isn't history itself enough to prove that women are not as pcychologically and mentaly strong as men?

Question

isn't history itself enough to prove that women are not as pcychologically and mentaly strong as men?

Answer 1

Yes. Women are weaker. All the other patsies who answered gave isolated examples of the few women who made it. For every Cleopatra, Maggie Thatcher and Joan of Arc who made it, there are 100 Caesars, Churchills and Henrys.



Women are phsically weaker, so they seldom rise to the top of the ruling warrior class. Also they let their emotions rule them so they can't make rational, cold decisions that men can. They also can't focus.

Answer 2

I am not sure what history you are refering to. If you look back at a real survey of history taken from primary sources in recent years, you will find that most of the strongest people in history have been women. Think Clara Barton, Molly Pitcher, Q.E.I, St. Joan de Arc, any of the "salem witches" that stood up for their rights, sacajawea, the list goes on and on...and consider that these women were doing this during some of the most oppresive (towards women..almost mysoginistic) times in history.



To the victor goes the writing of history, and since men were the oppressor sex, men wrote the history and deleted many accomplishments by women throughout the ages.

Answer 3

If women had an equal say in the writing of that history, then you could use that as an argument. But they didn't. How many times have your friends bragged or exaggerated or lied to impress someone? Don't you think that some of the "men are clearly more superior to women in everything" version of history might be just such bragging and ignoring women's contributions? A 16 year old girl (Sybil Ludington) rode just as far as Paul Revere did - 40 miles AT NIGHT - to warn that the British were coming during the civil war, but who did men glorify and write about and who does everyone remember better today? Think about it.

Answer 4

I'm a guy, and I believe that history so far has been ruled by force. Rulers for example are the ones who rewrite history as they see fit, once they seize power.



However, society is fast becoming knowledge-centric. Knowledge is the new power, and that is the great equalizer for women. (If you wish, read Alvin Toffler's PowerShift for details on info-power).



9/11 for example was an illustration of how knowledge (or imagination) is more powerful than brute force or technology (which the U.S. has plenty of).



Finally, the fact that Commander-in-Chief, the new show starring the oh-so-sexy Gina Davis, is now a cultural fait accompli will only inspire more women to take on leadership roles in society.



Regardless of whether history proved or not that women were not as strong as men (due to cultural factors and the above mentioned centrality of brute force), history from now on will tend to favor knowledge as the new source of strength, whether you're a man or woman.

Answer 5

history also proves that some women can be as pcychologically and mentaly strong as men. for example the secretary of the president. how did she get to be in that position if she wasn't as pcychologically and mentaly strong as she is.

Answer 6

I can't see how you could think that. Throughout most of history, women have not been up front, getting their names mentioned. They have been at home, taking care of the men who were making history and rearing their children. If you ask me, they often needed far more psychological and mental strength in that role than in the up front, noticeable roles men had. More recently, women have become more visible, but generally only when they are doing something corresponding to traditionally male roles. And most of the ones who become visible do so because they are extremely good at that job. There are far fewer famous female villians than famous male villians, although that does not, in itself prove women are more virtuous.



Men and women are different, and viva la differance. But it's like comparing apples and oranges: it's not a question of better or worse, stronger or weaker; it's just different. Complementary, in an ideal situation.

Answer 7

Actually as per the other responses, history DISPROVES women being weaker than men for example: Henry the VIII goes around chopping off the heads of his wives and his daughter was the best British leader for mAny years, BodecIA was the first British Leader and Maggie Thatcher was called Iron Maggie. So i WOULD GUESS YOUR EXPOSURE TO EDUCATED, HIGHLY-EVOLVED WOMEN ISN'T SOMETHING YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO!!!! i FEEL SORRY FOR YOU

Answer 8

That relies upon on the fellow and infrequently even the issue. My husband is amazingly mentally sturdy. He works with juvenile delinquents who may be very very troublesome and verbal attacks are a each and daily...actual no longer a lot yet have occurred. He may get eaten alive in my lecture room regardless of the actuality that and doubtless bypass loopy by potential of lunch time.

Answer 9

What part of history are you referring to? Cleopatra, Queen Elizabeth, Indira Ghandi or Catherine the Great (just to name a few)??

Answer 10

Only if you agree that most of history is written by men who interpreted events within the very worldview that you espouse.

Answer 11

Joan of Arc, Margeret Thatcher, and many others would disagree with you.