[brandall10]

How is that valuable in a modern society that outlaws violence of that nature?

Or it is simply that you can physically intimidate people to get an upper hand in situations where such an upper-hand shouldn't be given... just because. How noble. What a useful and admirable trait to encourage.

[lotsofpulp]

I do not make the rules, but I do have to play by them. Even in the most “modern” societies, ask women how often they have felt their relative physical weakness used against them.

[rajin444]

Because laws don’t do you much good when there is nobody around to enforce them. Relying on others to ensure your own life is fine, but being able to defend oneself has obvious advantages.

[brandall10]

Even if no one is around, if you are assaulted, you can file a report and the assailant can go to jail - because by definition, they are now a criminal.

There is that deterrent in place, that social constract. Sure it can be violated, but your argument is along a similar line of folks who advocate for open carry.

[rajin444]

> Even if no one is around, if you are assaulted, you can file a report

And if you are killed? There is a strong appeal to reducing the likelihood you will die.

[brandall10]

What is the statistical chance of that happening?

[lotsofpulp]

Ask the women you know if they would prefer to be as strong as men or not, and why.