<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>
I am not sure how old I was when I was first told that “boys are stronger than girls”, or when that notion transformed itself into the endemic belief that “men are stronger than women”. I certainly don’t remember a time when I was taught anything that inferred that a woman’s physique was related to “strength”.
Rather, I remember being taught about how women are “responders and beautiful”, and men are “initiators” and strong. And I was taught that males were the only serious athletes, and females could never be as accomplished (or interesting to watch). And at church it was taught that men were “wild at heart” and women were the “beauties to be rescued”. And all of these notions reinforced their ideological predecessor that “men are stronger than women”.
Very few people stop to think that maybe the only thing that women need to be rescued from is the insidious belief that we are the weaker vessel.
Ironically, I grew up in a home where my father had a difficult time screwing in a light bulb, and my mother could put up dry wall, re-furnish a couch, and replace the cabinets all in one afternoon. And though the stereo-types were challenged by my parent’s abilities, they were not snuffed out by the greater world around me. We still attended churches and schools that theologized and philosophized that a woman’s role is to always be in tow behind the lead of a man. I read history books that were composed of 90% male perspective and 10% highlight of token female achievers. I watched TV shows, and commercials, and magazines that all validated the idea that women are dependent on men, and therefore weaker. And even though I knew somewhere internally that this myth was untrue and oppressive, I had no way to prove it because on the surface level, my body appeared “weaker” in arm wrestling matches, races, and fist fights. (ok, I have never really been in a fist fight, but you could imagine)
The philosophy of gender biology (in terms of strength, weakness, and dominance) is taught both consciously and unconsciously in a primitive split: men are strong and women are beautiful. We (both men and women) are all taught to view gender in role formation, and to create relationships based on those roles. The roles themselves boil down to a simple assumption, “(strong) in charge”, and “(beautiful) subservient”. This then creates a world where authority is distributed to men through patriarchy, and submission is distributed to women in the form of “beauty” that is meant as pleasure for a man. This is a very complex and ancient belief system, but at its most primitive roots is the argument that men are physically stronger than women.
In most positions of power in modern day, candidates do not arm wrestle to gain employment, or awards. And yet, with the case of gender, any time I have been around for a debate concerning gender values, the conversation has always comes back around to “biology” and the age old “reality” that men can overpower women in physical “dominance”. As if the ability to successfully violate someone is a quality we should desire in our leaders. And yet it stands to be a repeated argument in the distribution of power. Men can reek more physical pain, so women must be the weaker vessel.
But no one stops to consider the meaning of strength. Who has had the power to determine which physical strength is value worthy, and which physical strength is not? Up to this point, men have had the power to decide. Because of this unequal authority on strength definition, no one stops to think about the deeper biological implications of the female anatomy and the dependence that men have on women. Show me the man who can procreate. Men are dependent on female biology to continue the cycle of life. This is the most PHYSICALLY important act of survival and “leadership” that I can think of. And yet it is this very ABILITY that is used against women to connote their inability to co-create, and co-lead in other facets. (which is of course a farce, women ARE as competent in leadership as men) But this physical strength of women is devalued because its implications lead to a world where male privilege must be eliminated and co-participation in domestic life is expected.
Although it may be one small argument amongst a pool of millions, it feels hopeful for both men and women alike to lie the smack down on it. Men are not stronger than women, and women are not stronger than men. Men and women are meant to co-create humanity together and to acknowledge differences in a way that does not privilege one biology over another, but in a way that betters humanity as a whole. This creates a loss of male privilege in one vein, but it also creates the opportunity for men to find legitimate partners, and not just “child brides”, who can partner in both emotional, physical, and financial ways.
If we want to see a world with less violence, and corruption, then we have to envision a world where no gender is taught to be submissive, or taught that their particular strengths are subordinate to those of the other. If we are people that truly believe in love and peace, then we must champion a community where all genders are equal in power, dignity, and the opportunity to lead, speak, and shape the perceptions of what is considered “strength”.
7 Comments
Wow – well put!!!!
“As if the ability to successfully violate someone is a quality we should desire in our leaders.” Eli, you have such an eloquent way of making a point of that which is so difficult to articulate. Thank you, I really loved this post.
Just noticed this artical.
The title – “Biological Benefactors: How male privilege has been reinforced by the faulty belief that men are physically stronger than women”
Who was it wrote by?
- a woman
‘Nuff said…
Thank you Marc for your articulate commentary. Your response is a helpful indicator of the current level of insidious sexism that holds a powerful current over people’s beliefs and behaviors. The primitive misogyny with which you address my topic truly illuminates the journey left for equal rights for men and women.
It’s not sexist to comment that this was written by a woman. It just means that the article must be taken with a grain of salt: that of the bias on the part of the author towards her own gender. Of course you’re going to speak out against “submissiveness” and “weakness” when you feel as though you’re being treated that way. Let me just say this: Of the 4 lead supervisors at my job, never have less than 2 of them been women; in fact for the longest time 3 of the 4 were women. They don’t seem to have a problem showing they’re just as capable as any man for the positions.
The fact is: women are the reason women get stuck in gender roles and behaviors. It’s just like ethnic groups who claim people are racist against them. The average population has nothing against anyone based on gender or race or orientation; it’s the groups themselves that have a problem with other people and pull the racism, sexism, etc. cards at the drop of a hat. Great women like Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, and others are remembered not just because they were women, but because they weren’t afraid to do what they believed in regardless of whether it fit with “gender roles” or not.
If you have a problem with someone, bring it up to them; don’t whine on the internet about it.
Ok Hayley, let me get this straight. You r pretty much arguing that racism doesn’t exist, then you use Rosa Parks as an example of a great person…right. You do know that she is remembered because she stood against the racism right? Also, it’s great that you have female supervisors, but who many powerful female politicians do you know? Is there an equal number of male and female leaders in the world? How many makeover shows are there on TV telling men that they are dressing all wrong and should really work on their “look” because the best they can be is beautiful? I think you know the answer to all of these questions and I think the answers lead to the conclusion that we still have a long way to go. So please, either get on the band wagon, or get out of the road because right now, people like you are the reason we are not getting anywhere
Hi, great article! I live in Denmark; we are close to reaching gender equality, and well on our way to get the remaining issues out of the way I hope (women STILL don’t get payed exactly as much as men do for doing the same job and some other problems…). This may be the reason I don’t quite understand your need to justify women as being physically as strong as men are. You probably have your reasons. However, I must object. The power to procreate, is
a) not reserved to women in our modern days
b) even if it were, would not be a physical strength, but a psychological strength. Men wish to have children, and they need women to get those (or so it was, before the age of artificial production, in which we are now). This however does not hinder a man from “taking” a woman against her will to get those children, and he could probably – through sufficiently elaborate contraptions – be able to get her to finish the pregancy…
I am obviously not saying this because I am against equality, just pointing out a flaw in your argumentation. Women -biologically- do not produce the same amount of testosterone as men do (per unit weight) which restrains their muscular development (and therefore physical strength). In a primitive society, a man could subdue a woman to his will through the use of this physical dominance. However this would not be viable because the woman would be able to pester his life (among other ways sexually) and herein lies the strength of women: men are dependent on them, and men want to please women! This is a psychological strength which reaches far beyond the physical strength a man can achieve over a woman. Women and men have -by nature- been given certain physiological strengths and weeknesses, but this should not play any role in the equality debate, because in the modern society we live in, we are evaluated mostly on our intellectual capacities, which both genders (fortunately) have equal oportunities to gain.