Except it's actually true. You are acting like it doesn't matter.
Well, it's not. But let's assume that it is. What exactly is the upside to going around and degrading 51% of the population as being inferior? I see no gain.
I know this is ironic, but most feminists actually think like this.
I know they do. But that's another way in which this line of argument is feminist.
So my non-ironic reply to that is that women are absolutely free to attempt to build their own civilization, but it has to be completely on their own.
Considering your username, I'm pretty sure you are aware of the bees and the birds, and that it's impossible to build a civilization without either men or women.
No simps that do the heavy lifting for them
As if those bugmen can do heavy lifting. C'mon man.
It relies on fundamental misunderstandings of human nature, biology, it treats averages as saying anything about individuals, and focuses on details rather than the big picture.
The women would fail long before that became an issue, but for the sake of the experiment, imagine that we send them a few buckets of sperm every now and then. They keep the girls and send the boys back.
Given the fact that you forbid them from using male labor, I suppose you think they would fail for lack of physical strength. Not impossible. But 'men are stronger than women' is as uncontested as it gets.
So, you can't actually refute anything specific and use the outlier cop out.
How is it a cop-out to point out that you finding 4 great cooks does not say anything about billions of people?
Partly. A group of 13-14 year old boys would have a better chance than a group of adult women for instance.
If you want a Lord of the Flies kind situation. Physical strength is not all.
While men don't have the in-group bias women have, they are much better at problem-solving, organizing and following a hierarchy.
If anything is frustrating me right now, it's a lot of women's blind adherence to authority. Which makes sense evolutionarily. You're not going to pick a fight with the chief, because you can't replace him, and you may be pregnant.
Well, it's not. But let's assume that it is. What exactly is the upside to going around and degrading 51% of the population as being inferior? I see no gain.
I know they do. But that's another way in which this line of argument is feminist.
Considering your username, I'm pretty sure you are aware of the bees and the birds, and that it's impossible to build a civilization without either men or women.
As if those bugmen can do heavy lifting. C'mon man.
It relies on fundamental misunderstandings of human nature, biology, it treats averages as saying anything about individuals, and focuses on details rather than the big picture.
Given the fact that you forbid them from using male labor, I suppose you think they would fail for lack of physical strength. Not impossible. But 'men are stronger than women' is as uncontested as it gets.
How is it a cop-out to point out that you finding 4 great cooks does not say anything about billions of people?
If you want a Lord of the Flies kind situation. Physical strength is not all.
If anything is frustrating me right now, it's a lot of women's blind adherence to authority. Which makes sense evolutionarily. You're not going to pick a fight with the chief, because you can't replace him, and you may be pregnant.