Historically women have been privileged over men -- while men had to work their asses off, go to wars, explore and hunt for food, women often weren't even supposed to work, they could stay at home, chill while guarding the fire and playing with children -- this is becoming less and less so with capitalism which aims to simply enslave everyone, nowadays mostly through the feminist cult that brainwashed women to desire the same slavery as men. Statistically women live about 5 years longer lives than men because they don't have to worry and stress so much.
Women also can't drive, operate machines, they can't compare even to the worst men in sports, both physical and mental such as chess. Women have to have separate leagues and more relaxed rules, e.g. the title Woman Grand Master (WGM) in chess has far lower requirements to obtain than regular Grand Master (GM). (According to Elo rating the best woman chess player in history would have only 8% chance of winning against current best male who would have 48% chance of winning). On the International Mathematical Olympiad only 43 out of 1338 medals were obtained by females. There are too many funny cases and video compilations of women facing men in sports (watch them before they're censored lol), e.g. the infamous Vaevictis female "progaming" team or the football match between the US national women team (probably the best women team in the world) vs some random under 15 years old boy's team which of course the women team lost. Of course there are arguments that worse performance of women in mental sports is caused culturally; women aren't led so much to playing chess, therefore there are fewer women in chess and so the probability of a good woman player appearing is lower. This may be partially true even though genetic factors seem at least equally important and it may equally be true that not so many women play chess simply because they're not naturally good at it; nevertheless the fact that women are generally worse at chess than men stands, regardless of its cause -- a randomly picked men will probably be better at chess than a randomly picked woman, and that's what matters in the end. Also if women are displaced from chess by culture, then what is the area they are displaced to? If women are as capable as men, then for any area dominated by men there should be an area equally dominated by women, however we see that anywhere men face women men win big time, even in the woman activities such as cooking. It makes sense from the evolutionary standpoint, women simply evolved to take care of children, guard fire and save resource consumption by being only as strong as necessarily required for this task, while men had to be stronger and smarter to do the hard job of providing food and protection.
Now because today's brainwashed reader will see this as "sexism", let us remind ourselves that this is completely OK. Women are weaker, but in a good society this doesn't matter as in a good society people don't have to compete or prove their usefulness, everyone is loved equally, weak or strong. The issue here is not pointing out our differences but perpetuating a shitty society.
Of course even though rare, well performing women may statistically appear. The issue is women are very often involved with a cult such as the feminists who waste their effort on fighting men instead of focusing on study and creation of real technology, and on actually loving it. They don't see technology as a beautiful field of art and science, they see it as a battlefield, a political tool to be weaponized to achieve social status, revenge on society etc., which spoils any rare specimen of a capable woman. Even capable women can't seem to understand the pure joy of programming, the love of creation for its own sake, they think more in terms of "learning to COOODE will get me new followers on social networks" etc. Woman mentality is biologically very different from men mentality, a woman is normally not capable of true, deep and passionate love, woman only thinks in terms of benefit, golddigging etc. (which is understandable from evolutionary point of view as women had to ensure choosing a good father for their offspring); men, even if cheating, normally tend towards deep life-long love relationships, be it with women or art. You will never find a virgin basement dweller programmer or demoscene programmer of female sex which isn't a poser, a hacker who is happy existing in a world of his own programs without the need for approval or external reward, a woman will likely never be able to understand this.
Supposed "achievements" of women after circa 2010 can't be taken seriously, propaganda has started to tryhard and invent and overrate achievements and basically just steal achievements of men and hand them over to women. There are token women inserted on soyentific positions etc. (lol just watch any recent NASA mission broadcast, there is always a woman inserted in front of the camera).
Of course, LRS loves all living beings equally, even women. In order to truly love someone we have to be aware of their true nature so that we can truly love them, despite all imperfections.
Is there even anything women are better at than men? Well, women seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (feminism of course sees this as a "weakness" and tries to change it), though they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive. Nevertheless there have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel (still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific tasks, they will beat women, for example the best cooks in the world are men). Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, psychologists, massage therapists, sex workers etc.
Finding famous women capable in technology is almost a futile task. One of the most famous women of modern tech, even though more an entrepreneur than engineer, was Elizabeth Holmes who, to the feminists' dismay, turned out to be a complete fraud and is now facing criminal charges. Grace Hopper (not "grass hopper" lol) is a woman actually worth mentioning for her contribution to programming languages, though the contribution is pretty weak. Ada Lovelace cited by the feminist propaganda as the "first programmer" also didn't actually do anything besides scribbling a note about a computer completely designed by a man. This just shows how desperate the feminist attempts at finding capable women in tech are. Then there are also some individuals who just contributed to the downfall of the technology who are, in terms of gender, at least partially on the woman side, but their actual classification is actually pretty debatable -- these are monstrosities with pink hair who invented such cancer as COCs and are not even worth mentioning.
In the related field of free culture there is a notable woman, Nina Paley, that has actually done some nice things for the promotion of free culture and also standing against the pseudoleftist fascism by publishing a series of comics with a character named Jenndra Identitty, a parody of fascist trannies.
In science at wide we occasionally find a capable woman, for example Marie Curie.
Here is a comparison of men and women in some randomly chosen disciplines and measures that are easy to quantify by numbers, and still possible to find on the highly censored Internet. Of course, the numbers hold for the time of writing of this text, at the time or reading they may be slightly outdated, also keep in mind that in the future such comparisons may become much less objective due to SJW forces -- e.g. because of trans athletes in sports we may see diminishing differences between measurements of performance of men and "women" because what in the future will be called women will be just men pretending to be women.
Note: It is guaranteed that soyentific BIGBRAINS will start screeching "MISLEADING STATISTICSSSSSSS NON PEER REVIEWED". Three things: firstly chill your balls, this isn't a scientific paper, just a fun comparison of some numbers. Secondly we try to be benevolent and not choose stats in a biased way (we don't even have to) but it is not easy to find better statistics, e.g. one might argue it could be better to compare averages or medians rather than bests -- indeed, but it's impossible to find average performance of all women in a population in a specific sport discipline, taking the best performer is simply easier and still gives some idea. So we simply include what we have. Thirdly any statistics is a simplification and can be seen as misleading by those who dislike it.
On average, male brain weights 10% more than woman's and has 16% more brain cells. IQ/intelligence measured by various tests has been consistently significantly lower than that of men.
|discipline||men WR||women WR||comparison|
|200m outdoor||19.90s (Bolt)||21.34s (G-Joyner)||best W ranks lower than #5769 among M|
|60m indoor||6.34s (Coleman)||6.92s (Privalova)||best W ranks lower than #3858 among M|
|raw deadlift||460kg (Magnusson)||305kg (Swanson)||best M lifts about 50% more weight|
|marathon||2:01 (Kipchoge)||2:14 (Kosgei)||best W ranks #3935 among men|
|100m frees. swim||46.8s (Popovici)||51.7s (Sjostrom)||best W ranks lower than #602 among M|
|chess||2882 Elo (Carlsen)||2735 Elo (Polgar)||best W win 8%, lose 48%, draw 44%|
|speedcubing 3x3||3.47s (Du)||4.44 (Sebastien)||best W ranks #16 among M|
|Starcraft II||3556 (Serral)||2679 (Scarlett)||best M has ~80% win chance against W|
|holding breath||24:37 (Sobat)||18:32m (Meyer)||Ms have ~35% greater lung capacity|
All content available under CC0 1.0 (public domain). Send comments and corrections to drummyfish at disroot dot org.