De ce sunt barbatii superiori femeilor ?

Cred ca dezbatere mai interesanta ca asta nu exista
Va rog sa nu faceti trolling sau flame,e un topic serios :nonobad:

Nu sunt superiori.

Pardon?

Nu sunt superiori.

1. au iq-ul mai ridicat cu 3-5 puncte.
2. sunt mult mai puternici din punct de vedere fizic.
3. au un simt mai bun al directiei.
4. au un simt mai bun al orientarii in spatiu.
5. 99,9% din realizarile din stiinta si tehnica sunt ale barbatilor.

Ce-i drept, am vazut odata la discovery un documentar in care zicea ca cei de la Nasa au efectuat niste teste din care reiese faptul ca femeile au atentie distribuita mult mai buna decat cea a barbatilor.

Si-atat. :roflmaofast: :roflmaofast:

Per total, nu sunt superiori, functioneaza complementar.

Da, pot sa gateasca si sa vorbeasca la telefon in acelasi timp!

Per total, nu sunt superiori, functioneaza complementar.

Societatea actuala e construita dintr-o perspectiva strict patriarhala (facuta in asa fel incat sa avantajeze punctele forte ale barbatilor).
Soo, or fi ei complementari, dar in cadrul social in care se desfasoara, barbatii sunt superiori din cauza faptului ca punctele lor forte sunt mai bine puse in valoare.

Pentru ca asa i-a facut Doamne Doamne.

There are profound differences between men and women in world view and mode of thought. These are evident from the literature they create, the literature they consume, and the way they comport themselves over the spans of their careers.

The archetypal chick flick, Gone with the Wind, is described in its own advertising as "a searing tale of passion in a world gone mad." Essentially, it's about the feelings of the protagonist in a world that is utterly beyond the protagonist's control. If a Mills and Boon novel has a happy ending, it's provided by the intervention of a man. At no point does a woman attempt to change her world. She adapts to it, cries about it, or waits for a man to change it for her. Men, by contrast, write about almost nothing but taking control of their world, and the mechanics by which this is attempted.

Another fundamental difference is the list thing. Men teach one another the mechanism, the distilled principle, because there is less to remember and it has to be taken in context anyway. Women want a fixed context and written instructions. If you try to teach them the principles instead, they don't listen and they get angry, saying "I don't care why, I just asked you to tell me what to do." If you give them a list of steps, it must be exhaustive like a computer program, because (also like a computer program) if context changes, breaking the procedure, or if anything has been omitted, blame is ascribed to the writer of the procedure.

A direct consequence of this intellectual inflexibility is that women do not create tools. They can be taught to use them, often very well, provided that the use of the tool can be described as lists of steps - programs!

Visit a craft shop like Spotlight. It will be crawling with women who think they are creative. In fact, all they ever do is stick glitter to boxes, or cut cloth according to a plan that was almost certainly created by a man, before stitching it together using a sewing machine, both likely invented and made for them by men. Some of them will vary the patterns, but creation ex nihilo is a behavior exhibited almost exclusively by men.

I suppose you could say that women play god using the thing between their legs, whereas men use the thing between their ears. This is probably acculturated behavior. Possibly it is an artifact, in men, of the inability to play god the easy way; certainly many of us see our creations as children of sorts.

Despre ce puncte forte ale barbatilor vorbesti?