The popular belief and the most emotional standpoint of feminism and actually any other viewpoint that thinks women should be put on a higher level in society then men is that they are physically oppressed by men. The train follows as: "women are weaker so they should be protected. if they are to be protected then they should be given advantages. if given advantages everything must be made much more easier for them. to achieve that everything must be made more difficult for men."
This train of thought fails as women are not weaker in the first place. Physical power holds a very weak advantage in applying violence or defending oneself in modern times. Sword alone itself made the requirement of physical prowess go away, let alone firearms and tazers.
Long story short here is the recent news of an Afghan woman killing 25 male taliban terrorists by herself and 2 other women.www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…
My point is that women are not weak. They are not incapable of combat. They are just raised differently then boys and are taught to never fight physically, and later chose not to do this as its easier to try to find someone else to do your dirty fighting then trying it yourself.
My questions are:
1- Do you disagree on this and what are your points in your cases?
2- Would women be less oppressed if they were hulks?
3- Are women oppressed at all?
4- How does ones physical ability to apply violence earn them the respect and position in society? People who defend the point that women are oppressed because of their physical conditioning unquestioningly accept that physical prowess is one of the keys to be not abused in society.
5- Do muscled men have more chance of finding jobs and raise in their careers than physically weaker men?
6- And one irrelevant question: Does the sheer mass of muscles equate to bulk strength