Women, Sport, and Film Course

FORUM ARCHIVE

WEEK 4

Name:  Mya Mangawang
Username:  mmangawa@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  girlfight
Date:  2004-02-20 09:09:29
Message Id:  8307
Comments:
Good morning. Thanks for the great participation last evening. Here are the discussion questions we didn't get to tend to last night:

Director Karyn Kusama's emphasis on Diana's environment (family, school, housing projects, etc.) can be seen as a critique of those social structures Kusama called "forms of oppression and violence." However, this emphasis on Diana's environment could also be seen as a way to explain or even apologize for such an aggressive young woman.

Do you think Kusama does a better job at challenging gender stereotypes or reinforcing them by "apologizing" for her aggressive protagonist?

Is Diana's aggression somehow made more "acceptable" because she is a poor Latina? Likewise, does Kusama make Diana more "acceptable" by emphasizing such a prominent (heterosexual) love story?

Name:  Katherine Kaufman
Username:  kkaufman@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date:  2004-02-21 20:07:57
Message Id:  8343
Comments:
I don't think what Kusama did was exactly apologize, it was more like excusing or explaining. For the boys the reason they were learning to box could be that they wanted to get out of the neighborhood or they were learning how to "be a man." For a women this is not enough of a reason to learn to box. An abusive father coupled with the violence of her neighborhood makes it more understandable.

I do think that Kusama does challenge gender stereotypes. In moist movies the girl would either end up getting into a great college with a full scholarship and leave all the horor of her early life behind her or she would meet a guy who would take her away. For Diana neither of these things happen, she deals with things herself. And she doesn't really get out. She is still faced with the same things only no she has probably scared her father away from abusing her.

I don't know if Diana's aggression is more acceptable because she is a poor Latina. It is more understandable, not because she is Latina but because she is poor. Maybe it is more acceptable. It would be really hard to understand that level of anger coming from a rich girl, of any race. I'm also not sure if the love story aspect of the movie make it more acceptable. If Diana had been gay there might have been a question of the aggression coming from an inner conflict over her sexuality. But if she had been gay the movie would have been another hour as she tries to sort through her feelings and comes to accpet herself for who she is. *Dramtic sigh* I think the love story adds to Kusama taking on the gender stereotypes. We tend to think of some gay women as being butch so making her heterosexuality clear removes that explaination for her aggression. It also adds to the tesion of the male having to deal with his girlfriend being as strong as he is. It also come back to the abuse because he did not want to hit the woman he loved.

Name:  Brenda
Username:  bzera@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date:  2004-02-22 13:41:00
Message Id:  8352
Comments:
While I don't think that the director was either excusing or apologising for Diana's behavior, I hardly think that it has anything to do with her being a poor latina. I know plenty of people who live in the projects (not in that city, but projects tend to be the same nation-wide) and not many of the people I know are THAT agressive. It has just as much to do with family upbringing as it does with environment (both home and school). But I do agree that Kusama is making a statement about Public Schools. Public schools have a long way to go to be called good. When I was in public school (back in the day) I got into a good number of fights (most of which I lost), which is why my parents eventually moved me to private schools. I have no idea where I'm going with this, as I just woke up, but I think most of you will get the gist of my post...

Name:  Talia Liben
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  Girl Fight
Date:  2004-02-22 17:51:53
Message Id:  8360
Comments:
I think that Kusama is trying to show us something about the socio-economic situation in order to explain that Diana's situation is not simple. I don't think that it is necessarily an attempt to apologize for who Diana is, but more of an explaination of some sort of background. I don't think that it reinforces gender stereotypes, I think it helps to blur them. But, I do think that it's possible that it creates a different kind of sterotype - about people growing up in inner-cities, underprivelaged, abused, etc. However, I do believe that stereotype is steeped in reality (unfortunately).

Name:  Jessica Lee
Username:  jelee@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  Girlfight
Date:  2004-02-22 18:09:58
Message Id:  8361
Comments:
I think Kusama effectively challenges gender sterotypes by depicting Diana as such a strong character, because we learn in the film that the abusive home and violent environment made Diana's mother submissive and cause her to commit suicide in order to escape. Diana's father expects her to be quiet and feminine, I think his hostility towards her is exacerbated because she is not either of these things.

Tiny learns how to box because he must learn how to "be a man" and fend for himself in the dangerous environment; while females are just supposed to accept it. Diana's violent environment explains her rage but her anger is more towards the injustice she has experienced as a girl. Her learning to box avenges the injustice both she and her mother experienced.

I think Diana's sexual orientation does make her more "acceptable", especially to her friends and family. Had she been homosexual, she would have been completely ostracized by the community and I doubt anyone would have trained her to be a boxer.

Name:  Katie Haymaker
Username:  khaymake@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  girlfight
Date:  2004-02-22 22:25:40
Message Id:  8377
Comments:
Yes, Diana is agressive but I didn't get an impression that it was anything to apologize for - she was responding to her environment, her school, her family. I definitly think that Kusama challenges gender stereotypes in this movie, she doesn't reinforce them. I remember thinking right before the end of the fight between diana and the main guy that I almost wanted the guy to win because it would make things so much easier, but Kusama didn't take the easy way and it was better to have Diana win the fight. I don't know if her aggression is more acceptable b/c she's a poor Latina woman, I think it's more the fact that she has so much to be angry about; her whole situation is a reason to be angry, and even though boxing probably won't solve anything or make things better for her, at least it's a part of her life that she feels passionatly about.

Name:  Elizabeth Hanson
Username:  eahanson@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  girlfight
Date:  2004-02-23 15:32:03
Message Id:  8395
Comments:
While Kusama's focus on Diana's environment can be seen as a social critique,I don't think Kusama uses the environment to excuse Diana's behavior. Diana's behavior is one form of reaction to her environment, but I also think that she just had an agressive personality. After all, her friend Marisol lives in the same environment and she's very gentle. In fact, I think the movie shows how learning to box teaches her to harness that agression and use it in a more positive way. Yes, boxing is violent but she's not beating up people at school anymore.

I think it's interesting to think of how the movie reinforces gender stereotypes. I would say primarily it challenges them in the form of Diana as the less-studious but committed athlete and her brother as the artistic, good student who wants to get out and go to college. But in terms of her relationship with her boyfriend, aside from the final boxing match, the gender roles seem to be more stereotypical. Then again, I think the question of challenging or reinforcing gender roles depends on how you want to view the film. If you view Diana as an unique individual then the combination of masculine and feminine traits seems to be understandable since I think most people are sort of mixed and the movie neither challenges nor reinforces gender roles, it simply presents one individual's story - male or female doesn't make a difference. However, if you decide to view Diana as woman then the movie challenges some gender roles and reinforces others.

I don't think that Diana's story is made more acceptable because she is a poor Latina, I know plenty of girls from upper-middle class who live for participating in more agressive sports like wrestling and karate.

The heterosexual love story on the one hand seems to be an attempt to make the character of Diana more acceptable - although somehow I think the people who would take offense at Diana's being a lesbian might also not being interested in the story of a poor Latina boxer. On the other hand, I like that it doesn't reinforce the whole "butch" lesbian stereotype because that's not fair to lesbians or to heterosexual women. I have plenty of straight friends who are more "butch" than I am.

Name:  Tera Benson
Username:  tbenson@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  girlfight
Date:  2004-02-24 09:10:23
Message Id:  8439
Comments:
Although Diana's situation does not justify her aggressive behavior, I think that the director uses it to explain how she came to embody so much anger. For many viewers without connections to people living in similar situations, Diana's behavior reinforces stereotypes of persons in her situation. However, there is enough coverage of other characters in the movie, such as her brother, to help dispell this generalized portrayal. I think that Diana was portrayed as heterosexual so that the general viewer could connect to her character. Were she both a fighter and homosexual, I think that the director and actress would have to work much harder to resonate with the viewer. It can be done, Boys Dont Cry or even Monster use undesirable and hard to like leading actors yet still manage to connect to the viewer.

Name:  Mya Mangawang
Username:  mmangawa@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  GIRLFIGHT 2
Date:  2004-02-24 09:43:59
Message Id:  8443
Comments:
These were very thoughtful and helpful responses. I must admit, I am with Jessie (Group 3) and remain "definitely conflicted about this film." While as Talia (Group 2) suggests, Kusama does a good job at "show[ing] us something about [Diana's] socio-economic situation" that ultimately manifests in what Laura (Group 4) called a "positive rebellion," parts of the film remain troubling. Perhaps it is that it does feel a bit like Kusama is as Katie (Group 1) suggests "blaming the environment," but my uneasiness stems most directly from the fact that aggressive females (and their representations) are still so often and so deeply entrenched in explanations and assurances.

Can you think of any films in which there is an aggressive female protagonist for whom there is neither an explanation for her aggression (a traditionally "masculine" attribute) nor an assurance that she is heterosexual? Can anyone remember the cover of the first Women's Sport Illustrated (this should get you ready for this week's film)?

Name:  Katherine Kaufman
Username:  kkaufman@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date:  2004-02-24 19:19:56
Message Id:  8465
Comments:
Hmm... the only movies I can think of were the woman is aggressive she is definately heterosexual. Movies like G I Jane and Miss Congeniality where the woman behaves like a man. But both of these women have male love interests.

Name:  Talia Liben
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:
Date:  2004-02-24 19:43:44
Message Id:  8466
Comments:
I was going to say G.I. Jane, but aside from having a serious love interest, she actually has to defend her sexuality in the movie. Miss Congeniality is another possibility, though I feel as though it's "excused" since she is an F.B.I. agent. How about Kit from A League of Their Own? Also, the one everyone says is really ugly (but she does get married in the end).
Is the moral of this story that in order to create a film with a tough cookie female either there needs to be an excuse for her actions (she was abused as a child, she grew up on the streets, etc), or her sexuality must be defended?

Name:  Elizabeth Hanson
Username:  eahanson@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date:  2004-02-24 20:30:37
Message Id:  8467
Comments:
I can't think of any movies that portray an agressive female protagonist without giving her some reason to be agressive and assuring the audience she is heterosexual. Actually, I remember having a similar conversation in a lit. class once, nobody could think of any books where this was the case either. I can't remember the cover of the first Women's Sports Illustrated either.

Name:  Katie Haymaker
Username:  khaymake@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date:  2004-02-24 22:08:09
Message Id:  8473
Comments:
I couldn't think of any movies with an agressive, not obviously heterosexual female lead. but after much brainstorming, my room mate came up with two sort of obscure movies: "Streets of Fire" (apparently a bad 80s flick) with an aggressive female in a supporting role and the second Conan the barbarian - he had a strong female sidekick and her character was supposedly written for a man but a woman got the role. Of course, it's pretty sad that both of these examples apply to sidekick characters in obscure movies.

Name:  Tera Benson
Username:  tbenson@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  girlfight 2
Date:  2004-02-25 22:06:37
Message Id:  8508
Comments:
I had a hard time comming up with an aggressive female in past films. Rizzo in Grease is an aggressive female who does not have a very real or functional relationship with her boyfriend. Another character is Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz.

| Course Home Page | Center for Science In Society | Serendip Home |

Send us your comments at Serendip

Women, Sport, and Film Course

Sponsored by the Department of Athletics and Physical Education at Bryn Mawr College, with support from the Center for Science In Society at Bryn Mawr College and the Serendip website.

FORUM ARCHIVE