Amazons International # 20 ************************** Topics: Thomas: Two kinds of equality Val: Women and muscularity Jamie: Amazonia & the Amazon psyche Owen: Bio Icehawk: More from the Amazon sports world ************************************************************** I've prepared an index to all issues of Amazons International that I will mail out as a separate posting. I will also mail a new expanded and indexed version of the FAQ file (new subscribers have gotten it already). Membership is now 97. ************************************************************** From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Two kinds (or aspects) of equality There's an interesting issue that I think is worth considering, and which may be an underlying theme in several of the recent "tensions" between different concepcions or styles of Amazons and relationships that have emerged here. Namely the fact that there are two kinds, or rather two opposing aspects, of equality. First there is what we may call 'equality through perfect symmetry' or 'globally distributed equality'. This is the idea that two lovers or SO's must have the same interests and strengths in the same degree in all areas, or at least in all important areas. For example, Icehawk writes in # 18: > I've always liked the look of muscular women, > particularly good arm and shoulder development, but Lady > Hawk has shown me other reasons to like the company of > Amazons: women who not only claim equality, but live as my > equal. This camaraderie with Lady Hawk is one of the best > parts of our relationship. Neither one of us is below the > other - we are equals physically, mentally, spiritually, > socially. Now, I certainly want this camaraderie and the fundamental equality that it presupposes. Yet I do not want (or rather, it is not my first choice) a total symmetry in every area or on most every issue. I think that the camaraderie and the fundamental overall equality need not be based on such a perfect symmetry. I'm not claiming that Icehawk would or must disagree with the following; I just want to separate two ideas as clearly as possible for analysis. However, I think that reality is some mixture of them both, and that the exact mixture may vary over time, as well as between different couples. The one idea I will call _equality through perfect symmetry_ and the other _equality through complementarity_. So, in addition to the overall symmetry or equality that I perceive in Icehawk's statement, I also want something else, an element of different emphasis, of mutually balancing asymmetries or imbalances, that I think increase excitement and healthy tensions in a relationship. If you've read the latest ElfQuest album, there is a comment by war chieftess Kahvi that captures the flavor of my point. She says, "Differences make good sparks". For example, the one lover may be more physical than the other, while the other may be more intellectual, or one may be more intellectual while the other may be more artistical, or the one may be more artistical and the other more physical. They would be sharing the same interests, but the emphasis and time allocated to an area would be different. These differences may be reflected in career choices, interests, capabilities, physiques etc. So the one might be a professional athlete while the other works out regularly but not professionally or competitively; the other might be a professional writer and read a lot while the other reads and/or write more as time permits, non-professionally. And these differences would not only be respected, each learning and benefitting from the other's strengths; the point is that the psychological differences associated with these differences may often cause the "sparks" of which Kahvi spoke, sparks coming from a different perspective, based on different experiences, that may add significantly to one's own perceptions of life. We may talk of this in terms of domination and submission. One will dominate in some areas, while the other will dominate in other areas. All in all, when adding up all areas, the sums should be similar, so that overall equality is maintained. Now, in some areas neither will dominate, there is symmetry or particular equality. And here is my point: the locations of particular equalities as well as of particular dominances/submissions (dominance/submission should be considered as one category, since they are relative concepts that presuppose each other), and the relative distribution of these two categories, will vary widely for different individuals/couples. Vary in fact, and by preference. There simply is no global or universal rule that will suit everybody here, and there isn't any need for such a rule either. We're talking about psychological differences, and particular imbalances may be as important parts of the overall attraction and satisfaction of a relationship as particular symmetries are. So people will differ with respect to both their own emphasis on physicality and spirituality, as well as in the emphasis they prefer to see in a lover. For example, some may want physical equality, the lover should be one's own size and strength, while others may want some degree of physical asymmetry, either preferring a stronger/physically dominating lover, or themselves enjoying being buff and physically dominating. So I don't want an exact copy of myself, a perfect symmetry, I want somebody who is similar (in values, basic outlook, autonomy, level of accomplishments etc.) and yet distinctly different (professionally, and in some complementary psychological aspects and interests, somebody who has also been places and done things that I haven't and might never do). Not a replica, but a complementary match; somebody who is equal at a general fundamental level (values, general interests etc.), but who is different in concrete accomplishments and (some) particular interests, a complementarity of expression. That's what I mean by equality through complementarity. So while there is an overall symmetry or equality, particular asymmetries may be as important and satisfying as the particular symmetries. Hope I've been able to express this clearly.... ************************************************************** Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 14:56 CST From: RODGERS@BrandonU.CA Subject: Women and muscularity I would like to address the article on gender roles that appeared in AI # 18, but more specifically the issue of muscularity and women. My point is simple. Why can women not be muscular? Why must a woman maintain her femininity if she is a bodybuilder or involved in any athletics? Why does the perfect female body need to be soft and curvy? Society -- and indeed the bodybuilding sub-culture -- condemns a woman for being "too" muscular. The Paula Bircumshaw incident is an excellent example. For those of you not familiar with this, Paula is a brilliant lady who appeared to be the obvious winner in a recent bodybuilding competition, yet the judges failed to place her in the top five. The crowd booed and Paula appeared back on stage, hit a few poses, and made a few unpleasant gestures towards the judges. The winner of the event (who, incidentally looked more like Ms. Hawaiian Tropic) rushed to the podium and explained that the judges were looking for a "feminine" look, not a "drugged-up" look. In fact, two other competitors were by-passed because they, IMO, were too muscular. Why was Paula upset? For the same reason I am upset. The sport of bodybuilding has a double standard. The men who succeed are muscular beyond belief, yet women win when they lean towards the feminine look. That is not what bodybuilding is all about. It is not a beauty contest! Someone like Arnold S. or Lee Haney take their sport to its limits and are labelled as heroes, but a woman does the same and is labelled a freak! A muscular body - male or female - is a work of art. Muscles portray strength, independence, pride. I guess society does not want women to possess these traits! I am ashamed that our culture continues to see women as secondary to men. Not allowing women to be the best they can in the sport of bodybuilding - and indeed life! - is just another example of the male domination of our society and the sex discrimination that continues to haunt us. Val Rodgers Brandon, Canada RODGERS@BrandonU.Ca ************************************************************** Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 23:35:37 EDT From: gairns@ccrs.emr.ca (Jamie Gairns) Subject: Amazonia & the Amazon psyche I saw mention of Amazons in Comics. Normally, I don't read comics, but I did come across two other sources of Amazons in comic books: (1) Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (Character Vajra - hmmm, odd name). BTW, I *used* to be an avid D&D player and at least 75% of my characters were female. I am writing a pseudo- Vampire short story where the protagonist is female. (2) Sisterhood of Steel. Set in a Medieval millieu, a group of female warriors engage in quests, power-plays and other great things. I will have a scan of this comic book available in part in a few weeks. I read the bio of Icehawk and I must provide a differing view of Amazonia. While I think physical prowess *CAN* be an element in the psyche of an Amazon, I certainly don't agree that it is required. I tend to believe that women are just like other humans :-) in that they have bodies, minds, emotions, weaknesses, etc ... An Amazon, like several women have said (it seems to be primarily women who have echoed this sentiment) is comprised of many different elements. In my view, I see the woman's mind being the primary building block of the Amazon. An Amazon is a strong woman. Now that may include all sorts of things from intellect, emotional strength, independence, resourcefulness, and, YES!, even muscles. Now, what this says to me is that the Amazon appears to be on completely equal footing with men, which in turn suggests, *miraculously*, that women and men are human and equal, despite our exquisite differences. I guess the gist is that brute force does not a strong person make. Finally, my personal feeling is that muscle is attractive on women, but *NOT* because it guarantees any sort of Amazonian personality. It is the equality of purpose that I find attractive. I like a PERSON that has a strength ... at least one. So, have I stuck my foot in my mouth ? Let me know. Any responses I get will be interesting ... no doubt. :-) James gairns@ccrs.emr.ca ************************************************************** Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 23:34:50 BST From: osmith@acorn.co.uk (Owen Smith) Subject: Bio Recently I subscribed to Amazons International, and when I read the old stuff I really didn't think I belonged here at all. The obsession with body building, wrestling, and macho men and women just isn't my thing. (I'll wrestle with a woman if she wants to, but if she's any good she'll break my neck in 3 seconds flat.) Some of the more recent stuff has been closer to what I was after, so I'll take my life in my hands and say what I was going to say. There are several reasons why I'm interested in amazons. Firstly, I'm interested in an assertive mindset in women. If there's one thing that really turns me off about most women it's the way they sit there and meekly say very little for hour after hour, or if they do say anything they just agree with something a man said. I want to hear a woman's own opinion, not have her shore up some man's fragile macho ego. Physical size isn't that important to me overall, I'm just as attracted to short women as I am to very tall women. Physical condition is important to me though. If a woman is fat, forget it. I'm just not interested. You don't need to be superhuman to satisfy me, just not fat and not lazy. I like a woman that doesn't balk at being invited to go on a ten mile bicycle ride and picnic, or would actually consider going caving/hiking/climbing if I went rather than meekly saying "but I'll get my feet wet!". The only woman I know who satisfies these requirements is my mother! She's 47, 5'4" tall, teaches two keep fit classes per week, and does aerobics and weights twice a week. The weights are for body tone not muscle building, but she moans that she always has to double the weights on the machines when she uses them or go on days there are men at the gym. I've seen people stare in amazement while she helps me and my dad lay concrete, and they reach dizzying heights of "is she really 47?" when she digs the garden over on her own including fetching five wheel-barrow loads of horse manure from the farmer's muck pile about a hundred yards away across the field. Some of my friends in Cambridge don't even believe me that my mum does this sort of thing. By my definition, she is an Amazon in all aspects except sheer physical size. She also disagrees with my father on many subjects :-). Secondly, I'm a transvestite (not many people know this except on the net). In fact my current favourite description of myself is a "lesbian trapped in a male body". I'm 26, 6'0" tall and weigh about 11 stone 10 pounds (there are 14 pounds in a stone in case the yanks have forgotten (-:). I cycle a lot to work and I'm generally in reasonable shape. I could do to lose about 10 pounds in weight, most of it off my stomach - I need to improve my diet a bit and exercise more than just cycling. My leg muscles are quite nicely taut from all the cycling though - no fat there. Anyway, my physical size means that when I'm cross dressed (or if I ever get a sex change) that would make me an Amazon in some ways, plus I have roughly the right mindset. Thirdly, if I do get a woman to go out with me while I'm dressed as a woman, the taller the woman the better, since that will make it easier for me to pass as a woman. If she's taller than me that would be excellent. Indeed it would be nice to find out what it's like to look up into someone's eyes and then reach up to kiss them. I've spent most of my life looking down at people. I don't mind looking down, I'd just like to try it the other way round at least once. Well that's the amazon angle from me. If anyone wants to hear more about my problems with dealing with my transvestism etc., check out soc.bi or subscribe to the CD.Forum mailing list. Flames to /dev/null please - if you're just going to mail me and tell me I'm a sick person in need of curing of my perversion then don't bother. Save the net bandwidth for something else. [If anybody posting on Amazons International is being exposed to harassment, I will deal *very severely* with it. -- Ed.] Owen pp Gwendolin (long legged lesbian with freckles) - osmith@acorn.co.uk ************************************************************** Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 09:52:03 EDT From: Icehawk Subject: More news from the Amazon sports world Here's some more info on the Amazon sports world. I was flipping through a pro-wrestling magazine(my one true vice) and happened across an article about a woman boxer named Kreuze(can't remember her first name, sorry) who recently did a tour of Japan. She had a series of ten matches against a Japanese woman wrestler, winning them all, I believe. The magazine was *Wrestling Superstars*, and had an ad for a video of the series. I didn't buy the mag, but went back later in the week to write down the info but it was gone from the news-stand. I'll look for the video ad in the next issue I see and send it to you. Have a new company for you: Lutte-Sport Lutte-Sport is a video company that has videos of women's wrestling. This is real wrestling, collegiate/ olympic freestyle championship types of matches. They have vids of the first women's world championships in free-style wrestling from 1989, as well as others. They also advertise a vid titled "Yes, Women Can Wrestle!", which is a training tape for women that features Leia Kawaii, a world class wrestler. This also includes some tournament footage of Leia. Most of the videos are in the $40.00 range. The address: Lutte-Sport Video P.O. Box 5296 Hercules, CA 94547 Phone Orders: 1 - 800 - 245 - 7237 (Visa/Mastercard) Hope this info is interesting to someone. Icehawk ************************************************************* Be your own disciple/Fan the spark of Will MANOWAR ************************************************************* ********************************************************* * Amazons International: thomas@smaug.uio.no * * Thomas Gramstad, editor * ********************************************************* "A Hard Woman is Good to Find" -- The Valkyries