I think this is the Fallacy of Gray. http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
You see an overused or incorrectly used concept, and instead of trying to improve it, you set out to try to deconstruct it completely. Mentioning sexism and racism makes it doubly suspect: especially the link between racism and strength is really weak and occasional at best (as stereotypes went both ways), and it looks a bit like guilt-tripping, guilt-by-association tripping which combined with too much deconstructionism looks like a classic "postmodern" failure mode.
From a rational, predictionist viewpoint, strength is a useful concept for the application of energy. It is a useful term when it is more about pedalling than steering. To hit a target with an arrow, both exact aiming needed and the energy to propel it to the target, and strength is from a family of concepts that have more to do with the propelling.
A good point can be made that one should clarify different kinds of energies and strengths better. When I talk with simple rural blue-collar folks they are often like, the body-builders are just fake-strong, they could not dig ditches 10 hours a day i.e. they focus more on muscle endurance, while the lifters usually focus on 1 rep max.
Besides strength is often used metaphorically - ability, willpower etc.
This was about the rational stuff. Now for some uglier and more personal stuff - if you can go subjectivist so can I: the sexist part is largely because testosterone is real, and it seems to affect many kinds of strength - from 1RP to muscle endurance, and the more metaphorical willpower kind of stuff too. Obligatory article. besides, on a purely personal preference level, we are quickly approaching a world where women out-perform men in pretty much everything that matters. Recognizing the simple truth that men have an advantage in a not too important field helps keeping some kind of an anchor to tether male identity, masculine identity to, without that it would all too easily evaporate. While identities can be built around something else than gender, in practice it seems to me gendered identity is fairly big and important. This is why transgenderism is such a big deal these days - it would be difficult to explain to Jenner that gender does not matter much. Men today are feeling insecure about themselves, not really sure what being a man means in the 21st century when you are absolutely positively not going to be a conquistador or similar type of a heroic manly ideal. We need an ideal that embraces much of the historical aspects of masculinity to tether it all to, yet has the least amount of potential fallout / harm to women, gays etc. and this seems to be currently the solution. A bit of an obsession about one's own body, while narcissistic, is at least something that does not really have a lot of consequences for others.
EDIT: disregard this, I did not see it is a parody.
The concept of strength is ubiquitous in our culture. It is commonplace to hear one person described as "stronger" or "weaker" than another. And yet the notion of strength is a a pernicious myth which reinforces many our social ills and should be abandoned wholesale.
1. Just what is strength, exactly? Few of the people who use the word can provide an exact definition.
On first try, many people would say that strength is the ability to lift heavy objects. But this completely ignores the strength necessary to push or pull on objects; to run long distances without exhausting oneself; to throw objects with great speed; to balance oneself on a tightrope, and so forth.
When this is pointed out, people often try to incorporate all of these aspects into the definition of strength, with a result that is long, unwieldy, ad-hoc, and still missing some acts commonly considered to be manifestations of strength.
Attempts to solve the problem by referring to the supposed cause of strength -- for example, by saying that strength is just a measure of muscle mass -- do not help. A person with a large amount of muscle mass may be quite weak on any of the conventional measures of strength if, for example, they cannot lift objects due to injuries or illness.
2. The concept of strength has an ugly history. Indeed, strength is implicated in both sexism and racism. Women have long been held to be the "weaker sex," consequently needing protection from the "stronger" males, resulting in centuries of structural oppression. Myths about racialist differences in strength have informed pernicious stereotypes and buttressed inequality.
3. There is no consistent way of grouping people into strong and weak. Indeed, what are we to make of the fact that some people are good at running but bad at lifting and vice versa?
One might think that we can talk about different strengths - the strength in one's arms and one's legs for example. But what, then, should we make of the person who is good at arm-wrestling but poor at lifting? Arms can move in many ways; what will we make of someone who can move arms one way with great force, but not another? It is not hard to see that potential concepts such as "arm strength" or "leg strength" are problematic as well.
4. When people are grouped into strong and weak according to any number of criteria, the amount of variation within each group is far larger than the amount of variation between groups.
5. Strength is a social construct. Thus no one is inherently weak or strong. Scientifically, anthropologically, we are only human.
6. Scientists are rapidly starting to understand the illusory nature of strength, and one needs only to glance at any of the popular scientific periodicals to encounter refutations of this notion.
In on experiment, respondents from two different cultures were asked to lift a heavy object as much as they could. In one of the cultures, the respondents lifted the object higher. Furthermore, the manner in which the respondents attempted to lift the object depended on the culture. This shows that tests of strength cannot be considered culture-free and that there may be no such thing as a universal test of strength.
7. Indeed, to even ask "what is strength?" is to assume that there is a quality, or essence, of humans with essential, immutable qualities. Asking the question begins the process of reifying strength... (see page 22 here).
---------------------------------------
For a serious statement of what the point of this was supposed to be, see this comment.