On a serious note, what is responsible for this mass failure among women?? I odn't know what the fuck happened.
This is a forum of realists who would not deny (socio)biology being responsible for inferiority, if that was the case.
is it the fact that most television they are encouraged to consume has to do with drama and lies while most male television (while YES watching sports is stupid) atleast incorporates strategy?
If it's not the vacuum theory, offer something else.
(Sorry is this sounds 101-ish, and I won't profess to be an expert, but I'd like this to be more than a No Gurlz Klub)
One of the things we can learn from nihilism is that valuation requires context. If your context for evaluation is defined by standards for men, then yes, women are terrible failures at being men compared to men. I think evolution has ensured that women are biologically successful in the context in which they evolved. You wouldn't think lowly of women if they were filling roles they are naturally more apt to, because they wouldn't be failures in those contexts.
Getting to what the fuck happened (historical biology): Females and males had very different requirements for survival and reproduction, thus they developed different concerns and skills. As you observed, men are concerned about and more capable of strategizing physical conflict and the technologies involved and women are more concerned about navigating social conflict and relationships. Even a cursory exploration of the implications of evolution will relieve any surprise of the sexes' inclinations.
Getting to what the fuck happened (modern sociology): The problem might not even be that we abandoned a particular paradigm (patriarchy) but that we moved from a paradigm with proven effectiveness to no paradigm at all. With no established roles, or poorly fitting roles, we get constant disappointment and frustration, which is expressed in threads like these from both men and women. This occurred to me recently: it isn't the individuals involved in a relationship that are inane (because evaluation requires context) it's the concept of a relationship itself that has become inane.
Further: I've seen it hypothesized that the males in most sexual species are almost like a laboratory in which future characteristics of the species are experimented with. Thus, traits like intelligence vary more with males, I think this has been observed, so there will be more men of above-average intelligence than women. If you find that you're a man of above-average intelligence, then women of your capacity will become fewer the more intelligent you are. Sorry. Women aren't vacuous because they're below-average. They seem that way because they're simply average and you're not.