Women, Sport, and Film Course

I don't think there's much I can say that hasn't already been said. People tend to go to groups that suit them, not groups that they can learn about. Personally, I'm white, straight, and from an all white area and I'm almost more afraid to go to these places because I am worried that I will offend someone, I don't really know the protocol for these kind of things. I don't want to be the only white/straight/whatever girl showing up and everyone going "what is she doing here?" Sarah said that it's too late to change by now, but I know that I came here with the expectation that I would change, and learn about other people's experiences, but I have found that it's not that people don't want to change, they just don't really know how.

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?

I think she should be commended for making Diana such a complex character. She has a lot more facets than many other characters that are challenging these stereotypes. However it is true, she has excuses for being aggressive; she's from the projects and she has an abusive father. This would be a very different movie if it was a white rich girl who wanted to box. I think it was interesting that we found out that her father abused her mother because Diana would get in fights with both women and men, and it was complicated that in empowering herself (starting to box) she ended up being hit by men and fighting with men. She did win, but it wasn't as cut and dry as another filmmmaker may have made it. I think she did make Diana more acceptable by emphasizing a heterosexual love story but I think that I knew immediately that she was heterosexual because the first time that she goes to the boxing club, the camera looks at the men in a very desiring way, both as far as the boxing and in a sexual way. I think the heterosexual love story served a purpose, however, to motivate the final fight. If it were a homosexual love story and they had to do the same fight at the end, the gender issue would take a backseat to the relationship, instead of the issues playing out together as the movie ended this way.

Assuming that the film had given issues of difference and discrimination the weight that they're due, I think you could compare the sports-team / working-toward-a-common-goal mentality to Bryn Mawr itself. Bryn Mawr incorporates an enormous variety of people from different races, backgrounds, opinions, interests, ethnicities, orientations... and on and on. Our common goal, however, is to learn and excel. In this way, we can celebrate our differences through a mutual goal. This is what the film would have been better off promoting – empowerment through difference, rather than a way to gloss over issues of discrimination and thus ignore issues of diversity.

Perhaps this love story was in context with the film's overall fight-against-gender-types message afterall. There was definitely an inner turmoil, an inner boxing match, going on in Diana (as was brought up in lecture). On the one hand, she wanted to enter the masculine-dominated world (of boxing, or of society at large), and on the other hand she still wanted to be loved and accepted by a particular boy. The question for me is, where does this latter half arrive from? In our society, women are conditioned to believe that their success and fulfillment in life will come from being accepted by men. Women are the Cinderella type, patiently awaiting their Prince Charming to sweep them off their feet and complete them. In one interpretation, the film could definitely be comprimising Diana's non-conformity with the gender-typed woman by emphasizing her underlying need for acceptance by men. On the other hand, however, the film could be portraying the social necessity of this conditioning for passivity, and not necessarily supporting it. In order for me to be completely happy with this film, I believe that the latter interpretation must be true. Diana's internal fight with her socially ingrained expectations is the most important, and difficult, one to win.

(Speaking of the popular slutty girl, I feel like they didn't really adequately resolve that issue. I mean, they brought it in at the beginning, but they never really followed up on it. I realize that it wasn't the main point of the movie, but I thought they sort of left it hanging.)

Anyway, I had mixed feelings about the end of the movie. Truthfully, I felt like Diana was being kind of selfish again at the end of the movie. Like, she humiliated and goaded the guy into a fight that he didn't even really want to fight. I completely understand where that guy was coming from! Well, to tell the absolute truth, I do have a LITTLE problem with gender-blind boxing; I know this is rather anti-feminist, but I still think of the societal norm that guys should not hit girls! I realize that this is a bit of a different situation because it's just a sport, but I completely understand the guy (Diana's love interest, I forget his name...), well, his point of view! He didn't want to beat up on a woman he loved! Makes sense to me!

I mean, I can deal with genderblind boxing because it IS a sport, and women CAN be just as, if not more, capable than men in all arenas, including hitting each other. But they had the added element of romantic interest thrown in there, so I can completely understand the guy's reluctance to box Diana. I mean, when you really truly care about somebody then seeing that person in pain makes YOU feel bad too! And to know that the person you truly care about is in pain because YOU are hitting them?!?! WHY would you want to go through that?

I feel like it was really selfish of Diana to make the guy box her. She was only doing it to prove something, which, if she was secure enough with HERSELF, I feel like she wouldn't have NEEDED to prove. So I think that she emotionally manipulated the guy into boxing her for her own selfish reasons. Because what did he have to gain? I mean, obviously the title, but I think that even if he had won the title, people would've said "Oh but he just had to beat a girl to win, so it's not even that big of a deal" kind of thing, you know? Like, it was kind of expected that he would win the title, or at least expected that he's going to go on to better things. And he had a LOT to lose!!! I mean, think of all the crap he'll have to put up with about being "beaten by a girl" and stuff! Plus, it might negatively affect his PROFESSIONAL career! As I recall, Diana didn't mention anything about turning pro, and while she had NOTHING to lose, she had everything to gain. On the other hand, I feel like the guy had relatively little to gain and EVERYTHING to lose. So I feel like it was just completely selfish of Diana to essentially force him into boxing her.

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?

Kusama leaves the apology very ambiguous. While Diana triumphs in the end as the ultimate "brute" in the ring, she is trumped by a pretty boy. Her aggression is also not made more acceptable by her position either; her brother grew up in the same environment, yet remained passive. Also, I agree with megan over Diana's heterosexuality; the final fight between Diana and Adrian would have been much less tense without the gender issue being compounded with the romantic issue. Because Kusama never really flat-out apologizes, the movie becomes more acceptable as reality. The ambiguities make the world a tougher, more believable place, much like reality.

The one area where I think the director was too soft was the area of her femininity. I really liked how, no matter what she did, Diana was still a girl. However, I really don't think it needed to be emphasized purely through her relationship to her boyfriend. I guess this may just be part of me that is sick of movies that feature unnecessary love stories and who's main role for women is that of the love interest. Really, though, the only time she is at all feminine is when it is in relation to her man. I would have liked to see that come out in some other way because it just seemed to me that the director was overtly trying to dodge a sort of "butch" stereotype with Diana.

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)?

I think that there are a lot of films where females are aggressive in other senses than physical, but in these they are still assured as heterosexual. I think it goes past the idea that aggression is a masculine attribute; any sort of ambition is a masculine attribute. When you get into a fight, or do anything that you put aggression into, I think that you have the ambition to win whatever it is. So not only can I not think of a film where there is a woman who is aggressive and not assured to be heterosexual, I can't even think of a film where there is a woman who is ambitious and not assured to be heterosexual.

As far as the first issue of Women's Sports Illustrated goes... I have no clue.

Why can't agressive, non-sexually-defined women be anything other than petty villians? Creepy.

As for Women Sports Illustrated... uh...

and about the sport's illustrated thing, i have no idea. I usually avoid that magazine unless i'm in a dentist's office and there's nothing else to read.

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?

I think that the film did a better job at challenging gender stereotypes than reinforcing them. The characters that compliment and contrast Diana are entirely poor and Latino, and there are a plethora of varying behaviors and personality types. I think that assuming that her race and economic circumstances are intended to make her more acceptable as an aggressive female ignores the other poor Latina women in the film who are not aggressive. I think it was Dustin who pointed out that Diana's brother (who shares even more similar circumstances with her in addition to being poor and Latino) is neither aggressive, or a good boxer. This contrast is also challenging to gender stereotypes, especially because he is an artist, an interest that can be genderized (in a very simplistic sense) as female. I think that they are used rather as a tool to express that she fights not just in the ring, but in the hallways, in the principal's office, in her apartment, and with the daily trials of growing up.

As far as her heterosexual relationship is concerned I think that if anything her relationship challenged stereotypes in more ways than one. The fact that she while not androgynous had a degree of gender ambiguity, and never quite participated in any "heterosexual behaviors" until she showed an interest in the male character all indicate that she is either challenging the definitions of a heterosexual woman, or is having a heterosexual relationship with an undefined sexuality. Both of which are challenging to gender stereotypes.

Also, the fact that her love interest challenged notions of male heterosexual identity, and challenged notions of Puerto Rican male macho, especially that associated with an athlete, challenged gender stereotypes greatly. One scene that comes to mind is when they are ordering food, and Diana orders a double bacon cheeseburger with extra bacon and fries and he orders a salad and water. Also when he is describing the emptiness that he experiences with the girl that is only interested in being with him for his image. Diana herself addresses these notions when she says that to "most guys" that would be a perfect relationship. The complexities of his character in contrast with the complexities of Diana's make a nice compliment for the challenging of gender stereotypes, and the fact that they are a couple only further heightens this compliment. In fact it can be said that the scene where they fight, and he is dealing with feelings of not wanting to fight Diana, and seeing it as a no-win situation, he can be seen as fighting for the ideals and against the stereotypes that his character represents in the film. Likewise when Diana is fighting, in the championship scene, to gain recognition as a fighter not as a "female fighter," and to box with the male lead as an equal given the respect of an athlete and a peer, she can be seen as fighting for the ideals and against the stereotypes that she represents.

>>
I thought for a while, and the best example I could come up with for proposal is "Courage Under Fire." Granted, it is debatable who the film's protagonist is – it's more the male investigator than the investigated female captain, but she still figures in a prominent and positive way and is unabashedly aggressive. Like Diana in Girlfight, the "Courage" character is, in effect, under ridicule for entering an all-male realm (here, the military). In "Courage," the woman is explicitly investigated in the plot; in "Girlfight," the documentary-like style (unsteady camera shots, nearly spastic cutting) lends itself to the feeling of examination. The underlying theme in these portrayals (even possibly positive portrayals) of aggressive women – or any woman defying gender norms – is that she deserves the camera's scrutiny.

Sarah Martin said: <<>>

I think, too, this stereotype comes across especially clearly in the film due to Kusama's film-making style. Between the intense sound effects (from detailed background noises to a forceful score) and the dimly lit, somewhat grainy photography, the audience is plunged into Diana's world.

---

Name:  Jessie Payson
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  
Date:  2004-02-25 17:28:38
Message Id:  8495
Comments:
woah, i don't know why it took out the quotes on me... the first quote was supposed to be:

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?

The next one was:

Kusama might be challenging the stereotype of gender but I think the movie is shows a socio-economic stereotype. What do you picture when you think of a girl growing up in the projects? I think it is stereotypical to go "well, since she is Hispanic and lived in poverty all her life she must be a tough cookie with an abusive father."

---

Name:  Jessie Payson
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  Bend It Like Beckham, post 2
Date:  2004-02-25 17:45:10
Message Id:  8497
Comments:
"Why does sport heighten the conversation re: gender and orientation for women and not for men? Are there other places in society this happens?"
The sports world is still, despite Title IX, male dominated. The values associated with athletes – aggressiveness, competitive drive, physical strength – are generally limited to men (accurately or not). When men play sports, then, they are already entering into a male field. Just by virtue of BEING an athlete, they are proving their maleness. Athletic women, on the other hand, are entering into a field that conflicts with their gender expectations. They must assure others of their underlying femininity (eg, why the female baseball teams of WWII had to play in short skirts), and also prove their heterosexuality (eg, why it was necessary for Diana in "Girlfight" to be explicitly straight).

Sadly enough, this happens eeeeeverywhere in society, everywhere that's male-dominated – so that's by definition everything visible / in the public sphere, if you will. This is well exemplified in politics: female candidates have to answer questions about who's tending to their children while they're campaigning (they have to assure voters that they still care about family and children).

---

Name:  Jessie Payson
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  catching up... initial forum question, post 2
Date:  2004-02-25 18:52:39
Message Id:  8500
Comments:
"Great comments by all-- it-- the 'conversation' does raise some intersting 'next questions". I'd like to toss out (yes another sports metaphor..) how we define ourselves and who is an athlete? Do you consider yourself an athlete? athletic? and are we all athletes at one time or another? How can /do we think about our physical selves...what is the connection to the movies??"

The primary aspect of an athlete, I think, is having a strong connection with one's body. This is what all sports have in common, competitive or not – from wrestling to golf to dance to ping-pong, all require a strong relationship with and awareness of physicality. This positive relationship is something that most women are traditionally denied – from women's smaller gait and restrained posture to physically constraining feminine clothing such as high-heeled shoes, the gender role for women requires that they all think and act negatively in relation to their bodies.

Film, generally, wants to glamourize women and portray them at the peak of femininity. This presents a paradox, then, for films wishing to portray an athletic woman. Perhaps this is why strong examples of athletic women in film may be difficult to come by.

---

Name:  Jenna Rosania
Username:  jrosania@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  
Date:  2004-02-25 19:29:26
Message Id:  8502
Comments:
Um, that second mighty ducks movie had a girl who didn't like any of the guys on the team, and she was agressive. To make a point however, she was a minor character, so she didnt need a love interest for the sake of the movie, let me repeat, for the sake of the movie, not merely for the sake of feminizing her character. This is Hollywood, not Lets-make-women-look-weak-wood. The formula of a "plot" and a "love-interest" are integral to just about every maintream movie out there since the beginning of movie-making. It's like a rule. Also, just because a girl might like a guy, I still don't see how that has to automatically compromise her ambitions or make her appear weaker. We don't think that way when we see a male main character fall in love with a girl, if anything, that's the point in the movie where the main character starts having everything working out for him.

And yeah, I don't know what we are supposed to know about the Women's Sports Illustrated question.

---

Name:  Rachel Robbins
Username:  rrobbins@brynmawr.edu
Subject:  Aggression
Date:  2004-02-26 01:59:37
Message Id:  8516
Comments:
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)?

Not to be flippant, but all of the films that come to mind with an "aggressive" protagonist and no assurance that she is straight are gay and gay themed films. For example: Boys Don't Cry, Relax it's just sex, Chocolate Babies, etc.

I think that the tension between gender and overt expressions of sexuality occur in films that are censoring or sensitive for whatever reason. Also, I think that the notion of aggression is relative, and as far as gay identity is concerned, aggression can have little to do with gender identity. If the question is specifically in reference to aggression with respect to athleticism, then Love and Basketball comes to mind, and perhaps the character Kit from A League of Their Own.

I tried googling the magazine cover, and the furthest issue back was in '99, and had an image of Chamique Holdsclaw on the cover from when she still played for Tennessee.

---

Name:  Dustin Raup
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  
Date:  2004-02-26 02:07:46
Message Id:  8517
Comments:
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)?

The only movie I can think of with an agressive non-feminine protagonist is "Bound." Except, it doesn't count because we are smacked in the head with the fact that she is a lesbian. So really, I think I'm running dry on this one. Maybe it's because I don't really watch sports movies or because society will not accept a character that isn't feminine and may not be heterosexual. This is probably the result of fear in our still-male-dominated society. Once women infringe on this last bit of territory, they'll have nothing left to call their own beyond their bodies. And in the age of sex changes, the body is not as concrete as we'd like to imagine.

As for the cover? I don't know.

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

Send us your comments at Serendip

© by Serendip 1994-2007 - Last Modified: Wednesday, 02-May-2018 10:51:25 CDT