Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Oh Mez, thank you, thank you thank you  for picking up on this!!!
    
    First, the statement that women are "weaker" than men is (IMHO)
    predjudicial to begin with. "Weakness" carries with it a totally
    negative connotation. No matter to whom it is applied. 
    
    Now perhaps, the writer meant that women are not as muscularly
    strong as men. That is certainly true. The assumption that muscular
    strength is, in and of itself, a "good thing" comes from two 
    sources, as I see it. 1)Back when you wrestled Mastadons if yu wanted
    grub, it helped. (There is good evidence to show that early folk
    were vegetarian, so strength didn't really matter. So maybe this
    isn't a "source" at all) And (mostly) 2): That what is "good" and
    what is "not good" has been defined by men for thousands of years.
    Since men have more muscular strength, then muscular strength is
    "good". IF you don't have that, you are not "the best".
    
    You create the games you are best at. If you are best at muscular
    strength, you make up games in which you have to knock someone over,
    hit an object very hard with a stick, or any combination of things
    which need good muscle strength. If people without good muscle strength
    cannot play those games as well, it's because of some defect in
    them. Get it? See how it works?
    
    Some women are muscularly stronger than some men, BTW. And, of course,
    if you know good body mechanics and leverage, you have advantages
    in confrontation situations no matter what your "Brute strength".
    
    Strength of character? Ability to keep plugging against overwhelming
    odds? Well, now, *there's* a discussion!  Maybe in another reply.....
    
    --DE
    

    MANY men are (muscularly) stronger than MANY women.  Please no sweeping
    statements.  My lifting partner can bench press 150 lbs, squat 230
    lbs, and dead lift 200 lbs, and I know a lot of men who can't do that.

    Men have traditionally been instilled with the description of being
    stronger, faster, smarter than women.  Women were instilled with
    the description of being more sensitive, more understanding, more
    supportive than men.  There is no concrete dividing line and we
    are not given a set of "you are this" for life.  I have shown myself
    in the past year that I have more endurance, a stronger will, and
    greater physical strength and grace than I ever imagined.  Such
    stereotypical labels only serve to limit people by forcing them
    to (consciously or subconsciously) contain themselves within a certain
    mold.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re.1
    even if early civilizations were vegetarian there were other animals
    out there that were meat eating.  Therefore strength, quickness
    and agility would be prime factors in defending themselves from
    the other animals or just nature itself.
    
    re.2
    Yes, these are all generalizations.
    You can say men are stronger than women, but in most cases
    a woman can be found who would be physically stronger than a
    particular male.
    
    i think our society has made this question irrelevant for the
    most part.  We have constructed our own enviroment where
    strength, quickness and agility have become far less important
    for day to day living.
    Personally, i feel that as we have become more detached from the
    direct influence of the natural enviroment we have become
    more confused, more degenerate, and much more completely 
    wrapped up in the individual.
    
    Bob
    

    
    I've been thinking about this topic for a long time.  (Actually
    in terms of "better/worse" rather than "strong/weak"--but that is
    even more confusing, so I'll try to stay with "strong/weak").
                                                                
    I agree with Dawn that to make sense of it you need to tie the
    adjective to some concrete category.
    
    Further, I feel the need to emphasize that female/male characteristics
    (at least psychologically) are partially overlapping bell curves so
    that in thinking about this I end up with a hypothetical male (in the
    middle of the "male bell curve" and a hypothetical female). 
    
    There are some anatomical differences in the brain, such that the
    hemispheres of males are somewhat more specialized than females
    (at least for right-handed males).  
    
    Anyway, I think that in situations which require a narrow, highly
    focussed goal, men are often stronger (not that women can't or don't
    do this, but I certainly see lots more men working toward a single
    goal and willing to accept whatever isolation, fragmentation, or
    destruction comes with that).  
    
    I think that women (remember HYPHOTHETICAL) are typically stronger
    in areas that include integration, synthesis, balance, negotiation.
    
    (Women also recover from brain-damage more easily than do men.)
    
    Girls are stronger in math/science than boys; Men are stronger in
    those areas than women--presumably due to effects of socialization
    by both peers and teachers.
    
    I think you are strongest if you can develop a repertoire of strengths,
    learning SOME of the stereotypic skills of each sex so that you
    can pull out the appropriate one when you need it.
    
    That sounds good, but is hard to do.
    
	Don
    
    

    Women have more stamina than men.  Women have a higher tolerance
    for heat, cold, and pain than men.  (That last really makes sense.)
    
    							Ann B.

    Like most statistical generalizations, quoting statistics that show
    that men are "stronger" (by some measure, maybe number of pounds they
    can lift or miles they can do on a treadmill, or something similar)
    than women doesn't turn out to mean much, because it says nothing about
    a particular individual's abilities.  That is why it is so abhorrent to
    me that there are still absurd laws in some states that do not allow
    women to be hired to do jobs that require (or are said to require)
    lifting things over a certain weight, and similar sillinesses.  Just as
    a silly example, a law might forbid me to be hired into a job where I
    would have to lift over 30 pounds (probably repealed by now, let's
    hope, with state equal rights amendments in effect, even if we never
    managed to get a national one passed...sigh...); now, my diving weight
    belt carries 32 pounds on it (for diving up here in the cold water with
    a full wetsuit), and I normally carry both it and Paul's weight belt
    (another 26 pounds) as well as my gear bag (never weighed that), a
    couple of times every weekend.  Statistics prove nothing about
    individuals.  IN a work-related context, it wouldn't make much sense to
    hire an individual based on some kind of group statistics; either the
    individual can perform the job effectively (or can learn to do so) or
    he/she cannot, regardless of any six-differentiated statistics on the
    work being performed.  I would think that would be obvious, anyhow.
    
    There was a great deal of noise several years ago about some statistics
    that "proved" that people of caucasian descent scored better on
    standardized "intelligence" tests than people of black ancestry.
    People thought this was rascist.  To me, it was not so much that, but
    that, even assuming that the data analysis was accurate, it didn't
    prove anything about any particular person, and so was not very useful
    information except to determine why it is so (lack of educational
    oppurtunities, money spent on local schools, etc. - all more likely
    than a genetic difference, I think).
    
    /Charlotte

<    There was a great deal of noise several years ago about some statistics
<    that "proved" that people of caucasian descent scored better on
<    standardized "intelligence" tests than people of black ancestry.
<    People thought this was rascist.  To me, it was not so much that, but
<    that, even assuming that the data analysis was accurate, it didn't
<    prove anything about any particular person, and so was not very useful
<    information except to determine why it is so (lack of educational
<    oppurtunities, money spent on local schools, etc. - all more likely
<    than a genetic difference, I think).
    

       I seem to remember that in the same or a similar test that those
       of oriental descent scored higher than whites. Now again, what
       all that proves I couldn't say. liesl

    Yes, that is the same collection of data.  Doesn't prove much of
    anything, which is the what I was trying to say about statistics in
    general.

    Here's the thing about muscular strength. If you take a random male
    and a random female, train them equally in weight-lifting and strength
    increasing exercises, the male will end up stronger than the female.
    9, maybe 8 times out of 10. OK now?
    
    RE: .3 and animals chasing OG thru the underbrush
    
    I'd say quickness and agility were the necessary dominant factors
    here, and strength not much of a factor. ("LOOK, OG, big g****mn
    critter chasing us! Run like hell!") In that case, women, not men
    would have the edge.
    
    Women have more stamina, and thus will eventually surpass men at
    athletic events like marathon running.  
    
    The thing is: Who *cares*?? The only reason it matters is because
    one group has been the standard for so long that the native abilites
    of the "out group" (women) have been seen as abnormal.
    
    The Eastern concept of YIN/YANG handles this quite well. Neither
    is "better" or "worse". They are simply different...opposites.
    (And here's the key) Opposites WHICH COULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE
    OTHER. Opposites which together form a whole....human abilities,
    in this case.
    
    And of course, each opposite is also found within each individual
    as well. SO some women are stronger than some men. Some men have
    better endurance than some women. So more power to them both.
    
    --DE
    

    My mother at 5'4" was/is a very strong person.  She is the mother
    of seven children.  For many years she carried either a toddler
    and an infant or a toddler and a basket of laundry etc.  She 
    continues the manifest stamina and endurance at the age of 68
    while holding down a full time job managing 120 people and maintaining
    a home.  I particularly admire her for her strong-willed recovery
    from two major life threatening accidents.
    
    My own personal experience has shown me that any job that needs
    to be done around a home can be accomplished by a woman.  True,
    it may take longer but it can be done, I can paint a three story
    house, sand a floor, build a deck etc.
    
    I suspect that a woman's stamina and endurance start out slowly
    and build through the years.
    
    m

>    I suspect that a woman's stamina and endurance start out slowly
>    and build through the years.

I suspect women receive little encouragement to build stamina in the early
years, then, later, when real life calls, they start building it.

This is based on a single data point, me.
	Mez

Dawn,

    Women already  surpass men at real stamina events, namely swimming
    extreme  distances  (across the channel, around Manhattan multiple
    times.)

--David

    Personal statement:  I'm an expert skier.  I have shared notes with
    other men who also consider themselves as experts.  We have all
    had the experience of skiing with experts who happen to be women.
    We have all also had the experience of being completely blown off
    a hill by the endurance of some of those women.  The first time
    it happened to me was particularly humiliating, I was 23, in my
    prime, and skiing with two women in their late 30s.  They ran my
    sorry self ragged all over that mountain, which was fine until about
    3 PM.  From 3-4 they destroyed me.  From 4-4:20 I picked my way
    down the mountain while they enjoyed a few more runs without me.
    It has happened since, so I'm not humiliated by it anymore, I've
    learned: Endurance?  Many women certainly have it, and in greater 
    degree than I do.
    
    DougO

At 26 miles, the marathon is too short to test for the sort of ultimate
stamina suggested by .10.  (It only requires about 2,500-3,000 calories).

Perhaps a 100-200 mile race without food would be a better test, but I
rather doubt it would become sufficiently popular to give you a good
set of data.  Practically all races longer than 10 Km (6 miles) offer
some sort of sugar solution to the runners.  This practically eliminates
any physiological "stamina" advantage a woman might have.

The best women are, roughly, 10-15% slower than the best men for all distances
from 100 meters to the marathon.  Very few people in the running community
think this is a particularly interesting fact; although the physiological
reasons would be of interest.

If you watch Boston or New York on television, you may note the group
of men that tag along with the lead woman.  If you watch closely, the
group changes: even though she will run 30 seconds/mile slower than the
first men, the lead woman is in so much better shape than the men
running her 5:30 pace that they usually drop back before the finish.

For a man younger than 40 to be accepted into the Boston marathon, he must
have run a previous marathon under 3:00 (about 7 minutes/mile). The woman's
qualifing limit is 3:30 (about 8 minutes/mile), about 15% slower. About 1/3
of the Boston field are women.

Boston is an elite marathon: I could post statistics for New York, which
is open to all, if there's interest.  I suspect, however, that they're
similar.

Martin.

    
    RE. 10
    I really don't think stamina would be much of a factor in
    getting away from attacking animals.  Man is a rather slow 
    animal and can be outrun by most predatory animals.  if one
    were trying to run away from some animal it would most likely
    be a case of getting to a safe haven as quickly as possible.
    
    i agree with the YING/YANG  theory.  The whole question of
    equality is idiotic.  We are not equal, we are different, and
    together make up the human race.  To put more importance on
    one than the other is shallow thinking.  i see it as valuing
    the heads side of a coin more than the tails side.  the coin
    is one thing and to value one side more than the other is
    pointless.
    
    

	RE: .16
    
    	> The whole question of equality is idiotic.
    
    	Well, the word 'equality' has common usage now when many/most
    	people talk about working for (what I consider) equitable
    	treatment for women (in employment/education opportunities,
    	etc.)  In that light, I wouldn't call the use of the word
    	'equality' as idiotic, unless you're out to call everyone
    	who works for 'equal rights' idiots (which I am sure is not
    	your intention.)
    
      	> We are not equal, we are different, and together make up the 
    	> human race. 
    
    	However, we are not so different that that there are no overlaps
    	in our qualities.  As Dawn said, the two (yin and yang) are
    	present in EACH INDIVIDUAL.
    
    	> To put more importance on one than the other is shallow 
    	> thinking.  i see it as valuing the heads side of a coin more 
    	> than the tails side.  the coin is one thing and to value one 
    	> side more than the other is pointless.
    
    	If you're talking about valuing those qualities (that exist
    	in EACH of us) which represent the two sides, then I agree.

    
    RE. 17
    i'm not talking about valuing anything.  There is no value to 
    anything.  Value is all a headgame.  The only value anything
    has is what we believe it to have.  A dollar bill is only a
    colored piece of paper and only has value in that we believe 
    it does.  Does it have any value when we are starving to death
    and there is no food around?  No, its worthless.
    
    

    RE: .18, and 16(maybe?) excellent points - it's all a game.
    We need to make everybody equal players, tho'.
    
    RE: .13
    
    I didn't mention marathon swimming because I had frankly, forgotten.
    Why , you may ask? WEll, I guess it's because it's "media events"
    which capture the public's attention. Women have done this since
    the days of Gertrude Ederle, and who the (%^ remebers *her*?
    
    As far as media-covered stuff, the marathon runs are the best we
    can do.
    
    RE: Martin and marathoning women being slower
    
    I'd prefer to compare what happens when women have had equal chances
    at positive reinforcement and training for such a thing. The times
    become closer every year. We're catching up, and having had the
    incredible disadvantage women have, it's very heartening.
    
    At some point, it has to become obvious that many barriers have
    been artificial.
    
    --DE
    

    	RE:  .18
    
    	Well, you did use the word 'value' in your earlier note,
    	but if there is some word you would rather use, be my
    	guest.
    
    	In case my note .17 was unclear, what I meant to say was
    	that men and women are not strictly divided into two totally
    	separate subspecies (of the human race) with nothing in
    	common.
    
    	Qualities of the two aspects (male and female) can be found
    	in every individual to one degree or another, so while it
    	is possible to consider the aspects as being opposite, it
    	is not possible to classify all women as being the opposite
    	of all men.
    
    	Since it takes both aspects (male and female) to complete the
    	human species, it is pointless to think of one aspect as being
    	more significant/valuable/normal/whatever_you_want_to_call_it
	than the other aspect (especially since parts of both aspects
    	can be found in each of us.)

    re.19
    we don't need to make everyone equal players.  this is something
    i see as being impossible.
    What we need to do is put everyone up against the same scale and
    see how they measure up.  there should be no prejudice involved.
    to say, a person is THIS (male/female,whatever) so they can't do THAT
    is to put blinders on.  You should see if they can do THAT.
    if they can do it, let them do it, if they can't do it, then
    they can't. 
    

more tangent...

I now have inherent distrust of a 'scale', since it's pretty obvious to me you
only measure what you're looking for.

...that blindess of the seeing eye.
	Freud

	Mez

>    I now have inherent distrust of a 'scale', since it's pretty obvious to me you
>only measure what you're looking for.
 
    You can always measure (look for) something else. Nobody says that
    there has to only be one scale.
    
     Mark

    RE: .23 and .21
    
    Right. Who decides the scale? Who then decides what the "ends"
    of the scale are?
    
    The scale hasn't changed. Presently, those who are not deciding
    the scale are at the two "dysfunctional" ends of the scale,
    and thus by definition, unable to be decision-makers.
    
    Why would a goup of people who have created the scale, and who are
    therefore the group most functional on it, participate in changing
    to a new scale?  While it is well to say that the "YIN/YANG" type
    of mindset is most equitable, there is still the andocentric view
    that one thing is "better" and the opposite MUST BE "worse". I don't
    see that changing on a society-wide basis.
    
    --DE
    

    
    When i mentioned scale, i wasn't talking about a broad based
    measure of value.  I meant measuring specific abilities, like
    if you have a job which would require heavy lifting, you want
    to see how much weight a person applying for the job can lift.
    you shouldn't automatically discount women.  you should measure
    them on the same scale as everyone else and if they can lift
    an appropriate amount of weight, they should get an equal
    shot at the job on that basis.  
    
    

While we're clarifying:

There are very few jobs that only require a single skill. Hence my concern
about measuring 'the' skill.

Actually, I'd appreciate anyone with real life experience in a job that
required a single skill. That would be interesting.
	Mez

    
    re.26
    Are you making fun of me :-)
    
    Yeah, thinking back, i guess the scale stuff wasn't to effective
    in conveying what i wanted.  There are certainly somethings i
    wouldn't even attempt to measure someone on a scale (like how
    well they get along with other people...how well they would
    fit into a particular group, etc.)
    And now i've gotten a bit confused about exactly what i was
    trying to say......
    
    well, about the base question, i'd say there are no absolutes.
    no matter how hard you try you are not going to have a strictly
    defined line with which to categorize the sexes, and who'd
    want it.....things would get prety boring.
    
    

>    Are you making fun of me :-)
 
No Bob, but I do poke fun at life a lot. You wouldn't be the first to think
that included you :-).
	Mez

>...    if you have a job which would require heavy lifting...

    Funny that you should mention it.

    In a recent issue of National Geographic there's an article
    about the Himalayas.  One of the pictures was of a long line
    of Nepalese women carrying heavy lumber along a trail.
    (It looked kind of like railroad ties.)

    I didn't read the article closely, but it seemed to say that
    this was considered "women's work" in that region.
    
-Jeff

re: .19 -- (a bit of a rathole)
    RE: Martin and marathoning women being slower
    
    I'd prefer to compare what happens when women have had equal chances
    at positive reinforcement and training for such a thing. The times
    become closer every year. We're catching up, and having had the
    incredible disadvantage women have, it's very heartening.

Umm, I think you're undervaluing the elite women: they train as hard
as the elite men, and, in the major races (Boston, New York), receive
exactly the same amount of prize money.  The two or three women at
the top are doing quite well economically.  In fact, I think that,
among Americans, Joan Samuelson is probably earning more in endorsements
than any American male marathoner.   (I don't know enought about shorter
distances to estimate earnings; I rather doubt that the sprinters are
starving, however).

At the very top level, women's marathon times have not improved beyond Joan
Benoit's Boston time (from about 5 years ago).  There are two factors here:
on the one hand, the goal is to win the race.  On the other, there are so
few world-class women that there is seldom more than one or two in a race,
so there isn't enough competition to push better times.   The lack of depth
can also be seen just below the elite level: over 1000 men ran New York
under three hours, but only about 50 women.  (The total field is about 1/3
women.)

I've heard a rumor that both Joan Samuelson and Rosa Mota will compete in the
Boston Marathon next year.  If Joan is uninjured, it could be interesting
as I think either woman is capable of taking 2-3 minutes off of the course
record (which would also set a world's best time for women).

---

On the other hand, a lot more could be done at elementary/secondary school
level to train and reenforce women's athletics.  The good young runners
I meet seem to have had good support from their families, and from local
clubs, such as Liberty.

Martin.

    In reply to the base note, I'd like to put my 2 cents in.
                                                     
    I believe we can break a person into 3 beings: the physical, the
    character, and the intellect. In my %$# years of observing human
    nature, I find men to physically stronger, women have more strength
    of character and we are about equal in the intellegence part.
    
    There are 1,000,000,000 exceptions to every rule.
    
    Kate