I had written >there's clearly a biological/genetic/evolutionary basis for sexism. Obviously, the average man's superior upper body strength compared to the average woman gives him the upper hand when "might makes right." And that's a basis of a lot of women's subordination (even though it's becoming technologically obsolete).< Maggie C writes: >>There is evidence that the lack of upper body strength in women is socially, not biologically determined. From infancy, boys engage in sports and spend a life time building muscles, girls don't. Body builders have found that women who lift weights can build as much or more strength in the upper body as men who don't lift weights.<< This is plausible, though there seems to be a heck of a lot of consensus that men's upper-body strength is "naturally" stronger (because of the geometry of male shoulders, among other things). I'm not one to agree with the consensus automatically. But I would be surprised if the experience with women who lift weights vs. men who don't applied _on average_ for the population as a whole (which was my assertion). More importantly, the _relevant_ comparison (if one is interested in propositions about biologically-based differences) would be women who lift weights vs. men who lift weights. This is not to deny the social component of superior upper-body strength. No way. People are "by nature" social animals, so that the expression of their biological/genetic/evolutionary nature is by necessity conditioned by their social environment. BTW, my assertion of the role of men's (alleged) superior upper-body strength was in no way a justification of sexism. Au contraire. Might does not make right in any ethical sense, even if the winners are the ones who write the history and determine the official "ethics." My point was that male dominance had no ethical justification at all. Further, any society that emphasizes upper-body strength as a determinant of who's in charge is profoundly sick! (The use of almost any one-dimensional criterion (who's richest, how has the highest IQ, etc.) in this way is sick.) >>Further, women's legs are naturally stronger, and in lower body defense systems (karate, judo) properly trained women are equal or superior to men. >Medically, women's pain thresholds tend to be much higher than men's. << Actually, the view that women's lower-body strength is "naturally" stronger is the usual (though often unspoken) corollary of the view that men's upper-body strength is "naturally" stronger. (It's why I used the phrase "upper body" in the first place.) In any case, women's superior lower-body strength and ability to withstand pain do not contradict men's usual superiority in upper-body strength. The fact that properly-trained women are equal or superior to men reflects the fact that technology makes the original force-based sexism progressively obsolete. Judo and karate are just as much technology as is electric power. >In reality, women are trained to be weak from infancy.<< I think that both propositions -- (1) women "naturally" have less upper-body strength and (2) women are trained to be weak -- are true. My feeling is that society usually takes the "natural" differences and exaggerates them. Rather than trying to equalize individual capabilities so that we can live together in harmony, class and/or patriarchal society takes the criterion that allows some group to gain the upper hand in the first place and then exaggerates that group's superiority in that criterion. Men start with a (perhaps marginal) superior upper-body strength. In pre-industrial societies, it was emphasized, so that men dominated. They then insured that they maintained and extended their domination. Similarly, these days, those with the bucks dominate -- and use their power to extend their domination. (Upper-body strength is pretty irrelevant in these days of global capitalism. The so SoCal narcissicistic emphasis on male pecs, etc. (and the silly adulation of Arnold and Stallone) seems a futile effort to return to the olden days.) -- Jim Devine
