Strong and Hard Women

by Tanya Bunsell

  patriarchal sound.5 Saltman (2003: 52) draws parallels between the masculine realm

  of the military and the noises made by male bodybuilders in the gym: The militarized body of the bodybuilder makes the sounds of war. Under the yoke of heavy iron there are screams, rebel yells, grunts, wails, karate-like Keoghs designed to focus the power of the body into the muscles being taxed. As in boot camp, in the gym taunts are hurled between lifting partners,

  106 ‘Empowerment’ through concepts of space inspirational clichés slung, boasts belted out, slogans, slogans, slogans: ‘no guts, no glory’, ‘no pain, no gain’, ‘bigger’s better’.

  Men often train in pairs or groups of three, encouraging each other to ‘work to the max’, frequently through bullying comments and assertions of masculinity.

  For example, I overheard the following on the gym floor: ‘Come on, come on big boy, you can do it – you’re the man… do you want to get big? Do you want to get muscles? Then work at it fat boy!’ (male, gym 5:1). Noise in this context can be seen as a sign of masculinity, virility, aggression, animalism, domination and territory. Such loudness draws similarities with Ackerman’s (1990: 186–7) depiction of erotically excited ‘sophomore boys’, who ‘are all decibels and testosterone’. At the same time, these sounds could be interpreted as representing freedom, release, expression, lack of inhibition and tribalism. One female gym user articulates her frustrations in the following comment:

  Men always make so much noise. I don’t mean just chatting like some of the women do. But grunts and groans. To me, it sounds so overdone and unnecessary as if they are trying to show off or something. Maybe they just want to get attention, like in the wild – calling attention to the fittest and strongest.

  (female, gym 1:2)

  Regardless of the interpretation, many women feel threatened by the sounds emanating from the weights area. This is illustrated by another female gym user’s comment:

  It’s intimidating enough just trying to work out how to use the machines, let alone all the noise the guys make. It just doesn’t help your confidence at all.

  (female, gym 6:1)

  As one aerobics instructor commented to me, even within mixed-gender classes such as ‘Body Pump’ sessions (a high-rep choreographed workout using light barbells), women are more likely to keep quiet during their exertions, compared to their male counterparts.

  Against this backdrop, it might be thought that women’s space is violated by the noises made by men within the gym environment. However, before we can reach this conclusion it is important to recognize the complexities of this analysis. I have tended to gloss over the differences between male gym users and bracket them all within the same category. That is to say, I have depicted all men as gatekeepers of the weights arena and as embodying and enacting traits of dominance and power. Men, like women, are not a homogenous group. Indeed, within the heavy weights area, there is almost a ‘hierarchy of supremacy’ that orders and stratifies the men within this space according to such variables as the age of participants, their experience, muscular size and so on. For example, male newcomers to weight training, particularly teenagers and those bordering on

  ‘Empowerment’ through concepts of space 107

  the upper limits of middle age or older, may also feel intimidated. Likewise, there is a tendency (though this is made more complicated by class and sport-specific aims, etc.) to exalt the more mesomorphic, muscular males. Consequently, in the same way that women might feel intimidated or threatened within the weights area, it can also be argued that there are also struggles of power and dominance between men within this ultimately masculine domain. Connell’s (1989) work on ‘masculinities’ is of particular relevance here. He explains that ‘hegemonic masculinity’ should not be understood as the male role but rather as a particular variety of masculinity to which women and others (e.g. young men, as well as effeminate and homosexual men) are subordinated. Nevertheless, despite the actual intentions of different men, the majority of women do feel intimidated by the noises emanating from the weights room, and this contributes to their avoidance of this space.

  The penalties paid for crossing into male territory

  The minority of women who are undeterred from entering the weights area still have to contend with men dominating the physical space of the gym. Thus, most female bodybuilders who use public gyms train during times when the presence of

  ‘ordinary’ male gym members (those outside the subculture of bodybuilding, who are less committed and appreciative of the commitment to the development and display of muscularity as a goal in itself) is least evident. In the words of Barbara (a bodybuilder of seven years):

  I don’t want to train when it’s busy and there is some clown touching the barbell or something – ruins my focus… some people comment on my physique and there’s people that don’t really work out but just stand there and stare and it really winds me up – I’m in the zone of lifting weights – so any interruptions get me annoyed.

  Many male bodybuilders also seek out training times and spaces in which they will be unhindered by ‘clowns’, but female bodybuilders may be more vulnerable to such interference, especially from men who ‘feel they have a right to look and get in our way just because we are women’ (Pauline, bodybuilder of six months).

  As Monica (a bodybuilder of two years) confirmed, ‘men definitely dominate the space… a lot of their mentality is that girls are just playing at it, but they are serious’. This domination of space translates as not only the ‘hogging’ of the weights, benches, machines and other equipment, but the physical inhabitation of the space around them – using their size and strength to their full/maximum capacity.

  Interestingly, not all females who accessed the male domain claimed to have negative responses from male gym users. Several more ‘feminine’

  female weight-trainers (who were not as muscular as some of the other female bodybuilders and made more effort to maintain a ‘heterosexual’ appearance) claimed that ‘men rarely dominate[d] the equipment’ (Rachel, bodybuilder of two years). Indeed, Danielle (a bodybuilder of five years) stated that ‘men

  108 ‘Empowerment’ through concepts of space always act chivalrously and never hog the equipment: in fact quite the opposite, most jump off and spot’. In these cases, men would also automatically take the weight plates off the machines or bars in order to ‘help’ and frequently gave training tips and advice to these women. Goffman (1979: 9) would interpret this chivalry as maintaining gender differences, where even the most straightforward acts of civility are not only symbolic but actually constitutive of gender inequalities. Glick and Fiske (2000) expand this perspective further, arguing that even if the male benevolence is sincere, and in some cases is accepted (or even expected) by the female, chivalry still ‘remains patronizing towards woman and provides a powerful ideological justification for traditional gender roles and patriarchy’ (ibid.: 367). According to this view, then, chivalrous acts in the gym encourage intimate dyadic dependencies between the genders which inform compulsory heterosexuality and retain the sex segregation of labour by reinforcing the belief that ‘women are less competent and are indeed the weaker sex’ (ibid.: 390).

  Another method often employed to protect the male space of the gym is the use of negative labelling to enforce compulsory heterosexuality. Sharp (1997: 45–6) argues that the stigma of lesbianism is used to control patriarchal gender identities. She claims that problems arise when women do not conform to the appearance and behaviour expected of them in ‘ordinary’ public space and that women must avoid ‘specific male-dominated environments’, continu-ing: ‘women who dress, behave, do jobs, or go to places associated with men run the risk of being labelled “butch” and hence “male hating lesbians”’ (ibid.).

  As female bodybuilders disrupt hegemonic norms by not only training in the male sphere, but also wearing the muscular body, they are particularly vulnerable to these accusations. This is demonstrated in comments made to Laura (a body
builder of ten months) by several friends at the gym who were comment-ing on how big her biceps had become: ‘show him your bicep’; ‘you big lesbian you’. Indeed, female bodybuilders sometimes judge each other on the basis of heterosexual femininity. For example, Alice (a bodybuilder of 18 months) referred to another female bodybuilder as ‘butch’ and suggested: ‘she doesn’t help herself, she wears vests to train in. It’s like she’s trying to compete with the men’. More generally, despite these women’s determination to ‘be different’ and

  ‘look different’, it is common for female bodybuilders to feminize their appearance in various ways; however, only one of the women in this study worked out in an ostentatiously feminine combination of hot pants and crop top lycra set. Thus, these women frequently navigate the masculine space of the gym by conforming to the gender interaction order of either ‘chivalry’ or the ‘feminine apologetic’ (Felshin 1974). To disobey these rules is to risk the stigma of being labelled a lesbian.

  Bodies on display: looks and comments act as censorship for

  spatial transgressions

  In addition to the stigma of lesbianism, there are other ways in which the gendered foundations of the wider interaction order appear to impinge on these women’s

  ‘Empowerment’ through concepts of space 109

  actions and identities. It is possible for the flow of the workout to be interrupted by looks and comments that ask these women to reflect back on themselves, and on what they are doing, in the gendered terms of the interaction order, and to experience as internally divided their subjective sense of self and the reflected portrayal of that self as it is classified by wider society (Goffman 1983: 12; Mead 1962 [1934]). Hence, these stares and comments result in uncomfortable epiphanic moments which remind the women that they ‘shouldn’t be there’ – that the weights arena is men’s space and belongs in the male domain.

  The fact that these women’s bodies are ‘on display’ forms an important part of the context in which the interaction order has the potential to intrude on female bodybuilders even during their workout. The gym is a space in which body visibility is heightened in relation to its normal position in daily life. Bodies are being worked on, body parts are being toned and shaped and inter-corporeal comparisons are being made all of the time, often by casual users in relation to idealized, normative visions of masculinity and femininity.

  Hardcore gyms might provide some degree of insulation from these comparisons, although even then, female bodybuilders are not protected completely from gendered norms and unwanted comments about being ‘too muscular’ for a woman. Several of those using hardcore gyms in this study reported having to deal with ‘incidents’ regarding comments and stares from male bodybuilders. None of these was as disturbing as Marcia Ian’s (1995: 89) story of how a huge male bodybuilder who was working out close by turned to her and said casually, ‘One of these days I’m gonna knock you on the floor and fuck your brains out’. Nevertheless, the comments and stares still interrupted the flow of the workout. Elsewhere, in the milieu of ordinary gyms, casual exercisers sometimes looked, stared, commented and pointed at the bodies of muscular women in the free-weights area, and this sometimes filtered through into the experiences of female bodybuilders. The following reflect the experiences of female bodybuilders in ordinary gyms:

  I’ve had strangers come right up to me in the gym and just say ‘You’re a woman, women shouldn’t be muscular. Female bodybuilders look disgusting’, ‘She looks like a man’, and ‘If you carry on training like that you’ll look like a man in four months’.

  (Gemma, bodybuilder of six months)

  Guys have put down their weights and left when I’m training. People tend to be quite horrified to see a small woman lifting heavy weights.

  (Lucie, bodybuilder of eight years)

  The strong, direct movements employed by female bodybuilders, such as rowing, benching, squatting and dead-lifting, and the associated gym activities of loading a bar with heavy plates, grasping iron with calloused, chalky hands and shifting weights around, are not body techniques associated with femininity. This is evident in the following comments made by casual male gym users:

  110 ‘Empowerment’ through concepts of space Why is she lifting heavy weights like that? Why does she want to look like a man?… She should be doing aerobic and toning exercises not trying to build and bulk herself up… no man finds that attractive.

  (male, gym 1:1)

  It’s not right, women lifting that amount.

  (male, gym 1:2)

  All of the above comments demonstrate the typical types of verbal censure that female bodybuilders receive for transgressing feminine conventions. As Lorber (1994) points out, women who show physical strength are deemed unattractive to heterosexual men and labelled unfeminine. The feminine ideal in Western society is to be beautiful, small, thin and weak, compared to the male ideal, which possesses physical power, presence, strength, size and aggression. Subsequently,

  ‘doing masculinity builds strength, whereas doing femininity builds weakness’

  (Roth and Basow 2004: 247). In this context it is perhaps unsurprising that the gender deviations of female bodybuilders cause such an outcry. The bodies of female bodybuilders are not just symbolic of societal notions of power, but literally embody them.

  Against this backdrop it would be easy to perceive the gym as a patriarchal institution that has a detrimental impact on the identity of the female bodybuilder.

  This would however be an inaccurate portrayal of how the women themselves navigate, interpret and indeed embrace the gym environment or the ‘womb’ of the weights area. It is worth looking briefly now at ways in which female bodybuilders manage these negative interactions, before exploring how these women actually find sanctuary away from the outside world and indeed find empowerment through transgressing this gendered territory. Female bodybuilders, aware of the controversy raised by their bodies and actions, generally try to work out at a time when few casual weight-trainers will be around. When faced with adverse reactions, they do their best to block out the comments and stares, and try not to let them infringe on their activities and experiences. This is clearly illustrated by the following comments:

  I don’t particularly notice other people’s comments. Sometimes they piss me off, but most of the time I don’t really care.

  (Michelle, bodybuilder of five years)

  I love the gym. All of it. Apart from the twats… silly little boys with their sideways looks and stares… though I don’t notice it as much as my partner does.

  (Barbara, bodybuilder of seven years)

  The guys who make comments are usually really puny and insecure, with a fragile ego – I don’t care what they think.

  (Anna, bodybuilder of five years)

  ‘Empowerment’ through concepts of space 111

  The ‘ignorant’ casual gym users who make negative comments are dismissed as ‘insecure’, pathetic and unimportant. The sole focus for these women is their training and the pursuit of their muscular endeavour.

  The hospitable back region of the gym

  Despite the negative reactions from ‘casual’ gym users and the occasional male bodybuilder, most female bodybuilders still perceived the gym as a supportive environment. In contrast to the hostility that these women can experience outside the gym in the daily interaction order, the distinctive character of collective encounters inside the gym is indicated by the frequency of comments describing the existence of ‘camaraderie among all bodybuilders’ (Jacqui, bodybuilder of 11 years). As Jacqui continues, this camaraderie is based on mutual recognition of the efforts they make in relation to ‘intense training and dieting’ and the appreciation of the ‘hard work, pain and dedication’ it takes to be a competitive bodybuilder. This solidarity also emanates from the pursuit of the same aesthetic goal. Consequently, the identity of the female bodybuilder is affirmed through the shared language, tastes and collective experiences that form part of their ‘social capital’ (Col
eman 1988). This is reflected in the first instance by the arrange-ments these women often make to train with a partner in a reciprocal arrangement involving spotting and encouragement, thus forming an intimate space in which comments, gestures and actions are directed to the task at hand. More generally, in this activity space of the workout, serious weight-trainers are ‘supportive’ and frequently ‘offer to spot’ for those without a partner and ‘share training tips’ (Katy, bodybuilder of four years). People may ask for advice and it is not unusual for female bodybuilders to receive compliments on their physiques from admiring others (those whom Goffman (1983) would call ‘their own’). In this milieu (in contrast to the outside world), the social meanings inscribed on their bodies act as a form of physical capital that translates into a high status (Bridges 2009: 97).

  Body in space

  Bartky (1988: 67) suggests that ‘women are more restricted than men in their manner of movement and in their spatiality’. Similarly, Castelnuovo and Guthrie (1998) argue that Westernised concepts of female beauty are not only symbolic of vulnerability, weakness and invisibility, but actually constitute a form of spatially saturated bodily oppression. For instance, embodied actions, gestures and postures not only encourage women to take up as little space as possible but also severely constrict movement. Connell (1983: 19) postulates that ‘to be an adult male is distinctly to occupy space, to have a physical presence in the world’. Male bodies are judged on their ‘action and an active orientation towards the world’

  particularly by exhibiting ‘strength and power’, and consequentially throw their whole bodies into movement. In contrast, female bodies are evaluated upon their

  ‘aesthetic value’, which suppresses their functioning (Uhlmann and Uhlmann 2005: 93–103). Correspondingly, women are ‘less likely to reach, stretch, bend,

  112 ‘Empowerment’ through concepts of space lean, or stride to the full limits of their physical capacities’ (Young 1990: 148).