preference, undisciplined nonsense. Instead they will be effectively autistic and not capable of strong socialization skills. They'll get a job. But they won't raise a family, their degeneracy and social collapse will increase with time as they continue to fail to develop any kind of real social safety net.
Put it like this: do you know what happens to an infant without a mother prior to a few centuries ago? It fucking dies because it can't eat. Dad doesn't have mammary glans. Men literally aren't fit to raise infants. They are still needed to raise children into adults, but you need both parents to raise a kid.
Now, here's where you are just missing the point:
Cooking? The greatest chefs are men.
You're misunderstanding the role. Men shouldn't be cooking in the family. The most successful anything are men because of their performance in the bell-curve. Chefs provide income for their families, and the food is a status symbol of their competency. That's the point.
Women are supposed to be cooking so that they can prepare men to use all available nutrients and caloric intake to get the things that the woman needs to continue building the family and community at home. Women help men manage energy supplies through cooking. Cooking also helps feed the children because it gives them vital food that their digestive system might not be able to process yet.
Peaceful rule? The greatest pacifist activists in history are men.
This is just a feminist trope. Women will murder the shit out of each other.
Fashion? The greatest designers are (gay) men.
Again, you're looking at a form a status signaling. The primary purpose of fashion is to convey the value of women to men in a way that men can easily decipher.
I think you're confusing "women often do this thing" with "women are better at this thing". Women seem to be very good at things that men either don't value or don't prioritize. This is not the same thing as superiority in those tasks.
I think you're still missing the point about what women are and how they fit into relationships with men. Men are always going to be at the ends of the bell curve for both absolute best and worst. Women become a kind of moderating force for men. Women do not have to be the best in all of society, that is a strive for status that men have to get women. Women simply have to be the animus of their particular man. They need to complement and supplement what he is capable of.
You are completely blinded by your male perspective on this one, and you're also forgetting that men occupy both ends of the bell curve.
One very important thing you have to understand is men are always about "works" because those works are status signifies... to women. It's part of male psychology. Successful males will always generate a status signal.
Where you're wrong:
Those have nothing to do with one another. EQ is about managing social-emotional networks by understanding the psychological perceptions of all participants, and fostering an emotionally positive environment by doing so. Women are better than men at it.
This is a huge one you're misunderstanding. Social aptitude has nothing to do with organizing. The kind of leadership you're thinking of is based on Charisma... which is absolutely a male trait, but that's not what Social Aptitude is. It's about forming, navigating, cultivating, and maintaining social networks. Women are superb at this. Men rarely even recognize the need for one. It's a night and day difference. This is one of the reasons why women remember other people's anniversary dates. They are aware of the socio-emotional impact of these dates and their influence on relationships within the social network that they've woven.
Single parent households are bad generally. Single mothers are just particularly bad. Single father households might bring the kid up physically to not be a criminal because they won't be fragile, low-time preference, undisciplined nonsense. Instead they will be effectively autistic and not capable of strong socialization skills. They'll get a job. But they won't raise a family, their degeneracy and social collapse will increase with time as they continue to fail to develop any kind of real social safety net.
Put it like this: do you know what happens to an infant without a mother prior to a few centuries ago? It fucking dies because it can't eat. Dad doesn't have mammary glans. Men literally aren't fit to raise infants. They are still needed to raise children into adults, but you need both parents to raise a kid.
Now, here's where you are just missing the point:
You're misunderstanding the role. Men shouldn't be cooking in the family. The most successful anything are men because of their performance in the bell-curve. Chefs provide income for their families, and the food is a status symbol of their competency. That's the point.
Women are supposed to be cooking so that they can prepare men to use all available nutrients and caloric intake to get the things that the woman needs to continue building the family and community at home. Women help men manage energy supplies through cooking. Cooking also helps feed the children because it gives them vital food that their digestive system might not be able to process yet.
This is just a feminist trope. Women will murder the shit out of each other.
Again, you're looking at a form a status signaling. The primary purpose of fashion is to convey the value of women to men in a way that men can easily decipher.
I think you're confusing "women often do this thing" with "women are better at this thing". Women seem to be very good at things that men either don't value or don't prioritize. This is not the same thing as superiority in those tasks.
I think you're still missing the point about what women are and how they fit into relationships with men. Men are always going to be at the ends of the bell curve for both absolute best and worst. Women become a kind of moderating force for men. Women do not have to be the best in all of society, that is a strive for status that men have to get women. Women simply have to be the animus of their particular man. They need to complement and supplement what he is capable of.