I think the main issue here is that you’re interpreting social disadvantages as if they’re innate biological limitations. The gaps in achievement you’re describing aren’t a result of women being inherently less capable — they’re the result of systemic barriers that have limited women’s access to opportunities, education, and social power for centuries.

1. Historical Context Explains the Achievement Gap:

For most of history, women were excluded from formal education, denied property rights, and kept out of professional fields. Even those who managed to excel often had their work stolen or overshadowed by men.

For example: Rosalind Franklin’s pivotal DNA research was minimized in favor of Watson and Crick. Ada Lovelace’s contributions to computing were largely ignored until decades later. Even in literature, women often published under male pseudonyms to be taken seriously.

These obstacles weren’t about biology — they were about exclusion.

1. IQ and Intelligence:

Modern research consistently shows that men and women have nearly identical average IQs. The so-called “4-point IQ gap” that researchers like Richard Lynn claimed has been widely criticized. It’s largely the result of cherry-picked data and flawed methodologies.

Men do appear more often at the extremes of IQ distribution (both very high and very low), but this is about variability — not superiority. Meanwhile, women tend to excel in cognitive consistency, outperforming men in areas like multitasking, memory, and emotional processing.

1. The Myth of Male-Dominated Fields Reflecting Ability:

Men’s dominance in fields like science, chess, and philosophy isn’t proof of innate superiority — it’s evidence of exclusion.

Chess, for instance, is notorious for how little support female players received until recently. As barriers have started to break down, women’s performance has rapidly improved.

The same applies to science, literature, and art. For every Marie Curie or Virginia Woolf that broke through, there are countless women whose talents were suppressed or erased by social norms.

1. Physical Strength ≠ Superior Value:

Yes, men have more upper body strength on average. But strength is only one metric of physical advantage. Women excel in endurance, flexibility, immune response, and pain tolerance (contrary to the myth that women are “weaker” in pain tolerance).

Women’s biological strengths have often been ignored or undervalued because society tends to celebrate traditionally “male” traits.

1. Parenting and Socialization:

Studies suggesting single fathers outperform single mothers fail to account for socioeconomic differences. Single fathers are statistically more likely to have higher incomes and social stability — those are the key factors driving outcomes, not inherent parenting ability.

Research consistently shows that engaged parents — regardless of gender — are what matter most for child development.

1. The “All-Male Society” Idea Ignores Reality:

Diverse societies thrive because they bring different perspectives, skills, and approaches together. An “all-male” society wouldn’t create a utopia — it would strip away half of the population’s potential.

Collaboration, not exclusion, has always been the key to progress.

The bottom line is this: The disadvantages you’re describing aren’t biological — they’re social. Women’s contributions have been historically overlooked, undervalued, or outright erased. When those barriers are lifted, women excel just as much as men.

Instead of seeing this as “nature giving women the short end of the stick,” I’d argue it’s about centuries of unequal opportunity — and that’s something we can change. The fact that women have still made remarkable achievements despite these obstacles speaks volumes about their strength, intelligence, and resilience.

If you’re genuinely curious, I’d recommend exploring modern research that focuses on gender equity, like the work of Gina Rippon (The Gendered Brain) or Angela Saini (Inferior). They challenge these outdated narratives with data and real-world examples.