you're talking as if all men work out and have muscle and women are all too weak to open jars. many women have more drive to strengthen bc they have to work harder at it. also women have better endurance. strength is not simply brute force. men get worked up too easily and can't think clearly. tears are not evidence of being 'emotionally volatile. tears are the bodies response to calming from an intense situation. and clearly with good reason- no one has heart attacks or kills from crying.
physical response to emotional stimuli is how emotion is measured and men have more involuntary response. and more anxiety. the fat violence is an acceptable way to release anxiety is the reason male emotional weakness goes ignored.
anyhow its all moot. which gender is what is irrelevant. ever since technological advancement. no human can beat a weapon or out work a machine. in nature and in technology human are the weakest and slowest of all creation. regardless of gender.
On average, men are 50% stronger than women and have higher endurance do to their larger surface area, mire efficient muscular structure and bone structure, maybe 1-2% of women are stronger than an average man. But all men have the potential to easily surpass any woman in strength with relatively little effort. And women are neurobiologically more predisposed to emotional volatility. Their brains are literally wired to be more emotional.
In nature humans are by far the best in two categories. Dexterity and endurance, over a long distance humans can out run any naturally evolved animal. We're also pretty high up there when it comes to agility, but I'll admit we're far from apex in thar regard. Certain animals like horses and huskies can outrun humans over distance, but those animals where bred by us to do specifically that. They are essentially human creations so they don't count here.
I love how you got totally butthurt even at the THOUGHT of women being physically weaker than men (which is a fact - only a tiny percentage of women are stronger than men. Most men are stronger than women without training.
Nobody is taking away what women are good at. Just remember that. This is not a competition if you don't make it one. Men don't want to compete with women.
And I love how you had to bring up weapons. "Usain Bolt is at the finish - but the disabled wheelchaired woman on lane 8 pulls a glock, and just fucking shoots him! Ladies and gentlemen, looks like we have a new winner for olympic running!"
Having of a man doesn't equal fighting ability. if u still fight like a woman strength means shit. i shave my head so im courious to see how you'd pull my hair as hair pulling appears to be womens main "fighting move"
@ManaX It just sounds gross. But whatever. You do you. Though I'd advise you to try chips with a mixture of vinegar, cream fresh, salt and pepper. It's fucking delicious.
Who else would publish such an article, if not the BBC! Spending the British taxpayers' money on progressive propaganda...
But let's examine it. Usually in such articles, to uncover the author's intent, you have to look at the premises and the conclusions. The premise is know. And the conclusions drawn are:
"So, while it’s pure fantasy to imagine that women may suddenly become physically stronger than men, some of the shifts that such a scenario would trigger are already underway. As Fairbairn says, “I’d rather women just run the world as we are now.”"
Great. Fan-fucking-tastic. A publicist of an independant national newspaper writing articles about straight up female superiority, and promoting it unabashedly.
Forgive me for not reading the whole thing, but I refuse to waste my time on this kind of garbage as long as the UK government officially recongnizes misandry as a hatecrime, or abolishes the concept of hatecrime altogether.
Women are just as strong as men there's no difference in strength that's fact. Men have muscle tissue and women have muscle tissue so why is one stronger? It isn't if I said for every cm^2 of muscle tissue you can lift 50g which gender is stronger? Men because we just so happen to have more muscle tissue per cm^2 but there is no reason a woman can't build as much muscle tissue as a man. In fact in most species the female is always bigger, stronger and more dominant to protect it's babies, spiders for example or gorillas in fact female gorillas scare male gorillas no wonder my girlfriend is terrifying XD.
You can't just "build" muscle tissue. Your body builds it, based on what you need. It is regulated by your testosterone levels. Which is very low for women. So women won't be stronger than men anytime soon, unless you give them steroids (artificial testosterone-like substance).
In most species the female isn't bigger. It is highly dependant on the species. For mammals, the male is usually the bigger one.
Silverbacks are about 1.5 times larger than female gorillas. I want to smoke the same shit you do, because that would mean I can fly and shit.
But I guess you were right about your girlfriend being terrifying. You are a gigantic pussy, after all.
Uh yes you can ever seen female bodybuilders yh they build muscle. And it isn't regulated by testosterone it is aided by testosterone genius. Also women have testosterone.
I stated "in most species" the female is bigger and what's your reply? 😂 It is highly dependent on the species? What? Are you implying a certain species dictates the average dominant gender? Were not talking about mammals hence I said "most species"
They are indeed but the female gorilla is far stronger despite its looks. I don't smoke.
And calling me a pussy hiding behind your phone/pc isn't it do hypocritical?
BREAKING NEWS: Female bodybuilder builds body! Buddy, do you know why there is a "natural" category in bodybuilding? Because everyone else is using gear. Female bodybuilder in particular, are walking pharmacies. Males too. Just a bit of a comparison. A healthy male has a testosterone level of I think 400-900 nmol/dL. Bodybuilders usually have between 5000 and 21000 nmol/dL. That's insane. And here comes the kicker - women's testosterone levels: 7-44 nmol/dl. Yeah. Quote a divide.
Saying most species, and then including fucking paying mantises and ants is pretty dumb though. They are almost irrelevant to human development, we are entire different organism. To find any semblance in behaviour, you HAVE to look at mammals.
"They are indeed but the female gorilla is far stronger despite its looks." I'm honestly fucking dumbfounded. I will admit that I can't find information as to whether male or female gorillas are stronger, because generally speaking it is intuitive that when the male is 2 times as heavy as the female (and it is), he WILL be stronger. It's like a 100 kg muscular man against a 50 kg muscular woman. Rose Namajunas vs Fedor Emelianenko. Where's your bet? But seriusly, this is one of thebmost wildly idiotic statements I have ever heard. Care to back it up with actual sources? Because it certainly doesn't hold any logical ground.
@Benedek38 nah bro I was just browsing and reading some question and came somehow to this one and you are the fking goat. You destroyed his pussy ass. I can't actually believe that someone would cry like a bitch just because you tell him the truth xD. Nah you wild. He even cried and said that the devs gonna deal with you and your "crazy ideology" laugh my fcking ass offff nah thats too much. 😂😂😂
A lot of women today are much stronger than the average man, girls involved in Cross Fit, Weightlifting & Bodybuilding. If all women became physically stronger it would make men feel emasculated and become submissive to females. Some men might like that, at least for a time but most men wouldn't so it would most likely entice more men to work on building more muscle and strength. Men are genetically designed to build more muscle & strength and in strength contests the strongest men are a lot stronger than the strongest women. Women are catching up but I can't see them ever surpassing the strongest men. Women involved in MMA fighting could also beat the average men in a fight but not the best MMA men. However if they put a man up against a female in a fight with no holds or hits barred, most women would beat men by kicking, hitting or squeezing him in his balls, the weak spot for all men & ironically the same thing that gives him more strength via the male hormone testosterone. I think a fight like that would really draw a crowd. :)
(2 part answer) Well... if this were to happen now, I think a lot of men would feel a lot more emasculated than they already do. Birth rates would probably decrease because as far as I know, men aren’t attracted by strong willed women because they equate assertiveness with masculinity. Even if a physically stronger female had a submissive state of mind, men would still be threatened. So lots of men would probably tap out sex. I’m guessing that having a more fit body would uplift women and more women would probably be more confident in themselves so there would be less self hate and less fighting between women because we wouldn’t be as insecure. Women would be happier generally and men would probably go into deep depression over time. Men would complain about this new found strength that women have.
And the women would be more inclined to shut them up. So there would be more conflict between the sexes. There’d be more single mothers but they’d be happier because they’d have a more confident and uplifting attitude. Men would feel as though they have no purpose. And the human species would probably die faster.
Bad, men are stronger by default cause of testosterone. That would mean women would have to produce the same or higher levels of testosterone, which would cause a lot fertility issues in women. Women who suffer from pcos is due to producing to much testosterone, it doesn't make us stronger, it just throws our body out of order. Also, the woman in the picture isn't something every man wants, she basically killed her femininity and a lost looks man like.
I think there are pros and cons. Rape and sex crimes would be way less common because women have generally less sex drive, and I think that would lead to a less confused and silent culture surrounding sex, because men are usually more open about such topics. If there was less reason for women to not behave in a promiscuous (although not necessarily sexually active) manner, that, I think, would make the world a better place. However, I read a paper that claimed women have been something like 30% more historically prone to starting war or international conflict, and I personally believe that can be extrapolated to interpersonal behavior, which could lead to more violence. In short, I think it could go either way but my guess is it would be for the better.
If we started from scratch, historically, it would pretty much be the same as it was and is, just with the roles reversed. But if it happened now, with all our knowledge of human history up until now, I think it could have a net positive effect.
Doubt it. Crime would raise especially violent crime and domestic abuse would be much worse on men than it already is. It's already true that women are just as likely to commit domestic abuse as a man. But I can't imagine what would happen if they had a bunch of testosterone running through their bodies as well.
But on a serious note, your periods wouldn't be periodic in the first place. Higher testosterone interferes with women's normal hormonal system. www.livestrong.com/.../
Nah, I was genuinely interested, seeing how ovulation is strated by elevated testosterone in the first place (which is why contraceptives contrain estrogene, to counteract said testosterone).
@FireAsh oh my god, what about people with 20% body fat and low muscle mass. They look skinny in their jeans/tshirt but they have a fat stomach and a double chin. What’s that? Fat or skinny.
I like it when woman are fit and take care of themselves but this is a bit too much. Bodybuilders are just ugly in general in my opinion. And i feel like there would be a lot more violent and explosive relatioships since woman are a tad bit more emotional than men. And if they are stronger than that does not bode well for us.
Society would be much more violent if women had more testosterone and more estrogen. Irrational emotional outbursts with more stregnth would be terrible.
There would be five hundred percent more sex if both women and men had strong testosterone. Fucking in the streets in public would most likely be legal.
More women would die at work and in war. Orgies would be the norm
It wouldn't matter as most jobs no longer require physical strength thanks to modern technology. Women are physically weaker than men because out bodies are built to bear children.
1) Not necessarily. In most parts of the world regular houses are build of bricks and concrete, and that's hard labour to build, mostly done by hand. My grandfather was a mason, I helped him build out own house, so I have first hand experience. 2) Even where it is motorized - you need to pack and move things left and right. An industrial drill weighs 10 kg. A pneumatic jackhammer is as heavy as a grown man. Shoveling dirt and stones, carrying bricks, etc - these are all done by hand. If you think construction is not a hard physical work, I suggest you try it.
@Benedek38 pneumatic jackhammer is attached to a digger. Machines shovel dirt and stones, and carry bricks. Nothing is done by hand unless you live in the third world. Obviously your grandfather couldn't afford machinery or you guys were building somewhere remote. The heaviest items you will carry are 25kg.
https://youtu.be/8rcqTiIMhwQ That's a handheld pneumatic jackhammer, commonly used everywhere in the world. I might have exagerated with the weight, they are 25-30 kg. The electric ones are heavier, and more common.
Machines shovel dirt - except when there are no machiens. Nobody's saying workers dig up hundreds of cubic meters of soil by hand, that's ludicrous. But it's not uncommon for a workwrbear to shovel dirt. or concrete all days long.
"Nothing is done by habd unless you. live in the third world" Stop. Just stop. I live in Eastern Europe, and minor constructions don't have machines. And even the ones that have require worker assistance, which usually. involves heavy lifting.
"The heaviest items you will carry are 25kg." Funny, because I distinctly remember carrying 50 kg concrete slabs. A torchwelding canister is 100kg+. A pack of tiles is 30 kg.
Also, you say that like that's nothing. 25 kg once is nothing. Do that 500 times. Come out of your bubble, girl.
@Benedek38 https://youtu.be/ol2sdn5It7k You guys must be behind the times in eastern Europe as it's cheaper and faster to have it done by machine. Most minor construction jobs here employ machines. https://youtu.be/XMMXsWWNn-s Nobody carries gas cylinders by hand as thats dangerous. There are regulations for the amount of weight one person can carry here on their own, it's 25 kg. As a result of using machinery and regulations here those in construction are healthier and not plagued by injuries.
1) Obviously we have machines, but have you ever checked how much those cost? Even renting one is expensive. And it can't fit into delicate areas. There are many many applications where manual ones are required, or at least advantageous.
2) "Nobody carries gas cylinders by hand as thats dangerous." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sorry, taht's just grand. HOW do you carry it? Do you seriously think everytime you use it, somebody has a fancy pickup truck and a dolly? Honey, my grandmother's brother was a blacksmith his entire life, and he regularly carried these canisters on his back. And what do you do if the terrain is not perfectly flat? The folly doesn't have suspension, it can't go on uneven ground. Seriously, why can't you just accept that these are not easy tasks? Does it hurt your ego so much? "There are regulations for the amount of weight one person can carry here on their own, it's 25 kg." Yeah... well, Eastern Europe hon. We don't have regulations, you can kill yourself if you want to.
"As a result of using machinery and regulations here those in construction are healthier and not plagued by injuries." Your average construction worker ears as much as a CEO around here. I am not kidding, my country's GDP is $12.6K, yours is $56K. We don't have money to spare on overly complicated safety measures. People around here cut corners. Just understand that the world isn't covered in maple syrup everywhere. Even with a relatively stable economy in a relatively developed country, it's just not possible to look out for the workers this much. It's not economical.
@Benedek38 I hope your country has some sort of building control so thst your buildings don't fall down. 1. The real reason for using machines is that it is more cost to effective to buy or rent a machine than to pay the salary of 10-15 men that the machine is replacing. If it was cheaper to hire laborers theyd do that instead. 2. Yes everytime you carry a gas cylinder somebody has a fancy pickup, forklift or dolly. If the ground is uneven one of the machines evens it out. Working on even ground makes any work faster. 3. It's very economical to look out for workers here as it means less time off for injury and less lawsuits for death and injury. If you guys join the EU that will all change.
1) "The real reason for using machines is that it is more cost to effective to buy or rent a machine than to pay the salary of 10-15 men that the machine is replacing. If it was cheaper to hire laborers theyd do that instead." That's precisely what i said. Do you think I'm an idiot or something?
2) "Yes everytime you carry a gas cylinder somebody has a fancy pickup, forklift or dolly. If the ground is uneven one of the machines evens it out. Working on even ground makes any work faster." See, NOW you are living in fantasy land. This shit doesn't happen around here. Safety measured are borderline nonexistance for smaller constructik projects. 3) "It's very economical to look out for workers here as it means less time off for injury and less lawsuits for death and injury. If you guys join the EU that will all change." We are part of the EU. As I said. Cutting. Corners. If the job costs X w. safety, someone will do it for X-Y w/o it. The risk beats the benefit.
*Sorry, the benefit beats the risks. And to make it perfectly clear. Large construction jobs (especially governmentally contracted ones) are better regulated. Not perfectly by any means, the order you describe doesn't exist here - but they have better equipment and better safely measures. I amam talking about the brunt of the jobs - anything ranging from a new garage to building a small shopping mall. If you see a smaller building made by a private contractor, it was probably done with a lot of manual labour. Exceptions include suoermarkets, they are like IKEA - you pull it out of the box, and justI build it LOL
Remember, EVERY house around here is made of bricks. Not wood, like the US! That's a lot.
You hit the nail on the head. Eastern Europe and South America is 30 years behind. The third world is about a hundred years behind in most places. This is why you don't want socialism.
Not likely. People don't realise but places like ours, not to mention the third world, fail to develop not due to being "behind", but corrupt governments focused on stuffing their own wallet. They aren't interested in making people's lives better, on the contrary, they need desperate stupid sheep to support their reign. But that's not your problem, so I won't bother yoi with it.
^ Ignore this guy and report his account he's got problems I didn't even ask for his opinion and he comes out of nowhere swearing like lord know it all (snort).
@ThreeSheetsToTheWind Semantics. "Rape is defined in most jurisdictions as sexual intercourse, or other forms of sexual penetration, committed by a perpetrator against a victim without their consent." ^Made to penetrate is rape. Forced sex is rape.
@Benedek38 It's not semantics because when I said rape would decrease I was talking about rape as defined by UK law. Mind you, whatever definition we go by women naturally have a lower libido than men in most cases, so I doubt there would be a sudden increase in women raping men so to speak. Unless of course their testosterone levels increased (which would explain them becoming stronger). When I said female on male would increase I was not talking about sexual violence.
"as defined by UK law" Well, the UK isn't the center of the universe. If you specify something - actually specify it.
"women naturally have a lower libido than men in most cases" Except if they are pumped full of testosterone, which would be required for hgiher muscle mass. " I doubt there would be a sudden increase in women raping men so to speak." See above.
"Unless of course their testosterone levels increased " How else do you make them stronger than men?
"When I said female on male would increase I was not talking about sexual violence. " Then what? Female on male what?
@Benedek38 "Well, the UK isn't the center of the universe. If you specify something - actually specify it."
Okay. Fair point.
"Except if they are pumped full of testosterone, which would be required for hgiher muscle mass."
I was thinking along the lines of a scenario where all women suddenly get Jessica Jones style powers. Obviously that's never going to happen but then neither are women going to suddenly gain more tesosterone. This is only hypothetical after all.
"How else do you make them stronger than men?"
As above.
"Then what? Female on male what?"
Domestic violence? Violent assault? Just violence in general really that isn't of a sexual nature.
If you were talking about violence in general, wouldn't female on female violence ALSO increase? No offense, but it is blatantly clear that you were talking about sexual violence.
I am saying they'd become more violent, so violence in general would increase. The better question is why would w/o/m violence specifically increase. You made the extraordinary claim.
@Benedek38 Well, look at the current domestic violence figures between male on female V female on male. There's a reason the former is more commonplace.
@Benedek38 I was only using that as an example but I would imagine it's the same for any kind of violence really because most men could easily defend themselves from most women. The same can't be said of the other way around. Obviously if women became the stronger sex then that would no longer be the case.
To achieve that women would have to produce more testosterone than men which would make them more horny but probably also infertile. It's up to you to decide if that's good or bad...
no they would just have to have drive & work out more. if a person has the capacity to be strong but is a couch potato they will be weak. a lot of guys are couch potatoes.
Almost but no. Even the women who do work out - as long as they aren't professional bodybuilders which give their whole life to sports - are on average just as strong as an average men who doesn't work out. The natural strength difference between men and women (due to testosterone mostly) is just immense. Between body builders this difference is even bigger - women need the double amount of time to build up muscles and can only reach about the half of the muscle volume a man could. I'm not talking about steroids though.
I mean it is kind of doesn't matter because unless women take a shit ton of steroids and men are forced to never workout and starve this would never be reality. Testosterone makes muscle denser, and even bone. Also women on steroids just make them have more male traits including aggression.
This can actualy be observed in nature. In most insect species the female is the bigger and stronger and typically the male is either eaten or dies after mating. In mammals this can be observed in hyenas in witch case the females maliciously abuse the male hyenas. Funny enough when the opposite us true and the male is the bigger and stronger sex females are generally given a pretty good life. Guesse it's actualy us guys who have all the compassion and empathy
Well, murder rates would drastically increase on women's end and decrease for men. More would be expected of women in relationships, they'd start doing more physical labor, birth rate would decrease... maybe some other things...
From a biological standpoint thar would make no sense unless they adopted all our other biological characteristics. So everything would probably be more or less the same, except that the genitals would switch places.
Would be the same, just that roles would be reversed. Some modern gender roles come from thousands and thousands of years of distilled evolutionary biology, and that would suddenly be flipped on its head.
In species where the females are stronger than the males, males gets eaten after sex and/or mutilated. This is theorized to be to secure genetic diversity which is the evolutionary strength of sexual propagation for a species
Being physically strong is only half the battle. Do you have the killer instinct to use it? lol Even though women can be very badass, most times it's a last resort. For some men, being badass is our first resort. lol
I don't think that's even possible without severe genetic changes also you wouldn't be able to change that much in one area without changing other things.
That's just not true. Women are not stronger than men mentally on average. Men are more combative, less agreeable, more willing to take risks, among other things. That's why most of the women that are successful in the business world aren't passive. They need to compete with the men to get ahead.
being combative is not a strength nor is risk taking. being impulsive is not intelligence its hormonal. if you care to look at the world around to see how all the damage from such hormonal craziness controlling life.
@VIVANT Those qualities are positive for business if not taken to an extreme. It's not good to be too agreeable in a business and be a complete yes man or not asking for a raise or promotion because you're intimidated. Willing to take a risk is not equal to being impulsive. If anything studies have shown that people are so risk adverse even to the point of they aren't willing to take bets which statistically benefit them.
Women stronger than men is probably some chicks wet dream, slapping men around just bcs she could. girl power and all that shit. femdom taken to the max.😂😂😂
It would be a fucking total disaster. All that power with no logic.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Strong women are masculine, not feminine. Men are attracted to femininity, not masculinity. There would be no sex, and therefore no babies, so humanity would go extinct.
I don’t distance myself from people nor do I have hate for humans. I am one. It’s just a fact that all of us dying would be a good thing. Also, I consider myself to be a strong woman but I don’t believe that takes away from my femininity. It only means that I can take care of myself and I don’t NEED to rely on anyone (man or woman) because I am the only one responsible for me. Letting anyone else have my fate in their hands is weakness and I’m not about that. If you want something done, you do it yourself. People are entitled these days and I simply do not want to owe anyone anything regardless of who you are or what gender you happen to be.
@Ellie-V It sounds to me like you missed the point of this question, and my response. The OP was talking about physical strength, and women being physically stronger than men. This is NOT feminine and is very unattractive to most men...
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(25-29)+1 y
Anonymous(30-35)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions