In Women's Boxing and Related Activities: Introducing Images and Meaning by Jennifer Hargreaves, the author includes the following in her conclusion
"Novelist Joyce Carol Oates explicitly rejects the idea that female boxing could be a subversive activity when she declares, 'The female boxer... cannot be taken seriously. She is parody, she is cartoon, she is monstrous.'"
Thoughts?
Link to article: http://ejmas.com/jalt/jaltart_hargreaves_0901.htm. Or click title of posting.
Posts
This reminds me of when Major League baseball parks drafted women to play in place of male teams during World War II. There were some seriously fierce female players that stepped up to the plate and began playing professional baseball at a level they had never before had the opportunity to attain.
ReplyDeleteFor the first two years, however, players were required (as part of their training) to attend charm school. "The arts of walking, sitting, speaking, selecting clothes, applying make-up, and social skills were part of the program. (Stress was placed on) the importance of being feminine and projecting the image of "The All-American Girl Next Door," along with outstanding athletic ability."
A female fighter is a fighter. But when certain social standards are enforced (such as the short skirted uniforms female baseball players were required to wear) it CAN appear ludicrous!
So I guess the question for me is, what is it about female fighters or boxers that can't be taken seriously? Human beings with boobs crossing blades or punching with gloves? Is that what makes it a parody—the tatas and the sweet spot? Or is it all of that stuff, behavioral and mythical that we as society have sort of layered on? Maybe that’s why it’s best to do this thing bare-breasted. Get rid of the frills and fight the way we are—as women, nips and all!
~Becca