Why men rule?

Oh, don't be sorry on my account. I have no problems with not living up to your particular standards.

I cant really argue about you and your girlfriend's subjective experiences so I'll take it from here:

To be clear, I have not in any way suggested that men and women are different in their capabilities or virtues and I would never argue that they are somehow opposed to each other. But when you have an observed reality - that the vast majority of leaders in history have been men - you have to examine that fact to figure out why it is. And there's no way to examine that except by looking at the relationship between men and women.

I realize that you believe it would be better to just leave well enough alone and pretend everyone has always had an equal chance of success in whatever they wanted to do, but I don't think you can maintain that in the face of facts that show the opposite. By ignoring this problem you leave the field open to those who would argue that the historical dominance by men shows that they are superior and inherently belong in a position of dominance. It's only by finding the real causes for male dominance that you can counter that argument. Knowing the causes also helps identify the best ways to take effective measures that will mitigate that dominance in the future. This can have a huge impact on how people live, so it's hardly meaningless.

There are many factors of why men rule, but I point out what I believe to be the key factor: child bearing.

According to anthropologists investigating the lives of hunter-gatherers and the first Neolithic farmers, their societies seemed to be relatively egalitarian. (as confirmed by Ian Hodder working at Catalhoyuk). Men and women usually participated in similar tasks and held relatively equal status (male graves were just as fancy as female graves; as many female skulls as male skulls were used as icons). The only major difference between male and female roles was the fact that women bore children and breast-fed them; and biologically, the mother's bond to the child is always stronger. But when not pregnant or breast-feeding, women tended to participate in exactly the same type of tasks as men; but most women were obliged spend a rather significant amount of time "out-of work" whenever they get pregnant.

If we were to take the example off of this forum we would be lead that women instead of discussing the topic bring up random statements that were never made by anyone else but themselves.

I'm sorry, but I obviously didn't read into previous posters' comments what you did. Obviously men can and do rule in civil societies, as can women. But it's close to impossible for women to thrive in an environment where brute force is the final arbiter of success - hence the distinction. Are you really arguing against that?

I also think you're working under a false dichotomy. The fact (and it is a fact) that women have historically been oppressed doesn't necessarily have to stem from intentional maliciousness or conspiracy on the part of men. In many times and places (far too many for it to have been simply the result of chance), men simply assumed that women had nothing useful to contribute to public life and were inherently subordinate. One need not be sinister to be ignorant.