As I sit here, I'm struggling to remember my impression of the body-building film we saw on the first day of class. I'm also struggling to figure out what Basalmo's impression of the film is. I think what she sees is the film illustrating what seems to be her central point for the book; that is, that new technologies often recreate old gender/racial/whatever roles rather than creating new ones. I'm not sure if I totally agree with that. Yes, her interpretation of the racial situation in the film (the one black set off against all the other whites) is plausible, but it seems the gender dichotomy is more important to the film, and there the facts seem to contradict Basalmo. After all, although the "hero" of the film, the big-muscled Bev fails to win. But, on the other hand, neither does the ravishing Rachel, and anyway, we aren't rooting for Rachel. We are, in fact, rooting for Bev, the one who came in last place. And it's not just the fact that we're all enlightened, open-minded college students that makes us support Bev, or at least not support Rachel. Rachel is the symbol of the currently held but "bad" belief that female body-builders should be cute, not strong. I don't remember much from the film, but I do remember the sleazy old guy who orders the judges to make sure the contestants stay feminine. He's a bad guy, not a good guy. He's wrong. And if the film takes this sort of viewpoint, then it seems to contradict Basalmo's belief that it's just recreating old stereotypes in a new medium. Admittedly, it's not this cut-and-dry. Bev still loses, after all. And the winner is, yes, someone not as muscular as Bev, someone more feminine. But the winner isn't as feminine as Rachel, either, so it's still an open question.
Fitness is one of those odd addictions. It's a secret addiction, in a way. You can't tell by looking at someone if they're a fitness addict or not. More interestingly, you can't even tell by observing their behaviors, unless you're watching them almost all the time. How much is too much exercise? Especially in today's climates, people who are dangerously addicted to body-building are often able to blend, virus-like, into pop culture, and be concealed under the banner of "Exercise is good for you!" They are unseen victims because not only are they doing something that is, in moderation, healthy, but also because different people do different amounts of exercise. It's even the case that different people need different amounts of exercise. The obvious parallel to draw is to eating disorders.
People suffering from anorexia, bulimia, and dangerous obesity often go unnoticed because eating habits vary so wildly between people anyway. What's normal, after all? Personally, half the time I'm snacking constantly and the other half I don't eat between eleven am and midnight. If I did either of these things all the time, I might have a problem. Anyone who observed me doing either of these things might think I had a problem. But I don't. So we make the assumption of normality: we believe everyone else to be healthy and fine until they do something that's "too weird." But with ailments that stem from normal activity, it's far too easy to be in trouble and not setting off any danger buttons for other people.
I don't think there's anything we can do about this. We can't tell people to give up eating or exercise. The best way to deal with this problem is education; not forcing people to self-monitor and self-control, but giving them the information to allow them to make intelligent and knowledgeable decisions about their behaviors, and offering help if they wish to change those behaviors.