>

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Vegetable-Team-634 (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards
/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 >

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. >

Men should not be generally asked to protect their family physically in our current society. Protecting your family in today's society is done by providing food and love, which a woman is just as capable in. So I completely agree with you that it's not men who should protect their family. People simply have to 'protect' each other, their friends, their family, both women and men, by asking them how they are, helping them with problems, loving each other.
As for men showing their emotions, I don't agree there. I think men are not showing their emotions enough when it's just normal sadness, so it builds up and what we see in the violent eruptions are the build up of these emotions held back exploding. The real violent ones usually have huge mental problems that weren't addressed because they were men and didn't go to a therapist, had an unsupporting environment etc.
And then there's the metoo cases, where a men crossed boundaries because they couldn't control their urges and society has glorified this idea of the man needing to play some kind of game when the woman says no, because no really means that you haven't tried hard enough. Sometimes this is rape. The idea of this game is just obscene and should be actively fought against by teaching children this is not the way to go. >

I responded to the OP in another comment where I got into some of this, so more might be explained there. 
As for men and emotions, I think that’s a complex conversation but it’s been a very long time now where men have been able to express emotions and have been absolutely applauded for it at every turn, and it hasn’t fixed the issue. I also think many women can agree that I’ve never met a violent man who wasn’t constantly an emotional wreck when he was alone with women. Violent men are quite often the ones that are regularly crying on our shoulders. It’s actually a cornerstone of DV. Man chokes woman, cries a bunch, opens up about his childhood, tells her he’s sorry, murders her a few weeks later, stands before a judge and says the same thing, gets a shorter prison sentence for it. So I don’t buy that if men cried more they would be les violent. Their physical capacity for violence exists, so why are we exposing boys to any violence ever? They are not equipped to manage it. That’s the more reasonable way to look at it. 
I think you’re infantilizing men in a lot of ways here. “Men can’t control their urges.” No, they can, and they don’t because we don’t force them to as a society. We don’t force them to manage their emotions and their entitlement and we don’t teach them how. We accept much less than we deserve and what they’re capable of. We can and should fix that. >

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. >

Sexism certainly isn't rational, though I'd say that the large disparity in physical strength acts less as a justification for sexism (though it's certainly often used as one) are more a means of enforcing it. 

Also note, not everybody would want this modification. In fact, it is my wild speculation that a majority wouldn't. 

This might be accurate, if only because the idea of human genetic modification is currently met mainly with existential dread. I think it has the potential to do I lot of good in the right hands, however. I'd go as far as to say that if you gave all women the option to be as strong as men, for them to not be at the mercy of any man who wants to do them harm, for female athletes to be able to decisively shut down claims that an average man could beat them at whatever they've devoted their life to, and for women in physically intensive careers to be barred from entire roles/positions because of factors they can't really control, if not the majority then at least a larger percentage would take it. >

So I guess I know where you stand on Gattaca then :p
I don't think the glass ceiling is enforced by the fact that the boss can physically beat a woman to death. >

I don't think it's as direct as hierarchies being actively enforced by violence and more that the disparity creates two tiers of humans in certain categories where one can rarely, if ever, challenge the other. Even if it's not the core of sexism it's still a form of inequality that we'll theoretically someday have the power to excise.  Plus if the time I spent lurking in feminist subreddits is anything to go off of, this does seem to be something a lot of women find worrying and/or depressing. 
Unrelated, but my general stance on genetic modification is that we unfairly refuse to entertain the benefits it could have (for instance, allowing women go outside at night without worrying that any man she sees could overpower her and do whatever he wants with her) because we fear the evil we would use it for, but we also never want to actually tackle what in our society would cause us to abuse it in the first place. >

I’m a 6’1, nearly 200 lb male in pretty decent shape, and I too do not like going out in the dark by myself. I think most men would agree this isn’t just a female issue. >

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. >

I don’t think modern day sexism, assuming we’re talking specifically about societies that have developed past the point where the physical differences are functionally relevant, has much to do with the physical capabilities of women. I do think you have a point: generally speaking, women will always be more aware of danger from others than men, and subliminally that probably does play a role somewhere is the miasma of sexism.
I do not think, however, that the role that disparity plays in sexism is a major one. The difference is strength is just too rarely of any importance or relevance in today’s modern world for it to hold any great significance for most casually sexist people. For some avowed red-piller, sure, but not for most of the minds we need to change to end sexism. 
Where the physical disparities between men and women are important is not in that it’s a major factor in sexism, but rather that it’s a perserverent factor. Even if society changes to suit all sexes and genders equally, sexism might never truly disappear as long of those physical disparities endure. >

If it plays such a major role, then why is Sexism rapidly declining? Do you have a basis to believe that Sexism will always exist to a significant degree?  
Just cause men will always be able to discriminate women doesn't mean they always will. >

It's currently possible for sperm cells to be artificially created from any other cell by using stem cell technologies. These aren't quite the same as sperm cells produced naturally, as they lack the genomic imprinting that normal sperm gets from the father. However, this is likely not an insurmountable issue in terms of biotechnology, so it's possible that in our lifetimes, we will have the means for viable sperm to be produced from female cells. Because these will only be X chromosome cells, any offspring will also be female.
If this happens, men will be rendered entirely obsolete. As you note, it's only women who can gestate and birth the next generation. With the role of men as sperm producers being unnecessary, women will be able to have children without the involvement of any man. Through attrition, because these children will be all daughters, the male population will decline after each generation.
All these arguments about male advantage per their physical strength capability and so on will be moot, because the only thing they are genuinely useful for, in terms of propagating humanity, will no longer matter. >

I do want to award a delta for this (!delta) cuz you raise a good point. In this context it doesn't really matter if men are stronger if men in general are eventually phased out of existence entirely. Nobody really talks about how much stronger cavemen were than modern humans, after all. That being said I question the effectiveness of the strategy in a still heavily male dominated world, especially as we inch steadily closer to also being able to figure out how to create artificial uteruses that could, by this same token, render women's primary "function" just as redundant.