Dad takes over, because son is an idiot!

[vermin]

Well if it makes you more comfortable beliving I am imature go ahead.

But remember that you said this is the right attitude to hold towards women
"We are not equal, and that is ultimately to your benefit"

You then went on to claim that if a female do not se it that way they have been ruined by society. That is a narrowminded attitude if anything, you are essentialy trying to make your argument into a absolue truth when claiming deviation from it is abnormal.

Being correct is not narrow minded. You see, opinions are not all equal, though I suspect you were educated in socialist public schools and have probably been brainwashed to believe that they are. The fact that you seem to think that my being correct ("narrow minded") is somehow a point in your favor demonstrates that you believe that matters, when of course it does not - only being correct matters.

Or is this some sort of tit of tat because I correctly deduced that you are immature? Can you not - even if just for a moment - recognize that I, never having met you, detected immaturity in your views and from that correctly concluded that you are very young? You see, I absorbed and analyzed data and came to a correct conclusion. Could that perhaps suggest something to you?

would like you to make a watertight case on why you are by definition the superior part in any relationship.

There you go again - you move from my positions on leadership/hierarchical social structure/"not equal" (clearly in the sense and context of the aforementioned arguments) and you go off on some tangent about intelligence and superiority and whatever. The amusing thing is, I have an IQ of 194, perfect SATs (before they were rounded), graduated from a top private prep academy at 15, perfect GREs (best in the nation for my subject test), have a Ph.D. from one of the most competitive (they claimed it was they most) programs in the country and have been declared by an Act of Congress to be among the top 50,000 or so minds in the nation.

So, I could actually do as you request - though it actually has no bearing on the argument because whether it is your boss, your platoon leader, or whatever leader you may come upon it is that position, and their presumed qualifications to fill it, that makes for the hierarchy - not if you are smarter, faster, stronger, or smell better. But the young often have a difficult time with this, and often think that since they are smarter, stronger, better looking or smell better (at least, in their own minds) they should be in charge, or at least don't have to go along with their leader. Sorry, again this is immaturity - as you grow up you will learn that folks fill functional roles of a necessarily hierarchical nature and notions such as "superiority" have nothing to do with it.

Yes well the days when survival and reproduction was the sole purpose of our spieces is passed.

Actually not.

I cant say I am convinced that the males where always the ones in charge through out evolution either. Either way physical dominance gets less and less important when a society advances, just as it should be, and women are easily equal to men mentaly. Looking at performance in schools and universities they are perhaps superior.

How can you with such certanity state that it is the natural order of humans? The recored history is far from the natural state of the human race and any modell on the family structure of prehistoric man is probably on very shaky ground.

The essential mathematics of sociobiology are essentially similar for most animals, at least bisexual animals with limited egg production and limitless sperm production. You are correct that the specific manifestations of this will vary a bit by culture/history and even more so by species, but the essential math is this: In exchange for biological success (fitness) granted by access to her eggs, the female expects to have her essential needs provided for, as well as for her offspring. You see, the leader - the responsible one - the provider - his wants/needs matter least. It is his responsibility to determine what is best for the family, and to make it happen.

Monkey sister groups and so forth are interesting academic studies, and serve to illustrate concepts such as "inclusive fitness", but the same fundamentals apply. Let me assure you - there is no committee of monkeys, those sister groups have very real and well-defined hierarchies.

Well thank you for labeling my relationship. I find it hard to belive you have such great insight into my private life.
A situation without no one ontop isnt neccesarly a bad thing.

Are you saying that all relationships on equal terms are unhappy relationships?

Did the guy who wrote the thread starter seem happy to you? Even if it was humor, the issue is very real. That's pretty much the path you're currently on.

Well since you want to make this a scientific debate. Base you argument on acctual studies. I am more than willing to wade through any studies or abstracts you reefer to aslong as they are peer reviewed.

In what specific way is the male more fit to run the show? What properties do a man hold that a women is incapable of?
Make your case and back it up with published peer review material from reputable journals. You se I dont just take your word for it.

I dont buy any feminist propaganda about equality on all levels, but I do not buy any propaganda about male superiority either.

Again, you are very confused with all sorts of ideas about superiority and such. You certainly aren't ready for the literature, and anyway when it comes to relationships I think you know there aren't any. However, if you wish to understand the fundamental principals behind what I am saying, and what life experience has taught me, you could try reading E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis". It is more in the form of an advanced college text but appropriate as the seminal work in the field.

You might also try acting like a man for a bit. You might be surprised at how well it works out.