One of the funniest things about (female) feminists is their inferiority complex. They know they are not as good at men at men's roles. So to make themselves "feel better" they invent fictional stories to reassure themselves that yes, they are actually as good at men in men's roles.
This argument is more revealing when one maps it on to male behavior. Let's say there's a man who sucks at something and feels bad about this because he wants to be good at it. What does he do:
Actually go out and improve himself and get better at it; or
Just make up a story about how he is actually good at doing that thing and so he feels better.
Most men would choose (1). A man who chooses (2) would be laughed at by everyone. Yet, what feminists (and women in general) do is choose (2). This is because in the female world, what matters isn't so much as actual physical reality, but rather social status. In the physical world, (1) is the only answer that makes sense. Reality doesn't care about the imaginary stories you tell yourself. But in a world where social status matters more, (2) is justified on the basis that reality isn't that important, rather what matters is what others think as they can then be manipulated into providing actual physical rewards to you.
What happens to a society when it becomes feminized so (2) becomes the dominant modus operandi is left as an exercise for the reader.
This is one of the better arguments for denying women the franchise.
Also, what exactly are women legitimately inherently “better at” than men? What tasks, if set upon by both sexes with equal effort, are better left to women? Birthing children and being submissive/feminine?
You could say raising children, but the stats suggest otherwise; single moms generate far worse outcomes than single dads.
Cooking? Virtually all of the best chefs are men.
Cleaning? A purely physical task. Men are literally faster, stronger, bigger.
Perhaps social games, but these ultimately boil down to alpha male dominance.
So even if women were to embrace their traditional roles, their “dominance” in those roles is only permitted by men’s disinterest in performing them.
A truly great woman embraces the one function that no man can ever hope to perform.
I don't there are any things (that both men and women can do) that women are inherently better at than men. Why? It boils down to my previous point. Men are ultimately better at simply focusing on getting better at something, and this can be applied to any learnable skill. The are many male traits that contribute to this:
Being able to be honest with yourself, including accepting that you (currently) suck at something, a key step in starting the cycle of self improvement (whereas a female trait is to tell herself that she is actually better than she thinks)
Male competitiveness, which drives men to continuously outcompete their peers and outcompete themselves (whereas a female trait is to not compete at skill-based tasks, for fear of upsetting her social networks)
Being a bit autistic about something and focusing on it blindly at the expense of all else, necessary to actually find the motivation to spend hours of repetition getting better at something (females do not seem to have the same ability to focus on one thing).
Add to that the inherent skills that men are better at than women, which they leverage to any problem they face, and you can easily see why men dominate everything.
But going back to your original point, I think that "being better at something" is a masculine way of thinking in itself. That's the first thing you think about (I'm assuming your male) because that's what matters in the male world. Being the best you can be at a certain thing.
Feminists and modern women have adopted a "near enemy" of "being better at something" in their desire to take on male roles (a near enemy being an poor approximation of the trait that is actually detrimental), and have decided the only reason they suck at things is discrimination and thus if they tell themselves they are good at something everything will be magically solved. Exhibit 1 for why women shouldn't try to be men, they just can't be because they aren't men and end up doing a half-assed job at it.
So then what at women good at? Well, the answer is staring right at your face. The first thing you thought about - who is the best at something - was a male way of thinking. That's why you'd suck at being a woman - because you think like a man instead of a woman. And so, the things that women are better are related to thinking like a woman. Being feminine.
Actual feminine roles don't involve being the best at something. Do you really need someone who is the 'best' mom? Or 'best' wife? You simply need someone who is a 'good' mom and 'good' wife. The feminine traits that contribute to these feminine roles aren't ones the fit on a simple measurable scale. Instead, being 'good' at these roles is highly subjective and highly situation-dependent. Thus, the female trait she should be excelling at is being able to devote her feminine brain into judging what she needs to do to support, nurture and care for her loved ones. Men are able to do these things, they are able to care for their children, they are able to support their wives but they do so in a different way. Men are capable of being good parents, and good husbands, but the role of a father is distinct from that of a mother, and the role of a husband is distinct of that of a wife, or at least is meant to be. Women are meant to bring things to the table that men aren't able to simply because men aren't women.
There is great value in these feminine traits, not just for raising children, but also in producing good relationships between men and women. Unfortunately, feminists have destroyed this by destroying the delineation between male and female roles. Thus, you have women doing a half-assed job at being men, and men doing a half-assed job at being women. Close relationships between men and women suffer tremendously from this because without the proper balance of masculinity and femininity brought skilfully the relationship, the relationship is shitty.
One of the funniest things about (female) feminists is their inferiority complex. They know they are not as good at men at men's roles. So to make themselves "feel better" they invent fictional stories to reassure themselves that yes, they are actually as good at men in men's roles.
This argument is more revealing when one maps it on to male behavior. Let's say there's a man who sucks at something and feels bad about this because he wants to be good at it. What does he do:
Most men would choose (1). A man who chooses (2) would be laughed at by everyone. Yet, what feminists (and women in general) do is choose (2). This is because in the female world, what matters isn't so much as actual physical reality, but rather social status. In the physical world, (1) is the only answer that makes sense. Reality doesn't care about the imaginary stories you tell yourself. But in a world where social status matters more, (2) is justified on the basis that reality isn't that important, rather what matters is what others think as they can then be manipulated into providing actual physical rewards to you.
What happens to a society when it becomes feminized so (2) becomes the dominant modus operandi is left as an exercise for the reader.
This is one of the better arguments for denying women the franchise.
Also, what exactly are women legitimately inherently “better at” than men? What tasks, if set upon by both sexes with equal effort, are better left to women? Birthing children and being submissive/feminine?
You could say raising children, but the stats suggest otherwise; single moms generate far worse outcomes than single dads.
Cooking? Virtually all of the best chefs are men.
Cleaning? A purely physical task. Men are literally faster, stronger, bigger.
Perhaps social games, but these ultimately boil down to alpha male dominance.
So even if women were to embrace their traditional roles, their “dominance” in those roles is only permitted by men’s disinterest in performing them.
A truly great woman embraces the one function that no man can ever hope to perform.
I don't there are any things (that both men and women can do) that women are inherently better at than men. Why? It boils down to my previous point. Men are ultimately better at simply focusing on getting better at something, and this can be applied to any learnable skill. The are many male traits that contribute to this:
Add to that the inherent skills that men are better at than women, which they leverage to any problem they face, and you can easily see why men dominate everything.
But going back to your original point, I think that "being better at something" is a masculine way of thinking in itself. That's the first thing you think about (I'm assuming your male) because that's what matters in the male world. Being the best you can be at a certain thing.
Feminists and modern women have adopted a "near enemy" of "being better at something" in their desire to take on male roles (a near enemy being an poor approximation of the trait that is actually detrimental), and have decided the only reason they suck at things is discrimination and thus if they tell themselves they are good at something everything will be magically solved. Exhibit 1 for why women shouldn't try to be men, they just can't be because they aren't men and end up doing a half-assed job at it.
So then what at women good at? Well, the answer is staring right at your face. The first thing you thought about - who is the best at something - was a male way of thinking. That's why you'd suck at being a woman - because you think like a man instead of a woman. And so, the things that women are better are related to thinking like a woman. Being feminine.
Actual feminine roles don't involve being the best at something. Do you really need someone who is the 'best' mom? Or 'best' wife? You simply need someone who is a 'good' mom and 'good' wife. The feminine traits that contribute to these feminine roles aren't ones the fit on a simple measurable scale. Instead, being 'good' at these roles is highly subjective and highly situation-dependent. Thus, the female trait she should be excelling at is being able to devote her feminine brain into judging what she needs to do to support, nurture and care for her loved ones. Men are able to do these things, they are able to care for their children, they are able to support their wives but they do so in a different way. Men are capable of being good parents, and good husbands, but the role of a father is distinct from that of a mother, and the role of a husband is distinct of that of a wife, or at least is meant to be. Women are meant to bring things to the table that men aren't able to simply because men aren't women.
There is great value in these feminine traits, not just for raising children, but also in producing good relationships between men and women. Unfortunately, feminists have destroyed this by destroying the delineation between male and female roles. Thus, you have women doing a half-assed job at being men, and men doing a half-assed job at being women. Close relationships between men and women suffer tremendously from this because without the proper balance of masculinity and femininity brought skilfully the relationship, the relationship is shitty.