Sometimes the lack of strength can be more of a lack of technique rather than lack of muscles. For something like starting a lawnmower, a strong pull will start all the way from a firmly planted foot and end with the hand whipping backwards quickly and powerfully. If someone instead is just using their shoulder muscles, it’s going to be much harder to pull hard and fast enough. Men can often get away with poor technique since their muscles may be naturally stronger, but women may need to be more precise in order to maximize the strength they do have.
One challenge with trying to achieve good technique is having good core strength and muscle coordination. Weightlifting alone may make muscles stronger, but they won’t necessarily give you good core strength or harmony of coordination between muscles. To gain more full-body strength, do activities which involve strength of the whole body. Some examples of these are pilates, barre, yoga, kickboxing, and core training. These kinds of classes which use body weight with lots of muscles activated at the same time will give you a strong a and stable core which can transfer the strength of the individual muscles to a coordinated motion.
An analogy might be a car with heavy-duty components but they are not bolted together very well. It would be very unstable and wobbly. But if instead you had lighter-duty components bolted together firmly, the car would be stable and drive well. Doing all-over body exercises can be like that. Each individual muscle may not be very big, but all the muscles have trained together so they can provide stability and work as one big muscle.
It’s not a binary choice between not working out (or working out how much junk food you can cram in a single evening), and training in specific ways that will make you look like Popeye or a 'roided-out freak. And weight training, circuit training, resistance training etc are proven ways of increasing bodily strength. In fact, doctors are telling most of the population they should be more physically active. I never heard any warnings about how medium reps might unfortunately leave you “very muscled”. Only how improper exercise technique could result in injuries.
Interesting thread. Just commenting on this one because it’s such a ‘Dad’ thing to do. My father was like that, the closest he could come to giving me a compliment was just like that, “Nice job, I thought you’d do much worse”. Mom was much worse so it didn’t seem so bad.
Also, pull cords on tools can be a pain. I still have inordinate strength, but unfortunately joints that don’t match. Arthritis is rapidly stiffening my body, I can hardly perform the quick pull on those cords anymore (BTW: a series of short quick pulls is how you start those things). So even someone who once looked like the Hulk and could pick up a small horse (I can guess anyone can if it’s small enough, but I was pretty damn strong when I was younger) is now beaten by a lot of simpler tasks. Like walking at the moment, but that’s another story.
I can understand how you feel about this because of all the things not requiring strength that I could never do well.
Your first post didn’t mention anything about income. You stated that women wouldn’t be interested in a very short man. I posted a famous very short man whom lots of women find sexy. In any event Prince didn’t come from a wealthy family.
Like** Broomstick** says, being short is a disadvantage, but it’s not the end of the world. An attractive, kind, empathetic, smart man who is very short can still get interest.
Anyway, this is a hijack, so that’s the last I have to say.
I’m reasonably physically fit, but if can’t do something myself I ask for help. I don’t consider it a sign of weakness at all.
And sometimes I help other people with things they need help with and I don’t see weakness on their part. It’s a benefit of society.
I met David Bowie once, and he was really really short. Still, I would’ve done him in a heartbeat if his wife and a bunch of other people hadn’t been in his bedroom with us. I know other women that felt that way, too. A lot of famous -and famously desirable - men are really short.
These are matters of feelings and you’re entitled to yours, but I think most people feel differently about matters of this sort.
Most people are not all that concerned about what people think of their gender as a whole; they’re concerned about what people think of them personally. And as a result, they have a much bigger issue when they fail at something which is stereotypically associated with their gender, since they’re expected to be good at it, than they do if they fail at something that is associated with the other gender.
Again, everyone is different. But I think most guys would be more embarrassed if they can’t change a tire or jumpstart a car than if they can’t cook or bake, and the opposite applies to most women. And similar for any number of other tasks which are stereotypically associated more with one gender than the other.
The thread as started was specifically about, and for, women who are bothered by feeling physically unable to do things that men are expected to be able to do.
If you want to go try to find statistics about what percentage of women are so bothered, feel free. I expect it varies in various times and places. But I was responding to the thread topic.
Read about stereotype threat. The concept is what we’ve been discussing. It’s been studied; it is reproducible; it’s not something that you can negate as an isolated opinion.
What you’re talking about is gender conformity. Men and women are indeed pressure to conform to gender norms, and when they fail, shame can result. This is not orthogonal to stereotype threat, though. I suspect women are most likely to deal with stereotype threat because female stereotypes so often relate to incompetence and weakness in high status area (can’t do math, too stupid to work machinery, not brave or strong enough for combat, etc), while gender conformity plagues men the most (real men fix tires, real men are leaders, real men mow the grass).
These are not the same thing, based on your link. They appear to go in opposite directions.
Stereotype threat is apparently the idea that “people will think negatively about me based on stereotypes about my group”. The post I commented on discussed the idea that “people will think negatively about my group based on me”.
Because I typically use the first word that comes to mind instead of some other word? Sorry (no, I’m not) if the meaning eludes you but damn.
From the obscure source commonly known as the dictionary:
Stereotype threat and gender conformity can exist side by side (parallel to each other, in other words). They are not in opposition to each other (l.e. orthogonal).
I knew that “orthogonal” meant “at right angles to.” It didn’t make any sense to me in this context. Things that are at right angles aren’t necessarily in conflict. Even knowing that’s what you mean, it’s difficult to parse those sentences. It seems to me what you really mean to say is that they aren’t mutually exclusive. Is that right?
It means what I just explained. They don’t oppose one another. They are independent issues. Having a bad case of one doesn’t mean you can’t have a bad case of the other. Being a 100% gender non-conformist and proud of it doesn’t mean you can’t be a victim of stereotype threat.
If replacing “orthogonal” with “mutual exclusive” clicks better with you, then by means have at it.
I don’t know how you got this interpretation of stereotype threat. The anxiety that people feel when evaluated on something stereotypically charged is not limited to concerns about how they, as individuals, look to others.
There is nothing remotely opposite about that. As you with the face said, it’s quite possible to be concerned both that people will think negatively about oneself and that they’ll think negatively about one’s group.
And let me try putting this in the form of a question: Why did you come into a thread in which women are discussing dealing with being disturbed by a particular problem in order to say (based on no evidence) that you don’t think most women are disturbed by it? What was your point?
It’s extremely common for words in English to have more than one meaning.
Definition 2 at the top of my Google results; or definition 5 here.
