Why are women weaker than men?

From an evolutionary perspective, what is the point in women being physically weaker than men? Wouldn't it be more beneficially for both to be equally strong?

The only thing I can think of is that since women don't need to eat as much as men to survive it would be beneficial if food is scarce.

Please nobody feed the troll above, just ignore it.

I think "strength" should be correlated with particular measurable physiological parameters, such as height, muscular mass, lung capacity, etc... Then perhaps we can compare correctly. (Say: a 5ft tall man and woman with the same lungs and the same muscular mass - who wins a fight? Who runs fastest?)

If you look at the exploits of some female marathon runners you get an idea: they come close to their male counter-parts.

So I'm not entirely convinced that men are physically stronger than women. Men are taller. Yes. They have bigger muscles. Yes. But we need correct criteria for comparison.

I think "strength" should be correlated with particular measurable physiological parameters, such as height, muscular mass, lung capacity, etc... Then perhaps we can compare correctly. (Say: a 5ft tall man and woman with the same lungs and the same muscular mass - who wins a fight? Who runs fastest?)

If you look at the exploits of some female marathon runners you get an idea: they come close to their male counter-parts.

So I'm not entirely convinced that men are physically stronger than women. Men are taller. Yes. They have bigger muscles. Yes. But we need correct criteria for comparison.

Men naturally have more testosterone, likewise women naturally have more estrogen. This is to increase the chances of producing offspring.

As a result of men having more testosterone, they are able to build more muscle/strength easily, which is why men are usually physically stronger.

There is some truth in this. Although, you can't definitively say that men cannot bear the pain of child birth because no man has ever done that. This is sort of related to the age-old comical question of "which hurts more, giving birth or being kicked in the balls".

I think physical strength can be broken down into different categories. Off the top of my head, two categories immediately come to mind: 1. the ability to withstand pain, and 2. the ability to defeat an opponent in battle.

Ability to withstand pain - you would expect women to be better at this, given that they go through menstruation, child birth, menopause etc. As it is solely women who experience these things, their pain threshold is likely to be, on average, higher than men. From this viewpoint, women would appear to be stronger.

Defeat opponents in battle - historically, as women have had the responsibility of child bearing etc., men have had the responsibility of providing for the family. Therefore, providing food required hunting (hence defeating animals), providing shelter possibly meant claiming a piece of land (hence defeating fellow humans) and providing safety possibly meant defeating both animals and humans. This is likely to have given rise to a man's stronger physique and the ability to protect, fight, safe-guard and, thereby, provide.

From this, it seems as though it depends what people mean by "physical strength" - if it is the ability to withstand pain, then women are likely to be better, whereas if it is the ability to protect and defeat opponents, men are likely to be better.

By the way: let's not forget pregnancy and giving birth. Men really suck at giving birth to babies!

Women, on the contrary, stock up on their superior forces and hormones just to grow, nurture and bring a newborn into this world.

Men are losers in this regard: neither do they have the physical strength, nor the guts, nor the brain.

Giving birth requires extreme powers, from all senses, from the entire body.

Men are good at waiving their fists and at running from here to there. But they are not good at coordinating their entire body, to concentrate all its forces, and to finally deliver new life.

No wonder men act like children when their wives are in labor. Many women push their husbands away when giving birth. Husbands are just weak bystanders, they don't have a clue. They're useless.

Also yes women eat less, their calorific needs (on average) are lower.

Can eat more crap and drink more

Although my crummy XY chromosomes will kill me sooner

Ah well ey

On the plus side it means we are less likely to be widowed at old age

Yeah to be honest I think I'd rather die first, I don't deal with loss very well.

Suicide pact?

Mate is you drunk? Not even remotely intelligent post.

"The point" in being physically weaker? Is this either a bad attempt at you being a male feminist, or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?

Evolutionary?

Beneficial? Are you addressing nature (which we certainly can't speak for ), or are you saying it's women's choice to be weaker, so "what's the point" in them doing it? (both quite silly things for you to do)

Also, women eat less now? How have you come to this conclusion?

I'm not trying to be rude, I really just don't see the logic here.


Ok well it's late, mate. Sleep it off.

From an evolutionary perspective, what is the point in women being physically weaker than men? Wouldn't it be more beneficially for both to be equally strong?

The only thing I can think of is that since women don't need to eat as much as men to survive it would be beneficial if food is scarce.

women need to be protected due to the difficulties of human birth, meaning male are required to do all the protecting and providing, an through natural selection etc our bodies evolve to be fit to do the job.

There are some biological reasons for women to be "weak." The female human body has evolved to bare children.It used to be thought that men were "stronger" because of their role in early hunter gather society: Men hunted and the women gathered. This was the accepted theory in Anthropology for a long long time.

We can all speculate, but who knows for sure.

I already told you testosterone contributes to muscle.

I think "strength" should be correlated with particular measurable physiological parameters, such as height, muscular mass, lung capacity, etc... Then perhaps we can compare correctly. (Say: a 5ft tall man and woman with the same lungs and the same muscular mass - who wins a fight? Who runs fastest?)

So I'm not entirely convinced that men are physically stronger than women. Men are taller. Yes. They have bigger muscles. Yes.