SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the *you*-try-keeping-up-with-a-bunch-of-children-all-day dept.
From Medium article:
https://elemental.medium.com/what-makes-women-strong-2c927bf286ef
"What Makes Women Strong?
Science is revealing that when it comes to physical prowess, women may actually be the more powerful sex""If discussions of human physical strength used endurance as the yardstick, women would be strongest. Women have already caught up to, or surpassed, men in some sports like long-distance swimming and ultrarunning, racking up the wins in mixed-gender races (with less support and training than the men). Recently, Camille Herron won 2018's Desert Solstice run, which lasts for 24 hours (she ran 162.9 miles in that time) and Courtney Dauwalter has won 11 mixed-sex ultramarathons, including the Moab 240, a 238-mile race along the Colorado River in Utah. Dauwalter beat the next-fastest competitor there, a man, by 10 hours.
In fact, plenty of research points to the idea that the longer the distance, the better chance a woman has in beating a man, possibly due to a combination of factors like high pain tolerance and less muscle fatigability. There could also be metabolic reasons — some researchers theorize that women burn energy in a way that supports long-distance energy needs. As investigative reporter David Epstein notes in his book, The Sports Gene, when a man and a woman are evenly matched, "the man will typically beat the woman at distances shorter than the marathon, but the woman will win if the race length is extended to forty miles."
[...] "Women are also bodily powerful (the definition of strong) in other ways: Women are also more flexible. "Women tend to have somewhat more laxity in their tendons than men; they are more limber," Dr. Steve Jordan, an orthopedic surgeon at the Andrews Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, told The New York Times. Limber people are less likely to get hurt — less time spent on the sidelines or in surgery. Woman also have a very high degree of accuracy — and depending on the physical pursuit, that can make one athlete stronger than the next. Women on the Ladies Professional Golf Association tour regularly significantly outdrive professional men. And according to the National Rifle Association's Colonel Kenneth Haynes — a military logician in the Army who taught both men and women to shoot over a multi-decade career — women shoot guns more accurately: "My units had around 20 percent female personnel in both officer and enlisted ranks. All the women fired Expert their first day, but less than a third of the men did so," writes Haynes."
So, I really wanna hear the fireworks....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:21AM
From the study linked in the article you linked, it sounds like it's because they don't pay their bills on time. Just as men who never drink still pay higher car insurance premiums because men are more likely to drink and drive, women who pay their bills on time still pay higher interest rates because women are more likely to miss their payments. It would be better to get this data at higher resolution instead of using gender as a proxy... but that would have very bad privacy implications.
Probably because women are more than 40% more likely to graduate from college [aei.org], and are much more likely to be guided into high-paying white-collar jobs instead of low-paying blue-collar jobs.
Oh, wait. You think there's still a pay gap favoring men. That's cute. It turns out that single, childless women under 30 (you know, those whose lifestyles are actually similar to male peers) actually earn significantly more [time.com]. Of course, that study is a few years old now. It's funny, isn't it, that nobody can get funding to update this study, or see how things have changed since then? Instead the leftists like to trot out old numbers from the 70s. Better stick with old numbers even if they're wrong, than get new data that might undercut your talking points. But still people occasionally manage to do some actual research... and across the board, it turns out the actual disparity - same job to same job, same hours to same hours - is about 4% [washingtonpost.com]. 4% isn't perfect. But it isn't much of a talking point, especially when it is concentrated among older workers who will soon be retired. The biggest gap is at age 58 [businessinsider.com].
Nobody will dispute that women *did* face various disadvantages, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and that has lifelong impact. But you don't go to someone who is 60 and who has been a schoolteacher all her life and say, congratulations, you are now a neurosurgeon. The only thing you can do is remove the barriers so that everyone has the same opportunities. And that has happened. It happened years ago.
The most significant impact on total wage pay gap today happens when women get married or have children. But of course this confuses the reality of the situation. You have young women, early 20s or teens mostly, and frequently in rural areas, having children without adequate support or career prospects. This is very bad for them. And then you have middle and upper middle class women who have children in their mid to late 30s and cut back on their work hours because they can - they have a good life, probably a husband with a good paying job, and no particular financial hardship. Both make the pay gap appear to increase, but only one of these is actually bad. The other is a luxury.
Sometimes you'll see people compare white men to black women [surveymonkey.com] when they want to pretend they can prove there's a wage gap. If you need a gender wage gap and don't have one, sleight of hand in the race wage gap instead, maybe nobody will notice.
If there's a real problem to address here, it's unplanned pregnancy. Unplanned pregnancy is bad, and it causes lots of struggle for both the parents and the children (and the grandparents, often as not). This is why second wave feminists wanted free 24-hour child care for everybody [theatlantic.com]. Having everyone send their children off to government community centers to be raised is a little Brave New World for my tastes, but it would have eliminated one of the few remaining actual barriers to gender equality. Since, you know, men are not going to start having the babies. We could do more in this department. We need more contraceptives and better sex ed, for one.
[citation needed]
I live alone, so I do 100% of the household chores.
I used to have a female roommate, and she did far less than her share of the household chores. She wouldn't even clean up after her cat, and as a result I had to replace all my downstairs carpet, and have my heirloom furniture refinished (all of which I had to pay for). So my personal experience is that this gap is strongly opposed to what you think it is.
I did some of your homework for you, and found this article [theatlantic.com] that purports to show that what you say is true. I followed the data, though, to one of the actual studies [pewsocialtrends.org] it cites ... and the study finds, over and over, that among couples of any age or parenting status, men spend more total hours working (counting both household and breadwinning work). Women only start doing more total hours of household work when children come into the picture... at which point they also cut back on their work outside the home. So I guess if your data doesn't support your conclusion, just cite it anyway, and maybe nobody will bother to check? Is that the strategy now?
Well, she's been dead for a decade, so good luck with that.
And, of course, "why not ask an actual woman" ... because men have no idea what it's like to be a woman, but women, of course, know all about what it's like to be a man. Well, a few people - those who are transgender - actually do [washingtonpost.com] have experience with both, and they find out that being a man isn't actually better.