Amazons International # 61 ************************** Contents: Lauren C: Greetings Jimmy Stroud: Delores Darling -- Action Hera Max Earnest: Amazon confusion Thomas: Re: Amazon confusion Cat Farrar: Re: Amazon confusion Pam Forder: Re: Amazon confusion Armfan: My arm wrestling newsletter John: Grrl computer games Rich Moore: Greetings Date of publication: 20.03.98 ********************************************************************* Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:12:30 -0500 (EST) From: LMCisme@aol.com Subject: Re: AI # 60 Hi People! I just wanted to tell everybody that this is the coolest newsletter I am currently receiving. I'm probably one of the youngest people on the list(I'm 14), but that's okay. This newsletter has true Girl Power! Keep up the fantastic work! Lauren C. ********************************************************************* Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 04:09:53 -0500 From: Jimmy Stroud Subject: Delores Darling: Female Action Hero Please consider for review and discussion in AI: Delores Darling: Bizarre-action Monthly http://www.deloresdarling.com/ Follow the adventures of that lovable psychotic: Delores Darling, as she seeks peace through insanity in a world gone horribly... normal. Plus back up features and general weirdness. ********************************************************************* Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:20:22 -0500 (EST) From: MaxEarnest@aol.com Subject: Amazon confusion Concerning the discussion in AI # 60 about the "requirements" to be an Amazon: I think this emphasis on the psychological is sorely misplaced. I'd like to suggest that there aren't any psychological requirements. "Amazon" has always been an overwhelmingly physical description of a woman who is first and foremost tall, followed, in some cases, by big and strong. And that's about it. Assertive? What exactly is meant by assertive? Ambitious? Pushy? There are millions upon millions of pushy women in the world, and very few qualify as Amazons. If they're sufficiently pushy, they're more frequently known in the American workplace as "bitches", the female equivalent of "prick". And "Not afraid to break free from traditional ideas about gender roles and femininity"? This describes, for starters, every lesbian and bisexual woman on Earth, and you can probably throw in all prostitutes too. Again, very few qualify as Amazons. I fail to see how courage, intelligence or sensuality have anything to do with Amazonics per se, and as for "athletic", that's hardly the word we're looking for here. Chris Evert, for example, is athletic. Is she an Amazon? Certainly not. Martina Navratilova is athletic. Is she an Amazon? It's a tossup; she has the ripped and muscled look that puts her in a far more "masculine" category than Evert. Gabrielle Reece is athletic. Is she an Amazon? Absolutely; she's 6'3", 170 and fairly well muscled, to boot. > Perhaps someone born into a wheel chair or something. Such a woman > could be as heroic as anyone else, but I don't think she would be > an Amazon. Couldn't agree less. Wheelchair-bound paraplegic women are frequently noted for their tremendous upper body development. I remember reading about one who worked out, had very big arms and was a great arm wrestler. Is she an Amazon? Hell, yes. Substantial muscular development will put any woman in the Amazon category regardless of her height/weight. Height will do the same. I'd call any 6'5" woman an Amazon even if she weighed 120 and looked like Olive Oyl. In other words, Amazon is a general physical term; if you want to distinguish between the different types of Amazons, you'll need additional terminology. > So as I perceive them, the terms Hera (or female hero) on the one > hand, and Amazon on the other, are not interchangeable; Hera is a > wider concept than Amazon. All Amazons are Heras, but not all > Heras are Amazons, the distinguishing characteristic being that > physicality is a necessary part of the Amazon concept, but not of > the Hera concept. Here's some additional terminology that at least somewhat clarifies your notion of an Amazon along purely physical lines, but do we really need this categorizing of women based on their "assertiveness"? This is the kind of thing that may have real meaning in Japan, say, but there are very few meek women to be found in the U.S. these days, and I'm sure the situation is similar in Europe. Here's a hypothetical: take a big, strong heavily muscled woman, say 6'2", 215. A woman built along the lines of a Nicole Bass(*), for example. Say she's married to a shrimp of a guy, and, for whatever deep-seated psychological reasons, she's very submissive around this guy, he treats her like a slave and she puts up with it. Does this mean she's not an Amazon? No, it means she's not a Hera; but all Amazons are supposed to be Heras. How about she's a Valkyrie? --Max Earnest (*) Editor's note: Nicole Bass is sometimes called "the world's biggest female bodybuilder". Her web page is at: http://www.thevalkyrie.com/bass/indexann.htm ********************************************************************* From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Amazon confusion In his comments on my outline of the Amazon concept, Max Earnest isolates each of the points I made and treat each as if I intended it to stand alone as a single, independent defining essence of Amazon. But this method of thinking is flawed. It is by seeing all the points I made TOGETHER, as a cluster of descriptive qualities, that one may hope to glimpse the meaning of "Amazon". The meaning is to be found in the integration of the elements I described, not in their separation. Also, I wouldn't call my description a definition; all I do is to enumerate some qualities that I think are "Amazonian", with the idea that if many of these qualities are present, then probably we are dealing with an Amazon. But my list of suggested traits is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't think one should make a check list and demand that a "potential Amazon candidate" must fit every item on the list. Indeed, I'm not concerned about sorting and labeling people this way at all; I think it should be up to each woman herself to decide whether she is an Amazon, and what that term means for her. And then we can have interesting discussions when people have different ideas or emphasize different aspects. I think it would be bizarre and inappropriate for a couple of guys to sit down and establish some kind of "Amazon orthodoxy" or a party line laying down what an official Real Amazon (TM) is. And I've enlisted a couple of female comments to this discussion as well, following this message. As I indicated in AI # 60, I think that the integration of mind and body is crucial, and that the united mindbody or bodymind, where the body express aspects of the mind or person (through movement, through muscle structure and definition, etc.) is what is fascinating and important, and that it is somewhere in this integration that the Amazon is to be found. I find Max Earnest's over-emphasis on body parts and physical aspects, and his complete rejection of psychological aspects, off-base. To my mind, being an Amazon is an accomplishment, something to be earned, something of moral significance. Something that builds and expresses character as well as physical skills and prowess. This perspective is completely lost in Max Earnest's physicalistic reduction of "Amazon", which is why I think his approach is belittling to Amazons. I also think a case could be made that his approach can be seen as an example of sexual objectification. I won't make that case; perhaps an Amazon will. ** Thomas Gramstad >> Perhaps someone born into a wheel chair or something. Such a >> woman could be as heroic as anyone else, but I don't think she >> would be an Amazon. > Couldn't agree less. Wheelchair-bound paraplegic women are > frequently noted for their tremendous upper body development. I > remember reading about one who worked out, had very big arms and > was a great arm wrestler. Been there, done that. I certainly did not mean to imply that female wheelchair users have weak upper bodies, I know they don't. I was trying to construct an example involving one, single woman, with paralyzed legs and arms, someone outside the physical aspects of "Amazonhood". Perhaps the fact that it is difficult to construct and convey a good example can be seen as empirical support for my argument about the mind-body integration. > Is she an Amazon? Hell, yes. Substantial muscular development > will put any woman in the Amazon category regardless of her > height/weight. Height will do the same. I'd call any 6'5" woman > an Amazon even if she weighed 120 and looked like Olive Oyl. > > In other words, Amazon is a general physical term; if you want to > distinguish between the different types of Amazons, you'll need > additional terminology. ** Thomas Gramstad >> So as I perceive them, the terms Hera (or female hero) on the one >> hand, and Amazon on the other, are not interchangeable; Hera is a >> wider concept than Amazon. All Amazons are Heras, but not all >> Heras are Amazons, the distinguishing characteristic being that >> physicality is a necessary part of the Amazon concept, but not of >> the Hera concept. > Here's some additional terminology that at least somewhat > clarifies your notion of an Amazon along purely physical lines, > but do we really need this categorizing of women based on their > "assertiveness"? This is the kind of thing that may have real > meaning in Japan, say, but there are very few meek women to be > found in the U.S. these days, and I'm sure the situation is > similar in Europe. I disagree; this is simply not true. For one thing, the high incidence of male violence and sexual assault, and the entire system of social and cultural gender typing which is its cause, are strong forces that counteract "Amazonness" in women. See for example Donald J. Hunt's "Break the Silence" web page for an overview and documentation, at: http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~janwid/abuse.html. > Here's a hypothetical: take a big, strong heavily muscled woman, > say 6'2", 215. A woman built along the lines of a Nicole Bass, > for example. Say she's married to a shrimp of a guy, and, for > whatever deep-seated psychological reasons, she's very submissive > around this guy, he treats her like a slave and she puts up with > it. Does this mean she's not an Amazon? No, it means she's not a > Hera; but all Amazons are supposed to be Heras. How about she's a > Valkyrie? Perhaps not all Amazons are Heras; or perhaps not all women of "Amazonian" physical proportions are Amazons, if we insist that the Amazon concept necessarily must include a strong, independent, "warrior" type of mind and character, as I'm inclined to do. However, confronted with such an example, my primary concern would not be to decide on the exactly right definition or correct conceptual classification of this woman, I would rather wonder why she was so submissive, and if something might be done about that. By letting this discussion run its course, I'm opening up for a more lively discussion than we usually have in AI. Do people think this is a good idea or variation, or should we stick to the old format with bios and other independent messages? If you think the latter, I need more bios and other submissions... And if you want more lively discussion, I need more submissions of that type as well. Thomas Gramstad thomas@math.uio.no ********************************************************************* Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:34:45 -0800 From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Amazon confusion > I'd like to suggest that there aren't any psychological > requirements. No psychological requirements, Max? Are you suggesting women are born Amazons? > "Amazon" has always been an overwhelmingly physical description of > a woman who is first and foremost tall, followed, in some cases, > by big and strong. And that's about it. Are you suggesting that all tall women are Amazons? Are you then inferring that all short women cannot be Amazons? You go on to say that in some cases, a woman can be an Amazon if she is big and strong. And that's it, no psychological aspects are involved in this "selection"? I'm (again) assuming that you are implying that this big and strong woman is just "born" that way. It seems like you are suggesting that a woman can't become an Amazon, she either is, or she isn't. But, you contradict yourself later in your post. You call Gabrielle Reece an Amazon. This woman has trained extensively and consistently in order to develop her strength, skill and endurance. All training, in particular, all consistant training on that level (professional athlete) requires -- demands -- a mental component. To go to the gym and lift weights, to engage in some form of aerobic workout consistenly and over a period of years could not happen unless the woman had a strong will (psychological) and an emotional commitment to her goals and values (psychological). To verify this, all you have to do is introspect and notice what is required of you if you want to achieve one of your values. Max, are you involved in any kind of physical workout program. If you are, you will notice that you do not automatically get out of bed and go to the gym. You must decide that that is what you want (psychological) and that you want it more than you want to stay in bed or go to a movie (again, psychological). > Assertive? What exactly is meant by assertive? Ambitious? > Pushy? There are millions upon millions of pushy women in the > world, and very few qualify as Amazons. If they're sufficiently > pushy, they're more frequently known in the American workplace as > "bitches", the female equivalent of "prick". It seems as if you have a negative association with women or men who are assertive. You do go from assertive to pushy to bitch/prick very quickly. Is there no relevant context here? Is assertive always negative in your mind? Again, you seem to suggest that Amazons don't possess these qualities. For you, Amazons are just tall women, and maybe once in awile they may be strong and/or muscular...somehow, just accidentally. > And "Not afraid to break free from traditional ideas about gender > roles and femininity"? This describes, for starters, every > lesbian and bisexual woman on Earth, and you can probably throw in > all prostitutes too. Again, very few qualify as Amazons. You make quite a few sweeping generalizations. A woman certainly does not have to be a lesbian, bisexual or a prostitute if she breaks free from traditional ideas about gender roles. (I suspect you're going to receive quite a bit of responses from a whole bunch of women on this list who will balk at your assertion). Would any of these lesbians, bisexuals or prostitutes qualify as Amazons if they were tall? > I fail to see how courage, intelligence or sensuality have > anything to do with Amazonics per se, and as for "athletic", > that's hardly the word we're looking for here. Chris Evert, for > example, is athletic. Is she an Amazon? Certainly not. Martina > Navratilova is athletic. Is she an Amazon? It's a tossup; she > has the ripped and muscled look that puts her in a far more > "masculine" category than Evert. Gabrielle Reece is athletic. Is > she an Amazon? Absolutely; she's 6'3", 170 and fairly well > muscled, to boot. I'd be interested in knowing your definition of the male counterpart to an Amazon? Does he just have to be tall? Does he just have to be strong or muscular? And must he be born that way? And would there be any psychological requirements for this male Amazon? > Couldn't agree less. Wheelchair-bound paraplegic women are > frequently noted for their tremendous upper body development. I > remember reading about one who worked out, had very big arms and > was a great arm wrestler. Is she an Amazon? Hell, yes. But Max, this wheelchair-bound woman had to work at developing her tremendous upper body strength. Are you suggesting that her will and determination to accomplish this feat involved no psychological component? > Here's some additional terminology that at least somewhat > clarifies your notion of an Amazon along purely physical lines, > but do we really need this categorizing of women based on their > "assertiveness"? This is the kind of thing that may have real > meaning in Japan, say, but there are very few meek women to be > found in the U.S. these days, and I'm sure the situation is > similar in Europe. More sweeping generalizations.. Human beings have two components to them that work in conjunction (whether or not you want to acknowledge that in regards to women or to yourself), and that is, we all have a mind and a body. Both support and reinforce the other. Try living in this world a while disregarding one aspect and see what happens. > Here's a hypothetical: take a big, strong, heavily muscled woman, > say 6'2", 215. A woman built along the lines of a Nicole Bass, > for example. Say she's married to a shrimp of a guy, and, for > whatever deep-seated psychological reasons, she's very submissive > around this guy, he treats her like a slave and she puts up with > it. Does this mean she's not an Amazon? No, it means she's not a > Hera; but all Amazons are supposed to be Heras. How about she's a > Valkyrie? I would suggest that your hypothetical is fantasy. A 6'2" woman who has demonstrated that kind of consistent dedication to developing her body (which would take at least three years) could not possess the kind of mind you are suggesting she has. Let's "imagine" that she started off with that type of psychological mind set. I challenge your assumption that after three years of dedicated training that she would still possess such a psychology. At the very least, she would learn implicitly about her own power; her own strength; and her own capacity to control her life through her weight training. I would suggest to you that Thomas Gramstad's descriptions of an Amazon are not arbitrary. There is a very simple test for this: ask any woman who considers herself an Amazon if there is a psychological component involved in being an Amazon. I am certain that they will all tell you the same thing: that there is one. That would be empirical evidence. If that is not sufficient for you, then I would suggest that your objections to Thomas Gramstad's definitions of an Amazon say more about you than they do about an actual Amazon. Cat Farrar ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Gender is a lived ideology...that becomes EMBODIED because it is enforced." Martha McCaughey Real Knockouts: The Physical Feminism of Women's Self-Defense ********************************************************************* Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:55:17 +0800 (WST) From: Pamela Forder Subject: Re: Amazon confusion This question of who or what should be called an Amazon is almost unanswerable in modern times. The name clearly doesn't apply in our world. Rules about what the word means *now* have to be made up as you go along. I happened to study pre-history at University, so I know a little about the topic -- but only a little. The word Amazon in Mycenean Greek means breastless! Amazons were a tribe living in Asia Minor at or around the time of the Trojan wars, who cut off their right breast so they could use the long bow in battle. They only used men for breeding and killed all their male children. They were very warlike, as is obvious from their name. To be an Amazon was to be dedicated to battle. What is really interesting is that their society was totally female dominated. As far as I am aware there is no actual evidence for their existence. That does not mean they never existed. I think they probably did! It is worth remembering that Crete at that time was definitely a female dominated society. They ruled the whole of the eastern Mediterranean, had a very powerful navy, placed great emphasis on athletic ability, though as far as I know did not cut off their breasts. They produced a great civilisation, ruled entirely by women. So much for facts -- they must not get in the way of a good argument. I think that to be an Amazon a woman must actually, or be prepared to, get into combat. But what is combat? Is it wrestling, boxing, cage fighting, one on one bare chested paint balling -- or what? That's arbitrary! I don't think she has to have a certain height or weight or biceps measurement either. They don't relate to anything. I know infantry women in the British army, and the Taiwanese army who I'd bet a years pay could take out the average male of the same weight in the same regiment in a knife fight, and yet they are no more muscular than the average gymnast -- they wouldn't come in 10th in a bodybuilding contest! Pam Forder ********************************************************************* Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:44:51 +0200 (DFT) From: Manuel Wolff Subject: My arm wrestling newsletter Hi. I'm the editor of a newsletter dedicated to women's arm wrestling. Since my newsletter deal with strong women, it might be of interest to some of you. In my newsletter the biggest part is match descriptions, and discussions about the "2nd celebrity fantasy arm wrestling tournament", which is fantasy arm wrestling stories featuring relevant celebrities, and subscribers can vote for their favorites in these imaginary matches. I also gather and distribute any info concerning arm wrestling and female strength, like addresses to relevant web pages and other stuff. So if you want to take part in it, send me a short email, it would make my day. The adress is: fk5y010@public.uni-hamburg.de Thanks, armfan ********************************************************************* Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:32:43 +0100 From: John Subject: Re: Grrl computer games An article in the Daily Telegraph "Connections" magazine said that computer games where the player directs an aggressive woman -- a "Grrl" -- are all the rage at present. Games to look for: Game Grrl Platform When Manufacturer available Excalibur 2555AD Beth Play Station March 1997 Telstar Reloaded The Consumer PC, Play Station, Gremlin Saturn now Guts 'n' Garters Stacey Pringle PC,Play Station April 1997 Ocean Unreal (n/a) PC August 1997 GT Also mentioned was Virtua Fighter 3, which has Sarah Bryant as a fighter, and Eidos' Tomb Raider with its Indiana Jones type of character Laura Croft. Laura Croft may also be made into a film role played by Pamela Anderson, said the paper. -- 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." ********************************************************************* From: rlm13@webtv.net (Rich Moore) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 22:40:08 -0500 Subject: Hello, I'm new to the list My name's Rich. I'm 27. I love and respect all women. I love Amazons, women of strength, size, and a mind to go with it. I have always been a fan of Ladies Pro Wrestling. Some of my favorite women wrestlers are Queen Kong, Reggie Bennett, Teri Power, Nicole Bass, and China. I have always liked Sybil Danning, Tura Satana, and Brigitte Nielsen movies. I don't wrestle, never did, I'm a little guy, dont want to get squished. :) Well anyways, hey everybody on the list. ***************************************************************** * 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