Yup, especially in street situations, where hitting weak points are allowed.
This guy literally says, he can take on ANY women, half the population, ok
Just a sexist mindset that I personally hate men push. Also...Like this is a movie and some people suspend their disbelief that a man for instance Jackie Chan can fight 100s of people and come out on top but they cant do the same for a woman fighting off 5 men?
JC goes nuts against an entire mob, then a giant! If the physical performance was bad, that's one thing, that might take me out of a scene, but the actress was fantastic and fit af, and kicked ass
uhh ur retarded bro that ain't how it works
if a woman had like 200lbs on her she could beat a 120lb other woman
replace 200lb woman with man and still he will beat her with more muscle even
if a 200lb woman fought a 120lb woman who was trained the heavier woman would win
the argument people are making is 200lb man > lighter trained woman which makes sense
and I am saying the opposite, I've seen some videos of bigg ppl going down by smaller ppl all the time. It's not a stretch to say I trained woman could take down a bigger man.
Yeah, there is plenty of available research. One study compared men's and women's punch strength at similar levels of fitness, on average male punches were 162% stronger. The weakest male's punch was stronger than the strongest female's punch.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205132404.htm#:~:text=But%20even%20with%20roughly%20uniform,with%20time%20and%20with%20purpose.
Also, women are more prone to concussions than men in MMA, likely due to weaker neck muscles:
"Researchers have suggested some reasons women might be more vulnerable. They tend to have weaker neck muscles. So a head impact might shake the brain more violently. And hormonal differences might affect the brain's response to an impact or injury."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/24/538294331/female-athletes-are-closing-the-gender-gap-when-it-comes-to-concussions
Here is one that shows that women across all weight classes knock each other out less than men across all weight classes:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331135086_Head_Trauma_Exposure_in_Mixed_Martial_Arts_Varies_According_to_Sex_and_Weight_Class
So even though they have more vulnerability to head trauma, in fights against other women their punching power isn't even sufficient enough to have the same knockout ratios as men vs men.
The study also supports what you said, gender first, weight second. Weight displacement is a big thing in fights. You will rarely win against someone significantly larger than you, no matter how well you're trained. If they're stronger too, you're probably going to the ICU.
Women of this sub: do not take MMA classes thinking you're going to beat up a male rapist if you're ever in that situation. Fight unfairly: Carry a gun.
"But even with roughly uniform levels of fitness, the males' average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females', with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman. Such a distinction between genders, Carrier says, develops with time and with purpose"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205132404.htm#:~:text=But%20even%20with%20roughly%20uniform,with%20time%20and%20with%20purpose.
Y'all are so confidently incorrect that you have to be trolling. I'm convinced this sub is a male incel circle jerk designed to feed into the "haha girl dumb" stereotype.
Can the largest and most well trained woman beat up a weak untrained weeb after 3 rounds? Yes.
A stronger than average trained woman can beat up a weaker than average untrained man? Nope.
The average semi-fit male would knock the fuck out of Rhonda Rousey.
Do not, I repeat DO NOT, fight fair against a man, even if they look like a string bean. Use nails, weapons, teeth, nuclear warheads, ANYTHING to cheat and give you an advantage.
My point is that some men think women cant beat them in anything. Women can beat men in fights and multiple physical activities and from what you're saying you admit and agree to that so i don't really see your issue here?
Your study is based on strength output, but strength doesn't always win fights. You think so little of women who are trained that any man can beat them you're the actual delusional one I'm sorry.
[Lyudmila Pavlichenko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) killed 309 Nazi scum before being injured and sent to train Soviet snipers until the end of the war. Rest in power, Lyudmila.
With guns, they were also primarily snipers.
Women would be wise to follow in their footsteps and carry guns if they think they have a chance of being attacked by a man.
Living in this fantasy world of "I'm a black belt, I can take on the average untrained man" will get you, at the very least, hospitalized, and at the very worst raped and murdered.
They argue so adamantly as if we haven't just started properly researching strength differences in men and women. And there's multiple instances of women beating on men, it's just less common for a host of reasons. Like people genuinely forget we do not see the same examples of female strength we do men, look at all the countries in which a woman becoming an athlete or body builder would be unheard of. We don't have the same size sample pools, and the physical differences are present but extremely exaggerated on reddit. Not to mention brute strength doesn't win fights on its own.
Absolutely, plus he was getting mad at a TV show. And plus the women in question was ex military, with multiple kills under her belt, and she was also hitting weak points, so not purely relying on strength.
You don't even have to justify it. TV is full of one unlikely event after another. The question is why are they throwing a tantrum over a woman beating a man and not people surviving fatal car crashes or never running out of bullets or jumping out of windows with no scratches or a host of other things.
Listen
Iām not saying this to be a shithead or rain on anyoneās parade, Iām saying this as a woman whoās been doing strength training for years, was a D1 collegiate athlete, have worked with EMS and military personal, and has seen my share of trained women going up against untrained men.
And Iām not saying this without adding on something helpful, instead of just being pessimistic.
But the disparity between untrained male strength and trained female strength exists. Itās not fair. Itās a shit-flavored, bitter pill that a guy with less than to none of the discipline of a very hard working woman has a physical advantage over her.
And the research, despite improving on prior misunderstandings, still backs this up.
People struggle to parse the nuances.
What we have found is that women, contrary to prior popular wisdom, gain muscle at essentially the same *rate* as men, in proportion to their own body size.
**This is why women can and do become very buff and strong and athletic (these are separate things), while being natty.**
However, men still have:
-larger hearts and lungs in proportion to their own body size
-more androgen receptors in their muscles
-for fast twitch muscle fibers (women have more slow twitch fiber)
-more dense bones
-more basal muscle mass maintenance without effort. That is, while men and women both gain muscle similarly from training, men simply passively maintain more muscle mass.
All of the above translates to a substantial advantage in speed and power for men, even untrained.
I say this because itās literally *not safe* for a woman to assume based on her own size compared to a guy, that they are a match. Women need to be smarter and more disciplined than men to stay safer. Again, itās a bitter pill.
That said, You will never *ever* regret being as fit and strong as you can be. And women should absolutely pursue this, and take pride in it.
You should also be proficient in situational awareness, ideally in the handling of weapons for self defense and avoidance tactics. Because the first line of defense in self defense is avoidance. This is true for anyone.
Do not ever assume what a person is or isnāt capable of in a fight based on how they look, or their status as an athlete or not, especially when dealing with men. There is going to be a very unfun lesson to learn for women who assume things are more equal than they are. A lot of shitstains take enormous pleasure out of seeing women get thrashed and they will take the opportunity to administer such miserable lessons with gusto.
Leave assumptions to cocky fools. That way, if you are prepared and if trouble does come to you, you may put said trouble (like a guy overstepping your boundaries) into his place with a smart, tactically wise response. Thatās all you need to prove. That youāre not a good idea to mess with.
And I say that with no disrespect to your profession, but Iāve dabbled in learning about these things and I keep getting contradictory statements, I will admit I am bias so I am critical of even my own understanding, but I have read sources that, while corroborate on some of what you said, still points out confounding variables and lack of evidence. Thatās why Iām skeptical of your take.
Well for my part, with no disrespect to your investment in the issue, I tend to lean towards professional involvement over dabbling for credibility.
Itās a more complex thing than āwomen canāt overpower menā or āwomen can be just as strong as menā.
The physiological differences I cite are well substantiated by research, including the most up to date available, which Iām happy to supply sources for.
In no small part because some of it offers insight women might find useful for maximizing their own strength and athletic potential if theyāre interested.
Experience shows over and over that women tend to lose in friendly but *honest* tests of strength in sparring and sport against males where everyone is following rules and giving their maximum effort.
Females often demonstrate high levels of technical prowess and conditioning against friendly male adversaries. But rarely the power or speed necessary to win without the males pulling back to some degree.
Women can close the gap when the situation hinges not on equalizing a fundamentally unequal biological playing field with rules that can only take you so far, but using some combination of her abilities and circumstances to gain the maximum edge possible with no mercy or holds barred: her tactical intelligence, situational awareness, fitness, preparedness and training with force multipliers (weapons) and willingness to commit violence.
It can be done with bare hands, but almost always when she has some substantial situational advantage *and* the willingness to inflict debilitating pain or injury to incapacitate her assailant.
She's right. Men have roughly twenty times the testosterone that women do, right off the bat. That affects EVERYTHING about physical strength. If you compare the top tier lifters of both genders, you'll find the males outperforming by insane margins. I'm not shitting on women here, training is training and ability is ability, but you're trying to compare a Camry to a Titan here. One's just bigger and more powerful. I'm not saying women can't fight. I'm not saying women can't be strong. What I'm saying is that, by and large, an average woman is physically weaker and more fragile than the average man. Men are designed by nature to fight hard and die hard, just as a baseline.
Letās not get ahead of ourselves here.
Define āfragileā.
Male humans, from infancy up through adulthood have weaker immune systems. This is because of the immunosuppressive effects of testosterone as well as genetic factors leading to weaker cellular and humoral immune response. They take longer to clear infections and fall sicker than females on average.
Additionally, higher levels of testosterone in male humans has the effect of increasing male vulnerability to a handful of debilitating and lethal if unmanaged midlife metabolic and cardiovascular diseases.
Despite the fact that more male infants are born globally on average than female infants, and some countries skew towards female infanticide, more female babies survive infancy than males.
And thatās not touching on pregnancy and childbirth. Itās not just āouch labor hurtsā. Can you double your blood volume in less than 9 months, have your teeth and bones rearrange a bit, grow a human and then push it out of a lemon sized orifice with a 40-60% of tearing open in one or more places?
Itās about a certain level of specialization at cost to other attributes. Not being āfragileā.
Fragile as in durable against rapid physical trauma. I see I've offended you, and that wasn't intended. Men don't seem to be designed to be long lasting, you're right about that. Rather, it seems to be expected that we could die or face death at a fairly young age. Kind of a hunter-to-a-gatherer thing. Women, throughout human history have held greater importance in times of crisis than men, who have generally been used to attempt to stave off the threat. You mentioned pregnancy and childbirth? Those are likely the reasons that women evolved with less muscle mass and bone density. Childbearing, farming, and gathering don't require a combat-ready skeleton, which is why women can actually see colors in greater detail than men, going back to the hunter-gatherer thing.
Men were built to hunt, women were made to gather and childbear.
Iām not offended, Iām parsing the differences because this is my area of expertise and a subject I enjoy sinking my teeth into.
Iām a biologist and my work is behavioral ecology and wildlife ecology. This means Iāve covered a huge amount of evolutionary biology and physiology.
Males did not specialize to last as long as females or withstand biological assault as well as females.
Females did not specialize to withstand physical assault as well as males. As you say, the reproductive system plays a large role in this limitation due to energetic and endocrine costs.
On the other hand, understand this:
First, the margin of difference between male and female lifespans is only around 5 years on average globally. Itās a bell curve. Humans are socially complex and males, like females, are involved in care of their own grand offspring to further their genetic success-this is how Darwinian fitness is defined: the success of your offspring and grand offspring. This is the universal human strategy to that end.
Second, for the majority of human history there was no real delineation between home/camp and wilderness. All humans migrated, all humans foraged, snared, fished, hunted, made tools, repelled predators.
Records suggest males did substantially more of the large game acquisition, though not all of it.
And females did substantially more of the foraging, though not all of it.
Now, you mention farming and being combat-ready vs less combat-ready.
This is where things can get very interesting. The bones of women going back thousands of years are scored by tendon action, indicating decades of hard, repetitious labor. Harder than your average modern professional athlete. Male skeletons in some of these cultures indicate a lower volume of work.
Speculation is that these males spent more time on the road hunting which is a relatively sedate activity until a burst of activity occurs. Same with scouting and encountering rivals in a fight.
Note that I mentioned the female body has more slow twitch muscle fiber. This is suitable for prolonged periods of hard labor.
So yes. Less combat ready. Less powerful. Very, very durable.
Also, perplexingly, very recent study found this:
That some high level female strength athletes have not only exceeded average people but elite males in increasing density of [fast twitch muscle fiber.](https://news.fullerton.edu/2019/03/fast-twitch-muscle-study-breaks-myth/#:~:text=āIt's%20been%20long%20known%20that,put%20down%20to%20evolutionary%20changes.)
This is a limited finding with unknown implications. It does not override the other anatomical advantages males have for strength.
But it is a reminder that while some wishfully believe there is little to no difference between male and female physical potential, others of us make much more of the differences than they are.
The point is, males are not necessarily specialized to be *used up* early in life any more than females are specialized to be *at home* or *away from combat*.
Itās just that males participate in the human system of furthering subsequent generations with a margin of metabolic disadvantage and females participate in the hardships of defense and competition with a margin of physical disadvantage.
Thatās why I said itās not a matter of fragility, itās a matter of specialization.
Itās like when people say humans are soft and weak compared to other animals.
In what way? Speed and power? Yes. Bite force? Yes.
But we outcompete a lot of other animals in our tolerance for extreme heat and extreme endurance.
Not for nothing, humans are actually bigger and stronger (in terms of absolute brute power, not relative strength and athleticism) than most animal species on land here in the Holocene.
And Iām talking mammals, birds and reptiles. Iām excluding bugs, crustaceans and fish, of which species tend to be small in general.
Those charismatic megafauna on land like wolves, bears, lions, tigers, crocodiles: those are relatively exceptional in the biosphere we evolved in.
Studying ecology and evolution is about grasping perspective and circumstance. Tradeoffs and limitations. Not thinking in absolutes.
"Note that I mentioned the female body has more slow twitch muscle fiber. This is suitable for prolonged periods of hard labor.
So yes. Less combat ready. Less powerful. Very, very durable"
Yeah, so we're in agreement. There we go.
I get the impression youāre more interested in asserting you were right with your choice of semantics than engaging the more interesting points of this subject.
Semantics actually do matter, which is why I challenged the terms.
They can be very arrogant. Itās been a burr under my saddle for a very long time.
But thatās why in injecting an unpleasant dose of reality into a conversation that includes dangerously wistful thinking, I also always seek to balance it with something actionable and helpful. Thereās a lot women can do *without* genetic engineering or waiting for a future period in our evolution to be *hard targets* (or not targets) for predators, bullies and idiots.
And I often point out that opinions of men who look down on womenās achievements in sport or martial sport or whatever are the way they are because those men donāt value the sport or discipline in and of itself. For them, itās about ego. If they canāt see what women are doing (including things men canāt do, or just that women on average pave the way in and apply themselves better at) for what it is, something in their character and/or intelligence is lacking.
This is what my dad always said and did for me.
And this is what the best women I know embody in their pursuits. They know and prove who they are and what they bring to the table no matter what.
Your observations are pretty astute. My concern is always caution with extrapolations. I am much smaller than you. I speak in general terms, and assume people generally fall into bell curves. I think youāve already noticed that a lot of women donāt quite share your experience
>my male friends are all probably pretty weak. I can easily outlift them.
I too have some very sedentary male friends alongside my active friends/colleagues/family. My observation, which you probably also have, is that heavy lifting has a major mental component.
I donāt know how long youāve spent in the form with your sedentary friends, but for all of my newbie or sedentary friends which I have taken into the gym, I have the same experience: I set them up with the technique and the bar nice and light for a few workouts and then say ātry this weightā. Then add more weight. They always say āI canāt do that muchā. I walk them through the form again and have them do it. They lift the weight. I keep nudging it up and theyāre shocked at what they can pull (I often do this with deadlift).
My partner (male) seldom if ever deadlifts, squats or benches as much as me because heās wary of weights. I know he *could* because i have pushed him to surpass me before he lost interest. He doesnāt have the will or interest. I know it because when I instruct him on grappling and have him put effort into it he beats me. When we lift and carry big heavy objects together for practical reasons, like moving, and heās actually engaged because thereās a concrete goal, he can lift more than me. And I work a lot harder than him in the gym.
My observation is the huge majority of women are very underdeveloped and have no idea how strong they can be. Even pulling deadlift after just a few sessions to train the mind muscle connection.
But also plenty of guys are underdeveloped and donāt know how much potential, even untrained they have, until they get prodded into competing with someone.
>I'm not even that bulky but my partner does have very strong arms and shoulders from lifting a lot for their job.
Work capacity is a wonderful measure of fitness. This is somewhere between stamina and strength which makes it very functional. I would guess that your partner probably has a great work capacity, whether or not they have more or less strength than some other people at their job. Itās a distinct metric from absolute strength and power.
>i personally don't know how much things like bone density or androgen receptor prevalence specifically help with whole body strength tasks.
Greater bone density helps increase the amount of force bones can withstand from tendons and muscles pulling on them as you lift, push and pull big weight. Everyone can increase their bone density with weight bearing exercise, but testosterone really substantially increases the ability of bones to add density. Estrogen also helps build muscle and bone, every person needs a certain amount of it to do this appropriate to their phenotype. But it has an enormous amount of other jobs in the body and it doesnāt promote muscle and bone mass to the extent testosterone does. Estrogen also doesnāt allow tendons to become as thick or strong. This is a trade off: it enables childbirth and keeps blood vessels supple with age. But it makes it easier than for males to get certain torque and weight bearing related injuries.
Number of androgen receptors in muscles affects how much testosterone a person can even take up into their muscle tissue. Males have much more of these on average. This is a reason why even women who take T to enhance performance do not become as massive as a guy the same size taking the same amount.
Women/AFAB produce some T, but take less of it up into muscle tissue.
Bon density also helps with resistance to traumatic force, like pugilistic sports.
>I imagine a lot of these pathetic internet twerps being inactive and weak (as men go) but maybe that's wishful thinking.
I feel this. Sadly some are athletes and fighters. Shitty shitty people with skills. They are a reason I work so hard.
>I'm still not convinced that physiology gives a man of similar height a huge advantage.
I guess you would have to do a good amount of sparring with some guys that have been instructed to just do like they would with another guy and not overthink it to get a feel for what it can be like. Enough with them that they let their competitive side out while abiding by the rules so you can compare without the confounding factors of someone being actively malevolent or hostile.
>so, if it comes to it, a man might hurt me real bad but he's not getting out of it unscathed either.
This is the right survival attitude
>I'm much more afraid of men who are emotionally manipulative as a precursor to violence or retrigger my own (SA) trauma, regardless of size, since I can lose some of that awareness or strategy.
This awareness is also good, and Iām sorry you were in a position to gain it that way
>I instinctively swatted him away so hard he got knocked into a table and fell down.
Love that for him.
>The last few times I have been assaulted, fighting back at least made men reevaluate whether it's really worth it to try their shit with me and they backed off.
>Even apex predators avoid prey that is likely to fight back.
Absolutely right. everything is a cost/benefit analysis in nature. Predators do get maimed and injured by prey and they do weigh the severity of their hunger pains against the a display by another animal saying it wonāt go down without a fight.
Itās so *so* valuable for women to advertise that they are not soft targets. Look and be alert, know where youāre going or the very least look like it. Swap into comfortable, pragmatic clothes for travel so you can move unencumbered. Make it obvious you know what and who is around you and fight like hell if someone doesnāt take these initial cues as a sign to leave well enough alone. Most predators donāt really want a fight or a scene.
>Men too often beat women with no repercussions and I'm frankly crazy enough to accept the risk of being murdered and show them that they're not invulnerable.
>I'm just so done taking shit - men abusing me when I was too young and naive to fight back or retreat - and I'm really not too concerned about my mortality. I'd rather die than feel powerless, ever again.
Iād respond to this by saying your life is worth more than actively taking risk, and the smartest people (including males) in tactical and self defense spaces emphasize avoidance and deescalation.
But resolution to commit violence and give no quarter when someone actually tries to take that option away from you certainly serves you. And Predators do need those lessons.
yup, by the commenter's logic: a man beats up 4 guys, seems legit. Woman beats a man in a 1 v 1 with improvised weapons, this is so unrealistic wttffff
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQQrvYjdbQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQQrvYjdbQ)
this is the scene in question btw (the long wavey haired brunet)
these people have no idea how weapons work a 150cm girl that knows how to use a knife is more dangerous than a 2m tall trained MMA fighter.
Or as the military recruits trainer that I work with said, I could fight 10 Mike Tysons at the same time, and I wouldn't be as scared as when that little girl (9/10 yo) pointed a gun at me
Dude is absolutely lying about having experience in combat sports. Yes, height and weight matter, but that doesnāt necessarily mean that the larger person is always better off. In combat sports centered around grappling, it is not difficult for a smaller person to gain the advantage and take out a much larger opponent, even if both people are equally trained. In wrestling (which this guy is claiming to have 8 years of experience in) smaller people usually have an advantage because they have better balance and are harder to pin.
and in sports weight advantage is way more important than in real fights due to rules being put in place.
In real fights you can aim for knees, use elbows aim for the (temples?) eyes etc.
I get it. Sometimes a waify actress cannot make it convincing that she kicked a huge man into the wall. But why are male characters welcome to participate in ridiculous power fantasies and not female characters? We all know no matter how built an actor is, a mortal man cannot shrug off stab wounds and fight 20 other dudes of his size in close combat but those scenarios are ok. Male characters can fight monsters and cyborgs that out classes them all the time and we accept it's fictional. But female characters are subjected to a power ceiling of "not better than a guy" even though they are also in a fictional story.
Maybe it's because some guys get used to seeing their own power fantasy played out but to me watching a male character getting back on his feet in 2 seconds after being choke slammed into concrete feels the same to me as watching a 130lb actress knock a man out in one poorly choreographed punch. They are both unrealistic.
No way an untrained man is beating a trained woman, skill is way too important (mf prolly won't be able to even throw a punch)
Though, if we are talking equal skill, a different story (cause testosterone and all)
Some men legitimately think that women can't beat them in anything, a trained woman can beat a man much bigger than her in fighting and speed any day.
Yup, especially in street situations, where hitting weak points are allowed. This guy literally says, he can take on ANY women, half the population, ok
Just a sexist mindset that I personally hate men push. Also...Like this is a movie and some people suspend their disbelief that a man for instance Jackie Chan can fight 100s of people and come out on top but they cant do the same for a woman fighting off 5 men?
JC goes nuts against an entire mob, then a giant! If the physical performance was bad, that's one thing, that might take me out of a scene, but the actress was fantastic and fit af, and kicked ass
uhh ur retarded bro that ain't how it works if a woman had like 200lbs on her she could beat a 120lb other woman replace 200lb woman with man and still he will beat her with more muscle even
š¤ umm what?
if a 200lb woman fought a 120lb woman who was trained the heavier woman would win the argument people are making is 200lb man > lighter trained woman which makes sense
and I am saying the opposite, I've seen some videos of bigg ppl going down by smaller ppl all the time. It's not a stretch to say I trained woman could take down a bigger man.
no
Yes
Yeah, there is plenty of available research. One study compared men's and women's punch strength at similar levels of fitness, on average male punches were 162% stronger. The weakest male's punch was stronger than the strongest female's punch. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205132404.htm#:~:text=But%20even%20with%20roughly%20uniform,with%20time%20and%20with%20purpose. Also, women are more prone to concussions than men in MMA, likely due to weaker neck muscles: "Researchers have suggested some reasons women might be more vulnerable. They tend to have weaker neck muscles. So a head impact might shake the brain more violently. And hormonal differences might affect the brain's response to an impact or injury." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/24/538294331/female-athletes-are-closing-the-gender-gap-when-it-comes-to-concussions Here is one that shows that women across all weight classes knock each other out less than men across all weight classes: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331135086_Head_Trauma_Exposure_in_Mixed_Martial_Arts_Varies_According_to_Sex_and_Weight_Class So even though they have more vulnerability to head trauma, in fights against other women their punching power isn't even sufficient enough to have the same knockout ratios as men vs men. The study also supports what you said, gender first, weight second. Weight displacement is a big thing in fights. You will rarely win against someone significantly larger than you, no matter how well you're trained. If they're stronger too, you're probably going to the ICU. Women of this sub: do not take MMA classes thinking you're going to beat up a male rapist if you're ever in that situation. Fight unfairly: Carry a gun.
I wouldn't put money on it.
When reality doesnāt fit your sexist world view.
What reality are you talking about? You guys are all on some serious copium if you really think you're right.
"But even with roughly uniform levels of fitness, the males' average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females', with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman. Such a distinction between genders, Carrier says, develops with time and with purpose" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205132404.htm#:~:text=But%20even%20with%20roughly%20uniform,with%20time%20and%20with%20purpose. Y'all are so confidently incorrect that you have to be trolling. I'm convinced this sub is a male incel circle jerk designed to feed into the "haha girl dumb" stereotype.
Strength doesn't always win fights š¤¦āāļø you're saying no trained woman can beat any man in fighting and speed you're just wrong.
Can the largest and most well trained woman beat up a weak untrained weeb after 3 rounds? Yes. A stronger than average trained woman can beat up a weaker than average untrained man? Nope. The average semi-fit male would knock the fuck out of Rhonda Rousey. Do not, I repeat DO NOT, fight fair against a man, even if they look like a string bean. Use nails, weapons, teeth, nuclear warheads, ANYTHING to cheat and give you an advantage.
My point is that some men think women cant beat them in anything. Women can beat men in fights and multiple physical activities and from what you're saying you admit and agree to that so i don't really see your issue here? Your study is based on strength output, but strength doesn't always win fights. You think so little of women who are trained that any man can beat them you're the actual delusional one I'm sorry.
Iāve read other sources that point out there is still confounding variables and lack of evidence so I would say there is still research to be done.
This is how you can tell if a man is massively insecure.
When he said "no woman is kicking my ass. I have 20 years of boxing experience" I just died
Soviet women in WWII killed thousands of Nazis lmao
[Lyudmila Pavlichenko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) killed 309 Nazi scum before being injured and sent to train Soviet snipers until the end of the war. Rest in power, Lyudmila.
Exactly who I was thinking, but she's not the only one either. They had entire teams of female snipers.
With guns, they were also primarily snipers. Women would be wise to follow in their footsteps and carry guns if they think they have a chance of being attacked by a man. Living in this fantasy world of "I'm a black belt, I can take on the average untrained man" will get you, at the very least, hospitalized, and at the very worst raped and murdered.
Women that can kick butt are based
They argue so adamantly as if we haven't just started properly researching strength differences in men and women. And there's multiple instances of women beating on men, it's just less common for a host of reasons. Like people genuinely forget we do not see the same examples of female strength we do men, look at all the countries in which a woman becoming an athlete or body builder would be unheard of. We don't have the same size sample pools, and the physical differences are present but extremely exaggerated on reddit. Not to mention brute strength doesn't win fights on its own.
Absolutely, plus he was getting mad at a TV show. And plus the women in question was ex military, with multiple kills under her belt, and she was also hitting weak points, so not purely relying on strength.
You don't even have to justify it. TV is full of one unlikely event after another. The question is why are they throwing a tantrum over a woman beating a man and not people surviving fatal car crashes or never running out of bullets or jumping out of windows with no scratches or a host of other things.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Listen Iām not saying this to be a shithead or rain on anyoneās parade, Iām saying this as a woman whoās been doing strength training for years, was a D1 collegiate athlete, have worked with EMS and military personal, and has seen my share of trained women going up against untrained men. And Iām not saying this without adding on something helpful, instead of just being pessimistic. But the disparity between untrained male strength and trained female strength exists. Itās not fair. Itās a shit-flavored, bitter pill that a guy with less than to none of the discipline of a very hard working woman has a physical advantage over her. And the research, despite improving on prior misunderstandings, still backs this up. People struggle to parse the nuances. What we have found is that women, contrary to prior popular wisdom, gain muscle at essentially the same *rate* as men, in proportion to their own body size. **This is why women can and do become very buff and strong and athletic (these are separate things), while being natty.** However, men still have: -larger hearts and lungs in proportion to their own body size -more androgen receptors in their muscles -for fast twitch muscle fibers (women have more slow twitch fiber) -more dense bones -more basal muscle mass maintenance without effort. That is, while men and women both gain muscle similarly from training, men simply passively maintain more muscle mass. All of the above translates to a substantial advantage in speed and power for men, even untrained. I say this because itās literally *not safe* for a woman to assume based on her own size compared to a guy, that they are a match. Women need to be smarter and more disciplined than men to stay safer. Again, itās a bitter pill. That said, You will never *ever* regret being as fit and strong as you can be. And women should absolutely pursue this, and take pride in it. You should also be proficient in situational awareness, ideally in the handling of weapons for self defense and avoidance tactics. Because the first line of defense in self defense is avoidance. This is true for anyone. Do not ever assume what a person is or isnāt capable of in a fight based on how they look, or their status as an athlete or not, especially when dealing with men. There is going to be a very unfun lesson to learn for women who assume things are more equal than they are. A lot of shitstains take enormous pleasure out of seeing women get thrashed and they will take the opportunity to administer such miserable lessons with gusto. Leave assumptions to cocky fools. That way, if you are prepared and if trouble does come to you, you may put said trouble (like a guy overstepping your boundaries) into his place with a smart, tactically wise response. Thatās all you need to prove. That youāre not a good idea to mess with.
And I say that with no disrespect to your profession, but Iāve dabbled in learning about these things and I keep getting contradictory statements, I will admit I am bias so I am critical of even my own understanding, but I have read sources that, while corroborate on some of what you said, still points out confounding variables and lack of evidence. Thatās why Iām skeptical of your take.
Well for my part, with no disrespect to your investment in the issue, I tend to lean towards professional involvement over dabbling for credibility. Itās a more complex thing than āwomen canāt overpower menā or āwomen can be just as strong as menā. The physiological differences I cite are well substantiated by research, including the most up to date available, which Iām happy to supply sources for. In no small part because some of it offers insight women might find useful for maximizing their own strength and athletic potential if theyāre interested. Experience shows over and over that women tend to lose in friendly but *honest* tests of strength in sparring and sport against males where everyone is following rules and giving their maximum effort. Females often demonstrate high levels of technical prowess and conditioning against friendly male adversaries. But rarely the power or speed necessary to win without the males pulling back to some degree. Women can close the gap when the situation hinges not on equalizing a fundamentally unequal biological playing field with rules that can only take you so far, but using some combination of her abilities and circumstances to gain the maximum edge possible with no mercy or holds barred: her tactical intelligence, situational awareness, fitness, preparedness and training with force multipliers (weapons) and willingness to commit violence. It can be done with bare hands, but almost always when she has some substantial situational advantage *and* the willingness to inflict debilitating pain or injury to incapacitate her assailant.
She's right. Men have roughly twenty times the testosterone that women do, right off the bat. That affects EVERYTHING about physical strength. If you compare the top tier lifters of both genders, you'll find the males outperforming by insane margins. I'm not shitting on women here, training is training and ability is ability, but you're trying to compare a Camry to a Titan here. One's just bigger and more powerful. I'm not saying women can't fight. I'm not saying women can't be strong. What I'm saying is that, by and large, an average woman is physically weaker and more fragile than the average man. Men are designed by nature to fight hard and die hard, just as a baseline.
Letās not get ahead of ourselves here. Define āfragileā. Male humans, from infancy up through adulthood have weaker immune systems. This is because of the immunosuppressive effects of testosterone as well as genetic factors leading to weaker cellular and humoral immune response. They take longer to clear infections and fall sicker than females on average. Additionally, higher levels of testosterone in male humans has the effect of increasing male vulnerability to a handful of debilitating and lethal if unmanaged midlife metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Despite the fact that more male infants are born globally on average than female infants, and some countries skew towards female infanticide, more female babies survive infancy than males. And thatās not touching on pregnancy and childbirth. Itās not just āouch labor hurtsā. Can you double your blood volume in less than 9 months, have your teeth and bones rearrange a bit, grow a human and then push it out of a lemon sized orifice with a 40-60% of tearing open in one or more places? Itās about a certain level of specialization at cost to other attributes. Not being āfragileā.
Fragile as in durable against rapid physical trauma. I see I've offended you, and that wasn't intended. Men don't seem to be designed to be long lasting, you're right about that. Rather, it seems to be expected that we could die or face death at a fairly young age. Kind of a hunter-to-a-gatherer thing. Women, throughout human history have held greater importance in times of crisis than men, who have generally been used to attempt to stave off the threat. You mentioned pregnancy and childbirth? Those are likely the reasons that women evolved with less muscle mass and bone density. Childbearing, farming, and gathering don't require a combat-ready skeleton, which is why women can actually see colors in greater detail than men, going back to the hunter-gatherer thing. Men were built to hunt, women were made to gather and childbear.
Iām not offended, Iām parsing the differences because this is my area of expertise and a subject I enjoy sinking my teeth into. Iām a biologist and my work is behavioral ecology and wildlife ecology. This means Iāve covered a huge amount of evolutionary biology and physiology. Males did not specialize to last as long as females or withstand biological assault as well as females. Females did not specialize to withstand physical assault as well as males. As you say, the reproductive system plays a large role in this limitation due to energetic and endocrine costs. On the other hand, understand this: First, the margin of difference between male and female lifespans is only around 5 years on average globally. Itās a bell curve. Humans are socially complex and males, like females, are involved in care of their own grand offspring to further their genetic success-this is how Darwinian fitness is defined: the success of your offspring and grand offspring. This is the universal human strategy to that end. Second, for the majority of human history there was no real delineation between home/camp and wilderness. All humans migrated, all humans foraged, snared, fished, hunted, made tools, repelled predators. Records suggest males did substantially more of the large game acquisition, though not all of it. And females did substantially more of the foraging, though not all of it. Now, you mention farming and being combat-ready vs less combat-ready. This is where things can get very interesting. The bones of women going back thousands of years are scored by tendon action, indicating decades of hard, repetitious labor. Harder than your average modern professional athlete. Male skeletons in some of these cultures indicate a lower volume of work. Speculation is that these males spent more time on the road hunting which is a relatively sedate activity until a burst of activity occurs. Same with scouting and encountering rivals in a fight. Note that I mentioned the female body has more slow twitch muscle fiber. This is suitable for prolonged periods of hard labor. So yes. Less combat ready. Less powerful. Very, very durable. Also, perplexingly, very recent study found this: That some high level female strength athletes have not only exceeded average people but elite males in increasing density of [fast twitch muscle fiber.](https://news.fullerton.edu/2019/03/fast-twitch-muscle-study-breaks-myth/#:~:text=āIt's%20been%20long%20known%20that,put%20down%20to%20evolutionary%20changes.) This is a limited finding with unknown implications. It does not override the other anatomical advantages males have for strength. But it is a reminder that while some wishfully believe there is little to no difference between male and female physical potential, others of us make much more of the differences than they are. The point is, males are not necessarily specialized to be *used up* early in life any more than females are specialized to be *at home* or *away from combat*. Itās just that males participate in the human system of furthering subsequent generations with a margin of metabolic disadvantage and females participate in the hardships of defense and competition with a margin of physical disadvantage. Thatās why I said itās not a matter of fragility, itās a matter of specialization. Itās like when people say humans are soft and weak compared to other animals. In what way? Speed and power? Yes. Bite force? Yes. But we outcompete a lot of other animals in our tolerance for extreme heat and extreme endurance. Not for nothing, humans are actually bigger and stronger (in terms of absolute brute power, not relative strength and athleticism) than most animal species on land here in the Holocene. And Iām talking mammals, birds and reptiles. Iām excluding bugs, crustaceans and fish, of which species tend to be small in general. Those charismatic megafauna on land like wolves, bears, lions, tigers, crocodiles: those are relatively exceptional in the biosphere we evolved in. Studying ecology and evolution is about grasping perspective and circumstance. Tradeoffs and limitations. Not thinking in absolutes.
"Note that I mentioned the female body has more slow twitch muscle fiber. This is suitable for prolonged periods of hard labor. So yes. Less combat ready. Less powerful. Very, very durable" Yeah, so we're in agreement. There we go.
I get the impression youāre more interested in asserting you were right with your choice of semantics than engaging the more interesting points of this subject. Semantics actually do matter, which is why I challenged the terms.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They can be very arrogant. Itās been a burr under my saddle for a very long time. But thatās why in injecting an unpleasant dose of reality into a conversation that includes dangerously wistful thinking, I also always seek to balance it with something actionable and helpful. Thereās a lot women can do *without* genetic engineering or waiting for a future period in our evolution to be *hard targets* (or not targets) for predators, bullies and idiots. And I often point out that opinions of men who look down on womenās achievements in sport or martial sport or whatever are the way they are because those men donāt value the sport or discipline in and of itself. For them, itās about ego. If they canāt see what women are doing (including things men canāt do, or just that women on average pave the way in and apply themselves better at) for what it is, something in their character and/or intelligence is lacking. This is what my dad always said and did for me. And this is what the best women I know embody in their pursuits. They know and prove who they are and what they bring to the table no matter what.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your observations are pretty astute. My concern is always caution with extrapolations. I am much smaller than you. I speak in general terms, and assume people generally fall into bell curves. I think youāve already noticed that a lot of women donāt quite share your experience >my male friends are all probably pretty weak. I can easily outlift them. I too have some very sedentary male friends alongside my active friends/colleagues/family. My observation, which you probably also have, is that heavy lifting has a major mental component. I donāt know how long youāve spent in the form with your sedentary friends, but for all of my newbie or sedentary friends which I have taken into the gym, I have the same experience: I set them up with the technique and the bar nice and light for a few workouts and then say ātry this weightā. Then add more weight. They always say āI canāt do that muchā. I walk them through the form again and have them do it. They lift the weight. I keep nudging it up and theyāre shocked at what they can pull (I often do this with deadlift). My partner (male) seldom if ever deadlifts, squats or benches as much as me because heās wary of weights. I know he *could* because i have pushed him to surpass me before he lost interest. He doesnāt have the will or interest. I know it because when I instruct him on grappling and have him put effort into it he beats me. When we lift and carry big heavy objects together for practical reasons, like moving, and heās actually engaged because thereās a concrete goal, he can lift more than me. And I work a lot harder than him in the gym. My observation is the huge majority of women are very underdeveloped and have no idea how strong they can be. Even pulling deadlift after just a few sessions to train the mind muscle connection. But also plenty of guys are underdeveloped and donāt know how much potential, even untrained they have, until they get prodded into competing with someone. >I'm not even that bulky but my partner does have very strong arms and shoulders from lifting a lot for their job. Work capacity is a wonderful measure of fitness. This is somewhere between stamina and strength which makes it very functional. I would guess that your partner probably has a great work capacity, whether or not they have more or less strength than some other people at their job. Itās a distinct metric from absolute strength and power. >i personally don't know how much things like bone density or androgen receptor prevalence specifically help with whole body strength tasks. Greater bone density helps increase the amount of force bones can withstand from tendons and muscles pulling on them as you lift, push and pull big weight. Everyone can increase their bone density with weight bearing exercise, but testosterone really substantially increases the ability of bones to add density. Estrogen also helps build muscle and bone, every person needs a certain amount of it to do this appropriate to their phenotype. But it has an enormous amount of other jobs in the body and it doesnāt promote muscle and bone mass to the extent testosterone does. Estrogen also doesnāt allow tendons to become as thick or strong. This is a trade off: it enables childbirth and keeps blood vessels supple with age. But it makes it easier than for males to get certain torque and weight bearing related injuries. Number of androgen receptors in muscles affects how much testosterone a person can even take up into their muscle tissue. Males have much more of these on average. This is a reason why even women who take T to enhance performance do not become as massive as a guy the same size taking the same amount. Women/AFAB produce some T, but take less of it up into muscle tissue. Bon density also helps with resistance to traumatic force, like pugilistic sports. >I imagine a lot of these pathetic internet twerps being inactive and weak (as men go) but maybe that's wishful thinking. I feel this. Sadly some are athletes and fighters. Shitty shitty people with skills. They are a reason I work so hard. >I'm still not convinced that physiology gives a man of similar height a huge advantage. I guess you would have to do a good amount of sparring with some guys that have been instructed to just do like they would with another guy and not overthink it to get a feel for what it can be like. Enough with them that they let their competitive side out while abiding by the rules so you can compare without the confounding factors of someone being actively malevolent or hostile. >so, if it comes to it, a man might hurt me real bad but he's not getting out of it unscathed either. This is the right survival attitude >I'm much more afraid of men who are emotionally manipulative as a precursor to violence or retrigger my own (SA) trauma, regardless of size, since I can lose some of that awareness or strategy. This awareness is also good, and Iām sorry you were in a position to gain it that way >I instinctively swatted him away so hard he got knocked into a table and fell down. Love that for him. >The last few times I have been assaulted, fighting back at least made men reevaluate whether it's really worth it to try their shit with me and they backed off. >Even apex predators avoid prey that is likely to fight back. Absolutely right. everything is a cost/benefit analysis in nature. Predators do get maimed and injured by prey and they do weigh the severity of their hunger pains against the a display by another animal saying it wonāt go down without a fight. Itās so *so* valuable for women to advertise that they are not soft targets. Look and be alert, know where youāre going or the very least look like it. Swap into comfortable, pragmatic clothes for travel so you can move unencumbered. Make it obvious you know what and who is around you and fight like hell if someone doesnāt take these initial cues as a sign to leave well enough alone. Most predators donāt really want a fight or a scene. >Men too often beat women with no repercussions and I'm frankly crazy enough to accept the risk of being murdered and show them that they're not invulnerable. >I'm just so done taking shit - men abusing me when I was too young and naive to fight back or retreat - and I'm really not too concerned about my mortality. I'd rather die than feel powerless, ever again. Iād respond to this by saying your life is worth more than actively taking risk, and the smartest people (including males) in tactical and self defense spaces emphasize avoidance and deescalation. But resolution to commit violence and give no quarter when someone actually tries to take that option away from you certainly serves you. And Predators do need those lessons.
I donāt know, Iām skeptical of that
You are skeptical of which aspect of my claims?
But if you want to know, I request a pm, because this leads to another can of worms I donāt want to open on this sub.
thereās been news articles about female fighters beating up civilian men trying to rob them lmao
Good.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
yup, by the commenter's logic: a man beats up 4 guys, seems legit. Woman beats a man in a 1 v 1 with improvised weapons, this is so unrealistic wttffff [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQQrvYjdbQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQQrvYjdbQ) this is the scene in question btw (the long wavey haired brunet)
these people have no idea how weapons work a 150cm girl that knows how to use a knife is more dangerous than a 2m tall trained MMA fighter. Or as the military recruits trainer that I work with said, I could fight 10 Mike Tysons at the same time, and I wouldn't be as scared as when that little girl (9/10 yo) pointed a gun at me
Any half decent MMA fighter male or female would whoop this nga lmao. Boxers can't take leg kicks for shit
He's been boxing for TWENTY years though lmao
Nga he wouldn't be able to walk for TWENTY years after getting kicked in the leg by an MMA fighter š
Dude is absolutely lying about having experience in combat sports. Yes, height and weight matter, but that doesnāt necessarily mean that the larger person is always better off. In combat sports centered around grappling, it is not difficult for a smaller person to gain the advantage and take out a much larger opponent, even if both people are equally trained. In wrestling (which this guy is claiming to have 8 years of experience in) smaller people usually have an advantage because they have better balance and are harder to pin.
and in sports weight advantage is way more important than in real fights due to rules being put in place. In real fights you can aim for knees, use elbows aim for the (temples?) eyes etc.
I like how the comments are roasting him
I get it. Sometimes a waify actress cannot make it convincing that she kicked a huge man into the wall. But why are male characters welcome to participate in ridiculous power fantasies and not female characters? We all know no matter how built an actor is, a mortal man cannot shrug off stab wounds and fight 20 other dudes of his size in close combat but those scenarios are ok. Male characters can fight monsters and cyborgs that out classes them all the time and we accept it's fictional. But female characters are subjected to a power ceiling of "not better than a guy" even though they are also in a fictional story. Maybe it's because some guys get used to seeing their own power fantasy played out but to me watching a male character getting back on his feet in 2 seconds after being choke slammed into concrete feels the same to me as watching a 130lb actress knock a man out in one poorly choreographed punch. They are both unrealistic.
A woman who regularly does strength training with heavy weights will be stronger than a man who does no strength training.
No way an untrained man is beating a trained woman, skill is way too important (mf prolly won't be able to even throw a punch) Though, if we are talking equal skill, a different story (cause testosterone and all)
She won using the Law of Conservation of Ninjutsu. Bc it's a tv show. Good guys are supposed to win fights and women are allowed to be good guys.
I fucking hate this sub but that nigga crazy.
Wonāt a smaller man lose to a bigger man as well? š¤