Article Link NPR (2022): "Want to get stronger? Try weightlifting" [content about body image]

[toaster]

Ugh, social media is so tricky. When it first emerged (mainly Facebook and other old school site - like VF, haha), it seemed like a really positive thing for certain types of people, such as introverts, those with anxiety, etc. But now...well, it's complicated. My own social media experience is overwhelmingly positive, but of course, I only came into as an adult, and I carefully cultivate what I'm exposed to. That's not really true of today's kids.

[hch]

prettyinpink, thank you for a number of things, like reconsidering this thread.

Originally Posted by toaster

I agree with you that this is often the case, but I do see differences here. Putting on my therapist's hat, I work with plenty of clients who would think it would be "wrong" to criticize or judge others for their bodies (or for other things as well) but are much harsh critics of self. At the same time, I think you are right that our own biases about weight, size, etc. often spill out to impact our opinions of others.

If I'm reading this part right, I do seem to agree about this kind of "difference." Maybe I should've used "inherent difference" instead of "hard difference" because the other word choice would've been more precise.

My thought is that people do often see and treat criticisms from themselves to themselves ("my body is flawed and needs to be fixed!") and criticisms from others (a "friend" says "your body is flawed and needs to be fixed!") as two distinct categories, for a number of reasons. But when these criticisms are stripped of a few things, such as the speaker and other matters of context, the "cores" of the criticisms don't differ too much.

I'm reminded largely by general observations, not specifically in a fitnsss- or body-related context, that people are sometimes more lenient with themselves than they are with others and sometimes more critical of themselves than they are of others.

[hch]

Originally Posted by Gemini2874

I agree that hch is not being sexist but pointing out observations regarding views of Femininity within the fitness world. His views are accurate. Also, I feel like he is an ally to women and not trying to take up space.

Thanks for your support!

I'm not a woman, but I do share physical characteristics with a type of body that's often been treated as a pariah by a good number of VFers. As I noticed quickly, either my body was subject to the same commentary (not so likely) or I was largely spared it (on a forum "of mostly women," no less!) simply because I'm a man. (And how many have asked how sexist that double standard is?) So although I'm not subject to the same types of criticism, the reasons for my "exemption" are still problematic.

And maybe I'm saying this because I don't know my place, but I notice that as quoted at the beginning of this thread, the NPR host calls her her teenage-era "fear of [hers] that strength training would make [her] bulky [...] pretty common among women. And no surprise - it's also rooted in sexism. It comes from this idea that women should be smaller than men, that strength is unladylike or unfeminine, which is pretty messed up when you think about it." Did it occur to her that if a man's saying something like that May Be Sexist, is the situation much better when a woman is saying something like this?

[prettyinpink]

Originally Posted by hch

And maybe I'm saying this because I don't know my place, but I notice that as quoted at the beginning of this thread, the NPR host calls her her teenage-era "fear of [hers] that strength training would make [her] bulky [...] pretty common among women. And no surprise - it's also rooted in sexism. It comes from this idea that women should be smaller than men, that strength is unladylike or unfeminine, which is pretty messed up when you think about it." Did it occur to her that if a man's saying something like that May Be Sexist, is the situation much better when a woman is saying something like this?

Me again (waving).

That sentiment is common, and I agree it is rooted in sexism.

In the case where I thought a comment “may be sexist,” it was a little different, because it was talking about a woman’s personal concept of how she would like to exercise and to look, within the bounds of what she can control (not much), while generally enjoying being muscular and not at all afraid of being bulky. And that is where I thought we disagreed, where maybe we still disagree, because I think there are innate and individual differences that affect a woman’s concept of herself and her femininity, and that these ideas aren’t only affected by “sexism”, i.e. what the patriarchy thinks about what she should look like.

It was in the context of doing shrugs for traps, too. The implication is that not doing weighted shrugs because of not being interested in building traps or having an appearance of a thicker neck= self-concept rooted in external ideas of what is feminine. There were also some implications that this is also necessarily rooted in self-criticism.

But I say, nope.

Here’s why I think that is ironic and yes, maybe sexist, in a hypothetical, not personal way.

-I’m not deep into the bodybuilding world, but having learned some things and gotten some general impressions, there are many aspects of it that do not promote mental and physical health, and in fact, corners of it that are extremely unhealthy and can lead to body dysmorphia, just like some other branches of fitness. It is good that we are getting more messages that strength=good, but not everything that comes from bodybuilding culture and the strength world is good.

-Bodybuilding was originally a male pursuit, and a number of exercises were developed to isolate and build specific parts of specific muscles, for the goal of sculpting a more “manly” physique. Many fitness professionals agree that doing a high volume of isolation exercises is not necessary at all for general fitness and health, and is more about aesthetics than strength or anything else. Some even go so far as to call these exercises “useless” for most people, as in, not efficient at all if one’s goals are gaining and maintaining strength and muscle for general good health. These include things like: weighted front and oblique ab work, doing multiple variations of bicep and tricep isolations, shrugs, weighted calf raises.

-So a woman not being interested in isolation exercises to build certain muscles that were developed for aesthetic purposes for a male physique, that don’t contribute to overall fitness, because no, she’s not really interested in having a straighter waist or thicker-appearing neck beyond what might occur from the bigger compound strength exercises that better fit her fitness goals — is because her concept of herself is based on sexism/what some men think? When actually, she likes her body, wants more muscle, isn’t afraid of getting “bulky” to gain strength, but thinks her neck and waist are just fine the way they are.

There are many exercises with limited time, and why choose the ones that don’t do what we want them to do. Even if I knew my traps wouldn’t get huge (likely wouldn’t) , I still wouldn’t want to waste time on heavy isolations of them. A woman likes her waist, isn’t interested in weighted oblique work that really does nothing for her, but she’s a victim of sexism because she is free to do what she wants, but doesn’t want to do exercises that *some* bodybuilder men like to do? I don’t agree.

[hch]

I didn't start this reply with this thought, but while thinking about related subjects, I got the idea of how generalizable some parts are. Others can be juxtaposed with different thoughts in certain ways.

For example, isolation movements haven't been confined to bodybuilding or "workouts for men"--and women in past decades weren't exactly encouraged to do multijoint movements, either. There I'm reminded of reading a piece, written by a woman, criticizing the usual type of barre fitness in favor of heavier work with multijoint movements. If I wanted to create a stir on VF, I would've started a thread about it. (If I wanted to create more than just a stir, I would've agreed! )

I'm also reminded of how the people who appear in the NPR piece recommend multijoint movements (search the transcript for "compound movements"--I avoid the term on VF only because VFers seem to use it more often for what I prefer to call "combination exercises").

There've been "earlier," similar arguments for multijoint movements from sources without an overt aesthetic or what I'll call a "gender-related" reasoning.

I hope to write in more detail later! One idea, for example, is a tentative "reading" of typical historical exercise advice and practice, across different parts of the body, as a patchwork of different influences.

[hch]

Originally Posted by hch

I hope to write in more detail later! One idea, for example, is a tentative "reading" of typical historical exercise advice and practice, across different parts of the body, as a patchwork of different influences.

Although this idea hasn't yet become my newest grand project, I did quickly realize how I've already long held a version of this idea--I've long noticed the mix of different and potentially confusing messages about how we're supposed to exercise and look at our bodies.