Supression of Women

[Jack Reed]

cheeks said:

Yes, I wholeheartly agree on both men and women having other functions in the Modern World besides reproducing. After all, I'm Dodona's resident feminist. This discussion only serves for establishing why men tend to be bigger and more muscular than women without falling to the old "because nature wanted us to be the dominant sex" kind of argumentation.

One possible explanation why men are bigger and more muscular is that they can direct much more energy on developing them than the women. In the delated thread I noted that children seem to be the same size and have the same physical ablities -actually 8-10 years girls are usually ahead boys in many sports. It's only when they reach the puberty one begins to see the differences. This is the time girls start to menstruate - and in order to do so, they have to have certain percentage of bodyfat. If not, their bodies stop producing the hormones. It's remarkable that girls stop growing in height soon after they get their menstruations. Growing just takes too much energy that should be directed to producing fat instead.

Males get bigger and stronger than females after puberty because of an increased production of testosterone. I've heard conflicting theories about the gender differences before that stage. One theory claimed that the average boy always is stronger than the average girl. Another theory supported what you said about girls having an advantage when they're around ten to twelve. They probably could find examples to support either theory. One example that supports your theory was a girl pitcher, on an American Little League team, who struck out every boy batter she faced! That made sports history here. Of course, I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that that feat could never be duplicated at the high school level. It's a combination of nature and nurture before puberty IMO, but biology is the deciding factor after puberty. I'm speaking in generalities because there are some very strong women out there. Another thing to consider is that there are strength differences within the genders just like there are between the genders. Some women have more genetic potential to gain size and strength than other women do, which can be seen when you look at natural athletes like Cheryl Haworth. BTW, did you ever find out why the other thread was deleted? Maybe someone posted something really offensive that we didn't see. I'm at a loss because the mods never said why they removed it.

[Jack Reed]

oubit said:

jackreed1 said:

I don't know. You could also make the case that women should have more size and strength because they have to protect the children.

Well, two protectors are better than just one and a woman, who looks as she can handle just everything alone makes men think that he's not needed here.

It depends on the man and the woman. I don't think that couples operate on that level in modern society.

[Ilmatar]

jackreed1 said:

I've heard conflicting theories about the gender differences before that stage. One theory claimed that the average boy always is stronger than the average girl. Another theory supported what you said about girls having an advantage when they're around ten to twelve. They probably could find examples to support either theory.

Girls tend to have their "growth spurt" earlier than boys, and the difference is most visible when they are from ten to twelwe. However, I was the tallest or the second tallest kid in a class of 25 until I was 12. There were two other girls too who were taller than the tallest boy. I wasn't the strongest or fastest one in my class, though. Based solely to the athletics it was usually the average height and build
kids who did well. We used to have an inter-school athletic championships at my elementary school. There were separated cathegories for boys and girls, but if they had been combined, girls would have beaten boys in most sports even ultil they were 13-14. And my father, who is a starter, tells it's still this way at least in track sports: Girls are having better general results than boys in competitions.

[stella22]

seizure said:

I base this strictly on personal observation, so feel free to attack me on anything I say here, but the basic tendency in men is to be attracted to physicality first, and superficial psychological traits like supposed kindess, and then the rule is, and rarely is not, the more time he interacts with a woman, the more likely he becomes bored or uninterested--and in general, realizes that he doesn't like this woman that much and finds her quite annoying.

Issues much?

[Jack Reed]

cheeks said:

jackreed1 said:

I've heard conflicting theories about the gender differences before that stage. One theory claimed that the average boy always is stronger than the average girl. Another theory supported what you said about girls having an advantage when they're around ten to twelve. They probably could find examples to support either theory.

Girls tend to have their "growth spurt" earlier than boys, and the difference is most visible when they are from ten to twelwe. However, I was the tallest or the second tallest kid in a class of 25 until I was 12. There were two other girls too who were taller than the tallest boy. I wasn't the strongest or fastest one in my class, though. Based solely to the athletics it was usually the average height and build
kids who did well. We used to have an inter-school athletic championships at my elementary school. There were separated cathegories for boys and girls, but if they had been combined, girls would have beaten boys in most sports even ultil they were 13-14. And my father, who is a starter, tells it's still this way at least in track sports: Girls are having better general results than boys in competitions.

That's very surprising. I wouldn't have guessed that the girls could have beaten the boys when they were all 13 or 14. That's when the boys usually pull ahead of the girls when it comes to sports. Maybe things are changing. I still doubt that the best girl athletes could beat the best boy athletes in any high school sport. I don't think that will ever happen, even though women athletes regularly beat *old* sports records (swimming, etc.) set by men athletes. The present gap also is closing in long-distance running events. Evidently, the extra layer of fat helps with endurance.

[oubit]

sometimes it's even going the other way round, maybe because there was no testing out of competition in the past. Florence Griffith Joyner, for example, was running the 100 meters in 10.49 seconds about 18 years ago and now the best female athletes can't even come close to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Griffith_Joyner

[Jack Reed]

oubit said:

sometimes it's even going the other way round, maybe because there was no testing out of competition in the past. Florence Griffith Joyner, for example, was running the 100 meters in 10.49 seconds about 18 years ago and now the best female athletes can't even come close to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Griffith_Joyner

That's a good point. Maybe athletes have reached the peaks of sports performance. Pitchers like Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson strike out batters who are half their age. BTW, if you have a World Almanac handy, compare recent Olympic records set by women to old ones set by men.

[galton]

gelaye said:

is prevalent in most cultures throughout the world, but why do you think this occured? I have my own theories but lets here some opinions! and lets try to keep this a clean, non stupid/extremist/homosexual post LOL ;D

Feminism suppresses women from having families. It suppresses them from having husbands and children.

[Ilmatar]

galton said:

gelaye said:

is prevalent in most cultures throughout the world, but why do you think this occured? I have my own theories but lets here some opinions! and lets try to keep this a clean, non stupid/extremist/homosexual post LOL ;D

Feminism suppresses women from having families. It suppresses them from having husbands and children.

How so ?

[nockwasright]

cheeks said:

jackreed1 said:

As an ellaboration of a theory I began unveiling in a thread that got cancelled I guess the fact that one sex carries and feeds children and the other is otherwise stronger physically is nature's way to keep things in balance. Imagine if women were both the ones who were carrying the children and physically stronger than the men. It would make men pretty useless as anything more than a sperm donor. So, in essence I'd say that rather than making one sex "dominant" over the other it has balanced the things.

I don't thing there's such thing as balance in nature, balance is a concept we introduce after we decided there's an equilibrium, or a "right" situation. We can say that osmosis "keeps things in balance" as we know things in a situation will reach a certain equilibrium, but, we can't say nature "wants" the sexes to have the same importance and that this is a "balance".

There are animals among which the male is much smaller than the female, as many fishes, or animals where the male is only a sperm donor as the bees. None of this species is less significant than man from an absolute point of view.

In mammals the male tends to be bigger likely mostly because selection due to male/male competition for the females. Plus being bigger than females helps raping them and thus also helps having more offspring.
The female can not further her chances of having offspring by getting impregnated by more males, nor can rape males. So selection didn't work much on females size.

Actually the biggest sexual dimorphism are in the poligamous species where the bigges male takes all, as the sea lions.

[annienormanna]

cheeks said:

galton said:

Feminism suppresses women from having families. It suppresses them from having husbands and children.

How so ?

It never stopped me :

[zemelmete]

Actually it isn't fair that women are supressed. They already have much more problems and difficulties than men. Women have menstruations, plenty of genital and breast diseases what men don't have at all, they have to endure pregnancy, feed babies etc.

The only consolation is that women live longer.

[pegasos]

There IS not "suppresion of women". There is only eternal battle between the sexes of which one will rule over the other and over society as a whole. Just as there is a constant, in reality necessary, battle between the two powers of the physical reality.

[annienormanna]

pegasos said:

There IS not "suppresion of women". There is only eternal battle between the sexes of which one will rule over the other and over society as a whole. Just as there is a constant, in reality necessary, battle between the two powers of the physical reality.

The battle of Evermore.