Post: #1

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uplo...202000.pdf

“In one experiment, mothers were asked to guess the steepness of a carpeted slope that their 11-month olds would be able to crawl. Then the children actually crawled the slope, and the difference between actual and mother-predicted angles was noted. The results showed that both boys and girls were able to crawl the same degree of incline. However, the predictions of the mothers were correct within one degree for the boys and underestimated their daughter’s ability by nine degrees. What this shows is that the presumption that boys are more physical causes parents to encourage their boys more in physical activities while cautioning their girls. This further translates into providing more opportunities for boys to be physical and fewer for girls. The result? Boys actually do develop stronger physical skills than girls. But not because of anything innate or biological, but rather because of the gender roles that the parents subconsciously projected onto their babies.”

Yes, I'm sure that most girls would be able to deadlift 300+lbs if only their parents encouraged them more.

I fucking cannot stand this equalist bullshit.

Post: #2

lol what.
And to think, I always thought it was the hormones/muscle ability that was the difference.

Next they'll make a study saying men can't get pregnant because their parents raised them incorrectly.

Or some bullshit along those lines.

Post: #3

It is perfectly plausible that boys and girls develop strength at equal rates at a very early age.

However, it is undeniable that parenting aside, men ultimately are stronger at a base level.

Anyone who suggests otherwise has their face up Lindy West's ass.

Post: #4

I saw this study posted on facebook with the following attached by poster:

"Tldr; you've been gendering children's behavior so they become inherently feminine or masculine, there is no proven link between assigned sex/gender and strength. Like at all."

Except literally millions of adolescent males being stronger than their female counterparts throughout history.

This is just baffling to me. I was going to post on the girl's status: "so you should be able to squat/bench/deadlift as much as me then right?" but decided arguing wasn't even worth it.

Post: #5

Someone funded this nonsense that purports to pass for research. Talk about pushing an agenda.

If I was in school, I'd want to try out for the women's wrestling and volleyball teams (you get to slap those tight volleyball asses and not get hit with a sexual assault charge!) and have access to the women's locker room. Girls are as strong as boys, so no need for gender divisions in sports. Agree and amplify for the win!

Post: #6

Young girls often are a little bigger (and maybe this translates to extra strength) than boys of the same age, even though they're generally not as interested in testing out and exploiting that advantage in sports and rough-housing.

Then this little thing called puberty hits, and the change is obvious. Well, obvious to everyone but feminists, that is.

Post: #7

I guess the physical tests for female firefighters didn't need to be lowered. damn patriarchy always mocking womyn's ability

Post: #8

I can tell you from experience that there's no difference in strength between prepubescent boys and girls. Once puberty hits there's no comparison, boys blow girls out of the water.

Post: #9

TO be fair those Chinese weightlifting women are strong as fuck. Still nothing on the men though.

Post: #10

I knew all along

Post: #11

(01-04-2014 04:59 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  I can tell you from experience that there's no difference in strength between prepubescent boys and girls. Once puberty hits there's no comparison, boys blow girls out of the water.

This is exactly right. Before puberty there is no strength differential between boys and girls. In fact, in some Canadian territories boys and girls play in the same hockey leagues...right up until puberty.

Post: #12

(01-04-2014 03:18 PM)Suits Wrote:  Anyone who suggests otherwise has their face up Lindy West's ass.

At her size, they have their whole body up her ass

Post: #13

This is a very scientific study. There is no extrapolation occurring. I mean, people don't change after the age of 11 months do they?

Post: #14

Post: #15

OP, can you please give some links where they are connecting this study to "parents=weak girls"?
I read through the study, and nowhere in the conclusion does it say that "parenting=strength later in life"

The study basically says, "Gender roles for babies doesn't mean shit."

After reading the study, I want to see how they misconstrue the results.

Post: #16

Yeah, the study is actually pretty reasonable. They even bring up the idea that mothers might be basing their expectations based on differences that come later in life. That might actually be a good thing. If you give a girl the expectation that she'll always be able to keep up with the boys physically she's in for a rude awakening.

Post: #17

Boy or girl, I'd imagine my kid could crawl up a 70° slope. What do you guys think?

Post: #18

Lindy West's ass!! LOLOLOLOLOL!

Suits, you did it again.

Post: #19

Obviously that study is bs, but what's the point if it? How is it supposed to help feminism?

Post: #20

(01-04-2014 10:02 PM)HeyPete Wrote:  Lindy West's ass!! LOLOLOLOLOL!

Suits, you did it again.

OMG, that's even worse than the famous fattie picture that is frequently posted around here! I didn't think that was possible

Post: #21

It looks like a cloud of meat.