That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.

Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong by himself because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together for their own interests. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too. His phrasing, however, addresses much more clearly what the actual problem is: men's failure to work collectively (especially contrasted with women's strong ability to do so), while your argument of "men need to be strong" is more akin tilting at windmills, as the obvious literal interpretation is that individual physical strength is the most necessary factor, when it is not.

That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.

Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong by himself because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too. His phrasing, however, addresses much more clearly what the actual problem is: men's failure to work collectively (especially contrasted with women's strong ability to do so), while your argument of "men need to be strong" is more akin tilting at windmills, as the obvious literal interpretation is that individual physical strength is the most necessary factor, when it is not.

That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.

Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong by himself because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too. His phrasing, however, addresses much more clearly what the actual problem is: men's failure to work collectively (especially contrasted with women's strong ability to do so), while your argument of "men need to be strong" is more akin tilting at rainbows, as the obvious literal interpretation is that individual physical strength is the most necessary factor, when it is not.

That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.

Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong by himself because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too. His argument, however, addresses much more clearly what the actual problem is: men's failure to work collectively (especially contrasted with women's strong ability to do so), while your argument of "men need to be strong" is more akin tilting at rainbows, as the obvious literal interpretation is that individual physical strength is the most necessary factor, when it is not.

That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.

Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong by himself because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too. His argument, however, is address much more clearly what the actual problem is, men's failure to work collectively (especially contrasted with women's strong ability to do so), and your argument of "men need to be strong" is more akin tilting at rainbows, as the obvious literal interpretation suggests is that individual physical strength is the most necessary factor, when it is not.

That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.

Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too.

That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled by both men and women.

Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too.

That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled by both men and women.

That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it. All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.

Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others who are capable of influencing their decisions.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled by both men and women.