> This is dangerous as it looks to add credence to the concept that it is okay to portray women as weaker because under some averaged metrics they perform less than the average man.
I'm not trying to add credence to anything. It's objectively verifiable that on physical tests of strength, men outperform women on average and at the elite level.
> "Women are weak" isn't exclusively in their ability to win in combat, its their ability to outsmart, to plan and problem-solve, and ultimately to look out for their safety.
I agree with you. It sucks.
But to me, "... and need men to protect them" implies pretty clearly that the article was talking about physical strength and/or personal harm.
I'm not trying to add credence to anything. It's objectively verifiable that on physical tests of strength, men outperform women on average and at the elite level.
> "Women are weak" isn't exclusively in their ability to win in combat, its their ability to outsmart, to plan and problem-solve, and ultimately to look out for their safety.
I agree with you. It sucks.
But to me, "... and need men to protect them" implies pretty clearly that the article was talking about physical strength and/or personal harm.