Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Women "make me a sandwich" Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    Care to explain how this is the case?

    On average, men are stronger than women hence they are more suited to lifting.
    Almost no one is the average man or woman. The mean strength of men as a population is higher than the mean strength of women as a population. These means have variances and there exist population distributions of individual strength values for both genders. Picking individuals from a population is in essence a sampling event, and as such, the number of individuals you pick is a sample size. Smaller sample sizes tends to give larger sampling errors i.e. the smaller the sample size, the larger the sampling error, and the less your sample mean reflects the population mean. What this means is that if you were to pick one random man and one random woman then the chances that their individual strength values would be anywhere near the population means for their respective genders is low. What this means is that assuming any one man is stronger than any one woman based solely on gender is far from a sure bet.

    To put this back in context, let's say our summer camp is run on ruthless efficiency and we don't care that everyone is capable of chopping wood or making sandwiches - only the best will do. If you've got a group of men and women at the camp and decide to make all the men chop wood in a manly way and all the women make dainty little sandwiches, you're going to end up with the strongest people chopping wood less frequently than if you were to assign tasks based on who is actually strongest regardless of gender (where you'd end up with the strongest people chopping wood every time). This is because your groups of men and women are very small samples of their populations and are very unlikely to accurately represent the real population means (and more importantly each individual in a group will almost never actually be the mean value of the population).

    If you were even crazier and decided to ask people what they wanted to do in a casual social situation where pretty much everyone will be capable of doing every task rather than assuming things based on gender, you might even have the happiest people chopping wood every time.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by betaglucowhat)
    Almost no one is the average man or woman. The mean strength of men as a population is higher than the mean strength of women as a population. These means have variances and there exist population distributions of individual strength values for both genders. Picking individuals from a population is in essence a sampling event, and as such, the number of individuals you pick is a sample size. Smaller sample sizes tends to give larger sampling errors i.e. the smaller the sample size, the larger the sampling error, and the less your sample mean reflects the population mean. What this means is that if you were to pick one random man and one random woman then the chances that their individual strength values would be anywhere near the population means for their respective genders is low. What this means is that assuming any one man is stronger than any one woman based solely on gender is far from a sure bet.

    To put this back in context, let's say our summer camp is run on ruthless efficiency and we don't care that everyone is capable of chopping wood or making sandwiches - only the best will do. If you've got a group of men and women at the camp and decide to make all the men chop wood in a manly way and all the women make dainty little sandwiches, you're going to end up with the strongest people chopping wood less frequently than if you were to assign tasks based on who is actually strongest regardless of gender (where you'd end up with the strongest people chopping wood every time). This is because your groups of men and women are very small samples of their populations and are very unlikely to accurately represent the real population means (and more importantly each individual in a group will almost never actually be the mean value of the population).

    If you were even crazier and decided to ask people what they wanted to do in a casual social situation where pretty much everyone will be capable of doing every task rather than assuming things based on gender, you might even have the happiest people chopping wood every time.
    So to cut a very long story short, there are more strong men than strong women but some women will be stronger than the mean and some men will be weaker than the mean. The mean is not the only average but the terms "mean" and "average" are pretty much interchangeable in everyday speak so don't tell me I don't know what an average is.

    If you pick a random man and a random woman the man is more likely to be the stronger. You know it and no amount of advanced probability changes that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Feminists have generally heavier periods than none feminists. That is a fact I just guessed.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    Surely a chef would volunteer immediately for cooking? Likewise, a weightlifter for lifting.

    In the absence of any of this information, it's best to assume that lifting would be most suited to those whose bodies look appropriate for it.
    Meaning therefore that splitting based on gender is stupid. It should be on skill.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Meaning therefore that splitting based on gender is stupid. It should be on skill.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They weren't strong at all btw.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    They weren't strong at all btw.
    Who wasn't strong?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    Who wasn't strong?
    The girls couldn't lift the logs at all. They even struggled pulling the kayaks ffs.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    Society has come to the stage where some things are messed up.

    I was in a summer camp and me and some other guys were given a list of tasks that needed doing.

    One of them involved lifting heavy huge logs, naturally as a man who has done this on numerous camps I thought without thinking I should do that along with the other guys.

    The other list included preparing the food like sandwiches etc.
    So I asked one of the girls in the camp if they wanted to do that since the logs were pretty huge and needed cutting, she said "sure" and smiled and I reckon she was flirting because she likes the idea of muscluar guys cutting wood etc, you know what I mean about preference.

    Anyway a few seconds later another girl came over and said
    "how sexist of you, you pig! Just because you are a man don't think we can't do it"

    I was shocked to even say anything at this point, because I wasn't expecting such a response from someone who I didn't even ask to randomly butt in and it's been the harmless accepted norm for thousands of years.

    The other girl said no it's fine I want to, but then the other said "no we need to stand up against men"

    At this point, I said "**** it, i'll make my own sandwich and do the logs if you have such a big problem with it, even though I didn't ask you, and it says so on the list"

    What is it with some of these militant feminist girls and women who hate men so much, I didn't even do anything wrong!

    How can I go about in the future making sure something like this doesn't happen again???
    And don't say do everything, since that list was huge, and I did many things already.

    Edit the title is that more people read it.
    Some girls are over sensitive *****es You should have asked her to do the things on your list to shut her up. That would of made her happy right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    The girls couldn't lift the logs at all. They even struggled pulling the kayaks ffs.
    That's what I thought. Feminist logic crash course 101 : if 1 in a million women can do something the average man can then saying women can't do it makes you misogynist and sexist. You are generalizing and discriminating if one side is one million times more capable of doing something better than the other side.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vee_wuvshugs)
    Some girls are over sensitive *****es You should have asked her to do the things on your list to shut her up. That would of made her happy right?
    Feel like that.

    (Original post by StevieA)
    That's what I thought. Feminist logic crash course 101 : if 1 in a million women can do something the average man can then saying women can't do it makes you misogynist and sexist. You are generalizing and discriminating if one side is one million times more capable of doing something better than the other side.
    How can we stop these feminist radical crazy people?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by betaglucowhat)
    Almost no one is the average man or woman. The mean strength of men as a population is higher than the mean strength of women as a population. These means have variances and there exist population distributions of individual strength values for both genders. Picking individuals from a population is in essence a sampling event, and as such, the number of individuals you pick is a sample size. Smaller sample sizes tends to give larger sampling errors i.e. the smaller the sample size, the larger the sampling error, and the less your sample mean reflects the population mean. What this means is that if you were to pick one random man and one random woman then the chances that their individual strength values would be anywhere near the population means for their respective genders is low. What this means is that assuming any one man is stronger than any one woman based solely on gender is far from a sure bet.

    To put this back in context, let's say our summer camp is run on ruthless efficiency and we don't care that everyone is capable of chopping wood or making sandwiches - only the best will do. If you've got a group of men and women at the camp and decide to make all the men chop wood in a manly way and all the women make dainty little sandwiches, you're going to end up with the strongest people chopping wood less frequently than if you were to assign tasks based on who is actually strongest regardless of gender (where you'd end up with the strongest people chopping wood every time). This is because your groups of men and women are very small samples of their populations and are very unlikely to accurately represent the real population means (and more importantly each individual in a group will almost never actually be the mean value of the population).

    If you were even crazier and decided to ask people what they wanted to do in a casual social situation where pretty much everyone will be capable of doing every task rather than assuming things based on gender, you might even have the happiest people chopping wood every time.
    The latter bolded sentence does not follow from the former bolded statement. In particular, as I'm sure you're aware, if the variances of the two distributions are small relative to the difference in means, then it does actually become a pretty 'sure bet' even with a sample size of 1 each. Allow observation of the people, thus inferring extra information about the characteristic in question, and I'd happily put money on determining whether the man or woman is stronger.

    Last weekend I was sat at one of those picnic-table-benches with a male friend and 3 girls I hadn't met before. We all wanted to move the table out of the shade into the sun. From observation, none of the girls were particularly buff, so my mate and I moved the table of our own accord without asking the girls to compare their strength with us, or if they would prefer to move it instead. Funnily enough, none of them raised any objection to this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I find it interesting that although 99% of feminists hopefully wouldn't argue men are biologically stronger than women, many will kick up a fuss at the resulting consequences of that.

    Luckily the people I work with understand that males are stronger and if there's anything physical that needs doing they ask me to do it.

    This means I get a half day next week to take some boxes of folders to the archive warehouse
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    Feel like that.


    How can we stop these feminist radical crazy people?
    Just let them act they way they do. They 're doing a pretty good job on their own since fewer and fewer women identify as feminists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some of our school staff (almost 100% female) used to come during classes and ask for a few boys to volunteer when something heavy needed to be moved around the school. They never asked for girls or students in general. Would that be considered sexist by modern PC/ feminist logic? Against boys, girls or both? Never heard a girl complain about it though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    Some of our school staff (almost 100% female) used to come during classes and ask for a few boys to volunteer when something heavy needed to be moved around the school. They never asked for girls or students in general. Would that be considered sexist by modern PC/ feminist logic? Against boys, girls or both? Never heard a girl complain about it though.
    Exactly, double standard feminist idiots.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes men are stronger than women but this does not mean women are completely incapable of lifting which many of the guys seem to be implying. It really depends how heavy the logs were, it's wrong to assume to assume just because it's a bit taxing that a woman wouldn't be able to do it. However if you knew the weight was beyond what the average woman could carry then you would have a basis for suggesting that the men do all the lifting.

    That being said, the girl overreacted and to be honest if I can get off doing an easier task I wouldn't ***** about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    Some of our school staff (almost 100% female) used to come during classes and ask for a few boys to volunteer when something heavy needed to be moved around the school. They never asked for girls or students in general. Would that be considered sexist by modern PC/ feminist logic? Against boys, girls or both? Never heard a girl complain about it though.
    (Original post by Nomes89)
    Yes men are stronger than women but this does not mean women are completely incapable of lifting which many of the guys seem to be implying. It really depends how heavy the logs were, it's wrong to assume to assume just because it's a bit taxing that a woman wouldn't be able to do it. However if you knew the weight was beyond what the average woman could carry then you would have a basis for suggesting that the men do all the lifting.

    That being said, the girl overreacted and to be honest if I can get off doing an easier task I wouldn't ***** about it.
    React to the above statement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    React to the above statement.
    PC/feminist logic has nothing to do with it - it is sexist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    From the information I've gathered in this case OP did nothing wrong, he'd seen the women struggling with kayaks and knew how heavy the logs were so made an informed decision that the women would have been better suited to the food prep and the woman was happy to do that.
    This 'we need to stand up to men' thing in this instance is a load of rubbish, the girl in question should have been intelligent enough to see OP was doing the other one a favour.
    There would only be a problem if OP assumed with no prior knowledge that the women was incapable of doing the logs, I myself would have preferred to do the logs because for a girl I'm good at heavy lifting, but since he knew the woman would struggle he was being helpful and trying to make sure jobs were done efficiently.
    OP, if I were you I would have told the crazy lady that she was more than welcome to do the logs if she wanted to be like that then sat back and watched her struggle till she gave up and learned a lesson about suitability for roles, I'm all for fighting sexism but that wasn't you being sexist as far as I can tell.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    The latter bolded sentence does not follow from the former bolded statement. In particular, as I'm sure you're aware, if the variances of the two distributions are small relative to the difference in means, then it does actually become a pretty 'sure bet' even with a sample size of 1 each. Allow observation of the people, thus inferring extra information about the characteristic in question, and I'd happily put money on determining whether the man or woman is stronger.
    This is actually part of what I was arguing; that knowing the difference between the means alone is not enough, precisely because you don't know what the variances are and the level of overlap between the two distributions. I was arguing this against a guy saying that males should always automatically assumed to be stronger because mean male strength is higher than female mean strength. My suggestion was that a better strategy would be to assess people based on how strong they actually are, as you say, as you'd always get it right. Sure enough you'd end up picking more men, but you wouldn't be arbitrarily excluding strong women or including weak men because of the population mean of the gender they belong to.

    Last weekend I was sat at one of those picnic-table-benches with a male friend and 3 girls I hadn't met before. We all wanted to move the table out of the shade into the sun. From observation, none of the girls were particularly buff, so my mate and I moved the table of our own accord without asking the girls to compare their strength with us, or if they would prefer to move it instead. Funnily enough, none of them raised any objection to this.
    Ok. That's not very similar to the situation in the OP or that the other guy that I've forgot the name of was describing, though. I was criticising a situation where, in your case, you would have stood up, told the women to do womanly things while you and the other men moved the benches - even though some of the girls present were stronger than some of the guys present (or perhaps more importantly, were capable of lifting benches even if they weren't as strong as the guys), and wanted to help with moving the benches.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 19, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.