Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Black Diamond: Super Chute Rope Bag. Volume 25 litres. Single adjustable shoulder strap. Rope tarp dimensions: 146 X 126cm. 400d nylon. Assorted colours. (Holds up to 80M Rope)  $49.00
30% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Poll Option Votes Graph
Yes they can, and they do. 1
1% 
No they can't, and they don't. 6
9% 
There is a gap in abilities. It may close one day. 5
7% 
Who cares? 55
82% 

 Page 3 of 5. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 81
Author
Women don't / can't boulder as hard as men.
Wendy
9/02/2012
7:27:14 AM
On 9/02/2012 One Day Hero wrote:


>
>Lets start you out easy on nurture-cult deprogramming......basketball!
>How are you ever going to be good at basketball? Not you and all the other
>women, but you and all the other shortarses? And don't mention the 2 midgets
>in the NBA. Yes, there's 2 midgets and 600 really, really tall people........thats
>my point. Now this invented game, whether by chance or by design, massively
>favours the tall. You could have had all the nurturing in the world, you
>could have been adopted at birth by Micheal Jordan, and he turned out to
>be a crazy sport dad, taught you to be the very very bestest you could
>be.......and you'd get pounded by some half-talented lazy amazon. Unless
>you're suggesting that some type of nurturing could have helped you be
>taller than 5 foot 3?
>
>How about high jump? See many shortarses smashing that sport? Many waifs
>in shotput? Many swimmers who aren't brick shithouses? Flatwater kayakers
>who don't look like a can of Mr Muscle? Plus-size jockeys?
>
>There's lots of sports where nature (height and weight) goes a hell of
>a long way. And, unless the greater average height and weight of men comes
>down to nurture as well......your argument is looking a little Jarlsbergy,
>no?
>

We aren't talking height and weight, you donkey! At what point did I suggest that certain formats of certain activities (in many of those cases, randomly constructed formats - and why is high jump an olympic sport and not limbo??? It's all a matter of which side of the stick you decided to travel on) didn't suit particular heights and weights? I'm talking about maximising the capacity to use your body, whatever unfortunate arrangement of genes you were given. And in many activities, the lesser weight means as it's easier to get greater power to weight ratios/ stronger levers etc etc so there's plenty of room to balance out the average shorter/lighter bit.

>>.....and I'd rather work with
>>what we can control - that is nurture. Until we have something vaguely
>>resembling egalitarian conditions of nurture, we can't really have a
>sensible
>>debate
>
>Just because you can't control something doesn't mean its fine to ignore
>its existence! "Look, we can't control rivers but we can control water
>pipes......lets forget about levy banks and focus on making more reliable
>water pipes to prevent peoples garages from flooding"

What, you mean there isn't an ignore user button for nature? Can't I vote nature off the island? Fûck, how'm I going to cope?

I'm not ignoring nature, I'm saying we can't know what nature is because we are only seeing it through the lens of nurture. Think about how much our expectations of what women can do have changed in the last 50 years. How would your side of the argument have looked in 1950 or 60? You'd have sounded like even more of a donkey then you do now! The world has changed, with it the upbringing and expectations and social permissiveness that has allowed women to develop physically (there's awholenother case about men's emotional development that has been possible through societal changes in that period too). There's even a whole bunch of stuff about nutrition and activity that has changed the average size of women too.

>
>And the other point is just as silly. "Can we discuss it yet?" "No! Its
>only 99.99% equal, if things aren't equal you can't have a discussion!
>How can you have a discussion if things aren't equal?"

Bwhahahahaha ... cough, splutter, pull self off the floor - what little bubble are you living in? 99.99% equal????

>
>> Can we start another childish debate about matters of taste and opinion
>>now?
>
>No, this horse is still twitching

Well, the Damo-shaped donkey is still kicking I guess.

Miguel75
9/02/2012
9:30:13 AM
On 8/02/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>Sorry Miguel, its far too late for you, one of the downsides of your faith. The rest of us heathen blokes >did at least five years of intense and dedicated grip strength training through our mid teens.....if you >don't do the hours in those formative years, you'll never catch up.
>
>mmmmm, stone crushing kung fu death grip!

I knew there had to be more to it than training and steroids...
One Day Hero
9/02/2012
10:24:41 AM
On 9/02/2012 Wendy wrote:
>>
>
>We aren't talking height and weight, you donkey! At what point did I
>suggest that certain formats of certain activities (in many of those cases,
>randomly constructed formats - and why is high jump an olympic sport and
>not limbo??? It's all a matter of which side of the stick you decided to
>travel on) didn't suit particular heights and weights? I'm talking about
>maximising the capacity to use your body, whatever unfortunate arrangement
>of genes you were given.

I was using height and weight as way to gently break down the barriers which the nurture-cult has constructed for you.......and its working great! You've already agreed that tall people are better at basketball and high jump. And that men are taller than women. Now, time to really take a big step; men are better at high jump and basketball than women are.........and always will be. Its not due to role models or social pressures, its because they're taller and are competing in an activity which favours the tall. Nature!

>And in many activities, the lesser weight means
>as it's easier to get greater power to weight ratios/ stronger levers etc
>etc so there's plenty of room to balance out the average shorter/lighter
>bit.

Nature!



>Bwhahahahaha ... cough, splutter, pull self off the floor - what little
>bubble are you living in? 99.99% equal????
>
I wasn't saying things are equal now, just mocking your suggestion that if you have two contributing factors its somehow invalid to discuss the contribution of factor 1 until factor 2 is completely removed.............its fine, however, to discuss factor 2

DaCrux
9/02/2012
2:19:35 PM
There are obvious anatomical differences between men and women. The strongest woman will never be able to lift as much weight as the strongest man, but there are plenty of women who can lift more weight than most men.
I think climbing is actually a silly example because it’s not just about strength, but also skill and technique. There are plenty of climbs that were first freed by women – look at Passport to Insanity or The Nose. Women can (and do) climb as hard as men – look at Beth Rodden or Josune Bereziartu. Josune’s climbed 9a/9a+, Chris Sharma’s climbed 9b – that is not a 10% difference. There are far more professional male climbers than female climbers – probably due to social pressures – so really, when you take that into consideration, it is possible that women could actually be better climbers than men, if more of them climbed. Also, unlike men – women don’t like to get into those “my c--k is bigger than yours” or “let’s see who can piss further” arguments - they usually go climbing because it's fun.

Miguel75
9/02/2012
4:02:24 PM
On 9/02/2012 DaCrux wrote:
>...Also, unlike men – women don’t like to get into those “my c--k is bigger than yours” or “let’s see >who can piss further” arguments...

I reckon boys can wee further but girls have better aim!
One Day Hero
9/02/2012
4:42:18 PM
On 9/02/2012 DaCrux wrote:
>There are obvious anatomical differences between men and women. The strongest
>woman will never be able to lift as much weight as the strongest man, but
>there are plenty of women who can lift more weight than most men.

Yes......but the 90th percentile blokes can lift more than the 90th percentile women, and the 80th percentile blokes can lift more than the 80th percentile women.........right on down the chart

This situation can be summed up very easily as; Men are stronger than women

simple

hangdog
9/02/2012
5:05:38 PM
.
>
>I reckon boys can wee further but girls have better aim!

I bet they cant write their name in the snow. Unless they are named whoosh.
So i guess thats another one we are better at ;)

Miguel75
9/02/2012
5:11:24 PM
On 9/02/2012 hangdog wrote:
>I bet they cant write their name in the snow. Unless they are named whoosh.
>
>So i guess thats another one we are better at ;)

Game, set & match! BOOYAH!
tskinner
9/02/2012
6:46:20 PM
On 9/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>On 9/02/2012 hangdog wrote:
>>I bet they cant write their name in the snow. Unless they are named whoosh.
>>
>>So i guess thats another one we are better at ;)
>
>Game, set & match! BOOYAH!

shows how little you know :) The whoosh is generally because we want to be done as quickly as possible - ie better things to do with our time. if you want to talk about comtrol.....
Wendy
9/02/2012
7:13:55 PM
On 9/02/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 9/02/2012 Wendy wrote:
>>>
>>
>>We aren't talking height and weight, you donkey! At what point did I
>>suggest that certain formats of certain activities (in many of those
>cases,
>>randomly constructed formats - and why is high jump an olympic sport
>and
>>not limbo??? It's all a matter of which side of the stick you decided
>to
>>travel on) didn't suit particular heights and weights? I'm talking about
>>maximising the capacity to use your body, whatever unfortunate arrangement
>>of genes you were given.
>
>I was using height and weight as way to gently break down the barriers
>which the nurture-cult has constructed for you.......and its working great!
>You've already agreed that tall people are better at basketball and high
>jump. And that men are taller than women. Now, time to really take a big
>step; men are better at high jump and basketball than women are.........and
>always will be. Its not due to role models or social pressures, its because
>they're taller and are competing in an activity which favours the tall.
>Nature!

Meh - i'm not talking about individuals or even individual sports (although I'm sure I can construct an argument about social interests behind the development of sport with random rules and equipment that favours the historic male physique, that'd waste some more time :)) and I'm not even disagreeing that on average, men are taller and strong than women. Let me break my argument down in to simple, donkey steps.

Currently, yes, men are stronger and taller than women on average.
This difference is less than it has been historically.
The increased opportunities and acceptance of women to be involved in physical activity (and consideration of women being worth feeding precious food resources) are the cause of the decrease in difference.
Physically trained men and women are much closer in abilities than untrained men and women.
This suggests that actually using women's bodies has a dramatic increase in their physical capacity.
The initial difference in untrained men and women suggests that maybe women aren't using their bodies as much as men in the first place.
Countless studies have shown people respond to male and female children differently and from birth, people engage in rougher, more active play and encouragement of physical activity in boys.
A whole bunch of other shit around crappy ideas of femininity, beauty and body image compounds women's lack of involvement in physical activity.
A whole bunch of other studies demonstrate similar processes happening in brain development - ie don't provide stimulation to baby, baby brain doesn't develop.

Hence my conclusion that, nurture is at least partly responsible for the currently observable differences, and if girls were engaged in similar levels of physical activities to boys, the observable differences would be, well, different. How different, I can't tell you, but i will stubbornly refuse to believe that what we see now is plain old nature. It's just not. And similar upbringings and opportunities could only lesson the differences. And this is totally talking in general terms, not about particular individuals participating in particular pursuits! IE, average male and female strength would be closer. And the flow through would mean, elite male and female strength would be closer. I would expect the average one to change a heck of a lot more than the elite one though.

PS I'm sure I can manage a W. It's just not that complicated a party trick, guys.

Miguel75
9/02/2012
7:37:12 PM
On 9/02/2012 Wendy wrote:
>...PS I'm sure I can manage a W. It's just not that complicated a party trick, guys.

I'm not talking about initials Wendy, I'm talking full name; first, middle and last!!!;)

In cursive;)

Eduardo Slabofvic
9/02/2012
8:29:37 PM
On 9/02/2012 DaCrux wrote:
> Also, unlike men – women don’t like
>to get into those “my c--k is bigger than yours” or “let’s see who can
>piss further” arguments - they usually go climbing because it's fun.

You clearly know even less women than Day One Hero, and clearly have not mat any women climbers.

ajfclark
9/02/2012
8:42:51 PM
On 9/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>In cursive;)

Lower case block letters are more difficult.

DaCrux
9/02/2012
8:44:05 PM
On 9/02/2012 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>You clearly know even less women than Day One Hero, and clearly have not
>mat any women climbers.
>
oh yes, clearly, I'll just go back to my knitting now....

shortman
9/02/2012
8:45:05 PM
On 9/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>On 9/02/2012 Wendy wrote:
>>...PS I'm sure I can manage a W. It's just not that complicated a party
>trick, guys.
>
>I'm not talking about initials Wendy, I'm talking full name; first, middle
>and last!!!;)
>
>In cursive;)

Your a funny man Mike!
One Day Hero
9/02/2012
11:43:30 PM
On 9/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>
>I'm not talking about initials Wendy, I'm talking full name; first, middle
>and last!!!;)
>
>In cursive;)

God you're a chauvinist Miguel! Can't you see that the apparent performance difference between male name-writers and female name-writers is due to upbringing and the way society treats women?

You know, having a multi directional stylus is not the be all and end all, extra hip dexterity can make up for not having a doodle to doodle with........when young males write their name, all their mates laugh and encourage them, but if a young women tries to show off her talents to her friends, she gets branded as a feral skank.......and traditionally unfair allocation of food resources has been detrimental to female pissing accuracy, and blah blah.....couple of generations, blah, equity, blah blah.......narrowing the piss gap......blah blah
One Day Hero
9/02/2012
11:57:29 PM
On 9/02/2012 Wendy wrote:

>Let me break my
>argument down in to simple, donkey steps.
>
>Currently, yes, men are stronger and taller than women on average.

Wait a minute............society is to blame for your lack of reach?

>Physically trained men and women are much closer in abilities than untrained
>men and women.

I think this might not be so correct if you adjust for the exponential extra effort required to gain performance as you get closer to the absolute limit of human ability. i.e. diminishing returns

>This suggests that actually using women's bodies has a dramatic increase
>in their physical capacity.

I'm not arguing against this one, I like using women's bodies :)

>The initial difference in untrained men and women suggests that maybe
>women aren't using their bodies as much as men in the first place.

It can equally suggest that men are naturally stronger than women

>A whole bunch of other studies demonstrate similar processes happening
>in brain development - ie don't provide stimulation to baby, baby brain
>doesn't develop.

Oh yeah, using Einstein as an example.....bad idea. Einstein was slammed as a child (he did his math funny, teachers didn't like it). Anyway, he was told he was shit and actively discouraged from intellectual pursuits........just like men have been doing to women with sport, right? So thats why Einstein never got anywhere with his thinking, because of the bad nurturing he received..........
>
> How different, I can't tell you, but i will stubbornly
>refuse to believe that what we see now is plain old nature. It's just
>not.

So here's my trump argument. Black people and sprinting? Why do black folk of west african descent smash whitey in all the sprinting events? Nature or nurture?

stugang
10/02/2012
12:00:08 AM
Wendy, stuff setting up a new poll to replace this one (I get the uneasy feeling I am not being taken seriously) - I'm starting a tote:

Starting odds for Wendy coming back with any sort of credible answer to the most recent slam dunk from Damo (credit though to the amazing assist from Miguel) 1.000000001

Starting odds for Wendy coming back with a retort that is more credible, more funny and does not use the phrase "countless studies have shown" 1,000,000,000

shortman
10/02/2012
12:25:05 AM
Damo got it right ages ago.

Fannys and dicks. Its just the way it is. Everywhere in nature the bearer yields. Hence it must be that one shall be stronger.

Miguel75
10/02/2012
6:54:00 AM
On 9/02/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>God you're a chauvinist Miguel!

I prefer to be labeled a fundamentalist; which means I'm immune to logic and rational debate...

Carry on;)

 Page 3 of 5. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 81
There are 81 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints