reserach paper

Sexualities, Evolution & Gender

5.2 August 2003 pp. 71–81

Muscle matters: maintaining visible differences between women and men

Precilla Y.L. Choi Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Abstract

In addition to slenderness, today’s female body must be firm with muscle tone. It must not, however, be muscular and the aim of this theoretical paper is to examine the resistance to female muscularity by focussing on the female bodybuilder. It will be revealed that even within a sport whose aim is to build muscle, female muscularity is resisted and that as women have become more muscular this resistance has become greater. It will be argued that this is because muscularity signifies masculinity and represents visible differences between women and men. This enables notions of masculinity to be validated and gender conventions reinforced. Because she challenges gender boundaries, the muscular woman must be resisted in order to maintain the patriarchal gender order.

Keywords: beauty, female bodybuilding, muscularity, masculinity, femininity

Introduction

I’ve got nothing against women bodybuilders, if that’s what they want to do, if they can. Men, I think it looks good. I think that’s how a man should look. A man is a man, he’s supposed to be the domi- neering one, at least he should have the muscle and everything.

Sexualities, Evolution & Gender ISSN 1479–2508 print/ISSN 1470–1073 online � 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/14616660310001632554

Women, I don’t know. You’re drawing a fine line really between women bodybuilders and men—they’re identical really.

(‘‘Helen’’, in Choi 2000: 60)

In an early edition of Psychology, Evolution and Gender the editor of a special feature on the uses and purposes of beauty, Jim McKnight, asked ‘‘are there universals of human beauty?’’ (McKnight 1999: 209) and pointed out that judgements of beauty are made ‘‘through the cultural lens of our time and place’’ (p. 210). This is indeed very apparent in the changed ideals of beauty for women’s bodies in the Western world. These have moved from a larger well rounded body, the purpose of which was to symbolise a well fed woman in times of scarcity and therefore personal wealth, to a thinner body in a culture where food is plentiful (Fallon 1994). This thinner body now symbolises wealth, success, discipline and control whilst fatness symbolises greed, sloth, lack of control and indulgence (Sparkes 1997). The cultural acceptance of physical exercise as a desirable lifestyle

behaviour has also been influential such that it is now not enough for the modern woman’s body to be thin, it must also be firm and well toned (Choi 2000). The cultural lens of our time, therefore, has accommodated the muscular development that is inevitable as a result of increased participation in sport and physical exercise amongst women. Simulta- neously however, resistance to this is also evident. Thus female muscular development must remain at the level of muscle tone, not muscle size or bulk as the female muscular body is generally considered unattractive because it symbolises masculinity in its strength and size (Bordo 1990; Choi 2000; Krane 2001). As a result, exercise and fitness professionals advocate weight training to shape and tone muscles but with strong advice on how to avoid becoming too muscular. Instead, training with weights is promoted as a mechanism for burning more calories and of reducing the body (Choi 2000). Thus, thinness remains the (Western) universal feminine ideal of beauty with the body reduced so that woman is ‘‘an inferior diminutive of man’’ (Malson 1999: 304). The aim of this theoretical paper is to examine the uses and purposes of

this universal ideal of beauty by focussing on the restriction of female muscularity. The female bodybuilder and the debate within the sport about how muscular she should be will be used as illustrative because female bodybuilders, whose muscles are bigger than most men’s, who are stronger and can lift heavier weights than most men, clearly do not conform with the ideals of feminine beauty. Indeed, as illustrated in the quote at the beginning of this paper from Helen, an exercise instructor, in building their muscles, they have turned themselves into men (‘‘You’re drawing a fine line really between women bodybuilders

72 Precilla Y.L. Choi

and men—they’re identical really’’). Thus, more so than most other sportswomen, female bodybuilders challenge gender boundaries. In examining Western society’s resistance to female muscularity it will be argued that associating muscles with only male beauty enables visible differences between women and men to be maintained. This in turn maintains the patriarchal gender order.

Flex appeal and the female bodybuilder

It may seem surprising but even in the world of female bodybuilding heated debates continue to take place around the female bodybuilder and her femininity (or lack of). In a sport where the aim is to build the biggest muscles one can, the competitive female bodybuilder can be penalised for being too big and not feminine enough. A similar situation would be limiting the speed at which women runners can run or the height that women high jumpers can jump lest they become unfeminine. The competition rules of the International Federation of Bodybuilders

(IFBB) state:

First and foremost the judge must bear in mind that this is a woman’s bodybuilding competition and that the goal is to find an ideal female physique. Therefore, the most important aspect is shape, a muscular yet feminine shape. The other aspects are similar to those described for the male physique but muscular development must not be carried to such an excess that it resembles the massive musculature of the male physique.

(IFBB 2001: 139)

The rules for the men make no reference to a masculine shape or to excessive musculature. Indeed, a large musculature is assumed to equate with masculinity. Thus, in judging a competition, deciding on the perfect (in bodybuilding terms) body is straightforward for the men—generally speaking, the more muscular he is, the more likely he is to win—but it is far from straightforward for the women. Indeed, how gracefully she walks on stage appears to be a criterion as the IFBB rules further state (and again there is no equivalent for the men):

Competitors shall also be assessed on whether or not they carry themselves in a graceful manner while walking to and from their position on stage.

(IFBB 2001: 39)

Differing views on what is feminine and how much muscularity is excessive are prevalent (Choi 2000) which is not surprising as these

Muscle matters 73

assessments are subjective. This results in inconsistencies and contra- dictions in the judging process with a competitor being placed first by some of the judging panel and last by others (Mansfield and McGinn 1993; Lowe 1998). Asked how she judges femininity, one bodybuilding judge responded:

Well, you can tell her hips from her waist. In other words, that she has a waistline. No facial hair, makeup is on, her hair is in a flattering style. They way she carries herself on stage, her posing routine.

(Lowe 1998: 114)

And as Donna Hartley, former British champion explains:

Also little things about going on stage are vital. Some people don’t bother to tan properly, they don’t do their hair or nails. It’s important that all these things are done as they all add up to the end package. I also think if women bodybuilders have cropped short hair and they are muscular they look mannish.

(cited in Mansfield and McGinn 1993)

Unlike other aesthetic sports such as gymnastics and figure skating, bodybuilding has no objective criteria to aid the judging process. As a triple back somersault is more difficult to execute than a single one, the former will earn more marks than the latter when successfully executed but, in bodybuilding, no such performance markers exist. The competitor poses on stage flexing his or her muscles and a panel of judges award marks for how closely their body resembles the ‘‘perfect’’ body. Whilst this subjectivity can also be problematic for male bodybuilders, it is far more so for the women because female bodybuilding has the additional component of femininity which is, of course, difficult to objectify and measure. Nonetheless, to emphasise their feminine appearance, the competitors wear ribbons in their hair, make up and have had silicone breast implants and other cosmetic surgery (Guthrie et al. 1994; Hargreaves 1994; Choi 2000; Wesely 2001). Through this emphasis they demonstrate their heterosexual desirability even though they are muscular with their muscular appeal being repositioned as ‘‘flex appeal’’.

Compliance or resistance

This repositioning of the female bodybuilder as heterosexually desirable is very apparent in portrayals in the bodybuilding press. For example, in the mid 1990s, Flex magazine ran a series of photographic features of female bodybuilders entitled Power and Sizzle ‘‘[t]o exhibit [their] real and natural side’’ (Flex, June 1996 p. 125, August 1997 p.121). This real

74 Precilla Y.L. Choi

and natural side was illustrated with soft porn photography with the women posing naked or semi-naked, wearing lingerie or leather, holding whips, in sexual positions such as sitting with legs spread apart or rear shots of them bending over. Flex hopes that these images ‘‘dispels the myth of the female bodybuilder masculinity and proves what role models they truly are’’. The ‘‘real and natural side’’ of the female bodybuilder, therefore, is that of a sex object and it is in this way that she is a role model, not as a sportswoman. Needless to say, the male bodybuilder is never portrayed in a sexual manner in the bodybuilding media (Heywood 1998; Choi 2000). Feminist scholars (Bartky 1988; Heywood 1998) have argued that

female bodybuilding represents a resistance to archetypal femininity. These women have chosen how they want their bodies to look dis- regarding the societal ideal and are empowered as a result (Wesely 2001). At the same time, however, the requirement of the competitive female bodybuilder to look feminine and the media images of her mandates compliance with archetypal femininity. Even if not a competitive bodybuilder, there is still pressure to comply from family and friends with warnings about becoming too muscular and loss of femininity (Choi 2000). As a result it has been argued that female body- building paradoxically represents both resistance and compliance (see Bolin 1992; Hall 1996; St Martin and Gavey 1996). Miller and Penz (1991) have contended that female bodybuilders resist standards of traditional femininity ‘‘in conformity with the traditional feminine norm’’ (p. 152). Reactions to sexualised images of the female bodybuilder illustrate the

compliance or resistance debate. Many female bodybuilders themselves claim to be strongly opposed to sexualised displays as they are dedicated sportswomen not sex objects. Yet such words in the text of the magazine articles, with their strong messages of resistance, are often accompanied by photographs of the women in sexual poses thereby simultaneously portraying strong messages of compliance (Ndalianis 1995). Another magazine that came out in the 1980s, Female Bodybuilding, claiming to promote women bodybuilders as both strong and beautiful was also highly criticised for merely providing pin-up material for men as their images very much promoted the women as heterosexually desirable (Choi 2000). However, others were positive about the magazine:

I’m an outspoken, opinionated feminist and in my opinion your photos are SUPERB. . . I’d like to live to see the day Playboy comes out with a centrefold like one of yours.

(from Letters to the Editor, Female Bodybuilding, September 1989 p. 10)

Muscle matters 75

As Heywood (1998) points out, the issue here is not whether female bodybuilders are sexy or not. Bodybuilding is a sport and male bodybuilders are never portrayed in this way. Ndalianis (1995) suggests that, as with the bodybuilding competition, the female bodybuilder’s publicity contract mandates compliance with archetypal femininity. Failure to comply means no publicity contract without which there is no career in the sport just as failure to comply in competition means there is little chance of winning. Schulze (1990) has proposed that the mandatory compliance imposed upon female bodybuilders is there to ‘‘tame’’ the women by positioning their bodies as (hetero)sexually desirable. This serves to diminish her sporting achievements and reinforce the traditional view that male athletes are the real athletes— however good the female athlete is, she remains only a woman and ‘‘subject to all the traditional ideas about women and diminution’’ (Heywood 1998: 98). Similar arguments have been put forward about sportswomen in general where considerable evidence of mandatory compliance with a hegemonic femininity within the world of women’s sport has been found to exist in many guises thereby repositioning the female athlete according to cultural norms (e.g., Hargreaves 1994; Hall 1996; Choi 2000; Krane 2001). One very noteworthy recent example is the US Women’s soccer team who received considerable public attention following their World Cup win in 1999. The media coverage of the ‘‘they can be athletes and feminine too’’ theme and reminders that they are also wives and mothers serves to portray their femininity and therefore acceptability whilst at the same time reinforcing the message that being an athlete and being feminine are incongruous (Krane 2001).

Sex appeal

In more recent years the repositioning of the female bodybuilder has continued and grown with the increased popularity of another com- petition category—the Fitness class. This is a second category of female bodybuilding that is different to that described above which is known as the Physique category. The Fitness class is like a ‘‘fitness’’ version of the beauty contest and there is no equivalent competition for the men1. The beauty aspect is emphasised in the IFBB rules with mention of hair and facial beauty, skin condition (without cellulite) and even ‘‘charisma’’ and ‘‘charm’’ (IFBB 2001: 32). Historically this competition category has just been entertainment for the men in between the serious business of bodybuilding (Heywood 1998; Choi 2000) but began to be presented as a legitimate female version of the sport around the mid 1990s. Competitors pose in swimsuits and high heels and perform a dance aerobics or gymnastics type of posing routine. Some contests also evaluate

76 Precilla Y.L. Choi

the competitor in an evening gown. In the Fitness category the competitor must present a body that has been well trained but not as muscular as the Physique competitor. Some contests do not approve of contestants who flex their muscles or emphasise their muscles in any way (Lowe 1998). Thus, the Fitness competitor is the embodiment of archetypal femininity with her sex appeal as most important. What attributes make the perfect Fitness woman was described by one bodybuilding magazine as:

Some are obvious—like an incredibly symmetrical, bountiful body. Others are subtle—like a special personality quirk, or a glance that’s erotic and innocent at the same time.

(All Natural Muscular Development, September 1997 p. 96)

This was followed by pin-up style photographs of the magazine’s ‘‘20 best Fitness women’’ who were all described as ‘‘the stuff of [presumably male] dreams and fantasies’’ (p. 142). To emphasise their sexuality Fitness competitors often adopt sexual

positions as part of their posing routine and as a result of this emphasis incite wolf whistling, lewd remarks and other such behaviours from the mostly male audience (Choi 2000). This, together with the media portrayals of these women as described above, suggests that this com- petition category remains primarily entertainment for men although the stated aim is to broaden the sport by making it more accessible to a larger audience and thereby encourage more women to take up weight training (Ndalianis 1995). Some bodybuilding organisations are trying to do away with the Physique category completely having only the Fitness category for the women. The Olympia, which is the most coveted bodybuilding title of all for both the women and the men, continues to have both categories but the prize money for the Ms Fitness Olympia is twice that of the Ms Olympia (US$50 K and US$25 K respectively). Incidentally, the prize money for the Mr Olympia is US$400 K reflecting the greater value placed upon male athletes that is inherent within the world of sport.

The significance of the muscular body

Advocates of figure/fitness competitions consider the figure/fitness body to more accurately reflect what the average woman wants to look like and how men want her to look (Heywood 1998) and therefore more ‘‘natural’’ (Wesely 2001). Male bodybuilders musculature has also increased due, as with the women, to performance achievements comparable with other sports, but there is no resistance to this either within or out with the world of bodybuilding. The question of whether the male bodybuilder’s

Muscle matters 77

physique is an accurate reflection of what the average man wants to look like and how the average woman wants him to look has not been asked nor is the male bodybuilder’s masculinity being called into question. Outside the world of bodybuilding the attractiveness of his hypermus- cularity might be questioned, but never his gender whereas with female bodybuilders, their gender is usually the first issue people will comment on (St Martin and Gavey 1996; Choi 2000; Wesely 2001). It is important to point out that bodybuilding is a sport. The aim of

this sport is to build muscles just as in athletics the aim is to run fast, jump high, throw far, and the like. In this context, the question of how muscular a female bodybuilder should be is as inappropriate as the question of how fast a female runner should run. Similarly, whether the musculature of the bodybuilder, male or female, reflects how the average male or female wants to look is as irrelevant as the question: does the world record for the 100 m sprint reflect how fast the average person wants to run? That questions of musculature and appearance continue to be asked and to be primarily asked of female bodybuilders only is very telling of the significance of muscularity which is, of course, masculinity. Muscularity signifies masculinity and is what Holmlund (1989) refers to as a ‘‘visible difference’’ between the sexes and a way for notions of mascu- linity to be validated and gender conventions reinforced. As Holmlund (1997) suggests: ‘‘images of the more muscular women inflame male anxiety because they threaten the abolition of visible difference’’ (p. 92). Thus, muscles remain a universal of male beauty only in order to maintain visible differences between women and men. It is, therefore, not surprising that the popularity of the figure/fitness competitions grew as the Physique women got more muscular. It is as if the resistance to their muscularity had to be increased through greater efforts of nor- malisation and repositioning. Repositioned as desirable (hetero)sexual object, the female bodybuilder is tamed and less threatening to the patriarchal gender order. So strong is the association of muscularity with masculinity that, as

alluded to in the introduction to this paper, even the ordinary women who train with weights and whose training practices will never result in anything like the muscular development of the female bodybuilder, feel compelled to restrict their training in order not to break through, what Dworkin (2001) calls the glass ceiling on musculature. Dworkin’s (2001) US study of women in gyms found that about 75% of the women she interviewed were conscious of this glass ceiling, or upper limit, in terms of their muscularity and adjusted their training accordingly. For example, some avoided weight training altogether, others did train with weights but ‘‘held back’’ (p. 341) by training with light weights whilst others enjoyed training with heavy weights but would ‘‘back off ’’ (p. 341) if

78 Precilla Y.L. Choi

they felt they were approaching or ‘‘bumping up against’’ (p. 346) the glass ceiling. Dworkin (2001) concluded that in contrast to the ‘‘just do it’’ message, ideologies of femininity lead women to ‘‘just hold back’’ in the gym (p. 346) which can have negative implications for their health. Similar conclusions have been reached by Krane et al. (2003) from a study of US female college athletes. Because they were athletes, these women had muscular bodies but this was a source of considerable concern because their bodies were not consistent with feminine ideals of beauty. This may lead to poor body image, disordered eating and low self esteem in female athletes.

Conclusion

Some scholars have argued that in a contemporary (Western) world where both women and men can wear their hair long, wear earrings and other body adornments; where almost all occupations and professions are theoretically open to both women and men and where characteristics such as competitiveness, aggression and leadership are now openly expressed by women, men’s muscles are all that remain as a visible symbol of their masculinity (see Mishkind et al. 1986; White and Gillett 1994; Baker 1997; Pope et al. 2000). Numerous scholars have docu- mented how bodily differences are accepted as signifiers of differences between males and females and that the differences are also read as signifying masculinity or femininity (see Morgan 1993). The debates and tensions surrounding the female bodybuilder are an exemplary illus- tration of the significance of muscularity as masculine. Female bodybuilders are commonly considered to be masculine and unattractive (see Freeman 1988; Pugh 1993) and this paper has shown how this is also the case even in the bodybuilding world where the aim of the sport is to build muscle. Female, but not male, bodybuilders muscularity is restricted demonstrating the extent of the gendered nature of muscularity and how this overrides the aim of the sport.

Note

1 A men’s fitness category is being considered for introduction in 2003 (IFBB, 2003).

Address for correspondence

Precilla Y. L. Choi, Centre for Rehabilitation, Exercise and Sport Science, School of Human Movement, Recreation and Performance,

Muscle matters 79

Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne MC 8001, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

References

Baker, P. (1997) ‘The soft underbelly of the Abdominis: why men are obsessed with stomach muscles?’, in Pictures of Lily: About Men by Men, exhibition catalogue, Underwood Gallery, London, September, pp. 18–23.

Bartky, S. (1988) ‘Foucault, femininity and the modernization of patriarchal power’, in L. Diamond and L. Quinby (eds) Feminism and Foucault: reflections on resistance, Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Bolin, A. (1992) ‘Vandalized vanity: feminine physiques betrayed and portrayed’, in F.E. Mascia-Lees and P. Sharpe (eds) Tattoo, Torture, Mutilation and Adornment, Albany NY: SUNY Press.

Bordo, S. (1990) ‘Reading the slender body’, in M. Jacobus, E. Fox Keller, and S. Shuttleworth (eds) Body/Politics: Women and the Discourse of Science, NY: Routledge.

Choi, P.Y.L. (2000) Femininity and the Physically Active Woman, London: Routledge.

Dworkin, S.L. (2001) ‘‘‘Holding back’’: negotiating a glass ceiling on women’s muscular strength’, Sociological Perspectives 44: 333–50.

Fallon, A.E. (1994) ‘Body image and the regulation of weight’, in V. J. Adesso, D.M. Reddy, and R. Fleming (eds) Psychological Perspectives on Women’s Health, Taylor & Francis.

Freeman, H.R. (1988) ‘Social perception of bodybuilders’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 10: 281–93.

Guthrie, S.R., Ferguson, C. and Grimmett, D. (1994) ‘Elite women body- builders: ironing out nutritional misconceptions’, The Sport Psychologist 8: 271–86.

Hall, M.A. (1996) Feminism and Sporting Bodies: Essays on Theory and Practice, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hargreaves, J. (1994) Sporting Females: Critical Issues in the History and Sociology of Women’s Sport, London: Routledge.

Heywood, L. (1998) Bodymakers: a Cultural Anatomy of Women’s Bodybuilding, London: Rutgers University Press.

Holmlund, C.A. (1989) ‘Visible difference and flex appeal: the body, sex, sexuality and race in the Pumping Iron films’, Cinema Journal 28, 4: 38–51.

Holmlund, C.A. (1997) ‘Visible difference and flex appeal: the body, sex, sexuality and race in the Pumping Iron films’, in: P. Moore (ed.) Building Bodies, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

IFBB (2001) ‘Amateur rules for bodybuilding’, International Federation of Bodybuilding (available online at http://www.ifbb.com/amarules)

IFBB (2003) ‘Men’s fitness rules: draft version’, International Federation of Bodybuilding (available online at http://www.ifbb.com/amarules)

Krane, V. (2001) ‘We can be athletic and feminine, but do we want to? Challenging hegemonic femininity in women’s sport’, Quest 53:115–33.

80 Precilla Y.L. Choi

Krane, V., Choi, P.Y.L, Baird, S.M., Aimar, C.M. and Kauer, K.J. (2004) ‘Living the paradox: female athletes negotiate femininity and muscularity’, Sex Roles, in press.

Lowe, M.R. (1998) Women of Steel: Female Bodybuilders and the Struggle for Self Definition, New York: University Press.

Malson, H. (1999) ‘Discursive constructions of ‘‘anorexic’’ bodies and the fictioning of gendered beauty’, Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 1: 297–320.

Mansfield, A. and McGinn, B. (1993) ‘Pumping irony: the muscular and the feminine’, in S. Scott and D. Morgan (eds) Body Matters: Essays on the Sociology of the Body, London: Falmer.

McKnight, J. (1999) ‘Editorial: Special feature on the uses and purposes of beauty’, Psychology, Evolution and Gender 1: 205–12.

Miller, L. and Penz, O. (1991) ‘Talking bodies: female bodybuilders colonize a male preserve’, Quest 43, 148–63.

Mishkind, M.E., Rodin, J., Silberstein, L.R. and Striegel-Moore, R.H. (1986) ‘The embodiment of masculinity: cultural, psychological and behavioural dimensions’, American Behavioural Scientist 29:545–62.

Morgan, D. (1993) ‘You too can have a body like mine: reflections on the male body and masculinities’, in S. Scott and D. Morgan (eds) Body Matters: Essays on the Sociology of the Body, UK: Falmer Press.

Ndalianis, A. (1995) ‘Muscle, excess and rupture: female bodybuilding and gender construction’, Media Information Australia 75 (Feb), 13–23.

Pope, H.G. Jr., Phillips, K.A. and Olivardia, R. (2000) The Adonis Complex: the Secret Crisis of Male Body Obsession, NY: The Free Press.

Pugh, J. (1993) ‘The social perception of female bodybuilders’, in C. Brackenridge (ed.) Body Matters: Leisure Images and Lifestyles, UK: University of Brighton.

Schulze, L. (1990) ‘On the muscle’, in J. Gaines and C. Herzog (eds) Fabrications: Costume and the Female Body, NY: Routledge.

Sparkes, A.C. (1997) ‘Reflections on the socially constructed physical self’, in K. R. Fox (ed.) The Physical Self: from Motivation to Well-being. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

St Martin, L. and Gavey, N. (1996) ‘Women’s bodybuilding: feminist resistance and/or femininity’s recuperation?’, Body and Society 2: 45–57.

Wesely, J.K. (2001) ‘Negotiating gender: bodybuilding and the natural/ unnatural continuum’, Sociology of Sport Journal 18: 162–80.

White, P.G. and Gillett, J. (1994) ‘Reading the muscular body–a critical decoding of advertisements in Flex magazine’, Sociology of Sport Journal 11: 18–39.

Muscle matters 81