I'd really like to see some medical scientific research that backs this up. Sources, please!
Isaint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are men really physically stronger than women? The
> answer is “no” but some explanation is
> required. While women and men merit equal
> treatment, their anatomies are different. (We mean
> “biologically born” women and men here.) Women
> traditionally retain less fibrous muscle mass in
> their upper bodies than men who are able to build
> mass in their upper bodies far more quickly. Yet,
> even with this fact in mind, women may still gain
> the requisite upper body muscle mass to dead-lift
> objects just as successfully as men. For both
> sexes, intense preparation is required and, as
> many ladies and gentlemen find out through
> experience, many men are not as strong in terms of
> their capacity to dead-lift objects as they may
> appear. Women and men’s lower bodies are
> different too, yet here the skeletal and muscular
> differences have no direct bearing on strength as
> it is defined in our cultural mythologies. Insofar
> as women have denser muscle mass in their pelvis,
> upper leg and lower leg, it may even be the case
> the women’s ability to hold weight (lifting
> facilitated by knee bends) may be slightly greater
> than men’s. To accommodate childbirth, a
> women’s pelvis structure is roomier (for
> example, the pubic arch is a right angle in the
> female and the ischial spines extend out straight
> from the ischium in women). Despite these subtle
> distinctions of strength, the cross-cultural myth
> of male physical strength persists, even though
> women’ ability to bear great pain in childbirth
> must certainly rank them as the strongest of them
> all.
>
> By and large though, I would tend to agree with
> Morbid ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.