The Body In Alternative Hard Rock Analysis

In "The Body in Alternative Hard Rock," Mimi Schippers discusses the forward movement within the subculture of Alternative Hard Rock—grunge—against the old-fashioned sexist views of American society. Schippers addresses such outdated ideals as the view of women as sexual objects for males to possess, the belief that males are the dominant sex, and the expectation of women to be subservient and submissive. She examines the gender relations within grunge and how they differ from these ideals, going into detail about how women switch themselves from the objects into subjects, go from powerless to overpowering, and not only establish equality, but also become authoritative. Schippers states that, to do this, women of grunge use their sexual appeal
to manipulate men and use their clothing to blur the supposed natural distinction between sexes. However, while Schippers argues in favor of this attempt to gender maneuver—using the body to alter gender order—she cautions that this reliance on body adornment is unlikely to bring about serious change, as it is ironically the basis of the current gender norms. Schippers uses comparisons that establish the need for reform of sexist views in America; anecdotes that emphasize the power of women in grunge; imagery and allusions that illustrate gender maneuvering; examples that support effective gender maneuvering; and explicit criticisms of grunge, to argue that the grunge subculture attempts to meet the need for reform of sexist views in America, but that it is ultimately deficient in making significant change. She uses these rhetorical devices to argue that grunge cannot accomplish the goal of total reform of sexist views not only because of its emphasis on body adornment, but also because it ignores active political movements, class, and race.
Schippers first, using a metaphor, establishes the necessity for reform of the sexist views in America so that she can then illustrate how grunge is working towards this reform. She addresses the silhouette image of a naked woman leaning backwards, which is "a nameless, faceless, sexually alluring body" that "symbolizes not only feminine sexuality objectified, but also masculine sexual subjectivity" (Schippers 85). She then says that, "the image works as a badge of manhood" (Schippers 85). This metaphor functions on multiple levels. First, as she states, men use the image to boast their masculinity, wearing it around as a "badge." Second, the idea of men wearing this "badge" is again related back to body adornment. Not only is the woman in the silhouette image naked, but she is also placed, by Schippers' metaphor, as a "badge" on the body of a male. The body is a primary reason why the current gender norms exist; it is the basis of the current subject-object order. This metaphor implies that women are being sexually objectified—by the silhouette image—and men are making themselves the subjects—by wearing the "badge." Women, represented by a "nameless, faceless" body, are portrayed as a generic object, lacking individuality—and identity. Because they lack identity, they become objects that, in turn, men can own. But as Schippers emphasizes, it is not just a woman's body; it is her "naked" and "sexually alluring" body. Thus, women are not just objectified; instead, they are sexually objectified. On the other side, men, wearing women as a "badge," have a sense of ownership over women. The metaphor that Schippers uses, calling the figure a "badge of manhood," adds the connotation of power to this idea of ownership. A badge is not just an article of clothing that anybody wears; it is a symbol of authority. Therefore by wearing the "badge," men place themselves in a position of power—the subjects—and make women their property—the objects. Schippers uses the metaphor to convey this sexism and sexual objectification of women present in society today, which establishes the need for reform. However, she also establishes her view of the female body as a factor behind sexism and sexual objectification—in order to work against them, Schippers suggests the body should first be de-emphasized. Once Schippers establishes this need for reform and criticizes body adornment as a primary method to do so, she then introduces the subculture of grunge, presenting both its positive and negative aspects. She uses an anecdote about a woman in grunge to assert the female power in this subculture but also to expose some of its deficiencies. She tells the story of an interview with Jennifer Finch of the band L7 after a concert, during which an admirer continues to talk to Finch even after she tells him that she is busy. Finch replies: "Read my fucking lips. What part of this do you not understand? I said I am doing an interview," to which the man laughs "nervously" and retreats. Finch, who is only wearing a bra at the time, then remarks to Schippers "with sarcastic laughter in her voice" that "maybe [she's] sending the wrong message by having [her] tits hanging out like this" (Schippers 84). Schippers uses this anecdote in part to support grunge as a progressive subculture. She shows that when a woman of grunge interacts with a man, she is neither subservient nor submissive. Rather, she is strong and authoritative, and says such things to him as, "Read my fucking lips" and "What part of this do you not understand?" By including these quotes, Schippers shows that the women of grunge do not just settle into their contemporary gender roles and are not willing to be objects for men to possess. It can be inferred by Finch's "sarcastic laughter" that she purposely displays her body openly with her "tits hanging out," perhaps to create the exact situation that occurred. She uses her body as a weapon against men to give them a false sense of authority, and then strips this "badge" away from them—an example of effective gender maneuvering. However, Schippers also includes Finch's quote to present a deficiency in grunge. She states that Finch knowingly presents herself with "her tits hanging out" to create a sense of irony. It is ironic because Finch and all the other women of grunge are trying to fight against the sexual objectification of women, but here, Finch is sexually objectifying herself. She is, to some degree, allowing herself to become that "nameless, faceless" figure that men can own. While she was able to take authority over the one man that approached her, there were other men with whom she never interacted. To those men, she was merely the typical sexual object that women are expected to be, and that women of grunge are trying to fight against. Thus, Schippers anecdote first supports the efforts of grunge to fight against sexism, but then criticizes its methods for helping maintain the sexual objectification of women in some respects. To further illustrate both the positive and negative aspects of this subculture, Schippers presents the strategy of women in grunge through imagery.
She describes the typical attire of men and women in grunge, saying that men dress either as "nerds" or "lumberjacks," while women dress as "sluts" (Schippers 86). This would seem to support the traditional gender order and the sexual objectification of women. However, Schippers points out that in grunge, "women's slut wear is always combined with something that disrupts seamless sexual objectification" (Schippers 89). For example, "miniskirts, dresses and hot pants are worn with heavy combat boots or with a flannel shirt, but also, more often than not, reveal unshaven legs" (Schippers 89). This imagery illustrates the strategy of women in grunge. The women dress in sexually appealing attire, so men desire them. However, as the male comes closer, he notices an "inconsistency" that negates the woman's sexual appeal. This has one of two effects: either it gives the woman power over the man because he is placed in a vulnerable position—not understanding exactly how to react—or it can disrupt the subject-object order, because the object—the female—refuses to be owned and therefore has an identity. Schippers argues that this strategy is effective because it stops men from controlling female sexual appeal, as is the case when they own the silhouette image. Instead, as Schippers' imagery suggests, women control their own sexual appeal. However, while she grants that this method is effective, she also addresses the same issues about body adornment as before. She presents the image of a woman who from a distance is sexually appealing but closer up has a blemish. This presents the same problem—if a male does not get close enough to notice the "unshaven legs," the female remains nothing more than a sexual object. Thus, Schippers uses this imagery to contend that the use of sex appeal is ineffective for women in grunge, as it
only functions properly if males notice the "inconsistency." After discussing the strategy of women in grunge, Schippers then addresses the methods employed by the men of grunge. Schippers alludes to the men of glam-metal in the 1970's and 80's—contrasting their styles with the men of grunge—to suggest that the males of grunge are also working towards reform in the sexist views in America. Schippers writes that males of grunge "consciously rejected the gender-bending, glam-metal bands of the 1980s," because they knew that the same males who appeared to embrace femininity by "wearing makeup and spandex" also "fully embraced the sexualized masculine position in relation to women" (Schippers 87). This allusion to the men of glam-metal, who were viewed as feminine males because of their makeup and spandex, contrasts the men of grunge, who are viewed as masculine males in every sense of the term—"lumberjacks"—and sets them up as opposites. Schippers forms this contrast to address one of the criticisms of grunge—that the males are working against reform because they "no longer wear spandex and makeup." She argues that the males of glam-metal in previous decades that wore this clothing were no more than womanizers that "fully embraced the sexualized masculine position" (Schippers 87). By the contrast that Schippers set up, the males of grunge—by choosing not to mimic the men of glam-metal—are actually working towards reform in the gender norms in society. As Schippers discusses later, by wearing women's clothing, men simply promote the idea of a "natural divide between masculinity and femininity and that the clothing we wear somehow expresses an internal femininity or masculinity" (Schippers 88). So, instead of establishing a closer connection between masculinity and femininity, males of glam-metal, by wearing feminine attire, simply furthered this divide. Contrastingly, Schippers asserts that the males of grunge use other methods besides body adornment to challenge gender norms.
Schippers further establishes this male effort to work against present gender norms through examples of interactions with males of grunge. She says, from watching and interacting with the men of the grunge band Pearl Jam, that "The lumberjack punk was, not only a rather nice guy, but… it became clear that he was also committed to challenging sexism, racism, and heterosexism; not quite what you would expect from a lumberjack" (Schippers 88). Schippers observation not only adds to the contrast she made previously between the "womanizers" of glam-metal and the "nice guys" in grunge, but it also supports Schippers argument that the men of grunge are striving for reform in sexist views in America. The men of grunge wear very masculine attire—so extreme that they look like a "lumberjack"—yet they act very politely. Schippers contends that by appearing so gentle, the men of grunge are trying to break the notion that masculine men have to be womanizers and vulgar—thus they are "not quite what you would expect from a lumberjack." So, instead of attempting to appear feminine like the males of glam-metal, Schippers contends, with her example, that the males of grunge are simply trying to change the idea of masculinity, as it is perceived. Schippers supports this effort as more effective because instead of using body adornment as a primary weapon in the fight against sexism, the males of grunge use their actions. This contrasts the men of glam-metal, who used body adornment, wearing "spandex and makeup" to appear feminine. The males of grunge instead keep their appearance constant—wearing "lumberjack" attire—and try to give this appearance a different connotation. Thus, Schippers not only supports the men of grunge in their efforts to challenge sexism, but she also supports their methods to change the current gender norms—specifically the contemporary view of masculinity—without using body adornment as a primary tool.
Schippers then concedes that this idea of using body adornment can be a very enticing one, as she herself tried it, but then reasserts that this appeal does not make it effective. She combines another personal anecdote with a comparison to argue that, while publicly displaying one's sexuality can be empowering, this power is as superficial as the clothing. Schippers discusses her first experience buying a miniskirt after studying grunge, saying that when she finally wore, combined with her boots, she "felt like [she] could kick anybody's ass" (Schippers 93). However, later she says, "No matter how much I feel like I'm the millionaire CEO of a multinational corporation, my structural position does not allow me to reap the material benefits of being a CEO" (Schippers 94). Schippers uses the latter quote to emphasize that the feeling of empowerment is not the same as empowerment itself. She uses feeling like "the millionaire of a multinational corporation" as a metaphor for feeling powerful when adorned in sexually appealing clothing. She then states that her "structural position does not allow [her] to reap the material benefits of being a CEO." Thus, through the metaphor, Schippers implies that the powerful feeling women in grunge have—feeling like they can "kick anybody's ass"—when dressed attractively is ultimately artificial; they can feel that way, but they cannot exercise any of the power they feel. Therefore, she qualifies the use of sex appeal by women in grunge as deficient. However, Schippers uses the first quote to convey her understanding of women's efforts to use their sexuality and their body to manipulate men and gender norms. Schippers admits that she also made the mistake of believing that, by wearing sexually appealing clothing, she could be more powerful. By doing so, she strengthens her argument—she establishes that she is not just criticizing grunge as an outsider, but rather as a participant. She, along with the women of grunge, tried to live out the idea that "sex is power." However, Schippers argues that this power is strictly a feeling. By using the anecdote and the metaphor, she posits that the use of sexuality by both her and the women of grunge to gain power, although appealing, is ineffective because they are ultimately no more powerful than before.
After primarily implicitly commenting on the deficiencies of grunge, focusing on its use of sexuality and body adornment, Schippers eventually states her other criticisms of the subculture explicitly. She focuses on its disregard of class, race, sexuality and political action. Continuing to talk about the difference between the feeling of power and the possession of power, Schippers states, "It feels great, but that feeling must be translated into some form of social action, whether it is a more traditional form of political activism or gender maneuvering. A feeling does not change the gender order; an action does" (Schippers 94). Later she says that the men and women of grunge are predominantly white, middle-class Americans, and that, "It is because of their class and racial privilege that alternative hard rockers are relatively safe to gender maneuver" (Schippers 96). Throughout her piece, Schippers both supports and criticizes grunge. Here, however, she is mainly critical. She suggests that women in grunge cannot just feel powerful by using their body to position themselves above men—although "it feels great"— but instead need to take part in some sort of politically active movement. By explicitly stating her argument that "that feeling must be translated into some form of social action," Schippers asserts that while she supports grunge as a sort of stepping stone towards social reform, the methods it currently implements are not active enough. She then goes on to discuss the absence of diversity and lower-class men and women in grunge, implying that this is not because the people of grunge are discriminating against them, but rather because the methods themselves discriminate. That is, if a participant in grunge were not white or of middle-class status, they would not be "relatively safe to gender maneuver" (Schippers 96). Thus, while grunge might be combating sexism, it is reinforcing racism and classism. Schippers explicitly asserts this criticism because it is a major deficiency of grunge; while some feminists might be willing to accept this trade-off, Schippers argues that "any attempt to challenge male domination is only useful if it does not reinforce race, class, and sexual discrimination" (Schippers 96). Essentially, Schippers argues that for the efforts to fight sexism to be effective and "useful," it must either also fight racial and class discrimination—or at least not reinforce them. In order for grunge to produce an effective political movement, Schippers asserts it must be both active in the struggle against sexism and also aware of other social problems, such as discrimination based on class, race, and sexuality.
In this chapter, Schippers repeatedly raises arguments like this that either support grunge in its attempt to challenge sexism or criticize it because it emphasizes body adornment in place of active political movements and reinforces other forms of discrimination. She relies on such rhetorical devices as metaphors, anecdotes, comparisons, allusions, imagery, examples, and explicit statements. After establishing the need for reform by suggesting that men wear women's sexuality, Schippers introduces grunge as a progressive subculture working towards this reform, asserting that both men and women are participants in this effort. However, Schippers consistently emphasizes the deficiencies embedded within grunge. She suggests that the efforts of women in grunge—"sluts"—to take power over males contradicted by the fact that she is reinforcing the current gender norms. Schippers argues that grunge can only be effective if it makes some sort of active political movement and also takes into account discrimination based on class, race, and sexuality. Thus, Schippers provides grunge as a catalyst towards social reform, but argues that it ultimately cannot succeed without first addressing its deficiencies.