Are you a feminist?

[dragon wench]

I entirely agree with CE on this issue. I would further add that all too often feminism, particularly in academic communities, denotes radical feminism... the visceral hatred of men and the alleged "patriarchy" that men apparently have constructed.

As far as I'm concerned, replacing a "patriarchy" with a "matriarchy" (the definitions of which are in fact very obscure) solves absolutely nothing. Inequality is still inequality, regardless of who is perpetrating it. Moreover, many such groups perceive heterosexual women as "betrayers to the cause." This is little different to the discrimination often endured by the gay community and imo it should have no place in a democratic society. Of course one could make that statement about many things... *sigh*

And as CE writes, these feminists often advance flaky, unfounded theories rather than focusing upon the real, on-the-ground issues confronted by women everywhere, every day. Further, they have often encouraged notions of some sort of universal sisterhood... somehow assuming that the needs and difficulties of women living in developing nations run parallel to those of middle-class women living in the West. Personally, I believe feminist concepts like this to be utter garbage.

[fable]

I think this true. What I don’t understand is how easily the term has come to take on this meaning. Could it be because such obviously false and easily ridiculed ideas are easier to deal with?

Because of the visibility sought by the radical feminist movement, and the international media's desire for colorful spectacle and highly charged ideas. A radical feminist who shouts about how women are genetically superior to men is going to get a lot more television time than men or women who simply believe in equality. People get their sense of the meaning of words from their cultural context, and television, rightly or wrongly, is the primary method of cultural dispersion.

If equality is sought, then that would appear to be a far better way to phrase it. Feminism as a term, in itself, is a limiting concept, since it ignores a host of similar cultural problems in emphasizing a single one. Are women treated as slaves in rural Iran? Sufis and Gnostics, two of the religious minorities, are treated there as criminals. When their allegiences are known, they are often stoned to death on sight. Is male spousal abuse a problem that needs to be addressed by clinics and support groups? Of course; but in many Western nations, there remains a prejudice against female spousal abuse, which (according to the latest surveys) account for 25% of all such abuse, and there are almost no clinics to deal with this. In short, I think a more comprehensive approach is needed to such cultural shortcomings, rather than one that concentrates on a single beleagured group.

[Weasel]

And here comes Weasel to spoil the fun..

For everyone to be equal, everyone would have to be born the same. To subscribe to the idea a football player 5 feet 10 inches can stand on the line and stop a 6 foot 7 inch player is a dream. Could it happen? yes, but to expect it to happen everytime is asking too much.


I feel it should be more about making the playing field level so all have a chance to compete, no matter sex, race or color.


My mother explained to me once how her height was taken into account at a job interview. Being 5ft 3in. tall she missed the cut off point of 5ft 4in. (This would be..30 something years ago). Was she giving a chance to show she could do the job? Nope. The height ended the interview on the spot.

[Scayde]

Re: And here comes Weasel to spoil the fun..

Originally posted by Weasel
For everyone to be equal, everyone would have to be born the same. To subscribe to the idea a football player 5 feet 10 inches can stand on the line and stop a 6 foot 7 inch player is a dream. Could it happen? yes, but to expect it to happen everytime is asking too much.


I feel it should be more about making the playing field level so all have a chance to compete, no matter sex, race or color.


My mother explained to me once how her height was taken into account at a job interview. Being 5ft 3in. tall she missed the cut off point of 5ft 4in. (This would be..30 something years ago). Was she giving a chance to show she could do the job? Nope. The height ended the interview on the spot.

Lot to be said for just plain ole common sense

BTW, who ever gets to the door first should open it, it's just being nice

[Littiz]

@Tom: you misunderstood me.
In italy a man is supposed to serve one year in the army, at least.
Yet you can also declare you don't want to, for a reason of conscience: in this case, you are supposed
to serve for the same time in socially useful functions of some kind.
Either case, you have to serve your nation for one year.
I do believe that men are more suited (in average) to live as soldiers, but one could easily say:
well, let's force women as well, to work one year at least in social services.
Men would seem really discriminated here.

But after all, women are likely to carry babies in their belly during their lives. It's not a light thing.
I understand some kind of difference in treatment (there are also laws which protect women from losing a job
or part of payment for being pregnant).

My point is, differences between sexes are evident: they somehow cover different roles in a society.
Trying to force "equality" at all costs is senseless, you'd have to negate those differences, and you wouldn't
do justice to anyone in the end.

As for why men usually cover the most high level places... I think this is also due to the fact that men
are more prone to competition. Testosterone, you know
Seriously, women have the same capacities as men in the fields you mentioned, but they often are uninterested
to struggle a whole life to improve their positions, in the same measure men are.
They usually focus on other goals in life, as I said earlier.
This is my impression, at least.

[Scayde]

Seriously? I love it when a guy opens the door for me. I love to get flowers. I can’t lift more than about 60lbs, so I frequently have to ask a man for help with certain things. I can’t play football, and don’t want to, unless it is weekend flag with my friends, and totally not serious. If a fellow wants to buy me a drink, I say sure, usually. I work as a nurse now, and draw the same wage as a man in my field. I have worked as a sign artist for much less, but I had to have help lifting the boards and doing the carpentry, because I was not as strong as the guys, so I was not worth as much to the company as a man would have been in the same job. If I wanted to be a soldier, they would not be able to count on me for the same level of physical strength as the men, so I would not be as well suited. But, as a woman, my body is more compact, with a higher fat ratio, so that would make me better suited for diving or flying.

What I am saying, is that there ARE differences, some for the better, some for the worse, depending on the job being looked at. But the niceties between the sexes are just that, and I would hate to see them go.

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by Enchantress
I'm always polite to people who hold doors open for me. That's just good manners.

Exactly. For example, I hold doors open for men and women both. And I get miffed if someone -- of either gender -- doesn't hold the door for me. It's just incredibly self-centered to let a door slam in someone's face, IMO.

I am a feminist according to this definition: "Feminism is the radical idea that women are people." Can't rememeber who said that, but it's right on.

I'll never forget something that happened in undergrad school. I was taking an acting class and during one of our class discussions one of the guys called me an actress. Then he fell all over himself apologizing for it. This is what modern feminism has done? Kind of akin to the "womyn" thing *gag* *barf*

Unfortunately, as has been brought up in this thread already -- the true idea behind "feminism" has been twisted by femi-Nazis and organizations like NOW. (Sorry if anyone here is a NOW fan, I just don't care for 'em ) I remember reading once that some rabid "feminist" said pregnancy was demeaning to women because the fetus is a parasite that drains a woman's life force. And that sexual activity is victimizing to begin with and all males are sexual predators. Some even carry this to the extreme that women should be lesbians, because if a woman isn't a lesbian she isn't liberated. I mean no offense to anyone here; but this kind of thinking simply isn't true.

Unfortunately though, you see a lot of this in the more violently feminist circles: In order for a woman to be truly free, she has to stay away from men. That kind of garbage is not true feminism.

You also hear a lot of things like, for example, firefighter training has to be "toned down" for women trainees because women (scientific fact) do not have equal upper-body strength to men. (Women's physical strength is located more in the lower body.) I actually saw a TV show on this a few years ago. They were saying that a female firefighter, instead of lifting a person to carry them to safety, has to drag them along the floor instead. People were saying this was actually better because being closer to the floor keeps a person away from the smoke. But as for me, I wouldn't want to get my head banged up bouncing down the stairs, thank you very much. If I saw a female firefighter coming for me, I'd be scared she wouldn't have the strength to get me out of there, that's the honest truth. If a woman can't pass the lifting requirement, it should not be toned down so she can. It's part of the job. If I was taking a math test and I needed to know 689 x 34782 off the top of my head, the teacher would hardly let me do 2 + 2 instead. Preferential treatment is just as bad as discriminatory treatment; because it's still discrimination, just not the popular definition. Now, if she's Ms. Universe and can bench-press 500 pounds, fine

Then you have that wonderful story of the girl who wanted to play (American) football on her high school team. The school wouldn't let her play because of the risk of injury, so she and her parents put up a major stink, sued the school over equal rights and blah blah blah. Well, the school was pretty much forced to let her play. And guess what. First game, she was rushed to the hospital with some broken bones. Then she threatened to sue the school again for negligence or something. Whaddya know.

Also, a funny thing has happened in recent years. Women who choose to stay home and raise their children are looked down upon. Talk shows now have to have self-affirmation episodes for these women, in which the role of "stay-at-home Mom" is lauded. This is just as bad as the days when women were forced to stay home. Nowadays, if a woman doesn't have a full-time career, she is somehow viewed as "primitive" or conservative or something. It should be her choice.

This kind of nonsense gives feminism a bad name, because it's pretty much all anyone ever hears, because it's what makes the news and provides scandalous and controversial reading in magazines.

So what is feminism really? IMO, it's about treating women like human beings -- not preferential treatment, but equal treatment. That doesn't mean letting girls on the football team. It means equal pay for equal work (which we still have yet to achieve; for just one example, waiters make more tips than waitresses), equal representation under the law (including voting, which we've got ), equal (NOT PREFERENTIAL) access to education and employment (not meaning that certain jobs are toned-down to allow women to have the same jobs as men, i.e. firefighter; but having the right to be employed in a job/career of choice), the choice of having a full-time career or staying at home with children, equal rights to the freedoms of the Constitution like free speech, freedom of worship, etc.; the right to be respected when they discuss and debate and speak their minds in private conversations -- things like that. Lots of this stuff is about personal attitude, not laws; and unfortunately attitudes are the hardest things to change.

As far as women in the arts, etc. are concerned -- there is still a big culture gap there. It's just based in the way people think. Probably because the history books are all written by men. Until we get more female perspectives on history, people will grow up thinking only men made any contributions to the world.

[Weasel]

To be clear with my previous post, somethings will be limited to some people because of their size. Should this person be automatically denied the chance to try, no. Should this person be expected to meet the same standard of work as the others, yes.

If not then the equal has gone right out the window. (Which I believe there is not a equal to have in the first place. Some people have the knack of being quick thinkers, some better with hands on work.)

[fable]

There are women with greater upper body strength than most men, and I have no problem with them serving as firefighters. Typically, however, stereotypes about women have prevented them from occupying jobs that they are certainly well-equiped to handle. They make just as good police officers as men, for example. They are just as logical, too, quite as capable of making fine attorneys or corporate sharks.

Like Weasel, I would object to anybody serving in a position, regardless of sex, race, religion, whatever, who is simply unqualified to take it on. Underscore and italicize that if by in doing so, that put at risk someone else's life. That isn't equality before the law, IMO. The intent may be good, but the results are irresponsible.

[Chanak]

@Scayde, Littiz, fable, Weasel: Excellent posts.

Interesting topic, Tom.

In answer to the question: no, I'm not a feminist. I'm an equal opportunist.

I think other posters have stated very well the trap of falling into particular mindsets and modes of thinking/viewing things. At the time of it's inception, feminism as we came to know it indeed served a purpose - the opening of doors for women to have a chance to fulfill their dreams/desires in society, free of a social yoke and stigma that prevented them from doing so before. To this end, many brave and courageous women - and men sympathetic to their plight - fought against established norms in their efforts to allow women to inhabit the place they so richly deserve in our society. No door should be closed to anyone, regardless of their sex, skin color, or religious preference. In this regard, I feel that Women's Sufferage (to use my own country's history as an example) not only served to aid the cause of women in our society, but it also set the stage and paved the way for the American Civil Rights Movement later on in the 20th century, where racial minorities struggled to remove similar barriers that prevented them from having an equal opportunity.

Can "equal opportunity" address the differences that exist between the genders? Common sense says no...and the same common sense says that differences do indeed exist. These differences find their origins in our genes...and I, for one, not only recognize the differences between the genders, but also appreciate and admire them.

I draw upon my own experience in the military to illustrate that important differences do indeed exist between men and women, and the majority have little to do with attitude or social taboos. The types of physical activity required by most combat jobs in the US Army, for example, require a certain level of upper body strength and general physical stamina that physical architecture and testosterone seems to have equipped males admirably for. Army physicians and researchers, understanding this by years of observation on the battlefield - and the careful monitoring of troops in training - know that in general, most females cannot meet the same physical requirements, and withstand the same abuse, that males can endure. I witnessed this firsthand in Basic Training and AIT (Advanced Individual Training), where our training company, C-63-363, Ft. Gordon, Ga., had a male platoon, and a female platoon. Both were subjected to the same road marches, long distance runs, and daily calesthenics regimen.

After approximately two weeks into AIT, I noticed a most curious phenomenon as both of our platoons stood in a company formation for inspection by the company commander and First Sergeant. Looking around (I was being very slick about it, if caught I would be chewed up and spit out by the First Sergeant, not to mention being roasted alive afterwards by my Platoon Sergeant ), I noticed that out of the roughly 50 women or so in the female platoon, over a third were on crutches, wore casts, or were wearing tennis shoes in uniform (combat boots can aggravate injuries to the foot; soldiers are permitted to wear loose-fitting footwear while they recover with authorization of Medical officer). Out of my own platoon (we had about 60 men in ours), two men were incapacitated in a similar manner - one soldier had fallen and suffered a Class III sprain to his ankle on a road march, and was using a crutch and wore a splint on his afflicted ankle; another had twisted his knee on a long distance run, and was using crutches. In all, most of us in the male platoon had suffered mishaps of one type or another in the course of our training, but we were able to endure it without much consequence to our bodies. I sprained my ankle several times in training, but never needed attention for it. I just "sucked it up and drove on." Usually, my injury healed overnight as I slept - a little stiff the next day, but serviceable nonetheless.

I speak in the realm of averages, and generalities here. I knew of some females in the military who could do it...their particular body type was well suited for the rigors demanded by combat. These women could do push-ups right along with the men, and possessed a similar sort of upper body strength that made lifting 100 lbs. repeatedly a reality for them. It is because of this...and my belief that no doors should be closed to anyone - that I feel women who wish to serve in combat should be given the chance to try to qualify for a combat position. If a female soldier can tote an 80 lb. rucksack - while carrying a fully loaded weapon, dressed in full battle gear - on a 25 mile roadmarch along with the rest of the grunts in her company without being incapacitated, then hoo-ah!, she has earned the right to do so. Just so you know, any male soldier who can't meet the standards required of an infantryman in the US Army isn't permitted to be an infantryman. The standards apply in all cases. And there are men who can't.

In many ways, feminism seeks to deny that differences between the genders exist...or as fable pointed out so well, somehow seeks to portray the female gender as being intrinsically superior to the male gender. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses...like Littiz said, women in general make better violinists, while men seem to excel at guitar playing. This has to do with physiology, as I've literally tried my hand at both, and found I enjoyed playing the guitar more (and also was better at it ).

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
I am a feminist according to this definition: "Feminism is the radical idea that women are people." Can't rememeber who said that, but it's right on.

My limited travel (NONE ) to different parts of the world causes me to not understand where a women is not a person. I do realize women in other parts of the world do live by a different standard than most in the Western world.

Must be the way I was raised, I can't look at a person and decide by what sex they are, how they will work. I don't see a person with a flat tire and decide on their sex if I should stop and give them any help. (My wife hates for me to do this, thinks I will be killed one day....still I persist. )

[Gwalchmai]

Originally posted by fable
There are women with greater upper body strength than most men

This brings to mind an interesting topical story I recently saw here.

Here's a quote (emphasis added)

"I heard a loud bang and the jet rolled fairly violently to the left, and I knew immediately that I had been hit," she said. "I think the first thing was just trying to regain control of the aircraft. also thought that there was no way I wanted to eject over Baghdad."

Her plane had been strafed by anti-aircraft bullets. It was on fire, its hydraulic system knocked out.

"Bino," her wing man and commander, flying his A-10 Warthog next to hers, wondered whether K.C. should eject. "She had the option [of bailing out] the whole time," he said. "She figured the plane was flying well enough. She told me she could handle it. I got to take her word for it. She is a good pilot."

K.C. knew she would have to land the plane manually, a maneuver A-10 pilots never train for.

"But I knew I was going to do it this time," K.C. said.

Although landing the A-10 manually without hydraulics requires great physical strength, K.C. managed to nurse the jet back to her base in Kuwait for a perfect landing.

"Besides the engineers who did the first tests at the beginning of the flight of the A-10, she is the only one who has ever landed in the manual reversion mode that didn't destroy the airplane," said Bino, whose real name is Lt. Col. Rick Turner, the commander of the 75th Squadron. The "Fighting Tigers" fly the Warthog.

[Aegis]

I personally don't believe in any '-ism' aside from Communism. In general, an ism is a bad thing, and one should not put their faith or time into many of these ism's. One should believe in themself.

[RandomThug]

Alright ferris

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by fable
There are women with greater upper body strength than most men, and I have no problem with them serving as firefighters. Typically, however, stereotypes about women have prevented them from occupying jobs that they are certainly well-equiped to handle. They make just as good police officers as men, for example. They are just as logical, too, quite as capable of making fine attorneys or corporate sharks.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I said. I didn't mean to imply that a woman can't be a good firefighter or whatever; or that women should be automatically banned from these jobs. I said that in general, for the most part, women's upper-body strength does not equal that of men. I'm not offended by this biological discrepancy, and I dont' consider it discriminatory. What I did say though, is that if a woman does possess the requisite strength to pass the training and do the job (and you are right, there are many women who do), fine. Good. She should be able to get the job. However, toning the requirements down so that women who do not possess the requisite strength can get the jobs, just because they are women, should not be done. That is what I meant

[Aegis]

Originally posted by RandomThug
Alright ferris

Hey, can't argue a good thing

[Chanak]

Controversy time - it was bound to happen. @fable and other mods: I'm going to try to deal with this issue in a very sensitive manner, but if I miss the mark, or if you feel my treatment of this particular issue is inappropriate to begin with, please let me know.

No discussion of women in the military, for me, would be complete without a taste of cold, hard reality. Essentially, I wax the most verbose on military issues since this general topic represents a mixture of personal experience/scholarly interest on my part. I was raised a military dependent, was interested in the study of military matters my entire life, and ended up becoming a soldier myself when I turned 19.

Let me preface my post with the following statement: the American military has, for over two centuries, been primarily a male fraternity. It is my belief that this owes to our style of life and particular culture in general...apart from a civil war, Americans have enjoyed a very real security within our borders that never saw the necessity of women, and even children, taking up arms. I would go so far as to say this also holds true for many European nations as well, in particular the United Kingdom, the primary parent nation of the United States of America. Most of our military traditions stem from established British traditions themselves, since most of the first American military officers in the Continental Army were once British military officers themselves. George Washington was formerly a British colonel. It was really a case of fighting against your former superiors.

With that in mind, US military officials are very aware of the impact that the inclusion of females in military service has had on a traditonally male sphere of pursuit in our country. This is something that bears up to facts and pyschological observation, and the overriding reality that men and women are invariably attracted to one another. Perhaps I need not explain why...LOL, we all know the reasons why...and in situations which demand the upmost discipline and concentration, such as combat, distractions can prove to be fatal to both personnel and the mission. Why is this? Well, the fact is, the average soldier, male and female, at this time, is still programmed with a set of morals and social norms that makes the presence of a member of the opposite gender - in particular, one that said soldier feels a physical attraction to - most distracting. In ordinary, day to day circumstances, this doesn't present a problem to military discipline and morale. However, as I saw in Basic Training and AIT, extreme conditions can indeed place males and females in rather complex situations that most certainly present a danger to the mission. An example:

Each Sunday (or Saturday) in Basic Training, all trainees were released from duty during certain hours to attend religious worship services on base if they so desired. During these services, male and female trainees were permitted to mingle freely...ahem...need I say why most attended these services? (how many atheists and agnostics I knew in my platoon who suddenly became "religious" on Sundays... ) And need I say what certain trainees would engage in, contrary to their orders? Pregnancy during training is a very large setback to the military, and to female soldiers in general. The sorts of physical and emotional stress a female trainee must undergo during her training can be very detrimental to her pregancy, and damaging to the developing fetus...possibly resulting in miscarriage. It is for this reason that pregnancy during training periods is against military regulations.

This sort of sexual tension and angst was recognized by the developers of training doctrine and procedure. I saw it myself, on the weekends especially. It was why male and female trainees were segregated and housed in separate facilites. There were a number of other events that I will not go into detail here....but hopefully you see my point.

Idealism has it's place...it is wonderful, and fuels the vision of a civilization. However, idealism that does not take into account reality is, in my opinion, a pipe dream. Am I the only one to notice a very striking irony here? In general, Western society has set the standard for equal opportunity amongst the sexes...yet their military forces are a striking contrast to their civilian counterparts. On the other hand, in other parts of the world, the female gender is indeed very restricted and limited, often brutally oppressed, economically and socially. Yet, in these societies, where warfare occurs on nearly a daily basis in every area of their lives, women are just as likely to fight alongside men. I think this issue has everything to do with cultural programming and practical, day to day living.

[Der-draigen]

Awesome post, Chanak, very well-stated.

[dragon wench]

Hmmm...
I think that much of this discussion ultimately boils down to how things are valued and it also touches on the nature/nurture debate. I feel somewhat out of my area here, but I would say that in general women and men do possess some physical and psychological differences. For example, there are indeed women out there who are exceptionally strong, stronger than many men, but I do think this is more the exception than the rule.

Conversely, there are some areas in which women are more adept than men. Historically, for example, women were usually placed to receive news of incoming casualties during wars because they were better able to handle it emotionally. I do not know what happens now though, maybe Chanak might be able to offer some insights here?

Nonetheless, I do feel this is very perilous turf, because it ventures near biological determinism.... And in addition to being scientifically flawed, to say the least, it has been used to justify some appallling inequities.

While I do believe that women are capable of excelling in most of the areas commonly associated with men, I think that what needs to be considered is *importance*. Why should realms traditionally dominated by women be viewed as less significant? Further, if a woman actually wants to occupy a more "traditional" role, than fine, but the domestic work she carries out should be viewed as equally valuable to that of her male counterpart. In such situations we should see men and women as two equal, and complimentary, halves of a whole.

[Chanak]

@DD: Thanks. I enjoyed your contributions as well.

Very well put, @DW. I think we often make the mistake of judging the past by the values we possess now, oblivious that at the time, such values/thoughts had yet to exist...

In many ancient cultures, the wife (or first wife, if the society was polygamist) was the Mistress of her household, and ruled her domain much as her husband ruled his own. She managed the servants if her husband was wealthy, and was the "boss." Women excel at certain management/prioritizing functions...and as I have tried my hand at being "Mr. Mom" before, I will say that the now generally frowned upon occupation of "mother and housewife" is in it's own way fraught with as much stress and peril as the world of work was for the man. Erm....I can change a diaper right along with the best of 'em, but on many occasions I was forced to find the nearest female for support when the little tyke was inconsolable.

Just as well...ummm..sometimes my choice for meals often met with the disapproval of Mom. I didn't find a thing wrong with chocolate cake being on the menu in the mornings, but Mom sure did. Okay, so I acquiesced and followed Mom's menu suggestions. I only snuck in chocolate cake if they agreed to be quiet about it.

In fact, I will go out on a limb here and state that it is my belief that, generally speaking, a female is better suited mentally and physically to handle the overwhelming job of nurturing children and managing a household than a male is. Goodness gracious, a woman is, after all, designed to nourish a child by virtue of her own...physical attributes. It follows that she might also be best "wired" psychologically to provide the all-important source of emotional stability a child needs in their infancy and youth. In a similar vein, I believe at a certain point in their development, a child needs a male figure in their life to fulfill the inherent need for a father. Sounds old-fashioned, perhaps, but I offer no apologies for that concept.

Conversely, there are some areas in which women are more adept than men. Historically, for example, women were usually placed to receive news of incoming casualties during wars because they were better able to handle it emotionally. I do not know what happens now though, maybe Chanak might be able to offer some insights here?

It is difficult to explain, since I have not delved too far into this phenomenon...but in some intrinsic fashion, a woman is generally able to handle emotional stress more successfully than a man can. The opposite of this is seen in the physical realm, where men can generally withstand more physical stress than a woman can. Exceptions exist where they are true, since we all don't handily fit into a box. The mother is normally informed of her son's death first when such news is delivered from the front, normally by an officer designated for such a task visiting her home, bearing documentation and a letter. It is still done this way, in honor of military tradition. Often these traditions find their roots in remote antiquity...when such differences were well known.

...we should see men and women as two equal, and complimentary, halves of a whole.

Well said, DW, and at the root of the entire issue, IMO.

EDIT: Allow me to explain my comments above as they pertain to the ability to withstand physical abuse. Someone I know very well *cough* Sweetheart *cough* has pointed out the necessity to be specific here, based upon the empirical data her own experience as a nurse has supplied to her...

The physical abuse I speak of deals with the ability to withstand damage from physical trauma, the kind that might incapacitate a human being. This is utterly independent of the ability to withstand pain...which, in general, I feel females are able to tolerate more of. This has more to do with bone and muscle structure. In the case of pain...it is true. generally speaking, males can be big babies when they hurt. (there is a secret behind this, but I ain't telling. )