Nehanda Update: [Women are physically weaker.] Weaker doesn't mean less valuable.

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

Good discussion in her comments, including this from Salve Vagina:

This is a really great observation. The idea that physical strength equals social worth is so misogynist, but it's an idea so many of us [internalise] from childhood. And something deeply rooted like that is often very hard to even see in yourself, let alone to challenge and change.

twitter.com/NehandaMusic/status/1417570665331404803

She was mentioned on this 2020 thread in which she first her had reconsideration of her previous position about gender ideology:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3844928-Billy-Bragg?msgid=94899296#94899296

This is why I'm not as optimistic as some that Laurel Hubbard in the Olympics will change many minds. There seem to be so many young women who are just determined not to see it.

They've been very much trained to spot and address "internalised transphobia." So they may start to see it but actively challenge the thoughts within themselves.

Yes, I admit that I was unaware of the actual details involved in the physical differences such as muscle fibres, bone density etc. I think unless you are involved in some kind of weight training or physical sport that most people don't realise how and why men's strength differs from women. So I can see why many women might think that any physical advantage is from men training harder.

@WarriorN

This is why I'm not as optimistic as some that Laurel Hubbard in the Olympics will change many minds. There seem to be so many young women who are just determined not to see it.

They've been very much trained to spot and address "internalised transphobia." So they may start to see it but actively challenge the thoughts within themselves.

and simultaneously trained not to spot internalised misogyny

Nehanda is fab. Here she is on the Plebity podcast

@Floisme

Yeah I used to think I was as strong as any boy..... until I was 12. I just don't understand how you can come out of puberty and not notice.

Yes. My (younger by two years) brother and I used to play at 'martial arts' and I used to be able to flip him and his friends over quite easily...until puberty hit and then I may as well have been a feather to them. End of playfighting!

Also my Dad who is in his early 70s, helped me shift some heavy furniture a couple of years ago. He is still much stronger than me.

Have these young women never been in situations like this at least (if they haven't been subjected to male violence and aggression)? Or do they turn a blind eye? It's very strange.

Transphobia tops misogyny in the top trumps of privilege turquoise. Tis patriarchal law.

Yes it's the framework through which we view strength that has a fundamental (male sckewed) error.
Men have more muscular strength for explosive movements, however women live longer, can excel in endurance, can have better immunity due to the double x chromosome. We can sustain another human life for months if not years (pregnancy plus breastfeeding). We are literal life support systems for our young. If that isn't physical strength I don't know what is.
Also even if we go by muscular strength, the womb is the strongest human muscle. Women have an extra muscular system in our breasts. Our breasts also help create a real time immune response for our young through the exchange of saliva when they breastfeed (theorised). Our bodies have the potential to literally support two. Apart from sperm production, we could also do what men do (provide resources) though we would be at a disadvantage. But men could never do what we do.
Besides their strength evolved as a response to their need for ours. If it was beneficial to us to compete and provide resources for men women would have evolved similar strength, but to us men just weren't worth fighting over.
But in our strength lies our vulnerability. The risks of carrying, birthing and raising young. But it's another (male skewed) error to code vulnerability as weakness, both physically and emotionally. Admitting when you're wrong, asking for help, collaborative working, can all be seen as weaknesses through a toxic masculinity lens however they are all strengths and good qualities.
I will never agree we are the weaker sex, but we are more vulnerable. However even that is really only to the consequences of sharing our world with men - maternity and injury. Without that we'd be grand! And we could get rid of half of that vulnerability if men didn't use their minds to tell their muscles to do stuff against our will.

I've definitely heard some women talk as though they thought there wasn't a lot of physical difference between men and women, but I didn't think they actually believed it.

Why do they think there is a patriarchy in the first place? How could it be enforced if it wasn't for superior strength. Likewise sex crimes, rape, domestic violence?

And yes, it's interesting that we do set such a lot of store by physical strength, even within the sexes. I must admit, it hadn't really occurred to me that it was valued precisely because a patriarchy will value things that men are good at.

One of the reasons I enjoyed The Power by Naomi Alderman so much, was that the frustration of knowing one can never really overcome a man, disappeared. And she captures what I believe would be that amazing feeling of wonderment at the female physical disadvantage suddenly evaporating.

And yes to the people who are citing female empowering films like superwoman, as maybe the source of the misinformation.

Crikey. Which ever way you cut it up, women are really having a number done on them.

This is great from Nehanda, if you haven't read it before.

www.nehandamusic.com/post/feminism-what-the-f-ck-went-wrong

Physical strengh equalling social worth isnt just about men and women but also see how disabled people are treated.

Im also going against the grain here of people saying strength are speed are highly valued only because men have those qualities. I think they are valued because you dont have any choice but to value them. They can hit you over the head and run away if you disagree.

That's an interesting point, Mildred, and I agree with you.

@MildredPuppy

But by that store you don't have any choice but to value female reproductive power and respect the beings that have it, men can't create a baby on their own. But it's not.

@Floisme

I hadn't come across Nehanda before so thank you.

I once had a big argument with some young women colleagues because I said men are stronger and faster than women. They called me sexist and I told them they'd been watching too many superhero moves. But really it's not funny, because it's partly why they refuse to acknowledge there's any problem with men using women's spaces or competing in women'' sports.

I wonder where their eyes are. All they have to do is LOOK. Men have broader shoulders, thicker arms and legs, they're taller with bigger heads...it's always incredible to me how people claim they can't see sex differences. I have yet to see a woman even come close to looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sly Stallone.

It's such an excellent point. Nehanda is fantastic. Gives me hope

[quote ScreamingMeMe]This is great from Nehanda, if you haven't read it before.

www.nehandamusic.com/post/feminism-what-the-f-ck-went-wrong[/quote]
That was a good article, especially towards the end. Thanks for sharing.

Just had a listen of her latest single. I like it.

@TonkaTrucker
I do think there are a loy of cultures that do value childbirth and child rearing. But i also think that aot of strong fast people use that to control womens fertility too.

Im also going against the grain here of people saying strength are speed are highly valued only because men have those qualities.

Well, it's a self-reinforcing loop, isn't it? Men are respected because they have speed and strength and can hit you over the head if you don't. And then men's attributes are highly valued - including the speed and strength they use to demand respect in the first place.

But by that store you don't have any choice but to value female reproductive power and respect the beings that have it, men can't create a baby on their own. But it's not.

Well, men do value the reproductive power - doesn't follow that they have to respect the beings that have it. They just need to be able to control them.

@NecessaryScene

'Well, men do value the reproductive power - doesn't follow that they have to respect the beings that have it. They just need to be able to control them.'

(Sorry I don't know how to quote).
But that's not a given. Men could use their strength to police other males, rather than policing women. That would still influence reproductive power. It should be shameful and unaccepted for males to rape/injure the beings that bear young, it doesn't help males or their offspring that they do that.

I read that the reason we have 'hidden fertility' (we don't have any obvious signs when we are fertile, we engage in sexual behaviour when we are not fertile, we ovulate on the down low basically) is because, in evolutionary terms, if we had a clear signal it would cause too much fighting between males and the woman would be too vulnerable. She could become impregnated or worse and the male partner not live to support her and any offspring.
Ideally we are out of the jungle and can respect women as a being, but even on pure evolutionary terms, the set up where it costs the female more to reproduce than the man and it's an advantage to have a pair to raise the young doesn't automatically follow that male violence against the female is inherent in that. Other males yes. It's fucking patriarchy that have given men the ok to turn their 'tools' for fighting other men against the females they developed those tools to access/protect.

@ErrolTheDragon, what a encouraging group of people, those engineers at your sailing club.

I must remember about women’s smaller hands giving them an advantage for soldering.

I think in the early days of feminism there was a tendency for women to argue on the same terms as men. So men would say, "We're better than you because we're faster and stronger" and women would say "No, you're not." Hence Billie-Jean King taking on that old misogynist whatsisface in tennis.

Whereas the reality is that physically women are very different from men. Our bodies are designed by evolution to grow and push out babies, not for strength and speed. And that's fine - unless you imagine that being able to grow a baby is an unimpressive physical feat.

I think that's a good point about second wave feminism Corgi. I remember trying to play down the physical differences myself so I'm sympathetic to young women who don't / won't see it. But when you're still denying it in your late 20s/early 30s - like my lovely colleagues - then I'm afraid I start to lose patience.

I definitely agree that society values things that men value, i.e. certain types of physical strength, so women are seen as the 'weaker sex' despite the power needed to give birth, and that men's greater testosterone for muscles means they can use force to subjugate women. I know that Gloria Steinem has unfortunately become blind to gc feminism, but I do think her essay 'The Strongest Woman in the World' about Bev Francis, a champion bodybuilder, is really good on how women are discouraged from developing muscles. Obviously, men have a great advantage, but muscles are often seen as 'unfeminine' etc, and it's interesting to read how when Francis was competing the judges seemed to disapprove of rather than celebrate how muscular she was.

it's interesting to read how when Francis was competing the judges seemed to disapprove of rather than celebrate how muscular she was.

I've sometimes been taken aback to see criticism rather than celebration of the muscled physique and fitness of Ernestine Shepherd (Guinness World Record Oldest Female Bodybuilder).

But that's not a given. Men could use their strength to police other males, rather than policing women. That would still influence reproductive power. It should be shameful and unaccepted for males to rape/injure the beings that bear young, it doesn't help males or their offspring that they do that.

Indeed, and the situation you describe is where we've (roughly) ended up - it's what civilisation is, to a large extent. But the less palatable alternative is always there, and can be backslid into. Warzones, for example. Civilisation is especially precious for women, I feel, and that shouldn't be forgotten or underestimated.

Civilisation is especially precious for women, I feel, and that shouldn't be forgotten or underestimated

It’s definitely taken for granted. Hope I never see the consequences of this in my lifetime. What is it they say? Weak men create hard times?