Lets talk real! Do mena and women, in general, have equal abilties?

[jonnyk]

Hi everyone,
I finally decided to raise this issue up as I see things in the real world and I request others to please address this issue with utmost sincerity so we all can learn. I'm all for that both men and women should have OVERALL equal rights and there should be a balanced acceptance on both sides, whilst neither men nor women could possibly have equal rights in every aspect in the real world as maybe if you read on would become clear. Women should be given special rights on some area and men in others. Now there's no doubt on my side that women are able to do all things that men can do, BUT to a lesser degree in at least many aspects. Particularly in those areas which require strength men are around 30-40% better. If we look at the list of the strongest men and women, we find men have about 90% more upper body strength and 30% lower. However what about games/competitions involving BOTH strength and skill like tennis, golf, swimming, table tennis, cooking, analytical skills and logic etc? If we picked men and women at random, BOTH having the same experience in the respective fields and none suffering any genetic defect or disorder or any other type of bodily disease or malfunction which could hinder progress, WHO would come out to be the OVERALL more successful, men or women? If we allow women and men to compete freely in the real world WITHOUT offering some sort of special protection/right to the women, wouldn't they lose out in the long run? This is a serious question and needs to be approached from scientifically, putting all biases aside.

[Rob Lister]

Women have the right to cook and clean and make babies.

[fls]

How are you defining "success"?

Linda

[EGarrett]

Women's bodies are optimized for nurturing children. Men's bodies are optimized for protecting and providing for the woman while she does so. So no, they don't have equal abilities.

[DRBUZZ0]

I cannot produce milk where women can do so after having a baby, which is again something I cannot do. Women and men can both pee standing up but men generally have more successful outcomes with that one.

[Dilb]

Women are able to bear children. In all other abilities, variance exceeds any difference in the mean, thus making it unproductive to talk about differences in general.

[ImaginalDisc]

There do seem to be some statistical differences between the abilities of men and women, but since we vary so widely as individuals it makes no sense to assume a man is bad at something, or a woman good at it. Neither does it make sense to bias the system in favor of men or women.

Hell, I still don't understand why sports such as fencing and tennis are divided into male and female groups, as opposed to weight classes or height. I'd much rather fence against a short man than a tall woman. Reach is a huge advantage regardless of whether you're a man or woman.

[jonnyk]

Hi everyone,
IMO there were some good answers and some not so satisfying. Regarding "to bias the system in favor of men and women" i think should the observations in the real world favor one or another in regards to all known activities, then that should be discussed openly and we should not shy away as this is what is actually harmful. Also the examples given like women can bear a baby or give milk whilst men cant be taken seriously as that is obviously not what was meant. What is meant here are the external activities both sexes carry out in as ive given examples. Then somebody mentioned that men and women shoudlnt be separated in various sports and games but that a tall woman could for example compete with a short man. HOWEVER this would only complicate things and the man would actually be at a disadvantage. Balancing out based on such is much more difficult then to have men and women of equal height competing separtely with each other. And i made it clear that im comparing based on both sexes having the same genetic and physical fitness as well as the body height and lets include even body size. In that case men could still be like 10% better in the overall aspects mentioned.

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by jonnyk

In that case men could still be like 10% better in the overall aspects mentioned.

No. Granted, if you look at the records of the top tier of many sporting achievements, it's a roster dominated by men. Assuming that's because men average more physically able than women, and not because men are encouraged to be athletes more than women, it still doesn't make sense to say "men are 10% better than women." I've sparred with way too many female martial artists to have any illusions about the fact that people vary widely in ability, whatever the averages are.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by jonnyk

Women should be given special rights on some area and men in others.

After two posts, I still can't tell what you're ultimately talking about.

What special rights should women be given in what areas? What special rights should men be given and in what areas?

If we're not talking about sports, exactly what is it that you would like to compare?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Women's bodies are optimized for nurturing children. Men's bodies are optimized for protecting and providing for the woman while she does so. So no, they don't have equal abilities.

So, there are no perfectly normal appearing women who could seperate parts of your body from other parts of same before you could yell "Hey! Stop that!"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Dilb

Women are able to bear children. In all other abilities, variance exceeds any difference in the mean, thus making it unproductive to talk about differences in general.

Amen!

Making "men are. . " and "women are. . " generalities beyond what you just said is simply prejudice.

It's much better to take individuals as they are, not according to the mean.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by fuelair

So, there are no perfectly normal appearing women who could seperate parts of your body from other parts of same before you could yell "Hey! Stop that!"?

I'm sure there are. But if they were men, they'd generally have greater strength and mobility...making them even more able to do so.

[FreeRomanian]

Yes, men and wemen have different abilities.They are complementary to each other

[uruk]

Men can write thier name in the snow.

[MG1962]

Women are more disease resistant

Woman - common cold, soldiers on

Man - Influenza with complications, at least a month in bed, especially if it is the football season

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Women are more disease resistant

Woman - common cold, soldiers on

Man - Influenza with complications, at least a month in bed, especially if it is the football season

For men, that's a survival skill. I don't know why you would paint it in a negative light.

[MattusMaximus]

As a male, I cannot give birth to a child. It is an undeniable biological fact.

So the answer to this thread title is "No."

[Hokulele]

As long as women continue to have a longer average life expectancy, old men should be given special protection.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by jonnyk

Hi everyone,
I finally decided to raise this issue up as I see things in the real world and I request others to please address this issue with utmost sincerity so we all can learn. I'm all for that both men and women should have OVERALL equal rights and there should be a balanced acceptance on both sides, whilst neither men nor women could possibly have equal rights in every aspect in the real world as maybe if you read on would become clear. Women should be given special rights on some area and men in others.

What about the girlie men and the butch women? Do they get to swap rights?

[bpesta22]

I'm fairly close to submitting a paper on gender differences in IQ-- the debate seems to be picking up steam again.

effects can be meaningful even if the variance is greater than the mean difference (d <1.0). In fact, the effect can still be considered large.

To require that that the mean difference be greater than the variability is to throw out probably 90% of social science (which perhaps might not be a bad idea).

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

As long as women continue to have a longer average life expectancy, old men should be given special protection.

I assume you know why it is that man tend to die before their wives.

Because they want to.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

I assume you know why it is the man tend to die before their wives.

Because they want to.

Hah! I am sure you know why women outlive their husbands.

It guarantees they have the last word.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Hah! I am sure you know why women outlive their husbands.

It guarantees they have the last word.

Oh, too well do I know!

[sinclairmcevoy]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Women have the right to cook and clean and make babies.

[DRBUZZ0]

Actually in all seriousness, any study which might possibly reveal a difference in the abilities of men and woman is something that a researcher is best off not touching or considering or even mentioning.

if (HYPOTHETICALLY, COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL, I AM ONLY MAKING THIS UP, THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE) one were to do a well controlled study that found that men had an inherently better ability to do a task - lets say, hypothetically, NOT IN ANY WAY IMPLYING THIS IS THE WAY IT IS - mathematics, spacial orientation, remembering certain items, navigation or something - the career of said researcher would be over. If they found that women were better, then it would depend on the task, but likely it would be over as well.

This is absolutely something that you should never consider or talk about openly. Careers have been ruined just by off-the-cuff remarks or speculation. This is absolutely tabboo and entirely politically incorrect.

by the way: I am not suggesting this is the case or that men are necessarily better at anything than women. Also, I don't think one sex is better at a task than the other. And I will not be accused of implying one sex is better at anything that the other.

[king catfish]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Hell, I still don't understand why sports such as fencing and tennis are divided into male and female groups, as opposed to weight classes or height. I'd much rather fence against a short man than a tall woman. Reach is a huge advantage regardless of whether you're a man or woman.

But reach is not everything. Fencing is a great sport for women because up until World Class competition, men and women are essentially equal. However, at World Cup competition and above (ie, Olympics) few women can compete with the men.

I don't know why, I just know that it is. I was there, I participated, I saw it. I have no bias against women and I think it's probably no use even discussing this. Abilities vary among individuals, as was said above. I have gotten my ass handed to me by more than one woman on the strip... but at the highest levels of competition the men have a clear advantage. Just my 2 cents.

[Complexity]

No. Then, again, people don't have equal abilities, in general.

That was a badly conceived question.

Want to try again?

[Dilb]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I'm fairly close to submitting a paper on gender differences in IQ-- the debate seems to be picking up steam again.

effects can be meaningful even if the variance is greater than the mean difference (d <1.0). In fact, the effect can still be considered large.

To require that that the mean difference be greater than the variability is to throw out probably 90% of social science (which perhaps might not be a bad idea).

The effects can be meaningful for groups, sure. It would be silly of me to stock women's clothing based on the average size of men and women combined. However, it would be silly of me to sell different men's and women's solid-black-umbrellas, for example, if the only difference is that the women's "large" is men's "medium", and so on. Even if women like smaller umbrellas, there's no reason why I can't just have the one line of black umbrellas and give the individual the size they want.

Similarly, if I need someone to do math for me, it's a much better idea to check if they can do math, rather than hoping the man I hired has a 55% chance of being able to do it, compared to the 35% chance that a particular woman could do it.
Turning it around again, if there were such a large difference, I'd expect math teachers (as a group) should be concerned, as they are trying to teach all women (and all men).

It strikes me as a bad way of thinking, to say "women are physically weaker than men, on average, and so we should have laws to protect women", as opposed to "some people are weaker than others, so laws should protect everyone".

[Quavergirl]

"Staying alive" seems like an important ability for humans. Women live longer than men. So I suppose women are better at living than men.

"Creating life" also seems like a good thing to be able to do. I myself, created two human beings just using my body! (oh, and some otherwise useless household item)

It seems just silly to have these discussions. Men and women are the same species with physical differentiation evolved for specific purposes. To wonder whether one part of a species is "better" than the other part is to ask a question with no meaning.

Q

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by Quavergirl

"Creating life" also seems like a good thing to be able to do. I myself, created two human beings just using my body! (oh, and some otherwise useless household item)

Yeah. Great. You realize we already have a surplus of humans, right? Seriously between the birthing and the lack of dying we're really having some problems.

[noblecaboose]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get annoyed when someone suggests that someone saying that men and women are pretty much equal is either "not being real" or otherwise being dishonest?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by noblecaboose

Is it just me, or does anyone else get annoyed when someone suggests that someone saying that men and women are pretty much equal is either "not being real" or otherwise being dishonest?

I see where you're coming from... I think the whole thread is pretty silly, personally.

[jonnyk]

Hi "DRBUZZO",

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Actually in all seriousness, any study which might possibly reveal a difference in the abilities of men and woman is something that a researcher is best off not touching or considering or even mentioning.

if (HYPOTHETICALLY, COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL, I AM ONLY MAKING THIS UP, THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE) one were to do a well controlled study that found that men had an inherently better ability to do a task - lets say, hypothetically, NOT IN ANY WAY IMPLYING THIS IS THE WAY IT IS - mathematics, spacial orientation, remembering certain items, navigation or something - the career of said researcher would be over. If they found that women were better, then it would depend on the task, but likely it would be over as well.

This is absolutely something that you should never consider or talk about openly. Careers have been ruined just by off-the-cuff remarks or speculation. This is absolutely tabboo and entirely politically incorrect.

by the way: I am not suggesting this is the case or that men are necessarily better at anything than women. Also, I don't think one sex is better at a task than the other. And I will not be accused of implying one sex is better at anything that the other.

JK- It shouldnt be politically incorrect TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a fundamental right of every individual in the West and what your suggesting would obviously hinder that. If we start with this political correctness where does it end? Religions will demand protection against criticism and that would have to be granted etc etc. One again individual people's voices or research will be put down by force. THIS MUST NEVER HAPPEN!

[jonnyk]

Hi "quavegirl",

Originally Posted by Quavergirl

"Creating life" also seems like a good thing to be able to do. I myself, created two human beings just using my body! (oh, and some otherwise useless household item)

JK- It's good that you put that in quotes since you did NOT CONSCIOUSLY create life. It's the evolved system in your body which did.

Quote:

It seems just silly to have these discussions. Men and women are the same species with physical differentiation evolved for specific purposes. To wonder whether one part of a species is "better" than the other part is to ask a question with no meaning.

Q

JK- Being the same species is irrelevant as to how the rights are distributed and balanced. Consider lion and lioness. Theyr obviously the same species but the lion gets the first right as far as eating is concerned. Dont know how they balance out their rights though. But even if totally different species like beavers, dolphins etc were to evolve a large enough and complex brain as to attain a similar conscience as we do, WED HAVE TO GIVE THEM OVERALL EQUAL RIGHTS TOO. WHATS IMPORTANT IS THE BALANCE AND ACCEPTANCE ON ALL SIDES, male and female of any species or different species whove evolved consciousness as much as humans have. Ofcourse all these different creatures cant have equal rights in every aspect. Some what get special rights in certain areas whilst others in other areas and that would be accepted by all sides.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jonnyk

But even if totally different species like beavers, dolphins etc were to evolve a large enough and complex brain as to attain a similar conscience as we do, WED HAVE TO GIVE THEM OVERALL EQUAL RIGHTS TOO.

"Have to"? Don't be absurd. We wouldn't have to do anything of the kind. We could just kill off said newly sentient species so we wouldn't be bothered by them. Maybe we should give such a species equal rights should it ever appear, but should and have to are frequently unrelated.

[this charming man]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

I cannot produce milk where women can do so after having a baby, which is again something I cannot do. Women and men can both pee standing up but men generally have more successful outcomes with that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

[Vic Vega]

Originally Posted by jonnyk

Hi everyone,
I finally decided to raise this issue up as I see things in the real world and I request others to please address this issue with utmost sincerity so we all can learn. I'm all for that both men and women should have OVERALL equal rights and there should be a balanced acceptance on both sides, whilst neither men nor women could possibly have equal rights in every aspect in the real world as maybe if you read on would become clear. Women should be given special rights on some area and men in others. Now there's no doubt on my side that women are able to do all things that men can do, BUT to a lesser degree in at least many aspects. Particularly in those areas which require strength men are around 30-40% better. If we look at the list of the strongest men and women, we find men have about 90% more upper body strength and 30% lower. However what about games/competitions involving BOTH strength and skill like tennis, golf, swimming, table tennis, cooking, analytical skills and logic etc? If we picked men and women at random, BOTH having the same experience in the respective fields and none suffering any genetic defect or disorder or any other type of bodily disease or malfunction which could hinder progress, WHO would come out to be the OVERALL more successful, men or women? If we allow women and men to compete freely in the real world WITHOUT offering some sort of special protection/right to the women, wouldn't they lose out in the long run? This is a serious question and needs to be approached from scientifically, putting all biases aside.

You seem to be talking about two different areas here. You mention tennis, golf, and swimming in the same sentence as cooking and analytical skils.

Though there may be some difference in the way men's brains and women's brains function (I'm no expert on the subject), when it comes to intellectual abilities all of my experience tells me that men and women are on completely even footing. I'm not sure why you mention cooking. I can't see why there would be any difference in men's abilities versus women's abilities.

Athletic endeveors are another matter entirely. To judge the physical differences in the capabilities of men versus women, you should probably look at the differences in the results at the elite level to determine that. A look at the world records in a variety of competition where the conditions are the same will tell you that.

Here are a few examples of current World Records, but this holds true for any similar type of competition:

Swimming:

Men's 200 freestyle Michael Phelps, USA 1:43.86

Women's 200 freestyle Laure Manaudou, FRA 1:55.52


Men's 200 breaststroke Brendan Hansen, USA 2:08.50

Women's 200 breaststroke Leisel Jones, AUS 2:20.54


Running:

Men's Marathon 2:05:38 Khalid Khannouchi USA

Women's Marathon 2:17:18 Paula Radcliffe GBR


Men's 10K 27:11 Sammy Kipketer KEN

Women's 10K 30:29 Asmae Leghzaoui MAR


Men's 100 meter 9.74 Asafa Powell Jamaica

Women's 100 meter 10.49 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA

The same would hold true for anything similar like bicycle racing, speedskating... whatever.

As for Golf and Tennis, if you took the elite players in the world, and had them compete, the results would be silmilar. Could Anika Sorenstam ever beat Tiger Woods if they played the same course from the same tees? I doubt it. Could Justine Henin ever beat Roger Federer? No way.

What does all of that mean? It means that men have greater athletic capability because we are larger, stronger, and faster. That doesn't mean that a good amateur woman tennis player couldn't kick my butt on the court. I'm mediocre and have no doubt that there are many who could. That also doesn't mean that there aren't women who are stronger than me. Undoubtedly, there are, though I am probably stronger than 99.9% of women on the planet.

None of this has anything to do with equal rights. Women should have equal rights in everything they do, but that doesn't mean men and women should compete together in athletic events.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by jonnyk

JK- It shouldnt be politically incorrect TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a fundamental right of every individual in the West and what your suggesting would obviously hinder that. If we start with this political correctness where does it end? Religions will demand protection against criticism and that would have to be granted etc etc. One again individual people's voices or research will be put down by force. THIS MUST NEVER HAPPEN!

Well, there is no law against researching any (potential theoretical not-saying-it-might-even-possibly-be-real) research on this kind of thing. It will simply end your career and mean that there will be protesters on your lawn by the next morning.

If you ever made a comment on this you would generally be treated the way a researcher would be treated if they ran through Times Square naked yelling "Death to America" and then issued a press release saying they support pedophiles and the next day ran a big swastika up the flag pole in front of their house.

In other words, most of society would consider them the devil and they would be refused employment for the rest of their life. Then 60 Minutes would do a report on how evil they are and the next time there is an election the candidates would be battling to be the most opposed to said researcher. Furthermore, they would be disowned by their family and if they ever were accused of a crime in the future, it would be absolutely impossible to find an impartial jury who did not hate them outright.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by this charming man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

Yeah. The milk is thin, runny and IMHO, of a very poor quality. It gets the occasional chest hair in it. I highly recommend against it.