femalemuscle.com by lori v. braun
Guilt by Association - bodybuilding Go
Guilt by Association
bodybuiling guide

Guilt by Association
Women of the Sandwich Generation

By Lisa Bavington

(Editor's Note: In this article the author raises her concerns about the treatment and exploitation of female bodybuilders as portrayed in the magazines of the bodybuilding world. We welcome any feedback or response to this article and will publish any reasoned opinions on this subject.The following article represents the opinion of the author and not those of femalemuscle.com. Also, the facts as represented in this article have been reported by the author and femalemuscle.com does not warrant these facts to be true.)

Recently, I came across the August 2002 issue of Muscular Development, which featured an interview with Colette Nelson, entitled "Extreme Sex". Under the guidance of the Publisher/Editor-in-Chief, Steve Blechman, the magazine has undergone some major changes in recent years, having reinvented itself on more than one occasion, but has remained consistent in its criticism of both Weider and the IFBB. The publication originally claimed to be anti-drug, featuring only "all-natural" athletes in an attempt to separate themselves from the rest of the pack and condemn those that did not follow their lead. Obviously not lucrative enough, they have now adopted a "no bullshit" approach, featuring one article after another on sex and drugs. They no longer attack those that use substances to enhance performance, but have chosen to focus on another target; namely the women they neither feature in their magazine, support with their products or value as their target market. The magazine's sexist attitude towards female bodybuilders, which equates their value as athletes with their ability to cater to the needs of male sexual desire, is revolting, to say the least. It is clearly a conscious effort on the part of the magazine's editors to appeal to an adolescent audience that is highly predictable.

This should come as no surprise to anyone remotely familiar with the sport, as it is not the first time that the industry has made public their negative view towards female bodybuilders. The magazine serves as yet another glaring example of the level of professionalism that is currently destroying the sport's already poor credibility. Unfortunately, it has a lot of company in an industry where contradiction and hypocrisy go hand in hand. Some of the more blatant examples that currently exist are as follows:
  1. Identifying drugs as the major obstacle preventing Olympic recognition, but refusing to effectively test for them.
  2. Supplement companies that promote their products as natural alternatives to drugs, while using enhanced athletes as walking advertisements.
  3. Introducing guidelines into female bodybuilding to increase the women's marketability and sponsorship opportunities, then completely removing them from every magazine, marketing piece and promotional item.
  4. The on-going struggle to have bodybuilding viewed as a sport and its members viewed as athletes, then adding figure competitions requiring little potential and even less talent.
Although, what seems to set Muscular Development apart from the competition is their need to compile a group of Scientific Contributors into an Advisory Board which they highlight in their magazine and on their website. The Board consists of a panel of experts at the top of their fields in Exercise Science, Training, Nutrition and Performance Enhancing Drugs. Many are former athletes currently employed as Professors at Universities, Directors at Medical Centers, and Consultants to a number of other Athletic Organizations. Each member has the necessary credentials following their titles and pride themselves on their professional associations and journalistic integrity.

However, the fact that Muscular Development also features another writer on staff, commonly referred to as "The Sandwich", defeats their initial purpose in assembling this group in the first place. The magazine has allowed their Board member's names and reputations to become associated with a brand of journalistic reporting that lies in direct contradiction to what they have already accomplished in their professional careers. It has reduced a potentially fascinating glimpse into the life of a successful and promising female athlete to the level of a pre-pubescent boy who seems to be questioning his own sexuality rather than hers. How absurd for an editor to publish an interview that asks a woman with a Master's Degree in Clinical Nutrition, a National-level, 2-time USA champion, what her "favorite position is", whether anything is "off limits, like her ass", or if she's "into rough sex"? How he can allow a member of his staff to refer to Colette's physique as a "hot, phat body primed for either pumping up or porking or both", citing his preference for "banging her in her cheerleader uniform" or proudly proclaiming that he has "pleasured himself a couple of times to her photos", is hard to believe.

Would this panel feel any different if she were one of their colleagues? Could they justify hiring a research assistant based on her ability to give them a "boner"? When a student is required to give a presentation, do they picture her on all fours or wonder what it would be like to "nail her in the ass"? If a female staff member approached them with a concern, would they tell her to "chill the fuck out"? How insulting to pose those questions to men who possess such incredible intellectual ability and have succeeded professionally beyond what the average person could ever hope to accomplish. Why then, is it acceptable to direct those same questions to an athlete like Colette? At the very least, she should not have had to "sigh and giggle" her way out of an interview, in an attempt to maintain her dignity, without having to pay the price for the writer's lack of blood flow to his brain.

In his attempt to somehow resolve her from what her peers "lost many injections ago", he overlooks the fact that he has associated her with the wrong group of women to begin with. Colette is representative of a number of female bodybuilders, but the group that she should have been connected to consists of young, educated, intelligent women with University degrees ranging from Bachelor's to Ph.D's, who have a long history of athletic success. A group of women who also work in Universities, Medical Centers and Research Labs alongside colleagues similar to those on their Advisory Board. Women like Beth Roberts, BS (Health Sciences), Lisa Aukland, Ph.D (Pharmacy), Heather Foster, AAS (Physical Therapy), Amy Pazzo, BS (Elementary Education), Michelle Tuggle, BSc (Occupational Education), Sherry Smith, BA (Communications), and Stephanie Starr, MS (Journalism), to name a few. Luckily, each of these woman are well aware that the position they hold professionally is more important than the one they prefer in the bedroom, however it's clear that not all their potential colleagues are able to tell the difference. Does one Board member realize that, in fact, he works at the same University as one of the athletes included in this group?

Where contradiction meets hypocrisy…

For this publication in particular, that has tried on more than one occasion to distinguish itself from the rest of its peers, to feature a woman who could be a member of their esteemed Advisory Board the way they did, shows they are no different from those they criticize. While the Board member's intentions are obviously to provide legitimacy to this magazine, it fails to absolve them from the fact that they have allowed Colette to be treated as another one of their "beeyotches", showing her the same lack of respect and common courtesy. Furthermore, for these men to lend their support and reputation to a project that they would never defend to their peers, or showcase to their female colleagues, is a slap in the face to each woman they associate with, both personally and professionally.

For an industry that does not believe female bodybuilders sell their magazines, they sure invest a lot of time and resources making sure they do not buy them either. If this theme of guilt by association is allowed to continually lend itself to female bodybuilders as a group, then it is only fair to attach the same cost to the image of those who perpetuate the process. Whether the responsibility lies with them directly or they have just become indifferent to the standard of content routinely published in the magazine, they contribute to it by their refusal to act on behalf of the women it condemns. While it may be acceptable within the industry to attack and humiliate an athlete based upon her gender, this would never be tolerated at their respective institutions. I doubt that any of these men would defend this particular piece to a panel of their peers outlining its academic excellence and highlighting the writer's journalistic integrity.

There will always be an audience for this type of product and they will continue to make profit from this exploited segment of the population. What will not continue, however, is the support they receive from members of their Advisory Board, because at some point their credibility will be challenged and their image tarnished by being associated with writers like this. These sweeping generalizations based on sexist attitudes, demeaning remarks and overall negative tone towards women as a group of like-minded sexual deviants, is gender bias and harassment at its most basic level and, at some point, those who allow it to continue will be held accountable for it. For now, at least, the editors hides behind the gaze of freedom of speech, while pushing the envelope and exploring the boundaries of an audience that shares the same obvious, yet tragic, genetic defect. That besides being similar to other men in that they have been given two "heads", this group has had the unfortunate ability of being provided with only enough blood to use one at a time.

Therefore, in keeping with the theme of this editorial, we can now add a few more items to our list specifically relating to Muscular Development and their contribution to industry standards:
  1. A magazine that changes it's format and philosophy from "all-natural" to "no bullshit", profiting off of the very thing that they had condemned their competitors for in the past
  2. Assembling a group of experts to provide legitimacy and display their high standards, then employing a writer that has none.
  3. Choosing to educate and inform their audience on training, nutrition and drugs, while enforcing and encouraging the same sexist stereotypes and prejudices regarding female athletes.
  4. Demanding respect for the men they feature, but acknowledging contempt for the women they do not.
In the end, the only thing that Colette's true peers have lost along the way is our patience for dealing with garbage like this and allowing it to speak for our image as female athletes. Through this interview, the writer has managed to prove without a doubt, that this female bodybuilder, in particular, is clearly more of a man than he will ever be and more of a woman than he will ever have. Maybe that is what he meant, but could not articulate, when he referred to her as "a muscular, hot chick hybrid". I doubt he ever convinced her that he was indeed capable of "having her in tears after a major orgasm", but maybe one day he'll be able to convince himself. In the meantime, however, the day will come when a member of the Advisory Board will be made to answer and defend his support of this publication to his superiors. Someday, another professional will come across this magazine and notify their colleagues, both male and female, of their affiliation. And as I prepare to return to school to pursue a Master's Degree in Journalism, I cannot help but wonder if that day may be closer than they think.

Until then, I have a few letters to write.

Lisa Bavington

References
1. Extreme Sex, by The Sandwich. www.colettenelson.com/mythoughts.htm
2. Muscular Development Advisory Board. www.musculardevelopment.com/new/advisors.html