First off I really hope this subreddit isn't some kind of circle jerk who won't entertain any opposing viewpoints. I personally believe men and women should have all the same rights and duties, and should generally be on the same playing field irrespective of their gender, but in those words that's probably being interpreted as some kind of shitty "feminist" ideology right now, so for now I'll put my own opinion aside.

So a few days ago I opened up YouTube and a video by this MGTOW supporter Turd Flinging Monkey appeared on my suggestions page, so I ended up watching a few of his videos.

Although some of his claims can be seen as controversial or even downright shocking, a lot of of it did make sense to a degree.

But my problem with his videos was the fact that his arguments just don't directly support his ideas at all.

So TFM says that men are superior to women biologically because they have greater physical strength, supposedly higher average IQ, better dexterity, etc etc which means that they should have superior rights to women, who belong in the kitchen simply for their lack of ability. At first sight this argument seems to make sense, naturally the strongest group should have the upper hand.

But what I fail to see here is why gender should be a parameter in the first place. Let's say that men, on an average, are smarter than women by 3 IQ points (as TFM "proves" in his video) Assuming an average IQ of 100 for simplicity of calculation, the 50-50 gender quota lowers the rates of net progress by around 3% compared to an all-male work force (assuming progress rates are directly proportional to IQ) But if the work force comprised of simply the people with the top 50% of IQs is formed (it may have more men, but it'll be something of a 47-53 ratio) it'll increase the productivity rates by even more!

Basically it's a terrible idea to segregate by something as random and arbitrary as gender before deciding who should have superior rights. So unless every single man is superior to every single woman, which would mean that the smartest woman is not even as smart as the dumbest man, you're missing out on making society as productive as possible. But you know very well that that's not the case. So what TFM says is that he wants to maximize productivity, and the method he proposes for that to happen is definitely not the best. At least it seems that way to me, though I may be misinterpreting his argument.

Which basically brings me to my opinion; I believe that if men are, indeed, biologically superior, it would definitely be harder for women to make it to the top or "privileged" half that has the rights, which people could get to by possibly taking some sort of aptitude test at a particular age, but they shouldn't be denied simply because they're women, the same way there shouldn't be a baseless 50-50 gender quota either.

So, thoughts? Also, just out of curiosity, where does my opinion place me on the whole feminist spectrum?