One of the most recurring arguments when it comes to justifying inequality of sexes is biology! For a lot of people, nature, by creating the man physically stronger, and with a sex more imposing and visible already marked the superiority of the man on the woman. It is therefore in the natural order of things that the woman is submitted to the man! If physiologically we are different, and the physique of one "wins", why would women want to claim equality? I have lost count of the number of times this argument has been used to invalidate certain feminist claims! Even though women's physical abilities are immense and can be developed, I'm not in denial! I'm not going to pretend that men aren't stronger because of a minority of women who are stronger than a minority of men. Facts are facts but only If we all lived in the jungle and the law of the strongest prevailed, this argument would be valid. In contemporary society, is physical strength an asset for reaching the top? Is physical strength what we need to change the world for the better? Are the most powerful, influents, rich the strongest ? No. Intelligence, creativity, imagination, intellectual abilities in general are more important when we want to create opportunities, create lasting change. And when we talk about intellectual capacity the two sexes are perfectly equal. don't start pretending that men are smarter because the greatest inventions were discovered by men. Women didn't had the same opportunities as men in history to show their abilities and you will be surprised to discover how many women have participated behind the scenes in the discovery of certain great inventions. refusing to grant certain rights to women using the argument of physical force could work in prehistory, but not now. This painting is really how i visualize this foolish argument...