As far as the D&G, I don't have it in front of me-- but if you are talking the becoming- chapter... it is the chapter where they posit to become ANYTHING first you must become woman (The ultimate becoming is imperceptible/minoritarian/essence I believe). In other words, the first magical transformation is always into the female from which all other creation (to animal, child, etc) is possible. One could read this I guess as an acknowledgement of feminine power, but my read is that it places the male energy solar-ly, and woman as the first mask or emanation. Nothing new there.
Claiming victimhood vs. playing with the subject position: I don't want to play anymore. I don't feel like a girl anymore and most of girl-trappings do feel placed (on me as consumer by external capitalist deciders). I guess if I was mightily attracted to any of it--I'd keep it and flaunt it. I wear heels, after all--but never pointy toed shoes. Here's my difference, again... I don't see my "womanly" retention of 4 inch heels as doing much damage (though in my dreams they can). I can imagine a poem where those shoes do work--oh yes I can--like Addonzio's red dress. But in the poems I think of as gurlesque I don't always see that work. I don't see the subverted gaze you speak of or the implication of the reader. I see tons of coy and pout and hairflip... but I *think* what is being gurlesque wants to claim the skewering, and dammit I DON'T SEE ENOUGH SKEWERING. I would just please like to see more skewering. I'm sure Johannes and Lara wd back me up on this desire. That's all.
And you ask, what do you get with womanhood? A little invisibility (the kind you have a right to, not the kind you must liberate yourself from--that comes back with old age). That is what D&G say all transformation aims for... imperceptibility, and only then revolution. To become, for once, the unwitnessed gazer. And to achieve something like it after 30 years of feeling all eyes critiquing is something I can admit to enjoying when it happens (thus the draw of the urban landscape where I do not have to turn into a soccermom to disappear). Glitter for chardonnay (but isn't this Sex and the City and aren't they exceedingly gurlesque?)--not so hot. Glitter for the presidency, a prime ministership, an endowed chair--I'll take.
Where I do agree with Arielle is that when I was young I thought I'd be able to do anything. But I do not think my way to standing by that child is to affect her--it is to grit my teeth, bear down, and push my way through any means necessary to the anythings I want to do-- the poems I want to write, the novels I want to publish, the professor I want to be. The trappings have always been something beside the point in my world--the things (as I said in my earlier post) that I had to do without to get the ballet training I loved... so military in its regulations, so sexist and hierarchical in so many of its modes, and yet so damn USEFUL, as it got to the heart of training and *learning to train* my body to do anything else it wanted to (modern dance, yoga, aikido).
My take on my own poetic project is similar... the content is mere exampling of the deeper structures. Any aesthetic in which the content is a central/defining feature will undoubtedly raise my poetic hackles... I believe the personal is political because we are examples. We are examples. It is enough.