Rebiu Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Why are men stronger than Women? Body composition? Body dynamics? Strenghth application technique?
the tree Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Mostly, because they are. Male hormones give an extra boost to muscle growth, so more muscle, more strengh. There's plenty of other factors of course: speed of metabolism, general size, a tendancy to want to excercise more on average, really quite a lot of reasons.
Dr. Dalek Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Mostly, because they are. Male hormones give an extra boost to muscle growth, so more muscle, more strengh. There's plenty of other factors of course: speed of metabolism, general size, a tendancy to want to excercise more on average, really quite a lot of reasons. Women who take testosterone often grow larger muscles. Also mamilian species that are female dominant will have females with larger muscles and larger ammounts of testosterone.
AzurePhoenix Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Also mamilian species that are female dominant will have females with larger muscles and larger ammounts of testosterone. The ultimate example is the hyena. Rebiu, I think looking them up would give you a little extra perspective into male/female devlopemental dynamics.
Aardvark Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 The ultimate example is the hyena. Is that a hint of admiration for the Hyena i sense there? Suddenly it all makes sense:-p
Sayonara Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 The ultimate example is the hyena. Rebiu, I think looking them up would give you a little extra perspective into male/female devlopemental dynamics. Aren't you going to give him any sort of warnings? That kind of advice gets people blinded
Aardvark Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Aren't you going to give him any sort of warnings? That kind of advice gets people blinded I think that might be the idea;)
Sayonara Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 I was misled by the name in the quoted post.
AzurePhoenix Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Is that a hint of admiration for the Hyena i sense there? Suddenly it all makes sense:-p I'm very happy without a psuedo-penis thank you very much. Aren't you going to give him any sort of warnings? That kind of advice gets people blinded I think that might be the idea See? Ardy gets me.
Aardvark Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 I'm very happy without a psuedo-penis thank you very much. That would be the ultimate case of penis envy:eek: Freud would love it! See? Ardy gets me. Sometimes it just all makes sense:-)
Heretic Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 Yeah the pseudo-penis thing always was a bit weird. I wonder if it's a product of having too much testosterone or merely a strange genetic flaw, where the female DNA "forgot" to get rid of it. Azure I'd say there are much better representations of matriarchal social structure in the animal world. Such as the Red Phalarope. The female literally mates lays the eggs tells the father to take care of them while she goes off and get pregnant again. This repeats itself until she has to migrate. She then leaves the males with the yet to hatch eggs, to fend for themselves. That's women on top in the animal world.
AzurePhoenix Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 I was following dalek's line of thought with mammals, and the main point was the presence of phsyical male characteristics showing up in a female (not to ignore that the female hyena ACTS more like how'd you expect a male to). Anywho, I take your duck and up you a seahorse. Similar concept, but this time the dude actually gets knocked up \o/
Heretic Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 Damn... forgot about those.... I thought I had you though. What I think these examples in nature show is that sex does not dictate behavior, strength, etc. so much as environment.
Sayonara Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 Yeah the pseudo-penis thing always was a bit weird. I wonder if it's a product of having too much testosterone Exactly that.
anoopbal Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 ther is also a psychological component which could very well be because of the physiological differences. Men want to push more weight in testing wheras women just dont care about ther strength levels. Most women are much stronger than what their max is. Anoop
Rebiu Posted September 19, 2006 Author Posted September 19, 2006 ther is also a psychological component which could very well be because of the physiological differences. Men want to push more weight in testing wheras women just dont care about ther strength levels.The hormone difference also effect this. Most women are much stronger than what their max is.There are different kinds of strength. The power lifter has a greater low rep strength then a strong man competitor. The boxer, football player, gymnast and wrestler all have different kinds of strength.
Rebiu Posted September 19, 2006 Author Posted September 19, 2006 The ultimate example is the hyena. Rebiu, I think looking them up would give you a little extra perspective into male/female devlopemental dynamics.Very interesting. I suggest that this does not occur in humans because give birth to proportionally larger babies and care for them longer. The wider hips, greater body fat, lower metabolic rate, larger breasts could all be attributed to this need.
AzurePhoenix Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 Very interesting. I suggest that this does not occur in humans because give birth to proportionally larger babies and care for them longer. The wider hips, greater body fat, lower metabolic rate, larger breasts could all be attributed to this need. Well... no. The difference i meant to push was the social position of the female. The female hyena evolved to fill the ranking role that a male would fill in most gregarious mammalian species (while the male hyena is scrwny and ranked as inferior even to the cubs). Hormonally they develop more like males than females in comparison, inducing the malish traits, such as aggressive social dominance, the factors of size and strength that brought all this up, and a clitoris so trumped up it could pass for a penis. The suggested case for humans I've heard in contrast to this is that the male human (and males of most of the human ancestral line) is physiologically designed for the rough and tumble danger-filled hunting and warfare crap because they're expendable, while the more valuable, breedable female is a comparatively precious commodity (the difference being that the female hyena has alot of cubs in a litter, rather than one baby). Human females are basically like the other primates and are rather unremarkable besides the shiftss in structure that were brought on by taking an erect stance (for one, the bulbous and enticing genetalia of a chimp in heat were possibly traded for signals that didn't impede movement; oversized breasts and a round ass). Of course, birth complications are a much bigger deal for humans, which is, funnily enough, a problem for hyenas too.
Rebiu Posted September 19, 2006 Author Posted September 19, 2006 Well... no. The difference i meant to push was the social position of the female. The female hyena evolved to fill the ranking role that a male would fill in most gregarious mammalian species (while the male hyena is scrwny and ranked as inferior even to the cubs). Hormonally they develop more like males than females in comparison, inducing the malish traits, such as aggressive social dominance, the factors of size and strength that brought all this up, and a clitoris so trumped up it could pass for a penis. The suggested case for humans I've heard in contrast to this is that the male human (and males of most of the human ancestral line) is physiologically designed for the rough and tumble danger-filled hunting and warfare crap because they're expendable, while the more valuable, breedable female is a comparatively precious commodity (the difference being that the female hyena has alot of cubs in a litter, rather than one baby). Human females are basically like the other primates and are rather unremarkable besides the shiftss in structure that were brought on by taking an erect stance (for one, the bulbous and enticing genetalia of a chimp in heat were possibly traded for signals that didn't impede movement; oversized breasts and a round ass). Of course, birth complications are a much bigger deal for humans, which is, funnily enough, a problem for hyenas too. So you see larger size and increased agression as being the methods of dominance. I see your point. I do not think dominance was as common in primitive man as it is in other social animals. Primitive man had advanced memory and communicative skills. I think a lot of aggression amongst hyenas comes from a lack of complex communication. The more intelligent bonobos will engage in-group sexual activity, including homosexual interaction to alleviate tension of sharing food. I suspect humans always had a more cooperative interaction.
AzurePhoenix Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 So you see larger size and increased agression as being the methods of dominance. I see your point. I do not think dominance was as common in primitive man as it is in other social animals. Primitive man had advanced memory and communicative skills. I think a lot of aggression amongst hyenas comes from a lack of complex communication. The more intelligent bonobos will engage in-group sexual activity, including homosexual interaction to alleviate tension of sharing food. Humans have always fallen into the middle ground, between the aggressively driven common chimp and the hippie-esque bonobo, and betwen the two species, the differnce seems not to be dependent on communicative skills, but rather, upon the availability of food and resources. Bonobos, largely herbivorous, generally have easy access to plenty of food, vs a greater scarcity for the omnivorous chimpsn (a factor dependent on their environmental ranges). And while early humans (omnivorous hunter gatherers) may have been more flexible with there "dominance" status, some patriarchal, some matriarchal, some at a tribal level, some only down to the family level, a clear dominance was a pretty standard, ever-present thing. I suspect humans always had a more cooperative interaction. you should note that hyenas actually do interact and cooperate at a rather high and complex level, and quite effectively, even between packs. Gentler and more peaceful doesn't necessarily equate more advanced.
mcal6 Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 Does anyone know the basic differences between the male and female muscular system? I thought that, besides the size of muscles, the muscular system was basically the same. But then I was going to buy an anatomy chart of the muscle system and I noticed that they offered either the Muscular System of the Female Muscular System. What's the big difference they could be referring to?
Dr. Dalek Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 Does anyone know the basic differences between the male and female muscular system? I thought that, besides the size of muscles, the muscular system was basically the same. But then I was going to buy an anatomy chart of the muscle system and I noticed that they offered either the Muscular System of the Female Muscular System. What's the big difference they could be referring to? Might be related to size, steryotypicaly the male muscles are larger, also given the more obvious anatomic differences in the chest and pubic areas there could be different arrangments of muscles there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now