>>Re this discussion: in many many societies the difference in height and
>>strength of men and women has been probably due less to relative frequency of
>>picking up and more to do with the allocation of food resources within the
>>family; i.e. female members get less to eat (assumption that they *need*
>less) [rest snipped]
>> Lesley
>> Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
>
>>Okay, so why are most women in this, the world's most diverse, culture
>>usually shorter than men, as well as weaker in the upper body?
>
>>-Sean?
>
>a) you don't think there are cultural factors (e.g fear of fatness) which
>might cause inadequate or at least less adequate nutrition of girl children in
>'the world's most diverse culture'?
>b) I'm not denying that there are _also_ other cultural influences.
>c) shorter than which men? Even I, a mere 5ft 1 in female, encounter men who
>are, without being persons of restricted growth, shorter than myself or very
>little taller. Are we really talking about 'most' women and 'usually' shorter,
>or is this just an assumption? What do the actual distributions of height, m &
>f, look like? Is there such an enormous differential? I doubt it. What might
>be the case is that there is in fact a far wider range of variation among men
>(e.g. more likely to be v tall or short).
>Lesley
>Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
Lesley,
As far as I know, men are usually about a third bigger over all and
a third stronger than women in the upper body while women are a third
stronger than men in the lower body. I'll ask a doctor though, and confirm
or refute this.
-Sean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:40 PDT