2653
Comments (254)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
48
DemRefugee007 48 points ago +50 / -2

I mean, they can be in some cases. They just aren't on average because biology.

75
Gmama2 75 points ago +75 / -0

I am a woman. Those cases are extremely limited. That's why a middle school soccer team can beat the US Woman's olympic team.

Oh wait , now that "women" can have male biology ...

25
Frog_Anne 25 points ago +26 / -1

It's such an odd hill for liberals to die on. Are there really that many women that want to think they're stronger than men? I guess if you live in a sketchy area, or you know a bunch of sleazy men you'd be scared, but weak men aren't at all attractive. Sorry to be rude, and I'm not saying they have to be Olympic-level gym bros to be attractive, just a normal reasonably fit man. I knew a very nice guy once with the softest little hands and a dead fish handshake. Yuck.

19
Wankerton 19 points ago +19 / -0

Women are looking for economically viable men. How funny, The entire education system shits on men so they are less likely to go to college. They have female only scholarships, even though they are the majority. Then women choose critical gender theory to be weaponized against men. Then women spread that weaponization to other women.

And you wonder why men are dropping out.

Ladies you are going to have to give if you want to get.

6
CannonballJunior 6 points ago +7 / -1 (edited)

There are always some exceptions, but - men avoiding non-stem college may be a true blessing in disguise for many. Including a financial/income blessing.

In fact, today's generation of males may be instinctively or rationally more perceptive on the whole than females are - in realizing what a pointless & shitty racket much of college is now.

4
ProdigalPlaneswalker 4 points ago +4 / -0

economically viable

"Don't forget me."

1
Ptannerdactyl 1 point ago +1 / -0

Might be from my computer background but the way I do things is code for the biggest block of data/behavior and then add in exceptions. The exceptions are necessary pieces to digest everything, but they’re not the norm.

The exceptions aren’t used to describe the norm because they’re not the norm. It shouldn’t be a personal insult to say that, that’s just how it is.

6
WillyP702 6 points ago +6 / -0

What I find interesting is.. They claim women can be stronger than men but as soon as a man hits a woman back. he gets the electric chair. haha If women are just as strong as men then why do we all go crazy when a woman is abused?? It's the same reason we go crazy when a child is abuse. THEY ARE NOT THE PHYSICAL STRONGER SPECIES on this planet. They never were. In those limited cases where women are stronger than men. The man is usually out of shape or mentally and emotionally weak. WE have a lot of little boys pretending to men out there that women are stronger than.

27
GorillaWarfare 27 points ago +27 / -0

They just aren't at all because biology. Have a look at competitive powerlifters sometime. In any weight class, the absolute best-of-the-best, top 1% of female lifters would get blown out of the water by middle-to-bottom male competitors and most regular gym bros who've never competed in their lives. MMA? Same scenario.

Literally the only scenario where women "can be" physically stronger than men is if you're comparing female pro athletes to skinny soyboys or fat lardasses who never leave the couch. Statistical outliers don't mean anything. Differences in bone and muscle structure mean that pound for pound males will always be physically stronger than females of similar size.

7
john1234 7 points ago +10 / -3

Females have less muscle mass in relation to intestines. And thus more intestines in relation to body weight

In really, really long ultra-endurance races / sports, it's not about speed, maximum strength, maximum power or even maximum oxygen uptake / VO2 max.

It's all about how much energy you can produce from carbs/fat with your intestines / organs, in relation to how much energy you spend. And women have small muscles, large intestines

And that is why women in relation to men are at their best in really, really long ultra-endurance races

Women are never gonna win men in speed / strength / power etc, but they will be so close in ultra-endurance that the best women will not be beaten by random guys.

12
T__X 12 points ago +14 / -2

They're so close that they go back and forth with men almost every other year in ultra-endurance events like the Boston Marathon or the Iron Man Triathlon or the Ultraman endurance challenge.

Oops, sorry, i meant a woman has never won any of those ever.

9
john1234 9 points ago +10 / -1

In 100+ hour races, the difference is less than 7% with 36-year-olds:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899381/

Some women have already beat men in some ultra-endurance-competitions:

https://www.ft.com/content/0ead55ca-1d85-11e9-a46f-08f9738d6b2b

And some have already claimed women to be faster in general:

https://runrepeat.com/state-of-ultra-running

"Female ultra runners are faster than male ultra runners at distances over 195 miles. The longer the distance the shorter the gender pace gap. In 5Ks men run 17.9% faster than women, at marathon distance the difference is just 11.1%, 100-mile races see the difference shrink to just .25%, and above 195 miles, women are actually 0.6% faster than men."

High/long jumps: 17-19% difference, and those women were doped.

In weightlifting, the max world record difference is 49% for the snatch

If you bother to study it, it becomes very evident that that the longer the race, the smaller the male advantage. And so do the biological reasons behind the phenomenom

1
T__X 1 point ago +2 / -1 (edited)

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I just find it amusing how some people want to drink the Gurrrrl Power kool-aid so hard that they push these silly, meaningless articles and spin pointless arguements to be able to say "see, women are better! Nyah-nyah!" (Edit: not meaning to imply that i think you're doing that here - you just happen to be referencing others who have done that)

Look at the language around that "some claim women are better at 195 mile+ distances." Try to find the data they based that on (hint, you probably can't). And the number of data points at that level are so small that the difference is overwhelmed by the error bar and other influencing factors. (Such as "Because of the lower numbers of women in longer distance ultra races, the women who participate tend to be professional, elite runners, while perhaps (the participant pool of) men are still amateurs at those distances".

But the elite women can out run the on-average-amateur-men by 0.6% at those distances. Yay gals!

Are there things that women naturally do better than men? Of course. But the energy always seems focused on showing how women are / can be better in areas that run counter to traditionally understood gender roles. It's just propoganda.

3
Wankerton 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think they are talking about 100 mile+ marathon runs. When it's that long any extra muscle weight on the upper body wears you down.

Also women seem to do better at sharp shooting. Maybe due to less muscles and lower blood pressure. Doesn't mean they'd be better snipers. I dont see them likely to crawl through a mile of literal shit over the course of 3 days to get into position. Though one time in Sweden during wwII a female did kill a bunch of Russian invaders.

3
Thrasymachus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sharp shooting in European-spec competitions with custom-made $40,000 .22LR rifles that weight two-and-a-half ounces, yea. That's not "shooting" anymore, it's an arbitrary exercise in fine motor control with no relevance to combat arts.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0 (edited)
2
ronburgandy 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's why I hated the character of Abby so much in the Last of Us 2. Maybe like 1 % of women on earth are that ripped, and you sure as shit wouldn't be that ripped living on burritos in a zombie apocalypse.

4
IcedCovfefe 4 points ago +4 / -0

When the Williams sisters were at their prime, one of them went up against the like 1000th ranked male tennis player in a private setting. He had drunk a couple of beers before the match and he still wiped the floor with her.

2
arebee 2 points ago +2 / -0

lol fuck off with this ALT RIGHT Propaganda. https://olympics.nbcsports.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/09/gettyimages-943604494-e1569425359179.jpg this is a picture of a STRONG, BEAUTIFUL woman that dont need no man and she's a lot stronger than most men that dont work out.

Olympian woman, stronger than most men. Beautiful too. New zealand churns out some strong women. SO WHAT if she has some arm pit hair, male pattern balding and test levels of a 40yo fat male pretending to be a woman, she's as strong as any guy out there!

10
Smurfection 10 points ago +10 / -0

99.9% of healthy men are physically stronger than 99.9% of healthy women. A 70 year old man in good condition can kick the ass of a 20 year old woman in good shape, even if she's trained. I know that we've been fed a steady stream of women-kick-butt entertainment for the last 30 years but the reality is, the vast majority of women can be taken down by a man with little effort and women pose no physical threat to men.

Women's bone density is 70% less than a man's and women have smaller bones too, even proportionately. Not only do men have more muscle than women, gram for gram, men's muscles are also stronger. Women's hands can do a lot of small detailed tasks but men's hands can function like clubs and a woman's can't. If a woman could put the power of a man's punch into her arm and hand, she'd be likely to fracture her wrist.

3
arebee 3 points ago +3 / -0

I wonder why RONDA ROUSEY the powerhouse female never accepted tank abbotts challenge of a fight.

I mean..tank abbott is old! Rousey was still in her prime too! https://raw-daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2-fea-4-640x360.jpg

3
Smurfection 3 points ago +3 / -0

Only people who have not been physically training with members of the opposite sex could possibly believe that even a trained fighter like Ronda Rousey could take on a man.

YouTube did a search and destroy a long time ago, but Andy Kaufmann, back in the day, challenged feminists to find one woman who could beat him in wrestling. So a female Olympic wrestler decided to wrestled Andy Kaufmann, a comedian, in front of a live audience. Andy Kaufmann deliberately did not train for the fight at all. He won. It wasn't close. If you watch the film you can kind of see that he hangs back at first and doesn't really want to go full on, but eventually he does and the fight is over.

We need to stop pretending that women have the same physical strength as men.

1
BidenTouchedMe 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yea if she's power lifting and juicing she might have a chance. Quit making excuses. Men are stronger 99.9% of the time. Faster smarter on the bell curve. Not saying that makes men better. Just that I hate science denial. Women create humans which is the most amazing function a human body can do.

2
arebee 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bra, there's some strong lady powerlifters who DEFINITELY don't do steroids, showing up all the guys, like this little lass https://thevaliens.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/becca-swanson1.jpg?w=440&h=196

Tiny, petite AND strong!

1
BidenTouchedMe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Number one. She does steroids. Number two. Take joe blow off the street her size who eats junk all day and he destroys her.

-2
DemRefugee007 -2 points ago +1 / -3

I'm not making excuses, you guys are just screeching. You sound like liberals. If the teacher said "can be" it isn't a controversial statement. It really depends on what they said.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0