Historically, the use of steroids has more or less been a question of men, muscles, and masculinity. This “holy trinity” has long prevailed. By the 1970s, for example, we saw the bodybuilding icon Arnold Schwarzenegger and his bodybuilding buddies hitting the weights in the documentary Pumping Iron. At that time, and outside the sphere of competitive sport, steroid use was largely connected to greasy basement facilities. There, men gathered to shape their bodies through pumping iron, discipline, diets, and the use of steroids. These secluded male spaces prevailed for quite a long time. But times did change, and the gym and fitness enterprise changed its guise. Gyms became health studios and fitness centers. Further, the target audience for muscle building exercises expanded to include everyone from casual exercisers to dedicated muscle-builders (a process known as the Fitness Revolution), including women. Consequently, muscle building and the spaces in which such practices are carried out today are no longer understood as reserved for men only. Following this, it is hardly surprising that the demography of doping has also changed and widened. For example, it has been noted in the community and by researchers that women are a growing group of users, found in fitness facilities as well as in recreational sport and elsewhere. Though their choices of substances, motives, and goals may vary from those of men, women use steroids and other substances, too.
In this article, we aim to initiate a discussion and reflect on the challenges that may come with women entering a space that traditionally has been understood as men’s. We are interested in what possibilities and challenges women may face in terms of discussing their use within a male dominated doping community in general, and what implications this may bring for their use in particular. To do this, we will first look at how the question of gender and gender dynamics can be understood.
Taking up space – Cultural manspreading
Gender dynamics and the politics of public space can play out in various ways in daily life: at work, on public transportation, and (as mentioned) in the gym. Online communities are no exception to this, though space here can concern the length and quantity of posts in a forum thread rather that the physical space taken on, let’s say, a public bus. Because women have only been allowed or included in some of these spaces relatively recently, men traditionally only had to jockey for space with one another. Taking up space – including by spreading arms and legs, but also occupying non-physical spaces such as corporate leadership positions, or posting excessively on a forum thread, and more – symbolizes power and status, something usually reserved for men and associated with masculinity. Women, on the other hand, historically have been chastised to take up less space, both by shrinking their bodies and by deferring to men’s voices. But again, women now have access to these previously men-only public spaces. This doesn’t mean that men have given up their claim to these spaces, however. In recent years, the notion of “manspreading” has entered the cultural lexicon to describe how me take up a disproportionate amount of space at the expense of others. This may be most visible in men sitting with their legs spread far apart on public transportation or on park benches, but the term can of course also be used metaphorically to illustrate greater social structures, focusing on how men throughout history have granted themselves (or been given permission) to take up a disproportionate share of physical, social, and cultural space in society. In doing so, they have also signaled male dominance of these spaces. Discussions in online doping communities can serve as an illustrative example.
Our research on online steroid communities found that men do engage in a form of manspreading – we called this “cultural manspreading” – that has implications for women, their use, and their role within this community. This was clear in two main ways: men speaking for women and men dominating conversations (in terms of more individual posts and lengthier conversations), even if the topic was on women and their use. Now, it’s important to note that we observed many instances of men who were offering helpful and supportive advice to women, often in direct response to questions from women. Surely such support is positive and may help reduce the risks of unwanted side-effects associated with steroid use, for example. However, the broader pattern (the cultural dimension of the manspreading concept) of men dominating the discussions of and narratives around women’s use was quite prevalent and can make it harder for women to find information by and for women within the forums. Is this then a problem?
How does cultural manspreading play out?
In our studies it became clear that when men spoke for women, they were often asking questions on behalf of a female partner and/or responding to a question using the experiences of a female partner. While this may not seem like a big deal, it still calls for some reflection. Much of the rich value of steroid forums is in the sharing of first-hand experiences and effects of using steroids. This is also important given the differences between men’s and women’s reactions to and experiences with various steroids. Men don’t experience the same physiological effects as women, not to mention the psychological and emotional ones. Men relaying women’s experiences second-hand can lose some of the nuance and specificity that makes it so useful. It also means that the information is often filtered through the experience and perceptions of the man reporting it. Discussing an embodied phenomenon, such as whether their partner’s menstrual cycles are normal during a course of steroids, is incomplete at best, since men don’t experience menstruation at all and the differences between women, as well as within one woman over time, can be subtle but significant. Once men enter or manspread into these conversations, it can obscure women’s voices and make it harder for women to connect with one another around their shared experiences.
Men dominating conversations about women’s use is related to men speaking on behalf of another woman but played out in various ways. One was when men would engage in sexually aggressive comments on threads about women’s use. While some women were happy to banter – or to tell off the man in question – needing to do this pulled focus away from the original topic of the thread. This could cause women to lose interest in the thread or to stop engaging on the forum due to dealing with harassment. Stopping women’s engagement also stops their knowledge from circulating and growing the community. Another way men dominated conversations was to simply hijack a thread started by a woman and debate and discuss with one another, making it harder for women to push in with their own responses or experiences. This put women’s voices into the background and put the men in the center of the conversation, despite the topic being about women and their use. It may also prevent women from sharing their expertise – or even regarding themselves as experts despite their knowledge – as men position themselves as the authorities on all use.
Implications for women and harm reduction
The gender dynamics of discussions in online doping communities are especially crucial when it comes to harm reduction among women. Steroid forums are well known for their orientation to maximizing results while reducing harm, but the differences between men and women mean one size doesn’t really fit all when it comes to preventing negative or unwanted side effects or other health risks. Women aren’t simply small men, they have their own complex physiology that can respond quite differently to certain substances or dosages. Women can certainly learn from men and men’s experiences (and vice versa), but they benefit greatly when they have support and insight from other women to draw from. Women´s voices are needed in discussions on steroid experiences, their possible side-effects, and more, and cultural manspreading may block such voices. Therefore, we argue for all the dudes found in such communities to make some space. We also welcome the introduction of the women-only forum on Thinksteroids that ensures women are able to speak with one another uninterrupted. Although this forum is only one secluded space that maybe doesn’t influence the broader patterns within the community as a whole, nevertheless, it is groundbreaking in the sense that it is setting the foundation for women-centered steroid discussions and a community in which the female body is set as the norm rather than the exception.
Main photo by Karolina Grabowska courtesy of Pexels
About the author
Warning: Undefined variable $show_related in /home/thinksteroids/public_html/wp-content/plugins/molongui-authorship/views/author-box/parts/html-tabs.php on line 26
April Henning is Lecturer of Sport Studies at the University of Stirling in the U.K. and has a PhD in sociology. She has published extensively in the fields of doping, health, and policy in the sport and fitness contexts. Recent books include Performance Cultures and Doped Bodies (with Jesper Andreasson) and Doping: A Sporting History (in press, with Paul Dimeo). She is an Associate Editor at the journal Performance Enhancement & Health and is a Director of the International Network of Doping Researchers.
Jesper Andreasson holds a PhD in Sociology and is associate professor in sport science at Linnaeus University, Sweden. His research can mainly be positioned within health, gender studies and cultural sociology, and he has published extensively about doping and doping use. Recent books are Performance Cultures and Doped Bodies. Challenging categories, gender norms, and policy responses (2021, with April Henning); Fitness Doping. Trajectories, Gender, Bodies and Health (2020) and Extreme Sports, Extreme Bodies. Gender, Identities and Bodies in Motion (2019, both with Thomas Johansson).
No replies yet
Loading new replies...
Join the full discussion at the MESO-Rx →