2To elaborate on the hopeless state of female fantasy/sci-fi warriors and from where I believe many of the problems are stemming: I really hate the "eww, she's so manly! She looks like a man!" -type of reaction to very muscular, small-breasted (and *gasp* short-haired) characters because the moron saying that is (even when they think they aren't) essentially saying "to be feminine is to be weak and to be masculine is to be strong." " So feminine and masculine to you is whatever a woman or man does respectively. It has no meaning beyond that, so the terms have no value. Well women transitioning to men, practically always take on those traits, ie short hair, increased muscles, smaller breasts. So they can be comfortably called masculine traits. They are attempting to fit into a social norm. Which is what masculinity and femininity are. "Furthermore, the notion that only weak (and weak-looking) women can be womanly Women with a capital 'W' is just old-fashioned and, in my opinion, misogynistic, as if women are only valuable as representatives of their sex as long as they are nice to look at (for the dim-witted, misogynistic assholes anyway) and remain easily controllable i.e. weak." A human woman loses her period at the body fat percentages we're talking about (crossfit pro athletes you linked). She is seen as sacrificing her ability to bear children, something that men can't do, for increased ability to perform manual work, - something men can mostly do better anyway. ^Average men beat world's strongest woman in arm wrestling. So she's seen as less valuable for that reason: Trading in a unique female value for that of a below average man. If women did that en masse, society would collapse, which explains society's resistance. All animal societies tend to be resistant to actions that would destroy it. Why all the resistance to women who are not only strong but look the part? Too intimidating because they could kick your ass even without a gun? Intimidation isn't really it. A woman in a scary costume isn't resisted the same way. "Whatever happened to seeing beauty in function" The strong elite pro human female's upper body strength is below average for a male and speed is male college athlete level at best. And even that is a trade off as I mentioned earlier. "What happened to the idea that all healthy bodytypes can look good?" Women sub 20% bodyfat are not healthy body types. elite fitness =/= healthy. They are NOT the healthiest people. Like smokers, pro athletes live 15 years less than the average population. At that low bodyfat percentage, her hormones are all screwed up. "Yes, it's perfectly possible for women to become strong even without anabolic steroids or other such illegal and unhealthy performance enhancers (only the aforementioned misogynist morons cry "steroids!" every time they see a woman with more muscle than catwalk models)." Lets assume they don't take roids. They still take alot of stimulants to strip fat and enhance performance. Caffeine, synthroid, creatine, far more than is healthy, whey protein isolate, again same deal, insulin, and countless other drugs they don't or rather can't test for. That figure in the image you linked is gained by strict diet and drugs. Period. To say that pro athletics is drug free because they have a ban list, is not realistic. "That means that if I am to believe a swordswoman is consistently beating trained men in various fights, some involving less tactics and more brawn, she needs to at least look like crossfit athletes, for example. " A normal woman has more than enough strength to beat a man in a swordfight. In real life swords work with a snapping pivot motion where the blade does the work, not with big crushing barbarian like swings. Swordfighting is about technique, strategy, distance and timing. "Brawn" is so far down the list it's barely worth consideration. But having that crossfit build certainly doesn't hurt to have and is a nice bonus but it's by no means essential. "I get that for women to become muscular, their diets need enough calories and enough protein, but guess what? The same applies to men, so if the story's men can eat enough meat etc. to grow big, strong muscles, and the story's setting allows women to also be warriors, it just stands to reason that they, too, have enough protein to eat to help build those muscles." A woman will never, ever attain a body like those crossfit athletes if they just eat lots of meat and carbs and train. Either they will get fairly big, with a high fat percentage with a calorie surplus, or they will look lean with abs showing, but will appear quite anorexic with a prolonged calorie deficit. Naturally the female body HATES to be that lean and will resist you every step of the way. Losing alot of muscle before you get your bodyfat that low. "Likewise, I expect their gear to make sense as well. Usually, again, it's acceptable for men to wear sensibly covering armor and carry suitable weapons, but for idiotic reasons, women are still usually stuffed into chainmail bikinis (or some equally sensless garb) " Depends on the opponent. Against human level enemies especially archers, it's better to be well armoured if you're human yourself. Against trolls and ogres and dragons and any other creature that can turn it in crumpled heap or molten slag? Give me the skimy armour anyday so I can move better.
The chainmail bikini thing is about simply impractical shapes, not how light it is. But otherwise you raise some interesting points, Phil. Worth consideration.
There is a character that i liked that turns into a character I dislike. Allison Reynolds was a character of her own. Her own personality and style. but the end of the movie (the breakfast Club) another character turned her into a typical boring girly girl common no personality character. The point is I loath the character that allows themselves to be changed into what another persons idea of beauty it.
I was limiting it to the dichotomy feminists present. "Sensible armour" where they invariably link something like this: http://gameofkings.wdfiles.com/local--files/armor-descriptions/Full%20Plate.jpg and compare it to chaimail bikinis. Against normal warhammers the plate armour gets countered. Against monsters forget it. The real practical option in these settings, is option 3, is the compromise. Cleverly designed breastplate covering vital organs that still allows some movement at the waist, and a shield that can be dropped and picked up. Forget the rest.
This didn't seem right to me, so I looked for data beyond a youtube clip... I looked at Olympic weight lifting records (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting), data on "average" men's ability to lift weights (http://www.livestrong.com/article/380767-how-much-weight-can-the-average-man-lift/) and then had to convert from standard gym exercises to Olympic tests using the numbers at http://breakingmuscle.com/olympic-weightlifting/squatting-and-deadlifting-their-correlation-with-the-olympic-lifts. So... average man weighing 90kg... that would be well above the limit for the heaviest female weightlifters. This man can snatch 53-68kg, clean & jerk 73-85kg. The Olympic records for the best women in snatch is 151kg, clean & jerk is 187kg. So, 2-3 times more than an average male. Comparing average men to average women? Sure, men tend stronger. But comparing average men to elite women? Not really a contest, based on these numbers. This is a weird argument - if all people, en masse, were gay society would collapse, too, but that doesn't mean it's natural or necessary to be homophobic, because all people don't have to be the same. I think society is stronger, in general, when people are allowed to act on their strengths, interests, and predispositions rather than being slotted into sex-mandated behaviour roles. Suggesting that "if all people did something, en masse" is a reason to discourage whatever that something is? It can only be a silly argument. If everyone in my town went to Tim Horton's every morning, there'd be traffic chaos, so it only makes sense to discourage building a Tim Horton's. If everyone in my country went to Florida for March Break, Canada would be empty and society would fall apart, so we need to discourage people from going to Florida. It's just silly. Why on earth would we assume that just because some people choose something that it would automatically follow that all people would choose the same thing and society would collapse? See above. Do you have anything besides a youtube video to back this statement up? Do you have a source for your 20% bodyfat cut-off? I've more commonly seen lower numbers. See, for example, https://mymission.lamission.edu/userdata/ruyssc/docs/ACSM Body Composition.pdf with the "excellent" level of body fat for women in their twenties at 14.5-17%.
Comparing weight lifting of an average man to and elite level woman is not really going to give you useful data as weightlifting is largely about technique and conditioning you can't expect an average man to be proficient at something that takes a lifetime to perfect. Its not a good measure of overall strength because its such an unnatural movement. However a fairly good representation of overall body strength is actually grip strength (I believe its what some police forces use to determine applicants overall physical capacities for this reason) and here the data shows again that elite level female athletes are only about as strong as average sedentary males as far as grip strength. Which is actually in line with what Phil Mitchell is saying. But the other thing that Phil said that really should be taken note of is the fact that when it comes to weapons combat males don't really have an advantage. When it comes to sword fighting, for example, a skilled 45kg woman would easily beat an unskilled but athletic 90kg man. Now there are some conditions, such as style of sword fighting being used etc an ideal sword style for a female would be a rapier as it has longest reach and while its a heavyish sword its still light enough for a woman to use one handed. On the other hand fighting in full plate would create a slight disadvantage for a smaller framed person due to the wrestling and the greater strength required to defeat the armour. So women might not fare so well in that. But my main point is that if people want to create believable characters then you have to give them believable limitations. Having a 45kg female take on a dozen 80kg men in a fist fight and have her win is just not believable because its detached from reality. And I think that a lot of women would be surprised at how easily a strongish man could overpower even the most determined woman (without a weapon of course.) There is a reason man kind has been making all kinds of weapons for thousands of years, they are the great equalisers. And no I'm not going to supply links I don't care enough about this topic to be bothered. Believe me or not, all I'm doing is passing on what I've read, heard and learned over my life. I'm not going to get upset if someone decides to prove me wrong.
So you're going to make a bunch of claims but not back up any of those claims. That's... one way to go, I guess. Probably safest, really. It does seem odd that you're arguing against weight lifting as being an accurate test of body strength, but arguing in favour of hand-grip-strength as an accurate test. But, again, as you don't care about this topic, I won't pursue it any further with you.
When was the last time you lifted an object heavier than your body weight over your head? I don't know about you but I never have. Nor have most people I know. Its a skill that requires a lot of practiced technique as much as physical strength. Thats all I'm saying.
OT, but my bodyfat is at 14 % and I'm healthy, so I'm fairly sure it also depends on the individual. I would probably dare claim that women with a body fat between 10-20 % can be pretty healthy, have normal periods, etc. Were I to encounter a fictional character with these stats, I'd find her realistic enough. I do like it, however, if there are female characters who are also described as muscular. It's not that easy for women to build muscle, so it's not just a cosmetic addition in a character, but at least to me reveals something about her character as well. I've realized I really don't like the heroine of Brandon Sanderson's The Final Empire, Vin. I think it's cos she's a bit of a whiner. It's probably intentional cos she's 16 at the beginning of the series and is bound to mature, but damn is it annoying!
So if it's mostly technique, and the elite men are lifting more than the elite women, is that just because the men have better technique? Or is it because there's also a significant element of body strength involved, and the elite men are stronger than the elite women?
Well this should be self evident. The men have the same technique plus greater physical strength. The average man has neither technique nor the conditioning to enable the technique to even be done correctly... I don't know what you're having trouble with here.
I know you don't care enough to read links, but the men in the article weren't doing olympic-style lifting. They were doing standard gym lifts, and then I linked to another article that converted those lifts to olympic style equivalents. Oh, but, wait, you wouldn't have had to read the articles to understand that because I said it in my actual post. So I guess mostly what I'm having trouble with is your decision to take part in a conversation without actually engaging intellectually in the conversation. If you don't care enough about something to supply links or read links or even read posts closely, then it's kind of hard to have a real discussion about content, you know? ETA: And, as an aid to myself to not engage with someone who's not willing to engage in return... I'm out. I won't be reading any further posts you make.
Ha ha! Well, rugged, mute muscular loner. I can go with that. I'm also a big fan of oral hygiene. However, it's a bit like wiping your arse after taking a dump. You definitely want your hero to do that, but you don't want to read about it.
This is what I was responding to: So... average man weighing 90kg... that would be well above the limit for the heaviest female weightlifters. This man can snatch 53-68kg, clean & jerk 73-85kg. The Olympic records for the best women in snatch is 151kg, clean & jerk is 187kg. So, 2-3 times more than an average male. My point was simple and I made it. Thats all. I'm sorry if that upset you. Have a nice day.
Yes! I was just saying the exact same thing to my boyfriend when we were watching this the other day. He was saying how she's a fan favourite. I honestly don't know how. She's a complete bitch to everyone, smacking around the lead guy (who's a pretty good guy) all the time, and is just generally to sure of herself. I have a problem with characters who resort to violence against people who are on their side, just to get their own way. It irritates me, to the point that when Spoiler: Spoiler she was being held upside down by that MMA kabaneri, I was like yesss, I hope she gets killed off (though I know she won't) When characters like that get into trouble I don't fear for them, I want to see them fail and I am disappointed when they don't!
@Feo Takahari and @Shbooblie - you would hate Richard Rahl from the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind You've got to read at least one book by him just to see!
Comparing average men to average women? Sure, men tend stronger. But comparing average men to elite women? Not really a contest, based on these numbers. I said upper body strength. Olympic Weightlifting, most of it involves lower body strength, with which women are by default very close to men. In a contest of upperbody strength only, which arm wrestling would qualify, you saw average men beat out elite women. "This is a weird argument - if all people, en masse, were gay society would collapse, too, but that doesn't mean it's natural or necessary to be homophobic, because all people don't have to be the same." I didn't say it was necessary, and you can socialize people out of it. But you're making my argument for me. Most of the world is homophobic. Anywhere outside of progressive western ideals, a resistance is shown to gay behaviour. You could argue religion caused it, but religion reflects the thinking of the era and sustains such thinking, didn't create it. "I think society is stronger, in general, when people are allowed to act on their strengths, interests, and predispositions rather than being slotted into sex-mandated behaviour roles. Suggesting that "if all people did something, en masse" is a reason to discourage whatever that something is?" You're confusing me saying it is discouraged for that reason, with me saying it should be. I'm not here to judge what's morally right or wrong. You can even flip the point around. Effeminate men are resisted the most because they're seen as unable to do the high value manual work of a masculine man and unable to have the uniquely female value of childbirth. This is why they're the most taboo. More so than masculine women. This is why a man in a dress is hated more at lower classes of society (where manual work is prioritized) than at upper classes and hated more than a woman in a manly style. Because that butch woman who gave up her period can still lift and work better than the effeminate man who wants to be ornamental. Being ornamental signals to society "protect me", but then society looks at him and says "Do you have great wealth? No. Can you bear children? No. Will you lift? No. So protect you for what? Same goes for the disabled, who were historically treated like shit. And still are in less developed nations. "It's just silly. Why on earth would we assume that just because some people choose something that it would automatically follow that all people would choose the same thing and society would collapse?" We do that all the time. It's the reason why crimes are illegal. See above. Do you have anything besides a youtube video to back this statement up? What, that video where you literlly saw it with your own eyes? "Do you have a source for your 20% bodyfat cut-off? I've more commonly seen lower numbers. See, for example, https://mymission.lamission.edu/userdata/ruyssc/docs/ACSM Body Composition.pdf with the "excellent" level of body fat for women in their twenties at 14.5-17%." http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/ That's the most commonly used chart. Ideal at aged 20 is almost 17.7%. And not everyone's character is aged 20, buddy. At around 12% symptoms begin: http://www.burnthefat.com/is_low_body_fat_dangerous.html this also depends on the individual.
I'm not quite sure I agree with this. To a point the heavy make up and bulky jacket was her way of drawing negative attention to herself. She felt ignored and was angry about it. She couldn't identify with the 'pretty girls' because they, and nobody else, accepted her. She's not really dressing as a form of healthy self expression. It's more out of anger, defiance, and rejection. At the end of the movie when she feels better about herself, and was accepted for who she was, she didn't have to hide behind her hair. And her behavior was still sassy just more comfortably so. I thought the ending was fine. Everyone had to step out of their comfort zone - her edginess had been her protective layer which she had to let go of.
But why are you using upper body strength as the relevant measure? It feels like you've preselected the criteria. Why not lower body strength, or full body strength, or any other measure? Is it just coincidence that you've chosen the measure of strength where men are most likely to perform best? And, no, I saw one average man beat one woman, the other get beaten... or maybe two average men won, I wasn't sure if there were two competitors or three. But I have no idea if that woman actually IS the world's strongest, and I generally think it's best to go with real data from studies that at least try to be scientific rather than... I don't know what the clip was. Some sort of reality show, maybe? So what is your argument, then? That women with stereotypically masculine features may or may not be discriminated against, based on social norms in different places? But it's by no means inherent in human nature? I think I can agree to that. This really isn't the reason why crimes are illegal. Even one murder, rape, or theft is a problem... they don't just become problems when practiced en masse. So if I linked to a youtube clip of someone doing magic, you'd believe in magic? Come on. So... the most commonly used chart disagrees with you about the 20% cut-off. In fact, it says female athletes should stay below 20%. So we can just ignore that number, now, right? I'm not seeing the 17.7% number on either of those pages... where's it from? And where was the 20% from? (Also, the numbers I gave were for people IN their twenties, buddy. The whole decade, not the single year. And you're right, body fat should rise as people age. But the 20% bodyfat cutoff doesn't arrive until the 50s, so if you were referring only to characters significantly older than most, I wish you would have specified it in your post)
Yeah, I don't think she was happy at the start of that movie. Remember when she does her weird "meep" sound and thumps her head down on her desk, hiding behind her hood and her hair? It's too bad that her external individuality was sacrificed, I guess, but I agree that it was symbolically useful to show her shedding her protective shell.
The characters that really get on my nerves are good guys who make stupid decisions over and over. Sometimes, it's really obvious that the writers of the books/TV shows desperately need a new plot point. Their solution is to have Ol' Joe screw everything up again, and not learn. I understand that it's somewhat realistic for people to learn slowly, but it just feels cheap to me.
I haven't watched the video, but how many thousands of comparisons were done on it? Who was in charge of ensuring randomness in the selection of the men, and otherwise ensuring that the video represented a rigorous scientific experiment that would pass peer review for an academic journal? Has it been in an academic journal? Or is it just anecdotal evidence with a camera turned on?
But why are you using upper body strength as the relevant measure? It feels like you've preselected the criteria. Why not lower body strength, or full body strength, or any other measure? Is it just coincidence that you've chosen the measure of strength where men are most likely to perform best? I said speed too. Upper body strength is where the difference is most staggering 55% of men but you can choose lower body strength too, where women are at about 85% that of men. You can also choose foot speed, as I mentioned earlier. The overall point is that there's only "beauty in function" as far as physical performance goes if you only compare them to normal women. Compare them to men and there's nothing special there. So by that logic, men should be really beautiful to everybody. But alas, no. By going for the lean, muscly woman bodytype, you get a character that's physically unattractive to most men and women. Most men don't want it and most women don't want to look like it. And you can expect an anti feminist backlash. ( "SJW agenda "syndrome) Now if you have a male hero who's quite muscular, like Hugh Jackman, you get a character most men want to look like and a character most women want. It's starting off with a handicap. If you want that more power to you, but you can't blame writers for not taking on the challenge. Personally I want my female characters to stand every chance of being popular. "And, no, I saw one average man beat one woman, the other get beaten... or maybe two average men won," Two average men won, one lost. The best you can say is that she's at average male strength level there. "I wasn't sure if there were two competitors or three. But I have no idea if that woman actually IS the world's strongest," Hell she probably isn't. But she has the kind of physique that's being pushed here as what a woman warrior should look like, so the point still remains. a human female relying on brawn isn't gonna live long. "So what is your argument, then? That women with stereotypically masculine features may or may not be discriminated against, based on social norms in different places? But it's by no means inherent in human nature? I think I can agree to that." Don't know if it's natural or socially instilled. People can be socialized out of natural behaviour and that was merely a caveat. "This really isn't the reason why crimes are illegal. Even one murder, rape, or theft is a problem... they don't just become problems when practiced en masse." So if I steal from a faceless corporation as an individual. Where is the problem? They lose what? Hundred bucks? Only en masse that becomes a problem. "So if I linked to a youtube clip of someone doing magic, you'd believe in magic? Come on." Magic is supernatural. Requiring me to believe the laws of the universe has been repealed. This woman losing to normal men on purpose would require one to believe she intentionally embarrassed herself for some reason. Reasonable comparison? No. "So... the most commonly used chart disagrees with you about the 20% cut-off. In fact, it says female athletes should stay below 20%. So we can just ignore that number, now, right?" http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/ Scroll down for a body fat percentage chart based on research by Jackson & Pollock (which has become the industry standard) . That gives the 17.7% for age 20. The 20% appears at age 32. "I'm not seeing the 17.7% number on either of those pages... where's it from? And where was the 20% from?" From the same website: http://www.builtlean.com/2012/09/24/body-fat-percentage-men-women/ Body Fat Percentage Women 10-12% This is an extremely low body fat level typically attained by female bodybuilders. Essential fat for women is round 8-10% compared to 2% for men. Why the difference? Women have more fat in breast tissue and the area surrounding the uterus. This level of body fat is not considered safe, or healthy for women who will be unable to menstruate. Striations of muscle, separation between muscles, clear vascularity are all noticeable at this level. The women in the photo is likely at the higher end of the range at 12% body fat because she is not too vascular. Body Fat Percentage Women 15-17% This is still considered a very low body fat for women, which is similar to the 6-7% body fat for range men. Many bikini and fitness models will reach this body fat level and some may not be able to menstruate. Muscle definition in the abs, legs, arms, and shoulders is apparent, there is some vascularity and some separation between muscles. Hips, buttocks, and thighs generally have a little less shape because of the low body fat. Body Fat Percentage Women 20-22% This is body fat percentage is usually in the “fit” category of most body fat charts and is typical of many female athletes. Some definition in the abs is apparent, there is body fat on the arms and legs, but it’s not too pronounced. There is minimal, but some separation between muscles.
Folks - this is a thread about "characters you dislike", and not men and women's upper body strength and how they compare. Stop derailing the thread. Drop it, take it to PM, or go to the Debate Room. There're plenty of places where you can discuss this, but this thread ain't one of them.
