Sometimes the facts of women's history speak for themselves. Did you know that on this day, December 9th, in 1897, pioneering women's rights advocate, Marguerite Durand founded the early feminist newspaper, La Fronde, in Paris? But the real topic for today concerns this age-old question: Are men really physically stronger than women? The answer is "no" but some explanation is required. While women and men merit equal treatment, their anatomies are different. (We mean "biologically born" women and men here.) Women traditionally retain less fibrous muscle mass in their upper bodies than men who are able to build mass in their upper bodies far more quickly. Yet, even with this fact in mind, women may still gain the requisite upper body muscle mass to dead-lift objects just as successfully as men. For both sexes, intense preparation is required and, as many ladies and gentlemen find out through experience, many men are not as strong in terms of their capacity to dead-lift objects as they may appear. Women and men's lower bodies are different too, yet here the skeletal and muscular differences have no direct bearing on strength as it is defined in our cultural mythologies. Insofar as women have denser muscle mass in their pelvis, upper leg and lower leg, it may even be the case the women's ability to hold weight (lifting facilitated by knee bends) may be slightly greater than men's. To accommodate childbirth, a women's pelvis structure is roomier (for example, the pubic arch is a right angle in the female and the ischial spines extend out straight from the ischium in women). Despite these subtle distinctions of strength, the cross-cultural myth of male physical strength persists, even though women' ability to bear great in childbirth must certainly rank them as the strongest of them all. Sometimes the facts of women's history speak for themselves and elicit a chuckle.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Facts: Women as Strong as Men?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10853
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I would love to see some weight lifting statistics.
cross-cultural myth of male physical strength persists, even though women' ability to bear great in childbirth must certainly rank them as the strongest of them all.
You are comparing apples and oranges. How can you compare strength when men don’t even have a womb and thus the ability to give birth? We can compare lifting things because both men and women can lift things, because they both have arms and muscles. Endurance and pain threshold is not the same as Strength. A simple MMORPG can tell you that much.
You might be right in saying that women have a higher pain threshold due to their ability to give birth. But then, since men can’t give birth, the comparison is dodgy. I can just as easily say, get one man to hold a hammer, and then get two willing test specimens, an average man and an average woman, and then get the man with a hammer to hit each of the test specimens with the hammer on their thumbs/jaws/hands using the same amount of strength and see who registers the most pain. See the subjectivity in measuring pain threshold?
And then comes the weightlifting issue.
If women and men really have no differences in physical strength, then why in the Olympics or any other weightlifting competition, do men consistently lift more in both the normal deadlift and the clean and jerk given they fall within the same body weight categories? You can’t say that these women don’t train as hard as their male counterparts….they are Olympic athletes, among the best in the world, no doubt training everyday.
Like Double mentioned above, I’m interested to see any papers or studies showing that men and women have no differences in strength if you can show them to me. From what I’ve read so far, the research seems to point to women having more efficient muscles, ie, more strength for a given size, but men outdo women in raw, brute strength.
Thank you, Timothy. You bring up the largest problem with this argument: its incessant need to equate, analogize, and moreover, its desire to transform the topic into a brutish arms race (or "who's penis is bigger?" contest) that rather demeans the entire point of having different parties.
(In fact, I'd posit that the entire argument is an apotheosis for the limitations of the current liberal feminism paradigm - see Kathy Rudy for further explanation)
Sandor, the article is about comparing "Strength" in both sexes. That's the point. Timothy didn't start the comparison, or the desire to equate--The original poster did. The meaning of strength is debatable--That's all I'm reading from the post, and from Timothy's response.
You know, I sort of figured.
I recommend The Frailty Myth, by Colette Dowling. There's a lot of good research on this topic, and the bibliography of this book is a fabulous resource.
I read half of that book and was pleasantly enlightened. Its interesting to see the possibilities of womens bodies and where they will go in the future. I liked the story of the female baseball player. Everyone thought a female would never be able to throw that fast, but she did it and was taught, trained and conditioned to do it since birth by her father. I'd like to see a socity that does that for its females. Then I bet we'd see bigger stregth abilities.
You must be mistaken, Quantum. I agree with Timothy's point - it's all apple and oranges.
To some extent, yes, the article defends that, but it's largely laced with desire "balance" them, which in itself is questionable, personally, because there's really no need for such a dialogue in the first place. To even attempt to distinguish a difference, even if it is quite simply a matter of mis-attribution, is simply "victory in defeat" - speaking the language of one's enemy, the occurrence when one’s specific message is accepted as a universal ground, even by the enemy.
Surely the point is taken that anatomies are different, so why not stop here? There's no need to decode, to unearth some harmonious balance of strength. And as I mentioned this is rather wonderfully analogous to the private/public problem for anti-liberal feminists (myself included).
At least the author was right about eliciting chuckles.
Wow, it's always amazing to me how freaked out people get when anyone suggests that women can be as strong as men. The knee-jerk reactions are sort of amusing.
I'm not sure why the idea is so threatening, but it's the same reaction you get when you refuse to handle your kids in the gendered fashion that causes so many of the developmental differences between boys and girls. It's the same reaction you get when you dress a baby girl in neutral colors and clothing that is functional so that she can learn to crawl and walk in an unrestricted way, or refuse to take your 4 y/o girl to the park in high-heeled sandals and a dress that restricts her range of motion. It's the same reaction you get when you buy your daughter a skateboard, at her request, and then teach her how to use it. Based on people's reactions, you would think you had bought her an automatic weapon complete with ammo. I guess many people derive a lot of comfort and security from believing that gender differences are rooted in biology, and it's kind of sad that they need this so badly.
No one with basic reasoning faculty would claim that some particular woman can be as strong as some particular man. That much is obvious.
That isn't the claim here though. The question posed by the author was "Are men really physically stronger than women?" This question is posed in the most general way possible. It stands to reason then that the author is talking about men "in general" and physical strength "in general". It is ridiculous to suggest that the average woman is as strong as the average man by any quantifier that the average person would accept as a general measure of "physical strength". The biology here is simply not going to support equality in this realm.
The reason I fight claims like these tooth and nail in a forum like this is because it is so easy to shut down serious conversations about feminism. It is difficult enough to engage skeptical people when one is using strong arguments based on undisputed evidence. Pointing to a claim like this is just a quick way to completely dismantle any credibility that "feminism" in general has with the uninitiated.
I think youre overreacting. Feminism is about challenging the supposed constructs of gender limits. If we didnt have people doing that, women would still be doing 'dance' during gym class while boys got to have all the fun playing touch football, basketball and dodgeball. I'm all for challenging this stuff!
Intersting question!I dont think the poster is claiming that somehow we should take horrible pains about ourselves if for some reason we are physically smaller. The poster is simply doing what avant garde feminists have been doing forever; challenging gender constructs and the supposed limits on our bodies. This is no way inhibits discussion about feminist issues.
Right! I like how Timothy_nakayamas response is so blatantly knee-jerk - and on a feminist site no doubt!
Instead of looking at weight lifting stats (which aren't very real world) I'd like to see how muscular strength compares in men and women of roughly the same weight. Pound for pound, how much stronger are men's upper bodies? I've read that lower body strength is pretty comparable (pound for pound of body weight).
And I'd like to see how the physical development of boys and girls would occur outside of the pervasive effects of being socialized in a gendered way.
A lot of the studies I read for a paper I wrote on this topic examined the differences in the way kids are physically socialized. One of them looked at the way people handle newborn boys vs. girls, and showed that people were more gentle and cuddly with girls, and more rough-and-tumble with the boys from birth. Another one showed that every kid "throws like a girl" at first, but in cultures where this is important the parents of boys spend 3x as much time coaching them on how to handle the ball and throw it. Two years ago a hidden camera study at many, many preschools showed that teachers still reinforce "appropriate" gendered behavior through body language and facial expressions. Whenever the boys engage in loud or boistrous physical activities they receive positive unspoken feedback, but the girls receive negative feedback for the same things (running, jumping, shouting...). However, the girls received a lot of positive unspoken feedback when they sat and played quietly and restricted their range of motion. Another study looked at the effects of girls' clothing on their development, and another one demonstrated that in tests of speed, strength, and flexibility, girls and boys performed in roughly the same way until about 5th grade, when girls began dropping out of sports and expressing a desire to be "feminine," "sexy" and "thin." I think all of this is more significant than people will admit, but it's such a hot topic I just usually leave it alone.
"I guess many people derive a lot of comfort and security from believing that gender differences are rooted in biology, and it's kind of sad that they need this so badly."
Replace "are" with "are not".
We're not talking about some ephemeral concept of minutiae in brain differences that is highly academic and probably inconsequential even if it exists. We are talking about the plainly observable empirical evidence not only from all of human history, but from almost, if not ever species that belongs to the class Mammalia. It's not racist to say that black people produce more dermal melanin than white people. It's not sexist to say that men are inherently larger than women.
OK, whatever. I'm not insecure enough to need that kind of comfort, but if that's how you want to view it, feel free. I recognize that for a lot of people it's easier to interpret everything I say/think/feel/believe/experience/do as being dictated by my uterus. This is, of course, the age-old view of women which is constantly being disproven by science. However, many people still cling to this view, but I don't waste much time on them.
Are you suggesting that I can't support the claim that men are generally physically stronger than women without also supporting the claim that everything you do is basically dictated by your uterus? Or that there is even a correlation between believing those two things?
Yes, there is a connection between biological essentialism and the belief that everything a woman does is dictated by her uterus. And I am not suggesting that you can't support the claim that men are generally physically stronger than women without also supporting the claim that everything you do is basically dictated by your uterus. I was commenting on the hysterical nature of the responses that any discussion of this topic ALWAYS elicits.
You really haven't said anything clear and explicit at all in this conversation, you're just parrying and dancing around related issues and making implicit suggestions without really committing to anything. Lets be clear.
Do you believe, ceteris paribus, that men are stronger than women?
I believe that the question is misleading. From the research I've done, it's clear that women are socially constructed to be physically weak. It also seems clear that women and men are strong in different ways, but the type of strength that a patriarchal culture chooses to emphasize will always be the types that male bodies tend to excel in (sprint vs. endurance, upper body vs. lower body, etc.). I also believe that the methods of comparison are questionable. So it's not really the kind of question that you can answer with a yes or no answer. (Note to hfs, this would be called a "complex question" in the world of logical fallacies). In other words, my answer to the question "Do you believe that men are stronger than women?" is: in what way?
My earlier comment, which caused such an uproar, was kind of flippant and offhand, because I generally avoid engaging in these kinds of discussions based on my past experience. This is a very emotional issue for a lot of people. It's the same reason I avoid discussions of abortion. It's way too emotional and people are very deeply entrenched in their positions and not likely to change. Ironically, even noting that there is an issue that men tend to get emotional about is unacceptable in a patriarchal culture. Because only women get emotional. In fact, on an issue over which women get comparably emotional, their response would most likely be labeled "hormonal." Fortunately, men's responses to issues like this are taken much more seriously than that.
I will continue to search for a question that can be answered with a yes or a no.
If women were not socially constructed to be weaker than men, but were given completely equal treatment from youth, would they be equal to men in terms of the kind of strength that are traditionally emphasized by the patriarchy; mostly testable by the ability to move specified amounts of weight over limited distances using various muscle groups; including both upper body and lower body systems? I will accept a caveat if you think that women have a generally stronger lower body potential than men within the given framework, although I will still disagree with that assessment.
Wow, I'm not sure why it's so important that I answer this question, but here goes. I think that if men and women were not socially constructed in such a radically different way there would be a much smaller difference between them in strength. I also think that their mentalities would be very different, which is a huge factor. Women are taught not to use their bodies to their full capacity and so have very little physical confidence in general. This point about social construction is a big one, and should not be casually brushed to the side. See my comments further down in this thread for some concrete examples. That being said, I do think there would be some basic differences, particularly in upper body strength, as I've already noted.
However, I think people would be surprised if they realized how small these differences can be in some cases. For example, in high school and as an undergrad I was in crew rowing. Rowing is an unusual sport in that it combines upper and lower body strength in a way that most other sports do not. We had a number of single shells (or sculls, depending on where you're from) that individual athletes could use to work out. I loved the individual shells and rowed alone all the time. It's incredibly meditative. At times we would race each other in the individual shells when we were just messing around, so on a number of occasions I (and a couple other women on the team) raced men from the team. I beat 6 of the 11 I raced. They didn't take this personally, but you could tell that everyone was surprised. A few of the male rowers made comments about how I had "gotten lucky." This kind of attitude is so commonplace, but it pissed me off, because I was a kick-ass rower and in top physical condition. Now I know you'll probably say that the men I was racing were probably not in top physical form, or were having a bad day, or something like this. The thing is, both the men and women rowers on our team were in excellent shape, and we dominated the PAC-10. So I don't buy it. I do, however, agree that when it comes to the kinds of strength that we value in our culture, men tend to be stronger. But I don't see that as ending this conversation or being the authoritative measurement of strength. I've been involved in a number of extreme sports, am an avid crack-climber, etc., but I have never done anything in my life that required the kind of strength and sheer grit it took to have natural childbirth without making a single fucking sound, or asking for any pain killers, or strangling my partner, who sat silently by my side (in awe, he claims, and under strict orders not to engage in any cheerleading) through the whole thing. On the upside, it was the most incredible adrenalin rush you'll ever experience, so there's that.
This is positively bizarre. Most women naturally produce only a small fraction of the testosterone that men do. Testosterone, in addition to its other functions, is a natural anabolic steroid, that causes muscle growth: "anabolic effects include growth of muscle mass and strength, increased bone density and strength, and stimulation of linear growth and bone maturation" (from Wikipedia). So just biologically, the distribution of physical power in women is always going to be much lower than that in men.
It doesn't really speak well of your desire to debate rationally that you reply to timothy and doubleb's quantitative points with what amounts to an extended ad hominem.
Thank you so much for educating me from Wikipedia. I will now feel free to throw out the whole slough of research on this topic that I've already done in academic journals. Silly me, looking at refereed sources and academically respected research. What was I thinking?
I don't believe I ever made the claim that women are stronger than men. I also don't believe the OP did. But many of the cultural ideas about the comparative strength of men and women is hopelessly antiquated and not based on any scientific fact. Add to that the fact that women are socially constructed to be dainty, weak, and physically incompetent, and you have quite the quagmire. Much of the scientific research that's done on the topic is motivated and informed by deeply ingrained cultural ideas about gender. Add to that the kind of panic that many people seem to experience when anyone suggests that women may not be the complete weaklings that they are told they should be, and it just becomes laughable.
And just to return the educational favor, this Philosophy PhD who teaches logic and critical thinking would like to point out that there was no name calling in my previous comments. I pointed out the tone of the comments on this topic. Noting that this topic sends people into hysterics is not the same as making an ad hominem argument. But perhaps you could send me the Wikipedia entry for "logical fallacies" so that I might be better informed on the nature of ad hominems before I head off to class. No doubt my textbook is wrong and Wikipedia is far mor accurate.
Ok, sure:
"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority."
The clear implication of your comments about the emotional state of the posters who disagreed with you is that they have lost the ability to think clearly, and that on that basis their arguments should be taken less seriously. That meets the definition of ad hominem argument. Also, I'm sorry "this Philosophy PhD who teaches logic and critical thinking" felt insecure enough that she needed to brandish her credentials at me. I hope none of your students are reading this, at least if you are teaching them not to appeal to authority.
Moving on to your substantive point: the OP said in two places,
"But the real topic for today concerns this age-old question: Are men really physically stronger than women? The answer is "no" but some explanation is required."
and
"Despite these subtle distinctions of strength, the cross-cultural myth of male physical strength persists..."
This kind of wishful thinking is bad because it discredits feminist thought by being so completely in opposition to reality. The distribution of strength in persons society currently identifies as males and females is different and that's a biological gender difference, which does not have a cultural origin and society will never get rid of without radical methods, like hormone supplements or something for females while they are growing up.
I'm sure you're right - I no doubt was claiming that women are stronger than men. Of course, nobody can identify exactly where I said that, but I must have said it, since that's your claim. Further, I was clearly attacking the persons making the arguments rather than their actual "arguments." And I apologize if you felt offended by my credentials. I feel a bit offended when people try to educate me using Wikipedia. Seriously? Wikipedia? I coulda skipped all those years of grad school and just read Wikipedia? Damn.
On the topic of the "argument from authority," every reference to someone's background in an area does not amount to a fallacy. There are a number of instances in which appeal to authority is a fallacy. 1) If the person's area of expertise has nothing to do with the claim s/he is making. Most celebrity endorsements are good examples of this. Joe Montana may say that Wheaties is the breakfast of champions, but he's not a nutritionist. 2) If the person does have a strong background in that area, but is claiming that their argument is beyond critique because of it. You cannot defend a bad argument simply by saying "well, this is my area of expertise."
On the other hand, we generally do recognize the research, study, and experience people have in a particular field, and on this basis consider them to be an "expert" in this area. Just mentioning their credentials does not amount to a fallacy, or render their argument bad. If this were the case we couldn't have such things as expert witnesses and professors. But having a (or three) degree in a particular area does mean that it's probably inappropriate to lecture that person on the finer points of their position using a source such as Wikipedia. I doubt that you would lecture your lawyer about some precedent, or your doctor on the behavior of the flu virus, based on a Wikipedia entry.
So to return to the question of the fallacy of appeal to authority, I don't believe my reference to my credentials amounts to this. I wasn't claiming that my argument (there actually wasn't really one) was above critique based on my academic background, and my credentials do happen to apply to argumentation and logic. Does that help?
hfs,
Rachel in WY wasnt feeling insecure, (warranting her to brandish her academic credentials) but merely pointing out that wikipedia isnt a mereitable source. It seems youre the one responding out of line. This post is merely exploring the possibilities of womens bodies when the cultural limits placed on it that arise out of misogyny are eliminated. Now why would that elicit such a vehement response from you? I think youre coming from the petty mind-set of 'proving' that women will always be weaker than men, thats that, and no more questioning. You should examine the origins of your impulse to protest this forum.
" Add to that the kind of panic that many people seem to experience when anyone suggests that women may not be the complete weaklings that they are told they should be"
as seen on this forum......
I see a lot of guys at my school who are smaller (maybe not in height- or at least equal size) and thinner than me. I'm about 122 ponds and 5'4 and it never seizes to surprise me the physical diversity. Also, I was talking with (he was a misogynist asshat) a guy in one of my former philosophy classes about his former girlfriend. He said that she could benchpress 500 pounds and was in the military. I think its very important to question these supposed physical limitations and see womens bodies from an autonomous perspective and not one simply from viewing themselves as 'smaller' males. I've also heard from many guys that had women who were kickboxers or who did martial arts claim that she could kick his ass any day of the week or any average sized man. My mothers friend (shes in her early 50s) has weight-lifted for most of her life and for fun wrestles with her husband. He says that he can't get her down. My mother says that when she flexes she has great muscle mass, but that you wouldnt know it if she hadnt flexed. I think that in society womens stregth should be explored and seen from whole new perspectives rather than the given ones we are always told to assume are true.
And it's also more likely that women will perform as well as men in endurance sports. This is true in the case of the Biathlon, which is a sport that combines cross-country skiing and shooting. Apparently it's a Scandinavian thing. When the biathlon first entered international competition it was co-ed. Teams of men and women competed against each other. Unfortunately, the women from the Scandinavian countries were so good at it that they beat all-male teams from other nations on a number of occasions. This led to a giant hissy fit in which the male athletes refused to compete in the Biathlon in the Olympics unless it was segregated. So it was introduced to the Olympics as a male sport, and a female competition was later introduced, but with shorter distances and closer targets, to accommodate those poor weak women who couldn't keep up with the men. Now, of course, they probably truly couldn't, because they've been conditioned for shorter distances and closer targets. This is an example of how gendered ideas become internalized into gendered bodies.
I think we can agree that men are generally physically stronger all else being equal (such as age and ethnicity) and that this is rooted in biology. I think the upper body strength especially is undisputed. One way is to see how many men in your lives can do 1 full chin up (no cheating) versus how many women. Good luck, gals.
But I think it's also legitimate to question ways that society accentuates the gap in physical strength between the sexes, for example by encouraging caloric restriction in young women at exactly the time their bodies are putting on critical bone and muscle mass and the other examples that Rachel brought up.
Furthermore while the size dimorphism is obvious within populations, when you start comparing people between populations, it's not so cut and dry. A woman of average height and build for the Netherlands (tallest people in Europe) for example could travel to many countries and easily find herself taller and similarly matched in strength with the average male.
Carrying additional adipose tissue, which women naturally have more of, also causes the body to produce more muscle to support the surrounding tissue. That's why I'm curious to see comparisons in overall strength pound for pound in men and women...
Spike the cat,
I liked your post.
Another example of the difference of use in strength is in martial arts. Many of my female friends tell me they prefer to use the spear/naginata as compared to the sword, because that particular weapon makes use of women's lower centre of gravity while the sword benefits more from upper body strength.
I still stand by my earlier comment though. If there was a man and woman, both of the same height and the same weight, with the same amount of muscle training and exercises, the man would be more likely to be the stronger of the two in most cases.
I do believe that if we encouraged women and girls in our society to take part in muscle building exercises, we would see a good increase in the strenght of the average women. Like you said, women are not encouraged to have muscles, lest they be considered unattractive (too 'manly').
Also, it seems such a waste. Like you said, the exact time when their bodies could be putting on muscle mass is also the time when they go on diets, trying to fit into society's view of what a "beautiful woman" is supposed to look like. I read somewhere that by their thirties, most women have already lost a significant portion of their muscle mass (can't remember how much, but it was about 20-30% I think).
I'm not sure about the height thing though. I suppose it does make sense that taller people are, the stronger they are, given the same muscle training. But I think it also depends on their body type? Ie. a shorter Mesamorph (sp? The type that puts on muscle) would be stronger than a taller Ectomorph (the ones that have a hard time putting on muscle) type.
The reason you stated: adipose tissues causing the body to produce more muscle to support the surrounding tissue, is the very same thing I read about and mentioned in my earlier post.
So I would think there are tests out there that definitely prove, pound for pound of MUSCLE TISSUE, women are stronger than men.
Interesting post. I remember reading from the book, "The Frailty Myth" that cheerleading used to be basically an all-male sport, at least until women started joining. The males left once the women started participating in it.
Cheerleading isn't a sport, but I guess that's a topic for another post.
Cheerleading, on talented teams, can be a lot more than just spelling words out with your arms.
Check out any high school competition squad, you can't NOT be an athlete if you want to participate on one of those.
Sheesh. I'm surprised youve been allowed to stay on this sitedoubleb. Do you also think that gymnastics isnt a sport?Youre absolutely useless on this forum. You dont get the intellectual concept of thinking of possibilities. If no one had done that, then Ila Borders wouldve never had made it to the minor leagues and 16 year old Eri Yoshida wouldnt have recently become drafted to be on the Japanese mens baseball league. Why is it that Shoalin Monks can withstand freezing temperatures without excess adipose tissue on them while wearing nothing but thin robes?According to science thats impossible. But yet, they do it. You CANT SAY that the bodies are inherently one way or the other because you dont know the bodies potential. Your refusal to identify this belies your misogynistic nasis for wanting Rachel_from WY to concede to your stupid, little, unchallenged, uneducated petty perspective.
This is the kind of defensiveness I'm talking about. You're saying "yes", but then you're trying to justify it, and trying to give me personal examples, and trying to give me things you think are related.
You're a philosopher. You should know that sometimes you just grant the obvious points. Sure, maybe you can anticipate how they're going to be used fallaciously, and have responses ready, but you can't just deny true points because you're worried about how they're going to be used.
I don't have any agenda with this point, I just support things that I think are true, and deny things that I think are false. I think that even if I didn't have any evidence from humans, the fact that male mammals are almost universally larger and stronger than females would make this a working assumption.
I take it this was a response to me? Once again, did I ever try to claim that women are stronger than men? Did I deny that in some ways men are stronger than women? I don't remember doing this, but if yo could quote it back to me that would be great. Otherwise I don't understand your response.
Yes, I am in philosophy, which is why I refuse to give a simple answer to a complicated question.