J-Luck

So this is a fantasy post... hmmmm

__________________
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Phillipians 4:13

gregimotis

I have known a number of fantastic women fighters; however eight times out of ten, I feel that men are psychologically better prepared for fighting. This may be largely hormonal, I couldn't say, but men like the idea of fighting on primal level much more than women IMO.

For this reason also I think men, as a generality, start off with an advantage over women. Down deep, we want to be warriors.

__________________
.
.
I am Tired. Tired. Tired.

treelizard

I've certainly seen women try to muscle through things, but when they realize it doesn't work they pick up better technique. And although I know a ton of men with great technique, I've also seen a lot of men basically ignore technique and muscle through things. At a couple BJJ gyms I know they put guys like this through a program that's called "you go really slow while everyone else goes fast." A lot of them quit. I definitely think men are more cut out physically, emotionally, etc. for fighting, BUT I also think women absolutely have to learn better technique to hold their own on the matts than men do. Every once in a while women with good technique get better than men with bad technique--pure strength stops working after a while. That's all.

My Olylifting coach says his women lifters have better technique and in arts like taijutsu that use your whole entire body women often progress faster because they are used to doing this in day to day life.

The problems women face in martial arts (and there are many) are pretty well-known but I think it's important for women to recognize when/where they have an advantage--and for male coaches/sifus as well.

Having said that I've only tapped out one guy once, ever... and I've only outlifted guys that don't train seriously. I hope it's good motivation for them to train harder!

__________________
http://www.dirttime.org

http://morewomeninmma.blogspot.com

J-Luck

Ehh... I understand what you're saying, but I try not to put too much faith in experience as opposed to well known facts. Men have, in general, a greater capacity towards mechanical and spacial intelligence. It simply provides for better technique.

That being said, I do think there are women out there who have technique like men. There are plenty of them. But as a whole, it's not common.

__________________
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Phillipians 4:13

treelizard

I disagree. The difference is not in intelligence, but in perception.

__________________
http://www.dirttime.org

http://morewomeninmma.blogspot.com

J-Luck

My point is that spatial and mechanical intelligence is more highly developed in men. It's well known amongst psycologists(those who are qualified to interpret and determine the functions of intelligence). Women are lacking in those areas, and therefore have less potential/practical ability, as a whole. Has nothing to do with perception.

Don't take it as an attack though. Women have been proven to have higher levels of intelligence in other areas, though areas not affecting martial arts.

__________________
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Phillipians 4:13

jubaji

So, your high school doesn't teach anatomy until after the freshman year then?

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

treelizard

[quote=J-Luck;272769]My point is that spatial and mechanical intelligence is more highly developed in men.
/QUOTE]

I was wondering whether you really think that people with high levels of spatial and mechanical intelligence would be better fighters.

Just how much spatial and mechanical intelligence is necessary to, say, kick a bag?

__________________
http://www.dirttime.org

http://morewomeninmma.blogspot.com

Garland

[quote=treelizard;273162]not much...but to parallel park a car... eh...

__________________
homo homini lupus

Little Apple

Oh ha ha Garland.

I think this: It really depends on the person, I've seen people who learn fast and have great technique, but have little to no fighting ability (be it from timing, agressiveness, or whatever). I've also seen the reverse, and everything in between, and from both genders no less. Having said that, guys seem to want to fight more, numbers-wise. Not sure if that points out some kind of pre-disposition or not, but there it is.

eXcessiveForce

In a fight the person who doubts, become afraid, or concentrates on the damage they are taking will lose. Most men when fighting a women do not believe they can lose. This makes it much harder to win. They are more likely to absorb punishment that against another man would have made them begin to doubt, but against a woman their belief makes them continue.

But if the woman can get a quick knockout then she could win.

odds say the man will win,

__________________
eXcessiveFORCE.

If you must use force, make it excessive.

nails

its a hard question to answer. i think the majority of what is said in this thread is true as far as men and women in general(well except crap about attitude and mindset, I dont think anyone can say what is generally true in that respect- unless you are psychic ). My gut reaction to this thread is 'which man? which woman?" because biological features vary so much from person to person its impossible to say without looking at it on an individual level. if you want to say a typical male vs typical female i would bet on the guy, but like everything in life there is considerable grey area because not every woman is going to be like most woman, and ditto for the men. I think my family's genes are a big reason i have this opinion, the women on my mothers side have bodies with broad shoulders and narrow hips, and gain and keep muscle much more easily than most women. im sure weve all seen skinny guys who have a very hard time gaining muscle too. The fact that most women are just plain smaller than most men makes a big difference, its just not possible to gain the sheer amount of muscle tissue that a larger person can. Most women have advantages in other sports, so its nothing to get angry over. Most womens biological characteristics are a huge advantage in some situations (famine and endurance type challenges in particular) and not in others. I believe strongly that this has nothing to do with one sex being 'better' than the other, these things are advantages or disadvatages depending entirely on the situation where they are applied. just my 2 cents.

GonzoStyles

On just a bit of a tangent........

when introducing new people to water ski sports (wakeboarding/wakesurfing) in the process of getting pulled up the first time out, we have a 100% success rate with women who have never been pulled behind a ski boat, men it would be about 60%. I don't know if it is a center of gravity issue, or more of a mental issue but thats just the way it goes.

treelizard

What's the common denominator for women who beat men in Thaiboxing?

http://www.womenkickboxing.com/fettkether_pittman.htm

http://www.womenkickboxing.com/male_femalebouts.htm

Elmont vs. Philemon

http://www.killer-queen.nl/video.html#

__________________
http://www.dirttime.org

http://morewomeninmma.blogspot.com

Garland

I copied this off a powerpoint for one of my gender studies/ cognitive/ neuro classes.


The background
"Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S. & E. Careers."


“The biggest, he suggested, was that fewer mothers than fathers are willing to spend 80 hours a week away from their kids. The next reason was that more boys than girls tend to score very high or very low on high-school math tests, producing a similar average but a higher proportion of scores in the top percentiles, which lead to high-powered academic careers in science and engineering. The third factor was discrimination by universities. Summers said repeatedly that Harvard and other schools should work to eliminate discrimination. But he theorized that it was less a decisive factor than the others, since women were already underrepresented by the time they got to the pool of candidates eligible for top science jobs.” Slate, 2005

THE SCIENCE OF GENDER AND SCIENCE PINKER VS. SPELKEA DEBATE[5.16.2005]  ...on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes.Harvard University • Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative

STEVEN PINKER is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. His research has won prizes from the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and he is the author of six books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, and The Blank Slate.

Grade 12
F take fewer science courses
Score slightly lower on standardized tests
View science more negatively
Less likely to declare science as a major
BUT – if they did enter college with science major, were just as likely to complete BS as male


Faculty, top 50 universities
Faculty Rank & Salary in Science
• more often taught as their primary responsibility,
• less often conducted research as their primary responsibility,
• less often held a first professional degree or PhD,
• more often worked part-time,
• more often had less experience,
• more often were younger, and
• more often were native U.S. citizens.
















“there is a crucial conceptual difference between difference and discrimination. A departure from a 50-50 sex ratio in any profession does not, by itself, imply that we are seeing discrimination, unless the interests and aptitudes of the two groups are equated”.















BUT -
Steele (1997) – Females did worse when they were told the test usually showed gender differences
Rahman, et al. 2003




BUT – difference is smaller when time limit is removed (can’t remember where I read this. Sorry).







Size
M ~9% bigger overall
Little difference when adjusted for body size
More fluid in men, more gray matter in women





Spatial Behaviour (Voles, Cowbirds)
the hippocampus, a part of the brain important for spatial ability (mapping), shows sexual dimorphism in size, correlated with sex differences in behaviour and ecological pressures
in cowbirds, a parasitic species, females need to remember the location of host nests in which to lay their eggs, whereas males simply need to follow females
female cowbirds have larger hippocampi than males (David Sherry, Univ of Western Ontario)




in pine voles, males and females form a pair bond (monogamous), and both need to cover the same home range to feed and look after offspring
versus meadow voles, in which males mate with many females, and range much more widely
Lucy Jacobs (McMaster Univ) showed that in meadow voles, there is significant sexual dimorphism in the hippocampus and in maze-solving ability (males better), whereas in pine voles, males and females do equally well
Voles - Gaulin & Fitzgerald 1989
-polygynous meadow voles show sex differences in home range size (males range farther than females) and males also perform better on mazes
-steroid mediated: voles trapped in winter (low androgen levels) do more poorly on maze tests than voles trapped in spring (high androgen levels)


Other animals
Rats - Williams et al 1990
-radial arm maze learning (test of speed at finding all baited arms)
-for adults, males learn faster than females and sex differences are influenced by early hormones:
E.g. Normal male rats (adults) and female adults who were given extra estrogen (E) as pups before day 10 learned task faster and performed better than control (unmanipulated) female adults, or male adults who were castrated as 1-day-old pups
-

steroids act on hippocampus, possibly to increase neuron growth (neurogenesis)
-but sexes differ in use of cues too:
females use both geometry (angle & shape of room) and landmarks to remember which arms they have visited, whereas males use only geometry
-thus female “slowness” in maze may reflect use of additional, “inappropriate” cues, whereas males are more directed
-reflects a general sex difference in response to test situations in rats - females more exploratory than males


The authors tested 90 rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) on a task of spatial memory, the spatial Delayed Recognition Span Test. The results showed that performance declined significantly with age, males had greater scores than females, and the rate of apparent decline with age was greater in males than in females. Both working and reference memory declined with age, but only working memory showed sex differences. The authors compared these data with that of 22 monkeys who were trained on a simpler version of the task before formal testing. Training had no effect on males but dramatically improved working memory in young females. The results confirm a male advantage in spatial working memory at a young age and confirm a greater decline with age in males than in females. It is important to note that prior training completely reverses the deficits of young females.


Early differences?
One DAY old females look longer at a picture of a face over their crib; boys look longer at a mechanical mobile
One-year-old girls spend more time looking at their mothers than boys of the same age do
One year old girls look longer at a film of faces; boys look longer at a film of cars
By age two, boys show more interest in cars, guns, blocks, etc
In pre-industrial societies, boys draw pictures of tools, vehicles, etc





8. Prenatal Sex Hormones


http://www.princeton.edu/~psych315/pics.html

Genetic Variation
difference in genomes between two people of visibly different races is one-hundredth of 1 percent
Difference between sexes is 1 percent to 2 percent—"the same as the difference between a man and a male chimpanzee or between a woman and a female chimpanzee” (Page, 2003)
in some species 15 percent of genes were more active in one sex than in the other

Dewing, et. al., 2003
Using microarrays and RT-PCR, we have detected over 50 candidate genes for differential sex expression, and confirmed at least seven murine genes which show differential expression between the developing brains of male and female mice at stage 10.5 days post coitum (dpc), before any gonadal hormone influence. The identification of genes differentially expressed between male and female brains prior to gonadal formation suggests that genetic factors may have roles in influencing brain sexual differentiation.





ELIZABETH S. SPELKE is Berkman Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, where she is Co-Director of the Mind, Brain, and Behavior Initiative. A member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, she is cited by Time Magazine as one of America's Best in Science and Medicine.









1) Representing small, exact numbers
2) Discriminating large, approximate numerical magnitudes
3) Verbal counting
4) Geometry of surrounding layout
5) Geometry of landmarks






“when students have the choice of solving a problem by plugging in a formula or by doing Ven diagram-like spatial reasoning, girls tend to do the first and boys tend to do the second.”




“If we choose engineering, we will conclude that men are better at math because more men become engineers. If we choose accounting, we will think that women are better at math because more women become accountants: 57% of current accountants are women.”












If Galileo had been switched at birth with some baby from the Pisan ghetto, the baby raised by Galileo's parents would not likely have ended up teaching us that the language of physics is mathematics. I think that Galileo's genes had something to do with his achievement, but so did Galileo's cultural and social environment: his nurturing.

Genius requires huge amounts of both. If, in that baby switch, Galileo had found himself growing up in the Pisan ghetto, I bet he wouldn't have ended up being the example in this discussion today either. So yes, there are reasons for this statistical bias. But I think we want to step back and ask, why is it that almost all Nobel Prize winners are men today? The answer to that question may be the same reason why all the great scientists in Florence were Christian.



At many points in history, arbitrary barriers against the entry of genders and races and ethnic groups to various professions were removed. And as soon as the barrier was removed, far from the statistical underrepresentation perpetuating or exaggerating itself, as you predict, the floodgates open, and the formerly underrepresented people reaches some natural level. It's the Jackie Robinson effect in baseball.

In the case of gender and science, remember what our datum is. It's not that women are under-represented in professions in general or in the sciences in general: in many professions women are perfectly well represented, such as being a veterinarian, in which the majority of recent graduates are women by a long shot. If you go back fifty years or a hundred years, there would have been virtually no veterinarians who were women. That underrepresentation did not perpetuate itself via the positive feedback loop that you allude to.


SPELKE: I'm glad you brought up the case of the basketball and baseball players. I think it's interesting to ask, what distinguishes these cases, where you remove the overt discrimination and within a very short period of time the differential disappears, from other cases, where you remove the overt discrimination and the covert discrimination continues? In the athletic cases where discrimination disappears quickly, there are clear, objective measures of success. Whatever people think about the capacities of a black player, if he is hitting the ball out of the park, he is going to get credit for a home run. That is not the case in science.

In science, the judgments are subjective, every step of the way. Who's really talented? Who deserves bigger lab space? Who should get the next fellowship? Who should get promoted to tenure? These decisions are not based on clear and objective criteria. These are the cases where you see discrimination persisting.



PINKER: But that makes the wrong prediction: the harder the science, the greater the participation of women! We find exactly the opposite: it's the most subjective fields within academia — the social sciences, the humanities, the helping professions — that have the greatest representation of women. This follows exactly from the choices that women express in what gives them satisfaction in life. But it goes in the opposite direction to the prediction you made about the role of objective criteria in bringing about gender equity. Surely it's physics, and not, say, sociology, that has the more objective criteria for success.

__________________
homo homini lupus