Women: the weaker sex.
Ever since I was a child, this phrase rankled me. First of all, are not, I know you are but what am I, I’m rubber and you’re glue, etc. Second of all, why say “weaker” instead of something else, like “gentler” or “peacefuller” or something. Third of all, are not.
Anyway, I’ve been thinking about this a little bit lately, in relation to the whole power in language thing I’ve been talking about. What is “strong”? What is “weak”? Who gets to decide and define these words/concepts? To what advantage? To whose advantage?
Those who like to point out the biological differences between men and women (as if that’s justification for thewidespread social oppression women experience) usually like to point this one out, like it’s a given. Men are stronger than women. Period. Full Stop. Some are a bit more generous and at least point out that men have better upper body strength and women have better lower body strength. But of course, we know what’s valued more highly, even when it’s not said explicitly. Because everything to do with men is valued more highly.
But what is “strong” anyway? It obviously has nothing to do with childbirth (but that wouldn’t be fair to use as a point of comparison, of course, since men can’t do it and we’ll never really know, so they say). And of course there are women out there who are plenty strong, stronger than most men, women who bodybuild and are athletes and things like that. There are women who could kick the ass of just about anyone reading this, male or female. And there are men who are far “weaker” than the “average” woman. But of course, these cases are atypical, so shouldn’t be considered to be counter-examples. We’re talking about the general “truth”, so they say.
Now, regular readers will know that I am obsessed somewhat with social construction theory. So consider this: perhaps women are “weaker” than men because women are socialized to be weaker than men from a very young age. Girls are taught that things like dance and gymnastics are proper ways to express one’s girl-self. Girls are taught that they must keep their movements restricted to avoid opening their legs too far and exposing their private-but-covered-with-underwear va-jay-jays, because girls are dressed quite often in frilly and impractical clothing that they mustn’t ruin. Girls are taught to settle down, don’t be so loud, don’t be so raucous, just sit there quietly, knees together, ankles crossed, hands folded, be demure. Girls are taught that sports are a bit “butchy” and unfeminine. Girls have few female role models to look up to who are professional athletes because not every sport has professional leagues for women or even allow women to participate. Almost all the professional sports teams and leagues are male only, and when women do become wonderful athletes, they don’t get support, they are called derogatory names before a national audience to shame them. Girls are taught not to eat too much, and in families, usually see their fathers and brothers getting larger portions (particularly of meat) than their mothers and sisters. Girls are in a double bind, because they are taught to be concerned about their weight, but also to be restricted in their physical activities, which leaves girls to dieting and eating disorders to keep their weight down – which results in undernourished girls who are, indeed, physically weak.
Then, of course, there’s the whole legacy of ovarian determinism women have to deal with: our wacky hormones make us unpredictable and hysterical and prone to fainting, and our menstrual cycles are controlled by the moon, and what could be crazier than that? Don’t laugh, this was one of the dominant medical discourses that came about around the time of industrialization and caused women to be relegated to the private sphere and not be permitted to participate in public life, after a couple hundred years of agrarian living during which women were pretty heavy labourers and despite the fact that all domestic work fell to women (and we’re not talking about setting up the Roomba and doing some light Swiffer-dusting, we’re talking about carrying huge pots of water for the laundry and scrubbing it by hand, and dragging all the carpets outside to beat them and then dragging them back in again).
So again, what is “strong”? what is “weak”? and how much of it is really biologically driven?
Besides that, if women are really weaker and that is a matter of pure unadulterated biology (although, of course, nothing is unadulterated biology because we always have an interaction of biology and society that transforms the biological through social practice), why should that be a negative thing? Why should (male) strength be more highly valued? Why should it be that “men are strong and women are weak,” instead of “women are not quite as strong”? Why does everything to do with men get higher value, and why does everything have to be “men as a class” compared to “women as a class”?
This is the stuff that drives me: around the bend, as well as to keep on discussing and breaking these false binaries apart. (Sage, how about this as a lesson for your gender and women’s studies class?)
I’ve never understood why “Men are strong, Women are weak” gets brought up in this day and age, anyway.
Except for a few select fields, being strong isn’t something that really matters anymore. How many of us work, say, behind a desk? On a computer? In a retail job punching keys on a register? For most of us, we have very few times when we’d need to deal with being strong, anyway.
And if the average man is stronger than the average woman, what about the ways that the average women beats out men? What about endurance, or balance, or steadyness (is there a better term for the ability to hold a pose without shaking?)
And what about the differences within the set? Even if we agree that the average man is stronger than the average woman, what does that really tell us when we know that the variation within the set “men” is greater than the difference between “average man” and “average woman”?
But, of course, that doesn’t matter when some jackass decides “Women shouldn’t be X, Y, or Z because women are weaker.” Nevermind that most men couldn’t meet the requirments necessary to be a fire-fighter or a fighter-pilot or X, Y, or Z.
Oh, no.
And gods forbid that you notice a situation where the “average woman’s” physical differences would be an advantage, because it’ll come back to the strength thing.
The average woman is smaller framed than a man, and would be a better fit in the cockpit of a tank or a jet? Oh, well… she’s weaker than a man, so no. Also, what happens if she’s captured by the enemy? What then?!
*grumble grumble*
For me, I don’t think about it much because to me, it is just plain a stupid thing to say, so I don’t say it. There are a lot of stupid old cliches and sayings that I don’t say because, well, they are stupid.
To me, they indicate something wrong with the speaker, not with society. Particularly when society generally frowns on such things these days. Good luck getting a job in the white collar world if it gets generally known that you, as a man, called women the “weaker sex.” Or if you are already in that world, good luck avoiding getting fired and, if you own a company, good luck not getting sued for a few million dollars if it gets out that you didn’t fire someone for saying it.
To a great degree, a large portion of the population has moved on and past this. Primarly the population that runs things.
One thing, though. There are certain advantages to being called the weaker sex (when really women are not). It makes one underestimated, which is important in business if you are playing the political games that are inevitable in the halls of power. It is a classic political strategy, actually, to lower expectations in advance of something, like say a political debate, such that even if you do mediocre or poorly, you still “exceed expectations” and improve your political capital.
The smart, shrewd, successful women out there already know this and I’m sure already use this to their advantage. Because in the world of politics, a misperception that makes your political opponents think you are less capable than you are is only an advantage, that will allow you to ambush them because they will be complacent.
Conversely, another tactic is actually to create a perception of a political opponent that they are More capable than they are, for the opposite effect – so when they don’t shine like the best thing since sliced bread, the press will be how it was “disappointing” even if a showing was good.
On a final note, I think when one examines things like you do, looking for all the deep implications of what sometimes are just throwaway cliches, you can find a mirage of meaning where really it was something said out of habit or parroted without much thought and really without any deep implications. Like threads I’ve seen elsewhere analyzing what it means when a man holds open a door for a woman when, in reality, I’m sure in many cases, it is an absentminded thing where they’d hold the door open for anyone behind him.
Ok, enough random thoughts…
I would like to see a better general understanding of statistical reasoning. If people could “get” what it means to say, in statistical terms, that “men are stronger than women” and understand that reasonings about populations don’t translate well into generalizations about individuals, some of these stupid prejudices might die out.
Can I also point out the weasely tactics used by people who would promote such a stupid cliche? When arguing against this illogic, we’re not supposed to mention statistical outliers. You know, like the fact that Jackie Joyner-Kersee could probably kick most mens’ asses because she’s not a “typical” woman. But then to justify the “weaker sex” belief they point to completely atypical situations such as firefighting or the military and then blithely ignore the fact that most men aren’t strong enough to do those things either.
The problem is that “Women aren’t as strong as men” hasn’t gone away. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people say it, or some variation on it. And it exists in many different forms, all of which ultimately come down to “men are better than women.”
In business, people don’t say it in the open very often, but it’s a sentiment that’s there. It creeps out in conversations about how “women don’t succeed at the upper levels because they take time off for children” regardless of whether the women in question have children or even the desire for them. It creeps in when people talk about the wage gap, and someone says “Well, you can’t lump it up to sexism, maybe women just aren’t as good at negotiating pay as men are.” It’s this talk about inherent differences between women and men- women are X, men are Y, and Y is inevitably better.
One thing, though. There are certain advantages to being called the weaker sex (when really women are not). It makes one underestimated, which is important in business if you are playing the political games that are inevitable in the halls of power.
It’s one thing to want people to underestimate you on certain issues. There’s a difference between playing political games to create an advantage for yourself and being viewed as inferior by virtue of your sex. A man playing political games has the benefit of being able to choose to play that game. If I come to work and keep my mouth shut on an issue and pretend not to know that much about it so that when I do speak and show what I know it takes my opposition by surprise, that’s a choice I got to make. When I do speak and show my stuff, I’m likely to be taken seriously, because I’ve shown I know my stuff. When a woman goes into an office and isn’t taken seriously because she’s got a vagina, it’s not her choice to play those games, and even if she proves that she knows her stuff, she’s still likely to be judged based in part on her sex. Look how women political figures are treated- they’re judged by their dress, by their attractiveness, by their children, and, eventually, by what they might actually say.
Thinking Girl
Everything we say do and think originates with biology. But after that truth is said we are social creatures and can defy divert or simply ignore biological urges and instincts and often do.
I will give you your socialization on this issue. Women are taught and yes socialized to be squeemish about raw power. Always a euphamism or a lady like spin on the character assasination. Why? or more to the point how do we change this?
The answer is it is already changing but the pace is way to slow. We should teach our daughters to grab a person by the shoulder and look into their eyes when speaking to a known or trusted person.
First the lie and then socialization to prevent questioning the lie and the repeat the lie, rinse lather, repeat.
My daughter seems to have already absorbed this particular lesson.
“The problem is that “Women aren’t as strong as men” hasn’t gone away.”
To quote every mother I’ve ever known: “A man who thinks women are weak should witness her giving birth. And then give it a go themselves.”
Vera – no thanks – I’d pass out witnessing the actual event, though I was still with my wife when she had her c-section (and have posted about it now on my own blog just this week, actually).
And I’ll never tell my daughter she’s the “weaker” sex.
I suppose now is as good a time as any to de-lurk.
That being said, in the last few years I’ve come to realize how words can be manipulated in negative ways and used against me and others. TG, your questions – “What is “strong”? What is “weak”? Who gets to decide and define these words/concepts? To what advantage? To whose advantage?” – are issues that I have started to become painfully aware of. I find it difficult to articulate how and why this troubles me, because words have suddenly become this slippery slope, and how can I know if what I’m saying is what I mean?
Your post makes me think about how different groups or races attempt to “reclaim” words, to assign them different meanings, to strip them of their ability to hurt. Bitch and cunt are the first two that come to mind. And then other groups take a word that is meant to be positive and empowering – like “feminist” – and essentially turn it into a dirty word, so we get the old, “I’m not a feminist, but…” routine.
As for the strong/weak debate, it’s kind of stupid. I often hear that humans were able to overcome the fact that they are physically weaker than every other creature on the planet and survive anyway due to our brains, our ability to reason. If that quality makes us superior, then the physical strength of men vs. women shouldn’t even be an issue. And yet…
Oh, I didn’t mean that the debate was stupid. That didn’t translate well at all (see what I mean?). I meant that people using stong/weak as an excuse to oppress women is stupid. Debating it is entirely worthy and important.
Way to mess up my first comment… ; )
Actually biology has very little to do with what we say and is difficult to separate from social structure. As I understand it, human speech ability developed by the necessity of communicating with many different people within a social grouping. This is why humans have a highly developed speech centre of the brain, although you wouldn’t think it to hear some of us.
As our social structures became more complex and required better communicating and reasoning ability, the human brain developed better logical reasoning. One theory about this is that because humans began interacting or forming trust-based relationships with humans outside their immediate kin group (we are one of the only species to do so), we required higher reasoning capacity to be able to keep track of who was screwing us and who was on our side. For more information check out the December 2005 issue of the Economist, this subject is really fascinating.
I am just saying all this to point out that human biology and evolution is very difficult/impossible to separate from our social organization, and to even consider “what we say” as rooted in this questionable idea of pure biology does not seem to fit with the theories of why we can even say it in the first place.
As for my brain being able to keep track of who’s been screwing me around, IBTP. Thanks, brain.
I actually had this conversation with my asshole housemate a few months ago.
“So do feminists think that there are some things that boys are better at and some things that girls are better at?”
“All the feminists I know would laugh you out of the room for accusing them of gender essentialism. No, most feminists do not believe that there are some things that men are inherently better at than women, or that women are inherently better at than men.”
“Oh. Because I mean, I’m not saying that, well I guess I am, but I think there are things that men are just better at than women, or vice versa.”
“Like what?”
“I don’t know. Like, strength.”
“Strength.”
“Yeah. Like, most men are inherently stronger than most women.”
“Well yeah, they’re usually bigger, so they have more muscle mass. But some women are stronger than some men. For example, I could beat the shit out of you.”
“I don’t mean like brawling, but like — lifting things.”
“I can lift more than Snowflake.”
“But Snowflake’s a pansy.”
“The point is that strength is not an inherently male characteristic, it’s not a trait specific to the male sex. If it were, all men would be stronger than all women, period.”
The point I wanted to return to was the very type of strength we focused on: physical strength, which is something typically associated with maleness and masculinity. (If it weren’t, Snowflake wouldn’t have had been portrayed as somehow “less male,” i.e. being called a “pansy,” simply for being unable to lift a certain amount of weight.)
But we overlooked other kinds of strength, strengths that tend to be attributed more often to women: spiritual strength, emotional strength. The only time I think I’ve ever heard anybody say “she’s a strong woman” is when it comes to things like loss, as in, “Jane’s father just died and her husband’s out of town on a business trip, but she’s still holding down the fort and taking care of the kids, she’s such a strong woman!” or endurance under emotional duress of some kind.
The very fact that we focused solely on physical strength to the exclusion of other, more “feminine” strengths says something. I’m not sure what, but it’s saying something.
Also, now that I think about it, the fact that we focused on lifting ability says something too, albeit something smaller. After all, you lift with your arms. I don’t know about other women, but I can out-”lift” any male I know if you ask me to use my legs. I moved my ex’s entire computer station by getting under it and manuvering it with my feet.
And, well, that’s not even touching the possibility that women lift less because they’re not expected to lift as much as men, and might not want to anyway so as to avoid appearing stronger than them. It’s that socialisation thing at work again; physically strong women are dykey, unappealing, somehow less “feminine,” especially if they’re stronger than a potential partner. I’ve heard more than a few “Dude, I wouldn’t want to date a chick stronger than me”s in my short life.
In short, what you said.
TG,
I think that “strength” might best be looked at in a different way. We, as Men, are obviously the weaker gender:
(USA – 2003 – per 100,000 people – death rates)
Under Age 1: Male: 777, Female: 619
Age 1-4: Male: 35, Female: 28
Age 5-14: Male: 20, Female: 14
Age 15-19: Male: 92, Female: 39
- Why do we die at higher rates consistently from birth onward as boys?
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/figures/63-Figure-3.gif
Quote: These gender differences in life expectancy lead to inquiries about what older men and women are dying from. In the United States, for those forty-five years old and older, the top two causes of death for both women and men are heart disease and cancer, though the death rates from these diseases are higher for men. At the younger ages (forty-five to sixty-four years old), men have higher death rates for nine of the ten leading causes of death, the exception being cerebrovascular diseases (stroke). It is interesting to note that the death rate for causes with large social-behavioral components, such as accidents, Table 1 Life expectancy at age 60: 1995–2000 SOURCE: The World’s Women 2000: Trends and Statistics. New York: United Nations,
2000. liver disease, HIV infection, and suicide, are two to six times greater for men than women in this age group. For those age sixty-five and older, the leading causes of death are similar for women and men, though men have higher death rates from heart disease, cancer, and pulmonary diseases and women have higher rates from cerebrovascular diseases and Alzheimer’s disease.
http://medicine.jrank.org/pages/687/Gender-Life-expectancy-death-rates.html
Obviously, men traditionally do more “high risk” behaviors such as smoking, drinking, driving vehicles exceedingly fast, etc. which affect our survival. As babies and young children though we also are “weaker” at least in our abilities to survive.
I think that we are “weaker” – fools that we are!
Perhaps in earlier days when women died in childbirth frequently there may have been a “biological” explanation.
Thanks!
There’s some things I can’t do because I have less physical strength than most people (of either sex), so my range of abilities is affected by my lack of strength. But I do believe I have more words at my fingertips than most. That is, I can write exactly what I’m trying to say faster than most of either sex. I don’t struggle with writing; it just comes out.
That is to say, of all the things people might be able to do, I’m above average in some things and below average in others. And so are most people. (I’m granting that there are a few who are amazing at almost everything, and others whose skills are focused entirely around smoking dope and sponging off the folks for decades longer than most.) I don’t actually feel undervalued because of my lack of physical ability because I don’t often hang out where heavy things need lifting. Strength in that sense isn’t particularly lauded by my circle of friends.
But strength in other ways is highly praised: being able to stand up to opposition, having the tenacity to go the distance with a plan in the face of adversity, generally doing the right thing when the wrong thing would be much easier. Courage is what it’s about, really. At work, I don’t actually see these traits generally ascribed more to men. Elsewhere, it makes me nuts.
My guy once insisted that if he gave birth, it just wouldn’t hurt him as much because he’s got greater pain tolerance. Luckily, right after this comment we both got a brutal flu. He lay on the couch groaning, asking me for a bucket to puke in because his body hurt too much to get up and walk to the bathroom. I told him to suck it up as I made dinner for the kids and helped with homework between trips to the can. It is to laugh.
On the Womens Studies course – my boss says we don’t have the numbers to support a new course – and she’s, I think, a bit uncomfortable with the idea of feminism in the schools. But I’m thinking I might try to circumvent her involvement in approving it if I go cross-curricular. I do have enough credits for science to be another teachable subject, but the entire science department is non-feminist (and really odd), so I’m not sure that angle will help much. Time will tell. Otherwise – Ya, it’s a good topic!
DBB: “The smart, shrewd, successful women out there already know this and I’m sure already use this to their advantage. Because in the world of politics, a misperception that makes your political opponents think you are less capable than you are is only an advantage, that will allow you to ambush them because they will be complacent.”
This argument kind of reminds me of Jane Austen heroines and other portrayals of women in Victorian literature. It used to drive me round the bend, a little, that every time a woman character made a political argument she had to preface it with “but prithee, Good Sir, although I am but a poor, feeble woman, and my brain is but the size of a chestnut, a puling chit, perhaps you would be so good as to allow a few trifling words on the matter…etc”
Shrewd women got accused of being manipulative then, and still do. Roy’s right – it’s not a political advantage if your hands are tied to use it.
I think the whole question about how physical strength is measured, and certain types of physical strength are considered BETTER than others, is not only gendered, but ties into ableism too.
Great post! It’s amazing to me how so many people (even feminists) simply go along with the idea that men are naturally stronger than women without taking socialization into account.
I know I always seem to throw out book recommendations, but I’m a total book nerd. So forgive me for being redundant, but this post brought to mind the book, The Stronger Women Get, the More Men Love Football by Mariah Burton Nelson. It discusses in great detail the boys club of sports in our society, and it talks a lot about how women and men are socialized completely differently when it comes to strength and power.
Great post, TG!
I’ve added it to this week’s Feminism Friday round-up at Feminism 101 (yours too, Tracey).
Strength is the big taboo for women, and so unfashionable. This post reminds me that I gotta get my kids back into a martial art (I got a bit disturbed with the macho anecdotes told by their last sensei) – I think I might get us all into some capoeira this time.
I thought about this issue recently when I heard the story of Maud Fontenoy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_Fontenoy
This ‘weak’ person has recently joined the small club of people (5) who did the solitary navigation of the southern seas against the current and winds, without stop or help.
When only two thirds of the Indian ocean remained to cross, her ship’s mast broke. She cut the broken mast, thought of quitting, but then raised the 100Kg boom, made a small mast out of it, and slowly completed the trip.
She’s also rowed across the Atlantic and Pacific, but anyone can do that these days, certainly…
Ask any man who defends the “men strong / women weak” proposition how much of that he would personally do.
Brain – I agree, those kind of Victorian shenanigans are annoying, but I don’t think women are constrained by them anymore – this is not the 19th Century. Not to say that some people don’t still have double standards when it comes to power, but then, when it comes to power games at the high level, usually all bets are off and general trends are irrelevant, because it is a game for the political and economic elite who generally never have to play by the same rules as everyone else anyway.
This is interesting to me because I suddenly have a different perspective on it all. Being married for 20 years & not even really thinking about being strong or having to protect myself & now all of a sudden looking at life as a lone woman, this stuff has become very important.
A weird thing happened that brought all this to mind the other day.
I was talking to some friends of ours. Acually, I had just told a good woman friend that I was getting divorced & was trying to deal with her reaction to that when her husband walked in. He looked at my chest a little bit too long ,long anough to make me uncomfortable, anyway. & I suddenly felt vulnerable & guilty.(yes, guilty even!) I really would not of given it a second thought a few months ago. I might have even been flattered , but I would not have felt vulnerable.
. How should I see myself, now? As part of a weaker sex? Am I now vulnerable to the stronger sex? Do I need to modify my behavior now, to protect myself?
I do not want to think I’m weaker because I’m a woman & I don’t think I want anyone else to see me as weak, either.
I loved this post.
I really did.
I think it was amazing.
It rocked my socks.
(I’m not in a very articulate mood currently.)
Wow.
T’is so true.
And, by the way, why should a woman be considered “brave” when she’s suddenly single…The front page issue of “Hello” magazine, I noticed the other day, had a picture of Kate Middleton (?) and a large headline saying: “BRAVE KATE MOVES ON FROM WILLS” (or something to that affect).
Just love the connotations there.
And, it makes me wonder why a woman is “brave” for being single, while a man is “brave” for doing some courageous war act or something.
Sorry, I’ve gone from being completely inarticulate to rambling about something pretty irrelevant, in an inarticulate fashion. Must be more tired than I think I am.
This made me think of something before I even finished reading the article (going back to, I promise), so if someone else mentioned in the comments (also currently un-read), please bear with me.
I’ve had this thought, and it felt a bit original, so I thought I’d share it while it still felt original.
I believe that the USDA has set unrealistic weight goals as “average” or “normal” based on the assumption that women will have much less muscle mass than men.
Lemme ‘splain.
I am 5′-10″, or almost. I weighed 127 when I was 17 and graduating high school, and I’m up to right around 200 now. During the intervening 11+ years, I’ve been 175 twice.
The first time (age 26) I was inactive, and a size 14, getting close to a size 16.
The second time (age 28) I’d just spent a year in Germany, walking around like crazy (’cause I didn ‘t have a car) and, while I wasn’t particularly athletic, I was almost back into a size 10. (And I’d lost no ‘weight’, although I’d dropped more than a pant size).
What’s my “ideal weight” according to the USDA? Between 140 and 160 lbs.
If I’m not athletic, like I was in HS, then yes, I’d need to be 140 to be a size 10 at my height.
But I was 35 lbs heavier than that, and was almost back into those 10s.
So.
And I have a medium frame. At 140, keeping myself fit like I’m trying to now, I’d have to cut off a leg to compensate for the actual muscle tone I’ve developed *just by walking around a lot*.
Shorter me: Women only conform to what’s ‘normal’ if their muscles are atrophied from lack of use.
It’s a conspiracy, and if this were Twisty’s site, I’d BTP.
Dammit.
Lost my post.
Anyway: TG rocks. So do Sage, Brain, and Sara (no H).
Thanks for your great comments, everyone!!!
I think this kind of topic is important to talk about: breaking down the ideas about our gender constructions in society, simply by looking at the ways in which women have been the oppressed class for far too long and how that has impacted not only our social roles but also even our embodied selves. This feminism isn’t just a bunch of talk; it points out ways in which social interacts with physical/biological and produces differences in both.
Roy – great points!
DBB – jeez. a problem with the speaker, not with society? come on, now. so what, individuals influence society but society doesn’t influence individuals?
I’m with the other commenters who don’t find being considered weak for belonging to a particular social group to be an advantage. It may indeed lead people to underestimate you – but generally, that leads to all sorts of bad things, like a lack of general opportunity.
Well, that’s the point. Stuff gets repeated out of habit in a thoughtless manner, and that’s how this shit gets normalized and considered to be natural. Everything requires analysis. Because while it may not appear to have deep implications, really, it does.
heliobates – yes, very underhanded and sneaky, isn’t it!
Steve – yes, thanks.
Vera – you said it. Women are weaker my ASS! there’s a reason they call it LABOUR!
Chrissy – welcome! thanks for delurking – I’m always happy to have a new voice to engage with. And you didn’t mess up your first comment, don’t be silly!
Excellent point! the whole ‘women being closer to nature while men stand up to and against nature’ thing again. great job!
Rainbow Girl – yeah!
exactly right – biology is never really separate from the social. Biology is transformed through social practice.
Sara no H – love that comment. Thank you for bringing up other forms of “strength” = like endurance, and emotional strength. Psychological strength, spiritual strength are also important, I think, but physical strength always gets the emphasis, because the ruling class gets to define what matters, what counts.
Geo – thanks for those stats! I never thought about that – that women could be considered stronger because we typically live longer – which also feeds back into the emotional strength thing, because women are on average likely to spend 14 years of their life in their twilight years alone.
always good to see you!
Sage – thanks for your comment – showing once again that everything is relative. What does ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ matter when you aren’t in the proper context for those terms to be significant?
too bad about the course; I do like the idea of circumvention via cross-curriculum though! That’s actualyl how my entire G&WS component of my degree is structured: cross-listed classes in various other departments. So, it makes good sense to me. Kepe me posted!
brain – yes, ableism. definitely. Excellent point!!
Also, loving the Jane Austen reference. good one! (did you know that there’s a bio-pic of her life coming out sometime soon? I’m looking forward!)
Tracey – thanks for the comment, and the suggestion! don’t worry, I’m forever doing that too – “have you read….?”
Tigtog – thanks for adding me to the round-up!
I think martial arts are a perfect arena for evening out the playing field in terms of traditional views of strength and weakness. I think it’s rather gender-neutral!
Sophie – thanks for bringing that up, she is an amazing woman! no doubt about how strong she is!
which for some reason reminds me about the woman who was doing research in some remote and very cold and inaccessible during half the year place, like the North Pole, who discovered she had breast cancer and did all her own treatment and lumpectomy.
L>T – I imagine you’ll have all kinds of these little epiphanies and curiosities as you go about redefining yourself as a single independent woman (not that you were dependent before, but you know what I mean… self-sufficient or something). Don’t you dare start thinking of yourself as weaker, or more vulnerable! You’re a POWERHOUSE who is also smart enough to know you have to be conscious of your surroundings and your company as well as resourceful enough to know how to protect yourself physically if need be. got any bear spray? might come in handy, just to keep on hand so you know you have it, to give you a bit more confidence/make you feel less vulnerable. and always go for the nuts!
Amy – thanks!!!
yeah, the whole “brave” deal is pretty weird actually. It’s pathetic that bravery for women means being single in a society where your value is defined by your relation to a man, as wanted and loved and married and desired and owned.
nightgigjo – sorry you lost your post. I looked for it in the spambot but it wasn’t there.
But it doesn’t matter, because: you’re on fire baby! This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about!! great job in finding another perfect example of how women are defined in a certain way, and once the definition is there, social structures slip in to reinforce that definition and keep us all in line like little duckies. loved it!
by the way, yeah, totally. I’ve been working out like a madwoman the past two months, like almost everyday, and I have gained weight. because (altogether now) muscle weighs more than fat.
by the end of the summer, I will be buff and strong. watch me!
The inherent misogyny in the “weaker sex” argument is obvious, and as Sara said it values physical strength more than other strengths and implies that physical strength is what really matters. I think that regarding physical power as of paramount importance is barbarism, and in a civilised society emotional, spiritual or intellectual strength should matter more; history (at least since the Enlightenment) has been about constraining the physical strength of naked power from controlling people. We have been attempting to secure power into the hands of people with intellectual, not physical, strength; though it may not be fully realised yet, history is heading for that direction (e.g. now most people consider a war as essentially evil, but a century ago they didn’t think so). So the “weaker sex” argument about physical strength is looking backwards, and feminism is the future…
Re:
I believe that the USDA has set unrealistic weight goals as “average” or “normal” based on the assumption that women will have much less muscle mass than men.
Actually, they set it to low for men as well. By their standards, most professional athletes in games that play to mass (such as football) are seriously obese.
Friend of mine is trying to loose weight and get into shape, which includes a lot of exercise. His ideal weight is about 35 pounds more than what the USDA says, because he’s going to have a significant amount of muscle when he’s in shape.
At any rate, I agree that in general, yes, the USDA sets it’s sights on inactive people, and should have a disclaimer to that effect.
“Men, strong; women, weak” reminds me of a Dilbert strip form ages back.
Alice is talking to a Scientist who claims that he’s very smart since “scientists invented lots of things”
Alice says “but those were other people, not you!”
Same deal with this. Men might rule the world and be good in sports, but ‘you’ are just as weak and powerless as I am, pal.
[...] Thinking Girl: The Weaker Sex [...]
interesting topic.. I think a lot of it has to do with the types of activities associated with the different sexes.. not so much the physical or emotional strength actually possessed by an individual.. a large part masculinity is based on strength and power, the ability to protect and provide for your family, while activities thought of as feminine are less commonly associated with strength.. by this I mean that weve created symbols and archetypes that portray men as strong and women as not needing to be strong.. a perfect example of this is the use of feminine related terms as deragatory (ie. calling someone a pussy)… this sort of slang is extremely common in our society and I think it is part of the reinforcement for the trend of considering females weaker.. anyone else agree?
also… tigtog, capoeira is a great idea.. I took classes during the time I spent in Brazil and some of the most impressive displays of capoeira I saw were from females.. it is one art form where grace and beauty can easily be intertwined with strength and power for both sexes