>


... Your numbers aren’t true because I showed you a body count.  ...

What numbers?
/u/ILikeMistborn (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I don't think that would help, because I don't think sexism has a strong rational basis.
If somebody is sexist against women, and the difference in strength between the two groups is part of the reason, I doubt they would be compelled by genetic modification. I think it's more likely they would say "you only match men's strength because of technology, you are still naturally inferior."
While the reasons for sexism against women are complicated, I don't think they are particularly logical or factual.
Also note, not everybody would want this modification. In fact, it is my wild speculation that a majority wouldn't. >

That is built on the assumption that there is an inherent conflict between men and women and that we are trying to oppress each other. In reality men and women work together and complement each other. Pointing out that certain players on the same team are better suited for certain roles isn't oppression, it is good resource management. >

There are two things I have to say about this view. 
First, it seems to me like you're way over-emphasizing the social utility of strength. Being physically strong is really useful in a lot of domains, but it's not the only way an individual can be useful to a society or group, and it's definitely not a great way to determine whether any particular individual or group is categorically "superior" to another. If we took your logic to its extreme, humans would be inferior to just about every other ape, and not even in the top 10% of mammals. Even the most chauvinistic, racist, sexist, Nazi doesn't make that argument. 
I actually strongly recommend you check out the work of Frans de Waal. He studies chimpanzees and monkeys, and writes quite beautifully about what chimp society might have to say about how humans organize ourselves. One thing I took away from his work is that chimps have countless ways to acquire power and status, and physical strength is just one of them and not the most important. The most important is the ability to build stable coalitions of support amongst other members of the group--and both males and females have the ability to build said coalitions. 
For my second point about your view, one relevant quote that comes to mind that I'll paraphrase is from the book Factfulness. He says, basically, that we frequently believe overly-dramatic and overly-pessimistic narratives about what's going on in the world that aren't held up by statistics. Believing in these overly-dramatic narratives then causes people to favor radical solutions, when there are much more effective, boring solutions to the problem that have been shown to work already. His personal bugaboos are things like poverty, disease, and violence--all of which have reduced dramatically over the past fifty years. 
In my opinion, your view of the war of the sexes is overly-dramatic and overly-pessimistic. I'll focus on one statement: 

the best we as a society can collectively hope for is for men, as violent and narcissistic as the majority of them tend to be, to begin practicing noblesse oblige toward women 

(Emphasis added, of course). The majority of men are neither narcissistic nor violent. The highest number I could find a from a study in a cursory google search was here, and it's roughly 7.2%. Other studies estimate the prevalence to be about as low as 1 in 200. The number of men who are physically violent--towards women or men--is similarly low, maxing out at 1 in 10.
Not only is that not a majority, that's not even a plurality. 
Now, if you switch the wording around, and instead of saying "a majority of men are narcissistic and violent" you said "a majority of violent and narcissistic people are men," that would be undeniably true on both counts. 
But the reality is that if you select a man completely at random from a group and guess that he's not going to harm you or anyone, you're going to be right 9 out of 10 times. 
To me this means that a radical solution to the problem of violence against women isn't really required--certainly not as radical a solution as the one you're proposing here. It could be something as simple as more street lights, or better social services, or more screening for dark triad personality traits in court proceedings, and so on. >

If this was true, why would we have racial issues? I mean a difference in skin color is about as minimal as things get, sometimes not even that (eg, italians formerly not being seen as white in the US).
I think that history shows that discrimination will happen on the most arbitrary and least important parameters, sometimes approximately nothing at all even. >

I think you misunderstand my point. It's not that fixing the disparity would solve sexism, it's that the disparity creates an inequality that prevents true equality. >

What do you define as equality? 
To me, equality of opportunity is more important than physical equality, which will be impossible to achieve, nor do I think that physical equality will eliminate forms of sexism. There’s no data to back that up. 
If we use the US as an example, both men and woman can attend higher education, work in any profession they chose, vote, and men and woman are not held to different standards of law (on paper). There’s nothing stopping a woman from going to school to become a surgeon and there’s nothing stopping a man from going to school to become a engineer. Western society is as equal as it will ever become and that’s something to certainly be grateful for.
When we look at societies where true inequality exists, we see woman treated as second class citizens, woman not allowed to do certain things, work in certain fields and are held  to different standards in a court of law.  If the physical strength of those women were equal to a man, that would not eliminate the fact that they are still seen as second class citizens in their society. >

Well you’re making the assumption that brute strength is the biggest advantage one can have, which is not true. If you’d like to know the ways women excel, I would look at the book The Better Half. We’ve always been a patriarchal society. So the fact that we’ve built societies and sports that cater to the areas that men excel rather than women does not make men superior, it just means that society was built for them. Invisible Women is a book that can teach you more about the ways society forgets women. 
Your answer to this question is interesting, but wouldn’t an easier answer be a society that specifically arms women but not men be easier than genetic modification? Women commit very little gun violence, or violence in general. If women could be armed and men could not, you would solve a lot of problems all at once. Gun violence would be near zero, and men would be at a disadvantage when considering physical violence against women. Fists to a gun fight and all that.
To be clear, this isn’t something I would support exactly. I think society should just change. I think men should be raised differently and violence against any living thing should be considered zero tolerance in a sane society. It’s just important to understand that, as a woman, I don’t want to be a man. I don’t think men are superior and I don’t envy or desire your strength for myself. I think our differences are to be celebrated. We’ve spent a long time pointing out the ways women are inferior and designing societies that reinforce that false notion. It is time that society was redesigned in a way that supports women’s strengths and allows us to excel. The idea that we need to change to fit a culture that is broken just doesn’t make sense. >

I know you're not that serious, but women are not that much different from men specially psychologically. So the idea of giving women guns and expecting gun violence to stay low among women is rather weird. The reason men are currently the violent ones is because of testosterone but also opportunity. If we make women the strong half, they will simply start to commit the crime sooner rather than later, because they are now the stronger ones.
Let's just stick to changing society in a way where men are not asked to be macho all the time, let them cry, talk about their feelings and not give them the idea they need to be the ones physically protecting their woman/kids. Much more realistic and much more helpful I'd say ;) >

The statistics are what they are. Women do not commit violence generally speaking. We are not raised to believe that the world and people in it belong to us. We do not have testosterone at the levels of men, that’s true as well. You have zero evidence to suggest women would become more violent. We can own guns in America and we don’t commit violence at the level men do. Men are already displaying their emotions, all the time. That’s what killing and raping is, an inability to control your emotions. 
Edit: misread the final sentence. Corrected, my mistake. >

This isn’t true and it’s really easy to prove. More than 4 women per day are murdered in America by current or former intimate partners. Only 14% of all murders are committed by women at all. End of. >


... More than 4 women per day are murdered in America by current or former intimate partners. ...

That doesn't tell us anything about the relative likelihood of men and women to be violent.  Even if we assume that they're almost all murdered by men (which is a reasonable assumption) , and we discount that violence from men is more dangerous (which is not a sensible thing to do), we would still have to compare that to the rate that men are murdered by intimate partners to make a sensible comparison between men and women.

... Only 14% of all murders are committed by women at all. ...

That could also be because men and women were equally likely to be violent, but men are six times as lethal as women when violent.

... it’s really easy to prove ...

Maybe, but people who claim to prove stuff like that are often engaging in bias confirmation instead. >

The truth of the matter is that much of the numbers you cited are self reported. The man who was slapped by a woman claims DV, which to be clear, it is and it is unacceptable. I have already said I support zero tolerance for violence of any kind. However, the man who says “I’ve been a victim of DV” and is talking about being slapped is not experiencing the same as the woman who says “I’ve been a victim of DV” and her ex raped and choked her and stalked her for 6 months. These two crimes are not the same, they don’t have the same risks, as clearly proven by the death count, and they cannot be reasonably conflated. Your numbers aren’t true because I showed you a body count. It’s really that simple.