[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Gabrielles blades: It is wrong because its entirely too difficult to say even with your vast empirical data the real cause of why the average woman is less strong than the average man. It is my opinion that they are because they dont feel like working hard to get the muscles. I myself am male and am pathetically weak for this very reason. My sister can easily out do me in almost any arena with regards to physical fitness because she likes to spend her time working out a few times a week.

ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!(No, I'm not angry, just a bit frustrated. [img]smile.gif[/img] ) [img]tongue.gif[/img] OK look GB...set aside the 'vast empirical data' for just a second. Set aside the view from the average city window that *shows* men and women, walking side by side, and *SHOWS* that the men are bigger, even set aside our preconceptions about the same. Now, take it from a pure and simple biological standpoint. Now...look down. You, as a man, will find that you have testicles. Those produce VAST amounts of testosterone. That gives you the capacity to build muscle mass in greater capacity and at a faster rate than any woman. Now...does that automatically make you stronger, or bigger? NO. It just gives you the *potential*. As you said, your sister is stronger than you. Good for her. My 'little' sister stands 6 foot tall, has shoulders as broad as mine, can probably lift/carry as much as me, and, I wouldn't even give myself even odds in a fight against her. BUT, and here's the kicker, I get my size and strength naturally. I'm a big guy, I have a big frame, and, having worked out in my youth, I still have plenty of muscle mass. She, on the other hand, has worked her ass off, doing hard, physical labor, most of her life. Currently she is a delivery driver, slinging 100lb boxes around all day. I've lived a fairly sedentary life for the last few years, I've *lost* muscle mass, and am fairly out of shape, compared to what I once was. But, if I started doing her job, and spent the next six months doing it, I would, once again, be much stronger than her. Why?? Testosterone! Simple as that. Men has an inherent, genetic ability to be bigger and stronger than women. Does that make my sister weak by comparison? HAH! Hardly! She'll still be just as strong as she is now...but that will be less strong that me, in the same circumstances.

And again, that's not being rude, or denegrating, or derogatory...it's just being real.

"It is my opinion that they are because they dont feel like working hard to get the muscles."

Tell that to that Hayworth girl. Or any of the other female bodybuilders out there...or heck, to my little sister. They've all worked hard, damn hard, and have great physiques, and big muscles. The only thing I was, and still am, trying to say is: If men and women put out equal amounts of work, the man will be stronger. Look at your own case. You said that your sister likes to work out, and that you dont. Therefore she is stronger. Sure...she's trained for it. But, what you, and others, seem to fail to realize is that I(and Thoran and IAmThumper) are talking about has *NOTHING* to do with comparing the average computer geek male with the average bodybuilding female, any more than it has to do with comparing Mr Universe and the average housewife. We're talking about comparing either A) The extremes: Female and Male bodybuilders, both driving themselves to the point of critical mass to achieve the perfect body, or B) The averages: Joe and Jane American, living their lives side by side, getting basically the same amount of food/medicine/physical activity. And, in both those cases it has been proven, time and time again, that the man is bigger and stronger...ON AVERAGE. It's not really that difficult a point to get IMO.

As for what society admires, thats entirely too broad to hold any water. Many people i know for example dont care who wins or loses, they just want a good match thats entertaining. I myself admire people who try not to be hypocrites (since its so easy to be one) and who are trustworthy, friendly, have integrity etc etc.

I meant that as a general statement. Sure, different individuals admire different traits...but, as a society, we admire winners. If you dont believe me, take a look at the next hundred sporting events you see, and look at how many people who come in last get a trophy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, that is the whole point of a comparison. You (or someone) was saying they wanted to say entirely positive things about men and asked why women might get pissed off about it. Well thats why - by the nature of your comparison you are putting them down when you are saying your "entirely positive thing". For it to be entirely positive you would have to just say men are strong, with no comparison as i mentioned earlier. And i disagree with the conclusion of the comparison on the basis of what is typed above.

That certainly wasn't me. I've said, time and time again, that I admire the women cited as examples(just as I admire the men) as people who have worked hard to achieve a personal goal. All I have ever done is try to compare averages, and try to correct a mistaken impression on some folks' part.

And yes, it is true that someone/something will always be/become better faster or stronger and that life sucks and we should get a helmet. Even the superhumanly strong need helmets though as life doesnt care how strong you are itll kill you in the end. The better/stronger/faster person just might be a woman for a while till the next woman or man beats it.

LOL...yep, absolutely. [img]smile.gif[/img] Unless we're talking pure, physical strength. Then the equally well trained man will win every time.

BTW...That 'life sucks' comment isn't mine. I stole it from Dennis Leary. One of the best stand up comics in the business, IMNSHO.

And no i dont watch weightlifting so i didnt know that fat was what you were supposed to be. But even if it is what you are supposed to be, when you see one person whos body is probably 95% muscle and another whose maybe 75% you know off the bat that even though they are the same weight, they are probably not the same muscle strength.

LOL...I dont know if fat is precisely 'what you're supposed to be', but it is 'what they are'. [img]smile.gif[/img] Something to do with body chemistry and testosterone levels.

You could probably find a couple countries to compare that would have one country whose woman compared to another countries men are equal in terms of average strength/broadness/tallness etc.

Yep, you probably could. Assuming all the same levels of nutrition/medicine/physical labor, of course. But, if you take the human race as a whole(and that *is* what we're talking about), then men are taller/broader/stronger.

And yes, the ant thing was a bit...out there, but it was just an example of what i meant and not to be used as the whole basis of the query. Its a question of, is the person of small size lifting proportionally more than the person of large size? And the ant would probably not crush itself if inflated to human proportions since nature would no doubt simply construct the ant out of tougher material that is capable of withstanding the pressures inherent.

Ok, you're talking about a mass/strength ratio. Sure, I can see that. And yeah, to a certain extent, when you're talking about weight lifting, you have to compare weight lifted against body mass. That's why they have weight categories after all. But, when you're talking the biggest/strongest men versus the biggest/strongest women, the men are still stronger on index, as well as average. [img]smile.gif[/img] I can produce more mounds of empirical evidence, if you'd like. But, I hope that, considering the amount I've already produced, you can accept my word for it. [img]smile.gif[/img]