are women weak?

[User_20392979]

I say strength and weakness of any kind depends on the person.

I've seen both emotionally and physically strong women and men as well as weak women and men.

Typically men have more upper body strength while women have lower body strength but that isn't always the case (that is why you see more men firefighters).  

[asjgrjkshvfgjkhs]

AThousandLullabies

i think that's sexist.
some women are weak, just like some guys are weak.

but some women are also very strong.

it's not a matter of gender, it just depends on who the person is.

id tip that 3nodding  

[jesusgirl115]

AThousandLullabies

i think that's sexist.
some women are weak, just like some guys are weak.

but some women are also very strong.

it's not a matter of gender, it just depends on who the person is.

Yup. smile  

[yuintakie_yuki]

eccentricanomaly

I think some women are weak, just like some men are weak. And some women are strong, just like some men are strong. Emotionally, women are usually weaker, due to our chemical makeup and the way we're brought up, as in that men "aren't supposed to cry" and things like that.

actually no
they say that men are emotionally weaker
since women cries alot and men dont
they keep those uhm...feelings(?) problems(?) which makes them emotionally weaker  

[flippinbananas]

In general, GENERAL women tend to be weaker than men emotionally and physically. But everyone whether male or female have their own strengths and weaknesses. No gender is better than the other just because of it. If men are physically stronger than women usually than they should know that their strength is a responsibility and that they should be the ones to take the bullet.

Not to mention women are a man's biggest weakness. wink  

[jiniistrawberii]

No, women are NOT weaker than any gender out there. We were just given that stereotype because of the patriarchal society in the days passed (and sometimes, even until now). I mean, how can we show our capabilities when those guys out there forced us into being housewives and took away our freedom? Don't get me wrong though, I don't hate guys, it's just it's wrong to think that we're weak compared to them. We also have our strengths, and they too have their own weaknesses. I agree to what the others say that there is no hierarchy among the sexes. We were created as equals because we complement one another.

 

[CapCrack]

It depends what you mean when you say "weak".

Biologically, we are not built to be as physically strong as men. While there are some cases where women are stronger, they generally are seen as "unnatural" or "gross" from the standpoint of the general public.

In other aspects they are strong, such as in communications, nurture, arts, etc. They might be emotionally more intuitive as well. All of these general patterns pop up because we have different body and brain structures, and also have different hormones running through us than males do.

In all, just because you are a female doesn't mean you are "weak" or "less than" men, but I think people should expect us to be the SAME. Taking away what makes us male and female does not lead to happiness (as statistics have shown, women's happiness has declined since 2nd wave feminism and the sexual revolution).  

[CapCrack]

Louisa Iris

No, women are NOT weaker than any gender out there. We were just given that stereotype because of the patriarchal society in the days passed (and sometimes, even until now). I mean, how can we show our capabilities when those guys out there forced us into being housewives and took away our freedom? ]

Wait, what?
Since when does being a housewife take away freedoms, historically? If you think about it, men back in the day had to labor much more physically and had tasks that were very dangerous. They were also objectified as pawns in war.
The housework was also very time consuming back in the day, and the woman often had to help her husband in his craft (especially if he went to war). Since she was more of a nurturer, she stays at home where she was protected.


So if you really look at this objectively, men were just as objectified as women, but in the worst way possible (their lives rather than their wombs). THey did these things in order to protect their wives and children.
Patriarchy theory and thus, feminism, looks over the objectification of men throughout the centuries, and is not looking for equality but the raising up of the woman at the expense of the man.  

[Noir Belle]

CapCrack

Since when does being a housewife take away freedoms, historically? If you think about it, men back in the day had to labor much more physically and had tasks that were very dangerous. They were also objectified as pawns in war.
The housework was also very time consuming back in the day, and the woman often had to help her husband in his craft (especially if he went to war). Since she was more of a nurturer, she stays at home where she was protected.

I have to say I disagree.
If being a housewife would have been equal to protection, why did the men discriminate women in the workplace a few years later when women could work in a building and not in "more physical and dangerous tasks"?

I am not saying that being a housewife was not hard or unimportant but from my point of view, women were kept in the household because historically, hierarchically, and sometimes even culturally speaking women are weaker.

Moreover, I don't think we are weaker, not even physically. Some women are stronger than some men and backwards (even I am stronger than my bf sometimes haha), but still in general men do have more physical capabilities. Emotionally, women in general are stronger than men, but again, there might also be some cases where it can actually be backwards.

 

[CapCrack]

Noir Belle

CapCrack

Since when does being a housewife take away freedoms, historically? If you think about it, men back in the day had to labor much more physically and had tasks that were very dangerous. They were also objectified as pawns in war.
The housework was also very time consuming back in the day, and the woman often had to help her husband in his craft (especially if he went to war). Since she was more of a nurturer, she stays at home where she was protected.

I have to say I disagree.
If being a housewife would have been equal to protection, why did the men discriminate women in the workplace a few years later when women could work in a building and not in "more physical and dangerous tasks"?

I am not saying that being a housewife was not hard or unimportant but from my point of view, women were kept in the household because historically, hierarchically, and sometimes even culturally speaking women are weaker.

Moreover, I don't think we are weaker, not even physically. Some women are stronger than some men and backwards (even I am stronger than my bf sometimes haha), but still in general men do have more physical capabilities. Emotionally, women in general are stronger than men, but again, there might also be some cases where it can actually be backwards.

I think those cases are the exception though, not the rule.

i would say that the change going through society was jarring, women probably weren't wanted in the workplace because the workplace was traditionally where men resided. Because we advanced technologically so quickly, culture had to quickly change with it and perhaps was behind a few steps.

And I also would say that men quickly stepped aside in order to share the workplace. If you think about it historically, it's was a HUGE change in such little time, I would say that it worked smoothly from a woman's standpoint.  

[jiniistrawberii]

CapCrack

Wait, what?
Since when does being a housewife take away freedoms, historically? If you think about it, men back in the day had to labor much more physically and had tasks that were very dangerous. They were also objectified as pawns in war.
The housework was also very time consuming back in the day, and the woman often had to help her husband in his craft (especially if he went to war). Since she was more of a nurturer, she stays at home where she was protected.


So if you really look at this objectively, men were just as objectified as women, but in the worst way possible (their lives rather than their wombs). THey did these things in order to protect their wives and children.
Patriarchy theory and thus, feminism, looks over the objectification of men throughout the centuries, and is not looking for equality but the raising up of the woman at the expense of the man.

Hmm... you have a point. But what I was trying to point out was the fact that women weren't allowed to make decisions back then. It was always the men's decision that must be followed. Men were given the chance to study, while women weren't and they were stuck at home. Although girls helped guys, it was more of a supportive role. It's like, you can help us, but you can't decide. Just help us in what we want. Take suffrage for example. If men didn't think women are "inferior" to them, why don't they let them vote from the beginning? I dunno, I just think that the stereotype that women should stay at home and do housework and not have anything to do with the outside world made us look weaker, mainly because we had to depend on the males and don't have a voice of our own.

 

[CapCrack]

Louisa Iris

CapCrack

Wait, what?
Since when does being a housewife take away freedoms, historically? If you think about it, men back in the day had to labor much more physically and had tasks that were very dangerous. They were also objectified as pawns in war.
The housework was also very time consuming back in the day, and the woman often had to help her husband in his craft (especially if he went to war). Since she was more of a nurturer, she stays at home where she was protected.


So if you really look at this objectively, men were just as objectified as women, but in the worst way possible (their lives rather than their wombs). THey did these things in order to protect their wives and children.
Patriarchy theory and thus, feminism, looks over the objectification of men throughout the centuries, and is not looking for equality but the raising up of the woman at the expense of the man.

Hmm... you have a point. But what I was trying to point out was the fact that women weren't allowed to make decisions back then. It was always the men's decision that must be followed. Men were given the chance to study, while women weren't and they were stuck at home. Although girls helped guys, it was more of a supportive role. It's like, you can help us, but you can't decide. Just help us in what we want. Take suffrage for example. If men didn't think women are "inferior" to them, why don't they let them vote from the beginning? I dunno, I just think that the stereotype that women should stay at home and do housework and not have anything to do with the outside world made us look weaker, mainly because we had to depend on the males and don't have a voice of our own.

I think you are misunderstanding the difference in technology and culture, and instead of putting yourself within the circumstances of the time, drawing conclusions from your own individualistic, 21st century brain.


Most men didn't have a chance to study either. Studies were really only for priests and bureaucrats, whereas men would apprentice in order to learn a trade. Their wives, on top of taking care of their children(there was no birth control, remember), most likely learned key components of the husband's craft in case he had to leave for war, etc.

Not all men were able to vote either. In America, only white male property owners could vote, so not all men were given the vote at all.

Culture back then was not individualistic. The family unit was put above the individual and this family was seen as One. It was assumed that the man was able to represent his whole household, rather than an individual vote. It was nothing about inferiority, but it was about how culture saw the family unit. As our philosophies changed, we started to put the individual person above the family unit, and thus suffrage reared it's head. You assume having a voice was important to people in a culture much different than our own, but you are very much mistaken.  

[AeonFluffy]

Ya know, It really depends on what we're meaning when we say "stronger" And even further to that, I do not think that it's fair to really make any sort of comparison between men and women.

Generally, and I mean very generally, on average woman is weaker physically than the average male. That being said "average" is so not an average word. There are many factors when looking from one individual to the next. I can compare myself to one guy friend and go "Yeah, he's a lot stronger than me physically" And yet, look at a second guy and feel like it's not even fair to even fight him he's so puny.

The same can be said for emotional strength, on average I find myself emotionally stronger than most men around me, who all seem to have some form of chronic depression. Though I've always thought that men were supposed to be a stronger emotional rock. Mostly taken from the "Real men don't cry" and all the stigmas that men should not show emotions.

It's impossible to compare person to person and say whether or not the sex on a whole is stronger or weaker to it's counterpart.  

[Labtech Abi]

NO.

The only way we're weaker is in the way that men have more muscle than women.

Like my auntie told me once, "The only thing a man can do that I can't is pee standing up. AND I COULD DO THAT IF I TRIED!"