General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould you agree that women are, anatomically speaking, weaker than men?
I'm talking science here, and biology. And if you don't agree they are weaker, please explain why they have been targets so much in history by men.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cali
(114,904 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I have had hides for such grave offense as calling an argument "lame".
Hardly a secret that there are people here who are trying to get me kicked off. If anyone has any doubts they should look at all my recent hides.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I got into a habit of check "regulars" profiles once in a while to see who has got caught up in the net so far.
I wonder if there will be a X-mas thread about it?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)I'm just standing back and watching.
11 Bravo
(24,271 posts)we don't always agree (fuck, for all I know you have me on ignore and will never even see this)!
I frequently find you to be unnecessarily confrontational. But every single time I finish reading a post from you that really pisses me off, when I ask myself, "Yeah, but did she make me think?" the answer is usually yes. So I truly hope you stick around.
uppityperson
(115,992 posts)meant seriously. Best to you.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)....someone got pissed off about THAT ??
We used to be able to argue some (with DUer's) all morning...make up in the afternoon and everything was fine.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)But one day I was flipping channels on the TV and came across a show with women body builders. My wife asked me why I don't workout and get into better shape. I said there was no difference between me and those women except some male hormones, and I could take shots and get caught up.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)history by men."
I can see where this is going. Need popcorn.
But from a biology stand point I think it's apples and oranges. I have read women have a higher pain tolerance/endurance (go figure, considering childbirth) among other things.
In Kendo combat, I've seen plenty of women that are lightning fast, making up for the less upper body strength. Also Kendo duels between women seem to last much longer than with males. That is, when the combat is below 5-6th Dan (think belts in Karate). Above 5-6th, the duel then takes forever for both sexes. As the duel becomes a prolonged jockeying for contol of the centerline between the two opponents. Women seem to do that at lower Dans than men.
When dueling a female Kendoka, I would generally try and close fast and break though her defense, since I have the advantage for upper body. She would try for staying out of close combat on my terms and go for openings I would leave in my attacks. Unless she is faster, then all bets are off. 
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)to my 1st post
LostOne4Ever
(9,732 posts)men have a higher pain threshold on average than women
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=97662&page=1
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51160
In spite of this this, the OP is a poor question because there are is a lot of variation and overlap. This applies to everything. There will always be one woman out there stronger than a majority of men. One man more flexible than most women. And as you pointed out, skill, speed and many other factors can more than compensate for a statistical difference.
The point should be that we judge people on a one on one basis instead of relying on over generalizations.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)article anyway.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
annabanana
(52,802 posts)not in conflict situations (barring massive adrenaline rushes)
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)My husband--who in a past life was a world-class athlete and general man of steel--is a total wimp compared to me where pain is involved (we both have a lot of old injuries with current manifestations so I do have a basis for comparison).
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Science and biology say people are all different, even unique.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)You seem to be referring to statistical averages, which mean diddly-squat about anybody in particular, and should never be used to judge individuals. Men and women vary statistically in lots of areas, but usually overlap substantially too, and one is not kicked out of the male gender for being weak, or the female gender for being strong. That is not science, that is bullshit.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I suggest to look at scientific literature, you will find it is true. Men have more muscle mass than women. It is a basic scientific fact.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And that some women are stronger than some men. Because those are the scientific facts.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and women.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Yes, they have more muscle, but muscle mass in and of itself is only one indicator of physical strength, isn't it? Scientifically, that is.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I'm a 6' 2" older white male, I worked in a sawmill in my youth and I like to backpack now, and I know it's horseshit.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that's why women have curvy legs and why dancers and skaters get big thighs....and calfs...men work HARD in the gym to build calves....women not so much (rarely to never do women body builders get calf implants but men do)...women have natural calf muscles. This is why in self defense women are told not to be afraid to fight if they are on the ground....because then they can use their probable advantage in lower body strength!
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)because then men wouldn't be able to say they are stronger 
. Its a most handy male practice to keep control over what words mean!
Matariki
(18,775 posts)"basic science" 
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Many of us don't possess the upper body strength that some men do...etc.
The reason we are the targets of men throughout history comes from books like the Bible, the Koran, etc. The men had an agenda and they were determined to keep it.
But give them one labor pain and they cry for mommy like they're 2 year olds.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it is more with the interpretation.
I did, I did, try to raise among very orthodox jews during the shive the idea that women in the Bible are portrayed as Military Leaders and Judges of Israel. None of these men, learned in the Bible and all, wanted to go there.
Yet they do exist. They just get regularly ignored, except for Esther in the story of Purim, and she is a strong woman who fools a king, hardly a weakling. I guess they could not ignore her, For the record, look up the story of Deborah. I promise you will like her. If you really want to be annoying to those folks who like to quote from the holy book, bring her up.
Yup, the first ever woman commando. And for some reason, men just hate it.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)
"Hey, Sisera! Come on into my tent, big boy, and have a glass of milk. Then how about a nice nap? No one will find you here."
Sognefjord
(229 posts)Though she was kind of playing for the other team. There's an opera or two about her.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)I point to that if I'm discussing women's roles in the church, but it was Paul who said women are to shut up, sit down and know their role.
Despite the Biblical evidence of strong women, they're second class citizens each and every time.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)The Greeks weren't afraid to give strong women their due.
The romans were a whole different story, then it really goes downhill in the christian era.
Munificence
(493 posts)said that if it was up to us men to do the child birthing that the human race would have been extinct a long time ago.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts) jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)So to say this but child bearing especially in modern times is so overrated, I have seen 16yr old giving birth and believe me, if a 16yr old girl can do it, most men can do it too. Also we are talking about the gender that have willingly given their lives numerous times(titanic aka the widow maker anyone?) for the protection of women and children and you think child birth is what will break em?
historylovr
(1,557 posts)If not, come back and talk to me after 24 hours of being in labor, big boy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The strength of women is their ability to inspire men to protect them. This is not due to some absurd or sinful lust. It is much deeper. It is the desire to protect the woman who bears the man's children and who is the primary caretaker of those children. It is because of her biological function of insuring the continuation of the human race that women are granted, if you will, by God, in general longer lifespans and a protected position in society. Traditionally, women are protected by the men.
Note that in the Old Testament of the Bible, when Ruth's husband died, she was accepted as the wife of one of her husband's relatives. Men never enjoyed that kind of protection if left alone in the world.
I think that biologically the female in general is more valuable and therefore stronger than the male.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)is caused by the Bible and the Koran?
You cannot possibly believe that tripe.
ismnotwasm
(42,663 posts)In general men are physically stronger, although pound for pound it seems that I remember women have the edge in lower body strength. Men have denser muscle.
However, there are always exceptions.
mainer
(12,488 posts)Take away wartime conflicts that kill men, and childbirth issues that kill women, women are still constitutionally stronger and live longer.
That fragile little Y chromosome means men are left unprotected from so many genetic illnesses.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The muscle density is different, you can't argue that. But "weaker" may not be the right word do describe this difference.
Wounded Bear
(63,748 posts)than men. But I don't have a 'scientific' basis for that. It just seems to fit my experiences.
But I also know that sweeping generalities tend to get people in logical trouble.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I do know that for any given weight class, records in weightlifting are (without exception and by a considerable margin) higher for men than for women. Competitive weightlifting isn't only about strength, and the pool of male competitors is quite a bit larger, but the very large differences between the records would seem to indicate that men have a pound-for-pound advantage in pure strength.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I suspect, for example, that women are much better at handling privation while keeping their kids alive than males ever thought of being.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Let's take power lifting. Would a woman be able to beat the mans record in lifting weight over her head?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Neither would I.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,085 posts)No.
Any doubt?
No.
Men are stronger.
Men are faster.
Women are unable to compete with men toe to toe in any sport which requires physical strength.
Period.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)Because that is not true.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,085 posts)I work out with a woman who can best me in many areas. When I was a swimmer in school, there were women who were faster than I.
The question was posed, "Would a woman be able to beat the mans record in lifting weight over her head?"
The answer to that is no.
No.
Period. It is what it is. Men are stronger, and faster.
Just a quick search, because I remember when this happened with the Williams sisters.
http://www.topendsports.com/sport/tennis/men-v-women.htm
During the 1998 Australian Open, sisters Serena and Venus Williams boasted that they could beat any man ranked outside the world's top 200. The challenge was accepted by Karsten Braasch, a German player ranked No 203 (his highest ranking was No 38). Before the matches, Braasch played a round of golf in the morning, drank a couple of beers, smoked a few cigarettes, and then played the Williams sisters for a set each, one after the other. He defeated Serena, 6-1, and Venus, 6-2. Serena said afterwards "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."
Notice they were saying they could beat any of the men who were not in the top 200 ranked. Not compete against the top men.
There are some incredible women athletes, who have acheived great things for thier respective sports ... they can not compete with men.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It does not take into account endurance or reaction to pain, fine muscle strength and coordination, or most important biological function.
A society could survive if only 1/10 of the population was male and 9/1-ths were female, but not the other way round. In terms of survival of the species, women are much stronger than men. And why do men need all the physical strength represented in their muscle mass? Biologically, probably to protect women and children.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)then get back to me with your answer.
That's what I thought , too.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Pitagoras
(30 posts)Or are you just throwing a hypothesis out there? nt
Pitagoras
(30 posts)But men don't have a body part capable of carrying a baby (uterus) so we do not know whether men would pull it off.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)
I think maybe you need to think about the nature of the question I posed, and why I posed it. And then perhaps we should start a new thread that asks the question: Would you agree that men are, intellectually speaking, less intelligent than women?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)FatBuddy
(376 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)and then get back to me.
These same folks crowing about their "upper body strength" would turn into quivering masses of jello. I'll take mental and intellectual strength any day. Somebody knew what they were doing when they gave women the babies.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)But I'm still getting my just in case a shitstorm breaks out
Also, I think physical strength differences are only part of the reason they have been "targets". Aggression has a lot to do with it, and the fear that comes from it.
Demoiselle
(6,787 posts)There are all kinds of strength. Men have an advantage in upper body strength (very generally speaking, of course.) But I would think a woman's lower center of gravity would give her an advantage in balance. Agility is another strength, and I've always found female gymnasts much more fun to watch than the guys. Why are we talking about this?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Would a woman be able to match or beat a the mans world record in power-lifting over her head?
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)You're comparing a specific man (the record holder) with a generic woman in your scenario, which makes no sense.
I'm sure there are a fair number of women who could match or beat some men in power-lifting, and many that couldn't.
But none of that has any bearing on your other issue of why women "have been targets so much in history by men."
quinnox
(20,600 posts)For example, the mens deadlift world record is 1015 pounds by Benedikt Magnusson
The womens deadlift world record is 683 pounds by Becca Swanson
That is a difference of 332 pounds.
The reason I connected it to women so often being victims in history by men is because they obviously can be physically overpowered by men (speaking generally). I do agree with some others that is not the only reason they were often victims, and there could be psychological differences involved too, but it is a major basic reason in my opinion that they often were looked on as targets by men who were, well, brutes.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Since the number of Olympic medals they've won has greatly increased over that time. I'll say it's a scientific fact that Chinese biology has greatly improved, and that Greeks are biologically stronger than French people.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Do you think she would do well in the ring with a mediocre male boxer the same weight as her?
Oh my.
(She would die.)
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Or even me (6'3", 255)?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)It is utterly irrelevant to the question.
If she would not say that women are stronger than men then she's a fool... but I don't have any reason to think she would say something that silly. It's not her fault she was dragged into this silly thread.
"Elephants are larger than dogs" is a valid statement in English, despite the fact that there has surely been an individual dog somewhere that grew larger than a smallish new-born elephant.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)And you've signed on to a blanket statement that "men are stonger than women", which perhaps Freudianly, you have inverted in your most recent post.
Rex
(65,616 posts)All it takes is one good punch to his jaw, which he is leaving wide open...being mediocre and all.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I agree, wrong choice of words.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Seriously... take the 20% level, where 80% of male professional boxers are better than the guy. That's pretty bad, right?
She would be beaten horribly versus that kind of "bum"
Even a *good* female fighter like Lucia Rijker (a much better example, if one wants an example) would be in the same fix.
If not, let's have mixed gender boxing. Folks would tune in, for sure.
Why don't we have that? Is is mere sexism?
Rex
(65,616 posts)says she is of exceptional quality and I would bet good MONEY on a female exceptional boxer any day, up against a moderate male boxer of the same weight class.
Remember, you don't have to hit someone with Thor like strength to knock them out - all you need is the proper amount of strength, which Ms. Ali has. Man or women.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)In 1973, he wasn't even ranked. That wasn't enough to stop the Mother's Day Massacre.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)Close to your point.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Women can hit much, much harder than men of the same mass. It's a simple question of torque.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,085 posts)Really.
Don't.
Women can not hit much harder than men of the same weight.
Crazy.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Also, I'm very confused as to how rotational force (torque) somehow proves that women of the same mass can be much stronger or hit much harder than men. That's an incredibly silly assertion.
Women of the same mass as men TEND to have more fat and less muscle.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Replicable data tables? No. But I know I've seen female students kick male students' asses handily in sparring. Weight is the big issue.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Pound for pound, men TEND to be a fair deal stronger than women. Again, men tend to have less fat and more muscle than women. Are there exceptions? Of course. Would inter-gender boxing EVER work? After the first few hundred fatalities, I'm pretty sure it would come to a quick end.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, super heavyweight boxing, maybe, but I'm talking about people who use actual technique.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Do you see professional inter-gender boxing at all? Do you see professional inter-gender martial arts of any kind? No. You will often see professional women taking on rather amateurish men. Because once you get professional male boxers over a hundred pounds or so, they'd kill a professional female boxer of the same weight rather easily. Pound for pound, males are significantly stronger than females. There is NO martial art in which the TYPICAL male would not excel compared to a female of similar weight.
My (female) sensei and I will enjoy my retelling of this joke to her later this week. Cheers!
(She has, incidentally, won several of those intergender tournaments you don't think exist.)
EOTE
(13,409 posts)then your sensei is ridiculously uninformed. Just about everyone in this thread acknowledge this truth and you refuse to see it. Show me ONE sport involving physical combat in which a woman of the same weight can take on a man. Just ONE. Show me one video of a professional female going up against a professional male of a similar weight and winning. Surely your sensei can show you such a thing, right? You're hilarious.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Any boxer (or boxing coach) on the planet will tell you that men of any given weight class hit much harder than women of the same weight. She might beat a mediocre male boxer of her class on skill, but if they stand toe-to-toe and simply exchange shots, she'd get absolutely destroyed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Punching power has almost nothing to do with upper body strength and everything to do with body weight and torso rotation. Where did you learn to punch that you think big shoulders help? Ever notice how *real* male boxers (not SHW freak shows with no technique) are built?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Protip: I didn't.
I'm well aware of the body mechanics needed to deliver effective punches. I'm well aware that upper body strength is only one component thereof (although I'd argue that to say it contributes "almost nothing" to punching power is an absurd statement). Boxers don't, in general, avoid bulking up to extreme levels not because it wouldn't contribute somewhat to punching power but because the loss of speed wouldn't be worth it.
The inarguable biological fact is that men are (on average) stronger everywhere than women, not just in the upper body. There is less of a disparity in the lower body, but it still exists. This is the case not just overall, but on a pound-for-pound basis, as well. This disparity in strength far more than offsets the small increase in rotational momentum that women's different build provides.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Men indisputably have more upper body strength on average than women. That means very little in a fight.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I explicitly stated that men have a strength advantage everywhere, not just in the upper body. This strength disparity constitutes a significant advantage in any physical confrontation (or sporting 'fight,' for that matter). Countless experiments in the ring have demonstrated this.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)There are so many videos of chicks beating up dudes on youtube!
That's the reply you can expect to get next.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Average male athletes are stronger than average female athletes. Sedentary guys are stronger than sedentary women.
She'd kick my ass 12 ways to Sunday, but that's not the issue.
"Why they have been targets so much in history by men" I think generalizations about strength are a reason for the opposite. Women are sheltered/protected/treated like quasi-children by patriarchy precisely for that reason; they're weaker yet comparatively precious.
mainer
(12,488 posts)"With respect to that most essential proof of robustness—the power to stay alive—women are tougher than men from birth through to extreme old age. The average man may run a 100-meter race faster than the average woman and lift heavier weights. But nowadays women outlive men by about five to six years. By age 85 there are roughly six women to every four men. At age 100 the ratio is more than two to one. And by age 122—the current world record for human longevity—the score stands at one-nil in favor of women."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-women-live-longer
LostOne4Ever
(9,732 posts)
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Men might have the brawn, but women have the brains.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)It is why there are men's sports and women's sports.
Testosterone and androgen create greater muscle mass. The strongest men will always have more physical strength than the strongest women.
But there are physiological ways that women are superior too.
Just not when it comes to muscular strength.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Let's not deny basic science. You are 100% correct! 
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)That women are just as strong physically etc.
That's why.
And if you're not PC, then you lose your liberal street cred.
Sometimes reality is just reality. I'd have no problem if it weren't true, BTW. It doesn't matter to me.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)and then all cheer because men are strongest and best.
I know that's not really especially a problem here, but you should realize that that's what has been done.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Women live longer than men. That is proof of greater physical health and strength. And women have a more important biological function -- giving birth and being the primary caregivers to children. (Men cannot nurse a baby, for example.)
It is absurd and, in terms of the survival of humankind, irrelevant, to measure strength in terms of upper body strength or the ability to run fast. In fact, some of the male characteristics that are claimed here to be signs of superior strength are simply given to men in order to enable them to mate with females. Upper body strength for example is useful in mating. And, to laugh a little about this topic, maybe the ability to run faster serves the same mating purpose. But always, the goal is to mate and then to protect the female who can nurse the babies and otherwise keep the species new generation alive.
So in terms of the biological goals of life like continuing the species on earth, women are far stronger. And after from the view of pure biology, the purpose is to keep the species going, survival of the species. Men provide the sperm and then are of little use other than to protect the new generation of the species. So women are, if measured in terms of biology, in my understanding, much stronger and more important than men and superior to men.
mercuryblues
(16,144 posts)because it said men are stronger than women. Without the qualifier if SOME men. Therefor the it can only be interpreted as ALL men are stronger than ALL women.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I don't think any man could compete with uterine contractions.
PS there is something anatomically more advantageous for women since they statistically live longer than men. I'm not sure I'd trade that in for a 3 min bursts of brute muscular strength.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Would a woman be able to match or exceed the mans world record for power lifting weight over her head?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...but between that and religion, I think you have your answer to several millenia's worth of trying to supress women in general.
There is something inferior, weak, and narcissistic about the need to suppress one group of people to gain a social foothold.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)significantly higher than the womens record. Bench press, Squat, Dead-lift, you name it, the men outperform the women in these physical strength categories.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I think that is undeniable as far as the general population goes.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)
Maybe 1% could (and that's probably optimistic)...so, if one woman can probably lift more than 99% of the male population, what does that mean?
It means that there is a fundamental error in how people look at the question. Highly trained athletes are outliers, and you can't base the results of what is essentially a statistics question on outliers. The less you look at outliers, the more you look at the bulk of a non-athletic population, where strength is almost entirely developed and retained depending on need. Which says more about the actual roles people play in life than about potential.
You could make the same argument about math, where generations have felt its "undeniable" that women aren't as good at math than men. Except, when you look at studies of women who didn't buy into the idea that they couldn't be good at math (and who then excelled, as much as their male peers), then it begins to look like women were discouraged from learning math for generations, they weren't taught, expectations were low, and therefore they didn't seem to be good at it
Rex
(65,616 posts)So yeah, my original claim remains.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)yet the counter-examples are practically endless.
For the most part, its a matter of choice. But most people of both sexes don't care enough to compete, and the original claim means nothing.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Some women are stronger than some men. Some women are stronger than most men. Some men are stronger than all women. Some men are weaker than most women.
Strength is a curve, and both genders have their own curves, which overlap substantially.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)I'm not sure how useful it is bringing up biological limits that that are almost never reached.
Orrex
(66,584 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)and we can say "its undeniable!" because - statistics.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Do you mean striated or smooth muscle? Are you comparing an aesthete with a Bal Maiden?
On a gross scale a woman and a man of the same stature can be equally physically strong but the woman may well have greater endurance and a 6' woman could well be considerably stronger than a 5'6" male.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Would a woman be able to match or exceed the mans world record for power-lifting?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Power lifting, of course, is a particularly odd measure as power lifter have neither speed nor endurance nor any particular physical skill except a short vertical lift.
Essentially you are creating your own limited area of comparison for no particular reason that I would like to contemplate.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)physically strong as a man. My husband took a weight training class in college and actually knew Siren from the old Gladiators show. There is no doubt that woman could have whooped anybody's butt she pleased.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can't imagine the relevance of a disparity of foot-pounds per square inch possessed by any one individual in the post-industrial age.
But I'm sure it will be rationalized... regardless of sincerity.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)You can't make a claim for any scientific or biological basis without defining your terms.
Men are better physically equipped for some things on average and women others.
This sounds like a first shoe dropping to me.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Not sure why you are having difficulty. Let me ask it this way, why do you think that in power-lifting, all the mens world records are significantly higher than the womens world records? Do you think that is just a fluke?
cali
(114,904 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I really am puzzled by any resistance to basic biologic differences here. I asked because I was curious what kind of response I would get, and if there would be universal agreement about these scientific differences.
nolabear
(43,847 posts)Why are there so many more endurance swimming champions that are women than men? Why are the rates of autism so much higher in males? Why are the majority of sex linked disabilities and diseases carried by females but manifest in males?
You don't define your terms. If power lifting is your only criteria for "strength" you should say so.
"If power lifting is your only criteria for "strength" you should say so." - Right on, nolabear.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)even the brain works differently according recent articles the brain is even different
nolabear
(43,847 posts)I guess you could say "stronger" but it's a misleading word.
cali
(114,904 posts)and had someone posted that, I'd be asking the same question: so what?
randome
(34,845 posts)Men chatter endlessly about inane subjects such as weather, sports and machines.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hips have advantages. But men tend to weigh more, which brings its own advantages. But training, etc. being equal and with matched weight, I'd give the woman the odds in a fight. But the matched weight is uncommon.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,085 posts)Just.
Not.
True.
Floyd M is 145 pounds. There are plenty of 150 women in boxing, no one even thinks for one second that putting a 150 woman in the ring with Floyd would have any other ending than a very seriously hurt woman.
The UFC would never even think of putting weight vs weight of different sexes in the octagon, it would be a disaster ... and they'll try anything to promote a fight.
Crazy that you would even think that a woman, pound for pound, could stand in a fight with a professional male fighter.
Crazy.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You do realize a professional female fighter could take a professional male fighter on and win or are you that far into denial?
Lurker Deluxe
(1,085 posts)Sure, somewhere there is an old man who is the same weight class as a current female belt holder and on a fluke that woman could win that fight.
She just stated that pound for pound women hit harder than men. That given the same training and weight matched she would give the edge to a female in a fight.
No.
No one would even be foolish enough to put a man and woman in an actual fight together. Never has happened, never will. I did not pit them against each other ... I responded to someone who did.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and what kind of shape the fighters are in when they show up for the fight - your claim is that gender trumps all, forever and ever?
No wonder you believe what you do. I was right.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Are women "weaker"? I said I would give a weight-matched woman the odds in a fight against a man of the same training level, which is an almost unrelated question.
It's really simple.
She said, "But training, etc. being equal and with matched weight, I'd give the woman the odds in a fight".
I called it.
It's not true.
She said training ect being equal ... that would be the shape they are in, the experience they have, the weight class. Toe to toe. Woman loses, every time. So much so that no one would even entertain having such a fight.
Are there some women who can beat some men who happen to be the same size? Yes. Can women compete with current male boxers who are currently ranked and/or hold title belts.
Absolutely not.
No.
Can not happen. There are no women in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, mens tennis/golf/swimming/soccer ... why? Because they can not compete with professional male athletes. There is no debate, it is simple fact.
Does this make them unequal? No. They are quite simply not built the same way. No better, no worse ... just different, and it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, you're not thinking of what a male female weight match would look like (she would tower over him, for starters)
You're also delusional, it seems. Mixed gender sparring happens every day in martial arts practices.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And no, a female of equivalent weight would typically NOT tower over a man. Women tend to have a lower muscle to fat ratio than men and also, people grow in three dimensions. A woman of similar fitness and height to a man might have a slight height advantage, but she'd also have a HUGE power disadvantage. The match wouldn't even be close. It's hilarious that you're the only person in this thread that doesn't recognize that.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)That Andy Kaufmann was truly ahead of his time.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, yeah, mixed sparring in fact happens every day.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)But you take the typical 130lb male and put him in a ring with a 130lb female and the match isn't going to last long at all.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You're half right. You're really not thinking about what a fit 130 lb male vs a fit 130 lb female would look like.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)A fit male at 130lbs would have significantly less body fat than a fit female at 130lbs. That's simple biology. A fit 130lb male has it all over the female in terms of overall body strength.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)That's precisely why there would never be such a fight on television. The male would most likely have close to a 40% advantage in upper body strength. It would be a slaughter. It's hilarious that you so strongly hold on to the opposite perception. You DO know that they bring in amateur males in MMA events to go up against professional females and quite often the males win, right?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, thanks. The women in class are going to love this story. Cheers!
EOTE
(13,409 posts)You know, of a professional woman taking on a professional man of a similar weight. I'm sure you'd be all over that. Go on. Show me how hilariously uninformed I am and prove me wrong. Surely with 7 billion people on this planet, you can show me ONE incidence of a professional female athlete beating a professional male athlete of a similar weigh. Unless you're full of shit, that is.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And a wonderful thing called Google to locate them. Try "male female martial arts" or even "woman beats man martial arts", or, if that's still too difficult, wait an hour or so until I'm not on my android and I'll link some from my laptop. But, seriously, thanks for the entertainment.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I said A PROFESSIONAL MALE AGAINST A PROFESSIONAL FEMALE OF THE SAME WEIGHT CLASS. I've seen tons of videos of chicks beating up guys. As I said, it's only in general that men are stronger than women. Of course you're going to find a very skilled woman taking on a guy who's been in a couple fights his whole life. What you are NEVER going to see is a professional woman fighter taking on a professional male fighter of a similar weight. If that happens, it ends with the female either being dead or having severe brain damage.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)An advantage in skill can overcome a disadvantage in strength. Moreover, no fight is completely predictable. But if skill and training levels are essentially even, the smart money will be on the male fighter.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The lower center of gravity has a huge impact in Aikido and Judo. Now, an "MMA" style situation? Depends: are they in a cage or not? (And, yes, that actually matters a lot: the ability to physically corner would give the man an advantage.)
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And now you're moving the goalposts once again and saying that what you said is limited to Aikido and Judo. You're wrong in that regard too, but you can keep moving the goalposts.
"Women can hit much, much harder than men of the same mass. It's a simple question of torque."
Also, it appears that you don't know what torque is.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because of... wait for it... torque, which body shape and weight distribution have a lot to do with.
I think your mistake is thinking that muscle mass has a lot to say about how hard someone can hit. But, 9 times out of 10, with equal training, my experience is a woman hits harder than a man of the same weight. For that matter, except in a very few limited situations, how hard you can actually hit doesn't really mean that much. You keep attacking points I'm not making (and ignoring the fact that I didn't even begin to answer the OPs question, which is why this OP was such a successful troll).
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And torque can be used in grapples and such, but punches are not due to torque, they're due to the expansion and contraction of muscle mass. Torque is ROTATIONAL FORCE, you really don't seem to get that.
And you know that I've asked you this multiple times before, but I'm hoping you might actually respond this time. Has a professional female fighter EVER taken down a professional male fighter of similar weight? According to you, such things should not only exist, but they should be COMMON. They should be more common than the reverse, yet you're uncapable of providing even a SINGLE INSTANCE. Your experience counts for nothing, you're just some internet rando spouting out your mouth. In terms of ACTUAL EVIDENCE, there's plenty of it. Pound for pound, men are much stronger than women and much better fighters. If a typical 130lb woman got into a ring with a typical 130lb man, either the fight would be called off very early, or the woman would leave unconscious and most likely dead if the match were to proceed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Name me a punching technique where the force does not come from rotating your hips. Name me a single one. If your arms are tired after a session at the weight bag, you're doing something very very wrong (and possibly injuring yourself).
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And christ, do you think that women's midsections are stronger than men as well? This greatly boils down to physical strength. If you're so sure that women are superior fighters, it should be RATHER easy for you to provide a video or link to ANY professional woman fighter taking on a professional male of similar size. If you weren't talking out of your ass, that should be rather easy to provide, right?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm enjoying how mysteriously important this seems to be to you to do all the work for you...
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Nowhere did I say that good female fighters didn't exist. I said that if you take a professional woman fighter and a professional male fighter of similar weights, the male is going to win. Every. Time. You tellling me to "Google Anna Kournikova!" is not going to change that. Christ, the stupidity burns.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Dojo ballerina nonsense aside, in actual full-contact situations women will only prevail against men of equivalent mass if they are significantly more skilled. This tends to prove out even in boxing, in which a relatively constrained rule set rewards speed over strength. In any scenario that allows grappling, the gap widens (to say nothing of actual fights on the street).
Does this mean women can't win physical fights against men? Of course not. They can and do. It's just that all else being equal, men's greater strength will usually prevail. That's why I carry a force multiplier...
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Have you ever tried to steal back the blankets in the middle of the night from one?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Obviously not. The strongest male stronger the the strongest female? Probably.
Response to quinnox (Original post)
CJCRANE This message was self-deleted by its author.
moondust
(21,177 posts)http://www.stripes.com/news/3-women-graduate-marine-infantry-course-will-be-assigned-to-non-infantry-jobs-1.254003
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Women have more useful, better things to do and know it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You know it had the highest average ASVAB score of all the branches?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Same reason a woman might want to join. I don't consider that a worthwhile goal.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)she joined because serving her country has been a long tradition in our family. Four of her sisters went into other branches, and three brothers as well. Intelligence actually had a lot to do with it, as she was a linguistics specialist.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)She did tell me that one thing they had to do back then in sea training was to jump off the aircraft carrier into the ocean, and then swim to a retrieval vessel. This was back in the late 50's, and they did give her a break on that one, but that was the only break.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)not because they are weaker but because of conditioning by society. I think, generally speaking, women are less blood thirsty than men.
Response to quinnox (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Physical capability is not a measure of anything meaningful, least of all societal worth.
It's simply one more divisive argument that gets nowhere.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Best post yet.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
Tikki
(15,012 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 12:20 PM - Edit history (1)
takes the egalitarian out of most peoples...
Tikki
pnwmom
(110,172 posts)in which men excel, or long term endurance, in which women do.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)which I think is your point, but the word "weaker" can mean a lot of things, even if you just mean physically. Women in general live longer, and manage childbirth, so there are different ways of being strong and weak.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)
MineralMan
(150,503 posts)Many young women and many old men pretty much reverse that.
Besides, physical strength is so variable between individuals that it's pretty meaningless as a general statement.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Men have more muscle mass than women.
Like, for example, women have the ability to give child birth, men do not. Think of the use of those terms of "men" and "women", that is what I mean.
MineralMan
(150,503 posts)While more muscle mass is often considered a sexual difference, it's not a general difference. The problem is that many women are stronger and have more muscle mass than many men. If I could, I'd introduce you to one of my college roommates. Her name was Sally. She was 6' 3" tall, weighed about 185-190. I'm 6' 1.5" tall. At the time, I weighed about 160. A skinny guy, I was. She wasn't at all overweight and was, in fact, one of the most attractive women I have ever met. In all respects, she was more muscular than I was. She could lift heavier weights than I could, outrun me, and was generally a pretty amazing human specimen.
Sally was a woman. She was an atypical woman, to be sure, but of all the men who lived in that enormous house, she was stronger than 90% of them, overall.
General statements are generally incorrect. People are individuals, so there is no generalized statement that applies when it comes to things like strength. Am I stronger than a lot of women? Yes, in fact, I am. But, I have known many women who were stronger than I am.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I can point to not just power lifting records, but all kinds of physical sports records across the board. Why do you think women and mens sports records are separated?
MineralMan
(150,503 posts)That's your deal. When it comes to exceptional humans, you are correct. An exceptional male can exceed the strength of an exceptional woman. Both are, however, still exceptional. If you ignore the outliers, though, things get a lot more muddled in your comparison. Look at long distance swimmers, for example, to see a different set of exceptional people.
We cannot measure humanity by using exceptional examples. They are exceptions, and exceptions are just that.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Is it your position that this does not exist among homo sapiens?
MineralMan
(150,503 posts)in humans, but less, anatomically, than you'd think.
Why do men have nipples?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Go back to bed.
FSogol
(47,510 posts)loosening dental fillings for blocks around.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)He has NO IDEA his license plate frame is going BZT BZZZT BZT BZZZZZZT BZT BZZZZT as he sits at the stop light pissing everyone at the intersection off.
I've actually seen that.
FSogol
(47,510 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)Oh weekday, why must you keep me from my margaritas? 
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Sublime needs Clever. This has no clever.
Iggo
(49,577 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)
Iggo
(49,577 posts)
Initech
(107,219 posts) 
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)the fact that men are generally stronger than women has significance?
Polar bears are generally stronger than humans too.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I posted a thread before this one, talking about the code of chivalry. In the code, it says a knight has to protect the "weak", and then talks about the elderly, children, and women. Some of the responses to that thread took exception to the term "weak", and thought it meant something else.
I think it was meant in a purely physical sense of the word, and that is what prompted this thread.
You now have the full story, revealed at last!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Then this "I'm just trying to see if we have widespread agreement about basic science here" was both untrue and disingenuous.
And yet you wonder then why many people react as such to an insincere question?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)"the elderly, children, and women"
Do you not see a problem in treating healthy, able-bodied, adult women the same way you treat the elderly and children? Do you really consider us all to have the same level of need of assistance?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Physical conflict depended very heavily (although far from exclusively) on physical strength, and men have a significant advantage in that area. It has been only recently (relatively speaking) that technological "force multipliers" have been available to negate that advantage. I consider myself very much a "healthy, able-bodied, adult woman" (although I'm rather small, I'm a very avid cyclist...I'm in shape), but I'd stand virtually no chance against the vast majority of men in a physical fight without access to such a force multiplier. In that sense, having a greater capacity for such things than a child or an elderly person would be irrelevant, as it still wouldn't be enough to make any difference in the outcome.
Unfortunately, that undeniable physical difference between the genders played a huge part in establishing male dominance of human society for millenia. As we've moved gradually out of the brute force age, that dominance has (not coincidentally) lessened.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
A HERETIC I AM
(24,841 posts)send the woman.
Women know how to survive.
History is replete with stories of survival situations where the women fared much better than the men. If memory serves, the Donner party was one such example.
Not an answer to the question, but it bears noting.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I nominate this DUMBEST post of the year.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
alp227
(33,093 posts)Would you agree that black people are, intellectually speaking, weaker than white people?
I'm talking science here, and biology. And if you don't agree they are weaker, please explain why they have been targets for racism and discrimination so much in history by white people.
Would you agree that gay people are less moral and strong than straight people?
I'm talking science here, and biology. And if you don't agree they are weaker, please explain why they have been targets for hatred so much in history by straight people.
Seriously. If the posts were like the two theoreticals I presented they'd be auto-removed in 2 minutes. But a jury let THIS ACTUAL ONE stand 2-4? 
This is misogynistic flamebait concern trolling bullcrap. Why is this posted on a PROGRESSIVE message board?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)truths.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and we shall know ye by the company you keep.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The generalizations, otherwise, will turn this question into a bloodbath.
I'm reminded of the test of bending over to reach a wall and then picking up a chair, in which case womens' anatomy exhibit more strength.
or:
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)hip as she walks along, toting a big diaper bag, I am amazed at the strength. Weaker than men? I don’t think so when I see that.
lostincalifornia
(4,879 posts)
we can do it
(12,979 posts)What's your point?
hunter
(40,321 posts)Same with my wife.
It's probably how we ended up in the Wild West of North America.
One of my ancestors was a mail order European bride to Salt Lake City. She didn't like sharing a husband so she kidnapped (best of her female wiles) a U.S. government surveyor. My mom's cousin still owns the family homestead.
My wife's grandparents never tolerated any bullshit when they were crossing the Mexican-USA border. They had ancestors who were here 10,000 years before the Pilgrims.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)mercuryblues
(16,144 posts)you didn't use the terms "some women" and "some men".
so you must mean that all men are stronger than all women.
that is simply not true.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)when God was a woman. There is the theory that banishment is to blame; teen boys are probably who got kicked out and they then began their odyssey. Rape has always been used as a defilement (the story of Troy comes to mind) and when God became a man (after many generations...self mutilation by priests to imitate the "blood that comes from no wound" and on and on.
Women "became" the weaker sex in order to survive; but as my father used to tell me when I was bullied by boys...I can do anything you can and I can create life. Or as Ginger Rogers showed, she could do anything Fred could do, but in heels and backwards.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)There's a great deal of literature on sexual dimorphism in modern human populations, which is a complicated subject. Would you like somebody to point you to some rather than starting a flamebait thread on DU?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)For example, in powerlifting, if you look at the mens world records vs the womens, the mens numbers are substantially greater across the board.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Performed once or repeatedly? Do you want to compare people of comparable size? Average people or world class athletes? A specific population?
You said you want science and you're not asking for anything that resembles science. Be specific about your metric.
edit: And if you want to look at athletes you're going to have to deal with PEDs as a factor.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)That is what I mean. That statement is taken from a scientific human evolution journal. Its very hard to argue with, in my humble opinion.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)and resistance to pain, for example.
More importantly, the differences between men and women are minor compared to the differences in human populations (and the degree of dimorphism varies wildly,) so if you're using dimorphism to explain why men subjugate women you need to explain why larger populations don't subjugate nearby smaller ones: the height difference between Chinese men and Indian men is equal to the difference between Chinese men and women, for example. Why aren't we Americans cowering beneath our statuesque Dutch overlords?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)that is supposed to mean we can't get out of it. Women are thus scientifically weaker and consequences follow. It's in fact a variation on the right wing religious person saying "your argument is with God."
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I've always been pretty athletic, but there are plenty of women who could beat me even in the sport of my choosing, on my best day. I think the vast majority of men in the world could say the same.
But if we aren't talking about people, and if its statistics you are after, then perhaps, yes. Statistics are of pretty limited value, however, if you are wishing to arrive at general opinions about people.
MattBaggins
(7,947 posts)Do we even have mods? Are their heads firmly lodged in their rectums?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Men and women are different. Those differences have evolved over millions of years and it is silly to pretend they do not exist.
Male aggression is another trait which has evolved because of natural selection. That is why it is closely related to sexual behavior.
Denying it is not unlike denying evolution.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I have been studying human evolution lately.
MattBaggins
(7,947 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Do you have any actual comments of substance to make that you would like to share? Perhaps some critique of my comments that might explain where you got the notion that I do not understand natural selection and how it affects evolution?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)In many sports, men have the advantage. But don't forget long distance open water swimming and certain gymnastics events where women are arguably better than men. And women actually compete surprisingly well against men in rock climbing. Of course, success in those sports are not a simple function of physical strength.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Or are we just trying to sink the porn threads with a new shiny object? If we're trying to sink the porn threads, I'm happy to pitch in.
I'm with you, porn threads are old hat!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I stand corrected!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)energy, and promotes harmony.
Glad to forward any further enquiries at any time.
quinnox
(20,600 posts) 
Deep13
(39,157 posts)Women on average are smaller than men and, therefore, have less over all muscle power than men do. Further, comparing a man and woman of the same size, the man will have significantly more upper body strength. Ounce for ounce, however, women are just as strong as men. A woman and man of the same size and of similar fitness will have the same leg and core strength. In terms of endurance and ability to tolerate adversity, frankly, I think women tend to be a bit stronger than men.
Also, the idea of historic misogyny is overstated. While it certainly existed, it was different at different times and places. Further, women have always exercised control in areas outside of the supposedly official channels. Also, the persistent misogyny of the last century and a half is entirely modern in origin, especially that of the Muslim world.
Skittles
(169,206 posts)some men just cannot handle that
Deep13
(39,157 posts)Femininity's place in society is pretty much assured by the fact that only women can make more people. Apart from the limited male contribution to that process, men pretty much have to justify our own purpose and usefulness. Writing about gender roles in the Middle Ages, Peter Brown wrote that women were born into their social role. As all things concerning children was their domain, they were at home the moment they were born. Men, on the other hand started in that domain as children, but had to transfer into a domain that constantly had to be recreated through performance.
Skittles
(169,206 posts)I like them and I cannot imagine a world without them.....but as far as abilities go, giving birth to a human being tops any strength-related advantage and they know it
Deep13
(39,157 posts)Yes, men are valuable, although we were more valuable when the world was powered by muscle rather than brain power. Men were necessary to do the work that required upper body strength, like plowing, wood-splitting, building, and hunting. Also, only men could effectively use the hand weapons of war. So men and women have always needed each other. But yeah, that whole creating life thing is a mind-blower.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Just when I thought your "concern" re: racial issues was going to be the comet you hitched on to ride out of here on a a blaze of glory, it appears that you've decided to add sexism "concern" to your repertoire as well...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)aggressive than women, more aggressive towards women, and/or more clever than women.
Also possibly that women happen to be more tame and more willing to cooperate or accept a limited defeat than men are.
Personally I think it's that and the aggression factor in men.
Tigers, lions, cougars (not that kind), jaguars, leopards, bears, wolves, most dogs, crocodiles, alligators, some snakes, elephants, hippos, sharks, dolphins, whales, gorillas, chimps, bonobos, horses, and many other large beasts are MUCH stronger than men. In fact, the difference in strength between those animals and humans is ENORMOUS whereas the difference in strength between the average man and average woman is tiny in comparison. The weakest adult tiger (assuming it is healthy, just small/weak) would kill the strongest man with no difficulty whatsoever. 100 times out of 100. An average woman vs an average woman in a fist fight to the death would usually be long, drawn out, and quite the struggle. Sure every so often there would be a lucky KO, but again most of the time it would be quite a struggle. The woman would probably even win 20 times out of 100 or so.
But humans have not been the targets of beasts very often. Intelligence is one reason, but there are many others, such as forming social groups.
In any case, physical strength even among humans means very little. A determined novice, who happens to be an average strength young woman armed with a knife or gun could kill or at least defeat any man regardless of how strong he is (and especially if he is not trained to deal with armed attackers) 99 times out of 100. And knives have been around longer than martial arts have...
tblue37
(68,087 posts)"An average woman vs an average woman in a fist fight to the death"
LostOne4Ever
(9,732 posts)Biologically, nothing is clear cut as you want to make it sound.
On average, yes men have more muscle mass and can build strength quicker and easier than women. But, this is a statical average, it ignores training and that there are many people who are not represented by this average.
There will be women stronger than most men, there will be men weaker than most women. As pointed out above there is a curve and outliers for both sexes and when it comes to the most important statistics like who lives the longest and who makes up the largest portion of the population women have men beat pretty soundly.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)In the US, women tend to live longer than men. That suggests that they are perhaps healthier and in that sense stronger. Men, on the other hand, tend to be taller and weigh more than women, so in that sense men are stronger. On what biological or scientific evidence could one base an assertion that men are stronger? Doesn't it depend on the evidence you choose to value as indicative of strength?
Women have babies and historically have taken the greatest part of the responsibility for nurturing babies and children. Does that make them stronger or weaker? I tend to think that makes their position in society stronger. in that most societies (even animal societies) protect women more than men primarily in order to insure the continuation of the species or genetic line.
So i question the concept that women are weaker and men stronger. It just depends on how you measure strength and weakness. I would say that women in many ways are stronger.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Yeah I can lift more than the average woman and I'd probably easily destroy them in a melee combat with morning stars but women have babies and deal with way more shit than I could ever put up with. I can move heavier objects but my wife is way stronger than me in nearly every other aspect.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,112 posts)If I had the same height, weight and basic body mass of my husband I have little doubt I would be just as strong as he is... not necessarily stronger, but equal. I can already match him on most tasks. And on things that I can't do via brute strength I can do using levers, wheels or other tools.
I think the idea that women are "weaker" is based in cultural conditioning, which comes from many sources, not the least of which is religion.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)My 34 yo son shows up every weekend at some point to do whatever I can't do by myself.
In my 50s, I can do a lot by myself. For example, I haul about 800 lbs of hay home every weekend and unload it myself. I haul all the wood in to keep the place from freezing during the winter myself; that's my only heat source.
I can't, though, re-hang barn doors. They're too heavy. I can't move the fence panels by myself; they're too heavy. He can. And does.
Mentally and emotionally? No. I think women are probably emotionally stronger. I think the rest is equal, given individual differences.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are little men and big women. A female body builder is stronger than a lot of men. People should be judged as individuals, not in groups.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)She is Chinese, 5'2" in her socks.. 100 lbs. She has the tiniest fingers and toes I have seen on any human being over 4 years old. I am New Jersey Hungarian.. hugga, hugga, 5'11" 200.
She likes to sneak up on me and wrestle.. sort of like-- what's his name? James Bond's house boy.. Odd Job?
Anyway, she beats the crap out of me. And she is so fast it's like being attacked by a mad tornado.. she's nuts.. "Who's making dinner?" "You are." Who?" "YOU ARE." Whap. Whap. "WHO?" "Me, Me. I am. I am, What do you want?"
(Years ago I practiced Aikido-- about 10 years worth, but have one shot knee now.. so that's over.
She practices tae kwan do and Tai Chi.)
Not that any of that enters into it. She just whips me.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)But we have the ability to think up ways to do heavy lifting, bending, pushing and pulling that we usually get the job donel
I use my little red wagon to pull around all my garden supplies and a nice light black iron stool to sit on and plant, pull weeds, etc., that I can carry around on one finger.
And a grasping kitchen tool to get things up high, or down low like on the ground or in the washer or dryer....
Muscles aren't everything. Patience counts for a helluva lot.
And we're not to ask "Would you please give me a hand?" and do so on occasion..
Just yesterday I bought a 2.00 tool at Harbor Freight that's the size and shape of a cane. You squeeze the handle and the grippers at the bottom grab dropped items you can easily lift.
Why are they targets? Maybe men are jealous because they "didn't think of that."
Fla Dem
(27,399 posts)question. Women are the target of some men because those men never evolved from their animalistic instincts of attacking the weak, male dominance, pack leader etc. Some men in my humble opinion are weaker than women mentally. They do not consider the consequences of their actions. It's instant gratification, damn the consequences.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Myrina
(12,296 posts)We can do -easily & repeatedly - things that a man's body isn't designed for, and vice versa.
I guess you could say over generations/millenia we each became "specialized", and aside from childbirth, I see some of that specialization going away.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)it --
Men vs. Women: Our key sex differences explained
Muscular vs. curvy
Men are, in general, more muscular than women. Women are just over half as strong as men in their upper bodies, and about two-thirds as strong in their lower bodies.
While the male metabolism burns calories faster, the female metabolism tends to convert more food to fat. Women store the extra fat in their breasts, hips, buttocks, and as subcutaneous fat in the bottom layer of their skin giving a woman's skin its softer, plumper feel.
Male and female bodies are well-designed for each gender's role in a primitive society. Women are built for carrying and birthing children, and must have wider hips and keep extra fat in store for the ordeal of pregnancy. Men, free from the requirements of childbirth, benefit from being as strong and lithe as possible, both in their search for food, and when in competition with other men.
http://www.livescience.com/33513-men-vs-women-our-physical-differences-explained.html
Maybe my next OP will be how the Earth revolves around the Sun. I kid, I kid.
mathematic
(1,601 posts)Here's one to start you off that supports a few of the things I'll be saying:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
Men are stronger overall, stronger upper body, stronger lower body, stronger pound-for-pound, have greater muscular endurance, and greater cardiovascular fitness than women.
Since all-of-a-sudden everybody is getting pedantic with their quantifiers (which never happens when people agree with a point), I'll state that when I say "men" and "women" I mean "men at the X percentile ranking among all men" and "women at the X percentile ranking among all women", both for the same value of X. Or, as somebody said above, compare average man to average woman, elite man to elite woman, etc.
I'm an above average endurance athlete. Going by my PRs, I could make the Olympic finals in the Olympic heptathlon, which is a 7-event speed/power track & field competition for women. I'd crush the 800m heptathlon world record (the only hep event that has a significant cardiovascular fitness component). Any above average male speed/power athlete would would easily win the competition.
Additionally, it's conventional wisdom in track and field (I don't know if it's been scientifically studied) that women respond to performance enhancing drugs more than men. This notion explains why the old doped up records from the 80s and 90s for women are still standing while the records for men from this period have fallen. If true, it would support the idea that natural male hormones, which are related to these PEDs, are an important part of the raw athletic differences between men and women.