LA ASOCIACION DE CONDOMINOS LAS PALMAS ARTICULO

The previous chapter focused on tattooed female bodies, specifically exploring discourses that centred on four main areas - implications of the ageing body in respect to how tattooed bodies are constructed, tattoos as a marker of stability on the body and what this represents, how the visibility of tattoos has an effect on the construction of the body they are on, and finally, how tattoos being reconstituted as art changes the way the body is viewed. I explored how these different areas were interwoven with a tension between embodying tattoo art, incorporating it into the performance of the self, positioning them as a commodity.

In this chapter, I will explore how participants ‘produce’ the tattooed woman in their talk, and draw on diverse representations of femininities. The variability in women’s talk about femininities offers insight into the complexities women must navigate to position themselves within the intersecting discursive formations that constitute ‘tattooed women’. I consider how the women negotiate what femininity is to them, and how what the intersections are with their tattooed bodies. Following from this, I explore the perceived expectations of femininities, considering how the variability in positionings plays a part in the conformity and resistance to constructions of femininity. Tattoo imagery is then explored in relation to femininity, showing how it can either be embodied or resisted according the imagery portrayed within the tattoo. Finally, I explore the interactions of femininities, embodiment and class. 7.1 – Negotiating femininities

One of the main aims of the research was to explore how gendered ideas of the feminine body intersects with ideas about tattoos, in order to produce the subject position of ‘The Tattooed Woman’. In particular, I was interested in the notion that tattooing was a transgressive social practice for women, that enabled women to resist dominant ideas about femininity. However, as my analysis

developed, it became clear that tattoos were not straightforwardly a liberatory embodied practice, and that instead, the performance of the tattooed feminine body involved both conformity and resistance to feminine ideals. In this theme, I explore the varying ways in which women talked about femininity, and their own body as feminine (or not). Each participant articulated different ‘versions’ of femininity in their account, and also found it hard to articulate a single definition for what femininity meant to them. In this first extract, the participant articulates the tensions that arise between productions of femininity and the tattooed feminine body:

P: I really really want a massive black panther on my back R: Covering your back?

P: Yeah, but I don’t know, I’ve got a really nice back (laughs) but yeah I don’t know, I don’t know if I’d do it.

R: Does it represent anything?

P: I want something to do with strength right, and I saw this image of a panther, and it’s just lying down, just looking, and it’s absolutely, it’s such a beautiful image and you can see the strength in his eyes, and that’s what I want I don’t want a pair of weights on my arm (laughs) I want something you know what I mean, I want erm something that’s hidden but, you know that’s what it is with me, I might be all loud and lairy and you know whatever else, but inside, I’ve got a lot of strength in me, you know, so yeah, I want something that’s going to represent that, but I’m not brave enough yet (laughs) [Betty]

The panther image appears to represent feminine strength, for Betty. The panther often represents a sinuous beauty, mysterious and stealthy – clearly articulated in Betty’s suggestion that it is a “beautiful image”, with “strength in his eyes”. There is considerable ambivalence in her description of this desired tattoo: ‘I don’t know if I’d do it’ because ‘I’ve got a really nice back’. On the one hand the description of the tattoo as beautiful appears to conform to dominant

ideas about appropriate decoration for women. However, on the other hand, she is concerned about its potential to disfigure her ‘nice back’. In this sense, she is caught between two competing images – on the one hand the sense of the panther as an appropriate, feminine tattoo choice, on the other a concern that any tattoo (and particularly a big one) would damage her feminine attributes (her beautiful back). She emphasizes the ‘massive’ size of the tattoo – it is not just a small piece of work – and therefore occupies more space on the body. It is a common feature both of my interviews, and of some published work on tattoos, that extensive tattoos, covering a significant amount of skin, are described as unfeminine (Madfis & Arford, 2013). In articulating her tattoo choices, Betty expresses her awareness of the regulative idea that tattoos for women should be small, delicate and dainty. Her ambivalence demonstrates her negotiation of this dominant idea in her positioning of herself as tattooed woman. She wants a large tattoo, but is aware of the social positioning of this as unfeminine. Even though the beauty of the proposed tattoo fits with ideals of feminine beauty, she is also clear that the size of the tattoo might transgress feminine ideals and may not be read by others as feminine. At the same time, Betty is quite decisive about the placement of the tattoo on her back. The location is important as it enables her to have ‘something that’s hidden’, suggesting that this means the tattoo will be private, and just for her. This enables her to be extensively tattooed, but still perform a femininity that can be read by others as ‘good’, and as conforming to feminine ideals, as they are not likely to see the tattoo and cast judgement on it.

There is a clear sense of a right and a wrong way to express strength that is articulated within the extract. She makes it clear that the panther is the ‘right’ way for her to express strength, as she gives the example ‘I don’t want a pair of weights on my arm’ to illustrate the ‘wrong’ way to express this – a manner that would perhaps be more associated with masculinity, and physical strength, rather than

a more sleek, slender ‘traditional’ feminine strength (Grogan et al., 2004). She positions the imagery in a way that relates to her femininity, also ensuring that the body is read as feminine. A sleek and powerful panther provides more of a good representation of strong femininity than a set of dumbbells, which could be considered masculine. She laughs this away as though the choice would be obvious, that the more feminine choice is the right choice. The imagery is read as feminine, allowing an embodiment of femininity through the tattoo. However at the same time that the tattoo embodies femininity, it also subverts it, through being large, bold, and inked upon a female body.

What is clear from the extract above is that she is drawing on a discursive construction of the right way to do femininity, and explores how this might be embodied through the tattoo’s imagery. She is self-regulating, in that she produces a notion of what femininity is, whilst at the same time, resists against this with the tattoo. It is acceptable for women to be both feminine and be tattooed, as well as feminine and strong, providing that this is done in the right way, ensuring that the body can be read as feminine. Other examples of negotiation were discussed that highlight some of the complexities of being a tattooed woman, in relation to fashion choices:

I know people that have, erm massive calf tattoos and in the summer they wear tights cus they don't like it, and I never want to say I can't wear that because of my tattoo [Nora]

The inclusion of the size of the tattoo is an indicator as to how the tattoo relates to negotiating femininities. Small and hidden tattoos are often considered as more favourable on women, with links being drawn between the visibility of a tattoo, the size of the tattoo, and the body that the tattoo is on (Hawkes et al., 2004). As the tattoo that is mentioned is not as hidden during the summer months when warmer weather would indicate a change in clothing, the wearer still

chooses to wear items of clothing to cover the tattoo, ensuring that the body is still read as feminine.

As the woman discussed within the extract wear tights, this would indicate that the issue lies in the tattoo being visible (or in this case, not visible) to others. This contradicts Wohlrab et al's (2009), assertion that because women said they get tattoos to enhance personal beauty, they were unaware of the negative connotations of tattoos. Whilst women do choose to get tattoos for aesthetic reasons, this does not mean that they are unaware or unaffected by representations formed by others. Nora does state that she wants tattoos, though she is aware that her tattoo choices are not necessarily free, and does show that she gives thought to the ways that her body may be read if she gets them. Her choices are constrained and regulated by what is seen as acceptable. She does not want to be constrained in her fashion choices, and therefore she negotiates her production of femininity through her tattoo choices. By constraining where her tattoos may be located in the body, she is less constrained by the fashion choices that she makes.

This extract also highlights the importance of the location of the tattoo on the body, because this determines visibility. Both fashion and tattoos function to communicate a performance of the self to be ‘read’ by those around us. Both can express conformity to dominant ideas of womanhood and of selfhood, and resistance to those ideas (Armstrong et al, 2014). Nora states that she does not want her tattoo choices to dictate her fashion choices. She does not want to change the sense of self that she portrays through her clothing, as would potentially be different if she were to have a visible and permanent representation of self, through a tattoo.

In the above extract, the issue is not just focused on the tattoo, but how the tattooed feminine body is constituted at the interface of fashion choices, and how those intersecting discourses of femininity, class, and embodiment function to regulate the tattooed body. Nora

indicates that the size and visibility of a tattoo are factors in the body being read as feminine. Building on this further, the following extract also focuses on the intersection between the tattooed feminine body and fashion choices, producing femininity as a kind of skilled consumption – the skilled consumer chooses wisely (McRobbie, 2009). Specifically, this extract focuses on a context where traditional constructions of femininities are considered important:

P: I want my tattoos for me so I can cover them and show them when I want, like my sister, for her wedding, she made me wear erm, had long sleeve dress

I: Were you a bridesmaid?

P: Yeah, well it wasn’t her it was her husband that didn’t want them [Irene]

Western weddings are traditionally typified by heteronormative norms, characterised by hyperfeminine and hypermasculine performances of gender (Kozieł & Sitek, 2013). In this context, there is intense public debate about whether ‘the bride’ should display tattoos or not (Yang, 2014). As a bridesmaid at her sister’s wedding, Irene describes how she became subject to the regulative norms of gender conformity. Her sister ‘made her’ cover up, at the request of her future husband. Here, Irene is subject to gender scrutiny, and her visible tattoos are seen as unacceptable in the hyperfeminine role of bridesmaid. This account of regulative scrutiny demonstrates how her transgressive (tattooed) feminine body, under the male gaze, was disciplined. She moderates her future tattoo choices in relation to this experience of being shamed and ‘made’ to cover up.

Irene explains that she was ‘made’ to wear a long-sleeved bridesmaid dress, ensuring that her tattoo was not on display. The covering of the tattoo feeds into stereotypical and heteronormative assumptions made about the feminine body, especially on the day of a wedding. Though it was not her wedding, she produces an understanding that

the tattoo would detract from the day, and that her body should be covered so that this is not given any thought.

In relation to her tattoo choices, Irene does state that her tattoos are for her, so that she can ‘cover them and show them when I want’. As in the previous extracts mentioned, this would indicate that the location of the tattoo is important for her, so that she is able to represent herself as she wants to – she is agentic in the way that her body may communicate with others. As she can choose whether the tattoo is visible or not, she can determine the level of communication that her tattoo expresses, and where she feels this to be appropriate. Through mentioning the long sleeve dress that she wore at her sister’s wedding, she was able to negotiate her tattooed feminine body with being read as stereotypically feminine – without the tattoo being seen. Whilst she states that her tattoos are for her, they are not obtained without consideration for how she may be read by others, so therefore this part of herself is negotiated.

This extract shows what the constructions are around gendered representations of the body, especially in more specific and traditional contexts, such as weddings. The tattooed woman must negotiate the constructions of the (ideal) feminine body, the consuming body, and constructions of feminine agency as ‘choosing’ and making ‘skillful and authentic choices’. However, this research does not seek to simplify the complexities of the feminine body, and how tattoos are constructed. An interviewee picked out one of the key issues that relate to femininity, centrally as an issue of specific gendered expectations:

if it’s not tattoos people are always going to find something else, to erm, hate on someone for, so if it’s not her tattoos it’s going to be the fact that she’s dressed as a slut or whatever

[Jean]

This interesting comment positions tattoos as just another object of the regulative gaze. Jean suggests that the female body in particular

will ‘always’ be the focus of comment. By using the example of ‘slut’ as another regulative comment, Jean draws attention to the sexualised nature of the unruly, tattooed feminine body. Her comments here are in some ways the flipside of Irene’s account of being disciplined for her tattoos. She was ‘made to’ cover up, whilst Jean’s comment suggests that all expressions of the unruly feminine body will be subject to scrutiny and attempted regulation. But whilst Irene describes reluctant conformity, Jean’s comment is more defiant. Femininity and the ways that it is produced will be questioned and discussed regardless of tattoos – though these do add another element to the discussion. Traditional representations of femininity are widely discussed (Bartky, 1990), therefore any way that femininity is seen will be in contrast, and less acceptable, to this ideal. At the same time that Jean acknowledges that tattoos are not necessarily the issue, she continues by considering another way in which feminine bodies are judged, and specifically refers to being ‘dressed as a slut’. This still portrays the gender specific negotiations that women face in their representations as feminine – there is a fine line in what is considered feminine and acceptable, and what is considered too much. Parallels can be drawn to the way that tattoos are often understood, a woman who is produced as slutty implies that there is skin on show, and there is an inference made as to the sexual availability of the woman.

Overall, the location on the body seems to be an important factor in how femininities are produced, with the visibility of the tattoo being linked to where the tattoo is located (Kang & Jones, 2007). The visibility (or not) of the tattoo also feeds into negotiations of femininities in that the women feel that they can choose how they represent themselves (Kosut, 2000a), depending on where their tattoos are located, but also, how this intersects with the fashion choices they make. Fashion is an important element in the representation of femininities (Kjeldgaad & Bengtsson, 2005) and can

also dictate whether a tattoo is displayed or not, as well as whether or not society deems tattoos to be appropriately visible given a specific context. In negotiating femininities, the body of a woman will be scrutinised regardless of whether they have a tattoo or not, but this does add an extra element in the ways that femininities are constructed. Within these extracts, the tattoo is constructed as forming a part of the performance of femininity, enabling both the conformity to and resistance against normative constructions. The women position themselves as knowing, as agentic, and as aware of what these constructions are, and how they navigate these constructions with their tattoos. The tattoo is produced as one object of resistance – performing acceptable femininity is regulative, and whist the tattoos resist this, they make the women aware of what these constructions are. All of the women perform femininity in negotiation with their subjective positionings, from bridesmaid, to strong woman – there are a multitude of ways that femininities are performed.

7.2 – Tattoo imagery

Many participants described tattoo images in ways that seemed to either reproduce or resist hegemonic femininities. Their descriptions often used binary language, positioning tattoos as either masculine or feminine. For example, Amelia says:

Yeah I think I like with my flowers, it’s a feminine thing and maybe people who also have flowers associate it with more feminine things than say a skull [Amelia]

The polar construction is clearly evident here. Flowers are feminine, and consequently more appropriate in her eyes than a more apparently masculine image like a skull. This suggests that the femininisation of the tattoo is what enables its non-transgressive incorporation into the feminine body. This construction is extended through her assertion that ‘maybe people who also have flowers associate it with more feminine things’. This assumes a collective

reading of flowers as feminine (Craighead, 2011) that functions to underscore the ‘appropriateness’ of her choices. The examples of imagery that are provided in this extract are quite distinct in respect to being typically feminine (flowers) and typically anti-feminine (skull). What these examples highlight is that tattoo imagery is gendered, and is important in relation to the body it is on, in that traditional notions of femininity can be embodied or resisted.

Not all of the women discussed their tattoos as embodying femininity – some were active in their resistance against traditional representations. However, the complex nature of the tattooed female body is shown through the simultaneous resistance of traditional femininity whilst reinforcing productions of those representations:

I think I've got a mix I think, I've got a mix of feminine and not feminine but I, I like feminine tattoos and I like to look at them but that's not me cus I'm not (pause) feminine to me is