What Is The Difference Between Pigskin Patriarchy And Pain By Don Sabo

Don Sabo’s “Pigskin, Patriarchy and Pain” and Sophia McDougal’s “I Hate Strong Female Characters” essentially analyze the role of patriarchy in society but through two very different and unique perspectives.
Sabo’s piece “Pigskin, patriarchy and pain” is essentially a commentary on aggressive sports and how they reinforce a patriarchy that is violent, oppressive and damaging to both men and women. He also argues that sports culture reinforces the idea of male superiority and sexist and patriarchal ideals. Sabo argues that aggressive sports such as football have become this form of power and control that reinforces traditional gender roles and perpetuates inequality between men and women. He further argues that the violence and aggression associated

For example, Sabo mentions that his reason for becoming an athlete or joining sports was rewards. He compares himself to a “young child who learns to dance or sing for a piece of candy”. “Candy” for Sabo was acceptance and recognition. In his analogy the child doesn’t dance or sing because he wants to, he does so for the rewards. This analogy is of importance as it sums up his entire argument. Society pressures young men into fitting this definition of a “man” that it deems perfect. He then discusses the pain principle and the popular saying “no pain no gain”. He adds that society often teaches young men and women that pain is rewarding and that they must endure sufferings. Patriarchal society portrays pain to be good rather than bad. Sabo also adds personal doctrines in his essay to better convey his points. He talks about his experience as an athlete and adds that he “learned to be an animal” because “Coaches took notice of animals. “He was taught to “punish the other man” and to be “Frantically aggressive and ruthlessly competitive” because this is what society deems the perfect man” to be. Aggressive, ruthless, and emotionless. The author here connects his own experience to a reference building up on his conclusion and argument, therefore better explaining to the readers. And even though McDougal does use references and analogies to accentuate her argument, she doesn’t clearly explain the context behind those references. One such example is when the author uses the character “Arwen” from the movie/book “lord of the rings” as a reference to highlight her argument about poor writing when it comes to strong female characters. She says that to establish “Arwen” as strong, the writer didn’t have to portray her as overly reliant on physical strength and violence. She adds that when it comes to male characters they are just assumed to be strong, “No one ever asks if a