As old an argument as this is, I've been hearing plenty about it from shovinistic men, and even women, lately, and I think this really needs to be said. It is widely believed that men are have superior physical capabilities to women. That is a total misconception. Many times I heard people chastised for saying that women are no weaker than men. They are called silly, or dreamers, or much to my surprise, they had even been called socialists. ( Though I have some socialist sympathies, I do not feel that non-sexism has anything to do with socialism.)
In truth, this assertion of women being as strong as men is correct. There are many statistics that will show women to often be physically weaker than men, but I have yet to hear of any significant portion of society to even consider any reason for that statistic other than that women having a biological disadvantage. That is not the reason for those statistics. Anyone who cares to think about the process of evolution can immediately see that a biological disadvantage is evolutionarily impossible. Every biologist knows that, in nature, most of any given individual creature's competition for food, shelter, etc. comes from members of its own species. Men and women, in nature, without technology or civilization, eat the same food, live in the same type of shelters, and are in competition for everything that might be in limited supply. As little as ten thousand years ago, there was no such thing as law, culture, or civilization. Every individual cared for themselves, first and foremost, just as it is with nearly all other animals. If one person were stronger than another, the weaker would starve to death as soon as there is any shortage of food, or be killed as soon as they irritate the stronger person. If one group of people were stronger than another, such as men being stronger than women, then the weaker group would be wiped out, except for any individuals that were strong enough to fight off members of the stronger group. Their children would then all be that strong. The fact that women survived in that time period is proof that they have the same physical abilities. within a single species, evolution forces equality.
I offer another explanation for the statistics that so often are used to say that women are weak. For the bulk of the last 1500 years, the earth has been controlled by two male dominated societies; that of the Caucasian Europeans, and that of the orientals. before about 1500 years ago, there were many female dominated societies, such as the native tribes of South America, and Central Asia. However, since the societies of Europe and Asia happened to emerge dominant, for about 1500 years, women all over the world were trained from birth that they were weaker. This is of course the only way male dominance could continue. They were forced to produce children as young as 12 to 13 years old, all over the world. This, of course, will stunt the growth of any child, as the body can not sustain normal development during puberty and a child at the same time. This meant that women didn't grow much past that age, and women ended up often being smaller than men, which made it even easier to say that they were weaker. After generations of that kind of treatment, most women had genetically adapted to mature faster to allow them to be more mature by the age at which they were forced to have children. Since there is a limit to how much growth can be achieved in a given amount of time, faster maturity means a smaller body. This explains why women are sometimes smaller than men. That effect has dropped dramatically in the last century or so. the average difference in height between men and women at the time of the first U.S. census in 1776 was about 8 inches. In 2006 it was down to about 2 inches. As for women being weaker, that is a function of our society. I many cases girls are trained from birth by their parents to think that women are weaker. In most religious households, they are brought up to believe that women are simply adjuncts to men. If a person truly believes that they are physically weak, they will limit the amount of strength they will be able to acquire and use. Girls are also often less supported in sports and other muscle building activities, giving them little incentive to be strong. As if that weren't enough, men are pushed by society to do all heavy lifting and other muscle building activities for women around them, meaning that women don't ever have an opportunity to build real muscle. If men were subjected to that same oppression, i firmly believe that they would be no stronger that the average woman. Furhtermore, even with thier slightly smaller size, a woman who can put the sexist teachings out of her mind can become as strong as any man.
In all the history of feminism, I am unaware of any unbiased experiment being done to actually determine whether women are weaker or not. The scientific community has as many sexists as any other, and male scientists benefit from patriarchy as much as any other males. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with male scientists in general, but I would be shocked if there weren't those among them working to make women look weak using biased or altogether fake science just as has been done with racism, and other aspects of sexism. There was a time when it had been "scientifically proven" by all German scientists that German people were superior to all others. Most of us find that rediculous. Some day the idea that women are weaker will be just as rediculous to us as that.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who Calls Women "The Weaker Sex".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8701
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
When I hear someone say that women are weaker, I like to say in return that I'd like to see a man deal with 18 hours of labor and then squeeze a baby out of his penis.
"If a person truly believes that they are physically weak, they will limit the amount of strength they will be able to acquire and use."
I agree with all. I believe that science has become very unscientific at times, because it seems so biased. I hate science limiting our roles! All you explain could also be easily explain with that scientific crap they say about men are more smarter then women, and women are more emotional then men. Well thanks to science! women have to believ the that that is true! I eman what can you stand against science when its consider facts. I think all those theories of women being weaker, women being, dumb, overly emotional are just ways to conditon our mind and slave us to that idea until we actually belive is the truth.
"men are pushed by society to do all heavy lifting and other muscle building activities for women around them, meaning that women don't ever have an opportunity to build real muscle." Wouldn't this concept apply to also in that idea that women are less smarter then men. If a woman is taught since she's a little girl that her role is to play with dolls and be girly, and being girly means to not think too much. Then there is the result of women thinking that men are smarter then women. If we don't use we loose it, right? well the brain is also a muscle. And society has pushed us the hardest to not used our physical strengh and mental strengh. They put us roles were we can't fully develop in types of ways.
Andromeda I'm glad somene relazises this trap we've been put in.
Not to be obnoxiously nitpicky or anything but you state:
"For the bulk of the last 1500 years, the earth has been controlled by two male dominated societies; that of the Caucasian Europeans, and that of the orientals"
The word "oriental" is an adjective and should only be used to describe objects or things. "Asian" is also an adjective but is reserved for people. Describing people as "oriental" reinforces their status as objects.
In short, when times are bad, people frequently go share what little to ensure that those they love won't stave, or even just to ensure that the recipients of that altruism will be around to reciprocate at a later date. This has been studied quite extensively over the last century, and isn't exactly a radical notion.
Evidence? In 1860, the average age of menarche was 16.6 years(http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm), and has since dropped as nutrition and general health has improved. I find it hard to believe that, historically, significant numbers of girls were becoming pregnant significantly before this age.Most historians agree that, a few high-profile noble marriages of convenience aside, the average age of marriage in Europe in the Middle Ages was somewhere between 18 and 22, with the first birth coming shortly after that.
Given the amount of research you've done on the rest of your thesis, I'm shocked that you're unaware of the ongoing research in this field (http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full for example). I don't doubt that there is some sexism (most likely subconscious) in these studies, but the data is frankly unambiguous: Human females are, on average (and always have been, regardless of society), smaller and lighter than human males.The difference in size and strength between the sexes, however, is dwarfed by the difference within the sexes.
andromeda and wintermute,
If you scroll past the 16.6 figure on www.mum.org/menarage.htm, you'll see the site's author does NOT agree with the validity of the 16.6 (or 17) figure for 1860. They say:
"According to Tanner, the average age of menarche dropped from about 17 to 12.8 during the period 1830-1962."
"Tanner's data is suspect because he used a small study group in establishing the original age of 17, and then used them to compare with groups elsewhere. Tanner's establishment of the age range for normal development was based on a group of 192 lower-class girls in a children's home, who may have had low-quality care prior to the study.
History shows us another trend:
Early data
Ancient Rome 12-14
Medieval Europe 12-14
Medieval Middle East 12-13
Nineteenth Century
Manchester 1840s
working class women 15.7
upper class women 14.6
U.S.A. late 19th century 12-14
Early 20th Century
USA 1905 14-15.7”
The author goes on to say that earlier menarches are not due to "a modern drop in age of onset, but rather due to a 19th century rise in onset, probably due to nutritional factors.... Part of the problem with Tanner's data is that he based the early estimates (i.e. the age of onset in the 1860s) on small studies done on children in less-than-ideal conditions - orphans, rural laborers, and the like."
The site author concludes "So, we can see that there does appear to be a trend, but it is not as great as Tanner suggested. Research shows that menarche has dropped from 14-15 years to 12-13.
It appears that the case is not that girls are currently developing unusually early, but that 19th-century girls were unusually late, though within normal parameters.”
I'd be interested in seeing where the pre-19th-Century data comes from, but I can hypothetically grant the point.
Still, someone would have to present some pretty solid evidence if they wanted me to believe that the average age at first birth was ever as young as 12 or 13, and Andromeda hasn't even tried to do that.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your analaysis that the imbalance of strength between the sexes can be improved if more women took up strength training and were encouraged to do strength training exercises and build up their strength via these exercises, I really doubt that by doing this that they will be equal in strength to men.
That's like saying that if I train like Michael Phelps, starting from the same age, given all the resources that he had been given, then yes, I too would be winning gold medals like crazy in the Beijing Olympics now. It ignores the fact that nature gave Michael Phelps some advantage/talent that I simply will not have and will never have.
So it is with men and women. By saying that as long as women are socialized to think of strength as important, then they will be equal to men in strength is ignoring the fact that men are often taller and have heavier bones (leading to a sturdier frame) and have 11 times as much testosterone as women, which helps promote muscle growth at puberty (Correct me if I'm wrong, people who read all things biological).
Also, you say that:
I many cases girls are trained from birth by their parents to think that women are weaker. In most religious households, they are brought up to believe that women are simply adjuncts to men. If a person truly believes that they are physically weak, they will limit the amount of strength they will be able to acquire and use. Girls are also often less supported in sports and other muscle building activities, giving them little incentive to be strong. As if that weren't enough, men are pushed by society to do all heavy lifting and other muscle building activities for women around them, meaning that women don't ever have an opportunity to build real muscle. If men were subjected to that same oppression, i firmly believe that they would be no stronger that the average woman.
If these were indeed true, than all the female weightlifters in the Olympics would lift as much as the men. Being 3/4 Chinese and having visited some friends in a training camp, I can assure you that the coaches there are just as demonic on the women as well as the men, all in their lust to win gold. So clearly, no one is saying to these female weightlifters that "hey, you're a woman, you shouldnt be lifting so much weight"....these fantastic women are always trying to lift as much as they can, all in order to win Gold for the motherland.
But yet, in comparison, they still lift a little less weigth than their male counterparts, which would hold true I assume even if you take into account their height/weight difference.
I have read that women's muscles are actually more efficient than a man's, but that in terms of raw power, especially upper body strength, men still win out.
As you have mentioned something that is against the scientifically held belief that on average males are taller/heavier/stronger, than I would think that the onus would on you to show how women starting strength training from a young age will thus nullify the strength difference between men and women later on in life.
I am sure there are many women who are much stronger than I am. No argument here. But it's not about indivuduals, its about the Average man, and the Average woman.
The word "oriental" is an adjective and should only be used to describe objects or things. "Asian" is also an adjective but is reserved for people. Describing people as "oriental" reinforces their status as objects.
I agree here...I thought that particularly stood out in the post, but then again, I'm Asian, so I am rather sensitive to that.
All you explain could also be easily explain with that scientific crap they say about men are more smarter then women, and women are more emotional then men.
Sinful rib, have there been studies that actually show men are smarter than women? I think there was an article once that said on IQ tests, men consistently get 5 points more, but then again, we all know IQ tests don't reasonably measure Intelligence, and 5 points on such a scale could me within the measure of error. In regards to more men being involved in science and other "important" areas of science, I'm sure that is because men have more opportunities due to sexism or are encouraged from birth to take up these professions, and how women often have to deal with taking care of the kids, so they have no time to focus on their careers (Sexism)...and nothing to do with men being any more smarter than women (ie. no one sex is smarter than the other).
There is absolutely no difference between the muscle fibers of men and women. We are all human after all, therefore we all have human muscle tissue. Male and female muscle fibers pack the same force per square inch. The 'difference' lies is in the amount of muscles.
I read a study recently that delved straight into this. They found that when controlled for lean body weight (i.e. just muscle mass; no fat, bone, w/e) women and men were equal in weight lifted, muscle gain, and strength gain. (Sadly, google is refusing to pull the study up again). Men, on average, are stronger than women simply because men on average are larger than women. They simply tend to be taller and women have more body fat (its healthier for us to have more body fat... its for all that childbearing stuff). It is these factors that make men seem stronger, the fact that they are bigger and therefore just have more pound for pound muscle and that women have different levels and spreads of body fat to deal with.
And the sociological influences are not to be underestimated. The same research group went into a study of female perceptions and ease of strength training. It is very sad how much the 'weaker' sex gibberish is pushed into our heads. I know, I've fallen pray to it myself.