Women Should Train Differently Then Men
Options
Replies
-
Maybe. I've tried explaining it a few times already and a couple are convinced I'm sexist regardless. Oh well.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
NInerbuff, just be careful with your "corrections".
it's kind of true, if you'd moved your closing quotes one word over, all this could have been avoided (maybe)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh my god, Easter was last weekend, Jesus.
I clearly said in another post I specifically didn't give you any benefit of the doubt because you are a freaking mod correcting verbage in a post that was 100% sarcasm. Unfortunately, what you said came off kind of bad and was easy pickins. It happens to literally everyone*.
*Not everyone0 -
ladies - don't forget to work those arms, because the grocery bags can get heavy ....
*joke*0 -
This thread is a huge trainwreck. Why do 70% of threads here become "battle of the sexes"?
Each individual should train in a way that promotes their personal goals and is compatible with their individual capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less.0 -
BraveNewdGirl wrote: »
She didn't need you to "correct" her or explain to her what she meant. That, in itself, is garbage.
It wasn't MY statement. It was a WORD correction in someone else's (who happens to be a female) statement. Go back and reread from where it started from.BraveNewdGirl wrote: »
That doesn't excuse your initial statement in any way. Seriously, moderate yourself.BraveNewdGirl wrote: »
Physically inferior at what? Mansplaining to women what they really meant?
I believe you mean "physically" inferior. There are lots and lots of females out there who have better genetics than some males.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »zakmccartney79 wrote: »zakmccartney79 wrote: »Danielle721007 wrote: »Hello All, so I am a huge YouTube junkie and I just watched a video from Sixpackshortcuts and Andrea Albright (both who are awesome!) which talked about how women should specifically strength train the lower half of their body ... glutes, hamstrings, quads and calves more so than upper body. The concept is building these muscles will eliminate fat from all over the body. Which I LOVE to lift weights and I am going to give this a try ... I just wanted to see what everyone thought about this ?
Their suggestion for a workout plan was like this:
Day 1 - Glutes
Day 2 - Hamstrings / Core
Day 3 - Upper Body (all muscles)
Day 4 - Quads / Core
Day 5 - Glutes
Now, they structured this to give women a fit toned sleek look with curves... so what do you all think ?
Reminder: Women, you won't get bulky lifting weights unless you take steroids and that's your goal. We simply don't create enough Testosterone to enhance our muscles the size of men's unless you take some type of muscle enhancer ...
Just though I'd clear that up
Danielle721007 wrote: »Hello All, so I am a huge YouTube junkie and I just watched a video from Sixpackshortcuts and Andrea Albright (both who are awesome!) which talked about how women should specifically strength train the lower half of their body ... glutes, hamstrings, quads and calves more so than upper body. The concept is building these muscles will eliminate fat from all over the body. Which I LOVE to lift weights and I am going to give this a try ... I just wanted to see what everyone thought about this ?
Their suggestion for a workout plan was like this:
Day 1 - Glutes
Day 2 - Hamstrings / Core
Day 3 - Upper Body (all muscles)
Day 4 - Quads / Core
Day 5 - Glutes
Now, they structured this to give women a fit toned sleek look with curves... so what do you all think ?
Reminder: Women, you won't get bulky lifting weights unless you take steroids and that's your goal. We simply don't create enough Testosterone to enhance our muscles the size of men's unless you take some type of muscle enhancer ...
Just though I'd clear that up
I workout a lot and I feel tht this is a good concept because women are not men. There body structure is totally different from men. Genetically they are different. Women should focus on the lower half more because that is where most of the weight is. And they won't be built like a tank. For most morons who said that. Also I believe that people should work out any way they want. If people don't like what someone else says just don't comment. All you trolls out there who would bring another person down just for asking a question should really think why they are doing that. Most of you people probably don't even workout, you just do cardio all day thinking that that is the key. But like arnold said" don't listen to the naysayers". Danielle you got my vote. Keep up the good work and don't let any of these *kitten* tell you otherwise.
so you are saying a training program that is 3:1 legs over upper body is superior????????
so when someone has arms like a twig and a rear like Ice T's girlfriend Coco or whatever her name is, you think that is a good look?
No, but I'm saying when you wanna train te way you want that it is ok. You can't nicely put comments on here without being an *kitten*.
I am not the one swearing, you are...
so you agree that it is an inferior training program, but its OK for woman, because they are woman???
I think the point is we're genetically inferior.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
For the record, greater explosive strength =/= physical superiority. Also for the record, being weaker than me doesn't make anyone less of a man. Get it together.
From page 5 just for your reference.
Hate to tell you that if a fraternal twin girl and boy were tested, they would "genetically" be the similar. Physical difference between genders is what you were looking for here.zakmccartney79 wrote: »Danielle721007 wrote: »Hello All, so I am a huge YouTube junkie and I just watched a video from Sixpackshortcuts and Andrea Albright (both who are awesome!) which talked about how women should specifically strength train the lower half of their body ... glutes, hamstrings, quads and calves more so than upper body. The concept is building these muscles will eliminate fat from all over the body. Which I LOVE to lift weights and I am going to give this a try ... I just wanted to see what everyone thought about this ?
Their suggestion for a workout plan was like this:
Day 1 - Glutes
Day 2 - Hamstrings / Core
Day 3 - Upper Body (all muscles)
Day 4 - Quads / Core
Day 5 - Glutes
Now, they structured this to give women a fit toned sleek look with curves... so what do you all think ?
Reminder: Women, you won't get bulky lifting weights unless you take steroids and that's your goal. We simply don't create enough Testosterone to enhance our muscles the size of men's unless you take some type of muscle enhancer ...
Just though I'd clear that up
I workout a lot and I feel tht this is a good concept because women are not men. There body structure is totally different from men. Genetically they are different.
Probably should heed your own advice.Women should focus on the lower half more because that is where most of the weight is. And they won't be built like a tank. For most morons who said that. Also I believe that people should work out any way they want. If people don't like what someone else says just don't comment. All you trolls out there who would bring another person down just for asking a question should really think why they are doing that. Most of you people probably don't even workout, you just do cardio all day thinking that that is the key. But like arnold said" don't listen to the naysayers". Danielle you got my vote. Keep up the good work and don't let any of these *kitten* tell you otherwise.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And for those of you being intentionally obtuse, "No, let me explain to you what you really meant. You meant this." is still a statement of one's beliefs. "But context!" holds no water here. She made a tongue-in-cheek comment, he "corrected" her with his poorly contrived sexist thinky thoughts. A bunch of people reacted by calling him out on it. The correct response to being called out would be "I'm sorry and it won't happen again." and then a conscious effort made to not explain to people what they really meant or make similarly offensive statements in the future. Instead, he's busy telling people "What I said was okay because context!". Nope. All the nope.
Edited to add: And FFS, quit trying to extrapolate from his original statement. It was "Women are physically inferior to men." and that's all kinds of wrong.
Are you for real?0 -
-
asflatasapancake wrote: »lydiakitten wrote: »This thread is a huge trainwreck. Why do 70% of threads here become "battle of the sexes"?
Each individual should train in a way that promotes their personal goals and is compatible with their individual capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less.
Because men are better than women.
Superior.
Physically.
Not genetically.
0 -
lydiakitten wrote: »This thread is a huge trainwreck. Why do 70% of threads here become "battle of the sexes"?
Each individual should train in a way that promotes their personal goals and is compatible with their individual capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less.
because some people on here choose to take things way too seriously, and have no clue how to differentiate sarcasm and joking, from seriousness.
and it appears that some people expect that someone will never misspeak and when they do they should be tarred and feathered, and then quartered...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »BraveNewdGirl wrote: »
She didn't need you to "correct" her or explain to her what she meant. That, in itself, is garbage.
It wasn't MY statement. It was a WORD correction in someone else's (who happens to be a female) statement. Go back and reread from where it started from.BraveNewdGirl wrote: »
That doesn't excuse your initial statement in any way. Seriously, moderate yourself.BraveNewdGirl wrote: »
Physically inferior at what? Mansplaining to women what they really meant?
I believe you mean "physically" inferior. There are lots and lots of females out there who have better genetics than some males.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »zakmccartney79 wrote: »zakmccartney79 wrote: »Danielle721007 wrote: »Hello All, so I am a huge YouTube junkie and I just watched a video from Sixpackshortcuts and Andrea Albright (both who are awesome!) which talked about how women should specifically strength train the lower half of their body ... glutes, hamstrings, quads and calves more so than upper body. The concept is building these muscles will eliminate fat from all over the body. Which I LOVE to lift weights and I am going to give this a try ... I just wanted to see what everyone thought about this ?
Their suggestion for a workout plan was like this:
Day 1 - Glutes
Day 2 - Hamstrings / Core
Day 3 - Upper Body (all muscles)
Day 4 - Quads / Core
Day 5 - Glutes
Now, they structured this to give women a fit toned sleek look with curves... so what do you all think ?
Reminder: Women, you won't get bulky lifting weights unless you take steroids and that's your goal. We simply don't create enough Testosterone to enhance our muscles the size of men's unless you take some type of muscle enhancer ...
Just though I'd clear that upDanielle721007 wrote: »Hello All, so I am a huge YouTube junkie and I just watched a video from Sixpackshortcuts and Andrea Albright (both who are awesome!) which talked about how women should specifically strength train the lower half of their body ... glutes, hamstrings, quads and calves more so than upper body. The concept is building these muscles will eliminate fat from all over the body. Which I LOVE to lift weights and I am going to give this a try ... I just wanted to see what everyone thought about this ?
Their suggestion for a workout plan was like this:
Day 1 - Glutes
Day 2 - Hamstrings / Core
Day 3 - Upper Body (all muscles)
Day 4 - Quads / Core
Day 5 - Glutes
Now, they structured this to give women a fit toned sleek look with curves... so what do you all think ?
Reminder: Women, you won't get bulky lifting weights unless you take steroids and that's your goal. We simply don't create enough Testosterone to enhance our muscles the size of men's unless you take some type of muscle enhancer ...
Just though I'd clear that up
I workout a lot and I feel tht this is a good concept because women are not men. There body structure is totally different from men. Genetically they are different. Women should focus on the lower half more because that is where most of the weight is. And they won't be built like a tank. For most morons who said that. Also I believe that people should work out any way they want. If people don't like what someone else says just don't comment. All you trolls out there who would bring another person down just for asking a question should really think why they are doing that. Most of you people probably don't even workout, you just do cardio all day thinking that that is the key. But like arnold said" don't listen to the naysayers". Danielle you got my vote. Keep up the good work and don't let any of these *kitten* tell you otherwise.
so you are saying a training program that is 3:1 legs over upper body is superior????????
so when someone has arms like a twig and a rear like Ice T's girlfriend Coco or whatever her name is, you think that is a good look?
No, but I'm saying when you wanna train te way you want that it is ok. You can't nicely put comments on here without being an *kitten*.
I am not the one swearing, you are...
so you agree that it is an inferior training program, but its OK for woman, because they are woman???
I think the point is we're genetically inferior.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
For the record, greater explosive strength =/= physical superiority. Also for the record, being weaker than me doesn't make anyone less of a man. Get it together.
From page 5 just for your reference.
Hate to tell you that if a fraternal twin girl and boy were tested, they would "genetically" be the similar. Physical difference between genders is what you were looking for here.zakmccartney79 wrote: »Danielle721007 wrote: »Hello All, so I am a huge YouTube junkie and I just watched a video from Sixpackshortcuts and Andrea Albright (both who are awesome!) which talked about how women should specifically strength train the lower half of their body ... glutes, hamstrings, quads and calves more so than upper body. The concept is building these muscles will eliminate fat from all over the body. Which I LOVE to lift weights and I am going to give this a try ... I just wanted to see what everyone thought about this ?
Their suggestion for a workout plan was like this:
Day 1 - Glutes
Day 2 - Hamstrings / Core
Day 3 - Upper Body (all muscles)
Day 4 - Quads / Core
Day 5 - Glutes
Now, they structured this to give women a fit toned sleek look with curves... so what do you all think ?
Reminder: Women, you won't get bulky lifting weights unless you take steroids and that's your goal. We simply don't create enough Testosterone to enhance our muscles the size of men's unless you take some type of muscle enhancer ...
Just though I'd clear that up
I workout a lot and I feel tht this is a good concept because women are not men. There body structure is totally different from men. Genetically they are different.
Probably should heed your own advice.Women should focus on the lower half more because that is where most of the weight is. And they won't be built like a tank. For most morons who said that. Also I believe that people should work out any way they want. If people don't like what someone else says just don't comment. All you trolls out there who would bring another person down just for asking a question should really think why they are doing that. Most of you people probably don't even workout, you just do cardio all day thinking that that is the key. But like arnold said" don't listen to the naysayers". Danielle you got my vote. Keep up the good work and don't let any of these *kitten* tell you otherwise.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And for those of you being intentionally obtuse, "No, let me explain to you what you really meant. You meant this." is still a statement of one's beliefs. "But context!" holds no water here. She made a tongue-in-cheek comment, he "corrected" her with his poorly contrived sexist thinky thoughts. A bunch of people reacted by calling him out on it. The correct response to being called out would be "I'm sorry and it won't happen again." and then a conscious effort made to not explain to people what they really meant or make similarly offensive statements in the future. Instead, he's busy telling people "What I said was okay because context!". Nope. All the nope.
Edited to add: And FFS, quit trying to extrapolate from his original statement. It was "Women are physically inferior to men." and that's all kinds of wrong.
Are you for real?
that ivory tower is very real....0 -
lydiakitten wrote: »This thread is a huge trainwreck. Why do 70% of threads here become "battle of the sexes"?
Each individual should train in a way that promotes their personal goals and is compatible with their individual capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less.
^^This!
I don't like the idea of any program that's a one size fits all.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Maybe every observation of difference doesn't deserve a value judgment, but this is humanity, so it will likely get one anyway.Derprioception wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
How many individual (non-team) sports involve women competing against men?Derprioception wrote: »But seriously, if we work this out logically:
Logically factual statements.
Some A are stronger than some B.
Some B are stronger than some A.
Some A are stronger than some A.
Some B are stronger than some B.
Using words like all or majority are assumptive as there's no concrete way to verify. To use them as assertions of fact is illogical. Unless my logic has gaps. I'm open to a logical refutation.
In how many sports are the womens' records better than the mens' records?
Obviously some women are stronger than some men. But the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, and the average man is stronger than the average woman. So in that context "men are stronger than women" is a valid statement, in the same way as "men are taller than women."
I'm not sure why anyone would think this is justification to think that men and women should be treated differently.
I don't know why some people need to inject value judgments into any observation of differences between any two people or groups of people.
Obviously there are differences between the two but to make a blanket statement like "men are [whatever] than women" and vice versa is to open the discussion up to blanket interpretations, so the offense of some is valid because there aren't always specifics that make meaning clear.
The thing is, if the same assertions were made based on race or culture, using the same criteria you mentioned, it would likely blow up into a much bigger deal. Would their offense be so quickly or easily cast aside? Some people feel as strongly about issues of gender and sex.
Either way, we're using some pretty broad words here. Valid, logical, and factual aren't necessarily the same. The discussion can rabbit trail all day long.
Maybe every observation of difference doesn't deserve a value judgment, but this is mfp, so it will likely get one anyway.
eta: And to be fair, inferior and superior are value judgments... Unintended though they may be.
1- FTFY.
B- This is why we can't have nice things.
(4- I admit the hypocrisy of the above being value judgments. Just in case Jof comes along.)
Hey, guys!
What's going on in here?0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Maybe every observation of difference doesn't deserve a value judgment, but this is humanity, so it will likely get one anyway.Derprioception wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
How many individual (non-team) sports involve women competing against men?Derprioception wrote: »But seriously, if we work this out logically:
Logically factual statements.
Some A are stronger than some B.
Some B are stronger than some A.
Some A are stronger than some A.
Some B are stronger than some B.
Using words like all or majority are assumptive as there's no concrete way to verify. To use them as assertions of fact is illogical. Unless my logic has gaps. I'm open to a logical refutation.
In how many sports are the womens' records better than the mens' records?
Obviously some women are stronger than some men. But the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, and the average man is stronger than the average woman. So in that context "men are stronger than women" is a valid statement, in the same way as "men are taller than women."
I'm not sure why anyone would think this is justification to think that men and women should be treated differently.
I don't know why some people need to inject value judgments into any observation of differences between any two people or groups of people.
Obviously there are differences between the two but to make a blanket statement like "men are [whatever] than women" and vice versa is to open the discussion up to blanket interpretations, so the offense of some is valid because there aren't always specifics that make meaning clear.
The thing is, if the same assertions were made based on race or culture, using the same criteria you mentioned, it would likely blow up into a much bigger deal. Would their offense be so quickly or easily cast aside? Some people feel as strongly about issues of gender and sex.
Either way, we're using some pretty broad words here. Valid, logical, and factual aren't necessarily the same. The discussion can rabbit trail all day long.
Maybe every observation of difference doesn't deserve a value judgment, but this is mfp, so it will likely get one anyway.
eta: And to be fair, inferior and superior are value judgments... Unintended though they may be.
1- FTFY.
B- This is why we can't have nice things.
(4- I admit the hypocrisy of the above being value judgments. Just in case Jof comes along.)
Hey, guys!
What's going on in here?
squats.
but no benching.0 -
determined_14 wrote: »Poor niner seems to be having a hard time making this clear to all the wounded female feelings out there: He did not THINK, SAY, or ever intend to IMPLY that women are inferior to men, physically or otherwise. He only thought that the other person used the word "genetically" wrong, and tried to clarify, as in, "hey, I think you meant to say this." Not, "you meant to state this fact, which I agree with," or "You think this but the truth is this." It's like if someone typed, "The earth is bigger then the sun," and someone else said, "You mean the earth is bigger THAN the sun." That second person is not affirming the actual statement, only correcting a word-error!
(Though I'm sure after this, he'll double-check what he types lest it be misconstrued as such.)
Except that kind of correction has consistently resulted in strikes in the MFP forums.
Ninerbuff, you now have one strike. MFP works on a three strike system. Blah blah blah valued member. Please try to be a better person in the future.0 -
You do realize if you're speaking of god in this context, the G should be capitalized?itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
Maybe. I've tried explaining it a few times already and a couple are convinced I'm sexist regardless. Oh well.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
NInerbuff, just be careful with your "corrections".
it's kind of true, if you'd moved your closing quotes one word over, all this could have been avoided (maybe)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh my god, Easter was last weekend, Jesus.
I clearly said in another post I specifically didn't give you any benefit of the doubt because you are a freaking mod correcting verbage in a post that was 100% sarcasm. Unfortunately, what you said came off kind of bad and was easy pickins. It happens to literally everyone*.
*Not everyone
Yes that's sarcasm too.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »determined_14 wrote: »Poor niner seems to be having a hard time making this clear to all the wounded female feelings out there: He did not THINK, SAY, or ever intend to IMPLY that women are inferior to men, physically or otherwise. He only thought that the other person used the word "genetically" wrong, and tried to clarify, as in, "hey, I think you meant to say this." Not, "you meant to state this fact, which I agree with," or "You think this but the truth is this." It's like if someone typed, "The earth is bigger then the sun," and someone else said, "You mean the earth is bigger THAN the sun." That second person is not affirming the actual statement, only correcting a word-error!
(Though I'm sure after this, he'll double-check what he types lest it be misconstrued as such.)
Except that kind of correction has consistently resulted in strikes in the MFP forums.
Ninerbuff, you now have one strike. MFP works on a three strike system. Blah blah blah valued member. Please try to be a better person in the future.
You do realize if you're speaking of god in this context, the G should be capitalized?itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
Maybe. I've tried explaining it a few times already and a couple are convinced I'm sexist regardless. Oh well.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
NInerbuff, just be careful with your "corrections".
it's kind of true, if you'd moved your closing quotes one word over, all this could have been avoided (maybe)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh my god, Easter was last weekend, Jesus.
I clearly said in another post I specifically didn't give you any benefit of the doubt because you are a freaking mod correcting verbage in a post that was 100% sarcasm. Unfortunately, what you said came off kind of bad and was easy pickins. It happens to literally everyone*.
*Not everyone
Yes that's sarcasm too.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What's a saracam0 -
I thought it was heavy squats and Barbie bicep curls for women and only heavy bench for men.
0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »The title of this thread just makes my head hurt, can we let it die? Please?
If the thread no longer interests you, wouldn't it be much easier for you not to read it?
(I've always been fascinated by posts expressing a desire for a thread to die/discussion to end...as if continuing to read them was compulsory. This particular occurrence wasn't one, but my favorites are when they effectively bump a previously dormant and dying thread.)0 -
In light of previous comments, I'll abstain from responding to this for fear of it being viewed as sexist.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »determined_14 wrote: »Poor niner seems to be having a hard time making this clear to all the wounded female feelings out there: He did not THINK, SAY, or ever intend to IMPLY that women are inferior to men, physically or otherwise. He only thought that the other person used the word "genetically" wrong, and tried to clarify, as in, "hey, I think you meant to say this." Not, "you meant to state this fact, which I agree with," or "You think this but the truth is this." It's like if someone typed, "The earth is bigger then the sun," and someone else said, "You mean the earth is bigger THAN the sun." That second person is not affirming the actual statement, only correcting a word-error!
(Though I'm sure after this, he'll double-check what he types lest it be misconstrued as such.)
Except that kind of correction has consistently resulted in strikes in the MFP forums.
Ninerbuff, you now have one strike. MFP works on a three strike system. Blah blah blah valued member. Please try to be a better person in the future.
You do realize if you're speaking of god in this context, the G should be capitalized?itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
Maybe. I've tried explaining it a few times already and a couple are convinced I'm sexist regardless. Oh well.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
NInerbuff, just be careful with your "corrections".
it's kind of true, if you'd moved your closing quotes one word over, all this could have been avoided (maybe)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh my god, Easter was last weekend, Jesus.
I clearly said in another post I specifically didn't give you any benefit of the doubt because you are a freaking mod correcting verbage in a post that was 100% sarcasm. Unfortunately, what you said came off kind of bad and was easy pickins. It happens to literally everyone*.
*Not everyone
Yes that's sarcasm too.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What's a saracam
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Maybe every observation of difference doesn't deserve a value judgment, but this is humanity, so it will likely get one anyway.Derprioception wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
How many individual (non-team) sports involve women competing against men?Derprioception wrote: »But seriously, if we work this out logically:
Logically factual statements.
Some A are stronger than some B.
Some B are stronger than some A.
Some A are stronger than some A.
Some B are stronger than some B.
Using words like all or majority are assumptive as there's no concrete way to verify. To use them as assertions of fact is illogical. Unless my logic has gaps. I'm open to a logical refutation.
In how many sports are the womens' records better than the mens' records?
Obviously some women are stronger than some men. But the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, and the average man is stronger than the average woman. So in that context "men are stronger than women" is a valid statement, in the same way as "men are taller than women."
I'm not sure why anyone would think this is justification to think that men and women should be treated differently.
I don't know why some people need to inject value judgments into any observation of differences between any two people or groups of people.
Obviously there are differences between the two but to make a blanket statement like "men are [whatever] than women" and vice versa is to open the discussion up to blanket interpretations, so the offense of some is valid because there aren't always specifics that make meaning clear.
The thing is, if the same assertions were made based on race or culture, using the same criteria you mentioned, it would likely blow up into a much bigger deal. Would their offense be so quickly or easily cast aside? Some people feel as strongly about issues of gender and sex.
Either way, we're using some pretty broad words here. Valid, logical, and factual aren't necessarily the same. The discussion can rabbit trail all day long.
Maybe every observation of difference doesn't deserve a value judgment, but this is mfp, so it will likely get one anyway.
eta: And to be fair, inferior and superior are value judgments... Unintended though they may be.
1- FTFY.
B- This is why we can't have nice things.
(4- I admit the hypocrisy of the above being value judgments. Just in case Jof comes along.)
Hey, guys!
What's going on in here?
squats.
but no benching.
Oh.
I'm still recovering from hip surgery five weeks ago...
...so I'll just show myself to the door.
:indifferent:
[havefunstormingthecastle.gif]0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »The title of this thread just makes my head hurt, can we let it die? Please?
If the thread no longer interests you, wouldn't it be much easier for you not to read it?
(I've always been fascinated by posts expressing a desire for a thread to die/discussion to end...as if continuing to read them was compulsory. This particular occurrence wasn't one, but my favorites are when they effectively bump a previously dormant and dying thread.)
Bump.
Just let it die, folks.
^ sarc... Oh never mind
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions