Search Results: men breasts

I was arguing with a guy who said that men have contributed far more than women throughout history, because they comprise a majority of inventors, etc.

My argument was that men and women simply contribute differently. I'll explain.

Women had the primary importance in raising children (i. e. humanity). Historically most motherless, but not fatherless, children died before their 15th birthday. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4501914/ https://www.nidi.nl/shared/content/output/2000/jfh-25-03-vanpoppel.pdf

According to this meta-analysis of 42 studies, existence of women in the family (mothers, grandmothers, etc) increases life expectancy more than existence of men in the family. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21225/1/Who_keeps_children_alive_(LSERO).pdf

Plus female breastfeeding is literally the reason animals even made it to the "mammalian" stage to begin with (the word "mammal" originating from the term for breast), nevermind invent things.

You may argue that men put more risk and effort into their contributions but that's not true. Historically more women died in childbearing than men in war[1] and for this reason, women had shorter lifespans than men throughout most of history, until 1920, which was the same time childbirth started becoming exponentially easier.[2]
[1] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/03/saving-women-during-childbirth/
[2] http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml

I'll agree: men have contributed a LOT. I wouldn't want to live in a world without men's contributions. But without women's contributions, there wouldn't even be a world to live in - humanity wouldn't exist (historically, most children died by age 15 if they didn't have a mother).

I think that women contribute necessities & men contribute luxuries. In fact, the necessities women provided are what enabled men to be able to contribute luxuries. Thus women's contributions should be valued equally as men's. Men & women should both be valued.