Are women really weaker than men?

[GEddie]

As long as we are comparing genders, anybody ever wonder why males often feel the need to “prove they are men” by fighting, facing danger, sowing oats, etc, but females seldom if ever worry at all about “proving they are women” via aggressive femininity?

Although in most instances men are physically stronger, ISTM that the above contrast shows women are much better adjusted psychologically.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Crescentinus]

As long as we are comparing genders, anybody ever wonder why males often feel the need to “prove they are men” by fighting, facing danger, sowing oats, etc, but females seldom if ever worry at all about “proving they are women” via aggressive femininity?

Although in most instances men are physically stronger, ISTM that the above contrast shows women are much better adjusted psychologically.

ICXC NIKA

Actually, I’ve seen radical feminists “prove their feminine” by talking trash about men.

 

[LucyLight]

Actually, I’ve seen radical feminists “prove their feminine” by talking trash about men.

I think some people around here sleep with a night light on because they’re afraid there’s a feminist hiding under the bed.

Ever heard of Godwin’s law?

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Around here its not the Nazis that inevitably come up its those evil feminists. I think we have enough evidence to create a law about that.

 

[GEddie]

Actually, I’ve seen radical feminists “prove their feminine” by talking trash about men.

Even if that is true, that isn’t femininity, just misandrism.

ICXC NIKA

 

[mini_me640]

Even if that is true, that isn’t femininity, just misandrism.

ICXC NIKA

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Physically, the average man is stronger than the average woman.

Mentally, I think women might be stronger. Not sure

 

[EasterJoy]

Physically, the average man is stronger than the average woman.

Mentally, I think women might be stronger. Not sure

In terms of explosive power, it isn’t even close. Everyone in professional sports knows that testosterone gives a big advantage in the ability to build muscle through training. It makes a difference in how bones form, too. Biologically, men are stronger in that way on the average, and that’s very measurable.

In terms of “emotion” or “mental strength”, I don’t know that we understand the animal well enough to measure it. If you can’t measure, you can’t rank. Intelligence is much the same.

In terms of survival ability, females have the edge in survival ability from conception. If you’re measuring bodily strength in terms of overall durability, then, females have the edge.

It is really hard to answer the question, then, until you get specific about what difference is of importance in the discussion.

 

[Portrait]

Physically, the average man is stronger than the average woman.

Mentally, I think women might be stronger. Not sure

Dear PumkinSeed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Notwithstanding the godless radical femenist model of aggressively trying to eliminate or blur all the differences between men and women, men are, generally speaking, physically stronger than women. There is the muscle structure of the male and men are usually broader and more muscular in the upper body. In the N.T. St. Peter refers to women as the “weaker sex” (I Pet. 3: 7), which does not mean that women are intellectually inferior, or anything of that sort, but that as regards natural physical strength they are weaker than men.

However, dear friend, it is frequently asked nowadays whether women being the ‘weaker sex’ is an issue of any continuing importance, given the advent of industrialization and the phenomenal advances in technology, when work is no longer such a demanding physical pursuit.

It surely admits of no doubt that work patterns have changed and that the world of work is a very different place now. However, the psychological need for men to achieve and provide through work is still very present one. Moreover, whilst much work may have changed from being manual to being more cerebral, nonetheless manual labour is still required in industries and in such tasks as furniture removals and the repairing or building of roads. In any case, even with more cerebral occupations, very often the pressures and stresses of the modern workplace, frequently coupled with the exhausting and frustrating business of commuting to and from work, still require a jolly good deal of physical energy. Thus that women are the ‘weaker sex’ is not a wholly irrelevant issue in our contemporary world, as some secular femenists are wont to insist.

As a marginal note, the radical femenist claim for all-round equality with men (including a de-emphasis upon women being the ‘weaker sex’) has, I believe, made a very significant contribution to the extinction of what we use to call ‘gentlemanly behaviour’. Thus it is becoming increasingly less common for chaps to offer their seats on a crowded tube or bus to a woman as woman, open the door for her, or treat her with any special consideration as a member of the fairer sex. Indeed, what is so deeply lamentable is that your modern women, with very few exceptions, actually feels insulted by such acts of chivalry, as she deems them to be an affront to her newfound equality with men. Such is the impact of secular radical femenism and its warped thinking upon our modern world and, I regret to say, upon some modern Catholics as well.

As Christians, dear friend, we should resolutely refuse to embrace the godless and misguided ideological world-view of radical femenism, more than that, we should denounce it unreservedly as being strange and erroneous teaching contrary to our most holy religion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[JacarandaPurple]

Wow, Portrait, your post was a treat to read. Your vocabulary and command of the English language are like a little intellectual bon bon for an Anglophile dork like me!

 

[psr13]

In terms of explosive power, it isn’t even close. Everyone in professional sports knows that testosterone gives a big advantage in the ability to build muscle through training. It makes a difference in how bones form, too. Biologically, men are stronger in that way on the average, and that’s very measurable.

In terms of “emotion” or “mental strength”, I don’t know that we understand the animal well enough to measure it. If you can’t measure, you can’t rank. Intelligence is much the same.

In terms of survival ability, females have the edge in survival ability from conception. If you’re measuring bodily strength in terms of overall durability, then, females have the edge.

It is really hard to answer the question, then, until you get specific about what difference is of importance in the discussion.

Yes. As preemies especially, being a girl gives a higher chance of survival.

 

[Portrait]

Wow, Portrait, your post was a treat to read. Your vocabulary and command of the English language are like a little intellectual bon bon for an Anglophile dork like me!

Dear JacarandaPurple,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Thankyou for your kind words and a warm welcome to the world of CAF. Hope you find your time here profitable and spiritually enriching, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[EasterJoy]

Dear PumkinSeed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Notwithstanding the godless radical femenist model of aggressively trying to eliminate or blur all the differences between men and women, men are, generally speaking, physically stronger than women. There is the muscle structure of the male and men are usually broader and more muscular in the upper body. In the N.T. St. Peter refers to women as the “weaker sex” (I Pet. 3: 7), which does not mean that women are intellectually inferior, or anything of that sort, but that as regards natural physical strength they are weaker than men.

However, dear friend, it is frequently asked nowadays whether women being the ‘weaker sex’ is an issue of any continuing importance, given the advent of industrialization and the phenomenal advances in technology, when work is no longer such a demanding physical pursuit.

It surely admits of no doubt that work patterns have changed and that the world of work is a very different place now. However, the psychological need for men to achieve and provide through work is still very present one. Moreover, whilst much work may have changed from being manual to being more cerebral, nonetheless manual labour is still required in industries and in such tasks as furniture removals and the repairing or building of roads. In any case, even with more cerebral occupations, very often the pressures and stresses of the modern workplace, frequently coupled with the exhausting and frustrating business of commuting to and from work, still require a jolly good deal of physical energy. Thus that women are the ‘weaker sex’ is not a wholly irrelevant issue in our contemporary world, as some secular femenists are wont to insist.

As a marginal note, the radical femenist claim for all-round equality with men (including a de-emphasis upon women being the ‘weaker sex’) has, I believe, made a very significant contribution to the extinction of what we use to call ‘gentlemanly behaviour’. Thus it is becoming increasingly less common for chaps to offer their seats on a crowded tube or bus to a woman as woman, open the door for her, or treat her with any special consideration as a member of the fairer sex. Indeed, what is so deeply lamentable is that your modern women, with very few exceptions, actually feels insulted by such acts of chivalry, as she deems them to be an affront to her newfound equality with men. Such is the impact of secular radical femenism and its warped thinking upon our modern world and, I regret to say, upon some modern Catholics as well.

As Christians, dear friend, we should resolutely refuse to embrace the godless and misguided ideological world-view of radical femenism, more than that, we should denounce it unreservedly as being strange and erroneous teaching contrary to our most holy religion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

The problem is that physical labor, like domestic labor, is being looked upon less and less as an avenue of “achievement”. I do think that the widespread lack of respect for manual labor denies dignity to work and workers that richly deserve it, male and female alike.

By the way, I grew up in the old days of “the weaker sex”. Do you think that world was full of gentlemen who pulled out chairs, held doors, and never put down women? Yes, there were gentlemen, but there were also a lot of guys who referred to women as “broads” and who automatically treated them as having weak minds, trivial interests, and a total lack of ability. Women weren’t just incapable until proven otherwise. Women were incapable and no proof to the contrary was wanted. I actually remember debates about whether women could drive forklifts. What nonsense that was!

Radical feminists are kind of like radical union organizers, IMHO. If the world had been just in the first place, their errors would not have found such rich soil to grow in. Read Acts 4; that is not a community that was in any danger of being conned into communism. Our most holy religious does best when it remembers these things.

 

[Nec5]

Yes, there were gentlemen, but there were also a lot of guys who referred to women as “broads” and who automatically treated them as having weak minds, trivial interests, and a total lack of ability. Women weren’t just incapable until proven otherwise. Women were incapable and no proof to the contrary was wanted.

Then the culprit were those individuals, mainly men, that put down women and dismissed them and their absolutely necessary contributions to society. The solution when dealing with a bad actor is to go after the bad actor. Instead feminists of all stripes decided to embark on a crazed anti-all men crusade and in the process forced women to begin behaving like men (most women today cannot afford to stay home; so much for choice). So congratulations ladies. You too can enjoy bouncing from job to job eating nonsense from your boss and spending your day in a cubicle. Very foolish.

What if I went around this forum calling everyone a tomato head. Stupid as that sounds, the right response would be for everyone to dismiss Nec5 as a loon or bad actor. The wrong response would be to change your looks and diet because some nut like me called people a tomato head.

But of course, that whole 60s craze was not a simple overreaction to ignorant males. The role of women was just one leg of the stool that the progressives wished to topple and they succeeded. And I think we know what that stool was.

 

[Portrait]

The problem is that physical labor, like domestic labor, is being looked upon less and less as an avenue of “achievement”. I do think that the widespread lack of respect for manual labor denies dignity to work and workers that richly deserve it, male and female alike.

By the way, I grew up in the old days of “the weaker sex”. Do you think that world was full of gentlemen who pulled out chairs, held doors, and never put down women? Yes, there were gentlemen, but there were also a lot of guys who referred to women as “broads” and who automatically treated them as having weak minds, trivial interests, and a total lack of ability. Women weren’t just incapable until proven otherwise. Women were incapable and no proof to the contrary was wanted. I actually remember debates about whether women could drive forklifts. What nonsense that was!

Radical feminists are kind of like radical union organizers, IMHO. If the world had been just in the first place, their errors would not have found such rich soil to grow in. Read Acts 4; that is not a community that was in any danger of being conned into communism. Our most holy religious does best when it remembers these things.

Dear EasterJoy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Whilst it is perfectly true that there have always been reprehensible men in every generation, courteous behaviour towards women was, notwithstanding, more a normal feature of society in times past - many of us remember when it was so. This was because the Judeo-Christian world-view still held supreme sway, even among those who did not necessarily profess religion, and had permeated the greater part of society. It was only with the emergence of radical feminsism, dear friend, that this dominant and wholesome philosophy of life began to be challenged and regarded as somehow demeaning to women. This was only the beginning of sorrows.

Radical femenism was really about a grossly exaggerated view of the alleged widespread oppression of women and the desire to get even with men. There was, so their argument ran, an evident need for reparation by a male-dominated society. As this godless movement gathered momentum, especially in the 1960’s, the utterances of some of its leaders became increasingly strident and it became known for its militancy and ‘burning the bra’ mindset. Whilst there were some who were more moderate and who argued for the elimination of what they deemed sex-based discrimination, femenism was essentially an irrational movement by women for women, in which on every single issue (however indefensible) women sided with women by default against men. However, my dear friend, this is to deviate too much from the topic currently under review, suffice to say that radical femenism has succeded in destabalizing society and its ideology has left multitudes of men very uncertain and confused as to their ‘new’ role. Thus, to take just a few examples, the suicide rate of young men is rising and well in the lead; what ultimate need, after all, has society for them? Moreover, men are increasingly unaware of their place in the scheme of things and now that women claim to be equals with men the latter feel that they no longer have protective roles or need to be chivalrous. The corollary of all this, dear friend, is that respect between the sexes has fallen to an all-time low and with it the well-being of society of which it is a major ingredient. Men and women have lost their sense of being necessary to each other and they become cynics and rivals, with homosexuality flourishing as an acceptable alternative to the divine providential order.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Moreover, men are increasingly unaware of their place in the scheme of things and now that women claim to be equals with men the latter feel that they no longer have protective roles or need to be chivalrous.

Define chivalrous. My mental dictionary has various definitions/connotations evenly divided between positive and negative with both very applicable to men and women alike.

Postive
Noble
Brave
Heroic
Self-Sacrificing
Honorable
High Integrity

Negative
Naive
Brash
Fanatical
Old-Fashioned
Heart-Before-Head
Reckless

As I said, the positive definitions can apply to anyone, man or woman and you need not wear shining armor or saintly robes to possess such qualities. The latter though well… let’s just say that’s why I don’t like seeing myself as a knight. Look at poor Don Quixote.

The corollary of all this, dear friend, is that respect between the sexes has fallen to an all-time low and with it the well-being of society of which it is a major ingredient. Men and women have lost their sense of being necessary to each other and they become cynics and rivals, with homosexuality flourishing as an acceptable alternative to the divine providential order.

You are aware the even rivalry can form as a basis for respect? And what is wrong with having a rival who is of the opposite gender? I fantasize about that all the time (and not in a sexual manner at that). I’ve read enough stories about men having male rivals that it’s a breath of fresh air to at least see a protagonist eagerly acknowledging (and challenging) a woman of equal (or even greater) ability.

 

[EasterJoy]

Dear EasterJoy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Whilst it is perfectly true that there have always been reprehensible men in every generation, courteous behaviour towards women was, notwithstanding, more a normal feature of society in times past - many of us remember when it was so. This was because the Judeo-Christian world-view still held supreme sway, even among those who did not necessarily profess religion, and had permeated the greater part of society. It was only with the emergence of radical feminsism, dear friend, that this dominant and wholesome philosophy of life began to be challenged and regarded as somehow demeaning to women. This was only the beginning of sorrows.

Radical femenism was really about a grossly exaggerated view of the alleged widespread oppression of women and the desire to get even with men. There was, so their argument ran, an evident need for reparation by a male-dominated society. As this godless movement gathered momentum, especially in the 1960’s, the utterances of some of its leaders became increasingly strident and it became known for its militancy and ‘burning the bra’ mindset. Whilst there were some who were more moderate and who argued for the elimination of what they deemed sex-based discrimination, femenism was essentially an irrational movement by women for women, in which on every single issue (however indefensible) women sided with women by default against men. However, my dear friend, this is to deviate too much from the topic currently under review, suffice to say that radical femenism has succeded in destabalizing society and its ideology has left multitudes of men very uncertain and confused as to their ‘new’ role. Thus, to take just a few examples, the suicide rate of young men is rising and well in the lead; what ultimate need, after all, has society for them? Moreover, men are increasingly unaware of their place in the scheme of things and now that women claim to be equals with men the latter feel that they no longer have protective roles or need to be chivalrous. The corollary of all this, dear friend, is that respect between the sexes has fallen to an all-time low and with it the well-being of society of which it is a major ingredient. Men and women have lost their sense of being necessary to each other and they become cynics and rivals, with homosexuality flourishing as an acceptable alternative to the divine providential order.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Let me tell you a story. When I learned to drive, we lived out in the middle of nowhere, and so we had our own gas pump. I asked my dad to show me how to operate it. He said the boys would do that for me. I asked one of my brothers if, instead of having me quit whatever he’s doing whenever I needed gas, he could show me how to do it. He readily agreed. It required flipping a switch on, putting the nozzle into the car, filling it, putting the nozzle back, and remembering to flip the switch back and write down the amount. This did not require any physical exertion. I could have done it with a broken arm, on crutches.

Expecting my brothers to always be there to pump my gas, in case I could not afford to get dirty, was expecting them to be gentlemanly. Refusing to teach me how to do it was more than a little bit ridiculous. I mean, he’s my dad, he’s allowed to be “paternalistic”, but a world like that is absurd.

It was the same way with a quite a bit of farm work. When the settlers got here, the women did it, because it wouldn’t get done if they didn’t. A generation later, the fathers and husband didn’t want the women doing it, because they’d spoil their skin and not look like women of the higher classes. A generation after that, the pretense sprang up that women were not capable of doing the work that they had been spared for reasons that did not have to do with ability.

Respect between the sexes comes from recognition of real differences, not the strict enforcement of pretended ones. The reaction to these enforced pretended differences, unfortunately, had become the enforcement of a pretended equivalency that does not exist and never did. Still, it is often the case that we suffer excesses today that are reactions against the excesses of a previous day. One generation starves; the next are gluttons, and the next…well, you get the picture.

 

[Mickey]

Men and women have lost their sense of being necessary to each other and they become cynics and rivals, with homosexuality flourishing as an acceptable alternative to the divine providential order.

Which falls right into the plans of the evil one.

 

[Baelor]

However, the psychological need for men to achieve and provide through work is still very present one.

And, I imagine, a documented one as well. Could you provide said evidence for your claim? “Self-evident” does not count; psych studies do.

Thus it is becoming increasingly less common for chaps to offer their seats on a crowded tube or bus to a woman as woman, open the door for her, or treat her with any special consideration as a member of the fairer sex.

I must have missed the section in the Catechism that advocated for treating women chivalrously qua women v. qua fellows human being. Reference?

 

[Portrait]

Let me tell you a story. When I learned to drive, we lived out in the middle of nowhere, and so we had our own gas pump. I asked my dad to show me how to operate it. He said the boys would do that for me. I asked one of my brothers if, instead of having me quit whatever he’s doing whenever I needed gas, he could show me how to do it. He readily agreed. It required flipping a switch on, putting the nozzle into the car, filling it, putting the nozzle back, and remembering to flip the switch back and write down the amount. This did not require any physical exertion. I could have done it with a broken arm, on crutches.

Expecting my brothers to always be there to pump my gas, in case I could not afford to get dirty, was expecting them to be gentlemanly. Refusing to teach me how to do it was more than a little bit ridiculous. I mean, he’s my dad, he’s allowed to be “paternalistic”, but a world like that is absurd.

It was the same way with a quite a bit of farm work. When the settlers got here, the women did it, because it wouldn’t get done if they didn’t. A generation later, the fathers and husband didn’t want the women doing it, because they’d spoil their skin and not look like women of the Deahigher classes. A generation after that, the pretense sprang up that women were not capable of doing the work that they had been spared for reasons that did not have to do with ability.

Respect between the sexes comes from recognition of real differences, not the strict enforcement of pretended ones. The reaction to these enforced pretended differences, unfortunately, had become the enforcement of a pretended equivalency that does not exist and never did. Still, it is often the case that we suffer excesses today that are reactions against the excesses of a previous day. One generation starves; the next are gluttons, and the next…well, you get the picture.

Dear EasterJoy,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

That there are some tasks that both men and women can undertake, I would not stop to deny, dear friend, but this is entirely different from asserting, as the avant garde do, that there should be no division of labour between the sexes. For example, notwithstanding the fact that women lack the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-combat in war zones, you have many (including some Catholics) vociferously contending that it is downright discrimination to debar women from the front line. A well-formed conscience should tell us that such a brutal environment is clearly not the place for the ‘weaker sex’, no more than it is for children. However, this is where asinine and warped femenist ideology, which aggressively seeks to eliminate all real differences between the sexes, will eventually take us, whatever will be next? As Kate O’ Beirne has well said, “A woman being brutally killed along side men is a long-awaited femenist dream of equality”.

Radical femenism is actually caricature of true womanhood, which says, “be aggressive, be assertive, be a contender with men, taking them on in everything. Don’t focus on being gentle and femenine and avoid getting tied down in marriage as that is to fail as a woman and to loose your right to self-determination”. This is, my dear friend, a most irrelgious and impious world view if ever there was, but more importantly it is doomed to failure. The experiment to eradicate the differences between men and women has been tried many times before and it has not brought lasting happiness to women. One such ‘experiment’ was the kibbutz system in Israel. Following WWII the kibbutz system was established in the newly founded state of Israel. These were communities where men and women lived and worked together - and which set out to do away with sex roles. The ordinary nuclear family in some of these communities was eliminated. However, a half a century later, that kibbutz system has greatly dwindled. Why the decline? I understand that it was chiefly the women folk who got rid of it. They led the way back to insisting that they wanted particular roles within the home. Clearly the ‘women are the same as men’ system failed because they did not find it fulfilling.

Radical femenist visions of womanhood do not result in women finding lasting fulfillment because they are caricatures that end in disillusion and they lead to this because they are unnatural and at variance with the divine providential intention of the Creator.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

And, I imagine, a documented one as well. Could you provide said evidence for your claim? “Self-evident” does not count; psych studies do.

I must have missed the section in the Catechism that advocated for treating women chivalrously qua women v. qua fellows human being. Reference?

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response. Hope all is well.

No proof is needed, dear friend, for the God-given natural instinct for a man to want to achieve and provide through work. Only indolence or severe ill-health, mental or physical, would prevent him from doing otherwise.

Again, gentlemanly behaviour should come naturally to those men who profess religion and they should not require the Catechism to instruct them on how to behave in a gentlemanly fashion towards the ‘weaker sex’. However, my dear friend, St. Peter leaves us in no doubt, for he says in his first epistle, “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered” (I Pet. 3: 7, emphasis mine). Any honour that is worth its salt will surely not exclude chivalrous and considerate behaviour because it rightly recognises that women are physically weaker with than men. Moreover, by both nature and constitution she is weaker than a man and gentlemanly behaviour always takes this into account and that is why men, in better times, would gladly offer their seat in a crowded bus or open a door for a lady. How very sad to witness the disappearance of such courteous and considerate conduct in our brash and vulgar modern world!

It is, I think, a sad reflection of the times in which our lot is cast that men ask for evidence to prove that gentlemanly behaviour towards a women is necessary and proper. Giving special consideration to a woman as a woman, dear friend, is the most natural thing in the world to those who are not strangers to the social graces. Alas, I see here yet another negative influence from the polluted stream of secular radical femenism, with its attempt to eliminate the distinction between the sexes.

Warmest good wishes and goodbye for now.

Portrait

Pax