Athletic Women Blog - Female Bodybuilding

"My girls are stronger than your boys"

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:01:00 -0500

I believe it. Way to go girls!

(Video by Strongman Athletics)

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

Shocking News: Bodybuilders show off their bodies!

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:46:00 -0400

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?

Two 100 lb Dumbbells, One Woman

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:29:00 -0400

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:

How to become a superwoman

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:09:00 -0500

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.

2010, a remembrance

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:53:00 -0500

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!—

Loree Smith and why we must support strong women

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:40:00 -0500

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:

Does the LFL brawl like it plays football?

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:21:00 -0500

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?

Nattering Ninnies of Negativism

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:20:00 -0500

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.