[QUOTE=Juniez;43330337]probably because there's tons of factors during training, like personal motivation, time spent, condition before training etc) that play into the process so there's no real way to say 'equally trained'
'equally skilled', maybe, as performance is directly measurable - but obviously if a side loses [i]every time[/i] then clearly they must not be equally skilled[/QUOTE]
so you would say that two army rangers of a similar age, for example, are not equally trained
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43330541]"biotruths" ARE something to be dismissed because they are blanket statements that can not apply in the real world. there are far more differences AMONG the sexes rather than BETWEEN them. any variance between male and female bodies is far outweighed by the variances between men and other men, or women and other women.[/QUOTE]
Context is everything. It's fair to say that on average, a man fighting a woman of roughly equal experience and ability in terms of technique, will win more often than not. Statements of generality are absolutely applicable to the real world and shouldn't be dismissed simply because they don't agree with every individual case.
If blanket statements about gender or sex (or anything really) are being used to unfairly discriminate, then of course they should be dismissed. Outright denying the validity of comparisons based upon average differences between two populations is a bit silly though.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;43325097]Seeing as they are [I]~biotruths~[/I] (lol xd get ownd) yeah you are going to be dismissed[/QUOTE]
Quick challenge. Find as many strong badass females as you can, then find males. Tell me how many more on which side you see. Theres a reason for that.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43331498]Quick challenge. Find as many strong badass females as you can, then find males. Tell me how many more on which side you see. Theres a reason for that.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even a tumblr feminist and I find that question stupid.
Whether you like it or not women being strong is not something normally encouraged,you're far less likely to see women in the fighting scene because of gender roles and other patriarchal bullshit tumblr spews.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43331498]Quick challenge. Find as many strong badass females as you can, then find males. Tell me how many more on which side you see. Theres a reason for that.[/QUOTE]
This is faulty on statistical terms.
Just take a completely random sample of 50 males and 50 females. Match them all up male-to-female in literally whatever combination you could think of. I guarantee you that as long as the sample is completely random, a majority of males will win every time.
Denying "biotruths" is kind of naive. I don't see what biotruths have anything to do with feminism.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43330541]"biotruths" ARE something to be dismissed because they are blanket statements that can not apply in the real world. there are far more differences AMONG the sexes rather than BETWEEN them. any variance between male and female bodies is far outweighed by the variances between men and other men, or women and other women.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that "the difference AMONG the groups is greater than the difference BETWEEN the groups" still looks somewhat like that?
[IMG]http://s29.postimg.org/4bhcea0bb/betweenandamong.jpg[/IMG]
Your average joe is still more capable in fighting and/or is stronger than your average jane. Now I know this is mostly due to the gender roles, since men are the ones doing physical work and they fight when they are young (pushing each other, even just as a game) whereas it's discouraged for females. But even if you would take a boy and a girl into a lab and make them live exactly the same and have the same exact amount of exercise, the boy would be stronger due to testosterone. Woops I mentioned testosterone, it's biological, ~~BIOTRUTHS~~, throw the argument out of the window.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43331498]Quick challenge. Find as many strong badass females as you can, then find males. Tell me how many more on which side you see. Theres a reason for that.[/QUOTE]
You know this is mostly due to the fact that men are encouraged to be a strong badass whereas women are discouraged right? I mean, there is a difference but it's greatly intensified by gender roles.
[editline]28th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;43332838]Denying "biotruths" is kind of naive. I don't see what biotruths have anything to do with feminism.[/QUOTE]
These guys believe that men and women are 100% identical (apart from reproductive system) and that all the differences come from gender roles and social standards. If male:female ratio of an activity or a job isn't close to 1 then it must be sexism, there is no other explanation.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43332909]These guys believe that men and women are 100% identical (apart from reproductive system) and that all the differences come from gender roles and social standards. If male:female ratio of an activity or a job isn't close to 1 then it must be sexism, there is no other explanation.[/QUOTE]
For someone who whinges and moans so much about being unfairly generalized you sure have no qualms about doing it yourself
[editline]28th December 2013[/editline]
Also sweet graph, that proves you right on every account thanks to its well sourced and clearly labelled conclusions
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43330541]"biotruths" ARE something to be dismissed because they are blanket statements that can not apply in the real world. there are far more differences AMONG the sexes rather than BETWEEN them. any variance between male and female bodies is far outweighed by the variances between men and other men, or women and other women.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology#Skeleton_and_muscular_system[/url]
[QUOTE][B]Strength, power and muscle mass[/B]
Typically, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.[11] Females tend to convert more food into fat, while men convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves.
Gross measures of body strength suggest a 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.[12][13] One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.[14] Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes.[15] Differences in width of arm, thighs and calves also increase during puberty.
Exercise can lower the degree of sex differentiation in muscle development as adults. For example, the amount of oxygen that the blood can carry is very similar in male and female athletes, while in untrained people women cannot carry as much oxygen.[16]
Most statistics in the areas of strength, power, muscle mass, and height of human males and females is based on mean numbers, but these numbers are not exact representations of a society as they exclude information on the spread of the data. When considering the spread of most statistics, there is significant overlap in the values of physical traits between men and women. In addition, there are a significant number of individuals who deviate from the average statistics.[17]
[B]Skeleton[/B]
Males have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.[citation needed]
In men, the second digit (index finger) tends to be shorter than the fourth digit (ring finger), while in women the second digit tends to be longer than the fourth (see digit ratio).[18]
Men have a more pronounced 'Adam's Apple' or thyroid cartilage (and deeper voices) due to larger vocal cords.[19]
When measuring male and female canine teeth, studies yield different results as to which sex has larger teeth.[20][21] However, the differences in sizes are small.[20]
Male skulls and head bones have a different shape than female skulls. The male mandible is generally wider, larger, and squarer than females. They also have more prominent eyebrows, rectangular orbital with rounded border, longer and larger nasal bone and more projecting cheekbone.[citation needed]
Male and female pelvises are shaped differently. The female pelvis features a wider pelvic cavity, which is necessary when giving birth. The female pelvis has evolved to its maximum width for childbirth — an even wider pelvis would make women unable to walk.[22][23] In contrast, human male pelves did not evolve to give birth and are therefore slightly more optimized for walking.[24] The female pelvis is larger and broader than the male pelvis which is taller, narrower, and more compact. The female inlet is larger and oval in shape, while the male inlet is more heart-shaped.[25]
Contrary to popular belief, however, males and females do not differ in the number of ribs; both usually have twelve pairs.[26] About 1 in 200-500 people have an additional cervical rib, and there is a female predominance.[27]
[B]Respiratory system[/B]
Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 56% greater lung volume per body mass. They also have larger hearts, 10% higher red blood cell count, higher haemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. In athletes, the difference in oxygen-carrying capacity between men and women is much less prominent. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.[28][/QUOTE]
You want to dismiss all of this?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43332909]You do realize that "the difference AMONG the groups is greater than the difference BETWEEN the groups" still looks somewhat like that?
[IMG]http://s29.postimg.org/4bhcea0bb/betweenandamong.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Nice, a graph with unlabeled axises. :v:
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43332909]Your average joe is still more capable in fighting and/or is stronger than your average jane. Now I know this is mostly due to the gender roles, since men are the ones doing physical work and they fight when they are young (pushing each other, even just as a game) whereas it's discouraged for females. But even if you would take a boy and a girl into a lab and make them live exactly the same and have the same exact amount of exercise, the boy would be stronger due to testosterone.[/QUOTE]
Hey. I'm not denying it, there is a difference. It's exactly what I wrote in my post. What I'm saying is that there's no point in focusing on it because of the variance.
[editline]28th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;43333639][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology#Skeleton_and_muscular_system[/url]
You want to dismiss all of this?[/QUOTE]
Straight from your quote:
"Most statistics in the areas of strength, power, muscle mass, and height of human males and females is based on mean numbers, but these numbers are not exact representations of a society as they exclude information on the spread of the data. When considering the spread of most statistics, there is significant overlap in the values of physical traits between men and women. In addition, there are a significant number of individuals who deviate from the average statistics."
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43333775]Nice, a graph with unlabeled [B]axises[/B].[/QUOTE]
"Axises"?
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;43339607]"Axises"?[/QUOTE]
I'm not gonna take either side but you should make a better argument than a semantical one.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43331498]Quick challenge. Find as many strong badass females as you can, then find males. Tell me how many more on which side you see. Theres a reason for that.[/QUOTE]
the reason is social stigma and gender roles.
why did toy companies invent GI Joe instead of GI Jane? because gender roles tell us that boys like war and guns and girls like cooking and wearing pretty dresses. why was fight club about men instead of women? because men are perceived as being fighters and thugs.
being able to bear children does not suddenly make you unable to beat somebody up or be a hardcore MMA fighter, nor does having a penis make you able to chokeslam somebody better.
[editline]28th December 2013[/editline]
like for real. there's women that are 4 times as strong as you, and there's men 4 times as weak as you. ~biotruths~ don't affect how strong somebody can become at all. it's all social bullshit.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43341348]the reason is social stigma and gender roles.
why did toy companies invent GI Joe instead of GI Jane? because gender roles tell us that boys like war and guns and girls like cooking and wearing pretty dresses. why was fight club about men instead of women? because men are perceived as being fighters and thugs.
being able to bear children does not suddenly make you unable to beat somebody up or be a hardcore MMA fighter, nor does having a penis make you able to chokeslam somebody better.
[editline]28th December 2013[/editline]
like for real. there's women that are 4 times as strong as you, and there's men 4 times as weak as you. gender doesn't affect how strong somebody can become at all. it's all social bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Whoa whoa, if I were you i'd use another example rather than Fight Club. It was made specifically to mock and de-empower violent men.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43341348]like for real. there's women that are 4 times as strong as you, and there's men 4 times as weak as you. gender doesn't affect how strong somebody can become at all. it's all social bullshit.[/QUOTE]
not disagreeing with you at all, but he wasn't talking about gender, but birth-given biological sex (an argument to which i've responded above)
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;43341377]Whoa whoa, if I were you i'd use another example rather than Fight Club. It was made specifically to mock and de-empower violent men.[/QUOTE]
i'm bringing up random pieces of media or entertainment. fight club was the first thing that came to mind.
[editline]28th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43341380]not disagreeing with you at all, but he wasn't talking about gender, but birth-given biological sex (an argument to which i've responded above)[/QUOTE]
edited, wrote gender instead of biotruths for some reason
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43341348]~biotruths~ don't affect how strong somebody can become at all. it's all social bullshit.[/QUOTE]
I think you're really underestimating biological differences much more than they deserve to be. No one is saying it's impossible for another woman to be stronger, but you're literally saying "it doesn't affect you at all" when it does significantly. The typically-high number of fibers inherit with sex isn't "made up social bullshit"
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43341434]I think you're really underestimating biological differences much more than they deserve to be. No one is saying it's impossible for another woman to be stronger, but you're literally saying "it doesn't affect you at all" when it does significantly. The typically-high number of fibers inherit with sex isn't "made up social bullshit"[/QUOTE]
i've yet to see an argument that proves that your biological sex somehow affects your potential or how strong you ~naturally~ are. there are so many differences between people, like their weight, their metabolism, and all that other bullshit that arguments like "if X man and Y woman have the same diet and work out at the same time, man X will [I]always[/I] get stronger" don't hold water at all.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43341434]I think you're really underestimating biological differences much more than they deserve to be. No one is saying it's impossible for another woman to be stronger, but you're literally saying "it doesn't affect you at all" when it does significantly. The typically-high number of fibers inherit with sex isn't "made up social bullshit"[/QUOTE]
sexual dismorphism will certainly matter when it comes to entering the army, but in day-to-day life the differences don't really deserve to be considered
[editline]29th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43341471]there are so many differences between people, like their weight, their metabolism, and all that other bullshit that arguments like "if X man and Y woman have the same diet and work out at the same time, man X will [I]always[/I] get stronger" don't hold water at all.[/QUOTE]
on statistical average, males do have an advantage (testosterone plays a big role in muscles IIRC). however the real world isn't made up of averages...
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43341476]sexual dismorphism will certainly matter when it comes to entering the army, but in day-to-day life the differences don't really deserve to be considered[/QUOTE]
i'd say they're important in the military but not [I]that[/I] important. people in the military are a completely different breed of human. if you're unable to lift one of your buddies up and carry them to cover, you're fucked regardless of your biological sex.
[editline]28th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43341476]sexual dismorphism will certainly matter when it comes to entering the army, but in day-to-day life the differences don't really deserve to be considered
[editline]29th December 2013[/editline]
on statistical average, males do have an advantage (testosterone plays a big role in muscles IIRC). however the real world isn't made up of averages...[/QUOTE]
that's my big point. you can argue statistics all you want, but people are so dramatically different that they don't really mean shit.
[QUOTE=BlackBirdNL;43324441]a real man wouldn't accept[/QUOTE]
As a boxer, I think it's more shameful to turn down a fight then to lose a fight. At least if accept a fight, there's a chance at winning.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43341471]i've yet to see an argument that proves that your biological sex somehow affects your potential or how strong you ~naturally~ are. there are so many differences between people, like their weight, their metabolism, and all that other bullshit that arguments like "if X man and Y woman have the same diet and work out at the same time, man X will [I]always[/I] get stronger" don't hold water at all.[/QUOTE]
I want to believe that people like this guy who deny scientifically-backed biological differences do not do so because they're stupid, but actually because they already have some sort of body identity disorder and persist on denying backed facts just so they can rationalize their body-dysphoria.
You said there's no way your biological sex can affect how strong you can be, but science says the opposite. Yes there are variances that deviate from what's typical, but they are insignificant because it still doesn't affect what's 'typical'
[URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683[/URL]
[quote]
Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. [B]The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men [/B]in the upper and lower body respectively.[B] The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively[/B]. T[B]he men had significantly larger type I fiber areas (4597 vs 3483 microns2) and mean fiber areas (6632 vs 3963 microns2) than the women in biceps brachii and significantly larger type II fiber areas (7700 vs 4040 microns2) and mean fiber areas (7070 vs 4290 microns2) in vastus lateralis.[/B] No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number (180,620 in men vs 156,872 in women), muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis 451,468 vs 465,007) or any motor unit characteristics. [B]Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body.[/B](ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)[/quote]
You literally said verbatim "there are no differences" - "everything is because of social bullshit" and that biology has zero role as if we're all intersex beings with only different reproductive organs, when there are significant differences as outlined by academic literature that you refuse to accept. There are variances in the real world, but that's what they are, nothing more than unusual variances.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43341471][B]i've yet to see an argument that proves that your biological sex somehow affects your potential or how strong you ~naturally~ ar[/B]e. there are so many differences between people, like their weight, their metabolism, and all that other bullshit that arguments like "if X man and Y woman have the same diet and work out at the same time, man X will [I]always[/I] get stronger" don't hold water at all.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43341348]the reason is social stigma and gender roles.[/B]
~biotruths~ [B]don't affect how strong somebody can become at all[/B]. it's all social bullshit.[/QUOTE]
I will never understand people who unscrupulously dismiss sourced facts as "biotruths" as if using facts is some sort of pejorative.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43341348]the reason is social stigma and gender roles.
like for real. there's women that are 4 times as strong as you, and there's men 4 times as weak as you. ~biotruths~ don't affect how strong somebody can become at all. it's all social bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ
[editline]28th December 2013[/editline]
I mean do you really not know what testosterone is?
Men are stronger than women on average, as in like 98 percent of the time. It's not like most women can take on a average sized man. The few cases were a man would be taken out by a female, that man is probably a weak bitch and the female is on hella drugs.
Have you ever seen natural women bodybuilders? They don't get very big, maybe 130-145lbs lean AT MOST. Testosterone is very important to building muscle/strength. There's a reason why people use steroids.
Males are evolved to fight and protect. Females are evolved to conceive and reproduce. There is no sexism in saying that men are (generally) better fighters than women.
[QUOTE=Crabpeoples;43341703]Men are stronger than women on average, as in like 98 percent of the time. It's not like most women can take on a average sized man. The few cases were a man would be taken out by a female[...]
Have you ever seen natural women bodybuilders? They don't get very big, maybe 130-145lbs lean AT MOST. Testosterone is very important to building muscle/strength. There's a reason why people use steroids.[/QUOTE]
That's what needs to be understood, it's just a "few cases" Using the same mindset, there are one-handed fighters who are four times stronger than you, and also one-handed fighters that are four times weaker than you. Statements like these don't mean anything because most one-handed fighters are weaker than you despite what unusable variance may exist.
Just look at the weight lifting records for men and women of the same weigh class. In deadlift, for example, in the 198kg class the woman's record is about 40% lower than the male record.
Men's record: 861 lbs
Women's record: 525 lbs
These are both from the same weight class and this isn't special with deadlift... the trend continues across all events.
i think it's silly to look at it like that, i mean, i doubt the average male can deadlight anything like that. males have the potential to be stronger sure, cause of testosterone and all that, but i think it makes more sense to look at the individual rather than the individuals gender
I still think we should have an annual Men's Champ VS Woman's Champ fight. If we accept any bottom wing fighters then shit like this happens where mouth guards are choked upon.
I think there's a fucking TON of women that think they can stand toe to toe with anyone. Until they get their ass beat that one time.
That's not to say there can't be women who can, there are, but a lot of them have that mentality when they clearly couldn't. It's weird
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43343927]I think there's a fucking TON of women that think they can stand toe to toe with anyone. Until they get their ass beat that one time.
That's not to say there can't be women who can, there are, but a lot of them have that mentality when they clearly couldn't. It's weird[/QUOTE]
gotta FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
