'Operation Yewtree' - the McCarthyism of our times??

[ahinton]

Yes, I would, gladly, but, to he honest, men need educating from the cradle onwards, which is down to their mothers, so females must stop/break this cycle by educating their sons that females are weak and males are strong.

I was never "educated" one way or the other over this kind of thing but I have found such a notion to be utterly incomprehensible for as far back as I can remember.

[Mr Pee]

I was never "educated" one way or the other over this kind of thing but I have found such a notion to be utterly incomprehensible for as far back as I can remember.

Well, that's a bit odd, because of course scientifically speaking, men are stronger than women. What is incomprehensible about that?

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, that's a bit odd, because of course scientifically speaking, men are stronger than women. What is incomprehensible about that?

Brain or brawn?

[Beef Oven!]

Brain or brawn?

Brawn. X5 apparently. As for brain, they might just have the edge on us blokes, on balance (highly anecdotal).

[jean]

...to he honest, men need educating from the cradle onwards...

I wouldn't argue with that.

...which is down to their mothers...

In part at least, but we should guard against the old idea of women being given sole responsibility for the moral standards of society.

...so females must stop/break this cycle by educating their sons that females are weak and males are strong.

I think males know already that they are physically stronger than females.

What they need to be educated about is that they do not exploit this superior strength, or make assumptions based on mere appearance, but listen to what women actually have to say.

[jean]

As for brain, they might just have the edge on us blokes, on balance (highly anecdotal).

Way ahead. Not anecdotal - I've proved it, many times.

[MrGongGong]

Well, that's a bit odd, because of course scientifically speaking, men are stronger than women. What is incomprehensible about that?

Which men ?
Which women ?

[ahinton]

Which men ?
Which women ?

The ones to which he refers, presumably - but, as we know, Mr Pee does not feel the need to resort to specifics for the mere purpose of presenting an argument in support of something that we supposedly all know anyway...

[MrGongGong]

The ones to which he refers, presumably - but, as we know, Mr Pee does not feel the need to resort to specifics for the mere purpose of presenting an argument in support of something that we supposedly all know anyway...

I'm also a bit puzzled by the phrase "scientifically speaking"
but maybe "received wisdom" is "scientific" ?
It reminds me a bit of the old days and Prof Say's "academic" research ;-)

[ahinton]

I'm also a bit puzzled by the phrase "scientifically speaking"

Moi aussi...

but maybe "received wisdom" is "scientific"?

To the extent that there is presumably some kind of science in the manner and method of reception of said wisdom, though how well documented (let alone peer-reviewed) it may be I have less than no idea.

It reminds me a bit of the old days and Prof Say's "academic" research ;-)

Says', not Say's, actually (opps, sorry - wrong thread!) - but yes, the mere citation of "academic research" without providing the source thereof is of about as much value as saying, as Richard Ingrams used to do (and perhaps still does, for all that I know), "it must be true - I read it in The Daily Telegraph" (although, of course, had his catchphrase instead been "it must be true - I read it in The Guardian", Mr Pee would presumably have come down on him like a ton of bricks)...

[jean]

Which men ?
Which women ?

The original point was Anna's, not Mr. Pee's - and generally speaking, men do have greater brute strength than women, though there are clearly many individual exceptions.

That's why women cannot always fight off an attacker.

The answer is to supply women with techniques (various systems of martial arts, for example) to mitigate a natural disadvantage, and of course to educate men not to misuse their strength.

.

[ahinton]

Yes, there are individual differences, but the original point was Anna's, not Mr. Pee's - and generally speaking, men have greater brute strength than women, though there are clearly many individual exceptions.

That's why women cannot always fight off an attacker.

The trick is to get men not to misuse their strength.

The point was indeed originally Anna's and, as you say, there are individual differences, but these are surely many rather than mere exceptions; the physical strength of anyone in decent general health will vary in accordance with a number of factors including diet but most particularly physical exercise.

The only reason why some women cannot fight of an attacker of either sex is the same as why some men cannot do the same (apart, perhaps, from the absence of a suitable firearm and the ability and willingness to use it) - lack of the appropriate technical knowledge and experience in unarmed combat; poor eyesight or hearing on the victim's part might be additional factors in exceptional cases.

The point here, however, is that people who habitually exude smug complacency usually like to think of everything as packable into neat little boxes without the distraction of exceptions but tht it's when they seek to parade such an attitude in the guise of scientific fact that it becomes questionable.

[jean]

I'm sorry that the overwhelming need to ridicule Mr Pee at every opportunity has put paid to the possibility of any reasonable discussion on this thread.

[ahinton]

I'm sorry that the overwhelming need to ridicule Mr Pee at every opportunity has put paid to the possibility of any reasonable discussion on this thread.

I would likewise be sorry were that the case; however, whilst I cannot speak for anyone else, it is clear that the comments which I made in the first two paragraphs of #117 make no reference to Mr Pee and instead constitute a considerataion of the aspect of the thread currenly under discussion and, for that matter, do not especially disagree with your own observations.

[jean]

...people who habitually exude smug complacency...

Who's that, then?