Feminism, WOW! (part 2)

Part 1 Recap:

Women who wrestle face a specific problem, when it comes to representation: "the male gaze". Typically, "the male gaze" refers to the theory that mainstream media is presented through the perspective of a heterosexual male. In wrestling, the "gaze" also extends to other factors - such as nationality - but, for now, our focus is on gender identity.

Click here for part one.

Part 2: Suffragette City

Because the typical wrestling fan is believed to be male, and therefore the typical wrestler is believed to me male too, women have always been designated as a "special attraction" i.e. different from the norm. The male gaze exists in media for a business reason; those who are believed to be most likely to spend their money on a product will be targeted, by attempting to present to them things that are believed to conform to their beliefs and values. Similarities and differences are highlighted and exploited, and little is ever challenged.

Now, as a business model, you might argue that this is a logical approach; you attract the majority, in an attempt to earn the most. However, the typical gaze of a wrestling show is so very limited that monetary justification is not a strong counter position. Members of the audience might even turn away by the handling of intergender relations.

If you are a woman in wrestling you have one of four roles to fulfil:

1. The Diva - The object of sexual desire. Plays up to her looks
2. The Prude - The opposite of the Diva, in that she scorns the objectification of women.
3. The Subvert - The woman in the masculine role. Typically taken up by the more muscular women.
4. The Wrestler - Gender neutral. Just a wrestler.

Having been trained with women, wrestled a few, and even dated one or two, I've heard one phrase repeated: "I'm not a girl, I'm a wrestler!" This is usually shouted at timid male trainees who have a hard time overcoming the perceived social stigma of bodyslamming a woman. It's also a very telling phrase.

In the above four roles, only two can be said to be explicitly female - the Diva and the Prude. The Subvert plays the role of a man - she's considered interesting because she's subverting the gender roles and not acting as a woman should. And the Wrestler is not assigned a sexual identity - the importance is placed on the moves performed, which carry no gender bias. Only the Diva and the Prude are overtly feminine roles, and what do they have in common? Sex. Or, more specifically, objectification and sexual desire - one is for and one is against.

This is why some women do not want to be identified as such, within wrestling; because the woman in wrestling is only ever presented as a sexual object. Perhaps it's a greater commentary on how men are believed to perceive women - the Madonna and the harlot - but doesn't that make men sound like a Freudian nightmare?

I've always taken to the belief that the best wrestling shows - the true supershows - are the ones that have something for everyone. Normally, this is considered as choices in wrestling styles, but what of wrestling philosophies? I'm of no doubt that some men can only relate to women in sexual terms, but why does an entire show have to be targeted at them? Give them one or two matches, then show me something in a perspective I've never seen before. Maybe I won't even enjoy that perspective, but, you know what? I'm not the biggest fan of Lucha, either.