/b/ - Random

men on average have 60% more upper body strength than women

>>35169
This. An averagely built adult man can overpower women.

But people who insist tiny manlets are stronger than big strongwomen are ridiculous. Not all men are stronger than all women, but must men are.

This is barely related, but I re-watched Brienne fight The Hound yesterday and the headcannon in the comments for how she managed to win was hilarious and sad in equal measure. Men are insecure, is my point.

60% more strenght can be everything or make no diference in a fight, it really depends.

>>35173
yeah but at the same time you have dudes like this one

https://mmajunkie.com/2018/01/video-tara-la-rosa-vs-male-internet-troll

who think just because they're menthey can beat a professionalmma fighter, just becuase she's a woman
and there's tons of guys like this moron who think women metaphysically can't win against a male, no matter the conditions

>>35169
I've heard it's (on average) 90% stronger for upper body
and 60% for lower body

>>35169
>>35176
It's 40% for upper and 33% for lower.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81

>>35173
>>35176
>>35173
>>35173
>>35175

it's all in the technique, you can beat guys twice as strong as you if you know your holds and submissions
>>35176
>>35179

>>35179
40% isn`t all that much tbh>>35179

>>35181
Yeah, that's why stronger gals can still outlift weaker men. It's a notable gap, but there's still overlap.

>
girls kick guys butts in wrestling and other sports all the time, but guys have this fixed idea that they'll win against a girl no matter how trained or talented she is
Those are sports so they happen in a controlled or a fixed setting where physical differences are minimalized. In a real fight the person with more mass wins, they knock your ass down and start pummeling whilst you have a hard time getting them down.

Its not end of all things but relevant

>>35181
Isn't it? you would need to be about 168 lbs to equal the strength of a guy that is 120 lbs. Assuming both are similar build. 48 lbs of lean mass is a lot.

>>35218

i get what you're saying but i think that technique is a great wa yto overcome mere brute force, no matter how strong you are if you can't defend a choke or a throw you're pretty much done

>>35226
Don't get too carried away with that though, that really only works up to a certain point. If the other person is much stronger, then they can still overpower a weaker person, no matter what their technique is like.

>>35226
a very well trained woman can beat an untrained man in SPORTS like BJJ where its all grappling, no striking

women cannot beat men in anything with real throws unless the man is exceptionally weak/small. even with more skill someone with more mass and strength will win. even men vs men. a trained skinny man can lose to a very large untrained man

if striking is allowed its no contest. an untrained man could beat all but elite women. the force they can produce with punches and kicks is just so much greater

unfortunate but true facts

>>35225
This is true, you need to be big to be stronger than weak/small men. You can't be uwu petite or fit the societal ideal while also being powerful.
Genes also factor into this, something about muscle fibers.

t. big with good genes and have found myself stronger than light men

>>35225
>>35233

that is not, in fact, true:

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/strength-training-women/

>>35233
Honestly from personal experience this is wrong. I'm what you would call a "petite" girl (102 lbs, 5') and I can pin down and pick up my bf who is 150 lbs 5'10. I'm short, I don't have huge muscles but I have lower body fat and most of my weight is lean muscle mass. I haven't done much research and may be talking out of my ass but it seems like women who train seem to build denser muscles rather than bigger ones. So while they don't have the appearance of huge muscles they can be quite stronger than they appear. I realize this is anecdotal but I don't think girls should buy into having to be an amazoness to have some semblance of strength. An untrained women who does no exercise and eats like shit obviously (so many women who just eat carbs and sugar and just sit down all day), a lot I see struggle to pick up 20 lbs… but a women who does strength training and eats properly can put up a good fight.

>>35564
You know your bf might've just been like, y'know, going easy on you right?

>>35564
It's the opposite. Men have denser muscles than women, and so are disproportionately stronger than women even relative to size.

I do kickboxing and the thing is that generally, women don't have as much upper body strength, but for lower with a good amount of training it can easily become much more. Increased thigh size help in this.

>>35564
I don't doubt you can lift him (pic related) but I do doubt you're stronger than him. I've never gone 1v.1 with a man 40 lbs heavier than me but I'd put my bets on him winning.

>>35560
This doesn't really disprove anything, just that women, by percentage of their starting muscle mass, gain marginally faster than men. It even says men have higher absolute gains since the baseline is generally more.

Was an interesting to note that women who workout reach 85% of male lean mass rather than 60%, so the gap maybe isn't as large. So a woman who pumps iron regularly could probably get away with being 140 lbs to match a 120 lbs guy instead. That's still far from petite, though lol.

>>35565
We are both not going to go 100% obviously, but by the end both of us have exerted ourselves significantly. We are not going to knock each other's teeth out.

>>35592
Makes sense. Just saying that size is not proportional to strength.

>>35595
Fighting is not just about raw strength. Saying the bigger one is always gonna win is inaccurate, they definitely hit harder but tire more quickly and also can be slower. I've sparred guys 160+ lbs and I've sent them down with a small tap to the liver. A little more force and it can incapacitate someone no matter how big. Always get complaints because I'm smaller I can weave in/out easier and I'm harder to hit. This is against trained men, in an actual MMA gym where they don't baby you even if you're a women. Sure in most cases being a bigguy4u gives you an huge advantage to do more damage which is why weight classes exist, but it isn't the end all factor. I also think getting psyched out affects fights as well, if you're thinking the entire time "this dude is bigger he's gonna win" well, you're not going to win. Raw muscle mass does not equate to how good someone is in a fight

Not to mention 99% of men are untrained, who cares if they're big if they run at you like a baboon with a haymaker. They're not going to keep their guard up either. You can easily avoid it and deck them in the face, ribs, knee them, elbow them, kick them in the balls, whatever.

Technique is useful, but it can only account for so much difference in raw mass and power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaehn1aY8Ig

>>35594
Leg muscles grow more due to growth hormone. Testosterone doesn't play as big a role. Whereas upper body muscles have far more androgen receptors. Women aren't as held back for leg muscle development. And it also helps that big strong legs can still be considered feminine. Nothing is going to get past the fact that men have more fast twitch muscle fibers and can track moving objects better. (We have them beat at color vision though).

Coming from a couple with 0 fighting experience that likes to play fight like idiots my boyfriend can (barely, but he can) overpower me despite weighing less than me and exercising less. Such is life.

>>36062
Well what are you waiting for? Do you even lift?

>>35168
Those boys are basically girls, no wonder they've got the jackets on to look bigger. Even her calves are bigger than theirs.

>>36062
This: >>36078
Start lifting so you can go Amazon-mode and do stuff to him.

>>35180
Is that a tiny junkie she's messing with?

>>35168
I did brazilian jiu jitsu as a teenager. Grappling is different to striking in that you can use all of your strength in training and sparring. Men typically held back, but when they didn't, it was like trying to bend an iron bar.

because men are stronger, and in hand to hand combat strenght is hard to overcome by skill, In swordfight for example strenght doesn't mean much even if you fight with someone on the exact same skill level but in hand to hand if someone is much stronger and heavier than you then you don't really stand a chance.

If men aren't stronger than women, then there can't be a rape culture, because we should just be able to fight off our assailants and commit a lot more rape ourselves.

>>35168
Every article I've read about female state champs always goes like "she came from a wrestling family, both of her parents were accomplished wrestlers and her 3 older brothers were state champs themselves."

So yeah, if you have strong genes and more opportunities to practice than literally anyone else in the state, then you SHOULD be the most skilled.

Because most men are stronger than most women, because most men are bigger than most women and because most men are way more used to fighting (even if play fighting kinda like little animals do, it slowly builds up experience grip etc.) than most women. So in like 96-7% of cases a man has a lot of the main advantages which typically decide the outcome of a fight. Also why do you keep spamming this topic in every thread?

Because men are much stronger than women, this isn't the patriarchy talking here, this is a scientific and biological fact, it is also why most(all) sports are divided between male and female categories.

To put it into perspective, though anecdotal, I weigh about 130lbs, which is pretty healthy for a 5'9 girl, and I go run every week (though I skip every now and then) and I work 9/5 six days a week at a children clothing shop, so I would call myself pretty healthy to say the least, yet I can only maybe do five pushups max!
Yes, I know, it's pretty bad, but I eat healthy and lead a healthy lifestyle, though some girls might be capable of much better, I'd call myself in the average!

And yet, my boyfriend (or ex, I suppose, though I hope to get him back but that's another story entirely) weighed about 140lbs for a 5'7 man, and those weren't muscles at all, his diet was absolutely horrible (when I met him at least, I tried to feed him better of course!) and consisted mostly of processed/frozen food like pizzas or eggs and bacon, he wasn't fat though maybe some would've called him slightly chubby, and he worked as a software engineer, read; sitting on his ass all day typing on his keyboard, and the most exercises he got during the week was probably playing one of his vr games! And yet, that 'chubby', horribly nourished guy was capable of going over 25 pushups!

Yep, and there you have it, this is why 'women can't kick a man's butt', because most women simply couldn't
Maybe if you picked the extreme end of the most fit woman you could find, maybe she could go against your average man, but otherwise I just don't see it happening lol

>>47311
Why the fuck do taller people always seem to have a lower BMI than people 5'5 and under? It's not fair.

19 BMI looks slimmer on 5'9 than it does 5'2.. shorties are truly cursed

>>47311
Pushups are entirely about arm and chest strength. Running doesn't train those muscles. Try doing pushups everyday and you should be able to go beyond 5 very soon.

>>47311
>doesn't strength train
>expects to be strong
lol
But you're right in some respects, women do have less muscle at a base level and, even with training, won't be stronger than athletic men. However, some women can definitely be stronger than some men. I've known and lusted horribly after men who I know from experience are weaker. By which I mean they couldn't lift objects or move even a fucking jammed door that I could easily.

>>47316
>>47317
My point was that I was(am!) a healthy, average woman (because yes, the average woman doesn't 'strength train' either) and was infinitely weaker than a below average man (5'7 near-chubby guy doesn't scream 'strong' to me)

Though of course if you go with the extremes, you'll always find exceptions, but it's foolish to expect 'everyone' not to say things such as 'girls can't beat a man in a fight', because they'd be right about 95% of the time!

>>47317
>>35175
indeed, women can even beat trained guys if the talent is there

But isnt that the point? By default men will generally win and it takes great effort and skill on the part of women to overcome even average guys physically?

Because that is mostly the case.

>>35180
no it's not, that's why their are strict weight classes in wrestling and boxing. Even among men 20lbs can mean the difference between a fair and unfair fight.

you might find the unusual case of some female winning some tiny regional high school meet or something. But on average women cannot compete with men, especially after puberty. Yes perhaps there is a one in one hundred thousand genetic freak girl who can kind of compete with the guys, but on average females cannot wrestle with men

>>35226
you are talking about some exceptionally trained woman vs. an untrained man.

Put in a room together the average man can pin down the average woman and rape her till his heart is content and there is nothing she can do about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFBNiHZFWu4

u mad?

A well trained woman can beat a non trained man.

The 10% strongest women can beat the 10% weakest men.

But 90% of the time, the man will win, they are simply physically stronger.

You can cherry pick videos all you want, there's a reason sports are divided in male/female

>>48174
This is probably the most simple, nuanced, and accurate view I’ve ever seen on this, thank you anon.
Everyone on here either leans into the whole “girls better than boyz” mentality to the point of denying biology or is a tradanon who wants to use men’s natural strength advantage as an excuse to be a fucking neet because “we’re just delicate y’all”
Personally I love being a biological woman. Any natural weakness I may have inspires me to work even harder to beat any failed male athlete who wants to live his sissy fetish by becoming a transwoman to compete.

In my experience we have more lower body strength than men…in a tug of war I used to beat my bf who was 30lbs more than me! compare you thigh circumference to your bf, you will find that yours are going to be bigger than his

>>49940
this may be true, but only because of fat content. Fat legs don't make strong legs.

>>49940
tug of war is more about friction than really anything else

>>48174
> there's a reason sports are divided in male/female

but when males and females compite against each other, a lot of times girl win, even at the top level, like a state championship

here's an example of a pretty good match, both of them are really skilfull and in top shape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5oZgwYU9g

>>49950
That's actually not as bad as I was expecting.

Also note that when you control for weight, women's weightlifting records are about 80% of the men's.

I hope I'm still alive when we're able to use genetic engineering to eliminate strength differences between gender entirely.

Yeah thats why the US national womens soccer team - literally #1 in the world loses against juvenile boys.
Thats why they spare against U15 and U17 boys in the first place, because the pace and athleticism is the same. We simply cannot beat males when they are clearly MALES.

>>50019
>Also note that when you control for weight, women's weightlifting records are about 80% of the men's.

It's not though. For example snatch WR for men in 77kg category is 177kg.
WR snatch for women in 75kg category is 125 kg.
That's 2.298 weigh per body mass for men and 1.666 for women.
Women's value is 62% of men's value.

>I hope I'm still alive when we're able to use genetic engineering to eliminate strength differences between gender entirely.

How do you think it will be possible to achieve that? Make a worldwide mandatory genetic intervention to either lower men's strength or increase women's strength?
Neither option seems remotely humane to me.

>>50046
>Make a worldwide mandatory genetic intervention to either lower men's strength or increase women's strength?

The latter, obviously.

Ideally, we should all have the same (or at least a similar) baseline. If you choose to be weak (through inactivity), that's your problem. But we shouldn't have to be at the mercy of literally half the population with no way to truly change it just because of our gender.

>>50056
She's saying she wants us to have the same base strength as we would have if we were men.
We currently do not, nor can training make us as strong as strong men. Stronger than weak men, yeah, obviously. But men are stronger than us on average due to genetics. That's just real.

>>50054
>The latter, obviously.
So you want mandatory genetic modifications for all females?
That is insane, nazi level type shit.

>>50057
>We currently do not, nor can training make us as strong as strong men. Stronger than weak men, yeah, obviously.
Not so sure about "obviously", see pic.
Even 75th percentile of female athletes aren't as strong as 25th percentile of regular men. I was pretty surprised when I saw that.

>>50072
Still stronger than at least 20% of these men though. And strong normal women are still stronger than some men.
Idk, just saying I've met men I was stronger than. You know, the tiny 100-110 lbs guys. Even posted before in this godforesaken thread about it.

Saying that most women can be as strong as men is almost as retard as saying trannies are women or that fat people are healthy.

>>50074
>Still stronger than at least 20% of these men though.
Ehm… there's no way to tell that from that diagram because it does not show the density of the distribution.
But even if that was true, 75% of highly trained females being weaker than 80% of untrained males is not quite impressive.

By the way, why is it important to be as strong as men again?

>>50084
>why is it important to be as strong as men again?
To get respect from your boyfriend or husband. Men look down on weaklings and only respect people who can hold their grounds.

>>50084
Yeah, of course it's unimpressive.
That's the main point we were discussing. We just ended up on a tangent about weak men because I mentioned them, sorry. They're hot and always on my mind, what can I do?

Anyway. We want to be as strong as men because they're dangerous and violent.

>>50085
>Men look down on weaklings and only respect people who can hold their grounds.

Doesn't everyone? But surely you don't need to be physically strong not to be a weakling. We are ways past the ooga-booga times when strength was the first and last argument.
Now we look down on people who try to get their way using violence. And most physical altercations happen between men and other men, not between men and women anyway.

>>50086
>We want to be as strong as men because they're dangerous and violent.

Are they though? What percentage of of men that you have encountered throughout your lifetime that have been violent towards women? Were any of your male relatives (like your dad for example) ever violent towards you mom or other women in your family?

But even if men are dangerous and violent I don't think becoming as strong as them through genetic engeneering is an optimal solution to counter that.
Tigers are dangerous and violent but no one suggests we develop longer claws and teeth to protect ourselves their claws and teeth.

>>50087
>Doesn't everyone?
Yeah, but I don't need to be physically strong to get another woman to respect me. But it's different when it comes men.
They might admire attractive female bodies, put you on a pedestal for your beauty or appreciate traits like kindness and gentleness in a woman but I think in order to truly gain their respect, you have to be physically strong. The fact that even a trained woman can be weaker than an untrained man is depressing to me.

>>50072
>So you want mandatory genetic modifications for all females?

Obviously it would be voluntary, but I don't see why anyone WOULDN'T want to do it if in this hypothetical scenario there were no adverse effects. There's no benefit to being weak if you have any amount of self-respect.

>>50084
>By the way, why is it important to be as strong as men again?

Because you're treated like a child when you're a grown-ass adult?

Because if a man wants to hurt you, you both know you're incapable of defending yourself if you're unarmed?

Because if society collapses, you'll be little more than a slave (if you're lucky) unless you have good strong men protecting you?

Men will always treat you with kid gloves because they know there's a real risk they will hurt you if they don't keep their strength in check. Men will always treat you nice because they know they will always win if a conflict escalates to the point of violence. Men will always "respect" you because you're incapable of truly enforcing your own boundaries unless you have a gun (which you won't use unless you think your life is in danger, so everything short of that is fair game). The only thing stopping a man from hurting you is other men and his own moral code. You have literally no say in the matter.

Anyone who says shit like "b-but women can control men!" is retarded. Women do not have mind control powers. Women don't have any power that men have not willingly given them. There is nothing to balance this inherent power difference and YOU'RE retarded if you wouldn't jump at the opportunity to even the playing field.

>>50054
>But we shouldn't have to be at the mercy of literally half the population with no way to truly change it just because of our gender
>What are weapons
Buying a spray can, pocket knife or even a gun is way cheaper than mass eugenics campaign for 4 billion people

>>50105
So would you genetically engineer women to be equal to men in pound-for-pound strength? Because if that was the case you would have women being still at a partial disadvantage, cause men are on average taller and heavier (so weight advantage, more body mass more of which is muscle, reach advantage) etc. You'd even the field just a bit with that. At that point, would you propose to go even further and genetically engineer women to be equal in size to men too? At that point again, why not just going "fuck it" and making all humans capable of wrestling bears and outrunning cheetahs since you are at it?
And at the present time, which do you think is cheaper and easier, buying some weapons and changing some self-defence laws, or wasting time in theorizing a planet-wide campaign of eugenics?

>>50105
Supposing it's possoble to make women smarter in the same areas men are smarter and vice versa should we embrace this, anon?

>>50112
Women aren't so much smaller than men (as a whole) that having equal pound-for-pound strength would be meaningless. A small disadvantage due to height and weight class I can live with. Being so much weaker than the vast majority of men that I'll never be able to catch up no matter what I do I can't.

>making all humans capable of wrestling bears and outrunning cheetahs since you are at it?

Why are you acting like this is even an argument? What I want is for women to have the same capabilities as men and to not be treated like invalids. That's no near the same thing as wanting to wrestle a bear.

>which do you think is cheaper and easier

It takes precisely zero dollars to theorize a scenario and you know it.

Weapons are great, but a woman isn't going to have one on her person 24/7. No matter how many laws you pass, all a bad man has to do is wait for the right opportunity and the woman is defenseless due to basic biology she can never change.

Why are YOU so opposed to the idea of women having the same physical capabilities as men and not having to rely on them being nice for basic autonomy? You sound like a moid.

>>50113
Intelligence levels are more varied in men, but intelligence as a whole is close-enough between genders that I don't see any need to do anything about it. Hard work can overcome any actual observed differences.

>>50115
>that having equal pound-for-pound strength would be meaningless
It would still be a disadvantage as men are still on avg much taller and heavier. You would still have women at a disadvantage in most cases (as a smaller man is disadvantaged against a bigger one) which is why I say your scenario is still sort of dumb.

>What I want is for women to have the same capabilities as men
And I want humans to be able to kill a lion with a punch, you never know when a wild animal might attack you, and afterall both scenarios are equally feasible, so?

>Why are YOU so opposed to the idea of women having the same physical capabilities as men and not having to rely on them being nice for basic autonomy?
I am not, I just think that fantasyzing on an impractical scenario in a board for special needs people is frankly fruitless, whereas buying weapons and, to an extent, campaigning for decent self-defence laws has an immediate effect, gives you the edge much more effectively in case you get attacked (plus it would make it fairer for anybody who gets attacked by a larger and stronger person)

>>50158
>It would still be a disadvantage as men are still on avg much taller and heavier.

Average healthly male height and weight are only 4 inches taller and 10lb heavier than female respectively. Pound-for-pound is a reasonable desire.

>both scenarios are equally feasible, so?

You don't encounter lions in day-to-day life. Lions are not half the human population. When women are killed it's rarely, if ever, a lion that does it.

I'm well-aware that weapons are an option for self defense and that better self-defense laws are a good thing and I'm not sure why you think I don't want them. But you're not always going to have a weapon on you and you'll always be seen as a easier target for nothing more than daring to be born with a vagina.

Not to mention that all the weapons in the world won't change the fact that you'll still be treated like an overgrown child incapable of doing jack shit on her own.

>>50159
It solves half the problem at least. 9/10 would meme again.

>>50089
>Who needs muscles when you have a gun?
I was meaning something more like "who needs muscles when you have character?".
Being a weakling is not about being unable to stand your ground. It's about being afraid to do it.
And I'd say that about 99+% of the sutuation when you need to stand your groud don't imply a threat of physical violence.
>There have been extrapolated studies that demonstrate women are equally violent to men but because men they fail to report such incidence for fear of being seen as weak. Women having less strength also means they leave less marks.
Sorry, but I am not sure how that answers my question.

>>50092
>Yeah, but I don't need to be physically strong to get another woman to respect me. But it's different when it comes men. I think in order to truly gain their respect, you have to be physically strong.
I don't think that is true. What do you think men are if of all human qualities they can respect only physical strength? Drooling stone age degenerates?
Men are perfectly capable of respecting other people who are smaller then themselves, be it women or other men.

>>50105
>Obviously it would be voluntary, but I don't see why anyone WOULDN'T want to do it if in this hypothetical scenario there were no adverse effects.
Idk. One might prefer not to undergo it (or rather make her children undergo it) if she wanted to maintain femininity and the ability of being attractive to men.

As for all the differences in treatment you have listed, I'm not sure if those are inherently bad.
Intersexual interactions are different from intrasexual ones. You probably talk to men in a manner that is different than the one you use when you talk to women.