"Girl" Pushups????

BraveNewdGirl

Delusions

You're debating factors and causation. That's irrelevant when creating testing methodology. Up to 30% (google this) of children, male and female, can't complete a single pushup. The number is worse for females. You can't create a decent study showing strength over time for a large subset of children if 30 or 40% of them are only doing 1-2 reps. The assisted pushup is needed in the testing.

Sure, call it assisted pushup instead. That's not what I was arguing and you know it. Or you just entirely missed the point.

The entire point of the original post was that coining assisted, or modified, push-ups "girl-push-ups" was inappropriate due to its sexist and defeatist nature. You argued, vehemently, that it was "not sexist" and that "reality bites". You misinterpreted the data in the medical journal that you linked to support a straw man argument about the overall fitness of school-aged children, but made sure to remind us that females performed more poorly than males.

Busting out numbers means nothing if you cannot cite a source and explain why it is relevant to the discussion. Here's mine:

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/YouthNorms.html

Why is it relevant? Because it shows that females, aged 5 to 17 years old, are performing full push-ups and multiple repetitions. You can find the website credentials on their About page.

Finally, the overall fitness of school-aged children does not pertain to the original topic. Stop bringing that up as though it's relevant. It's not.

TLDR: Just because you cannot follow someone else's logic does not mean that they are delusional.

trojan_bb

Delusions

You're debating factors and causation. That's irrelevant when creating testing methodology. Up to 30% (google this) of children, male and female, can't complete a single pushup. The number is worse for females. You can't create a decent study showing strength over time for a large subset of children if 30 or 40% of them are only doing 1-2 reps. The assisted pushup is needed in the testing.

Sure, call it assisted pushup instead. That's not what I was arguing and you know it. Or you just entirely missed the point.

The entire point of the original post was that coining assisted, or modified, push-ups "girl-push-ups" was inappropriate due to its sexist and defeatist nature. You argued, vehemently, that it was "not sexist" and that "reality bites". You misinterpreted the data in the medical journal that you linked to support a straw man argument about the overall fitness of school-aged children, but made sure to remind us that females performed more poorly than males.

Busting out numbers means nothing if you cannot cite a source and explain why it is relevant to the discussion. Here's mine:

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/YouthNorms.html

Why is it relevant? Because it shows that females, aged 5 to 7 years old, are performing full push-ups and multiple repetitions. You can find the website credentials on their About page.

TLDR: Just because you cannot follow someone else's logic does not mean that they are delusional. Also, cite a source.

No, once again. Reading comprehension. I replied to a woman who stated strength levels between prepubescent males and females should be the same. A very different point than you are arguing

rml_16

Up to 30% (google this) of children, male and female, can't complete a single pushup.

You're making this claim. You google it and post the link.

I don't believe it for a second, especially that more girls than boys can't complete a single pushup.

Not because I don't think men overall are stronger. They are. But this is a body weight exercise and subjective.

Except that the bodyweights for these weakest 30% children are nearly the same between genders. They can't do the pushups because they're overweight, according to the PE teachers.

For fun, I googled "30% of children can't do a single pushup" and got exactly nothing that supports your claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/nutrition/11well.html?_r=0

"In a 2001 study, researchers at East Carolina University administered push-up tests to about 70 students ages 10 to 13. Almost half the boys and three-quarters of the girls didn’t pass."

A 12-year-old study that says NOWHERE that the children couldn't do a single pushup. It's also testing middle-schoolers who have reached puberty, not younger children who are more evenly matched.

The teacher in the OP told the girls that they must do different pushups from the boys. That is ridiculous. Nothing you have asserted refutes that stance.

trojan_bb

Finally, the overall fitness of school-aged children does not pertain to the original topic. Stop bringing that up as though it's relevant. It's not.

Ahh,. clearly you did not read the quote chain I originally posted and you blasted me after. The overall fitness was what was being discussed, and NOT the original topic. You're arguing apples and oranges.

You misread the conversation and blasted me for something entirely separate.

ItsMeGee3

You're scaring me!

BraveNewdGirl

Finally, the overall fitness of school-aged children does not pertain to the original topic. Stop bringing that up as though it's relevant. It's not.

Ahh,. clearly you did not read the quote chain I originally posted and you blasted me after. The overall fitness was what was being discussed, and NOT the original topic. You're arguing apples and oranges.

You misread the conversation and blasted me for something entirely separate.

You made two posts before I finally decided to respond. The first of which was this gem:

Calling it a "girl push up" is sexist. It assumes we are the weaker sex and incapable of doing a regular push up. It totally insults women.

Reality bites.

Women are the weaker sex physically. And very few girls ages 5-12 can do a single push up. Recognizing reality is not sexist.

Maybe it could be called something other than a girl push up. But everyone would still know what it refers to.

In your response here, you made sweeping generalizations and completely unfounded statements. You then went on to link a medical journal article that was not relevant to the sexist nature of deeming modified push-ups "girl push-ups". I simply addressed both your crappy "reality bites" attitude about sexism and your misinterpretation of the medical journal article, as well as pointed out its complete and utter irrelevance to the topic of the discussion.

Okay, so you've determined that "Women are the weaker sex." (presumably overall) based upon the fact that men have greater explosive muscular strength and endurance.

Scientific American says you're wrong. (The following link is relevant to you being wrong about women being the "weaker" sex.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-weaker-sex/

Finally, you haven't been blasted, you've been corrected. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking, but I didn't feel the need to be patronizing. I'm sorry you've felt the need to be. It doesn't, however, make you right.

trojan_bb

In your response here, you made sweeping generalizations and completely unfounded statements. You then went on to link a medical journal article that was not relevant to the sexist nature of deeming modified push-ups "girl push-ups". I simply addressed both your crappy "reality bites" attitude about sexism and your misinterpretation of the medical journal article, as well as pointed out it's complete and utter irrelevance to the topic of the thread.

Okay, so you've determined that "Women are the weaker sex." (presumably overall) based upon the fact that men have greater explosive muscular strength and endurance.

Scientific American says you're wrong. (The following link is relevant to you being wrong about women being the "weaker" sex.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-weaker-sex/

Finally, you haven't been blasted, you've been corrected. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking, but I didn't feel the need to be patronizing. I'm sorry you've felt the need to be. It doesn't, however, make you right.

Again, you failed to read the context. The linked study on strength levels in prepubescent strength levels was in response to someone speaking about her judo class and that prepubescent children should have the same level of strength because men haven't hit puberty yet. That is all my link addressed. It was 100% relevant to the discussion. A discussion entirely separate from what you're discussing.
The irony of your post is fantastic

BraveNewdGirl

Again, you failed to read the context. The linked study on strength levels in prepubescent strength levels was in response to someone speaking about her judo class and that prepubescent children should have the same level of strength because men haven't hit puberty yet. That is all my linked addressed.
The irony of your post is fantastic

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you say that's all your link was intending to address, that's fine. That's not sexist. The statement(s) that you made prior to that post? Sexist. Incorrect. Proven invalid numerous times in this thread since you made them.

neandermagnon

Up to 30% (google this) of children, male and female, can't complete a single pushup.

You're making this claim. You google it and post the link.

I don't believe it for a second, especially that more girls than boys can't complete a single pushup.

Not because I don't think men overall are stronger. They are. But this is a body weight exercise and subjective.

Except that the bodyweights for these weakest 30% children are nearly the same between genders. They can't do the pushups because they're overweight, according to the PE teachers.

For fun, I googled "30% of children can't do a single pushup" and got exactly nothing that supports your claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/nutrition/11well.html?_r=0

Here's one showing 50% of male children and 75% of female children meet pushup targets (this is more than one pushup of course, I know)

The 30% stats are in some other articles that I don't remember what I googled to find. But the above study illustrates my original point well.

And I'm done. Every point I made on the last page was in response to ONE person who claimed prepubescent strength levels should be the same between genders. My quote was in response to her, not the OP or any other claim.

It's not a question of what percentage of boys and girls in the USA or wherever can currently do push-ups or other exercises. I don't doubt that in an average class, boys will perform better on average than girls.... the question you need to ask is whether that's a fundamental biological difference or the result of girls being told (implicitly and explicitly) that they're not as strong as boys and never will be.

What percentage of boys are involved in sports compared to girls? How many boys are told that they're fundamentally weaker than 50% of the population and won't be able to achieve what they can? There's no physiological reason for pre-pubescent kids to have such big differences in what they can achieve in physical activities. Boys don't get their testosterone advantage until puberty. Girls who are encouraged and given the same opportunities to train and develop their skills can compete alongside boys in sports that require strength. I've seen it in judo and in ice hockey. It's only around age 13-14 that girls start seeing a disadvantage due to being female, when everything else is equal. Except everything else is usually not equal... girls are told they're not allowed to play, that they can't play, that those things are for boys, How many girls are encouraged to really push their limits physically compared to boys? That's the issue. And telling girls crap like "you should do push-ups like this because you're girls and you can't do full push-ups" makes that problem worse, not better. I'm glad no-one ever fed me that bull**** when I was a little girl.... I went out there and beat up all the boys before anyone ever told me that I couldn't....

Also, that line of thinking is bad for boys too. When a girl (like me) beats them at judo, or fighting in the playground or can do more push-ups than them, or whatever, there's no shame in that. Yet there's still this whole "you got beat up by a girl" attitude like there's some shame in being beaten by someone who's stronger and more experienced than you are, just because they're female. And quite often they get butthurt over it and call the girl names that are homophobic and calling her gender into question (yep I've been on the receiving end of that) as an ego defence mechanism against the "shame" of being beaten by a girl.... why put kids through that, having their gender (and sexuality in some cases) questioned over a pre-pubescent girl beating a pre-pubescent boy? I never considered any boy that I beat at judo or anything else any less of a male because of it, as I wasn't raised with all that bull in the first place and I'm glad of it. But a lot of kids are, and it's not fair on boys or girls.

I'm not questioning the strength advantage men have from puberty onwards, I could see that for myself when I got to age 13/14... all of a sudden I had to focus a lot more on judo technique when various boys wanted to get revenge on me for beating them up once they got significantly stronger than me :laugh: But pre-puberty, boys don't have that advantage and any statistics like more boys than girls can do full push-ups it's because more girls are out of shape and/or have never been encouraged to try at anything that involves strength.

neandermagnon

In your response here, you made sweeping generalizations and completely unfounded statements. You then went on to link a medical journal article that was not relevant to the sexist nature of deeming modified push-ups "girl push-ups". I simply addressed both your crappy "reality bites" attitude about sexism and your misinterpretation of the medical journal article, as well as pointed out it's complete and utter irrelevance to the topic of the thread.

Okay, so you've determined that "Women are the weaker sex." (presumably overall) based upon the fact that men have greater explosive muscular strength and endurance.

Scientific American says you're wrong. (The following link is relevant to you being wrong about women being the "weaker" sex.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-weaker-sex/

Finally, you haven't been blasted, you've been corrected. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking, but I didn't feel the need to be patronizing. I'm sorry you've felt the need to be. It doesn't, however, make you right.

Again, you failed to read the context. The linked study on strength levels in prepubescent strength levels was in response to someone speaking about her judo class and that prepubescent children should have the same level of strength because men haven't hit puberty yet. That is all my link addressed. It was 100% relevant to the discussion. A discussion entirely separate from what you're discussing.
The irony of your post is fantastic

the girls at my judo club = girls who are told that they can and should be able to do full push ups.... 100% of them could

the girls in the average school include all the girls who are not encouraged to do stuff like that.... so it's not surprising that a lot of them couldn't

none of the girls in my judo club were cherry-picked for strength. I didn't grow up in the Soviet Union... none of the kids in my judo club were stronger at the start.... but we were stronger than other kids at school, because we trained...

I also think you're drastically underestimating how much strength gains people of either gender, pre or post puberty can get from the right kind of training............... or you're not considering this at all in this discussion.

likitisplit

In your response here, you made sweeping generalizations and completely unfounded statements. You then went on to link a medical journal article that was not relevant to the sexist nature of deeming modified push-ups "girl push-ups". I simply addressed both your crappy "reality bites" attitude about sexism and your misinterpretation of the medical journal article, as well as pointed out it's complete and utter irrelevance to the topic of the thread.

Okay, so you've determined that "Women are the weaker sex." (presumably overall) based upon the fact that men have greater explosive muscular strength and endurance.

Scientific American says you're wrong. (The following link is relevant to you being wrong about women being the "weaker" sex.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-weaker-sex/

Finally, you haven't been blasted, you've been corrected. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking, but I didn't feel the need to be patronizing. I'm sorry you've felt the need to be. It doesn't, however, make you right.

Again, you failed to read the context. The linked study on strength levels in prepubescent strength levels was in response to someone speaking about her judo class and that prepubescent children should have the same level of strength because men haven't hit puberty yet. That is all my link addressed. It was 100% relevant to the discussion. A discussion entirely separate from what you're discussing.
The irony of your post is fantastic

the girls at my judo club = girls who are told that they can and should be able to do full push ups.... 100% of them could

the girls in the average school include all the girls who are not encouraged to do stuff like that.... so it's not surprising that a lot of them couldn't

none of the girls in my judo club were cherry-picked for strength. I didn't grow up in the Soviet Union... none of the kids in my judo club were stronger at the start.... but we were stronger than other kids at school, because we trained...

I also think you're drastically underestimating how much strength gains people of either gender, pre or post puberty can get from the right kind of training............... or you're not considering this at all in this discussion.

Note: this poster doesn't say that strength is or should be the same between boys/girls or men/women.

What she says is that a full pushup is a reasonable expectation for healthy, fully-mobile children and adults no matter what their gender.

If a person is unable to perform a full pushup, the answer is to help them build up to one, not provide one sex encouragement to under-rate their strength based on gender stereotypes.