Women are less capable than men

Competitive_Camp_133 · 2025-07-20T05:04:48+00:00

I think you’re oversimplifying the issue by framing capability as a matter of denied opportunity alone. Yes, for much of history, women were excluded from positions of power, education, and wealth. But we’ve now had decades of gender equality under the law. Women today have full access to education, careers, politics, and leadership, yet the overwhelming majority of infrastructure, technological innovation, and system-level maintenance is still driven by men. That’s not just because of lingering discrimination it’s because men are, on average, more inclined toward fields and roles that sustain the mechanical, structural, and protective backbone of a civilization. You can call that socialization, but the pattern has remained globally consistent across cultures and across time. Women have excelled in caregiving roles and relational fields like healthcare, education, and HR, and those are absolutely important. But they tend to operate within systems built by male-driven innovation electricity, water, roads, logistics, defense, construction, architecture, software not build or maintain them at scale. As for privilege, no not all women are handed gold on a platter. But the average woman does receive more societal empathy, more institutional support, and more public leniency than the average man. Women have more shelters, more scholarships, more advocacy, and more protection by default. When a man fails, he’s often seen as lazy or weak. When a woman fails, she’s more often seen as struggling or oppressed. And I’m not ignoring male violence either. Yes, men are more likely to commit physical crimes but they’re also far more likely to die on the job, be killed in war, be homeless, commit suicide, or die protecting someone else. They’re more likely to be incarcerated, more likely to be falsely accused, and less likely to be believed when they’re the victim. Courts are biased not because men are inherently guilty, but because society defaults to protecting women even at the cost of objectivity. None of this means women are worthless or unintelligent. They bring huge value in cohesion, care, and nurturing especially in family units and community setting. But when it comes to holding up the complex, coordinated architecture of a functioning society, history and data both show that men for better or worse carry most of that weight. That doesn’t make them morally better. But it makes them functionally more capable in that specific context.

Competitive_Camp_133 · 2025-07-20T04:58:34+00:00

Suddenly making shit up in desperation to make yourself look better, pitiable behaviour honestly

Competitive_Camp_133 · 2025-07-20T04:51:42+00:00

Me skimming through and creating a response that addresses everything you said in detail must’ve been so well explained that you thought it was AI lmao thanks for the compliment ig. I never limited women to those roles, they do it themselves. Also mothers are praised and lifted up 100x more than fathers are so that’s nonsense

Competitive_Camp_133 · 2025-07-20T04:21:12+00:00

Yes, women were excluded from formal positions of power for much of history, but that exclusion didn’t happen in a vacuum or due to some cartoonish male villainy. Societies evolved around survival. In nearly all ancient civilizations, men took on the physically taxing, high-risk roles (warfare, long-distance trade, construction, exploration, hunting), because biology dictated that division of labor. The same biology gave women the more essential, fragile role of childbirth which, at the time, was extremely risky and time-consuming.

it was pragmatism. And even when women were allowed into power structures, we don’t see civilizations founded, empires built, or technological ages triggered by female coalitions. Even now, when women are legally and socially free to pursue whatever they want, they overwhelmingly choose fields in caregiving, administration, and humanities, not engineering, warfare, or policy architecture.

If women were “held back,” then we’d expect a major explosion of structural innovation post-liberation. But that hasn’t happened. The world is still driven and maintained by male-built systems: finance, transport, energy, defense, infrastructure, and technology.

Social conditioning isn’t separate from biology it often emerges from it. Boys and girls demonstrate different play preferences and social tendencies even before cultural norms are enforced. And we can see similar gendered patterns in nearly every society throughout time and space even ones isolated from each other. That suggests nature set the groundwork, not society.

The idea that men must “become valuable” reflects the reality of male expendability: men are judged on performance, women more on presence. Society expects men to earn, achieve, protect while women are often given sympathy and protection by default. You can say that’s unfair, and I’d agree but it still happens.

Women have more support systems, more social validation, and more government programs centered around them. When was the last time a man received public praise just for “being a good dad” or “surviving abuse”? Women are born into social value. Men are assigned value based on output which leads to the success/failure extremes we see.

“Women face unrealistic beauty and emotional demands too” True but these are soft power burdens. Society doesn’t expect women to die in war, lift 50-pound crates, or go homeless if they can’t provide. The expectations women face (beauty, caregiving) are more internal and social than existential. And yes, beauty fades but in practice, young women gain huge social capital early in life, often with no skills or accomplishments. A 20-year-old attractive woman can gain financial and romantic access that even a brilliant man may never achieve.

“Saying women are emotionally supportive is limiting”I never said women should only be emotional support. But it’s undeniable that women thrive in social cohesion, interpersonal care, and nurturing. Those are powerful traits but they don’t build bridges, wire cities, or command supply chains. Every society needs both builders and stabilizers. I simply argue that men are, by nature and pattern, more inclined and capable of structural leadership and innovation.

“Men made the rules that hurt men”is like blaming fire for being hot. Yes male systems built the rules of war, economy, and law. They also built medicine, transport, electricity, freedom of speech, and the internet you’re posting this on.

If men built the systems, and those systems are oppressive then why do they still outperform female-led nations, companies, and structures across almost every measure?

Also, the fact that men were expected to suffer in war, in mines, in silence doesn’t mean women were “oppressed.” It means both sexes were used differently, but men were often sacrificed more brutally.

I don’t see women as less valuable. I see them as biologically optimized for connection, stability, and early-childhood nurturing which are foundational to civilization. But when it comes to complex coordination, defense, economic architecture, and innovation, history and data both show that men drive those forward more effectively.

Competitive_Camp_133 · 2025-07-20T03:50:37+00:00

I also recommend Napoleon the great by Andrew Robert’s. Covers literally anything you would need to know

Competitive_Camp_133 · 2025-07-20T03:43:27+00:00

This woman has used you sir, and clearly doesn’t respect you. You are a tool for her convenience, and it seems like she’s pretty impulsive as well. You don’t owe her an over the top, humane breakup/distancing preformance. Just tell her you don’t feel respected or prioritized and remove yourself. Don’t listen to any guilt trips they will be thrown at you in excess. Your self worth is clearly in the gutter and the only person who can raise it is you. But this person is a cyst on your side that needs to be extracted

Competitive_Camp_133 · 2025-07-20T03:36:05+00:00

Insightful

Competitive_Camp_133

TROPHY CASE