Would you agree that women are, anatomically speaking, weaker than men?

[MillennialDem]

209. If anything you've made the case in a bizarre way that men are smarter than women, more

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...