Women Better Than Men with a Hammer

Research presented at the Experimental Biology annual meeting reveals that women may be more accurate than men at using a hammer in certain conditions. Christie Nicholson reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

We might think women are not as adept as men at wielding heavy tools, like say, hammers, according to popular stereotypes.

Turns out that women may have a leg up when it comes to hammering in certain situations. This was announced at the recent Experimental Biology annual meeting in Glasgow, Scotland.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Scientists measured the accuracy and force of men and women’s blows to a metal plate. They also tested their hammer style in rooms that were either brightly lit or pitch dark. (Glow-in-the-dark stickers marked the targets.)

Indeed they found that men struck twice as hard as the women. But women were 25 percent more accurate than men in well-lit conditions. Surprisingly both sexes were better than expected at hammering in the dark, although men had an advantage, with about 10 percent higher accuracy.

The researchers theorize that maybe men and women inherently use different strategies, putting more emphasis on either force or accuracy, respectively. But these are preliminary results. They intend to do further studies with larger sample sizes in different conditions.

But for now that old stereotype might need to be retooled.

—Christie Nicholson

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe