That’s not my theory. That’s the data.
One interpretation could be that women were constantly engaged in strenuous endurance activities and so through evolution built up tolerances against exhaustion that at least rivals if not exceeds that of men. And one historical activity that used a lot of stamina and took a lot of tolerance against fatigue was the way in which ancient humans hunted.
That’s not what a theory is, it’s a hypothesis at best, hope that helped.
Women were first allowed to compete in marathons in 1972. In 1972 the men’s record was 2:10:30. The current record is 2:00:35 which is about an 8% difference. Pretty close to the difference between men and women currently.
The first women’s record was 3:40:22 and the current women’s record is 2:11:53.11 which is 40% faster.
Once funding for women’s athletics reaches parity and once girls are encouraged into athletics as much as boys, then we will see if the ladies catch up. So far they’re doing a pretty good job catching up, and you can’t look at one current window in time and say you have the answer, you need to look at trends.
Evidence shows that women have better endurance for long distances. They tend to be less susceptible to fatigue and beyond 195 miles are actually faster than men. Considering humans were better at outlasting their prey and chasing them to exhaustion rather than burst speed, this data indicates that women are at least as capable as men at those tasks if not better.
autistic/non-autistic, asexual/sexual, aromantic/romantic, trans/cis
asexual and aromantic are already based on being the negative, adding another term to reverse that just makes a double negative
Sorry to hear about that it sounds very hard.
It definitely wasn’t as easy as it might have sounded and I was very lucky to have been given a second chance where I was able to focus on these things.
But one of the biggest lessons I have learned along the way is that those people who say give it 100% are not for me. The only way I can get anywhere is to give it 5-10% today and then just keep trying to do 5-10% everyday. Eventually that 5-10% becomes 20, 30, etc. until I get in a nice rhythm whereas if I started by pushing myself to 100% on day one I would never do anything on day two. Not trying to say it’s what’s right for everyone or that it would work for you, but I wish you the best, it’s a hard path.
Routine. I do the same thing at the same time each day with special days where I do the more rare tasks that aren’t daily. It’s great for executive dysfunction because I don’t even have to think about it, when it’s that time I do that thing. It took a while to get here and of course there are bad times where I’m off my routine, but I started slow doing a little bit each day and built to this. It’s crazy to see where I’m at with a lot of difficult tasks vs. where I started and that progress only helps to reinforce the routine.
But joking about and insulting them isn’t going to make anything better, it’s going to drive more impressionable young boys towards people like Tate.
You’re definitely right that society needs to do a better job with this. Calling men toxic and joking about their inadequacy might make the person speaking feel better about themselves but it’s not going to help society at all because that kind of talk is what pushes more and more boys into the arms of the Tate’s of the world.
Women are you going to be a good time to get the latest Flash player is required for video
My nephew has one, it actually works pretty well and we’ve played with it a ton.
You’re the person in the meme
What is your idea of a good meme so we have a frame of reference to compare to
Now you’re on about low pay, what are you even talking about? Changing companies is the best thing for increasing salary and you’re here acting like a child terrified of losing your job… have you ever even worked at a company on salary? You sound like you’re talking about something you are clueless about. Stop being so afraid, go change jobs.
It’s one of the things I’ve bounced off of many times, but each time I come back and give it another shot it gets a bit easier until one day I thought, hey this isn’t as bad as I used to think. Not really a ringing endorsement, but I definitely don’t hate it anymore. I would still rather do as much as I possibly can in Krita though.
He looked at me. And I looked at him. And he looked at me. And I looked at him. And he says what did you want again?
Hmm, I’m not sure how to correctly word my question.
It was really just aimed at the implication in the comment I replied to that if this were true, we should have seen evidence for it in telescopes already. So my question was, what phenomena would we expect to see because of these topological defects that we don’t already see and have attributed to dark matter.
As far as I’m aware (which really isn’t that far tbh) gravitational lensing is explained without needing any new hypotheses. But if dark matter was implicated in it to heighten the effect, that would still be something we have seen in our telescopes which could be explained by this so it still would answer the comment to which I replied as being something we have observed.
Edit: OK I looked it up and yeah dark matter (or another explanation) is required to account for the amount of lensing we see. But still, that’s a thing we have observed so I guess my question would be, does this new idea not account for the same effect? If it does, that should answer the comment I was replying to.
Isn’t the point of this that it explains the phenomena that is commonly attributed to dark matter? Therefore wouldn’t the things we observe that would point to this be the same things that we observe that point to dark matter? I guess the thing I don’t understand is why we would expect to observe something different because of this than what we attribute to dark matter.
I don’t understand any of this so this question isn’t snarky but something I’m actually wondering. How would we be able to see “topological defects” in space with telescopes?
That’s father than I would take it personally