Female Bodybuilding

I believe it. Way to go girls!


(Video by Strongman Athletics)

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

In another story for the Mrs. Grundy files, a high-school administrator bans a coed bodybuilding contest, saying that she doesn't want the school associated with "scantily clad women."

This is, of course, foolish on many levels. But why is it that men can wear next to nothing without anyone saying a word against it, yet women get scorn to no end for wearing as much or more?

If this doesn't put to rest the canard that women can't be strong, like really strong, then nothing will. Former basketball standout Nikki Rouillard in an impressive display of strength:

Apparently, you do exactly what Laura Phelps Sweatt has been doing. Laura is the fourth woman to bench press 500 lb or more, and she is the lightest (181 lb) to do so. Here she is bench pressing 510 lb (yikes!):



So, you say, That's great, but what else can she do? How about a 40.5" box jump?—



See, women can build their bodies and become superlative athletes just like guys can. Only time and pure dedication are required.

The year that just ended was a busy one, too busy even to summarize in one short post. But here are a few of the many noteworthy items from 2010.

The University of Connecticut women's basketball team won 90 games straight, a new record for college basketball.

Kelly Kulick became the first female Professional Bowlers Association champion.

The IAAF, after demonstrating clearly how grotesque is the enterprise of gender testing, cleared track athlete Caster Semenya for return to competition. (Unfortunately, that still left us with some whining.)

Jordanian Farah Malhass became the first Arab woman to compete in an international bodybuilding competition.

Female athletes, not surprisingly, brought their A-game to the 2010 Winter Olympics, particularly Lindsey Vonn.

In entertainment news, Covert Affairs was, in my view, the best thing to come about in 2010; I can hardly wait for its return this summer.

I try to post little amusements throughout the year that perhaps elicit a chuckle while making a point. One from 2010 that I remember
fondly is the Knight and Day stunt rehearsal gone wrong, so good it is worth a repeat. Enjoy and have a Happy New Year!—

Being an Olympic athlete is a full-time job. There isn't time for much else. Thus money can be a problem. Depending on the athlete's sport and country, sometimes there will be a full sponsorship. Generally this is not the case, however. Instead, the typical Olympian is left to figure out on her own how to subsist and pay for training expenses. In particular, women who compete in strength-related sports quite often need financial assistance.

It is important that we support female strength athletes. They must be free to devote themselves, without distraction, to developing their bodies and advancing their sport; that is, if we really do want a future where women are regarded for their physical strength on a par with men.

Olympic hammer-thrower Loree Smith, for example. Loree works hard year-round to make herself a better, stronger thrower. Just as important, she doesn't allow oversimplified, restrictive feminine ideals to influence her training: "I love being strong and athletic, and I absolutely love being a woman and don't believe the two are exclusive!" says Loree. With her talent, determination, and hard work, she is paving the way to that aforementioned future.

But once again, Loree needs our help. Fortunately, she has made this easy enough (also here). So, now, before 2010 is gone, make a donation that helps Loree keep her dream going, not to mention ours.

P.S. — Here is Loree in action:

I hadn't paid much attention to the Lingerie Football League before recently. I had seen just enough about it to know that I wasn't that interested. But over the last few weeks the controversy that it engenders has become increasingly difficult to avoid.

Most objections to the LFL center on the skimpy attire worn by the players (a strange mix of bras, panties, garters, pads, and helmets). This is to be expected, particularly here in the US where a marked remnant of Puritanism still colors things. (We live in a country that is at once uptight about sexuality and addicted to pornography—tells you something, doesn't it?) Knowing that sex is integral to life, which of course includes athletics, I typically abstain from criticism along those lines. I suspect that we would be better off, maybe not so schizophrenic, were we a little more comfortable with our bodies and our sexuality. Oh well, that's a topic for another time.

So the LFL is entertainment (titillation?) glossed as sport. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. I will, however, submit one admonitory observation. That LFL players are rated by how they look—conventionally feminine with just a tinge of athletic—rather than by how they might play football or whether they have the size and body type advantageous to certain football positions possibly does send an unwanted message, one already repeated too often in our culture, to athletically inclined girls: to be an athletic woman is acceptable so long as one doesn't overdo it and stays within certain confines.

The LFL managed to get press again last night with its first "brawl." Some think it was staged. Either way, does it matter?

My week started with a guest appearance on Women Talk Sports Radio. I was invited on to talk about gender segregation in sports. The discussion centered on an article written by a promising high school journalist named Julia Friedman. I had been forewarned but didn't take heed: this week's theme would be: can girls compete with boys in sports?

This became evident Tuesday when I came across another article, which had been published in Washington Square News (the student newspaper for New York University). This second article can accurately be described as facile. Madeline Paumen, its author, thinks not only that women cannot hope to ever compete with men, but also that they shouldn't play sports rigorously as the men do, for they are too delicate. (Is this really the year 2010?)

Let's do away with a few myths here. Female athletes will invariably be compared with male athletes; neither wishful thinking nor complaining will change that. Moreover, how many honestly believe that for women to simply participate in sports, watered-down of course, without any hope of their being seen as truly elite athletes is satisfactory? I suspect not many in the general population think this way, certainly fewer still among female athletes.

I've pointed this out many times, and I apologize to frequent readers for doing so again, but human biology isn't fixed; it is in fact astonishingly plastic. The environment and societal forces have tremendous influence on our biology, including how testosterone and other muscle-building hormones are produced and utilized in our bodies. Therefore, whether or not X is the norm biologically now doesn't mean it will always hold true. There was a time, not long ago either, when it was said that women couldn't match the intellectual capacity of men because their brains are smaller than men's. We know this to be foolish today. While it is the case that women, on average, have smaller brain sizes, their brains are wired differently, more efficiently (e.g., more neuron fibers in the corpus callosum). That they were (and sometimes still are) denied access to learning and education probably had the say in any perceived differences in cognitive ability. The same, of course, could apply equally to athletics as well.

Despite their still being hampered by feminine ideals incompatible with athletic competition, female athletes have made remarkable gains (beyond those made by male athletes in the same period) during the little more than a generation that they have had genuine access to athletics. So already we can see changes afoot.

There has been much fuss lately over the "epidemic" of injuries experienced by female athletes. Certainly injuries are a very real issue for female athletes and those who care for them. Still, I can't help thinking that some people are using the subject for reactionary purposes.

Here is the difficulty. We know that early and frequent work in the weight room helps reduce injuries, in youth and later on. Moreover, strength training improves athletic performance overall, it even raises levels of muscle-building hormones naturally. Simple enough. But why aren't more girls and young women lifting heavy? Because they have to overcome the aesthetic aversion to women with big muscles, thick necks, etc. that our culture still clings to. Thus, the solution is within easy reach, yet seemingly invisible.

Often we are distracted by issues irrelevant to improving the lot of female athletes; for example, how much skin female athletes show, or whether they are being "objectified." But, as we've already seen, a broken aesthetic is their biggest obstacle. It must go before female athletes can realize their athletic potential, and someday perhaps rival their male colleagues.

I should add one more thing before ending. The Washington Square News article says in effect that female athletes should just give up—throw in the towel so to speak. Yet the request is illogical, it transgresses a known fact—strong women don't quit.

Farah Malhass has faced numerous obstacles, including death threats, on her road to becoming a competitive bodybuilder on the international stage. Saturday, she competed at the 2010 World Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation World Championship, her first international competition, where at one point she posed in an outfit bedecked with medals—quite fitting, I think.

When Caster Semenya races, people talk. Sometimes in support of her, but very often it's the opposite, sadly enough. Lately, this latter sort (or something very close to it) has been coming from her sister athletes, that is, her competitors, many of whom think it unfair that they should have to race against her.

But let's forget, for a moment, Semenya. Rather, let's focus on the ignorant, gender-abasing obsession with a "male biology" that supposedly confers unfair, insuperable athletic advantage, here in particular the hormone testosterone:

"We have levels that we are not allowed to test over, so even if she’s a female, she’s on the very fringe of the normal female athlete biological composition from what I understand in terms of hormone testing," Cummins [Diane Cummins, who finished eighth in Berlin] said. "So from that perspective I think most of us sort of just feel like literally we are running against a man because what we know to be female is a certain testosterone level. And if that isn't the case, they need to change everything."

The first and most obvious problem with such thinking: There is no certain (precisely defined) testosterone level for females! Testosterone, the so-called male hormone which nearly all women have in their bodies, can be found in widely varying amounts among women, with some women having levels well into the range generally considered "male".

What is more, even a baseline testosterone level for individuals is hard to come by. Monitor someone's testosterone and you'll find that it changes constantly, responding to all manner of environmental factors, some seemingly random, others quite predictable. Strength training, for instance, increases testosterone naturally, only women have to work just a little harder and longer to get the benefit. Sex (# 8), too, raises testosterone levels. (Should female track athletes with already "high" levels abstain from sex before meets?)

Research the subjects of steroid-, hormone-, and gender-testing for a time and you see how silly and hurtful the effort to make sport perfectly "fair" has become. Anything beyond the most basic of tests is in fact pointless and counterproductive. The witch-hunt has to end sometime.

You probably wouldn't as a rule expect to find photographic portraits of female bodybuilders featured in a dignified art exhibition, much less their carrying the name of a celebrated artist whose work is part of the Permanent Collection of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. But that is exactly what you will find at Hasted Hunt Kraeutler, which is hosting Martin Schoeller's "Female Bodybuilders" through August 27. (Location: 537 West 24th St, Ground Floor; Chelsea, New York City 10011.)

Judging by not only his work but also his words, Schoeller's appreciation of female bodybuilders is paired with a keen awareness of what they can teach the rest of us.

Drags on a little, but worth sticking around to see who wins:

A review of Salt calls attention to it, and Hollywood Life made the very same observation at the Salt premiere in L.A. earlier this week (just ignore the recommended "toning" exercises—weak!). Moreover, both are right. We don't generally see spindly action heroes, with good reason. And those rules do not change, nor should they, for action heroines.

I harp on this, some might say, too much. But it is important—very important—that young athletic females start strength training early on (properly supervised, of course). Strength training builds not only stronger, more athletic bodies but bodies less susceptible to injury. These benefits can be reaped at any age, naturally, but they are amplified when young girls prepare their bodies early for the rigors of athletic competition. In so doing, they make a lasting, bounteous difference in their athletic careers, and their lives.

Cortney, a high-school athlete who trains at Philippi Sports Institute, is on the right track. Thanks to an early start and hard work, she has already progressed remarkably, and is well on her way to being a strong (an understatement), healthy athlete. A 315-lb trap-bar deadlift and you're only in high school—way to go, Cortney!

I've grown tired of a certain type of commercial, practically unavoidable nowadays, for home security systems. You know the story: a woman, home by herself or alone with children; a man, usually a stalker or a crazy ex; he smashes a window or kicks open a door; the woman screams; the alarm sounds; now another man, this one sane and professional, an employee with the security outfit, calls to check on her—help is on the way.

Not to make light of a serious topic, but must woman always be shown the helpless victim? Always at the mercy of some man—attacker or defender—for her safety? Can't producers of films, television series, commercials imagine life any other way, indeed, as it really is?

For it isn't that way in real life. A woman's safety is her own province, whether she likes it or not, and something for which she is well-equipped; and the athletic woman, abundantly so.

In point of fact, the would-be attacker in the Cincinnati area who recently found out the hard way: