I was doing a little research, for a story that I eventually intend/hope to write, and I came across this article.

Myth Busters: Women and Upper-Body Strength

I strongly suspect that this article was written for complete dumbasses, although I am not sure if it was written BY a complete dumbass.

Here are some highlights:

"Women generally have far less upper-body strength than men."
"Typically women do not have strong upper bodies."
"These statistics merely illustrate what everyone knows, that women naturally develop less strength than men."

Keep in mind that this is about men compaired to women, and in her very first quoted example, it state that it is speaking generally.

Many people believe that all men, as some sort of single unit, are stronger than women. And reason says that simply isn't true. Men's strength is just as variable as women's. Men, on average, are bigger than women, with a higher lean body mass-to-fat ratio. But women generate the same force per unit of muscle as men. That is, muscle pound to muscle pound, women and men are similar in strength. A strong woman is strong, full stop.

At this point, I'm thinking to myself, so, you're basically telling us that males are not generally stronger than females, because a male's muscle tissue cell is the same as a female's muscle tissue cell.

Another thought was, FUCKING DUH!

Okay.  Someone obviously missed the point.  But I decided to continue reading, hoping that she might salvage it.

Wait a minute (I can hear someone say), aren't we just picking nits now?  What does it matter if technically women's muscles produce the same amount of power, if due to the other factors mentioned above, a woman's body altogether still produces less power, on average, than a man's body altogether?  And if this is true, what's wrong with saying so?

Okay.  So, is the generality wrong or not?  Make up your mind.

I continue reading.  Surely she will start making sense, right?

Moreover, even though muscle mass is cited as a contributing factor of men's strength, the same studies have shown that women build strength the same way men do yet without building as much muscle mass;which is interesting, because if both men and women build strength equally, but only men's muscles build much mass to go with it, to me that suggests that in the end, women's muscles would actually have more power per inch/pound than men's, to do the calculations!

Really?  That's what it suggests to you?  Well, aren't we talking about strength, and not power?  Could you maybe stay focused?

And then the rest of the paragraph....

And as Shameless said, if a strong woman were matched with a man with less muscle (or lesser built muscles), more fat, and less lean body mass, she would in that case definitely not be "the weaker sex".

My first thought is another FUCKING DUH!  So, if you put She-Hulk against PeeWee Herman, She-Hulk would be stronger?  Oh, I'm sorry: a FAT PeeWee Herman.  Let's get this astounding data to the public right away.

And the rest is about the potential phychological impact of misconceptions on females and what choices they might make.  In other words, some dumbasses might believe some crap that defies common sense.

I'll give her that one.  Obama was elected president, after all.

I STILL gave her the benefit of the doubt, and I did a little more research on possible differences between male and female muscles.

I found some information that says female muscle tissue regenerates faster (irrelevant).  Female muscle tissue has greater endurance (irrelevant).  Female muscle tissue is more resistant to tearing (irrelevant).

I see absolutely nothing saying that female muscle tissue can produce more or less strength than male muscle tissue.

Moreover, nothing in this article has shown me that males are not generally stronger than females.

So, what do we get from this article?  Someone with more muscles is stronger than someone with fewer muscles.

Fucking duh.