ON PUMPING IRON - UPDATED

I got a huge kick out of this post by a 52-year old woman weight lifter on the still prevalent assumption that women shouldn't build up their upper body strength or that it's ridiculous for us to try.  (Hat tip: Twisty).

My first semester in college, I and a group of my new dorm-mates tried out for the novice crew team.  The try-outs lasted a week and were incredibly competitive-- probably because my college had a very strong rowing program.  The distressing thing was that a number of my friends who were going through try-outs with me were upset at the prospect of possibly building up their back and shoulder muscles.  Several young women I knew considered dropping out of the try-outs because they didn't want to become "too muscular."  The problem was widespread enough that the coach actually called all of us together to "reassure" us that increased muscle mass would result in a leaner rather than a bulkier look.

I was absolutely distraught that young women of my generation in the year 1989 would actually view becoming stronger as a negative thing.  I remember saying to one of my friends over and over, "What could possibly be wrong with becoming more physically capable?" and "Doesn't it bother you that standards of attractiveness seem incongruent with female strength?" and "Don't you want to give the bird to those who prefer us in a state of frailty?"

Unfortunately, I haven't yet had the subversive pleasure of becoming a weight lifter myself.  I was rejected from the college crew team for being too short, and my default sport of long-distance running actually encourages a physique that is consistent with popular beauty standards for women.  But during those times in college when the topic of weight lifting came up (we long distance runners do lift a little bit even if upper strength isn't the emphasis of the sport), some young man would invariably squeeze my bicep and make some mocking comment-- as though my even daring to invade the male province of weight lifting was somehow pure silliness. 

Another observation:  I have a copy of Collette Dowling's book, The Frailty Myth, on my bookshelf at work.  To a man, every single dude who picks up this book, says, "You do realize don't you that women are actually weaker on average than men?"  Every single one says something like this!  It's really quite amazing! Talk about missing the point . . .

Here's the thing.  I want to be as physically strong and fit as I can be.  Due to severe time constraints in my life at the moment, that's not very strong or fit, unfortunately.  But one day I would love to be as strong as the woman who wrote the post linked above.  It's not about besting men (although that's potentially a fun side benefit), and it's not about trying to conform to some societal standard of attractiveness.  It's about trying to be as physically capable as possible.  Being physically capable has to be viewed as a good thing for everyone, doesn't it?!?!? To the extent that prejudices and norms of attractiveness discourage women from fully developing all of their physical gifts, I say screw that. 

UPDATE:  Check out Hugo's post entitled My Wife Could Beat Me Up: A Note on Women and Muscles.  In fact, check out Hugo's whole blog.  Hugo is my favorite evangelical Christian feminist blogger and my role model for encouraging civil and rational discussion of touchy issues. 

Comments

[Hugo]

Thanks for this -- I found the same article through the Carnival. I definitely need to blog this too...

[Ann]

Hah. I do think that this is improving, since it's been a while since I got any such comments, but a few years ago my roommate and I were both pretty serious athletes and we would often lift weights together. Men would constantly approach us and suggest that we lift smaller weights because "don't you think you're getting a little big there?"

First of all, fuck off. Second of all, when you're actually in the process of lifting weights your muscles DO swell, and they appear a lot bigger than they do when you're just hanging out in a tank top outside of the gym. So while both of us had pretty substantial biceps *while they were flexed*, once we were out of the gym and the blood went back to normal circulation, neither of us had anything that would be remarkable. Toned, yes, but nothing that drew attention. I'd be interested in seeing what the woman in the original post looks like when she's not flexed, because I suspect it's the same.

Not that it should matter anyway - I feel a little guilty making this argument because it suggests that I buy into the "muscular is bad" argument. Which I don't. I just think I should point out that it's a false dichotomy, that "feminine" and "weight lifter" are not mutually exclusive. For the record.

But, like I originally said, I think this attitude is improving, or at least men are getting the clue that it's not their place to comment. I haven't heard anything like that in a while. It might also be that there are more serious female athletes at my current gym than at my old one, so guys are more used to it. And (also for the record) every guy I've ever actually dated has liked my muscles just fine, and never have they found me to be "manly" because of them.

[will]

"every guy I've ever actually dated has liked my muscles just fine, and never have they found me to be "manly" because of them."

They were probably just scared of you. (I am kidding.)

I swam growing up and in college. I was around plenty of women who had significant muscles and who were tremendous athletes.. I heard them complain often about the comments that they got from people. Personally, I thought they looked good.

The question of attractiveness is a long and complex topic. But I do agree that there should be nothing wrong with women developing all of their physical gifts. (Have you seen the butts on those short track skaters??)

[Laurelin]

I had to add her to my blogroll after that- it was such a great post.

I don't do weight lifting, but in my kung fu lessons one of the things we do is punch a pad held by another student, and I noticed how I and the two other female students found it difficult- not because we were 'weak', but because we felt strange doing it. None of us were putting in the effort we could have done if we'd felt at ease. I personally was worrying about how I looked, and if I was making a stupid facial expression or whatever, or if I looked pathetic for trying at all. (I should add here that the attitude of our instructor and our male classmates has always been welcoming and friendly, so it's nothing to do with reactions we were getting from anyone else. It's a really great class in fact, and my instructor rocks). Eventually we eased up and managed to do it 'properly', but it took a good few weeks for me to lose my uneasiness. It really got me to wondering about how much 'weaker' females are than males in reality, and how much of how we perceive that difference is to do with social conditioning. Wearing tight clothing, heels, keeping clean, being 'pleasant' and 'nice' (I mean submissively so as opposed to general politeness) are all restrictive behaviours and do not encourage the female body to develop in strength.

Woah, didn't mean to ramble on so long. I'm on chocolate overload :)

[The Happy Feminist]

Will, I am not such a fascist that I would presume to dictate to men what they should or should not find physically attractive. But I do have a tough time with the notion that women need to make conforming to those standards their top priority. I like being found attractive (depending on when and how it's expressed), but it's a matter of self-respect and pride to me that I won't compromise my health or my ability to accomplish things for the sake of appealing to men.

And stop looking at those track skaters butts, you pig you.

[will]

"I am not such a fascist that I would presume to dictate to men what they should or should not find physically attractive."

Exactly! Men should able to decide who they are comfortable being around naked!

"And stop looking at those track skaters butts, you pig you."

I cannot admire them for their athleticism? Why do you always have to make it sexual?!?!??!?

You and I are on the same page.

[will]

oops. I meant about the physical strength part being acceptable.

[The Happy Feminist]

Ha! That reminds me of the swimsuit competition in the Miss America pageant: it's just about judgint the contestants' fitness, really, we swear!

[michelle]

A new book to check out! Thank you!

Laurelin, I know /exactly/ what you mean. It's nigh impossible to completely lose yourself in a physical activity when you're used to being 'on display' 24/7. I've been thinking about how much women must be "on display" recently during renovations at our workplace. Our cubical dividers had to be removed temporarily and suddenly we were completely exposed. It resembled an old-time secretarial pool. The experience prompted an older woman I work beside to remember one place she worked at years ago where all the acct staff (all female) were all exposed and facing the (male) supervisor's glassed-in office. She loathed it. In the law firm I work at, 100% of the secretaries, legal assistants, and acct staff are female. The secretaries' workstations are especially open, so they are constantly 'on display' while the (mostly male) lawyers can be invisible in their offices. We have very little privacy. It all ties into the notion of women being expected to be "public facing" or on display at all times. It really is constraining and a bit exhausting at times.

[Ann]

I read an interview with Marion Jones once where she was complaining about how impossible it was to find pants that fit her, since she had big legs and a big butt and a tiny waist, and pants are just not like that. I, while certainly not solid muscle like Ms. Jones, have the same problem with pants, and so I have this huge beef with the clothing industry essentially dictating what body types are acceptable. Even the Gap's new "curvy" pants are not that curvy - they're still too tight in the thighs, flatten my ass, and the waist is huge. Curvy indeed. Marion Jones, in that article, talked about her self esteem and how she felt fat -- FAT! -- because of this problem. I don't think that woman has an ounce of fat anywhere on her body. It's ridiculous that women are all supposed to be string beans with no hips. I think the clothing industry could do a lot more toward changing the beauty standard just by making cute clothing available for curvy women. Jeez.

[Ann]

Oh yeah, and what's with "curvy" being a euphemism for "fat"... I remember a long time ago on that stupid dating show MTV had, the women had to segregate themselves into either "curvy" or "athletic" categories. I continue to be stumped by this. It's a good thing I'm not going on that show. Not that it's still on or anything.

[R]

Ann - OMG THE PANTS PROBLEM! I have the exact same issue. My hips and thighs are big. My waist is not. The clothing industry tells me that this is impossible!

Before I got sidetracked into my usual pants-induced rage, I was thinking about appearance and athleticism, and how I see that playing out in the martial arts classes I teach. I see plenty of female students, like Laurelin, who have trouble punching a pad (or another student) because it makes them feel anxious. A lot of the time, it's because they have to work very hard to overcome the barrage of societal messages that tell them that *girls don't hit people!*, but quite often, my students tell me that they feel like they "look funny" when they perform various techniques. I don't have much of a problem with either thing, but I started training when I was six, which I think makes a bit of a difference.

The number one instance of women choosing looks over physicality that I see in my martial arts classes, though, isn't about muscles... It's about nails. You can't make a proper fist if you have long, manicured nails. They need to be cut pretty short, and conform to the shape of your fingertips (oval rather than square), or you'll cut your palms with them. And yet, I have had students who kept their long nails for years before finally giving in and wearing them shorter. It boggles me as much as high heels do, but it also reinforces to me that the pressure to conform to a certain appropriate look must be very great, indeed, for most women, if they'll choose the look over comfort or safety.

[Richard]

So standards of attractiveness should be those that would exist if we had no culture, if we were in a "state of nature"? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just wondering.

>>> "Don't you want to give the bird to those who prefer us in a state of frailty?"

Oh, yeah. Men LOVE frail women. If they have osteoporosis that's even better. Nothing sexier that that sweet sound of bones cracking under the pressure of a hug. Really HF, why would you write such nonsense?

>>> ... my default sport of long-distance running actually encourages a physique that is consistent with popular beauty standards for women.

How convenient.

[j0]

As an aside, one of the sports that builds a lot of upper body strenghth is gymnastics - where the female athletes are often described as "pixie-like". Because of gymnastics I could often do more pull-ups/push-ups than most boys back when I was in elementary school - which made me feel really kick-ass. Gotta love strength - its incredibly empowering.

[David Duff]

I know you deny it up above but there is, inadvertantly perhaps, a sense from your complaints that men should not have opinions, or at least not express them. I don't wish to rehash the Summers controversy, but as far as I can judge from here, there was a real state of affairs (the lack of women in the higher reaches of science), an hypothesis (one of several) which, as a matter of *opinion*, Summers plumped for. Next, we have men in a gym expressing their *opinions* on what they do or do find attractive in the feminine form. Finally, we have you tellings us, in effect, that in your *opinion*, Miss Weightlifter USA, is as attractive as Jennifer Lopez (whoever she is - I just know the name!). Where is the problem? Don't you enjoy the clash of opinion? And as you make clear that other people's opinions have no effect on you, why the beef?

[The Happy Feminist]

I live for clashes of opinions. Why do you think I blog? I should note that my post itself did not touch upon men expressing opinions -- although it did touch upon instances in which my weight lifting efforts were mocked or when men missed the point of Collette Dowling's book.

In fairness to you, David, my post does link to another post that complains about men feeling the need to express their views about what they find sexually attractive while the writer is simply lifting weights at the gym. Personally, I don't really care if guys want to sit around in the locker room or even on the Howard Stern show and talk about what they think is hot. But I don't think it's cool to talk to a female weight lifter about whether her body type is sexually appealing-- it presumes that that's the most important thing about what she is trying to do.

With Summers, my beef was that he advocated for a particular hypothesis without evidence. And,despite his claim that he was speaking "unofficially," he was at the time President of Harvard speaking at a conference that related to aspects of university policy. I don't think it's appropriate for someone in that position to go off half-cocked.

[Paul]

I am all for women having upper body strength if they so desire. It doesn't bother ma at all. :)

[The Happy Feminist]

Also, David, I never said anything about the woman weight lifter's attractiveness one way or the other. Why did you read that into my statement? (You may be right because I do think her look is attractive, but I just don't see where I said that, so I am surprised that you read that in.)

You are correct that I don't think attractiveness should be the priority at the expense of other things. And Howard Stern's opinions (for example) don't really affect the choices I make about my body. Unfortunately, that didn't seem to be the case for the young women with whom I tried out for the crew team.

[David Duff]

I take your point but remain confused. When the men mocked you, they were expressing an opinion. The *style* of the mockery might, or might not, be classed as rude or ungentlemanly, only you can judge that because you were there, but even so that is merely a matter of manners - or lack of them. I assume you are not suggesting that if a man in the right context quietly and politely stated his opinion that muscular women were unattractive, that you would find that unacceptable?

To return, reluctantly, to Summers. From your quotes he made clear that he was expressing an *opinion* on an hypothesis, one hypothesis amongst several. Clearly it was an *opinion* with which you disagreed. Your *opinion* that certain other factors were really the cause of the state of affairs was also based on an hypothesis which lacks proof. I fail to see any difference between you - except the *opinions*. And I firmly believe that you should both be free to express your *opinions*. If he is to be sacked and silenced, why not you?

[The Happy Feminist]

Aaaaah -- sorry to belabor Summers but TangoMan and now you keep saying that I expressed an opinion as to what causes gender disparity in high level science positions. BUT I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION! I have no idea what causes this gender disparity! I was giving Summers a hard time for failing to consider other factors or giving specious examples but I never once said that I thought those other factors are the cause of the gender disparity! Unlike Summers, I don't go off half-cocked about things I don't know about . . .

And you're right, I do have a problem with being mocked. I don't think that's unreasonable. That's not the same thing as being against men expressing opinions in an appropriate context. I also have a right to criticize those opinions, by the way!

[Richard]

David- Because an opinion without basis in some evidence is a guess, and guessing that women aren't as fit for the sciences as men makes about as much sense as guessing women are a more complex form of mushroom. Not the kind of guessing the leader of a major university should be enjoying. That's why I wondered in one of my comments here why Summers didn't cherry pick a few studies if he really wanted to cover his ass on this "opinion" of his. But he offered nothing, and that did him in.

[The Happy Feminist]

I think if I were on the Harvard faculty I might be just as concerned about Summers's lack of judgment and apparent stupidity as about the nature of his guess work!

[The Happy Feminist]

And Richard here is Exhibit A-- if I were against men having opinions, I would have banned him from this site long ago!!!

[David Duff]

Well, Richard, there is very slight evidence in the proposition that women are not as good as men in science and that is that hardly any women have ever reached the heights. As far as I can tell, no-one has any *proof* of why that condition exists. Summers favours one hypothesis, our 'Happy Hostess' favours another. I ask again. Why should one be sacked and silenced, and not the other? Or better still, why shouldn't both of them express their opinions?

[David Duff]

Sorry, your coments appeared as I was composing.

There is a simple conclusion, our hostess could layout the 'proof' of her theory as to why women have failed to reach the heights of science, then we can decide whether her 'opinion' is more soundly based than Summers', or, merely assertion just like Summers'.