‘After 30 years of war, is it really the right time for women to start fighting one another?’ This was the concluding question asked on BBC Radio Four’s programme about women boxing in Afghanistan (PM, 16/11/2011). It reported that the war-torn country is planning to send six women to compete in the boxing event at the London Olympics in 2012. The report included some interesting interviews with women who box for pleasure, fitness or as professionals. One woman described how she felt empowered outside the ring to stand up against violence; she explained that after training as a boxer, she had the confidence and the ability to say ‘no’ to sexism in the street.
But with the war and bombings ever-present in Afghanistan, the report suggested that women boxing is an extension of the violence seen in the country in the war against terrorism. The report sets up a binary between the masculine agents of war and women as peace keepers and this encompasses women in boxing; the reporter ultimately questions whether women should take part in boxing, considering the international desire to end the war. In other words, he equates boxing with fighting and by extension, violence and war. However, boxing in the Olympic format is point-based, unlike in professional boxing where knock-outs are more common in deciding the outcome of a contest.
There are two questions to think about from this report, firstly, should women be involved in war as soldiers on the front line, and would this change the gendered dynamic of war and the view of ‘feminine fragility?’ Secondly, should women take part in boxing at all, whether point or knock-out based, because of its innate violence? And by extension, should anyone box, male or female? Can it really be considered a ‘sport’?
These are really interesting questions, and ones which I have been thinking about in my own research on women in sport and particularly since I heard this BBC Four radio report. Please feel free to comment on this and leave your opinions below….
No comments:
Post a Comment