NationStates Jolt Archive

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

The human race woould fall. Considering that women need to breast feed their children. Malnourished children lead to many deaths. Which lead to more unhealthy children, etc.

Oh, and good luck trying to catch a buffalo ladies!

Your talking bout cave men period yah?

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

You never been to East Germany then? :wink:

The human race woould fall. Considering that women need to breast feed their children. Malnourished children lead to many deaths. Which lead to more unhealthy children, etc.

Oh, and good luck trying to catch a buffalo ladies!

Your talking bout cave men period yah?
confusion...why would larger women be unable to breast feed?

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

You never been to East Germany then? :wink:
hahaha, nope...though i did grow up in a region of the US with a huge Nordic population, so the average height for females was 5'9". many of my female classmates were horrified when they went away to college and discovered that in other regions of the country 5'9" is closer to average for males.

The human race woould fall. Considering that women need to breast feed their children. Malnourished children lead to many deaths. Which lead to more unhealthy children, etc.

Oh, and good luck trying to catch a buffalo ladies!

Your talking bout cave men period yah?
confusion...why would larger women be unable to breast feed?
I think that he's saying, because the bigger ones tend to be hunters, we'd still be trying to make the women get and kill their own food while pregant/feeding/PMSing.
If you haven't noticed, as "empowered" as women have become, there aren't many of them who respond well when you ask them to do the hunting. Even if you give them the food and say "kill it," you look at you like you're insane. I think there's just something in their hormones that says women don't like to do anything fun unless it profits them materially and they won't mess up their nails.
Thus, having them hunt while they PMS would result in the male half of the species being ritually slaughtered and devoured for a three-week period every month and a half, because that's easier than seeking out food. Should women survive to menopause, as their periods become more erratic, they would enter a continuous 3-year killing spree.

Thus, if it did not result in the end of life as we know it, all women who have stopped ovulating would have their skulls crushed with a large flat rock the moment they went to sleep.

I guess everything would have turned out the same way, except our wars would have been twice as bloody, since women would be naturally positioned to do their fair share of the killing. Can't see any other difference coming of it.

Well one thing is for sure. We would really have to worship them then. Right now they have sex and our access to any other girls to hold over our heads. What if they could kick our ass too.

A world of strong-limbed, giant women who towered over men and could keep us trapped betwen their thick, steely thighs until they were damned good and finished with us?? :D :D :D

The human race woould fall. Considering that women need to breast feed their children. Malnourished children lead to many deaths. Which lead to more unhealthy children, etc.

Oh, and good luck trying to catch a buffalo ladies!

Your talking bout cave men period yah?
confusion...why would larger women be unable to breast feed?
I think that he's saying, because the bigger ones tend to be hunters, we'd still be trying to make the women get and kill their own food while pregant/feeding/PMSing.
If you haven't noticed, as "empowered" as women have become, there aren't many of them who respond well when you ask them to do the hunting. Even if you give them the food and say "kill it," you look at you like you're insane. I think there's just something in their hormones that says women don't like to do anything fun unless it profits them materially and they won't mess up their nails.
Thus, having them hunt while they PMS would result in the male half of the species being ritually slaughtered and devoured for a three-week period every month and a half, because that's easier than seeking out food. Should women survive to menopause, as their periods become more erratic, they would enter a continuous 3-year killing spree.

Thus, if it did not result in the end of life as we know it, all women who have stopped ovulating would have their skulls crushed with a large flat rock the moment they went to sleep.

meh, PMS is just an excuse anyway, something women resort to because they aren't allowed to be aggressive and confrontational 24/7 the way men are. personally i don't understand PMS, as i have never had it, and i think it's pretty lame when women allow themselves to be slave to their hormones. i think that if women were physically larger they wouldn't put up with repressive gender politics, so there would be less PMS because they would be acting it out all the time, the way men do.

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

Okay, ignoring Mycon's interpretation, it basically breaks down as follows: the fact that women don't run very well when pregnant or nursing, in tandem with the need to keep close watch of infants/young and their general lack of spacial/orienteering ability (this isn't a knock to women, they really do have a harder time finding their way than do men), makes them a profoundly bad choice at bringing home meat in a primitive hunter-gatherer society. Rather, they are far better suited for gathering vegetables, because that kind of activity is much more easily mixed with child-rearing.

Given that, the implications are obvious: men are best suited to go out and hunt meat, but if men were smaller than women, they would be unable to do so, or at least they wouldn't be able to do so as effectively as larger women. Women, on the other hand, would be endowed with the size, strength, and presumably stamina required to bring down big game, but would be unable to do so because of the sociological/biological factors in their environ and body. Ultimately, it means that meat is going to be in short supply, which is very bad when you consider how most evolutionary biologists tie in our consumption with additional proteins with brain development.

I guess everything would have turned out the same way, except our wars would have been twice as bloody, since women would be naturally positioned to do their fair share of the killing. Can't see any other difference coming of it.

Well, if women were the warriors, then it would make sense to protect the weaker men and children, and save them from the horrors of the front. If you follow this reasoning then the wars would not be twice as bloody but actually only 8.33% more vile.

(Given split of 52:48 female to male ratio. Yes, I know the maths is spurious. I am also aware that the different roles of men and women in reproduction still provide an argument for protection the women, even if they are physically larger and more warlike.)

I honestly think that no matter how big or small a woman may be that they can and will do anything they want to. I am a woman and if I were taller than the average male and needed to hunt I sure would and I'd breast feed too!

The world I imagine reminds me of a serial sketch by the Two Ronnies, called 'The Worm that Turned', where women had taken over the world, and men had to wear dresses and do the washing up and meet in secret to drink beer. Of course, being oppressed by a tyrannical woman prime minister doesn't seem so unlikely, since Margaret Thatcher.

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. Women would run the world. The only reason men have always run the world is only because they were physically stronger, not because they have been smarter.

Hmm I am guessing only men have included their comments... PMS.. wth is that the only think u guys can think off.. and prehistoric age? I did find all the comments very amusing, however the larger size of women would not necessarily mean women would be the ones hunting or having bigger PMS.... and since my man gets my pms, I will drop the hormone side of discussion. As to larger size.... I would think quite the opposite result on the population scale.. bigger women should be able to survive birth of children with more ease, as well as nourish them more properly because of the ummh extra energy storage (adipose tissue or what not). And hunting wise, the bigger you are usually means the slower you are too, so even though woman might end up giving a harder blow, smaller men should be more agile and great distance hunters. But if we think of more contemporary surrounding, bigger women might lead to a significant decrease in domestic violence (on women's side at least), maybe a new LARGER models size.. and guys think "bigger melons"... maybe also there would be no more alpha male, but only alpha females just like in hyenas. Actually this could lead into even more discussion....

Women would run the world. The only reason men have always run the world is only because they were physically stronger, not because they have been smarter.

So you believe that women, if they had more physical power, would fall into the same trap of oppressing the weaker sex that men have been caught in for far too long?

Women would hit men more.

Women would hit men more.
actually, increased female body size alone would not have that result; studies of domestic violence show no relationship between the relative sizes of the partners and the frequecy or direction of abuse. isn't that weird?

Women would run the world. The only reason men have always run the world is only because they were physically stronger, not because they have been smarter.

So you believe that women, if they had more physical power, would fall into the same trap of oppressing the weaker sex that men have been caught in for far too long?

As much as I hate to admit it, yes. It's human nature. We have to learn that hitting is wrong, we have to learn a lot of things that go against human nature. I think it's a good thing and shows humans do have the ability to adapt and change for the better. However, if women had been larger and stronger from day one, yes, I do believe they would of.

However, if women had been larger and stronger from day one, yes, I do believe they would of.

Certainly if women were larger and stronger than men (and also you assert that they are smarter), then they would be in a position to organise a matriarchal society which subjugates the male in a similar fashion to 'traditional' subjugation of women, but do you also believe that they would do so?

I do not believe that patriarchy springs entirely from the fact that men have been historically stronger and larger than women: exactly where it sprang from I do not know, but such an answer just seems too simplistic. For exampe, following a quick Google, it appears that Bonobo chimps have larger females than males, yet have a female centred society -

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

Hardly conclusive, but certainly it appears that here the "larger/stronger" sex are not the dominant ones, and this counter example occurs in one of our closest relatives.

Women

Yum

To paraphrase a womens comment

"Size does not matter" :twisted:

Gorillas are larger then Chimps and yet Chimps are far more aggresive.

Besides there is nothing wrong with a large woman.

My wife is 6'2"

That's 1.83 m for you fureigners :P

then there would be mostly female wrestling and guys cleaning toilets in office buildings.

This is all just very sexist in my view. But if women would have been larger, then the world would be the same except women in charge instead of men. As for hunting, the agile male would be the hunter. Battles would be consisted of both females and males since both would of shown traits for good combat.
And finnaly, the world would be a very scary place. Just a teen's 2 cents. Thanks.

This is all just very sexist in my view. But if women would have been larger, then the world would be the same except women in charge instead of men.

Do you really believe that power just comes from having a stronger or larger body? Certainly if we look at the power-relations between men in today's society it is not the strongest or the largest that are at the top of the heap, but rather the more politcally intelligent/cunning/unprincipled...

in today's society it is not the strongest or the largest that are at the top of the heap, but rather the more politcally intelligent/cunning/unprincipled...
It has long puzzled me why women don't do better in politics. That world of intrigue seems ideally suited to them.

'Bodies Without Organs' said this to some extent...here's my take on the matter:

If you look at the history of evolution, you will find that by means, humans beings, with their horrible eyesight, hearing, smell, speed, and whatever else you can compare them to in relation to other species, should not be capable of being at the top of the food chain. So why are we at the top now? It's all one thing. The brain, and intelligence. This is a powerful tool that we have to our disposal. This is what allows us to outsmart and overcome those other creatures and species of the Earth. We built traps, we invented the weapons necessary to kill them, we used our intellect to our advantage.

So, in relation to the discussion, it is not conclusive on size alone, but intellect. With women being in control, as offered in this scenario, one must realize that this is merely a sociological standard that is merely embraced by the majority. Given human nature, and granted that females are typically more "nicer" than males, they will still have their fighting that will occur. And we all know that some women can be quite...er...vicious when it comes to fighting... Human nature is a turbulent behavior that has proven to be both quite peaceful, and also quite violent. So when it all comes down to the big picture, sure some things will have changed, but I don't think that this would change the world all that much.

Would make things interesting.

Just had another thought that might be good for intellectual digestion:

Look at the world around you right now. What do you see? Do you see a world that is dominantly male-driven? You may think so, but do you know what I see? I see a world where the feminine has already greatly influenced the entire sheme of things. I'm going to use American society as an example of my discussion. Here in America, we have a great number of organizations, etc. that have a shell of masculinity. But this is where the problem is. Women have already had their impact on this, for they have changed society from being one that supported the 'hard, cold, tough lifestyle' to one that has basically encouraged that the opposite be exemplified in all matters. Fighting in public is discouraged, and is often considered law-breaking. We have a male shell, but a female soul in our society, so-to-speak. Thus, women already have a large part in our world. They already subvertely "control" the strings of society, by demanding that men be kinder, be compassionate, and more.

So, in a way, I applaud the women for this rather ingenious method of control. And on the other hand, I sympathize men as well. They are being denied to truly express what their human nature has biologically created them to be the way it was intended.

EDIT: I sort of draw my argument from a book I'm currently reading called, "Wild at Heart" by John Eldredge.

A lot of times when the females are larger than the males is usually when children are less dependant on the female. The father could be the one responsible raising the child, in which case the female would probably be the more dominant sex. Nursing also tends to be either brief or non existent in species where the female is larger. And that’s all I can think of now.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

So why are we at the top now? It's all one thing. The brain, and intelligence.

"As mother nature gave the rhino its horn, so she gave mankind intelligence"

Nietzsche (from memory, somewhat mangled, but the essence is still there)

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW :evil:

Its about instincts! If women were more aggresive more often then they would be in control. They are far more social than men usually I guess, but there are alot of exceptions, and everyone is just a little bit insane. It depends on whos in power at the time. If men are weaker they would think of something, since they are by and large more aggressive, not because of size but because of testosterone.

Its about instincts! If women were more aggresive more often then they would be in control. They are far more social than men usually I guess, but there are alot of exceptions, and everyone is just a little bit insane. It depends on whos in power at the time. If men are weaker they would think of something, since they are by and large more aggressive, not because of size but because of testosterone.

What you're talking about is not instincts. What you are referring to is actual behavioral patterns, and how it is shaped based on biological means (estrogen/ testoterone). I will agree however that these can alter the behavior one has when in reaction to the world around them.

Does everyone here believe that a struggle for supremacy between the sexes is inevitable? That certainly seems to be the impression given by the posts here.

Does everyone here believe that a struggle for supremacy between the sexes is inevitable? That certainly seems to be the impression given by the posts here.

Um...hate to burst your bubble, but it's already happening around us...

Does everyone here believe that a struggle for supremacy between the sexes is inevitable? That certainly seems to be the impression given by the posts here.

Um...hate to burst your bubble, but it's already happening around us...

Personally, I was just hoping for the destruction of patriarchy and the creation of a real equality. Hey ho.

I think that we'd see a lot of women in the NFL or on rugby teams. I imagine they'd dominate any sport that involved some sort of advantage based on size.

Just imagine how much more violent hockey would be if we let Tanya Harding play.

*shudders*... :shock:

I once dated a woman who was not only a foot taller than me, but a body builder as well... it worked out ok... I don't give women a lot of crap no matter how big or small they are... :lol:

I think it would depend on several things- like whether women suddenly started growing to be larger than men, or if it was that way for many millenia. Would women be the size of today's average male while men are the size of today's average female- or would women just suddenly reach an average height of 6 feet?
As I have dated my fair share of short men, it would be my guess that if women suddenly became larger- while we wouldn't get any more aggressive, the men would possibly get much more defensive. They'd have to "make up" for it in other areas. Hmm...not a bad idea...
Eh...they'd probably just increase the amount of times they say they're smarter than us... (again, only in my experience)

I do not believe that patriarchy springs entirely from the fact that men have been historically stronger and larger than women: exactly where it sprang from I do not know, but such an answer just seems too simplistic.

Well, from what I've read over the years, in prehistoric times there was originally a matriarchal society. The men worshipped women because the women can create life. This can be seen from all the goddess figurines from thousands of years ago. But then at some point, the men got it into their heads that the creation of life is really their doing (something about how the children usually look more like the mother's husband than other men of the tribe), and suddenly we have all these strong warrior gods instead of peaceful nature goddesses :P

Women would hit men more.

When Rome invaded Gaul they said the Celtic women were bigger than the men and made fiercer fighters as well.

That tendency is still true in Ireland; those lassies pack a mean wallop.!

meh, PMS is just an excuse anyway, something women resort to because they aren't allowed to be aggressive and confrontational 24/7 the way men are. personally i don't understand PMS, as i have never had it, and i think it's pretty lame when women allow themselves to be slave to their hormones.

Yep, glad someone said this. i can't understand women who can't control their tempers/ emotions either or feel need to find an excuse. 'The PMS made me do it!' *points finger* oh, sure.

Interesting conversation here - seems to come back to war and sex all the time, doesn't it? I really, really wish i had Joanna Russ's _The Female Man_ to hand. The women in it aren't specifically 'larger' but it's a good illustration of a world in women's control (extremely well run) and how superior they were in battle :wink:

I'll find you some quotes tomorrow.

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. Women would run the world. The only reason men have always run the world is only because they were physically stronger, not because they have been smarter.

99.9% of everything that been invented and discovered were by MEN. Dumbass.

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. Women would run the world. The only reason men have always run the world is only because they were physically stronger, not because they have been smarter.

99.9% of everything that been invented and discovered were by MEN. Dumbass.


Oh boy. Where to start?

... washing machines, dishwashers, food processors, windshield wipers, wood-cutting machines, submarine telescope, circular and bandsaws, woven and printed clothes, cooking, ice-cream makers, boilers, ovens, canning, refrigerators, sterilization for surgical instruments, medical beds and chairs, field ambulances and stretchers, splints, resuscitation techniques for victims of electric shock, and cryogenic therapy to destroy cancer cells, typewriters for blind people, trash canb with step-on lever, the Barbie doll, levers, pulleys, screws, flywheels, needles, tools, astrolabe, Eli Whitney's cotton gin, the Davenport electric motor, the Jacquard loom, the Burden horse shoe machine, and Elias Howe's sewing machine, although all of these inventions are attributed to men (because women often weren't allowed to have their name on the patents).
Martha Knight developed a machine to produce flat-bottomed paper bags, which was patented in 1870. She also appears to have been the first woman in the U.S. to fight and win a patent suit. A man who had seen the model of her machine stole the design and filed for a patent on it. She took him to court over her patent right. He claimed she couldn't possibly have the mechanical knowledge needed to invent such a complex machine, but Knight presented both witnesses and extensive documentation -- including drawings, sketches, journal entries, and parts of the first model -- which backed up her claim. After her success with the paper bag machine, she went on to develop and patent several other machines, including rotary engines and automatic tools. Martha Coston, who developed and patented a safety flare for ships in her husband's name after his death, also invented the precursor to the flare gun.


But, there, I'm sure all these things were really stolen from men in the first place, because everyone knows men are smarter! :roll:

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. Women would run the world. The only reason men have always run the world is only because they were physically stronger, not because they have been smarter.

99.9% of everything that been invented and discovered were by MEN. Dumbass.


Oh boy. Where to start?

... washing machines, dishwashers, food processors, windshield wipers, wood-cutting machines, submarine telescope, circular and bandsaws, woven and printed clothes, cooking, ice-cream makers, boilers, ovens, canning, refrigerators, sterilization for surgical instruments, medical beds and chairs, field ambulances and stretchers, splints, resuscitation techniques for victims of electric shock, and cryogenic therapy to destroy cancer cells, typewriters for blind people, trash canb with step-on lever, the Barbie doll, levers, pulleys, screws, flywheels, needles, tools, astrolabe, Eli Whitney's cotton gin, the Davenport electric motor, the Jacquard loom, the Burden horse shoe machine, and Elias Howe's sewing machine, although all of these inventions are attributed to men (because women often weren't allowed to have their name on the patents).
Martha Knight developed a machine to produce flat-bottomed paper bags, which was patented in 1870. She also appears to have been the first woman in the U.S. to fight and win a patent suit. A man who had seen the model of her machine stole the design and filed for a patent on it. She took him to court over her patent right. He claimed she couldn't possibly have the mechanical knowledge needed to invent such a complex machine, but Knight presented both witnesses and extensive documentation -- including drawings, sketches, journal entries, and parts of the first model -- which backed up her claim. After her success with the paper bag machine, she went on to develop and patent several other machines, including rotary engines and automatic tools. Martha Coston, who developed and patented a safety flare for ships in her husband's name after his death, also invented the precursor to the flare gun.


But, there, I'm sure all these things were really stolen from men in the first place, because everyone knows men are smarter! :roll:

Is that all? :lol:

I would type a list of all the theories and inventions men have come up with but it would trake so damn long :lol:

hahaha, nope...though i did grow up in a region of the US with a huge Nordic population, so the average height for females was 5'9". many of my female classmates were horrified when they went away to college and discovered that in other regions of the country 5'9" is closer to average for males.

I'm 5'9, 19, grew up in America with plenty of women, even my own mother, taller than me. Weird to come to Japan and find them shorter.

If the average woman was larger than the average man (but the size of men remained the same), I think that society would not have developed patriarchialy (well duh,) butn not maternally either. Both sexes would be able to easily defend themselves, hunt etc. Also I think the human race would be far more advanced in science, philosophy etc. (see below)


And the Newcity, your arguement is flawed, in that women haven'r really had the chance to invent stuff. Women have proved them selves on several occasions that they are just as smart as men.

Is that all? :lol:

I would type a list of all the theories and inventions men have come up with but it would trake so damn long :lol:

yes, but your list of inventions by slaves would be considerably shorter. females have been effectively slaves for most of recent human history, with no legal rights, no ownership of property, no right to education, and no power whatsoever to dictate their own activities. find me a male inventor who was denied education and forced to produce and care for children from puberty until death and i will shake your hand.

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different? Our society would be more Mantis-like because once the seeds are in place, no need for the package. Human history would be even more Dynastic(SP?) then it is now, Women would keep men locked up intel the men discover a new way to kill things and reverse the balance of power. Then the women would learn the secret of the new tech and set the old way of things again.

Nothing really diffrent would happen accept you could not insult the fat or ugly women that are not connected to hot chicks. I mean you can't say to a obnoxious hippo of a women, "hey if your nice to me I will buy you a shirt that says chocolate is not just for breakfast anymore" or to a flat chested women, "hey little boy if your nice to me santa will notice since he supposed to see all and maybe for christmas he may give you real girls boobs." Those women would then be able to beat the f*ck out of you. But besides that nothing would change because they still would have the power to withold sex from you if they are attractive.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0790731223.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

ok, to add my input

I've been living in Japan the past few years, and this is what I've seen:

Visible over even the past two generations, girls are getting taller here. Some men got taller too, but others (me) got severely left behind.

Japanese society has always encouraged men to be very hard workers and women to be doting, docile homemakers. The age is changing, women are getting stronger, but not much in the workplace. Instead, the docile housemaker is slowly becoming a strong housemistress, lording over her children, relatively independent from her work-enslaved husband, running "her" house and still making time for a part-time job.

Maybe not such a big change from a western point of view, but to the Japanese men it's amazing, weird, maybe frightening.

okay am i the only one to think that practically nothing would change? Look, it's not that important nowadays but height doesnt really equal strength. From my experince the height of a man/woman doesnt really have much to do with their pysical prowess, in fact maybe it's the opposite in that the smaller you are the more compacted and therefore more powerful you are, although that might be true.

Look at the olympic weight lifters, the smallest weight category men who are usually about 5'2'' can still lift more then the heaviest category women who are usually about as tall/slightly taller than your average man.

If you change the argument to "what would happen if women were physically stronger then men" then it all comes down to whether there is a link between stength and aggressiveness. I would think there is, but who knows.

Is that all? :lol:

I would type a list of all the theories and inventions men have come up with but it would trake so damn long :lol:

yes, but your list of inventions by slaves would be considerably shorter. females have been effectively slaves for most of recent human history, with no legal rights, no ownership of property, no right to education, and no power whatsoever to dictate their own activities. find me a male inventor who was denied education and forced to produce and care for children from puberty until death and i will shake your hand.


Yeah! :mrgreen:

Is that all? :lol:

I would type a list of all the theories and inventions men have come up with but it would trake so damn long :lol:

yes, but your list of inventions by slaves would be considerably shorter. females have been effectively slaves for most of recent human history, with no legal rights, no ownership of property, no right to education, and no power whatsoever to dictate their own activities. find me a male inventor who was denied education and forced to produce and care for children from puberty until death and i will shake your hand.


Yeah! :mrgreen:

How about Farnsworth, the inventor of the modern version of television if you replace bringing up children with running a farm. He didnt have any education either, apart from reading books.

Thats not to say a woman couldnt have done the same, i just cant think of any that have.

Women would still have to give birth to children. face it, bottle, humans will never be fully equal.

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

I'm not sure if physical size or strength alone would be enough to change much. Aggression is the important factor in creating unequal relationships. By no means all societies are patriarchal: it's just that aggressive, violence-based ones tend to out-compete the not-so-aggressive ones when they bump into each other -- and male-dominated societies do tend to specialise in violence.

Mind you, if there was a very large disparity in size -- say, like deep-sea angler fish, where the tiny parasitic males attach themselves permanently to the much larger females -- then we might see some changes. For a start, all a woman would need for a successful divorce would be some TCP* and a pair of tweezers...


*US readers: "Bactine" or something like

Women would still have to give birth to children. face it, bottle, humans will never be fully equal.
erm, not only have i "faced it," but i am happy about it...i am glad that humans aren't equal, because i don't think they should be. it was a purely theoretical question. i think a lot of things would be different, just from a practical standpoint, but i don't think physical size alone is what has made women subservient and weak. i especially don't think size is what does it today; today women are weak because they are actually inferior, through the conditioning they have undergone and the attitudes they perpetuate. the problem isn't physical or biological, it's all in the heads of the women who put up with the standards and live up to them every day.

Is that all? :lol:

I would type a list of all the theories and inventions men have come up with but it would trake so damn long :lol:

yes, but your list of inventions by slaves would be considerably shorter. females have been effectively slaves for most of recent human history, with no legal rights, no ownership of property, no right to education, and no power whatsoever to dictate their own activities. find me a male inventor who was denied education and forced to produce and care for children from puberty until death and i will shake your hand.


Yeah! :mrgreen:

How about Farnsworth, the inventor of the modern version of television if you replace bringing up children with running a farm. He didnt have any education either, apart from reading books.

Thats not to say a woman couldnt have done the same, i just cant think of any that have.

hmm, that's pretty good, and i WILL shake your hand for the excellent effort. i don't want to imply that no men have over come horrible circumstances, i simply think that women have had a whole lot more to fight against.

for example, Farnsworth completed his invention a couple of years before women were ruled "persons in their own right" by the Privy council. and it would be almost a decade after Farnsworth's breakthrough before the first woman is allowed to be a television announcer. Farnsworth had to fight against his circumstances, to be sure, but women had to fight against those same circumstances AND to live in a world where they had no legal recourse and no opportunity to change their lives.

attack of the 500 foot woman!!

_____________________________________
http://www.blurbco.com/~gork/random/ignignot.gif
"Everyone, please, bow your heads, and pretend to be serious."

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

Well...they would be bigger, I suppose. That's all I can really say without you listing more specific changes. Would their musculature change?

&%$#%^#* No Post Mode Specified! @$%# Server!

Oh, DP. :oops:

&%$#%^#* No Post Mode Specified! @$%# Server!

Oh, DP. :oops:

seriously!! what is up with the server lately?!

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

Well...they would be bigger, I suppose. That's all I can really say without you listing more specific changes. Would their musculature change?

comparably to the size change, yes. basically i was thinking women would be proportionately the same, just larger than men on average...so they would have the same muscle-to-mass ratio they have now, but there would be more mass.

[quote=Almighty Sephiroth]Women would still have to give birth to children. face it, bottle, humans will never be fully equal.
erm, not only have i "faced it," but i am happy about it...i am glad that humans aren't equal, because i don't think they should be. it was a purely theoretical question. i think a lot of things would be different, just from a practical standpoint, but i don't think physical size alone is what has made women subservient and weak. i especially don't think size is what does it today; today women are weak because they are actually inferior, through the conditioning they have undergone and the attitudes they perpetuate. the problem isn't physical or biological, it's all in the heads of the women who put up with the standards and live up to them every day.[/quote

Really? I thought you believed everything sould be equal, from the highest group to the lowest minority of transvestite cows who wish to marry their bricks. it seems I am not entirely correct.

I'd be even more scared of women...

Women would still have to give birth to children. face it, bottle, humans will never be fully equal.
erm, not only have i "faced it," but i am happy about it...i am glad that humans aren't equal, because i don't think they should be. it was a purely theoretical question. i think a lot of things would be different, just from a practical standpoint, but i don't think physical size alone is what has made women subservient and weak. i especially don't think size is what does it today; today women are weak because they are actually inferior, through the conditioning they have undergone and the attitudes they perpetuate. the problem isn't physical or biological, it's all in the heads of the women who put up with the standards and live up to them every day.

Really? I thought you believed everything sould be equal, from the highest group to the lowest minority of transvestite cows who wish to marry their bricks. it seems I am not entirely correct.

i believe everyone should be equal LEGALLY, as in they should have the same rights and freedoms under the law. that won't (and shouldn't) make everyone equal in actuality. indeed, if laws were purely equal then the outstanding members of humanity would be free to excell. sorry if that wasn't clear.

also, i have repeatedly made clear to you that i believe legal rights are due to HUMANS, and i have reminded you of the consent issue several times. so that whole cows-and-their-bricks thing is not only inaccurate but tired. give it up.

attack of the 500 foot woman!!

_____________________________________
http://www.blurbco.com/~gork/random/ignignot.gif
"Everyone, please, bow your heads, and pretend to be serious."

Already posted here! Only the original was a tad shorter.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0790731223.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

What if the average woman was larger than the average man? What, if anything, would be different?

Well...they would be bigger, I suppose. That's all I can really say without you listing more specific changes. Would their musculature change?

comparably to the size change, yes. basically i was thinking women would be proportionately the same, just larger than men on average...so they would have the same muscle-to-mass ratio they have now, but there would be more mass.

Well, in that case, I think there would no longer be such a large power differential between the sexes. I think cases of men raping women would drop rather sharply, too. :wink:

Women would run the world. The only reason men have always run the world is only because they were physically stronger, not because they have been smarter.

So you believe that women, if they had more physical power, would fall into the same trap of oppressing the weaker sex that men have been caught in for far too long?

"If women ruled the world, we'd still be trying to invent the wheel."
www.maddox.xmission.com

(I dont really believe that, iIjust think its funny)

Women would run the world. The only reason men have always run the world is only because they were physically stronger, not because they have been smarter.

So you believe that women, if they had more physical power, would fall into the same trap of oppressing the weaker sex that men have been caught in for far too long?

"If women ruled the world, we'd still be trying to invent the wheel."
www.maddox.xmission.com

(I dont really believe that, Ijust think its funny)

attack of the 500 foot woman!!

_____________________________________
http://www.blurbco.com/~gork/random/ignignot.gif
"Everyone, please, bow your heads, and pretend to be serious."

Already posted here! Only the original was a tad shorter.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0790731223.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

I like tall women generally, but that...