"Women can do everything men do" is the feminist mantra and it is false (does that surprise anyone?). The opposite is true: men can do everything that women do and, in addition, much more. This is so obvious that only those who know they can lie with impunity can deny it. The physical constitution of the two is so different that it could not be superior. According to the feminist narrative, male physical preponderance does exist, but it is only used to exercise machist violence. In other fields it does not apply, it is not essential: it is irrelevant. This is why "...females can do anything that...". This story, which is demented, acquires a minimum of credibility only because that "everything" is referred to a single segment of activities and is read in the deforming light of the present.
It is clear that women can carry out all intellectual activities imaginable and all material activities compatible with their physical structure. Now, the development of technology has also made a huge number of professions hitherto out of their reach feasible. Today, any woman can drive not only jets and spaceships, but also simple lorries, mechanical shovels, construction or farm machinery and, of course, trains and ships, since the age of steam has ended. This applies to a multitude of activities that were impossible for females to perform in the past, but there are still many that are impractical and regularly forgotten. This is why these days the only (sic!) woodcutter in Veneto (Cansiglio forest) can repeat the mantra: "As in all jobs, women can do anything. All you have to do is believe it". And above all, stop pretending that hydraulic machines have always existed or that they are superfluous. But with the technical tools of the 21st century, it seems to be true: women can do it all. A fairy tale.
Danger yes, danger no.
Everything seems possible if we stop at the physical dimorphism, a gap that can be compensated for with machines or exoskeletons, and we often fall into this error unreflectively, as if the physical aspect were the most important. We are wrong in this because we overlook the decisive aspect, the psychological one that separates/disparates the two even where the physical difference counts for nothing. In short, it is the propensity to take risks that females lack, since they are radically self-protective. They are self-protective by nature because their biological value is superior, so they shy away from danger by always showing great direct caution and obsessively advising their men to be on their guard against danger, knowing full well the opposite male disposition in this regard. Men oscillate between prudence and a love of risk, they even seek it out, as if seduced by it, as if it gives them a kind of voluptuousness. If we focus on physical differences we lose sight of the psychological aspect, which is the decisive one because it governs all behaviour.
It is obvious that there must be a connection of evolutionary origin between physical performance and the propensity to take risks, just as it is clear that a certain type of software presupposes a certain hardware potential, but these are different aspects. The one that manages behaviour is the first, and that is where you have to look, otherwise too many things remain unexplained. Let's look at sport. All dangerous disciplines and all extreme sports, which are certainly not forbidden to women, are dominated by men, even in places where physical performance counts for absolutely nothing - parachuting being one example - and where women avoid dangerous activities. Women avoid dangerous activities, be they everyday, recreational, sporting or professional. This is why they do not do everything that men do, far beyond the limits of their body's performance. Moreover, the risks do not only concern the physical/material aspect (injuries, trauma, mutilation and death), but also the economic, civil and criminal aspects, and here too the same orientation, the same refractoriness to danger reverberates. It is not a matter of gender selfishness but of natural drives linked to phylogenetic advantages, in terms of already generated or potential offspring, deriving from the survival and physical integrity of females.
Darwin's indisputable verdict.
Human activities range from absolutely safe to extremely dangerous. Men can do both, but women cannot. They systematically avoid the latter, they instinctively shun them, and here's the kicker, because this means that it is possible to impose all safe (female) activities on men, but not the other way around. There are no "women's" activities, since both can do them, but there are "men's jobs", those that feminism mockingly labels as "so-called masculine" and that are really so by nature: those that involve danger (well beyond performance). Yes, men can do laundry, ironing, dusting, changing nappies, teaching, educating, caring for people who are sick or in difficulty. Women, on the other hand, cannot be forced to fish in the open sea, break up landslides, work in quarries, climb scaffolding, stand in the front line, and so on and so forth. And this is software, this is psyche. Beyond the body, therefore, it is the male psyche that enables men to do everything that is feasible. Conversely, well before the body, it is the psyche of women that prevents them from doing so. This is certainly good and right (and a source of salvation for the species). This was Darwin's verdict and therefore no objection is allowed.