You're completely mistaken about this.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
As a result, gross measures of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength
Males, on average, have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...uscular_system
You taking a punch is nothing like a girl taking a punch.
Not really. I agree with you that women are physically inferior to men. I just disagree with the notion that they are made of china and believe that there are a lot more women out there capable of kicking ass then we give them credit for.
As for professions that require toughness, why do you think they don't have women and men who are boxers or mma fighters fighting together in the same weight class? It's because all other things being equal between two people (height, weight, training) a man is far more physically dangerous than a woman. To some degree that can be overcome, which is why women participate in these professions, but for example, the largest and strongest man in the world, is ridiculously larger and stronger than his equivelent among women. We're evolutionarily designed to be warriors, and they're evolutionarily designed to be mothers. I really don't understand how you can fail to see that.
Personally, I think there are a myriad of reasons why men and women sports don't tend to be mixed. Part of it is a cultural thing, as I doubt a whole lot of people would pay to see a man and women fight it out, even if the women was capable of holding her own. As well, there's a serious question as to how many men would be willing to fight a women, even if she was perfectly capable of kicking there ass. Another reason is probably economic reasons, as you can make more money, and hire more people if you had sports teams which are gender specific, as oposed to mixed. While now a days it's more common to see girls playing on boys teams for sports like wrestling, football, and other sports, it's not a common enough thing and lacks serious support to try and merge the two.
I think you're sort of applying a double standard here because further down you argue that women don't understand the situation as clearly as a man would. But I do take your point, and I don't entirely disagree with it. If this thread were "Why aren't men allowed to spank women when they act like children," I'd be on your side. But a punch is a whole other order of physicality.
I don't think I really limited the hit to a punch (i might have, but I don't recall if I did right now). To clarify though, I suppose a bitch slap or even a spanking could be used, though the women might prefer a punch in the face to a public spanking.
I thought it went without saying that I was talking about the universal standards of western culture. Obviously I don't really understand, and I doubt you do either, the subtleties of other times and places.
Furtehrmore, there are plenty of cultures where you can or could freely kill women who annoy you, or leave your female babies out in the weather to die, and I don't see you advocating that, so I think we should stick to the world we live in for the purposes of this conversation.
I can see where you might have thought I was only talking about western culture, but no, I was talking in a more general sense. I find that limiting oneself to cultural answers can sometimes end up just being circuler logic. ie,
"Why is it wrong to hit girls?"
"Because thats what we were tought."
"Why were you taught that?"
"Because it's wrong to hit girls."
etc.
Cultural answers are great, if your learning about a culture, but I like to dig a little deeper. For example, where you showed the data in regards to women muscle density and such, is a good answer, because it is something that can be used that transcends cultures. You are right though, there are some crazy and violent cultures out there, and I certainly wouldn't advocate them.
It absolutely is free. No matter what some guy says to provoke you, if you punch him out you're going to jail for it in 99% of cases. There's never any real justification for fighting someone physically for what they say to you. The law is pretty clear on that, in fact I'm pretty sure that you're really not even allowed to threaten to hit someone for talking shit to you if it seems like you might actually follow through on it.
I actually don't believe this is entirely correct for two reasons.
1. From a legal standpoint. Now, i'm not a lawyer, so I might be mistaken about this, and things might be different in America (Though i've watched a ton of cop shows and one of the more common things I see is events where a person commits a crime and cops ask the victom if they want to press charges or not. In those shows when the person doesn't want to press charges, the cops let the person go, but I don't know all the details about that stuff) but i was taking a criminal psychology class a few semesters ago and got to talking to our teacher who is an ex-cop about fights, and he explained to me that if both parties agreed to fight, it wasn't breaking the law. It was a concentual confrontation. Now, the second one person says "Stop" and the other person continues, then they are guilty of assault. (of course, if you end up fighting the guy on concentual terms and end up killing him, you might be in some trouble there.)
2. From a realistic standpoint. Now, we can certainly argue that there are laws in place to protect your speech, as there should be, and that verble confrontations should never escalate to physical ones, but the reality is that they do. It probably happens less then it would if people weren't affraid of going to jail, but it does happen. Expecting everybody to be willing to just let everything you say roll off their back is not only unrealistic, it's just straight up dangerous. You never know what A person is capable of, particulerly if they are strangers.
As another example, take someone who's a trained fighter of some kind. If he appears before a judge for punching the shit out of some guy, he's going to be held to a higher standard than if he were just a random person. Why? Because he has a greater physical cabability to do harm, and is expected to act responsibly about it.
You know, i've always had mixed views on this. On one hand, I agree that as a trained fighter, you should have a better awareness of what you are capable of. On the other hand, fighters are human too, and posses all of the frailties that come with being human. If they get into a physical fight with somebody, so long as it's not some lopsided beat down, then i'm not sure if they should be held to a higher standard. If you think about it, just because a guy does amatuer boxing as a hobby, it doesn't garrentee he's going to be any more dangerous then the guy he's fighting. They could easily have more fighting and training experience then the boxer, but simply lack the title.
