Ladies Lifting Weights

I'm sure that most people (aside from Hulk Hogan or Magnus Ver Magnusson from Met-Rx World's Strongest Man Competition) would not find a beefy, muscular woman all that attractive. It's just not something we're accustomed to see that often. It frightens us. It's like seeing a pink poodle mixed with a pit bull and getting some fluffy beast that kills but still gets fashionable haircuts. However, there is an all too common misconception that women tend to have about getting buff and weight lifting.

TOO MANY women believe that if they lift weights they'll turn into the muscle-bound poodle, or some sick Russian gymnast. FALSE. Lifting weights is a great way to stay toned and in shape, regardless of gender. Women very seldom get buff. You have to try really hard to get that way if you are a woman. Furthermore, the typical weight lifting that women should do on a regular basis is toning and strengthening, not body building exercises. What does that mean? It means that instead of lifting a lot of weight with few repetitions and sets, women should lift lighter, more manageable weights with a lot of repetitions and a higher number of sets. It's that simple.

So if I have to hear one more time from a girl at the gym say, "I don't wanna get buff," after I tell them they should lift weights, I'm going to do a lot more than roll my eyes. I'm going to judge her. Right then and there. Judgement. No, I won't condemn her soul, but I will label her in my mind as ignorant and try to enlighten her. Ladies, don't be that girl.

I am a feminist

(These ladies pushing for women's rights look a lot more like Palin, than Hillary - baby and all)

Let me just start by saying, the Los Angeles Times is the most biased newspaper in America. Secondly, aside from the fact that it rarely seeks to be even remotely objective in its 'news reporting,' the quality of its news, sources, and even opinions leaves much to be desired.

I was reading an editorial from the LA Times this morning. It started off with a sneering remark from Gloria Steinem in reference to Sarah Palin: "Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing - the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party - are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president." NEWS FLASH to Steinem: You don't have to be a democrat, or a liberal to be a feminist. SECOND NEWS FLASH: You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist.

But if that were all Steinem had said I may have just chuckled, but she decided to hit the same old talking points about Palin. She's inexperienced, she is from a small state, her record. All of her points have been addressed thoroughly. Don't tell me Biden has more experience. If we're comparing legislative experience to executive experience she wins. And, executive versus legislative is like apples versus oranges. And, personally I think Palin will win any debate with him easily.

But let me get back to my news flashes. I am a devout feminist. I believe that women not only can do the jobs that men do, but should and can many times do them better. I also believe strong women who know what they want are the most attractive people the human race has to offer. Now, it is true that I am a registered republican. However, that is more for convenience than anything else. I more closely affiliate myself with the Libertarian party, and the conservative branch of it. More John Stuart Mill than Barr. But, as a republican I am painted as some chauvinistic, overweight, white, CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Guess what folks? I'm not. I am probably only one of those things, and being white isn't a crime yet in this country. And, I might get fat someday. But generally speaking, the republican party is made up of average everyday Americans who simply believe in limited government, strong families, religious freedom, free markets, and moral consciousness. Most people who have studied the history of the world, politics, and the United States know that our roots in this country go back to classic 19th century liberalism, which is almost a mirror of those attributes I just listed. 

We trust the government, but keep it in check because we don't entirely trust it. It needs to protect us from foreign oppressors and injustice, create a some what decent and functional infrastructure, but otherwise stay out of our business. That is the American way. Sometimes we forget that, and believe the government should rock us in our cribs in our infancy and then hover over our bedsides at death. That cradle to grave mentality is irresponsible and wrong. We have agency, our own minds, opinions, and capabilities. The government is just a framework. 

But, before I get too far along with my praise for the ideals of our forebears, let me return to feminism, and equality. Question: Which party freed the slaves? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party founded the policy idea of environmental responsibility and the national park system? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party put the first woman on the supreme court? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party put more minorities in its Presidential cabinet for the past 3 decades? Answer: the republican party. Hmmm. So how is it that the democrats somehow get to lay claim to environmentalism, minority rights, and women's rights? The Answer to that is obvious. They like to take hold of the republican party's good ideas, then say the ideas were their's to begin with.

Well, I don't think America is stupid enough to be duped into believing that. All I want people to do this election cycle, and every other that follows it, is to be completely informed on the candidates, look at their proposals, and think which will do the better job at keeping America American. I tend to think the democrats are pushing for America to become another European country. In my opinion, that's a terrible idea.