Vorpal wrote:How much bigger are men than women, actually? And how much of the heavier is because men are encouraged to develop their muscles, engage in manual labour, play football and rugby, while women are discouraged from doing such things?
Re the book I've read the synopsis and the review posted above, that obviously doesn't make me an expert but I'm not convinced the book sounds like it's making the same arguments you are.
Weight difference is typically 10-15kg, height about 4 inches.
If you assume a that height difference is reflected in width and depth then the weigh difference isn't far off.
As I pointed out though, the difference between the best sportsperson and a mere elite is fractional percentage points. Being merely "very good" wont get you close to being placed.
You don't need a huge advantage to be the best, just a bit is all it takes and exponential laws push more and more people into each fraction drop in performance.
Ten thousand people separate the best male and female 100m sprinter.
There are plenty of female runners, some have run all their lives and get plenty of support and encouragement to be the best. I find it difficult to believe that pretty much every elite woman runner is 10,000+ places behind the men simply because she didn't start early enough, wasn't pushed or was told she couldn't do it.
IMO if what you claimed was true then there'd be enough women around with the determination and drive to have made far bigger inroads than that.