Who cares what these eggheads think
Who are “bodybuilders” in Grosz’s view? People who get on a stage, or people who lift casually or as a hobby?
There is something narcissistic about bodybuilding; it transforms the idealized self into an erotic object. I don’t see how anyone could contest this. Let’s look at bodybuilding as opposed to weight lifting. Athletes lift weights, or train, because it serves an end. The end is greater athletic performance. So lifting weights is a tool, which may or may not be enjoyable in and of itself. The end of the bodybuilder is not greater athletic performance. While the impetus for bodybuilding, or the original erotic fixation may primarily be directed at an external object (the woman), it is the idealized male body that is recast as the erotic object. When a man stares into a mirror and judges how his body compares with an idealized physique, he has made himself his own erotic object; he is trying to possess the ideal self.
What’s more, if the end were attraction of the opposite sex, the bodybuilder would aim his efforts such that he would be maximally attractive to the greatest number of desirable women - he would find a mean. And yet, the urge to be larger transcends that original erotic relation.
I don’t know if Grosz entirely denies that there may be a healthy mean - that exercise rightly directed toward the object of health is possible. If so, that would be quite foolish.
With regard to the idea that men view their bodies as penises, we have to wonder what that means. Grosz obviously does not mean that men envision their bodies as actual phalli. Rather, that the body represents what the phallus represents. To the extent that the phallus represents power, and in particular sexual power, this may be accurate. We link the size of the phallus with its potency, to be sure, but the genitals are also the signs of sexuality which are hidden from view. The male seeks to express his sexuality, but he cannot do so through overt exposure. This just goes back to a sort of conventional sublimation argument, that one redirects the erotic drives into other pursuits (which may themselves become sexually attractive as indicators of potency). The bodybuilding male, or some bodybuilding males, seem to be substituting the exposure of the genitals for the exposure of the body qua representation of sexual potency.
But I’m scratching my head as to why anyone would be offended by this. We all know bodybuilding is kinda gay. Guys wax themselves and cover themselves in oil.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I don’t know if Grosz entirely denies that there may be a healthy mean - that exercise rightly directed toward the object of health is possible. If so, that would be quite foolish.[/quote]
Obviously this isn’t about “exercise”. I doubt she would write the same about swimmers or mall joggers.
[quote]
Who are “bodybuilders” in Grosz’s view? People who get on a stage, or people who lift casually or as a hobby?[/quote]
I am more interested in your own view. If you can’t look at a bodybuilder and tell he is one, I would call that an overall failure whether that is as a professional or as a hobby.
With that in mind, I doubt Grosz would make a distinction.
[quote]
With regard to the idea that men view their bodies as penises, we have to wonder what that means. Grosz obviously does not mean that men envision their bodies as actual phalli. Rather, that the body represents what the phallus represents. To the extent that the phallus represents power, and in particular sexual power, this may be accurate. We link the size of the phallus with its potency, to be sure, but the genitals are also the signs of sexuality which are hidden from view. The male seeks to express his sexuality, but he cannot do so through overt exposure. This just goes back to a sort of conventional sublimation argument, that one redirects the erotic drives into other pursuits (which may themselves become sexually attractive as indicators of potency). The bodybuilding male, or some bodybuilding males, seem to be substituting the exposure of the genitals for the exposure of the body qua representation of sexual potency.[/quote]
The same can be said of a guy in a candy red sportscar. I wonder how many articles and books get written about that?
[quote]
But I’m scratching my head as to why anyone would be offended by this. [/quote]
I doubt too many care enough to be offended by it. I do wonder why the focus on bodybuilding.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Obviously this isn’t about “exercise”. I doubt she would write the same about swimmers or mall joggers.
[/quote]
My point is that one can be an athlete - an athlete with muscles, in fact - without being a bodybuilder per se.
No, you’re not. Winking emoticon, &c.
I refer back to my point about athletes. The question is what the goal is. If Grosz weren’t to make the distinction, that would be an error on her part.
Yes. But the car isn’t narcissistic.
[quote]
I doubt too many care enough to be offended by it. I do wonder why the focus on bodybuilding.[/quote]
It is an odd phenomenon.
Personally, I relate bodybuilding more to the fundamental drive of all living things to grow and expend our own strength as described by Nietzsche, hence why I chose it as my alias.
reads like Freud inspired feminism to me
Professor X wrote:
“What is “female bodybuilding” related to?”
Here is what is said about female bodybuilding. What I include is not directly attributed to a particular source, but again this is from the Valentine article.
“Others, who develop strong, muscular bodies, understand body building as a transgressive act which destabilizes a feminine bodily identity and questions women’s difference from, and otherness to men.”
“By developing attributes which are usually associated with men–strength, stamina, muscularity and control–some women feel empowered. Likewise, pumping iron in itself is also a corporeal and potentially erotic sensation.”
Nephrom wrote:
“But I’m scratching my head why anyone would be offended by this”
I am offended for a few reasons:
My motivation to get into body building was to get stronger, mainly that I wanted to be able to haul myself out of bad predicaments–like hanging from a cliff. I just did not want to be weak, and I was. Also, I have done a good deal of manual labor and knew strength to be respected and a benefit for the individual and for others in getting the job done.
Another reason, because the behavior of one gender is described as narcissistic and anxiety ridden while the same behavior of the other receives praise through terms such as “transgressive”, empowering and there is some inclusion of the idea it might feel good. The analysis refuses these possibilities to male body building.
Also, the analysis concludes that attributes such as “strength, stamina, muscularity, and control” are givens and fails to recognize that they are more often than not developed and earned through work. It also fails to recognize that these are not attributes equally shared by all men and there are material consequences associated with each and that not all are positive (re: “meathead” stereotype) This analysis also fails to recognize where those same attributes are used to praise women. This analysis continues the idea that muscular men are deviant. I am not a fan of sexism.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Professor X wrote:
“What is “female bodybuilding” related to?”
Here is what is said about female bodybuilding. What I include is not directly attributed to a particular source, but again this is from the Valentine article.
“Others, who develop strong, muscular bodies, understand body building as a transgressive act which destabilizes a feminine bodily identity and questions women’s difference from, and otherness to men.”
“By developing attributes which are usually associated with men–strength, stamina, muscularity and control–some women feel empowered. Likewise, pumping iron in itself is also a corporeal and potentially erotic sensation.”
Nephrom wrote:
“But I’m scratching my head why anyone would be offended by this”
I am offended for a few reasons:
My motivation to get into body building was to get stronger, mainly that I wanted to be able to haul myself out of bad predicaments–like hanging from a cliff. I just did not want to be weak, and I was. Also, I have done a good deal of manual labor and knew strength to be respected and a benefit for the individual and for others in getting the job done.
Another reason, because the behavior of one gender is described as narcissistic and anxiety ridden while the same behavior of the other receives praise through terms such as “transgressive”, empowering and there is some inclusion of the idea it might feel good. The analysis refuses these possibilities to male body building.
Also, the analysis concludes that attributes such as “strength, stamina, muscularity, and control” are givens and fails to recognize that they are more often than not developed and earned through work. It also fails to recognize that these are not attributes equally shared by all men and there are material consequences associated with each and that not all are positive (re: “meathead” stereotype) This analysis also fails to recognize where those same attributes are used to praise women. This analysis continues the idea that muscular men are deviant. I am not a fan of sexism.
[/quote]
Good post. I suppose another reason to be offended by it is the fact that these ideas are spreading. That means if you look the part, you are now branded as being “defective”. I suppose those who don’t look the part would never have to deal with that.
I am actually surprised at how the tone changed when referring to female bodybuilding. Women are “empowered” while men simply want to become penises.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Also, the analysis concludes that attributes such as “strength, stamina, muscularity, and control” are givens and fails to recognize that they are more often than not developed and earned through work. It also fails to recognize that these are not attributes equally shared by all men and there are material consequences associated with each and that not all are positive (re: “meathead” stereotype) This analysis also fails to recognize where those same attributes are used to praise women. This analysis continues the idea that muscular men are deviant. I am not a fan of sexism.
[/quote]
I’ll try to get on JSTOR this weekend and find this article. I have reached the limit of what I’m willing to argue as advocatus diaboli.
Men who shave their heads do so to look like penises.
GI Jane did it to empower herself.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What is the deal with philosophers and male genitalia? Why does every motivation have to either be related to your penis or your mother?
[/quote]
She’s a woman, why is it so surprising that she’d have penis on the brain? 
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I have reached the limit of what I’m willing to argue as advocatus diaboli.[/quote]
Feel free to continue. I was impressed with your earlier response and I think you had some good points.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What is the deal with philosophers and male genitalia? Why does every motivation have to either be related to your penis or your mother?
She’s a woman, why is it so surprising that she’d have penis on the brain?
[/quote]
I do find it funny that she thinks all women agree with her as far as what is attractive.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What is the deal with philosophers and male genitalia? Why does every motivation have to either be related to your penis or your mother?
She’s a woman, why is it so surprising that she’d have penis on the brain?
I do find it funny that she thinks all women agree with her as far as what is attractive. [/quote]
Yeah, so do I. It’s true that a lot of women are “slaves to fashion” so to speak and tend to be attracted to what society (hollywood, fashion, television, etc…) tells them is attractive (hence all the guys coming onto this thread wanting to look like Ryan Reynolds, Matthew Mcconaughey, or Brad Pitt in “Fight Club”).
But, honestly like yourself I don’t know too many big strong guys (who have adequate social skills) who have a hard time getting women. And honestly, I doubt that many of us would want to be with a woman who doesn’t appreciate what we do and who we are (and doesn’t also workout herself).
So who cares what the majority of the female population thinks, there are plenty of really attractive ones that like muscle.
It gets more complicated. If you consider the Cartesian mind/body divide, men are supposed to be rational and objective (read: mind) while women are thought of as more natural and emotional (read: body). This divide is/was encouraged by male academics, okay, I will go with that. But what is being ignored is that weight lifting has been associated with working class males, i.e manual laborers, who have a knowledge of and dependency on their bodies.
So the working class is ignored by those academics who support the divide as well as those who use the female experience to tear the divide down. Males body builders threaten both sides of the equation, especially those such as PX who have demonstrated a developed mind and body. Therefore, if the feminist term masculinist (“assumes a knower who believes he can separate himself from his body, emotions, values and past experiences so that he and his thoughts are autonomous, context-free and objective” (Rose 1993:7)) which relies on this mind/body divide, has to maintain difference between the male and female body builder or else idea of male=masculinist is overturned. So body builder as uber male is fine, but body builder as knowledgeable and connected to the body upsets the theory applecart.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What is the deal with philosophers and male genitalia? Why does every motivation have to either be related to your penis or your mother?
She’s a woman, why is it so surprising that she’d have penis on the brain?
I do find it funny that she thinks all women agree with her as far as what is attractive.
Yeah, so do I. It’s true that a lot of women are “slaves to fashion” so to speak and tend to be attracted to what society (hollywood, fashion, television, etc…) tells them is attractive (hence all the guys coming onto this thread wanting to look like Ryan Reynolds, Matthew Mcconaughey, or Brad Pitt in “Fight Club”).
But, honestly like yourself I don’t know too many big strong guys (who have adequate social skills) who have a hard time getting women. And honestly, I doubt that many of us would want to be with a woman who doesn’t appreciate what we do and who we are (and doesn’t also workout herself).
So who cares what the majority of the female population thinks, there are plenty of really attractive ones that like muscle.[/quote]
The attraction issue was based on interviews done by Monaghan of body builders but I am guessing their issues were more than that they were huuuugh.
I do not see a disconnect between body building and concerns over female body size but they have been treated differently through theory. Why, see my post above.
Academic = someone that has spent years educating themselves so they can complicate even the simplest thing.
I like to lift weights because I want to be a super hero. I guess I could wear a big purple helmet and call myself Giant Phallus Man. Chicks dig huge penises, so that would be sweet. I would wear a cape and my super powers would be invincibility (though pussy would be the obvious kryptonite to that) and the ability to shoot splooge missiles.
i think peoples generally disdain for body building type endeavors is because they are cunts trying to invalidate something that makes them feel inferior.
[quote]rander wrote:
i think peoples generally disdain for body building type endeavors is because they are cunts trying to invalidate something that makes them feel inferior. [/quote]
I couldn’t agree more. If I wrote an article about how everyone who owns an SUV or car that costs more than 20 grand is a narcissistic idiot who just wants to be seen and therefore sees their car as a huge gas guzzling penis, I am sure we would hear at least some complaints.
If muscles were so easily dismissed, every guy with arms over 18" wouldn’t get stared at (and felt up) so much.
I honestly hope the negative stereotype of bodybuilding spreads and flourishes.
As the rest of the country slides downhill into the obesity epidemic it’s going to make getting laid that much easier for those of us that actually take care of ourselves. 