Can someone kindly point me in the direction of some facts/stats about the physical differences between men & women?

[kickassangel]

Apart from the obvious?

I'm sure I read on a thread here, that women are only weaker physically when considering upper body strength.

So, are women broadly speaking as strong as men in their lower bodies?

I've also heard, but not seen facts about, women being better at endurance sports beyond certain levels (e.g. races longer than a marathon).

Cos I'm thinking that
a) if 2 people (male & female) of same age, weight, fitness etc were compered - would they in fact be similar in strength/speed
b) I'd love to see the results of men & women raised equally to see if they in fact turn out to be more similar wrt height, weight etc.

But I have no idea where to start looking. Please help.

True!

It's just that the biological argument is so inherent in our consciousness that it's hard to refute. Hence me wanting some data.

Cos I know at some point I'll open my mouth about how absurd it is that some career is gender specific and without some facts behind me it's hard to back that up.

Sorry, kickass.

Physical differences between men and women are partly genetic and partly environmental. The same is true of some ethnic groups in terms of biological differences such as height.

I would recommend this book which explains a lot about why this happens:

books.google.co.uk/books/about/Human_energetics_in_biological_anthropol.html?id=6JoMT3TwpVUC

thanks

lrd generalchat is fine. at least i'm not alone with my thoughts

Kickassangel -

I wouldn't argue with them on the data on whether men (in general, on average) tend to be physically stronger than women. You will end up arm-wrestling and loosing.

IMO the point to dispute is whether this is the reason why men have tended to dominate in X or Y occupation and whether it is a justification for continuing to discriminate against women in that occupation.

I would say:

• women have been discriminated against in many jobs for many years. If there are no/not many women doing a job there is good reason to think this might be at least part of the cause (even if men tend to be stronger).

• many jobs that people thought could only be done by men it turns out can be done perfectly well by women - doctor, teacher, engineer, politician etc... There are women serving on the frontline in armies and women working in construction (e.g.in India).

• finding the right person for the job is about a lot of qualities. The person with the strongest arms is not necessarily the best candidate (unless the job is arm wrestler).

Many men and women will fall with into the required level of fitness to do most jobs. It may well be that there are more men than women that meet the fitness criteria, but that is no reason to dismiss the women who do meet the fitness criteria needed to do the job. That is discrimination and it is illegal.

LRD - "himalaya, what do you mean by 'average strength'?"

I mean average accross a population. My guess is that for most measures of strength and speed - ability to lift a weight, do a number of chin ups, running speed, number of squats or whatever... The average (mode) among men will be stronger than the average among women - even if they do similar amounts of training. On other measures (e.g. endurance) women may be stronger on average.

The point is that average values are no reason to discriminate against a woman who wants to and can do a job.

Ah ... so you mean 'strength' should be defined by those things men are most successful at?

My point is, that's a fairly arbitrary way to measure strength, isn't it? The other things people have cited that women are more able to do, that involve exerting physical force or power, are also useful to survival, so might easily have become part of the definition of strength. Yet they didn't. Why?

The other things people have cited that women are more able to do, that involve exerting physical force or power, are also useful to survival, so might easily have become part of the definition of strength. Yet they didn't. Why?

Call me cynical LRD but I suspect that the reason was probably because it didn't fit the patriarchal zeitgeist of the last, ooh, couple of millennia i.e. the convenient illusion that women are inherently weak..ergo, anything that that women were "strong" at could not therefore be defined as real strength. One must never let the facts interfere with the story

LRD - I don't think there is a lot of point trying to reverse old sexist arguments but keep them in the same misguided form.

Old argument = men are strong, women are feeble, therefore male achievement should be celebrated, women should be protected, discrimination is fine.

Your argument (I think) = women are strong too in ways previously unappreciated like extreme endurance, strength of uterine contraction and carrying babies around (these are the examples cited in the thread I think) therefore .... overturn all that old stuff.

We agree on the conclusion but not how to get there.

You don't need to convince people that the common sense way they assess strength is all wrong in order to challenge discrimination. Stronger =/= better (obvious really - otherwise you wouldn't bother with job interviews, you would just have the candidates arm wrestle).

I don't think you have to argue for equality in strength to argue for equality or to celebrate women's achievements.

Paula Radcliffe isn't as fast as Haile Gabresallassie. So what? They are both amazing athletes. I don't need to know how strong her uterus is, or whether she would beat him over 300km.

Strength, like height is something with standardised measures. Do you really think if we could agree on a comprehensive set of 50 balanced strength measures, women would be better on 25 of them and men on 25, and therefore the case for equality would be made?

I don't think so, and I don't think it matters.

Sorry, I think what you call 'common sense', I call 'brainwashing from the patriarchy'. It's not 'common sense' that men should be associated with strength (with added connotations of bravery and moral rectitude). It requires no particularly awkward thought process to say hmm, wait, giving birth is quite tough too.

Sure, strength has 'standardised measures'. If you keep using the ones that confirm men are stronger, faster, braver, nicer ... well, funnily enough, that is what you will find. And yes, you can argue that nevertheless we're all civilized folk and men shouldn't be nasty to poor little women just because women are weak. That is what the patriarchy has been arguing for centuries, too. It's the 'gentleman protector' argument.

I find it pretty insulting and nonsensical, TBH.

I didn't say anything about braver, nicer, morally better.

Why we have to keep loading all this stuff into the concept of strength?

If someone argues that discrimination is ok because men are on average stronger, I dont want to say "oh but women can give birth".

I want to say discrimination is wrong because it is stupid and unfair to treat individuals as if they can be judged by the average (or the extremes) of a group.

And it is stupid and unfair to imagine that moral rectitude can be judged by muscle strength, or indeed that ability to be a good builder, mechanic or soldier can be judged by how much weight you can bench press.

Sorry, but the word has an etymology, just as it has a 'common sense' way of being measured. The two are intimately related. This is why it plays into the hands of misogynists to suggest you're happy taking their terminology and simply arguing 'but can't people just be nice to weak women'.

I accept what you say about averages - of course you shouldn't judge any individual based on findings from a larger group, you should judge him or her or his or her own merits. But by your scale, you will very often end up judging women as weaker because you are 'not interested' in their areas of strength, because you have accepted a 'definition' of strength that has a cultural context developed in patriarchial socities.

I know you don't like the idea that society has any influence, but in the case of definitions of words it quite plainly does. You can try all you like to whitewash the word and say you came to a definition of strength that focused on men's good points purely accidentally, or purely without bias, or simply by looking at evolution, but until you can accept that the word has an etymology in culture, your argument is built on very, very shaky foundations. It just isn't plausible.

LRD - I don't think that society has no influence. I just don't think this is about definitions of words in this case.

Are women 'the weaker sex'? Of course not, the whole concept is baloney and we shouldn't waste our time trying to redefine it.

Are women on average less strong than men on many measures of physical strength? Yes.

Does that mean that women can't do almost any job that men can do (apart from the sperm donor examples etc..)? No.

Should employers be interested in the strength of a woman's uterine muscles? No, it is none of their business.

I think you're both making valid points but they are about subtly different aspects of this

1. Whether the "traditional" (patriarchal) definition of strength is actually acceptable, and how that is measured, defined etc.

1. That regardless of the relative strengths of men/women, that any form of judgement or discrimination based on that is wrong.

Both of which are compelling arguments (IMO) against the age old "well women are weaker so of course they shouldn't be able to do xyz"

Kickassangel - yes i agree we are talking about something a bit different.

But LRD I really do think you (and just about everyone who replied to the OP's request for data) are focusing on the wrong thing here.

The underlying premise of the 'women are the weaker sex' argument is that it is reasonable to divide the population into two groups and say that one is 'week' and one is 'strong'. And that therefore to treat them differently, make assumptions about moral rectitude etc...

All the focus on new data points and definitions of strength doesn't challenge this basic premise - it just tweaks it to show that there are women in the 'strong' group and men in the 'weak' group.

Imagine you are a teacher at school where the boys dominate the playground space, pushing the girls around and making them play around the edges. When challenged on this the boys say 'well we need more space because we are stronger and more athletic'. Do you

a) take their justification on good faith, but tell them they have got their data and their definition of athleticism wrong -- so organise a test (making sure to include long jump, which you have noticed some of the girls are very good at) in order to identify the strong half of the school and give them the privilege of dominating the playground?

or

b) say ' it may or may not be true on average, but everyone is an equal member of this school, and they all have equal rights to use the playground, and it is a general value and rule of this school that no one gets to push anyone around for any reason.'...and then organise a rota of some sort?

I have been arguing for b), where i think the focus on definitions and data takes you down the road of a).

I think it is wrong because it is unjust (whatever measure and definition of atheleticism you use to divide the school in half some kids will end up on the loosing side).

But it is also a tactical mistake, because I don't think the justification is made in good faith, it is just a convenient excuse to justify a culture of entitlement. The next day the boys may come back and say 'actually Miss, the reason we need the playground is because we are a bit hyperactive and if we don't get to run around every lunchtime we can't concentrate in the afternoon', and they next day they might say 'we need the playground more because more of us want to be professional football players so it is important to us', or they might say 'we are really good football players, and the girls are not, so they'd get injured if they play with us' or they might say 'we represent the school in the County Cup and unless we get to practice everyday the school won't win', or they might even say 'we need the playground more because we evolved as hunters to roam over the plains and the girls evolved as gatherers to delve into the bushes, its just the way of nature Miss'.

All these things and many others may or may not be true and some may be worth a response, or a science project....but the justifications can go on and on because you haven't started out with the principle of equality. Instead by focusing on definitions and measurement you have conceded from the outset that there may be some good reason why one group should be able to dominate another.

himalaya - I disagree with your premise.

I don't think I or anyone else has tried to argue women are the stronger sex - I have been arguing all along that what we should recognize is that 'strength' is a word and a concept with a long socio-cultural history, and is not simply an unproblematic biological description.

I do really appreciate that you are up for discussing this and being so calm and generous with your time but I honestly don't think you are taking on board what I'm saying. You're responding to an argument I never made.

Himalaya I get your point but I want the data partly just to annoy other people

Seriously, I would like to be able to challenge the status quo in both regards. Firstly, that discrimination of any kind for any reason is wrong, and secondly because the excuses being offered to to justify it are wrong (at least in part)

Kind of a double pronged approach

I think any attempt to look for differences between men and women needs to be made with great care and attention to the fact that our terminology and perspective is shaped by deeply ingrained sexism that has been part of society for a long, long time. This binary attitude - the attitude that, if you dispute any part of the claim 'men are stronger than women', you must necessarily be arguing for the reverse statement 'women are stronger than men' - is not logical, and it is a failure to step outside the oppressive binary that reinforces and results from said deeply ingrained sexism.

I think that thinking in binary terms is something the patriarchy likes us to do: there's men, and there's the others. Lump them all together, they're all the same. But we don't have to accept those terms. We can say 'I don't just disagree with you that women are weaker ... I disagree that strength should ever have become a gendered term. Look, here are other ways you could have defined that term ... now, doesn't it look silly to try to argue that one sex is stronger than the other?!'.

I do think stats about how women are good at things stereotypically considered to be male strengths is a good way to shock people out of their preconceptions, so it is very helpful to have this thread. But in compiling those stats, we don't have to accept the patriarchial binaries. We don't have to keep using gender as the primary way of distinguishing between one group and another. IMO.

I don't want my strength (or lack of) to be a condition on my equality so i find this argument a bit futile

I am bigger and stronger than my kids but i would never use that to victimise them. my dh happens to be a foot taller than me and 4 stone heavier. pure genetics, and whilst i could be fitter and run further, i doubt i would ever beat him in an arm wrestle

but this is why i find this argument makes me really angry. i don't want to spend hours at the gym making muscle. i am inherently small and i am not that keen on exercise. but my dh treats and sees me as an equal human being because that is the right and humane way to be regardless of size, gender, colour

i see misogyny everywhere but making women like or the same as men is not the answer. you wouldn't expect a black man to turn white just to be equal. he has inherently different coloured skin but he/she is equal because they are human. so yes i have periods and a womb, i am the only one that could breastfeed my kids. but why should i change that to be equal?

I don't see why the two points of view put forward by Himalaya and LRD are not both valid.

1. Himalaya is correct that human equality should not be presaged on the basis of unequal "strength" - however it is defined. Equality should be the starting point.

2. LRD is correct in that it is is important to clarify what definition of strength you are using if you are going to use such an ambiguous term and b) that society, culture etc. has given a false measurement of strength (by the male default definition that is) by restricting what females have been allowed to do and what society has found acceptable and therefore our data are subject to confounding and bias.

Whether argument 1 is more effective in counteracting patriarchy than argument 2 or vice versa is a point for debate.

Personally I believe 1) should be the default argument but where 2) is in error that should be corrected because it adds to the sum of data. Data are good because they feed into any ongoing debate.

I certainly agree with himalaya that it is vital not to discriminate in that way.

Perhaps what makes this problematic is that equality can't be created by treating everyone as if they are the same. Women are different to men; women can get pregnant and men can't. As such, we have to create societies that take those differences into account to achieve equality.

The problem lies when we either pretend there is no difference, by which we generally mean that we will set up society to suit the group of people who don't get pregnant and marginalise the situation of people who do. Or alternatively a society in which we acknowledge that women are different, but rather than deal with the very obvious reproductive differences and create a society that suits this, we start either inventing differences that don't exist, or massively over-emphasising small differences.

So when it comes to strength, I think we have to be very careful about making sure we are accurate in what that difference is, and what exactly we mean by strength, and what the particular context is we are looking at. I think it is very different if we are talking about a tennis player at the height of their career, or someone working in manual labour all day every day, as many women and men do. In much the same way, it is clear that their are people of different ethnic, geographically based groups who have a greater lung capacity and are as a group better at certain sports as a result, but that is a very different context to looking at every day tasks.

Well said, Milly.

yes - when I started thinking about this, I was partly thinking about traditional ways of measuring strength, and even using those the old 'women are weaker so that means' ... arguments start to look a bit flat.

however, other ways of measuring 'strength' are just as important. I don't want o try & prove that women are as strong/stronger/better than men, I just want to be able to challenge the idea that there's something innate about the biology of men/women which makes things the way they are.

I know that if you said to many people (I'm thinking about my parents btw, and trying to imagine these conversations with them) they would agree with Himalaya's point that everyone should be treated equally. However, they would then go on to say that because of the biological differences then however much you want to do that, it wouldn't be practical, because you couldn't have a heavily pregnant woman in a war zone etc. (Completely ignoring the fact that vast numbers of women are in war zones, natural disasters etc, but they're ignored cos they're part of the general population, not the soldiers).

So I want to try & put together an argument that shows that women aren't as weak as they are often perceived, AND that even where they are weaker, it doesn't mean they should be treated a certain way.

Different ways of measuring strength is a good way to go with this, but I fear it would be a step too far for my parents. I suspect that I would be told I'm being 'awkward' (again).

Recently I attended a conference where one of the sessions was about gender issues. The woman running it said that all the definitions of things like gender/sex/sexuality etc should be seen more on a sliding scale, rather than just as a binary division. (So glad that I work at the kind of place where discussions like this are expected & embraced. I teach, so we're trying to pass this kind of open mindedness on to the kids.) So, even the idea of male/female as a 'natural' division is being challenged, with people discussing the idea that there can be some kind of 'mix', and that this is a natural & normal way to be.