Jim, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just wanted to point out that the development of bodily 'strength' and 'weakness' are as much determined by socially defined gender activities (such as participation in sports) as by biology--though I do not dispute that there are differing biological predispositions to strength in men and women. The points in your message are well taken. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 97-05-31 23:47:23 EDT, you write: >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 > > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu (anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu >[132.241.9.84]) > by emin37.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) > Sat, 31 May 1997 23:46:29 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > Sat, 31 May 1997 20:46:03 -0700 (PDT) >Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 20:46:03 -0700 (PDT) >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:10479] re: gender and biology >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >X-Comment: Progressive Economics >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >MIME-Version: 1.0
