Venn diagrams, 2006 passages in the new year
One of my persistent themes this year, one that fuels my perpetual interest in feminism even though I'm not comfortable with the labels "feminist man" or "pro-feminist," is that the so-called "two-spheres" gender model (and it's even more ancient for-ever-yin-there's-an-opposite-yang philosophy of gender) is unhelpfully, counterproductively, inadequately incomplete. Not even wrong! Men and women have way, way more in common than not.
Are there differences? Of course! But there are far, far more overlaps. We tend to represent gender capabilities in terms of the archetypical yin/yang symbol: Everything is either black or white. Instead gender is better represented as a classic Venn diagram -- with two circles nearly overlapping, leaving only thumbnail slivers of uniqueness on either side.
One favored-but-unfounded assertion, one dating back (at least metaphorically) to the stone age is that men are just plain stronger than women. And yeah, if you pick any two people at random, chances are fairly good the man you pick will be stronger than the woman you pick.
Average, though, isn't the same as absolute, and that's why I'd like to to bring my 2006 blogging year to a close by paying tribute to Abbey "Pudgy" Stockton, a pioneering Muscle Beach bodybuilder who passed away this year.
Click images to see larger versions
Two observations that underscore the point. First, Stockton appears in the middle of these stacks of men -- neither above nor below but just a part. Second, whereas the *average* man is likely to claim that men are stronger than women, I'd like to invite him to support full-grown male bodybuilder with only his shoulders or wrists as the 5'1", 130-pound Stockton did. For fun.
Click images to see larger versions. Note: I'm not positive the image on the left is Stockton but the point remains.
It goes both ways you know. There are differences all right. It's odd that's all we see.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
Update: I don't mean to imply that strong women are better or more desirable than strong men, or that in any given relationship the physically stronger party should be the dominant one. I am saying, however, that arguments in favor of male dominance often make that claim. It's a claim, though, that puts them in an awkward spot. I happen to believe the same sort of issue can be found to confront virtually *any other* claim of male -- or female -- supremacy.
Happy New Year Figleaf.
[Thank you, J. Happy New Year to you too. --fl]
Interesting post. I'll admit to drifting toward the stronger man at first, but funnily enough, it's never worked out. Hmmm... Happy New Year!
[Thanks, DLG. I hope your new year turns out to be a great one. --fl]
Happy New Year!
In 1963 I was in an experimental weight training gym class for women at the UT Knoxville. 12 weeks and my body change completely. I had to take the class because I failed the national strength test. JFK's physical fitness initiative. It was another twenty years before I began to work out again. Surprising, I found many women still thought they would get very large muscles. A lot of women dropped out at the slightest change in their bodies or if they put on muscle weight.
Even with our small muscle mass we can have much strength in our upper bodies as men. With good posture, we can move the world on our head.
[Wow, UT Knoxville, huh? My father worked there for a while. An ok town as long as you don't mind the color orange. As for working out, as long as you're careful with your connective tissue it works at any age. Studies show that 90-year-olds develop muscle as quickly as 20-year-olds though they have to watch out for joints and tendons. And the somatic benefits of muscle tissue aren't appreciated nearly enough. They produce all kinds of hormones and stimulate others, including growth factors and mood elevators, they burn *a lot* of calories even when you're resting, which in turn keeps you feeling warmer... There's just a ton of benefits. Thanks, Five. Oh, and I hope the new year is wonderful for you. --fl]