Feminist preoccupation with power
14 Apr 2012, 3:38 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
A woman will always be physically weaker than her equivalent male, this is not one of your "this is society/cultural" things, this is biology.
what is an "equivalent male"?
a genetic twin (except for one x vs y chromosome) with the same level of training? no argument there - the man will be stronger. So what? There are many men at my dojo, and most of them are stronger than me; a few are *better* than me, but they're a minority. Humans have ways of making physical size irrelevant via learning and technology. A 100 lb woman can be physically dominant over a 200 lb man with a black belt, if she has a gun.
14 Apr 2012, 3:42 pm
LKL wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
A woman will always be physically weaker than her equivalent male, this is not one of your "this is society/cultural" things, this is biology.
what is an "equivalent male"?
a genetic twin (except for one x vs y chromosome) with the same level of training? no argument there - the man will be stronger. So what? There are many men at my dojo, and most of them are stronger than me; a few are *better* than me, but they're a minority. Humans have ways of making physical size irrelevant via learning and technology. A 100 lb woman can be physically dominant over a 200 lb man with a black belt, if she has a gun.
That's assuming she can pull the trigger, its a lot harder than people think it is.
14 Apr 2012, 3:43 pm
TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i don't care if people curse in real life. on WrongPlanet it is against the rules. are you talking about real life or WrongPlanet?
Do you shave underneath your arms on wrongplanet? In essence, me saying something derogatory about women has no proved effect other than it may offend some, so should I be allowed to do so, or should I moderate my behavior?
hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
A woman will always be physically weaker than her equivalent male, this is not one of your "this is society/cultural" things, this is biology.
what is an "equivalent male"?
An "equivalent male" would be a male who apart from the gender differences is similar in capabilities. Putting the world record holder for women in weight lifting against the leader of the chess club is not a good comparison, a woman is the record holder in weight lifting for woman against a man who is the same is. On the same note, an untrained male vs an untrained female would be an apt comparison as well.
i really don't follow what you're talking about - there are no rules about shaving armpits on WrongPlanet, so i don't see a connection there. did a moderator tell you to remove a comment?
there is a massive amount of overlap between men and women in terms of strength, and i'd suspect there is more similarity than difference. an average male may be stronger than an average female, but that is not really relevant when talking about individual people.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
14 Apr 2012, 3:47 pm
Joker wrote:
TM wrote:
Joker wrote:
Those are the women you meet this how ever isn't true for all women.
Nothing is true for "all women" or "all men" or "all bigenders" but as long as men are physically stronger than women the genders can never be equal its that simple. Either men dominate women through brute strength or women dominate men because the men accept the premise "even if she performs a violent act against me, I will not retaliate". It's one of the funny things, because the Murray Straus paper showed a high acceptance among females for violence against men, Straus also put in said paper that in 24% of domestic violence cases reported, the woman struck the first blow. In this case, its socially unacceptable for the man to strike back and the reason for that is?
On a pure anecdotal level, I've had women say to me and observe women say to other men, things that if a man had said that to another man that man would be in the hospital. If another man laid hands on me, I'd do the same or more likely worse to him. This is not all women, (I shouldn't have to qualify that statement) but some women are perfectly aware that its socially unacceptable for a man to react in certain ways when a woman "makes a scene" and use that to the furthest extent possible.
Regardless of how you answer this post, you are unable to do so without conceding that men and women are in fact different and thus can never be equal.
Ever heard of a female body builder they are huge and a lot stronger then I could ever be men and women can be equal it is people like you that think otherwise.
Physically, men and women will never be equal as their bodies are built differently. Furthermore, most female body builders aren't nearly as big and strong as their male counterparts. The bulkiest body building women have been known to use steroids; and body building is not conducive to fertility(some female weight lifters have reported that after a year of intensive body building they stopped having periods altogether). But when it comes to raw physical strength, the strongest men are much stronger than the strongest women.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
14 Apr 2012, 3:47 pm
TM wrote:
Joker wrote:
TM wrote:
Joker wrote:
Those are the women you meet this how ever isn't true for all women.
Nothing is true for "all women" or "all men" or "all bigenders" but as long as men are physically stronger than women the genders can never be equal its that simple. Either men dominate women through brute strength or women dominate men because the men accept the premise "even if she performs a violent act against me, I will not retaliate". It's one of the funny things, because the Murray Straus paper showed a high acceptance among females for violence against men, Straus also put in said paper that in 24% of domestic violence cases reported, the woman struck the first blow. In this case, its socially unacceptable for the man to strike back and the reason for that is?
On a pure anecdotal level, I've had women say to me and observe women say to other men, things that if a man had said that to another man that man would be in the hospital. If another man laid hands on me, I'd do the same or more likely worse to him. This is not all women, (I shouldn't have to qualify that statement) but some women are perfectly aware that its socially unacceptable for a man to react in certain ways when a woman "makes a scene" and use that to the furthest extent possible.
Regardless of how you answer this post, you are unable to do so without conceding that men and women are in fact different and thus can never be equal.
Ever heard of a female body builder they are huge and a lot stronger then I could ever be men and women can be equal it is people like you that think otherwise.
Ever heard of steroids? The reason those women are that big is due to the fact that on a hormonal level they are very close to men. You can't put on that level of muscle as a woman without taking illegal drugs to enhance your protein metabolization and thus increasing the level of muscle mass your body is capable of creating and maintaining. Just to toss it in there, the highest weight I've seen a woman lift in deadlift (which among powerlifters is the accepted lift for overall strength) was 580lbs raw (without straps) this was done by a woman on a massive steroid cycle with years of weight training behind her. In comparison my raw deadlift at age 16 before much weight training had been done on my part was 490 lbs, and my peak after 1 year of training without steroids and optimal nutrition was 650 lbs. The world record for mens deadlift raw was by Bendik Magnusson and was 1050 lbs.
A woman will always be physically weaker than her equivalent male, this is not one of your "this is society/cultural" things, this is biology.
Women can get big and strong by not taking steriods.
14 Apr 2012, 3:50 pm
Joker wrote:
Women can get big and strong by not taking steriods.
Those women are not the majority. And it isn't body building alone that makes such women big, it's that they usually have hefty frames and abnormally high levels of androgens to begin with. Funny thing is, sufficiently high testosterone in women goes hand in hand with low fertility(and infertility if it gets too high).
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
14 Apr 2012, 3:55 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
Women can get big and strong by not taking steriods.
Those women are not the majority. And it isn't body building alone that makes such women big, it's that they usually have hefty frames and abnormally high levels of androgens to begin with. Funny thing is, sufficiently high testosterone in women goes hand in hand with low fertility(and infertility if it gets too high).
Not always the case my favorite female pro wrestler beth phenoix doesn't have a hefty frame and she ccan pick up two grown men on her shoulders she is a very strong women and their are a lot of female mma fighters that can knock a man out with just one kick or punch.
14 Apr 2012, 3:55 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
i really don't follow what you're talking about - there are no rules about shaving armpits on WrongPlanet, so i don't see a connection there. did a moderator tell you to remove a comment?
there is a massive amount of overlap between men and women in terms of strength, and i'd suspect there is more similarity than difference. an average male may be stronger than an average female, but that is not really relevant when talking about individual people.
there is a massive amount of overlap between men and women in terms of strength, and i'd suspect there is more similarity than difference. an average male may be stronger than an average female, but that is not really relevant when talking about individual people.
It was a joke in that I was referring to real life not wrongplanet and I figured since the whole discussion started with moderating ones appearance in accordance with the socially accepted expectation it would be obvious that I was speaking of real life.
Secondly, to hell with individuals, this entire thread hit 80 pages because every other post is some inconsistent, hypocritical person that wants to point out how wrong it is to use averages when its against their stance and how awesome they are when its in favor of their stance. When we talked about wage gap, it was fine to use averages with huge gaps in their sample data, but when its talking about physical strength its not.
I would love it if you could stop this hopeless double-standard and just agree that we either speak 100% of individuals, in which case you can toss the entire feminist wage gap, patriarchy s**t and the entire feminist ideology out the window. Or, we can talk about averages and generalize in which case we can continue this thread. I WASN*T TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AT ANY POINT IN THE STRENGTH ARGUMENTS!! ! IF I was I'd use myself as a 275 lbs male, who obsessively weight trains and can deadlift a small car vs a 100 lbs woman who I can throw 30 feet.
Last edited by TM on 14 Apr 2012, 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
14 Apr 2012, 3:57 pm
Joker wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
Women can get big and strong by not taking steriods.
Those women are not the majority. And it isn't body building alone that makes such women big, it's that they usually have hefty frames and abnormally high levels of androgens to begin with. Funny thing is, sufficiently high testosterone in women goes hand in hand with low fertility(and infertility if it gets too high).
Not always the case my favorite female pro wrestler beth phenoix doesn't have a hefty frame and she ccan pick up two grown men on her shoulders she is a very strong women and their are a lot of female mma fighters that can knock a man out with just one kick or punch.
Beth Phoenix uses steroids as does many of those MMA fighters.
14 Apr 2012, 4:02 pm
no double standards here. if you look at individual wage earnings you will find an even greater disparity in many cases. the averages are compiled from some appalling data.
you're not really making sense about the whole swearing/shaving thing. i didn't realise you were trying to make a joke. it wasn't actually funny.
this thread isn't 80 pages. 
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
14 Apr 2012, 4:04 pm
TM wrote:
Joker wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
Women can get big and strong by not taking steriods.
Those women are not the majority. And it isn't body building alone that makes such women big, it's that they usually have hefty frames and abnormally high levels of androgens to begin with. Funny thing is, sufficiently high testosterone in women goes hand in hand with low fertility(and infertility if it gets too high).
Not always the case my favorite female pro wrestler beth phenoix doesn't have a hefty frame and she ccan pick up two grown men on her shoulders she is a very strong women and their are a lot of female mma fighters that can knock a man out with just one kick or punch.
Beth Phoenix uses steroids as does many of those MMA fighters.
Did the East German government not do that to their female Olympic team? Or am I thinking of another Eastern Bloc nation
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
14 Apr 2012, 4:06 pm
TM wrote:
Joker wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
Women can get big and strong by not taking steriods.
Those women are not the majority. And it isn't body building alone that makes such women big, it's that they usually have hefty frames and abnormally high levels of androgens to begin with. Funny thing is, sufficiently high testosterone in women goes hand in hand with low fertility(and infertility if it gets too high).
Not always the case my favorite female pro wrestler beth phenoix doesn't have a hefty frame and she ccan pick up two grown men on her shoulders she is a very strong women and their are a lot of female mma fighters that can knock a man out with just one kick or punch.
Beth Phoenix uses steroids as does many of those MMA fighters.
No Beth Phoenix does not and she would get fired if tested postive for it btw those MMA fighters get tested to if they fail a test they can't fight and most of them would knock you out with one punch or kick I know this because I know everything this is to know about the Pro wrestling business and MMA.
Once again you seem to think men are superior an that women are weak you can;t even stand the fact that a women like Beth Pheniox is stronger then you and I she takes protien and legal things to build muscle with out using riods if she take steriods like yoiu claim she does then why the bloody hell are her breasts still perky and firm and havent turned into chestackeles yet.
Last edited by Joker on 14 Apr 2012, 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
14 Apr 2012, 4:07 pm
TM wrote:
LKL wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
A woman will always be physically weaker than her equivalent male, this is not one of your "this is society/cultural" things, this is biology.
what is an "equivalent male"?
a genetic twin (except for one x vs y chromosome) with the same level of training? no argument there - the man will be stronger. So what? There are many men at my dojo, and most of them are stronger than me; a few are *better* than me, but they're a minority. Humans have ways of making physical size irrelevant via learning and technology. A 100 lb woman can be physically dominant over a 200 lb man with a black belt, if she has a gun.
That's assuming she can pull the trigger, its a lot harder than people think it is.
so is beating up someone smaller than you.
Edit: which is beside the point. Your claim was that
1)Dominance is determined by physical superiority in strength
2)Men, on average, are physically stronger
3)Therefore, men are and will continue to be dominant over women.
It doesn't matter whether an individual woman can pull the trigger or not, or if an individual man is interested in beating up said woman; the point is that claim number 1 is false in a human society where people can use technology and/or efficiency of movement to establish dominance regardless of size. The previous example of the 200 lb black belt probably isn't going to push Bill Gates around, either, regardless of whether Mr. Gates is holding a weapon.
Last edited by LKL on 14 Apr 2012, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
14 Apr 2012, 4:10 pm
LKL wrote:
TM wrote:
LKL wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
A woman will always be physically weaker than her equivalent male, this is not one of your "this is society/cultural" things, this is biology.
what is an "equivalent male"?
a genetic twin (except for one x vs y chromosome) with the same level of training? no argument there - the man will be stronger. So what? There are many men at my dojo, and most of them are stronger than me; a few are *better* than me, but they're a minority. Humans have ways of making physical size irrelevant via learning and technology. A 100 lb woman can be physically dominant over a 200 lb man with a black belt, if she has a gun.
That's assuming she can pull the trigger, its a lot harder than people think it is.
so is beating up someone smaller than you.
Last time I check women police officers and women soldiers do not have a hard time pulling the trigger.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
14 Apr 2012, 4:14 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
It's just really not realistic to expect society to treat men and women exactly the same way and sex-based social norms to be nonexistent. It's up to individuals to decide for themselves what to do or not to with their bodies and live with the consequences. What I see is a lot of manipulation tactics from people wishing to change the social norms by telling those who go along with them under no legal duress that they've been brainwashed.
The bolded part is why social norms should be fought in the first place.
They HAVE been brainwashed, from a psychological viewpoint.
_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."
14 Apr 2012, 4:18 pm
TM wrote:
CloudLayer wrote:
Um, how did I prove your point?
Yes, that is the entire concept of jail, and it works. It prevents people from abusing their physical power, same as it keeps tigers in pens (debatable whether THAT should happen, but it does).
Cooperation is an extremely potent tool of dominance. Again, what is so funny and how am I proving your point?
Quote:
Hahahahaha you prove my point! "I can get more people to cooperate to threaten other people with physical sanctions than you can" is how the social construct works. The entire concept of jail is "We have more physical might in our combined beings than you do in yours, so we will lock you up".
Yes, that is the entire concept of jail, and it works. It prevents people from abusing their physical power, same as it keeps tigers in pens (debatable whether THAT should happen, but it does).
Cooperation is an extremely potent tool of dominance. Again, what is so funny and how am I proving your point?
Except Jail doesn't work, it just makes people make inclined to hide their crimes rather than not commit them. Cooperation to exert physical force over another person, is no different than 1 person exerting physical force over 1 other person, it just depends on preference. So me stating that on a 1 vs 1 level, a woman can never be an equivalent man's equal in capability to exert physical force and you countering with "social cooperation means we can gang up on you" kind of proves my point, that in order to compete women have to gang up.
Um, men constitute the vast majority of both the lawmaking and law-enforcing populations (politicians, police). They (these groups, regardless of their gender makeup) "gang up" using laws to keep 350-pound WWF-viable rapists and murderers from running society. Laws are dependent on human cooperation, toward which humans have an innate tendency, hence our long-ago evolution of language and everything that came along with that. How am I proving your point here.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| unhealthy preoccupation with death? |
02 Aug 2024, 2:40 pm |
| Was this a power play? |
17 Aug 2024, 5:57 am |
| Geomagnetic Storms Could Devastate DC's Power Supply |
25 Jul 2024, 6:27 pm |
