Yeah, my first line was sarcasm, the one about the right to vote and such -- I was just upping the ante on some anti-woman comments here.
As for you, Catalyst, I never claimed a life-mate was unattainable. All I said was that typically, today people are looking for more immediate self-gratification, and later look for a long term commitment. Frankly, if you hook up with your partner, as a male, anywhere between the ages of 13-25, I'd consider you both lucky and rare. I'm just saying Gryphon's relatively young, he should be less concerned about finding a mate and more concerned about mating itself.
As for woman's pain threshold, just point out to her that men have a higher pain tolerance. A pain threshold has NOTHING to do with how much you can take, it has to do with how much electro-chemical stimulus it takes before your nerves tell your brains "ouch". Obviously they have a higher threshold, they have to shove babies through a hole the size of a dime. Tolerance, on the other hand, is how much your brains say "ouch" before you actually care. You can therefore see that tolerance is superior to threshold in every facet. The IQ question is a little skewed, because its not actually a question of IQ -- its a question of brain activity. Brain activity and IQ are often freely (and wrongly) interchanged. Women's brains are more active then mens -- but all that necessarily tells us is that women have to think harder to do the same tasks as men. Example: A woman has to strain to chew gum and walk at the same time. As for "retaining more moisture" that means they "hold water" or "get bloated"... ie: they're fatter then men. Yeah, I'm just poking fun, but still, its true =).
Anyways, as for the question of genetic superiority, its not that one sex has a superiority over another -- its that they both perform different tasks better than the other. In the truest sense of the form, men are the expendable gender. Consider: If all men but one died, and all women lived, the men could have sex with x amount of women, where x is the number of women he could have sex with in a given amount of time resulting in factors of flaccidity, arousal, sperm count, etc. It does not take into account impotence (but nor will the woman's example take into account barrennes)... since the man can accurately measure ovulation by comparing menstrual cycles, a single man can effectively repopulate the earth in a short period of time. Because the genetic composition of a man's chromosomes is an "XY" pattern, it also goes to state that the man's efforts at repopulation will result in less genetic deficiencies and recessive genes (since half-siblings will be invariably forced to mate with each other, or other women of a generation above) as the woman's X chromosome can effectively repair the deficiencies the "leg" lacking "Y" chromosome.
HOWEVER, if the population of the earth was reduced to one woman and three billion men, the woman could only effectively get pregnant about once per year (this is taking into account ovulation cycles, gestation period, hormonal changes which block gestation temporarily after pregnancy, and then another ovulation -- barrenness is not assumed) and additionally have to FEED all the babies for about 1-2 years. On top of that, the woman can only reproduce until menopause, whereas a male can reproduce after puberty and until death. The woman (assuming average age of puberty and average age of menopause) can only have approximately 40-50 children (assuming a standard human litter of one baby per gestation period). On top of this, because the woman carries two X chromosomes, and the X chromosomes of the woman are the dominant chemicals in pregancy, genetic deficiencies will be more likely to be passed on with a single woman as compared to a single man.
Thus, we know that the man is the expendable sex. This is why hunter-gatherer duties (and, extrapolated into 20/21st century life, the general "risk taking" of having to go out, risk a car accident on the way to work, etc., and the risk of going outside in general) are instictively placed on the male gender -- this is also where bravado comes from. Hence women are more domesticated, and men are more feral. Women are much better at the domestic duties of a relationship, such as the upkeep and maintenance of the dwelling (which would instictively come from sanitary purposes for the nurturing of children) whilst men are typically the risk takers of the relationship (again, going back to the role of the hunter/gatherer, the one who brings home the food.)
oh, and BrownyMan -- feel free to tell your woman that women are much more likely to carry and spread a genetic deficiency than men are -- and men are the ones who suffer for it -- yet one more proof women take advantage of men constantly and without being aware of it =).
