A Rant About Male Superiority (pt 2)

So, I mentioned there'd be a part 2. Here we go.

A lot of what I hear or read about male superiority blames everything from crack whores to the economy on the emasculation of males in our society. That they are curbed somehow by women, and that all the woes of the world are because women have trained men not to BE men.

I call bullshit.

If men were so superior to start with, why in the world would we ever have gotten to this point? Why would the feminist movement have succeeded (or succeeded as well as it has) if women weren't worth anything? It seems that if you want to blame weak, stupid, born to be controlled women for making men weak, you have to admit in there that women are not as useless, or lesser, as you claim.

I don't know if my line of thought there is very clear. Here's what I'm trying to say, broken down as it came to my mind:

If all women are born to submit, then all men are born to control.

If this is the case, women would never have thrown up enough fuss to change that situation, right?

So, if men=better, women would never have succeeded in challenging that, as biology would have prevented a large enough number of them to change anything from existing at the same time.

So there's no way we would have emasculated men enough to make them accept us as equals, unless men were NOT superior to begin with, but rather just had the advantage of being born into a society that PLACED more value in them.

Even well before the modern day, women of note existed, and many women were very good at doing the work while convincing the men that it was their husband, or son, or whomever that society would accept as the mastermind.

Yes, women tend to rely on mental ability, sex appeal, and familial connections as their weapons instead of brute force, swords, and war, but it's a different set of weapons, not a less useful or valuable one. If I can get what I want by flashing boobs, and a man can get it by beating someone, I'd actually say my method was more effective and efficient.

I do believe it has always been a game of give and take, and always will be.