Men and women are physically equal

"Performing at the same high standards as men only makes you better able to avoid enemy fire and becoming a casualty."

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

^ You tell that to yourself when you have to carry wounded comrades out of harm's way while enemy bullets are flying all around you. You tell that to yourself when you are trying to avoid mortar and machine gun fire in the heat of battle.

If you aren't strong and swift (and most importantly brave enough to keep yourself together) you're more likely to end up a statistic. (The only real exceptions are the extremely clever.)

Wait, so even strong and swift people die in war? Of course they do. The question is in what proportion. If being stronger, and faster, and having more endurance means I have a 3% chance of dying instead of 5% or 15% then I'm going to want to hit the gym as much as I can before going out into battle. Even though "time and chance" will have their way with me either way.

Sex, Drugs, and Rationality

The military thing is a bit of a derail, but it should be noted that being a good soldier is generally more about endurance, agility and a degree of relative strength, rather than absolute strength.

edited 9th Nov '11 4:28:48 PM by MostlyBenign

Agreed.

Anyhow, the title says physically equal, not just as strong, so I will assume on good faith that this also includes things like endurance. In that case, I should think that, for practical purposes, men and women can train to the same levels.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Seconding MB; especially in the modern military, there's not much use for bodybuilder levels of strength.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Also, like I said before, women have better fine motor control. This is relevant in the military, where people are occasionally expected to shoot at things, and preferably not miss.

If I recall, the USAF has more women serving than any other branch; I wonder if that plays a part in this?

I've seen some of the data regarding physical differences between the sexes, but I wonder how much more or less they would be if social influences weren't a factor. Granted, almost impossible to test for, I'd think, but something to consider.

I'd agree that nowadays the differences are a bit different. In a hunter-gatherer culture, men are much more "expendable" than women. Theoretically it might take one male perhaps a few days at most to impregnate a dozen females, but those females have to go through nine months of gestation and a few year at least caring for the child. Males would be expected to be exposed to greater risk taking activities than the females would, to better maximize the chance of successfully reproducing.

Go on to agrarian societies and we see both sexes sharing a more equal amount of physical labor, but the females still have to deal with bearing children.

Nowadays we're actually seeing the average lifespans of males and females slowly equalizing*

, theoretically due to more and more females taking up what would be traditionally masculine-oriented jobs and subsequently being exposed to the stresses involved with them. I agree with some of the above posters that we'll probably see even more equalization in physical strength, though unless some of the current ideals abut what is considered "attractive" by the majority change*

^{and indeed they have changed. Look back a century or two at the "ideal" figure versus what is popularly considered ideal today, for example}

, it probably won be completely equal.

^^^ Oh yeah there is. Do you know how heavy body armor and gear is? Here's a hint, it's about 40-50% of my weight and I'm around 200 pounds. (For some roles like SAW/240 gunner it's heavier.) You need to be strong enough to fireman carry that on top of how much the sonofabitch weighs in case you need to evac somebody to the choppers. Meaning for some folks that's as much as 400 pounds of weight and gear.

edited 9th Nov '11 5:35:29 PM by MajorTom

This is absolutely wrong; men are absolutely required to take care of children in the human reproductive cycle. If human men don't take care of the children, those children are very likely to die, because a human baby requires more resources than one person can realistically deliver to be healthy.

This is also wrong; women in modern hunter-gatherer societies often are responsible for gathering most of the calories in the diet. (Or rather, gathering is more reliable than hunting and women are more likely to gather than hunt; there are forager societies where nobody hunts so there's no sexual division of labor, there are a few forager societies where there's not enough to gather so there's no sexual division of labor, and there are forager socities where there's just no sexual division of labor for purely cultural reasons.)

And that said, EVERYONE does more work in an agrarian society. Foraging is not actually much of an investment in effort; the reason a society would move to agriculture is (mainly) that it's a more stable food source, not because it's less effort.

EDIT: Also, in regards to the OP, I find it more probable that women will get stronger than that men will get weaker.

edited 9th Nov '11 6:03:39 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Hunter-gatherer societies are, for the most part, egalitarian and non-gender-biased.

Agrarian society starts to bring out sexism, due to (IMO) a combination of sociological materialism and such. I base this on the fact that there are documented societies were women are dominant, and it was tied to female control of the production of crops—whereas in most societies, it is males that ended up controlling said production.

Anyhow, I couldn't say why women are biologically predisposed to being smaller (which says nothing physical capabilities) on average. Biology isn't really my thing.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Ah, many thanks for clearing that up, didn't really think that one through there.

Some statistics I found in one of my older(2009) health textbooks on physical differences between the sexes based on a some studies(might very well be dated though). According to the figures cited, when they compared a man and a woman of equal physical composition, they found that the female's oxygen intake was on average 30% lower than the male's. A male of equal build also had a larger heart, a greater umber of red blood cels, and a somewhat higher blood volume. Unfortunately, while the book gives the figures, it never specifies what study it's citing.

I have a good bit of insight on this issue.

I'm Air Force Security Forces. With few exceptions, I'm in one of the only combat arms jobs that allows women. We are also the only job in the US Military with female snipers. The only others are the Military Police of other branches, such as Army/Marine MP's, and Navy Masters At Arms.

I've met lots of female combat arms troops as a result. I've met some wonderful troops who are motivated, dedicated, and just overall quite awesome. I've also met some weak, whiny, manipulative, morale killing bitches who shouldn't be doing the job.

I'd say the ratio is about 25/75. 25 percent were awesome ladies that I enjoyed serving with, and 75 were a detriment to the unit for one reason or another. Either we ended up having to slow down so they could keep up, they started sleeping with men in the unit, which really started to fuck with morale, or in general they had certain sensitivities that don't jive with combat arms(meaning certain things offend them, and being easily offended does not mix with combat arms)

To do that job, you essentially have to become "One of the guys". If you're a female who can't do that, you simply won't do well in Combat Arms. Simple as that.

edited 9th Nov '11 7:34:55 PM by Barkey

@ Black Humor

Actually, according to what I've looked into, men and women are getting weaker. Not stronger.

Think about this: modern society tends to equate thin with good-looking for women and men (look at bishies). Being thinner removes some potential for strength. However, we also have a growing obesity problem. Fat promotes estrogen which is detrimental to muscle mass and density, which removes potential strength unless the fat is lost (fat does not turn to muscle or vice-versa, and it is easier to gain muscle when you have less fat although you need to eat more to gain muscle, which creates both fat and muscle, though you can diet off the new fat).

Additionally, there is another biological reason why men and women differ in strength. Breasts. Breasts are composed of fat and pump estrogen into the upper body, which is why women on average have less upper body strength and really strong women have next to no natural breasts and/or implants. Men can also get breasts due to gynecomastia, but since they are not made for lactating, they don't impede as much.

On top of that, most people do not exercise. My trainer once told me 10% of people in the USA actually go to the gym. I believe that from what I've seen.

Men and women will not be exactly physically equal from a strictly nature standpoint for a long time, and honestly, with my knowledge of genetics....it is probably a good thing. No, I'm not being sexist, but look at it like this: Women are genetically built for child-bearing and to have a kid, you need some fat and estrogen. For example a lot of female bodybuilders cannot have kids due to abnormally (for a woman) high testosterone changing their bodies (cough steroids cough) or having too little fat (try going below 10% body fat as a woman, and you'll see what I mean). Men are genetically built for hunting, due to the Hunter Gatherer eras, so they are built like tanks in comparison on average.

Although times have changed, and women are allowed to do stereotypical "masculine" things (to an extent, even in the military, it seems dying is a man's job as women are often trained to be snipers and not go in the front lines...but I'm rambling), there is still a genetic need for heterosexual coupling. If one looks at Homosexual Reproduction, which I have studied, the kids do not last long in M/M or F/F coupling. Additionally, although we have artificial uteri and are looking into artificial chromosomes and such, they still cannot find a way to continue genetic diversity without heterosexual coupling (basically if everyone did Homosexual Reproduction, the human species would eventually become too similar as certain genetic traits can only passed throug M/F coupling, look into it...not going on much longer, fingers getting tired).

HOWEVER, this is not to say I am against Homosexual Reproduction or believe in gender roles or anything like that. Rather, I believe that people should do what they want that makes them happy as we are all unique and different. In addition, men and women can all accomplish whatever they set their minds to.

Also, as a side-note, men and women differ in body strength on average (as in the normal populace, not athletes or anything), in the following ways: Men have 40-50% more upper strength and 10-20% more lower strength than women.

Another side-note is there are other genetic developments that seem to be interesting in strength development, like suppressing Myostatin completely. If one did this, if female, their muscles would grow exponentially in strength by on average 87% and bulk up hugely. If male, same deal except 112%. However, if either works out, they can build even more. Only problems so far are that the people who use would need a ton of oxygen, food and water to maintan all this...and their organs would give out after a few years, and their bones would need to be modified as well.

Also, there are other reasons than testosterone as to why men are stronger on average, as I remember reading that are 200 variables for physical strength in men compared to 75 in women.

/Rant

edited 12th Nov '11 7:46:44 PM by darkclaw

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

I think that there's a problem with the idea presented in the OP.

Being big and strong doesn't mean that you are stupid, and being clever doesn't mean that you are small and weak. The big and strong men who are stupid will have to do jobs that use size and strength, which are dangerous. The big and strong men who are clever will still be doing the clever jobs. This doesn't mean that selection is in favour of small and weak men. It means that selection is in favour of clever vs. stupid men (which has always been the case), and, given the existing selection trends, probably still secondarily in favour of big and strong vs. small and weak. Men won't get smaller and weaker - the distribution will stay roughly the same, but men will become cleverer. So, what will happen, is that men will not only be bigger and stronger than women, but also far cleverer. Some may suggest that this is already the case.

@ ek

Actually, to become big and strong like a bodybuilder; it takes a lot of effort, determination and intelligence. You need to do a lot of research into the human body, as well as understand your own.

I would not say that men are more clever than women or vice-versa though.

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

Sexual dimorphism has been decreasing for a long time. Our earlier ancestors had extreme differences, now the gap is much smaller. I don't see why it wouldn't continue.

It calls into question the idea of a specialised hunter role, though. If men have been getting smaller since our ancestors shifted towards the practice then I don't see how they've evolved to be better hunters.

edited 13th Nov '11 12:04:59 PM by Explodia

@ Explodia

What I am saying is that men and women are both getting weaker. However, there is a reason for hunters getting somewhat smaller. Muscles require a lot of the body to maintain, such as oxygen and more use of organs. Additionally, the more you have, the easier it is to become slower and have less endurance. So, it makes sense that the hunter role would try to adapt to have strength, speed, endurance, all of it as time went on; even if less is required.

Also, even back then there was not that much sexual dimorphism; though both sexes were a lot bigger (for example, a Neanderthal woman would be bigger than Arnold Schwarznegger). There's never been that much, but the sexes probably will not become exactly equal from a purely nature standpoint unless you biologically engineer them to be so (which would be nurture). I already explained various reasons for this in an earlier post. Note when I say nurture, I mean anything excluding what you are born with.

Also, I wonder what will happen once both the male and female roles of hunter or child-bearer are made obsolete. Technically, one could say that has already happened to some degree (women can fight, and men can use surrogate moms and reproductive tech has artificial uteri and such, although it isn't too well known yet; plus perfected Homosexual Reproduction will probably happen in a decade or two)...hmmm, maybe Everyone Is Bi Free-Love Future? Dear God, that sounds like a Fan Fic gone wrong (or right :P).

edited 13th Nov '11 12:20:31 PM by darkclaw

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

I like the idea of genetic egalitarianism. Providing everyone equality of opportunity with biotech.

@ Wonderqueer

But that would be horrible for people if we are all the same genetically. Our species would stop changing genetically and our potential would be diminished. Addtionally, what would you want us all to be equal at? As an example, say we all have great potential for strength. Then our muscle mass increases but we all lose some speed as a trade-off. Everything someone works towards is good and bad, so from an evolutionary standpoint, it is better if everyone works towards different things and has different capacities for everything.

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

Equal opportunity is not the same as uniformity. What we should do is ensure every person has the maximum potential for health, happiness, and intelligence. These are the things that expand our real horizons. Diversity of lifeways can only multiply.

What? Huh? And?

I am naturally taller than most of my friends, and stronger, too. Even with pretty comparable lifestyles, this is this case. There is genetic difference in physical size and strength. Becoming big and strong like a body-builder is nurture, not nature - and body-building doesn't make you taller. Basically, no matter how much iron one pumps, the offspring won't be burn with huge muscles as a result.

As an aside, I know a few body-builders (incidentally, of the three personal acquaintances I know who are interested in it, all are well below average height), and while it may require quite a bit of physical exertion and perseverance, it does not require a whole lot of intellect - even ignoring personal anecdote (I'm by no means calling my friends stupid - simply not outstandingly bright), it is not difficult to get dietary information and training regimes from other people, and that's what most tend to do.

What I am saying, in a roundabout manner, is that body-building is largely irrelevant to genetic inheritance.

Also, I was kind of shooting the shit. But surely, in the situation where men are. On average, bigger and stronger than women, if sexual selection became indifferent to size and strength in men, and in favour of higher intelligence in men, and did not change with respect to women, we would expect to see men staying, on average, bigger and stronger than woman, and also becoming more intelligent, on average. That is all.

@ ek

There are genetic differences in bodybuilding. For example, somatotypes affect how compressed your muscles are, the bone and muscle size, how they will appear, how one should train to not over-exert themselves or underwhelm themselves, etc. Then there are things like chemical and nutrient levels in the body, length of limbs, etc.

For one to maximize their potential and minimize harming their body, they need to understand all these things. If they are adding sports, especially things with high-risk of injury like fighting on top of that, they really need to understand their body at all times they are doing exercise and nutrition. In fact, you need to change your lifestyle often to do so (you need a lot of rest to properly heal, need good nutrition, etc.).

Even with a trainer, to do all this, all the time is HARD. Try doing it at a casual level, let alone for competition. It is not easy. At all. I have a trainer, and I see him three times a week. However, I have to live the lifestyle all the time and train without him often.

Please don't say something is easy or doesn't require intelligence just by looking at others. I'm not saying everyone who does bodybuilding is a genius, but I'm not saying they don't know anything either (unless they are just trying to build muscle without thinking of what will happen to their bodies).

Also as a side-note, if your friends are shorter, then their muscles will appear to be larger than someone with longer limbs due to the muscles not needing to stretch out as much.

/ Rant

On-topic again, it would be nice if everyone could treat each other equally but I don't even think that making everyone physically equal from a nature standpoint would fix a lot.

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

"On-topic again, it would be nice if everyone could treat each other equally but I don't even think that making everyone physically equal from a nature standpoint would fix a lot."

This and most of what darkclaw said really.

I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.