Having it both ways
At Double X, Amanda Hess writes of the recent Washington Post article about sex differences in throwing ability:
There’s no reason Haspel’s failure to launch should be a source of lifelong humiliation—outside the professional baseball diamond, throwing stuff does not constitute a serious life skill. But throwing remains an area of male superiority, and so it has taken on an outsized social status, from the schoolyard to the cubicle trashcan. Most prominent professional sports and recess-period feats of strength were designed by and for men, and are predicated on the idea that throwing harder, farther, and faster is better. (Mercifully, this gender divide is reversed in college, where frat boys are forced to adopt that weak-forearm motion to lob ping pong balls into red Solo cups weighted with High Life.)
In her article, Hess spends many words arguing that throwing is a pointless talent. In the modern world throwing isn’t necessary so it isn’t a big deal. But swimming, sprinting, playing basketball, and excelling at sport isn’t important in the grand scheme either. But we all know that when feminists believe that a woman has a chance to challenge men (as when the Chinese female swimmer swam the last leg of her race faster than Ryan Lochte) all of a sudden that sport will become the most important thing in the world and prime evidence that sex differences are socially constructed. It becomes oh so important then. To follow Hess’s argument a little bit further, most sports exist in their modern form because they draw “an outsized social status”. Yet, again, feminists have spent a lot of energy pushing girls and women to participate in sport. And they’re certainly only doing it because these are the traditional domains of men.