are you trolling currently?

no

how much levels of low hanging fruit leftist talking points are you on?

just saying a woman that lifts can whoop your balls off

that's literally not what you're saying

i'm saying that the societal role that women are given makes em "weaker" in a physical sense because social construct have an effect on material conditions overtime

MLDK are you sewrious right now? You have a scientifically false premise and have ran with it to go on this whole like lecture where you show basic knowledge in evoanthropology

but if a woman breaks this condition, this weakness is disproven

Marxist theory suggests that any biological difference can be explained because these groups were oppressed into being different, correct?

and a twitter knowledge of social constrcuts

Marx wouldn't say that

but marxist probably would

engels-> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

it's the point of materialist feminism

true, Marx was a based racist nazbol

engels isn't a scientist

nope he wasn't

lol

social science is science dude

deny reality

dney biology

go on tangents

use twitter-tier arguments

are you implying that engels and marx didn't do any research and just stood on their armchair? that's historical dishonesty and proof you didn't glance at their work

I did not

you literally just straw manned me

I don't use twitter tier arguments

yes you do

mldk you're addicted to fallacies

you literally can't stop using them

lmao http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.html

and you can't stop going on tangents

like you typed like 3 paragraphs about a claim that we know is scientifically false

and you're just citing a sociologist from 200 years ago to try to disprove the scientific reality

twitter tier arguments would be that hillary is good because it empowers women or some shit

that's true

I only siad that because i assume that's where you got your view from

because I don't know where else

you didn't get it from engels

because the letter doesn't even pertain to the logical conclusion of your argument

i didn't get it from engels, it's just about the societal value of women under capitalism