Just came across the most shocking nonsense I've ever heard coming from a man

@NortiusMaximus I don't know of any man that selects a mate on the basis that she will protect him in such an instance.

@SW-User My wife and I support each other equally.

@NortiusMaximus Support sure, but I don't imagine you expect your wife to fight off intruders on your behalf. You're the man and you should not want to see any harm come to her. Sure she loves you but she's a woman. She's not as strong as you I don't imagine. I understand if she has some sort of training in weaponry and combat but even then, I as the man would go to investigate and instruct my wife to get the kids and get somewhere safe.

@SW-User Actually my wife is as strong as I, possibly slightly stronger, and can handle a firearm just as well. She wouldn't want to see any harm come to me either. As I've just indicated in another reply, sexists ignore the factors they try to use to justify their sexism.

@NortiusMaximus Is your wife the typical women out there? No she's an exception. On average men are simply stronger and more physically capable.

@SW-User She's fairly typical of the women I know, about average in fact. I think I know her and her friends a bit better than you do. I doubt you know much about the wife of the man you criticize in your opening post either.

Maybe but that doesn't override the specific case. On average men are taller than women. If you need someone to take something from a high shelf for you, would you ask a 4' man or a 7' woman to do it?

@NortiusMaximus Even if they're typical of women you hang around they remain exceptions. You possibly just choose to surround yourself with such women.

The woman. Then I'd ask the 4" man to help me out with the heavy lifting outside

@SW-User
Irrelevant, they're still "only women". You're doing what all sexists do, basing your determination on sex (arguing typical qualities), rather than relevant atypical specific qualities.

Why? On average men are taller than women. Are you starting to recognize that, in any given situation, the specific qualities are more relevant than the general?

Even though the woman is far stronger and more capable than he.

@NortiusMaximus I know a woman who earns considerable more than her husband did. When they started a family it made sense for him to give up work and become a househusband and full time father. They can easily survive on her salary. They would have been poverty stricken trying to survive on his but thats what the sexists would have expected them to do.

@NortiusMaximus That's what my husband and I do too.

@NortiusMaximus yes, because she's an exception that just so happens to be there and not a life threatening situation. If the question is who would I go out to battle with in a situation where there are men outside wanting to cause us harm, I'd go with the short man.


She isn't stronger she's just taller. But even so, if the woman is someone close enough to me my natural instinct is to show her to safety. Now she could choose to fight and that's fine, but I'd show her to safety

@Sharon No, not what I'd expect my word. That's typical of women it's not sexist goodness. There's a reason why even high earning women in general want a man that earns as much if not more than she does.

@SW-User You're trying to move the goalposts. That's totally irrelevant, she's still "only a woman" and that's the only factor you're taking into considerartion.

I'd go for the one more likely to assist me and defet the enemy. In this specific case, that's more likely the woman.

@NortiusMaximus Yeah she's just a woman who can grab at something high up. If she's alone I'd expect her to do it herself still, she's not going to cause harm to herself.


I don't expect the women in my life to put their lives on the line for me. It's a duty I'm taking up as a man.

Edit: what she knows about combat and weaponry is for her to protect herself when I'm not around but when I'm around I assume that role.

@Sharon That's not all that unusual, I know a few coupes where she earns more than he. Employers here have to pay men and women the same for the same work. In many cases, that results in a woman, perhaps better qualified or experienced, earning more than her husband. The difference isn't always very great though.

@SW-User So, as I said, you'll ignore all the reasons you tried to use to justify sexism and base your decision solely on a person's sex.

@NortiusMaximus That exactly what sexism is. I need to start work now or else my husband might wind up earning more than I for a change. ;)

@NortiusMaximus My reasons have not changed. Men are typically stronger and absolutely should take up the role of protector in the family. What you quote is a personal opinion of what I choose to do in my own life.

@SW-User The point is, you expect the man to take the position of protector, even when the woman is far more capable than he, solely because he is male. It bad strategy to send sone to do a job when they're like to fail rather than send someone more likely to succeed.

How you live your life is up to you but call men who adopt a more successful strategy "cowards" is just offensive.

@NortiusMaximus Let me ask you a question. In the instance that a trans woman is weaker than one female opponent among many should he be allowed to participate in women's sports?

@SW-User How would you know which was the stronger if they weren't pitted against each other? Your scenario is no different from allowing an obviously stonger (cis-gender) woman to compete against weaker opponents.

@NortiusMaximus That Is irrelevant and running away from the gist of the question. You have a man that identifies as a woman but weaker than one woman opponent. In that instance should the general rule be ignored to satisfy the exception?

@SW-User Are you referring to a man planning to transition or one that has completed the process? The fact remains, you don't know whether she's weaker than one (or more) woman (or women) opponents if she doesn't compete against them.

@NortiusMaximus You seem to be trying very hard to avoid what is essentially a simple question. I'll give you that he's at the end of his transition.

@SW-User It might seem simple to someone who bases such decisions solely on a person's sex but there are other factor to consider.

If she has completed the transition there is no reason she shouldn't compete. As I said, it's no different from allowing an obviously stronger (cis-gender) woman to compete against weaker opponents.