Women Should Train Differently Then Men
Replies
-
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 -
Why can't everyone train the way they want to train?
I when I go to the gym, I'm working for MY goals. I'm glad you're at the gym too, don't get me wrong; but you have a different set of goals, so you're working to meet those... don't try to rise (or sink) to my level! Stay at your own!!
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
Are you saying that women aren't smart enough to understand your superior intellect and wit?
0 -
You do realize if the real Barbie really picked up that pink dumbell, it would be 5 times her weight?AllanMisner wrote: »
I thought it was heavy squats and Barbie bicep curls for women and only heavy bench for men.
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: »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]
You're allowed to bench.
Because male.
0 -
Why can't everyone train the way they want to train?
I when I go to the gym, I'm working for MY goals. I'm glad you're at the gym too, don't get me wrong; but you have a different set of goals, so you're working to meet those... don't try to rise (or sink) to my level! Stay at your own!!
Are you advocating for segregation? What, I can't share your goals?
Is it because I'm a woman?
Huh?
HUH???
^ sarc... Never mind.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...
I've actually been very graciously ignoring your attempts to bait me with your hilarious jokes, if you notice.
(See *that * is sarcasm there, instanced in the use of the words "hilarious" and "jokes")0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »Why can't everyone train the way they want to train?
I when I go to the gym, I'm working for MY goals. I'm glad you're at the gym too, don't get me wrong; but you have a different set of goals, so you're working to meet those... don't try to rise (or sink) to my level! Stay at your own!!
Are you advocating for segregation? What, I can't share your goals?
Is it because I'm a woman?
Huh?
HUH???
^ sarc... Never mind.
Well, we could go back to Aristotelian theory and have everyone train together... but naked. Just sayyyyin
0 -
Shake weights please0
-
MireyGal76 wrote: »Why can't everyone train the way they want to train?
I when I go to the gym, I'm working for MY goals. I'm glad you're at the gym too, don't get me wrong; but you have a different set of goals, so you're working to meet those... don't try to rise (or sink) to my level! Stay at your own!!
Are you advocating for segregation? What, I can't share your goals?
Is it because I'm a woman?
Huh?
HUH???
^ sarc... Never mind.
Well, we could go back to Aristotelian theory and have everyone train together... but naked. Just sayyyyin
+1 for this!
0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »Why can't everyone train the way they want to train?
I when I go to the gym, I'm working for MY goals. I'm glad you're at the gym too, don't get me wrong; but you have a different set of goals, so you're working to meet those... don't try to rise (or sink) to my level! Stay at your own!!
Are you advocating for segregation? What, I can't share your goals?
Is it because I'm a woman?
Huh?
HUH???
^ sarc... Never mind.
Well, we could go back to Aristotelian theory and have everyone train together... but naked. Just sayyyyin
I don't know... I read somewhere else that naked is bad. I'm gonna stick with my shorts and sports bra.
0 -
itsfuntobenormal wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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]
You're allowed to bench.
Because male.
I don't need to though...
...since my upper body is naturally stronger than at least 49.7% of the world population.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...
I've actually been very graciously ignoring your attempts to bait me with your hilarious jokes, if you notice.
(See *that * is sarcasm there, instanced in the use of the words "hilarious" and "jokes")
so you are ignoring me by responding to me? Interesting...
I did not refer to you by name, unless of course you think that "some people" refers to you ...or am I really in your head that much?0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
You're allowed to bench.
Because male.
I don't need to though...
...since my upper body is naturally stronger than at least 49.7% of the world population.
Reminds me of a US Air Force tagline... Aim High!
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »itsfuntobenormal wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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]
You're allowed to bench.
Because male.
I don't need to though...
...since my upper body is naturally stronger than at least 49.7% of the world population.
so you train your upper body at a 3:1 ration then, because male, right?0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »itsfuntobenormal wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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]
You're allowed to bench.
Because male.
I don't need to though...
...since my upper body is naturally stronger than at least 49.7% of the world population.
so you train your upper body at a 3:1 ratio then, because male, right?
Exactly.
To do otherwise would be contrary to my genetics.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...
I've actually been very graciously ignoring your attempts to bait me with your hilarious jokes, if you notice.
(See *that * is sarcasm there, instanced in the use of the words "hilarious" and "jokes")
so you are ignoring me by responding to me? Interesting...
I did not refer to you by name, unless of course you think that "some people" refers to you ...or am I really in your head that much?
I said I ignored your hilarious jokey baiting posts.
You know that I know what you were doing. We've been bound together for all time by that other thread. Certainly for as long as we count here. It's kind of sweet if you think about it0 -
I actually try to train all my muscle groups evenly. I don't want flabby bingo wings!0
-
Danielle721007 wrote: »Danielle721007 wrote: »Danielle721007 wrote: »alisonkrupp wrote: »I didn't read all the reply's, sorry if this is a repeat.
My take on suggesting training in this way is the concept that muscle burns more calories. Our largest muscle groups happen to be the lower half of our bodies, so by training those muscle groups more heavily you'll burn more calories as those muscles develop. That's just where my head went with this. I'm not sure why it would be more specific to women than men other than women don't like to work out their upper body as much in fear of bulking up. Oh the many myths of weight training lol Just my thoughts.
Thank you ! lol You got exactly what my point was ... I never said the program was right but that's the same concept I gathered watching the video lol
Right, but the concept is wrong. That's the main point.
Ok, so that's fine. Anything else I haven't been told ?
if you really want some solid advice, it would be nice to know what your goals are....
Well my goals are simple to lose an excess amount of body fat. I want to lose fat, not just weight for the number on the scale and add muscle. Right now, I am following my calorie deficient goal and clean eating. I am exercising 5 times a week and this is my current break down.
Day 1 - Chest / Tricep
Day 2 - Bicep / Shoulder
Day 3 - Upper and Lower Back
Day 4 - Legs
Day 5 - Cardio / Abs
Days 6 and 7 are Active Rest days.
(And while I know I am going to be critiqued on how my work outs are set up - it is what it is)
I am heavier in my lower half of my body which is why I found the video interesting.
Excellent. Although I am leaving work so I'm limited. You're on a good track. Calorie deficit will get you the weight loss. Training will make sure you optimize fat loss.
Being said, we collectively are going to recommend strong cruces, new rules of lifting, starting strength or strong lifts.
Getting in a proven beginner program will go a long way for you.
Also, ironically, I'd suggest doing two leg days instead of just one if you chose not to switch to one of those aforementioned programs.
Agree on the 2 day leg day.
OP the program good starting program!! Good luck.
I do deads on "back day" so I get a considerable amount of hamstring work and some glutes in there as well. I like to think of back day as a sort of bonus leg day if you will.
Good luck OP, sounds like you are on the right track!
0 -
I just want to know if it's finally been decided whether women should train before men like the title suggests.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...
I've actually been very graciously ignoring your attempts to bait me with your hilarious jokes, if you notice.
(See *that * is sarcasm there, instanced in the use of the words "hilarious" and "jokes")
so you are ignoring me by responding to me? Interesting...
I did not refer to you by name, unless of course you think that "some people" refers to you ...or am I really in your head that much?
I said I ignored your hilarious jokey baiting posts.
You know that I know what you were doing. We've been bound together for all time by that other thread. Certainly for as long as we count here. It's kind of sweet if you think about it
I am glad that you are ignoring me by responding to my posts..
it is kind of like having an MFP puppy that follows me around...cute.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions