Amazons International # 57 ************************** Contents: Femininity vs. femaleness Review of bodybuilding books My trip to the US Meriruka: the tiny Amazon returns... The Millenium KickAss Women's Movement John: Unequal fetish ratios between the sexes Susanne Scott: the meaning of Amazon Date of publication: 30.06.97 ********************************************************************* From: Editor Subject: Femininity vs. Femaleness PRINCIPLES OF FEMININITY (1) Femininity is a masculine concept. Some men, possessed by the unwarranted belief that they speak for all men and all women, and with the aid of some women, pass on beliefs and attitudes about gender which convey a natural flexibility and uplifting grace equal to rigor mortis. (2) Femininity is not about identification, but about exclusion. The function of "femininity" is not cognition and knowledge, but control and domination; not to discover or create female identity, but to debar and demote certain women from inclusion and consideration, making them invisible. (3) Biology is destiny. PRINCIPLES OF FEMALENESS (1) There is nothing a man can do that a woman can't do. (2) There is nothing a woman must do or must not do just because she is a woman. (3) Biology is a potential. Are you female or are you feminine? Do you seek femininity or do you seek a unique individual partner? Questions to ponder in the ongoing debate of gender, sexuality, fetishes, objectification, and new and old stereotypes. REVIEWS Paul B. Goode (1997): An Intimate Portrait of the Female Fitness Athlete Physique. Thunder's Mouth Press, New York. This book is a compilation of black-and-white photographies by Paul Goode, a selection from a collection compiled over a span of 15 years. Goode is a professional photographer, and that shows. The technical quality, the compositions, and the use of light and dark all speak of professionalism. "Light wrapped around their bodies in a different manner than it did on smoother physiques", and that's the truth. Many of the compositions attempt, at some level, to unite strength and sensuality, and quite a few of them succeed. A small number succeeds very well. The book is not only about fitness athletes, there is also a section with bodybuilders, and a foreword by Carla Dunlap-Kahn, a leading bodybuilder during the seventies and early eighties. So perhaps this book can aid the process of bringing united images of female power and sensuality into the cultural mainstream? Perhaps, and perhaps not. There are some serious problems with this book. Even though the book is not pornographic, it conveys some of the same impressions one may get from a Playboy magazine: the impression of objects, the "conveyor belt" type of similarity that one perceives from images of photo models because they are all being shoehorned into the same small set of stereotypical ideals and esthetical norms. One element that adds to this impression, is the (with a few exceptions) stereotypically remote and unemotional facial expressions of the models, a photographical habit that Goode perhaps imports from the world of modeling. Goode's repeated complaint about the "grimaces" of female bodybuilders on photographs taken by other photographers seems strange. Goode's models are selected because they are strong, and that's good, but they are still mostly presented as objects rather than active agents, and this is bad; for this reviewer this conflict reads as an artistic compromise, though I'm sure Goode is where he wants to be. Female fitness is an outgrowth of female bodybuilding. As the bodybuilders made leaps ahead, and away from mainstream esthetical ideals, some people came up with the idea of creating something midway between traditional beauty pageants and hardcore bodybuilding contests. The resulting fitness competitions no doubt have gained popularity and paved the way for a widespread acceptance of a more muscular esthetical ideal, rather than the tired waif ideal. Since fitness and bodybuilding are pulling in the same direction, and are close relatives with women switching back and forth between them, it would be nice -- and wise -- if they could work as a team. Which they all too often don't. While hardcore bodybuilding fans may perceive the fitness athletes at best as a "little sister" and at worst as compromisers, some fitness fans snub bodybuilding and seek to divorce fitness from bodybuilding. Unfortunately, Goode belongs to the latter category. In his preface to the book, Goode claims to be the originator of "new ideas" and originality, while repeatedly suggesting an incompatibility between femininity and a high level of muscularity -- the oldest and most tired of all stereotypical "opposites" or false alternatives. Goode praises the grace and femininity of the early bodybuilders and today's fitness athletes and laments "the hard super-muscular appearance of women bodybuilders today". He describes the two "factions" of the sport thus: One group believed that the most muscular women should win a competition and had little regard for symmetry or beauty. The other faction believed the woman should be judged as a total package, that she should have as much muscle as her physique could handle, while retaining her femininity. One wonders what it would mean for a woman to "have more muscle than her physique could handle". Unfortunately Goode does not provide any example of or any reference for this intriguing concept. One also wonders if this is some uniquely female predicament, like ovaritis? Or, what would it mean for a man to have "more muscles than his physique could handle"? Apparently, according to Goode, the most muscular women cannot be beautiful. More to the point, is bodybuilding a sport or is it a beauty contest? If the latter, why are men not judged according to a standard of masculinity? If the former, what has beauty got to do with it? Perhaps "beauty" has a good deal to do with some sports, but we should speak more precisely. Several sports include evaluations of things like grace and artistic expression -- but only insofar as these employ, express and are based upon technical skills, strength, dexterity or other athletic elements. This is also the case for bodybuilding: symmetry, proportion, grace and artistic posing matter also, in addition to the central criteria of mass and definition (the woman is in fact judged as a "total package", if one wishes to use that terminology). Goode, on the other hand (and the rest of his "faction"), equivocates beauty with femininity. Femininity is not only not an achievement (and certainly not an athletical achievement) -- it is also in fact limiting and counteracting the athletic elements of bodybuilding. One recalls Marcia Ian's discourse: 4.Spurious gender difference is maintained and rewarded in bodybuilding through the discriminatory valorization of certain aesthetic categories. Indeed bodybuilding tries to limit the achievements of female physique athletes by adding "femininity" to the list of aesthetic categories they are expected to fulfill. The film Pumping Iron II: The Women (1985) dramatically documents this sexism by recording a conflict which erupts in a sequestered conference room among those judging the 1983 "Miss Olympia" (now the "Ms. Olympia"), America's most prestigious bodybuilding competition for women. A man apparently serving his first stint as judge is puzzled and angry to find that he is supposed to judge the women on the basis of their "femininity." He points out to the other, more experienced judges that, while the men are ranked on the basis of their muscle density, definition, over-all symmetry and proportionality, as well as for the style, skill and fluidity of their posing, the women are in addition judged for a quality called "femininity" which surreptitiously but effectively limits all the others. How, this judge queries, is anyone supposed to determine how muscular a woman's body can be before it ceases to be feminine? Furthermore, in what other sport could a female competitor be expected to limit her achievement for fear of losing her proper gender? 5.Would anyone advise a runner--Florence Griffith-Joyner, for example--that to run too fast would be unladylike? Would anyone warn a female long jumper not to jump too far, or a swimmer not to swim too fast? Why, then, presume to tell a bodybuilder that she may be only so muscular, but no more muscular than that, at the risk of losing both her femininity and her contest? (Marcia Ian (1991): From Abject to Object: Women's Bodybuilding. In: PostModern Culture v.1 n.3. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/postmodern_culture/v001/1.3ian.html) Through his praise of "femininity", Goode establishes himself firmly in the long and dreary tradition of the three femininity principles identified above. He may want a longer rope, but he is nevertheless an advocate of the leash of femininity, not the power of femaleness. ----***---- Bill Dobbins (1994): The Women: Photographs of the Top Female Bodybuilders. Artisan, New York. If there are to be any classical works on female bodybuilders, this is a good candidate. This book offers style, imagination, and vitality. The integration of strength and sensuality, power and playfulness is successful in most cases. Vivid facial expressions and vital, imaginative poses make the models stand out as individuals with unique characters and personalities, and as active agents. Clothes, space, architecture and furniture are used well, to enhance and underscore this theme. This is photography as art, both inspirational and professional. The reader does not feel like a voyeur or Playboy reader. A long and substantial introduction provides information as well as inspiration, including interviews with some of the distinguished athletes, historical data about the sport, and also dealing with contemporary issues and dispelling common myths and misconceptions. The book features white and black women exclusively. Where are the Asians, Hispanics, Indians, Arabs, Native Americans, etc.? There are women with such backgrounds in the sport, even if not among the top 10 in competitions. If this book cannot help bring united images of female power and sensuality into the cultural mainstream, as well as gaining more acceptance for female bodybuilding, it is hard to imagine what could. MY TRIP TO THE US I'm going to the US in July. First I'll spend a week in Charlottesville, Virginia, and then a week (from July 12th) in New York. My schedule is somewhat tight, but if you're in one of those areas and would like a get-together, drop me a mail and we'll see what we can do. Maybe even a New York 'Amazon gathering' could be arranged. I'll be checking my mail during the journey, so drop me a mail if you're interested. Thomas Gramstad thomas@math.uio.no ********************************************************************* Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:17:54 -0700 From: meriruka@interserv.com Subject: The tiny Amazon returns..... I received an overwhelming response to my note from AI # 54. I feel I must explain that I did not appoint myself an authority on what constitutes an Amazon, I was merely fed up with all the posts that concentrated solely on the physical aspect. My point was that there is more to it than being a six foot muscle-bound, iron bending woman, (although they are nice to look at, mind you). Upon reading Tracy's letter in # 55, I thought it would be interesting to see how others felt. Does she qualify for Amazonship? I would have to say no. Tracy's contribution to humanity is the most underrated, overlooked and yet most difficult and important job on this earth... she's a mom. Bless her for the choices she's made and the obstacles she has overcome. But if an Amazon was forced to choose between glory and dirty diapers....well? Hmm. Enough said. I still maintain that the Amazons' goal is a society in which abilities are what you are valued by, not gender. Unfortunately as there is about 6000 years or so of prior history to overcome, it could take some time. However, on a final note, I am pleased to announce that I received a number of letters from men who are evolved and enlightened and (pay attention, closet chauvinists), yet, not one of them diminished by this line of thinking, they are all most definitely the type of men other men admire. Keep up the good work Thomas, I am off to stand on some milk crates, flex, and bend some iron bars...... NOT. Cheers, meriruka ********************************************************************* Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 15:48:43 PDT From: c haggerty Subject: Because we think Amazons rule... Our group, the Millenium KickAss Women's Movement, has added your web page, the Amazon Connection, as one of our proud links. Dont worry, this isn't a crazy group of suicidal millenium freaks... The Millennium KickAss Women's Movement is dedicated to instilling in women and girls a new KickAss attitude and lifestyle necessary to succeed and flourish into the new millenium; to reminding most men, old fashioned thinkers and other slow-moving members of the human race that we females simply kick ass; and to offer positive, sassy, KickAss role models for us all. High Kick to that! It got started with a group of sassy women in the x-philes chat room on the wbs system and it grew into a funny cult-following gals-rule club... Our page is still under a lot of construction, but you can check it out at: http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/2294 [Also linked from the Amazon Connection. -- Ed.] ********************************************************************* Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:42:21 +0100 From: John Subject: Re: Unequal distribution of deviations between the sexes Marcia Ian wrote in AI # 56: > I was somewhat angered by the poster in AI # 53, to whom John > responded in AI # 54, who implied that Amazons who do not want to > dominate men are not as sexual as men. Actually, he said that such > women are not enslaved by the sexual drives that motivate men. > First of all: one does not have to be enslaved by sexual drives to > be sexual, nor does sex require S/M roles. No one has to be > enslaved in actuality or symbolically. But surely if one has got "set in one's ways" (maybe as a result of the educational/child rearing system) and actually enjoys only or primarily one particular form of activity as a result one *is* enslaved. Our society unequally sets men and not women in many and varied "ways". It would seem sensible for a learned debate as to why this occurs, and to consider the means to rectify it. The thought has occurred to me that the desire of a measureable minority of men to be wrestled to submission by women (see for example the newsgroup alt.sex.fetish.wrestling) could be a natural part of girl-boy play amongst non-segregared juveniles that normally gets played out as they move on to other things. From an evolutionary point of view, it would be a good means for males to select females that are physically fit. Once they are paired off, it is no longer necessary to continue with it for the purposes of making more people. However, as youths are frequently unable to interact with females until well into their 20s (for reasons stated in the previous article) a few of them fantasise about this so much that they are fixated on it to the exclusion of all else. Girls, however, have more access to (older) men and are not so fixated. The number of women with a sexual fixation on wrestling is so small that it is near enough to zero to *be* zero. Those that are involved usually see it as a way of "renting their bodies" without having to get involved in actual sex and prostitution which is still illegal in many jurisdictions. They may well despise their clients. Maybe my theory is wrong, but this unequal distribution does exist between the sexes, and there must be a scientific reason for it somewhere. Maybe some other Amazons International participants can suggest alternative theories. -- Sincerely, ************************************************ * Publisher of Wrestling Fun * John * contacts and articles for m/f wrestling fans * * details on request * ************************************************ "Find someone who will willingly do it, don't just talk about it." ********************************************************************* Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 8:21 -0500 From: Susanne Scott Subject: the meaning of Amazon? I've been giving some thought to some of the things which Thomas has sent us recently and I agree with many of the things Marcia related in AI # 56. The world is full of people who are all entitled to their own ideals, opinions, and ways of thinking. It seems as if some folks would like to have a checklist with cast-in-concrete attributes they could check off to determine if this one or that one is an Amazon. To me this is not the truth. Rather, I believe that the essence of the whole matter is what comes from inside and not merely what appears to us through our eyes. Strength is a relative term and size alone doesn't always designate strength. In my opinion, the meaning of Amazon is a blending of many elements: body, spirit, and mind. I look at it from a very holistic point of view. A good illustration of this would be to see me and my workout partner, Joni, lifting weights. I am big and 180 pounds, Joni is 5'3" and about 130 but she can lift nearly as much as I can. Joni is small but quick and sure, and can beat me silly when we put on the boxing gloves. She might be little but she has the heart and spirit of a warrior. And then there are other women I know who are overcoming terrific obstacles in pursuit of their dreams. Amidst raising children, working full time, keeping their houses, cultivating their gardens, going to school, cooking supper and doing the laundry every day they are tenaciously determined to follow their passions. Fiercely dedicated, their own personal visions are exalted and leading them on, they can do no less. Such sustained strength, day after day maintaining their ambitions against all odds -- it's truly amazing. The spiritual woman understands that her individuality is uniquely hers alone, she knows where her strength comes from and therefore she can never, ever suffer lack or be left with inadequate resources. To me these are the qualities that designate strength. Does this have the same meaning as Amazon? I don't know. Perhaps to some, maybe not for others. I don't believe there is any fruitage, anything to be gained by worrying about labels. What seems more important is the remarkable women that shine like lights come into the world -- may we always be strong of body, spirit, and mind! [Susanne's bio is in AI # 41. -- Ed.] ***************************************************************** * Amazons International * * Thomas Gramstad, editor: thomas@math.uio.no * * Administravia/Listserver: amazons-request@ifi.uio.no * * Submissions: amazons@math.uio.no * * http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/lists/amazons.html * * * * The Amazon Connection -- Links to Amazon web sites: * * http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/lists/amazon-links.html * ***************************************************************** "A Hard Woman is Good to Find" -- The Valkyries