Way of the discourse : mixed-sex martial arts and the subversion of gender

individuals devoid of any specifically inherent embodied characteristics, the radical position foregrounds issues of women’s embodiment as a key site of sexual difference, and something which should be highlighted as a valuable philosophical and political resource in the women’s movement (Tong, 1989). Rather than view the female body as something which ought to be transcended in the move towards greater rationality (i.e., the cultivation of the mind), radical feminist writing involves a recovery and celebration of the female body, and the embodied experience of female subjectivity, as a matter of central importance to women’s liberation (Weedon, 1999). And “since patriarchy has consistently defined and moulded women’s bodies and minds in the interests of men” (Weedon, 1999: 29) it is seen as necessary to recover the ‘true’ meanings of femininity and the female body in order to liberate women. Such efforts necessitate a turn to the body in theory, and a type of advocacy based on purposeful engagement with bodies as key sites of sexual difference. To attempt to change the condition of women without addressing the facts of women’s embodied reality is, in the radical critique, to concede to the patriarchal efforts to annihilate female identity as something meaningful and powerful in its own right. Alex Channon Loughborough University 21 While radical feminists have turned their analysis of a body-centred patriarchy to many different facets of women’s history and contemporary experience, the exploration of sexuality has been one of the most important and ‘radical’ features of the second-wave movement (Tong, 1989). Rather than treating sexuality as a matter of personal choice consigned to the private sphere, radical feminists recognise that sexual practices are heavily implicated in gender power relations. Specifically, “heterosexuality. is seen as the cornerstone of patriarchy. The heterosexual organisation of female sexuality and reproduction guarantees male control of women” (Weedon, 1999: 43), by enforcing their dependence on a male partner, urging them to adopt restrictive cultural norms of motherhood, and distancing them from a possible revolutionary orientation gained through the female solidarity of lesbianism. Hetero-sexism, and the stigmatisation and fear of lesbians, are seen as key components of men’s control over women’s bodies via the construction of heterosexuality as a patriarchal institution, into which women are manipulated by men and a male-defined culture (Rich, 1980). Women’s (and men’s) sexuality is therefore key to understanding the conflict involved within gender relations in patriarchal societies, and not something which can be dismissed as a ‘private’ matter. Secondly, the privileging of women’s embodied experiences sets radical feminism in a position whereby the binary difference between men and women as biologically distinct social groups is defended, primarily in the interests of solidarity among women; the creation of a ‘sisterhood’, “through which women everywhere could unite in the struggle against patriarchy” (Weedon, 1999: 26). Radical feminism therefore presents a degree of opposition to women’s entry into previously maleonly forms of socialisation, which is understood as women’s co-optation by masculine culture, an endorsement of male values and, most importantly, considered to confuse those male values for universally ‘human’ values by assuming that both men and women ought to aspire to and benefit from them. Those same values (objective rationality, competitiveness, ruthlessness, and the pursuit of power and influence) are identified primarily with sexual oppression and violence, but also with warmongering, colonialism, and the destruction of the environment (Tong, Alex Channon Loughborough University 22 1989; McCaughey, 1997), all of which are targets of radical political criticism. Instead, “in radical feminist discourse, traditional female traits and values are given a new and positive status which challenges the supremacy of traditionally male traits” (Weedon, 1999: 30), asserting the strength and dignity of women as women, who are liberated not in the sense of escaping the confines of a cheapened and degraded femininity, but by realising the inherent advantages of their female selves and redefining womanhood as positive and strong. Thus, radical feminists view men and women as two essentially different groups, and advocate the political organisation of the women’s movement based on this fact. With varying degrees of emphasis, radical movements have advocated a gendered separatism, the most radical being the political lesbianism movement which held that since heterosexuality was the cornerstone of patriarchy, “a heterosexual lifestyle was. incompatible with feminism. To relate sexually to men was to consort with the enemy” (Weedon, 1999: 36). Removing oneself from all aspects of the ‘heterosexist’, dominating, oppressive male culture is considered to be the essence of a radical liberation for women. This revolution ought to begin, as with liberal feminist strategies, with an education (or ‘consciousness-raising’), but is considered to culminate in a very different transformative movement. Applying radical feminist theory to sports involves this kind of radical transformation, although in practice the kind of separatism argued for by radical sports scholars has shared much in common with traditionally gender-differentiated sports culture, if for different reasons (Hargreaves, 1994). Hargreaves (1994) identifies two distinctive approaches to separatism advocated by feminists. The first of these falls relatively in line with the ‘equal opportunities’ focus of liberal feminism wherein women’s sporting organisations are established independently of men’s control to provide for women to engage in ‘male’ sports on their own terms. This solution is based on the assumption that women’s interests are not well served by having their sports administered and controlled by men, but that women still deserve the right to engage in the sports which men play. Such organisations also provide a space for women to socialise exclusively with other women, engaging in female bonding in relatively novel settings, whilst also being able to engage in physical activity away Alex Channon Loughborough University 23 from the influence or the gaze of (heterosexual) men (Lenskyj, 1990; Hargreaves, 1994). This potentially offers women a chance to identify with their bodies outside of the usual dictates of compulsory heterosexuality. In the more radical separatist position, a critical stance is taken, arguing against women’s endorsement of men’s sports cultures and advocating instead the founding of “alternative models which are intrinsically more humane and liberating” (Hargreaves, 1994: 31). Just as masculine sports educate men in male values, feminists can craft activities which help to educate women in female values, which are considered inherently superior to the destructive impulses of hyper-competitive masculinity. Otherwise, women’s involvement with male sports – and particularly sports involving direct physical combat – is something to be suspicious of (McCaughey, 1997). In this reasoning, ‘masculinised’ female athletes are seen as “a tangible sign of a blind internalisation of masculine norms and the success of those norms in colonising women’s imaginations” (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003: 57). The same stance is evident here as in the political lesbianism movement: the personal preferences of women in sport are considered a political choice and ought to be used to articulate a commitment to undermining patriarchy in all its forms (Hargreaves, 1994). Unless women’s sports represent a radical resistance to and departure from men’s sports, the revolutionary impact of women in sport will be minimal. The problems with gender separatism of all kinds lie in their ultimate collusion with the traditional, dominant model of segregation, lending ideological support to the key notion that men and women engage in different sports because of intractable biological differences between them. As will be discussed later, this natural essentialist, bio-determinist argument is fundamentally important in shoring up male privilege in sport and maintaining a system which is difficult to envisage as being advantageous to women in undoing the symbolic violence of patriarchy. It also helps to construct those differences between the sexes as natural and inevitable, denying the potentially positive aspects of androgynous sports/gender practices (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003). While radical feminists may be keen to emphasise women’s positive differences from men, and be committed to providing opportunities for women to realise and enjoy them, it is easy for men to trivialise these characteristics and reAlex Channon Loughborough University 24 affirm their own possession of superior qualities so long as the contents of the traditional binaries are left unchallenged. As Hargreaves puts it, “ironically, if it is claimed that women have uniquely different characteristics from men, there is implicit support of the image of power invested in the male body” (1994: 31). In this way, since it tends to “leave old binary oppositions intact” (Weedon, 1999: 31), radical feminism is open to several major critiques. Firstly, in the radical feminist model of patriarchy, “men and masculinity figure as an undifferentiated oppressor” (Weedon, 1999: 33), wherein all women are imagined to be united as the victims of all (heterosexual) men. Male complicity in the workings of patriarchy is simply assumed, and so all men are characterised as the enemy of the women’s movement, which may not be the case (Tong, 1989). Viewing men as an ‘undifferentiated oppressor’ blurs the many ways in which men differ from one another, and obscures the fact that many men are also disadvantaged or outright oppressed by sexist culture, and might benefit from feminist advocacy