Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
Did you know that more women graduate college than men? Does that mean that by those numbers you're all less intelligent than women?

It means that because of feminism they LET more women go to college than men as well as give them all of our jobs so we never even have the money to go to college. Even though that actually happened to me in one state, I moved to another state and got a degree in Power Engineering as well as Internet technology. Women aren't so smart, they all (for the most part) just become nurses or something like that anyway. Unfortunately, those who are coddled and pampered, like women are today, by the government..... the men have to do without. Don't mistake favoritism and pampering of women with ingnorance of those who are being victimized by government agenda designed to hold middle classed men down. The ONLY reason the government and feminists are attacking men is because women are not a threat but men are. The government fears the men of America because we are the only ones who will fight for our country in these trying times and women....well.....will do no fighting at all. Instead the women will welcome the NWO because they gave them everything on a silver platter. when this is done, the NWO will turn on the women and chew them up as well.....once they have everything they want, ....like America.

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
Did you know that more women graduate college than men? Does that mean that by those numbers you're all less intelligent than women?

Have you checked the courses they graduate from? Women Studies. Art. English.

Men? It is Physics. Engineering.

Yeah. Great things that all those women are graduating from all those Colleges with their degree on Women's Studies, so they can become teachers of Women's Studies themselves, as their degree is utterly useless for anything else.

This topic is somehow morphing into a religious talk, how? Beats me. People can tie anything together now days..

Wow....it's tough to believe that there are more than 20 pages on this one thread that have gone so off-topic as to be ridiculous! Talk about dogs barking up the wrong tree!

Endurance needn't have anything to do with great speed or strength. Everyone seems to be arguing about how is faster or who is stronger when endurance and stamina are qualities that, depending on the circumstance, may have little if anything to do with the former two.

Let's take a look at some examples in the animal kingdom. Migratory birds and animals are perhaps the first to come to mind. A monarch butterfly isn't the fastest insect, nor is it the strongest. But yet it is one of few migratory insects and it also migrates the furthest of any insect, at the longest distance in its range all the way from Canada down into central America. So while most people would only find a monarch butterfly to be pretty (as some women are) and not fast or strong, they also have incredible endurance. Great stamina for such delicate little creatures.

Other animals migrate very long distances (the arctic tern is tops, traveling further than any other creature, but again, it isn't anywhere near as fast or as powerful as some other birds) as well, on land, sea and in the air.

In that regard it is important to note that endurance needn't have a time limit either, nor is it always related to motion. For migratory animals, they are generally looking to get to breeding grounds, find food or escape seasonal climate variations. If they get where they are going in time enough to do what it is they need to do or escape from whatever it is they need to avoid, then they have won that race in their lives.

Other types of endurance can have to do with survival rather than any sort of competitiveness or as I noted before, linear motion. For instance, if you really want to compare men and women in this regard, there are some areas in which women would shine and men would falter. I was reading in a magazine the other day about some of the first explorers to reach Antarctica, all of which were men (though they also took dogs with them and in one case some cold-hardy ponies). Women with their extra body fat and (generally) shorter height would be much better suited to explore very cold and harsh places like the polar caps. All that lean muscle and lack of fat would only mean you would starve and freeze to death (and shorter, stockier people do much better in cold climates - take a look at the Neanderthals and native peoples of the Arctic today for examples) that much quicker. So in that regard, an average woman would have more endurance to withstand cold temperatures and lack of food than would an average man, all else being equal (meaning both were healthy, had normal body fat levels and both were about the same weight/mass).
So, high muscle mass and low body fat can propel you thru the finish line first but it can also backfire on you, depending on circumstances.

Also, in addition, endurance (not speed, and not strength) are generally species-specific attributes and are not usually that significantly different within the sexes. For example, a male cheetah is larger and stronger than a female (and perhaps a bit faster), but he will become exhausted just as quickly in a chase as would his mate. Lionesses, on the other hand, are better hunters than lions because they are about half the weight of the male (and have half of his strength) but as a consequence of that have greater agility. But both sexes have an equal level of stamina when it comes to running, which is to say they don't have a whole lot because no species of cat has much running endurance. Therefore, lack of stamina and endurance is a characteristic of the species and not gender. Same thing with species that are long distance runners, like horses - both the mare and stallion can go for a long time without getting tired.
Humans do have pretty high levels of running/walking endurance so there really isn't much of anything to argue about in that regard. Few would dispute that the average man would get from point A to point B a bit more quickly than the average woman, but that is where speed/strength shine rather than endurance.

I would agree that many women might have better endurance for some things but men still outsurpass in upper body strength, for the most part. I could outrun the boys in my younger days when I was in track and cross country so I get that. And the whole part of women having more fat stores may have some validity.

The OP is feminist garbage.

Don't you feminists have a Marxism rally to attend?