Now the New Yorker?

[MattWI]

Rippetoe writes, “A weak man is not as happy as that same man would be if he were strong. This reality is offensive to some people...” The philosophy assumes a reality in which muscles exist only in relation to one another, under strain of a weighted barbell, in the confines of the gym. In reality, our muscles also exist in context—under the stress of narratives about disability and gender, subjected to stories about failure and success.

What a Matrix-like red pill or blue pill choice! According to the author there is:

An "assumed" or imaginary reality where muscles exert force against an external resistance and stronger is happier.

Or, an "actual" reality where, in context, muscles exert forces against narratives about disabilities and gender and stronger cannot mean happier and might even be offensive.

An eye-opening moment on so many levels...

[bisonp]

The picture, man. The fucking picture. Why you gotta have a close-up of a dude's undies and asscheeks superimposed where his balls should be?

I didn't even notice that at first because I couldn't stop looking at the barbell.

[kidcolin]

"our muscles also exist in context—under the stress of narratives about disability and gender, subjected to stories about failure and success" .

I came here to make fun of this passage. This is what happens when a postmodernist takes up strength training.

Also, this piece sort of just "ended" out of nowhere. Poor writing.

[cph]

I came here to make fun of this passage. This is what happens when a postmodernist takes up strength training.

You may not approve of the language, but she's touching on ideas that are constantly addressed on this site and forum. Hell, there are currently posts relating to narratives about disability and gender on the front page of this very forum.

We were so convinced by both the doctors and the physical therapists that my lot in life was going to be spent either in a wheelchair or behind a walker that we had work done on our home to accommodate what was going to be my new disabled lifestyle.

Many women don’t know we have significant strength potential, nor that we owe it to ourselves, just as men do, to explore it. Women’s expectations are often too low, and their mental picture of people who lift barbells is an unsavory stereotype of shirtless men grunting and sweating.

What good comes from making fun of this article? Is there anything here that's truly objectionable? (... besides the illustration, which the author likely had no control over.) We're on the same team here.

[Polishdude20]

I came here to make fun of this passage. This is what happens when a postmodernist takes up strength training.

Also, this piece sort of just "ended" out of nowhere. Poor writing.

Yeah I was like, "Oh cool they mentioned Rip. Anndd it's done"

[John Hanley]

Is there anything here that's truly objectionable?

I don't know.

"our muscles also exist in context—under the stress of narratives about disability and gender, subjected to stories about failure and success"

I understand that the sentence is trying to be clever & metaphorical and has something to do with muscle-value-assignment...but what the fuck does it mean?

[Manimal]

What good comes from making fun of this article? Is there anything here that's truly objectionable? (... besides the illustration, which the author likely had no control over.) We're on the same team here.

Except for the part where she then goes on to talk about her existential connection to squatting 5x5 and putting her ass on the back of her ankles. She sites the book as if she has read it and then goes to show she knows nothing of it. How can I offer credit of any kind to a journalist who doesn't read the source she directly quotes?

She made a fluff piece and did it half assed.

[marcf]

I understand that the sentence is trying to be clever & metaphorical and has something to do with muscle-value-assignment...but what the fuck does it mean?

First, you need to be able to think like a millennial who believes that there are 63 gender types.

[cph]

Except for the part where she then goes on to talk about her existential connection to squatting 5x5 and putting her ass on the back of her ankles. She sites the book as if she has read it and then goes to show she knows nothing of it. How can I offer credit of any kind to a journalist who doesn't read the source she directly quotes?

She made a fluff piece and did it half assed.

Where does she write about putting her ass on the back of her ankles? She writes, "lowering my hamstrings until they touch my calves," which happens in a just-below-parallel squat.

There's a lot of outrage over nothing here.

The book got mentioned in a positive light. Putting a heavy bar on your back and squatting to depth got mentioned in a positive light. Yet here we go picking nits over number of work sets and (misconceptions of) what she wrote about squat form.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Where does she write about putting her ass on the back of her ankles? She writes, "lowering my hamstrings until they touch my calves," which happens in a just-below-parallel squat.

Not really.