It is estimated that women comprise half of all CrossFit gym members. However, in discussions of CrossFit, one controversial issue has been gender inequality in the sport. On the one hand, it can be argued that misogyny in the sport begins with the naming of the benchmark workouts which sets the tone for the entire CrossFit culture. Others maintain that the culture of CrossFit serves as a model of equality and feminism for all other sports by not dividing athletes into separate leagues by sex or differentiating between standards and styles of competition. My own view is that CrossFit represents progress in gender equality in important ways such as demonstrating the physical capabilities of women and supporting a positive body image, but falls short by reinforcing stereotypes of female beauty through media and using sexist language. 

CrossFit is a high-intensity group fitness program comprised of weight training, gymnastics, and fast-paced aerobic workouts that has grown in popularity throughout the world since its creation in 2000. Its popularity among women marks a shift away from the types of exercise typically marketed to them, as it emphasizes muscle building and performance over weight loss and aesthetics. Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, who studies American fitness trends, argues that women are attracted to CrossFit despite and perhaps because of the ways in which it serves as a rejection of typical female fitness norms. Unlike traditional female-focused workouts that center on maintaining a feminine appearance and often relegate women to a separate part of the gym, CrossFit workouts are performed by both men and women who do the same movements in a shared space referred to as a “box.” Petrzela observes that a growing “acceptance and even celebration of women’s athleticism” has allowed women to break away from the fitness studio standbys and explore other routes to physical fitness, like CrossFit. Anna Medaris Miller examines the current trend in which American women have shifted their fitness focus from weight-loss to muscle gain and points to the popularity of the phrase “strong is the new skinny,” which is used by gyms and fitness enthusiasts to illustrate this mindset. She reminds us that there are many health benefits to possessing a strong, fit body because, “building muscle, [fitness professionals] say, helps prevent osteoporosis, boosts metabolism, improves balance and stability, and benefits the immune system” (Miller). However, Miller argues that the muscle-building fitness phenomenon may be creating yet another standard to which women can compare their bodies and potentially be disappointed if they don’t measure up. I’m of two minds about Miller’s claim. On the one hand, I agree that some women, especially in the field of competitive bodybuilding, continue to aim for a standard of perfection that is unrealistic for most people. On the other hand, many women who lift weights do so to gain confidence and strength that aid them in their quest for self-acceptance, not physical perfection. Miller may be right when she argues that “muscle is only the latest ‘must-have’ for American women,” but I would argue that developing a strong body serves a woman’s mental and physical health more than aiming for the smallest dress size possible. I assert that, for those who embrace it, the culture of CrossFit can be transformative in other ways as well.

To newcomers, the CrossFit experience is a foray into an unusually gender-neutral space where all parts of the gym are welcoming to all members. Many athletes are likely exercising in a co-ed group setting for the first time as organized sports in childhood and adolescence are sorted by sex. Sport sociologist Bobbi Knapp uses a CrossFit gym to examine how gender dynamics are influenced by its co-ed nature. She observes that the only gendered spaces in the box are the restrooms while the shared workout floor represents the shared goals of the male and female members. For the Work Out of the Day, or WOD, it is recommended that men use a 45-pound barbell while women used a 35-pound barbell with a slightly smaller diameter to accommodate smaller hands. Knapp argues that the different weight standards may serve to uphold sexist norms of strength, but several of her subjects see this as a way of equalizing the sexes. Gyms I have visited have also offered a variety of lighter weight bars for beginners of any gender to use, particularly when practicing a complex lift. To me, this accommodation represents the CrossFit culture that welcomes people of all fitness levels and abilities without judgement, and not a reinforcement of gender norms as Knapp asserts. In the CrossFit box where her research took place, Knapp observed that this community of gym members is based on inclusivity, and members must share a “belief in transformative gender practices- such as women lifting weights and men getting beat by women,” to be a part of it (51). This consensus on gender neutrality in the gym isn’t limited to the athletes themselves, as members stress the importance of modeling this behavior to their children when they are present (Knapp 51). It is worth noting that children are often welcomed into the gym so that parents may workout, as an environment that is supportive of families is generally one that benefits women.

My experience is similar to that of Knapp’s subjects, in that both men and women are expected to put forth the same amount of effort in the workouts. Knapp concludes that the progressive gender ideals exhibited by this CrossFit gym overshadow the few ways in which it upholds traditional norms, and I agree. I believe that fighting through the same challenging workouts together can have an equalizing effect on men and women; maybe we aren’t so different from each other after all. 

Barbell movements are central to CrossFit programming and by practicing them, some members discover a passion for lifting heavy weights. In this way, many women have been introduced to the classically masculine sports of Olympic weightlifting and power lifting. Bodybuilding, on the other hand, requires women to display a “feminine” shape in addition to well-defined muscles, leading some female athletes to undergo plastic surgery to be competitive. Unlike bodybuilding, a discipline based on attaining aesthetic perfection, weightlifting, like CrossFit, is all about strength and athleticism. There is a fundamental difference between the two sports, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people still believe that women only lift weights for superficial reasons (Knapp 48). Psychologists Jessica Salvatore and Jeanne Marecek examined why more women aren’t reaping the health benefits of weight training. They argue that weightlifting is viewed as a traditionally masculine pastime and women’s concerns about being judged negatively for violating this norm prevent them from participating. The authors point to the fact that exercise goals, specifically burning fat versus building muscle, are each associated with women or men, respectively, in keeping with norms of what constitutes a feminine and a masculine body, asserting “masculine body ideals prescribe strength, while feminine body ideals prescribe thinness” (557). “Evaluation concerns” occur when people are worried about others’ opinions of them or their actions, including the violation of these norms, according to Salvatore and Marecek. Female gymgoers experience these concerns more often than men do, regardless of the workout regimen, and the authors observe that this may serve to keep women away from the gym or from trying new exercises, like weightlifting (Salvatore and Marecek 557). I concede that women experience evaluation concerns more frequently, especially in a typical gym environment, and are supposed to conform to society’s expectations about female fitness. However, I maintain that in a CrossFit environment, concerns regarding weightlifting stereotypes have less of a deterrent effect on women due to the progressive gender norms of the community. 

The culture of CrossFit helps to mitigate these issues through a focus on overall fitness and health as opposed to specific appearance-based exercise goals. Terms like “fat burning,” “toning,” and “muscle building” that subtly indicate who should be doing each type of workout are not generally employed by CrossFit gyms (Salvatore and Marecek 557-558). Therefore, the population that is drawn to CrossFit in search of fitness is not steered down a certain path based on assumed goals according to their sex. In my experience, at a typical large chain gym you can find the women in spin class or the yoga studio and the men will be gathered in front of the free weights and the squat racks, an observation that is supported by Salvatore and Marecek’s findings (563). It can be intimidating for women to enter one of these male-dominated spaces as I imagine it is for men entering a fitness studio full of women. In CrossFit gyms, this sorting by sex doesn’t exist, which allows both women and men to pursue their fitness goals with less discomfort and fear of judgement.

I would argue that these conditions are responsible for the recent increase in the number of female weightlifters to the benefit of women in any sport. In an environment where even professional female athletes receive more attention for their looks than for their athletic accomplishments, weightlifting gives women a singular goal on which to focus: strength. What a relief it is for a woman to focus on what her body can do for her after experiencing a lifetime of judgement on what her body can do for others. That is, if others permit such a focus. Jan Brace-Govan examines the experiences of elite female weightlifters in relation to their own body image and reactions from others. Brace-Govan’s study revealed that “interviewees’ initial contact with weightlifting was often difficult and required negotiation with close relatives” (515). Although the subjects have grown less concerned with their physical appearance over the course of their weightlifting careers, their bodies attract increased attention from others, particularly for the lifters whose musculature is most apparent. Brace-Govan argues that even those female lifters who do not exhibit noticeably large muscles are often discouraged from pursuing weightlifting by their family or acquaintances. These family members had concerns about weightlifting that were rooted in the “myth surrounding muscles for women” that “women would become overtly, and so visibly, muscled in the same way as men, and this was socially unacceptable and unconventional” (Brace-Govan 516). Despite society’s reaction to their strength and appearance, the author finds her subjects to be very confident and disciplined, characteristics that they attribute to their mastery of weightlifting. CrossFit helps to make these benefits available to more women by providing non-gendered spaces in which to train, supportive instruction on weightlifting regardless of gender, and an atmosphere of encouragement. 

However, some outside of the CrossFit world see the program as just another means of attaining the perfect female figure. Alexia Severson examines the increasing number of women drawn to weightlifting through programs such as CrossFit, but exposes her own biases by zeroing in on superficial reasons women may choose these workouts. She observes that in the past, women have avoided heavy weights due to their reputation for increasing bulkiness, but notes that this fear is unfounded due to differences in male and female physiology. Severson points out that the effects of weightlifting are to help women to attain a classically feminine body type while also improving general health and confidence. Although I agree with Severson up to a point, I cannot accept her overriding assumption that the most important aspect of women doing CrossFit is the effect on their appearance. While the potential to improve one’s looks is certainly a draw for many people of any gender new to CrossFit, it doesn’t seem to be what keeps them invested long-term. I have observed that the most consistent and committed members of my gym share a desire to build strength and speed and have a sense of pride that comes from repeatedly enduring rigorous workouts that supersedes any aesthetic goals.  

While CrossFit insiders are quite aware of the debate over the female CrossFit body, they are also interested in the media’s portrayal of female strength and athleticism as compared to men. Writing for The CrossFit Journal, Hilary Achauer examines the conventional wisdom of male physical dominance through the lens of CrossFit. She argues that socialization is to blame for this flawed perception and for perpetuating a cycle of internalization and results in women. Despite the high level of women’s participation, strength, and skill, media attention continues to revolve around male athletes, a problem the author would like to see change. Achauer observes the negative attention Serena Williams has received surrounding her strength and muscular physique, even from other women in her sport. She contrasts the failure of some sports to level the gendered playing field with CrossFit which, she argues, exhibits equality in several aspects, such as the acceptance of female muscularity and the prevalence of female coaches. Achauer observes that the sport’s annual championships, called The CrossFit Games, give equivalent air time to the men’s and women’s competitions and award equal purses to male and female winners, an argument that is supported by Knapp who emphasizes “the high visibility of women’s involvement in the CrossFit Games” (43). Unlike in so many other sports, the women’s heats are not pushed to an obscure timeslot or relegated to the highlight reel. As a frequent observer of the Games, I take this for granted, but I am quickly reminded anytime I attempt to view other women’s sports on television. Achauer is right that CrossFit is “helping to destroy the idea that women are the weaker sex,” but she seems on more dubious ground when she claims that “as a relatively new sport, CrossFit doesn’t have the entrenched sexism present in many other professional sports.” Achauer provides evidence of the ways in which CrossFit has made headway in gender equality, but there remain major flaws in their corporate ethos.      

CrossFit, Inc., the company owned by founder Greg Glassman that is responsible for educating coaches and licensing all CrossFit gyms, does not always meet the progressive standards set by so many of its affiliate boxes. Glassman is well-known for calling CrossFit’s most notoriously brutal workouts by women’s names, because “anything that left you flat on your back, looking up at the sky asking, ‘what just happened to me?’ deserved a female’s name” (Petrzela). These workouts are often referred to as “The Girls” although in some boxes they are more accurately referred to as benchmark WODs. Knapp argues, “the use of the term ‘Girls’ infantilizes and disempowers women,” as these workouts are “done by adults- men and women, not girls” (Knapp 42). I agree with Knapp that by referring to workouts with feminine names and calling them collectively, “The Girls,” CrossFit symbolically diminishes its female athletes, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people still believe that calling adult women “girls” is acceptable. There is also a group of workouts named after fallen soldiers that tend to be grueling tests of endurance. These workouts are called “The Hero WODs” and the soldiers they memorialize are almost exclusively male (Knapp 43). There is no mistaking the message that women are to be valued for their sexuality and men for their honor and bravery.

CrossFit, Inc.’s marketing strategy of promoting the most conventionally attractive female athletes demonstrates that women in the sport are valued for their looks first, and their strength and performance second. Myra S. Washington and Megan Economides examined the relationship between corporate messaging and the postfeminist ethos CrossFit purports to embody. They argue that in practice, CrossFit, Inc. consistently emphasizes a specific ideal of feminine beauty over performance despite their claims of diverse body inclusivity, stating “CrossFit’s fitness focus in practice appears to be more on an attractive body, rather than a strong, functional one” (150). The authors examine the treatment of athletes who do not fit the ideal and find disparities in media coverage between those athletes and the more model-esque competitors. The CrossFit standard of beauty may require more muscle than the classic Western archetype, but otherwise it looks very similar: white, slender, upper class, and heteronormative, according to Washington and Economides. While I concede this point, I still insist that CrossFit culture as a whole, that is, the amateurs and affiliates who make up its majority, do model an attitude of acceptance regardless of age or body type. Unlike at the CrossFit Games, in your local affiliate there is often a wide range of ages, body types, and fitness levels all training together.

Elite CrossFit Games athlete and Olympic weightlifter Tia-Clair Toomey observes, “there is no ideal CrossFit body, we are all different and we should celebrate that” (Gibbs). While her statement holds true for the average box, you wouldn’t know it by looking at CrossFit’s advertising campaigns. Patrick McCarty observes that CrossFit, Inc. frequently opts to promote conventionally attractive female athletes over high-performing athletes in their marketing materials, something that doesn’t happen among male competitors. His theory of the corporation’s biased marketing strategy is extremely useful because it sheds light on the problem of gender inequality in the highest levels of CrossFit. McCarty observes that the same female athletes promoted most heavily by CrossFit, Inc. also receive more lucrative sponsorships and social media attention. He states, “female athletes have to play two games: one, their chosen sport, and two, the game of attraction. Attractiveness, sexuality, and the willingness to use those qualities as marketing all figure into the equation of economic reward for female athletes” (McCarty). In making this statement, McCarty illustrates the dramatic differences between how male and female athletes are presented in the media and awarded sponsorships. This emphasis on norms of feminine beauty contrasts with messages of empowerment from CrossFit itself such as the phrase “strong is the new skinny,” which implies that CrossFit women are more interested in strength than weight loss. The actions of CrossFit, Inc. do not demonstrate a belief in gender equality and CEO Greg Glassman, in particular, shows a lack of respect for women.

CrossFit is responsible for significant progress towards equalizing the sexes in competitive athletics and in the culture of its boxes. It is past time for other sports organizations to realize that men and women can compete at the same level. CrossFit has also contributed to a more body-positive environment in which women can openly celebrate their physical capabilities by lifting weights instead of agonizing over perceived imperfections in the mirror of a fitness studio. However, CrossFit, Inc.’s media presence should accurately reflect the values of its affiliated gyms and celebrate women based on their athletic achievement and not their appearance. Greg Glassman should reevaluate and apologize for his degrading treatment of women, without whom his business would not thrive. With these changes, CrossFit could continue its progress and raise the bar for gender equality in sports and fitness.  
