Dear UltraFit Magazine,
You suck.
I'm sorry to have to put it so bluntly, but after reading your latest issue, I'm at a loss for words. I am yet again dissapointed. Last month I was going to write about how annoyed I was that the women in your magazine were wearing stripper pants (animal print, with slits down the side), but forgot. This month I had more time.
I love fitness magazine, usually, and am relatively hardened against the ongoing attacks on women's body image that tends to come from the advertising in said magazines, but this months issue of UltraFit just got under my skin.
Why did I find it so offensive? Let me list my reasons.
1. Once again, most of the women pictures in your workout articles had "enhanced" breasts, baring their mid-sections, and were wearing far too much make up considering they are supposed to be sweating it out at the gym.
2. None of the men pictured were wearing make up, or wearing tight clothing. So don't tell me the women were made-up or scantily clad for any purpose other than gender stereotped notions of display. Page 55 is the prime example, showing a woman with full make up, fussy hair-do, and pushed-up breasts, next to a man wearing loose black clothing which made it difficult to even see the movement performed.
3. You have predominantly pictured men performing exercises in sports and advanced training articles, such as your articles on trekking (pg.90 onwards, one woman pictured, 5 men pictured, 2 interviewed), on pre-exhaustion (pg 66), and on stress and recovery (pg 49). Women get predominantly pictured in an article about training for your body composition. (targeting problem areas, by another name).
4. You ran an article called training women, pg 85, by Michelle Drielsma. I could write a whole letter about the many problems with this one article. To begin, it (vaguely) suggests women should do more weights, less cardio. True enough, but you have then illustrated the article with one woman holding tiny weights (the kind used for cardio) sitting on the floor in her undies.
The author then uses the article to assert pseudo-science concepts ("determine how internally challenged your body is"), and advertise CHEK Holistic Lifestyle Coaching (without announcing any affiliation, or even explaining the concepts).
To add to this, the article doesn't appear to have been edited at all. I'm no literary giant (case in point my fondness for parentheses, and generally problematic grammar), but this article contains sentences that make no sense, and jumps to many conclusions (such as most female body builders take steroids), and it begins as an article aimed at trainers, and ends targetting women who are beginning to train.
5. The only women contributors pictured were one cook and one nutritionist. I'm not knocking these women or their professions, but they are professions heavily identified with women, whereas there was not one woman contributor pictured from the training, exercise science or sports fields.
6. Lastly, the copy you sent me had half the pages cut off down the middle. Not that it seems i would have missed much, but its just shoddy.
And that's my rant. I'm heading off now to put the copy back in recycling, from whence I fished it to write this rant.
If anyone else actually saw this magazine (its gets sent to me after I studied with a partner of theirs, but I think you can buy it in shops) feel free to agree, disagree, and/or write your thoughts to UltraFit. You can reach them at editor@ultrafit.com.au.
No comments:
Post a Comment