Female Bodybuilding
Female Bodybuilding
Female Bodybuilding
In female bodybuilding, the interconnection between femininity and muscularity often arises as a conflict
due to its bifurcation from a sport which is essentially men’s. Initially, women’s involvement in this
men’s sphere was believed to empower women to resist femininity; however female bodybuilding has
been overtly sexualized in recent times where they are now required to embody the ideals of femininity to
actively compete and flaunt their bodybuilding musculature. Female bodybuilding now is simply a sport
for women to train to fit into feminine stereotypes that they initially had wished to elude as their bodies
are excessively sexualized and their stances are unduly feminized in order to promote them in this sport
and these have diminished female bodybuilders from achieving any real power in the patriarchal society.
Muscularity is mostly associated exclusively to men that many women in many cultures are
discouraged from delving into physical exertion that promotes muscularity such as this which enhances
their physical capacities to builds that mirror their male counterparts. This is believed to effectively
diminish their womanliness and heterosexual allure as shared by Tajrobehkar, “…visible muscularity
diminishes a woman’s (hetero)sexual appeal, and that the ultimate goal of bodybuilding for women is to
achieve heterosexual desirability” (296). This motive appears rather incongruous with the sport’s aim
which actually encourages the competitors to display “the most developed and best defined muscle mass”
(Ian 151). Evidently, women’s extreme physiques are not celebrated in this sport and through “the
inclusion of femininity as a judging criterion and the erasure of serious reporting on women's
bodybuilding competitions in the bodybuilding media” (Boyle 134), it further accentuates the sport’s
desire to host female bodybuilders who are sexually more appealing and its unappreciative stance over
their physical strength, power and aesthetics as emphasized in men’s category. This inclusion, according
to Wayne DeMilla, vice president of the International Federation of Bodybuilding (IFBB), was necessary
when the extreme physiques of women were not marketable (qtd. in Boyle 134). Hence, many of Niall
Richardson’s arguments in his article, “Flex-rated! Female bodybuilding: feminist resistance or erotic
spectacle?” (2008) that dismisses the idea of the built female body as feminist resistance are attested
because of the evident intolerance by the sport’s governing body, IFBB itself, towards the presentation of
women’s physique devoid of any womanly embellishments (291-296). The sport now essentially tries to
feminize female bodybuilders as Tajrobehkar informs (296) or manipulate female bodybuilders’ physique
In both occasions, women are condescended with intolerance for their hyper-muscularity and this
signifies a widespread cultural aversion for female strength and power and cultural insistence to sexualize
women. Therefore, in a patriarchal sport such as this, female bodybuilders can be deduced as victims of
“…a cultural effort to protect normative sex, gender, and heterosexual identity paradigms” (Boyle 135)
due to their dissuaded position from showcasing a musculature without any womanly voluptuousness.
However, Richardson does put forward that some scholars feel that female bodybuilders challenge “the
assumed stable sex/gender continuum” (290) and this is a show of resistance to traditional ideas of
femininity. Female bodybuilders may feel empowered because they are redefining the conservative ideals
of a feminine body from small, weak and fragile to big, strong and burly. However, this unconvincing
notion of empowerment arises to be debatable after the realization of IFBB’s biased stance on female
bodybuilding which presses for femininity. Therefore, even if female bodybuilders defy sexist stereotypes
of womanhood by being at odds with the idea of incapability, dependency and frailness, they still seem to
contradict and “counteract the empowerment derived from bodybuilding” (Heywood 24) due to their
forced admission to hyper-femininity such as wearing heels, makeup and jewelry while competing as
expected by IFBB. This belief is repeated by Susan Bordo in “Unbearable Weight” (1993) where she
illustrated her concept of “backlash phenomenon” in which gender nonconformity practiced by female
bodybuilders is used against themselves to submit to gender norms through adorning feminine ideals to
receive opportunities to participate in the sport. This indeed ensures the prevalence of femininity in a
sport where women are trying to denounce traditional feminine ideals, therefore, the views of scholars
position of IFBB who have a distaste for unladylike showings in women’s bodybuilding category.
In regards to the manly physique that female bodybuilders adorn, Richardson to defend the
contention that they distress patriarchal gender paradigms by looking large, powerful and strong, quotes
Laurie Schulze who shares, “female bodybuilding is a direct, threatening resistance to patriarchy at its
most biological foundations” (291). Here she stresses how built female body emphasizes the plasticity of
the body where the molding of a female body is fluid and one that “challenges the concept of an
essentially masculine or essentially feminine body” (Richardson 291). It may be true then that this
physical showing encourages the society to critically appreciate the flexible female physique and its
capabilities by allowing women to contend against and sidestep from the general condescending
perception that women are weak and delicate. However, even if they challenge to rethink the physical
faculty of women, further probing into the female bodybuilders’ mindset reveals motivations that do not
quite ascertain their patriarchal resistance. Female bodybuilders are visibly more muscular than the usual
standards of toned ideal feminine body but according to Grogan et al., “…none of the bodybuilders
mentioned being large or highly muscled as part of their ideal that they defined as athletic, toned, and
healthy. These competitors further emphasized that this athletic shape had to be feminine: a good/nice
shape with a visible waist, breasts, and less muscular than a male bodybuilder” (50). Ian in “The Primitive
Subject of Female Bodybuilding” (2001) further confirms this where she shares, “the most important
aspect is shape…in regard to muscular development, it must not be carried to excess where it resembles
the massive muscularity of the male physique” (78). Even if female bodybuilders aspire to build massive
musculature like their male counterparts, they would be deterred upon the pressure placed by the sport on
women to observe less muscle mass. McGrath and Chananie-Hill inform in “Big Freaky-Looking
Women” (2009), that IFBB in 2005 deemphasized women’s muscle size by introducing ‘the 20% rule’
according to which the female athletes had to decrease the amount of their muscularity by 20%
for health and aesthetic reasons (240). This move indeed sprouts as an effort to erode muscularity among
female bodybuilders and a bodybuilder in McGrath and Chananie-Hill’s study herself testified that the
poses women are required to perform during bodybuilding competitions must not be done deliberately to
accentuate their bulk and muscle range as how it is required in men’s category (248). Therefore,
competitions that they can delve in the realm of men by displaying just the right amount of muscularity
but due to the vehemence with which women are oriented to be more womanly than manly, the
resounding message that transpires is that “a woman has little to no business or place” (Tajrobehkar 301)
Unfortunately, female bodybuilders are not only subjected to double standards in the sport where
they are pressured to adorn a feminine appeal when there is no apparent masculinity requirement for the
male bodybuilders; they are also sexualized as Richardson informs that they unknowingly instigate male
fetishism where they provide erotic pleasure by flexing their muscle to muscle worshippers. To drive in
this argument, Richardson cites Joanna Frueh who says, “female bodybuilders, oiled when they pose, flex
like lovemaking vaginas and exhibit the slickness of aroused female sexual organs’ (291). This elaborated
simile, Richardson feels is unmistakably apt as he shares when female bodybuilders flex their body, it
“…may indeed be read as an extremely sexual image” (292) and pointedly cites Doug Aoki who like
Richardson explains female bodybuilders are in felicitous position to ornament the image of dominatrix
which intrinsically eroticizes female bodybuilders (295). With their highly sexualized physique, it is little
surprise that the flexing female bodybuilder are appreciated by muscle worshippers who express sexual
interest in muscular women and Richardson restates that by sharing, “the female bodybuilder in muscle-
worship porn does not simply look like the supreme dominatrix but also performs ‘acts’ or ‘fixes’ with a
distinct S&M flavor” (296). With further prodding, it is found that, “many female bodybuilders earn a
living by posting photos and videos to sites that require viewers to pay to access sexually explicit photos
and videos of muscular women (Hunter 7). Their entanglement in this is reasoned by Shea in “The
Paradox of Pumping Iron” (2001) who says, “female bodybuilders rarely get sponsored to endorse
products, often succumbing to…private posing, ‘muscle worship,’ or wrestling sessions” (45). Female
bodybuilders sexualizing burgeoned when, according to Ian, “world-class female physique athletes have
had to acknowledge that the bodybuilding establishment wants them, in effect, dead” (73). Therefore, it is
understood that female bodybuilders resorted to such sexualizing due to IFBB itself which was too keen
to restrict female bodybuilding because it doesn’t sell and attract paying audiences which highlights
As Richardson’s research article both supports and dismisses the idea of the built female body as
feminist resistance, his neutral conclusion that the feminist images of female bodybuilders is indeed
dependent on the perception and perspective of the context coded within the representation seems fitting.
However, by probing for and understanding the reasons behind female bodybuilders feminized and
sexualized orientation in the sport, Richardson’s final affirmation that female bodybuilders indeed
“struggle to achieve recognition in a male-dominated subculture” (297) complements the idea that their
participation may had had been an initial form of resistance to patriarchy but their declining reception in
the sport has sent them whirling back to square one, feminized and sexualized altogether.
Works Cited
Boyle, Lex. “Flexing the Tensions of Female Muscularity: How Female Bodybuilders Negotiate
Normative Femininity in Competitive Bodybuilding.” Women's Studies Quarterly, vol. 33, no.
Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. U of California P, 1993.
Grogan, Sarah, et al. “Femininity and Muscularity: Accounts of Seven Women Bodybuilders.” Journal of
Heywood, Leslie. Bodymakers: A Cultural Anatomy of Women's Bodybuilding. Rutgers UP, 1998.
Hunter, Sheena A. “Not Simply Women’s Bodybuilding: Gender and the Female Competition
Ian, Marcia. “The Primitive Subject of Female Bodybuilding: Transgression and Other Postmodern
Myths.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, 2001, pp. 69-100.
McGrath, Shelly A, and Ruth A. Chananie-Hill. “Big Freaky-Looking Women: Normalizing Gender
Transgression through Bodybuilding.” Sociology of Sport Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 2009, p. 235-
354.
Richardson, Niall. “Flex-rated! Female bodybuilding: feminist resistance or erotic spectacle?” Journal of
Shea, Christine B. “The Paradox of Pumping Iron: Female Bodybuilding as Resistance and Compliance.”
Tajrobehkar, Bahar. “Flirting with the Judges: Bikini Fitness Competitors’ Negotiations of Femininity in
Bodybuilding Competitions.” Sociology of Sport Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, 2016, pp. 294-304.