Yesterday, after writing a pretty long fisk of the Huffington Post story, something about it stuck in my craw. Something that the subject of the piece, Mike Reynolds, said that really bugged me. Well, bugged me more than the bulk of what he said, at least.
“We do science projects together, we make up bedtime stories about giants who play hopscotch, and we talk our bodies, how they are changing, and about anything they’d like to ask me,” he said, adding, “I think this is a relationship a lot of dads have with their daughters but they’re told they should be protecting their daughters with their physical strength instead of building trusting relationships with them.”
As I pointed out yesterday, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I tell my daughter bedtime stories and do homework together, but I also believe in protecting her as well.
Reynolds also has a t-shirt design that says “Strength has no gender.”
Honestly, he’s pretty preoccupied by the idea of strength not being essential to being a man. He’s far from alone on that. Most feminists, especially male feminists, seem to bash the idea of strength defining men, and honestly? It makes no sense.
Courage, honor, and competence are also part of being a man, and they’re difficult to attain. If you’re not already those three, then you have a long and difficult road ahead of you.
But if you’re physically weak? Unless you’re disabled in some way, attaining strength is relatively simple. You lift something that’s heavy until it’s not so heavy anymore, then make it heavier.
OK, so the specifics are really a bit more complicated, but you’d be surprised at how uncomplicated it really is.
It’s also pretty affordable. You can build a sandbag for just a few dollars, and trust me when I say one of those will whip your butt royally.
Since physical strength is the most attainable of the four core virtues, then why is that where the hangup is?
I can’t offer much more than speculation, and I don’t really want to speculate too much. After all, if your speculation is wrong, enemies will try to use it to undermine everything else you’ve said, and it’s just not worth it.
Rather than speculate, I’m going to point out a few things.
First, a strong man is usually more desirable among females than a weak one. If you like strong, athletic women like I do, they’re never going to be interested in a pathetic, weak worm of a guy who can’t even do two pushups. In contrast, the bookish, librarian types also desire a guy who can bench press a car.
No, being physically strong won’t make you attractive to all women, but it rarely hurts.
Second, being physically strong makes you generally more useful. Being able to squat a bus won’t stop you from being an accountant, but it may make you less able to help your best friend move. Strength isn’t needed for every activity we engage in, but when you need it, it’s usually too late to get it.
Third, yes, you can use it to protect your family from attackers. Oh, it’s not as good as a gun in many circumstances, but not every act of self defense calls for a gun.
The reality is that physical strength is incredibly useful, so the feminist desire to undermine it makes little sense.
Unless you understand that feminists despise the fact that the biology which enables man to be stronger isn’t some fantasy. A few years ago, feminist website Jezebel attacked the creator of The Walking Dead for stating scientific fact.
Simon Abrams from the Village Voice reports Kirkman told him in an interview for The Comics Journalfour years ago:
I don’t mean to sound sexist, but as far as women have come over the last 40 years, you don’t really see a lot of women hunters. They’re still in the minority in the military, and there’s not a lot of female construction workers. I hope that’s not taken the wrong way. I think women are as smart, resourceful, and capable in most things as any man could be … but they are generally physically weaker. That’s science.
First up, Kirkman, you totally do mean to sound sexist, so shut it with the crappy, disingenuous concern.
Since when do you need massive amounts of strength to hunt, even as they do on The Walking Dead? The average fit person would be good to go — especially if they’d all been living under the same circumstances for so long. Plus, if we want to speak “in general”, then women have more stamina than men — even swole bro trainers agree — and that’s probably more crucial than being ripped when it comes to hunting.
Except when you have to lift and carry your kill home. It’s not a big deal when you’re talking rabbits of squirrels, mind you, but if you have a large community to feed, you’re going to need a LOT of rabbits and squirrels…which creates a lot of weight.
If you measure food by how many pounds it takes to feed X number of people, then the size of the particular animal becomes irrelevant. Instead, the weight matters…and that means strength.
I know I said I didn’t want to speculate, but it certainly appears as if the fact that men are stronger than women annoys feminists so much, and as a result, they want to actively discourage men from seeking out strength as a noble thing.
Unfortunately for them, annoying feminists is a feature, not a bug.