women get +2 to CON?
Returning to the hijack ... I mean fascinating discussion of women's physical capacities…
As I understand it, there is a lot of evidence that women have greater stamina and pain-tolerance than men. I saw a documentary years ago which tried to come up with a meaningful way of describing the pain of childbirth to men. They attached electrodes or brain-scans or whatever to women during childbirth and then tried to find equivalent readings in the male experience. The best they could come up with was to describe childbirth as like a man being kicked in the groin, repeatedly, at ever decreasing intervals, over a period of hours….
Now I question the scientific method of the documentary (and the ethics!) but the point is a good one. Women's primary biological purpose is to do something VERY painful and traumatic and not only survive it, but survive it well enough to go on to care for the product and do it all over again several times.
Studies on endurance and stamina have also shown similar results. As an English relative of mine once said, drop a man and a women into freezing water in a shipwreck and always bet on the woman lasting longer. Apparently that's backed up by survival rates of women and men in shipwrecks, hunger situations, etc, etc...
So, if women have such better stamina, why don't they beat men in marathons? Because they're slower and weaker. Marathons are tests of both speed and endurance.
If you’re going to do physical modifiers for men and women, then by all means give males a +2 to STR, but also give females a +2 to CON.
One of the attempted theoretical explanations for this disparity I've heard is evolutionary. Women, as child bearers, are nature’s “safe bet.” They're built to last and survive and are also given the social skills to make use of others' skills. Men are nature's “wild cards.” Since their reproduction role is relatively minor, they can be expendable. Thus they are the ones doing all the risky behaviours and having the strength to be suited to hunting, defending the cave, etc.
This wild card theory is also often used to explain the different standard deviations of men and women's performance. For example, while men and women have approximately the same mean intelligence (in fact, I think there's evidence that women have a slightly higher mean), women have a much lower standard deviation. There are many more male than female geniuses; but, conversely, there are far more male than female morons. Women are natures safe bets; men are the wild cards.
I don't know wether the theory's right. But it's interesting...
Both approaches are valid.
, I was joking anyway. 
LOL 
