Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Of course, disregard this if it's just a matter of aesthetics >.>

It has to do with that long rant on how I grew up, a few pages back.  It's a "being uncomfortable in your body" thing.

@Vector: There's plenty of evidence to point to that...

And I have evidence to point against.

If you're feeling open-minded, read Gayle Rubin's "The Traffic in Women."  You can find it online pretty easily.

[Dimitri]

Thanks Vector.
I should say: I 'can' be eloquent, but I normally come off as blunt. I suppose there's a distinction there.

The topic that most caught my eye (And seems to crop up regularly) is gender equality, at least int he physical sense.
This is just my biased opinion obviously, but I think the notion of physical inferiority in women as the norm is ridiculous, from the 'nature' perspective.
Most arguments I've read (Not necessarily here) that favor men over women physically invoke some magical percentage or number, that frankly, is completely baseless.

My reasoning? The limits of the human body are unknown to begin with (Though there are some ballpark estimates), and most of these 'studies' fail to take into account that physical characteristics can be drastically different from individual to individual.

For the sake of argument, let's say that modern male powerlifters approach the maximum threshold of human strength. (Lifting just over half a ton) Let's say the absolute maximum lifting ability of a male is 1200lbs, again, for the sake of argument.
Most of the sillier arguments I've read stated a 20-30% disparity between men and women in upper body strength.
Assuming that this tomfoolery is true, a female's absolute limit would be 840-960lbs, using the aforementioned weight figure. Let that sink in.
Now, I know my statement is likely horribly flawed, but the point I'm getting at is that any difference is effectively small enough to not matter In the broader scheme of things.


Knowing me, all of that would only make sense to me. Incoherent rambling is one of my feature traits, sadly.

Doesn't matter if the person being beat up was transgender, an old woman or a large buff guy. People don't want to get involved in violence. It's very easy to say that you should jump in and help defend when you hear about it, but being there faced with a sudden very jarring and frightening situation is a different matter. Morally I agree that more people should have stopped that, but I can't pass judgment on the crowd because I know the situation is difficult to be in.

On a personal level, I'd have to disagree with this statement. One trait I share with my mother is a general lack of fear in regards to my own safety.
It's led to some terrible misunderstandings in the past, but I'd like to think I've done more good than harm.

[Africa]

And I have evidence to point against.

Well, I'll point you to the common features of what you'd probably call "gender roles" found in all human societies; like males being more interested in polygamy and no-strings attached relationships, women being more interested in keeping their mates around and being more invested in their children, men treating physical appearance and youth as some of the highest priority items in mate-seeking and women treating social status and power as more important...not to mention the predictions from evolutionary theory that are born out.

As long as you don't equate "is" with "should," none of this should be offensive to anybody's progressive viewpoints.

[Phmcw]

From experience with well trained women, a woman strength is about the same as an equally built man.
Women are smaller than men, so topically less strong, but nothing dramatic. As I said, my little sister can beat a lot of the men I know, and had defended herself and her friends in quite a few fight (the last one being just a few month ago, when one of her friend got attacked. Both where quite drunk, but she still managed to left her aggressor lying bleeding on the sidewalk. I hope he learned his lesson in gender equality.)

[sonerohi]

I'm pretty sure the reason men are stronger is because we compete for strength. Whenever I hit the gym with my friends, we push ourselves to lift harder than everyone else. Observing the girls, they offer each other support instead of competition. I'm pretty sure if guys stopped competing or girls started competing, the genders would be of equal strength.

[Darvi]

I concur.

I am on par, if not below, most girls my age that I know when it comes to strength.

[Dimitri]

I'm pretty sure the reason men are stronger is because we compete for strength. Whenever I hit the gym with my friends, we push ourselves to lift harder than everyone else. Observing the girls, they offer each other support instead of competition. I'm pretty sure if guys stopped competing or girls started competing, the genders would be of equal strength.

That's similar to what I say in real life.
Women I've met/seen that actively compete in regards to strength tend to be just as much, if not more than a match for men.

I generally point to natural (No anabolic steroids) female bodybuilders to support this, Heidi Vuorela being a preferred example. She also combats the 'Muscular Women Are Hideous' stereotype quite well. In my opinion, obviously.

It's a side-shot, but I think it gets my point across.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Edit: 'Preferred' not 'Proffered'. Herpderpderp.

[The Doctor]

It might be the competitive spirit of men. But it could also be that men have an easier time building muscle. Has there been a study along those lines?

[Darvi]

Somebody should have twins of different genders and then train them to be athletes :V

[The Doctor]

Or, much easier, get a large number of men and women together, measure their strength, and put them on a strict regimen of diet and exercise that does not differ between them in a large margin. Then measure their strength in the end, and see how much they increased, on average.

That should work.

[Vector]

As long as you don't equate "is" with "should," none of this should be offensive to anybody's progressive viewpoints.

I believe you equated "is" with "should."

That should work.

It doesn't take from-birth effects into account, which is a lot of what we're talking about here.

[Phmcw]

I think Doctor and Darvi : men ARE stronger ON AVERAGE. Which mean that something like 50% of men are stronger than 60% of the women. Still not a good reason to disregard the 40% of women who are stronger than 50% of men.

And not a good reason to disregard a "manly" woman, or even to link "manly" with man.

[The Doctor]

I might not be understanding, but I think measuring their starter strength would account for their from-birth effects... Unless that means something other than "baseline".

[Africa]

As long as you don't equate "is" with "should," none of this should be offensive to anybody's progressive viewpoints.

I believe you equated "is" with "should."

I have no idea when that would have been, because I don't.


Also, men being stronger overall has less to do with that they're more likely to work out than with genetics. Evolutionary biology...

[Vector]

I might not be understanding, but I think measuring their starter strength would account for their from-birth effects... Unless that means something other than "baseline".

Unless you're starting with babies, you won't be taking previous experiences into account.

Also, men being stronger overall has less to do with that they're more likely to work out than with genetics. Evolutionary biology...

Link to your study, please.

Otherwise, you are violating the rules set out by the OP (sorry, EvoBio is lumped under EvoPsych in this instance) and I would like to ask you to leave.