RD analysis

In my last post I escaped without adding any analysis or point of view of my own, as I am want to do. But I will tag onto Rockabilachica's recent post about the subject, and be more specific about my unpopular view.

In theory, it shouldn't be hard to tell the difference between exploitation and empowerment in the public sphere. Isn't empowerment at the very least the absence of exploitation? But here we get into the age-old debate of whether someone is empowered because they think they are. I'm sure a lot of the girls and women in Girls Gone Wild think they are empowered (or at least they did initially). Who's to say they aren't? Well, I'll go out on a limb and and say that no, they aren't empowered by that. Am i imposing my dogmatic views on them? I guess so. What about the African American student who says that without a doubt, in her mind she has never experienced racism? Can someone be objectively exploited without subjectively experiencing it? I think yes. With roller derby, it is a lot less clear cut than GGW (which is clearly run by men for men), Suicide Girls (recent article here) - run by a man for men with the veneer of individual empowerment for the models, which is basically a marketing ploy to make alt-porn consumers feel better - and even the modern-day resurgence of burlesque.

Part of the problem is this business with "reclaiming." In one of the comments under Twisty's post, a roller derby participant points out that TXRD symbols like the mudflap woman and sexually derogatory team names like the putas del fuego are their symbols, their words. Are they really? I'm not so convinced. Nor am I convinced that we have reclaimed gender epithets like "Bitch" and "Cunt," and I'm not convinced that African Americans have successfully reclaimed racial epithets. Though I have no systematic data to support this, I would venture a guess that the use of these terms outside of individual, intimate communities of women and African Americans is still considered disrespectul and has a violent connotation. Another skater wrote that she couldn't imagine what was sexy about watching women fall down, and thus the appeal had to be about the athleticism. Hello? That's some serious denial. The whole point for some seems to be that when the woman falls down, the butt goes in the air, the skirt flips up.

I have attended many performances of non-mainstream, underground, alternative (whatever you want to call it) art and music that use reclaiming and irony as the key component of the show. I can pretty confidently say that the message is totally lost on the majority of the audience who see a woman on stage and just want to see some skin and come-hither moves, already. This is roller derby's potential problem - the intention may be noble - it IS athletic! it IS about tough, strong women! - but it doesn't quite get translated amid the spanking and pillow-fighting and skirts flipping up to reveal ruffly underwear. Indeed, the bouts are often marketed as "girl-on-girl action." Is that supposed to be feminist? Or athletic? Roller Derby enthusiasts defend these aspects by emphasizing the athleticism of the sport, and explaining that the players choose what to wear. I don't have the time or patience to get into a discussion about the existence of free will or how we choose or come to prefer things, but needless to say all choices are made in particular contexts. Feminism is not simply "women doing what they want." And even if MOST of the women wore regular shorts and tee-shirts, the face of Roller Derby would still be the sexy outfit - because that's what sells. Does it make a difference if there are equal numbers of women and men (of all sexual orientations and identities) in the audience? While it definitely feels good to see lots of other women there, and it does mean something that it's not 90% men, it's important to point out that the male gaze is not limited to men. We've all been conditioned to see women (including ourselves) through the male gaze, and being gay or feminist or any other patriarchally subversive identity does not exempt us from participating in patriarchal rituals from time to time - it's pretty much unavoidable, which is a source of much frustration for me personally.

What i have always had a problem reconciling is the unquestioned, inextricable connection between "Woman" and "Sexuality." Why must so many performances and images by/of women end up being about their sexuality? Why can't it be about showcasing their skill and mastery, period? Why is it so freaking important that women "express their sexuality" in all that they do?? I don't see men running around determined to express their sexuality (well, at least not to the same extent). In my opinion, all this does is add to the already entrenched view that women as individual, thinking persons cannot be separated from their mandated role to be "sexy" or whatever. Maybe we should all, as humans, be seen as complex creatures made up of both our intellectuality (I know that's not a real word, heh heh) AND sexuality, but until we are ALL seen that way, the fact that women are singled out for this puts us at a social disadvantage relative to males. I believe this is because our culture is a product of the centuries-old view of the male/female dichotomy of males as connected to the rational-abstract (i.e. more important things) and females as connected to the body-earthly (i.e. less important things). It pisses me off that no matter how much a woman achieves, in the end she is nothing more than something to look at and/or have sex with. I see this all the fucking time in the music world - especially the more male-dominated subcultures of music.

This is a really complicated issue, and there are at least 15 side-bars that could be written about the different topics it brings up. So my wishy-washy conclusion is that some aspects of Roller Derby are feminist, or potentially feminist, but most of it is not. And that is perfectly ok, it is what it is.