'Ok, I read your post again. Still, I discovered nothing new. I wonder what hidden message it carried. '

It seems to me you are somewhat paranoid in looking for hidden meaning. I stated a universally understood fact. You know, bulls are stronger than cows, drakes are larger than ganders, roosters are larger & stronger than hens, stallions are larger than mares.....or fillies....Humans follow in this model, need I go on?

'You justified gender apartheid by false assumption males are stronger than women. That's a bit of a generalisation, aint't it? Besides, what I objected to was to use strength as criterion of segregation. Men and women differ - it's obvious and only those who have never seen a naked men and woman can claim otherwise. However, it's not what gender apartheid is about'

Ummm, some do not have to see naked males and females to see the difference...I in no way justified 'gender apartheid' or maltreatment of women or anyone. I merely pointed out males are generaly stronger physically than females. Is that so hard to understand? Human females have different strengths.

Perhaps you should protest at the Olympics to have sports integrated? And, while you are at it how about going after tennis and all the other sports that are 'segregated'?

'But, even if we assume that all men are stronger than women, so what? Does it justify any manifestations of violence? Does it justify rapes and battering women? Or, perhaps, it just puts women in the lost position right from the start, as in, don't fight, he's stronger, you stand no chance? Really, I cannot imagine what physical strength has to do with equal rights...'

No place did I ever justify violence against anyone, male or female. It does suggest is that should used to analyse what strengths are actually had, and then devise a stragegy based on those strengths. How about looking at it more like a matter of efficient resource allocation? Really, we get nowhere if we look at the situation as a us versus them. Humanity goes nowhere without cooperation.

Note the keyword here: cooperation.

Gender differences

I looked for a hidden meaning as the literal message of your post read "men are stronger than women and it's a fact" - a point which not only is a generalisation but also had nothing to do with the subject discussed. We talked about men beating women and gender apartheid and suddenly you go that men are stronger. So it's not surprising that since you are a strong defender of the eastern culture you either assume that it's their right to beat women or that the strength accounts for violence. Both of these ways of reasoning are silly for me. Domestic violence as in women beating men occurs as well, and that in spite of physical strength. If you wanted to change the subject of conversation as you were losing the ground, you could have either stopped replying or write that you're no longer interested. Or, you could have posted something logical at least.

If I misunderstood the point of your observance, please, state clearly what physical strength had to do with either domestic violence or gender apartheid. If it's just listing stereotypes, I believe it' my round so I'll go:
men like sports and women like taking care of the house. How stupid is my generalisation? How much to the point?

As for Olympic Games - have I suggested that men and women don't differ? I guess, having nothing to say, you just typed for the sake of typing. Works miracles for fingers, doesn't it?