Why we should still respect physical strength in men.
Samson was strong, Delilah, emotionally astute—they both sought to serve their communities using their unique talents and, while Samson and Delilah took their qualities to extremes, it remains true that men tend to be physically stronger than women and often seek to use their strength in protecting others. I am not saying women cannot be strong and protective, but when my luggage overwhelms me or I dial 911, more men than women come to my aid.
Masculine strength has gotten a bum rap this century. Stories of males abusing their might to injure the weak—be it through rape, child molestation, or domestic violence—dominate the news. Even the term “strongman,” which was once used only in reference to athletes, is now used in reference to brutal (male) dictators.
Back when life hinged more on survival than self-fulfillment, to be a strong man was categorically good—Samson, remember, is a hero in the Bible. Men built the family homes, chopped wood, and fought off lions while women gave birth, lactated, prepared life-sustaining foods, and formed social bonds for resource-sharing to carry the tribe through in lean times. Anyone who’s lactated or given birth knows they are physically demanding tasks, though in a completely different way from, say, felling a tree. Anyone who’s formed social bonds for resource-sharing can attest that it’s taxing work, requiring a complex set of skills quite unlike those needed for fighting off large animals.
Successful division of labor has always been critical to human survival. Sure I could shovel the driveway, but my husband can do it five times faster and with far less pain. My husband relies on me to coordinate our family’s healthcare and our child’s education, but when we hear a strange noise in the basement at night, he goes downstairs with the bat and I wait with our child and the phone.
In the last hundred years though, life, in the developed world anyway, has grown less physical and more cerebral. Lion attacks have dwindled. Gas and electricity have replaced wood stoves and fireplaces. Women give birth less often and under safer circumstances. Lactation has waned.
Gender roles have been under review ever since. And Samson seems obsolete.
Women learn professions and lead countries. Men change diapers and cook. Dual-income families are the norm. Hooray!
But men still build most of the houses. They also don most of the police, fire-rescue, and military uniforms. And that’s just the big stuff.
Under more mundane circumstances, men use their brawn to shovel snow, move large boxes, and carry heavy bags—even for total strangers—often with no incentive beyond protectiveness. Once, when my son was a baby, my mother accidentally un-anchored his car seat. It was ten degrees outside, and she and I had wrestled vainly with the stubborn buckle for fifteen minutes, trying to re-anchor the seat, freezing, while my son’s cries grew more and more piercing. A man came along: I told him the problem and he re-anchored the seat in two minutes, “No problem, Ma’am.”
“Thank you, Sir,” whoever you are.
I am not saying we should go back to hunter-gatherer times or that gender roles should not have changed. Men’s new involvement in childcare and housework and women’s involvement in government and breadwinning give our society a broader, more flexible talent and experience-base from which to draw leaders and raise the next generation. What I am suggesting is that it would be foolish to devalue the specializations our species has spent so long cultivating: Samson’s attitude may be obsolete, but his physical power still wields hero-potential.
—Photo LOLren/Flickr
About Jennifer Companik
Thank. You.
I spent my high school years deriding these guys because our culture minimizes them and portrays them as abusers, rapists, bullies, “dumb jocks,” etc.
And because I didn’t fit that mold, so I sought to glorify feminine values at the expense of the masculine.
But half of the “dumb jocks” are now firemen and marines and mechanics, and I benefit directly from their service.
So I won’t be misunderstood, I do recognize there are very real differences between men and women (besides the “plumbing”). I’ve recognized this is so from my own personal observations of my two daughters as they grew up (whom, incidentally, I think the world of.) And I certainly appreciate physical strength in men. I’ve even hired a personal trainer at a local health club to work with me on a bodybuilding program. Actually, I’ve been working out for several years; and I love it! Despite the fact that I have to deal with diabetes and a chronic sleep disorder, quitting the workouts is no option for me. I’ve made a permanent commitment. But neither do I view physical strength and muscularity as the standard by which masculinity is defined. What other men choose to do with their bodies is none of my business. I’ve chosen to take up bodybuilding late in my life for the purpose of simply feeling better about myself. I’m not engaged in some sort of stupid “macho” contest to denigrate other men. Even if I become as strong as an ox, I’ll still recognize there are men physically weaker than I who are smarter or more spiritual or, yes, more courageous than I.
Ben, I don’t believe our culture minimizes rugged guys. There may be a subculture or two whose adherents might have this attitude you speak of, but is this true of the culture at large? I’d say to the contrary. The popular culture of our society is saturated with sports to a cultic degree. Athletes and coaches aren’t merely respected, as they should be; they’re put on pedestals. Do high-school and college athletes in the popular sports (as opposed to those sports that aren’t as popular) experience discrimination? Are they socially marginalized in any way? No, they aren’t, by and large. Instead, there seems to be a problem with what some people call “jock privilege.”
On the other hand, slightly built guys (including kids not even in their teens) are minimized by the society at large. Young nonathletic boys receive the message that if they’re not physically strong, they’re wimps. Young boys who have no interest in sports are told that something is seriously wrong with them or they might even have homosexual tendencies. Their own instances of courage will often be overlooked. This was my own personal experience growing up in the state of Texas, as it was also the experience of all of my nonathletic friends (including those who had grown up in other states). I stand in awe of nonathletic teenage boys who have ignored society’s hurtful message directed to them that says they’re “effeminate” and inferior, but have gone on to excel in some academic discipline by which they’re able to make a meaningful contribution to society. I wasn’t able to do that because I internalized the hateful message society had for boys who were different in that regard.
There aren’t as many Samsons around today because most kids don’t grow up doing physical labor. That’s the result of technological progress. Hey, don’t get me wrong. I wish I’d grown up on a farm so I would have developed a muscular physique decades ago doing physical labor, but I grew up in an affluent suburb of arrogant adults instead whose mandatory P.E. in the schools offered no fitness programs at all. (Not exactly the best way to promote physical fitness, I must say.) But, again, I refuse to put some guy down because he’s not physically strong. That has nothing to do with character. It certainly has nothing to do with moral courage. I’d think this would be quite evident from the Penn State scandal.
Yes, Ben, I appreciate firemen, Marines, and mechanics just as you do. I’ve never looked down on blue-collar workers or soldiers of whatever branch of the military. But I often felt that nonathletic boys were often minimized by the popular culture. What about men who are mathematicians, chemists, and physicists? Sure, some no doubt participated in sports; but I bet a disproportionately large percentage of them never showed any interest in sports when they were kids. There’s nothing wrong with that — one way or the other. There’s a place — I dare say, a need — in our society for all sorts of men who perform different kinds of work that benefit society, all of which society needs in order to function and survive.
Why don’t we stop elevating one category of guys at the expense of another and simply abide by the “live and let live” rule? Why don’t we do that instead of disregarding some guys (including young boys) simply because they aren’t as physically strong as other guys? Let’s view guys (and other human beings, for that matter) as individuals of worth who possess different strengths and weaknesses instead as members of a group, supposedly deserving privileged or not.
We live in a world where manhood is not clearly defined. I think that we need to make a go at reestablishing the traditional values of manhood but done so within the context of gender equality, cultural diversity, social adaptation and globalization. I have five boys and the way forward for them as men is not very clear. I knew what it meant to be a man when I was a teenager. My boys are not so fortunate. I think the issue lies, not in whether athletes or samson typify men; rather, the problem is
mainstream society do not know what it means to be a man anymore. I am even confused. In the quest for acceptance and equality we have lost manhood. I spend a lot of time with my boys and my primary objective is to help them discover their definition of manhood. It has definitely change since I was a boy and together we are finding the journey quite fulfilling. Together we are becoming men!
I love this comment! Your boys are lucky to have you!
Nice article. I guess you could say I’m one of those guys (you know, more brawn than brains). Funny thing is, I’ve always envied the “smart” guys who made a living with their brains rather than with their back. Just a point to make; I was always involved with the care of my children .(they’re probably in the same age group as yourself). From their first day home from the hospital, I fed them , bathed them, changed their diapers(yeah, even the lumpy ones). I guess to me ,caring for and protecting are one in the same.
They are, yeah? Your kids are really lucky.
Trust those guys envy you too. Guys who use their brains, very often are not accustomed to using their hips, shoulders or neck. So they get shoulder, neck, and back problems (most back problems come from stiff hips) when they hit their 30s. I am admittedly more brain than brawns, but in most commercial gyms I would considered strong especially at my weight (emphasis on commercial gyms)
The human body evolves much slower than human culture. Thus wisdom teeth, tonsils, and apparently muscles. I don’t need my over-abundant muscles to email or file, but who knows, the way things are going, a zombie apocalypse, or invading alien army may present uses for my under-utilized brawn. Thank you Jennifer, I enjoyed your article. Now, off to lift something!
Throughout history women have carried out the light industry of textile manufacture using spindle, distaff and loom. It took up an awful lot of their time. Women of all classes were involved in it over about the last ten thousand years. This is what is referred to in the phrase “a woman’s work is never done”, because the spinning part was easily portable work and could be done by candle light.
Until the industrial revolution put them all out of a job by the invention of such things as the spinning jenny and the power loom. Then all the women became unemployed and capitalists became fantastically rich.
I wonder who it is that decides what sort of strength is going to be needed to perform in society and how that balances between men and women? A baby seat shouldn’t take so much strength that a woman has a hard time of it. But that’s just one example. Just about anything that people do, the tools we use, the environment we build as a society for ourselves is constantly making calibrations about what sort of normal to design things for and if the level of strength required is always pitched a little too high for women then I’m always going to get asked by my wife to bring the bag of dog food in, or else someone’s stuck trying to fiddle with a child car seat.
I have the same frustration whenever I am doing the washing up and my man’s hand is too wide to reach to the bottom of the glass to clean it properly with a cloth. I can’t help wondering if someone made the calculation based on the average width of someone else’s hand.
Oh well.
Thanks for the kind words about men Jennifer.
This is a really interesting comment David. The first time this became clear to me was with airbags. At my height and weight, airbags have a much greater chance of killing men than if they are deployed with an “average” man. So is protecting a man in an accident more valid than potentially killing me? It’s a dilemma, for sure.
I love the example about the glass. So much goes into the design of things we take for granted. On a side note, I recently saw the documentary Helvetica, which is all about the design of fonts. I had no idea how much went into letters. Who knows what influence creates a size of glass (for a woman’s hands) or an airbag (for a man’s body) or car seats, or so forth. Based on averages? Based on gender? Something else? It’s fascinating.
I thought you might like that one.
If nothing else the additional info will sink into my brain for amazing cocktail party banter or improvisational fodder.
@ Lisa Hickey
” So is protecting a man in an accident more valid than potentially killing me?”
Which do you think is more valid?
David, this is what I always think about umbrella strollers. The handles are almost too low for me–and I’m somewhat short for a woman at 5’3″. My 6’2″ husband can’t possibly push one for long without getting a back ache.
I hate umbrella strollers!
I hate that I don’t know what an umbrella stroller is.
A pram with a hood?
It’s a fold out pram. Cheaply made, not meant to carry much but the kid.
http://www.target.com/c/baby-strollers-lightweight-strollers/-/N-5xtk2#?lnk=Utility_STROL_1225_X0Y2W4|X0Y2W4&intc=354693|null
Click on the chicco C6 Tangerine. Some are much cheaper and crappier than that.
David Byron. Who decides is probably Sir Isaac Newton, or others of the mean old patriarchy. IOW, laws of physics and so forth.
For example, when our church ran a child seat inspection program, we found that many of the seats were not properly seated. They had to be pressed down into the bench seat pretty hard so that there wouldn’t be any play in case of an accident. Turns out that I, weighing about 250 at the time, had to kneel on the seat and push up against the ceiling of the car to get enough pressure. Think that was somebody deciding?
You’re free to drink from a glass whose top is eight inches in diameter if you wish. You could get your hand down there, but the primary problem would be the liquid running into your ears when you tried to drink out of it.
Sometimes stuff just is. Hurts not to be able to blame somebody, i know. But try to bear up.
Richard, I am just weighing in to say that I literally snorted water up my nose just now reading your last line! No offense, David, this is not directed at you, but those three sentences are just absolutely hilarious, and need to be used more often by and towrds lots of people! OMG, Richard, you better trademark that last line or I will surely plagiarize it:
“Sometimes stuff just is. Hurts not to be able to blame somebody, i know. But try to bear up.™”
I like blaming people but I wasn’t doing that here.
The tools of our society are not throw together randomly or on a fancy. They are engineered. They are engineered well. My question is what are the assumptions used and as a society should we be aware of them and consider changing them?
Thanks Jen(n). It’s about time we celebrated the differences in men that (in part) make them great, the many aspects of their physicality being one.
In your 3rd paragraph you speak to the differences in the traditional roles of men and women…and after all the fighting that has been going on here lately, I thin we need to remember that men and women are different emotionally, physically, etc., but not unequal. I mean, pie and ice cream are very different, but equally good, right?
The only way we are ever going to come together to fully equalize and accomplish is not to accept our differences, but be grateful for them (yeah, I’m feelin’ pretty Kumbaya right now;) ).
Samson was strong, Delilah, emotionally astute—they both sought to serve their communities using their unique talents
In case everyone has forgotten, Delilah used her unique talent — seduction — to DESTROY Samson. Thanks to her, Samson was shorn of his strength (where do you think that phrase comes from?), captured, permanently blinded, and enslaved.
I suppose you could argue that her seduction was “serving the Philistine community” by bringing the downfall of the Israeli war hero. Then again, the Philistines were the bad guys, so there’s really no mitigating circumstance here at all. Delilah was just plain evil.
And Samson was a fool to fall for her. He should have learned Game.
Yeah, while the points the article makes are terrific, this was perhaps a poor anaology choice.
“I suppose you could argue that her seduction was “serving the Philistine community” by bringing the downfall of the Israeli war hero. Then again, the Philistines were the bad guys, so there’s really no mitigating circumstance here at all. Delilah was just plain evil.
And Samson was a fool to fall for her. He should have learned Game.”
When a woman destroys a man, it doesn’t matter if she’s good or evil, she is applauded by her sisters as a model of female empowerment.
When a man destroys a woman, it doesn’t matter if she’s good or evil, she is mourned by her sisters as a victim of the Patriarchy.
This is the position you men are in, gentlemen. You’re the bad guy and there isn’t a damned thing you can do about it. Except get a sex change, of course.
As for Samson learning Game, dude. Game may be played by males, but it’s the WOMEN who make the rules of that Game.
It’s YOU who has jump through all the hoops, buddy.
Lori,
Thanks for the attaboy. I’ve been dealing with the Left since the mid Sixties. They have no sympathy for Isaac Newton or anybody else. If they’re not happy, somebody’s being meeeean to them.
“sometimes stuff just is” isn’t exactly a scientific philosophy. I don’t think Newton would approve.
David. If Newton had disapproved of gravitation I suspect he’d have said sometimes stuff just is. Nothing he could do about it. He could, though, avoid hopping off a fifth-floor balcony. Probably complaining about the restriction on his freedom to live his life as he would like.
Things are engineered taking into account, for example, that the human mouth and face are too narrow to drink comfortably out of a glass with an eight inch diameter. But you’re free to try. And if an eight-inch glass fits you, you could no doubt order one.
Analogy alert…it should go without saying.