![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sidewalksparkleIt's now officially too depressing to have an entire entry about my murder of the mommy spider as the most recent.
So I shall write about another really depressing thing: the Jackson Katz documentary "Wrestling With Manhood," about the WWF (now the WWE). It was a very frightening movie. AAR hosted it, so it was mostly AAR people in the audience, with a few scattered others. The movie was about the skewed perspective of "manliness" given by the WWE shows and about the homophobia they cause and the intense psychological and physical degradation of women present in these programs. It freaked me out. I've never gotten into wrestling and I don't really have friends who like it (at least, none who have watched it around me), so I'd only been exposed to tiny snippets of the wrestling shows. It all looked fake and silly, and I knew it had a huge following, but I'd never really paid attention to the thousands of people in this country (male and female, toddlers to old people) who like to get off on a woman being forced to apologize for something by taking off her clothes, getting on her hands and knees, and barking like a dog. Or a big guy yelling "Bitch!" and picking somebody up and throwing her across the room. Or the two "gay wrestlers" getting mimicked and taunted and brutalized as if they were subhuman. It's sick. Or a 20-something pretending she really liked the forced, aggressive kiss from a man who looked 40 years her senior. Or a guy pouching on another guy for the sake of breaking a huge table, or a piece of wood, or for the sake of making "blood" gush everywhere.
I don't really understand how a woman would decide she was willing to become one of the Divas, or female wrestling characters. I don't know how you make the transition from regular woman to breast-implanted, jaw-reformated (in the case of Chyna), slut-for-everybody-to-toss-around, objectified gladiator toy. Maybe there's some rush involved, or a lot of money, or something. Definitely not worth it.
After one depiction of faked (yet realistic) abuse between two married characters after the supposed infidelity of the wife (who happens to be the actual, real-life daughter of Vince McMahon, the sick man who runs the WWE), fans were interviewed saying "She had it coming," "She deserved it," etc. It was sad to see teenage boys saying this stuff, but even worse were the women and girls who looked to be about my age. Were they just so glad that they were on the sidelines, so glad they weren't the ones being called sluts, that they honestly couldn't see that the woman out there was one of "them" (meaning one of their own gender)?
Yes, we love our big fake boobs and our fake blood and our fake pain in this great nation. Especially since there are lots of impressionable (stupid?) people out there willing to replicate the entire experience in a horrifyingly real way. I don't think these people on these shows realize how much of a backward impact they are having on society. Or else they do realize it and enjoy the power it gives them.
So I shall write about another really depressing thing: the Jackson Katz documentary "Wrestling With Manhood," about the WWF (now the WWE). It was a very frightening movie. AAR hosted it, so it was mostly AAR people in the audience, with a few scattered others. The movie was about the skewed perspective of "manliness" given by the WWE shows and about the homophobia they cause and the intense psychological and physical degradation of women present in these programs. It freaked me out. I've never gotten into wrestling and I don't really have friends who like it (at least, none who have watched it around me), so I'd only been exposed to tiny snippets of the wrestling shows. It all looked fake and silly, and I knew it had a huge following, but I'd never really paid attention to the thousands of people in this country (male and female, toddlers to old people) who like to get off on a woman being forced to apologize for something by taking off her clothes, getting on her hands and knees, and barking like a dog. Or a big guy yelling "Bitch!" and picking somebody up and throwing her across the room. Or the two "gay wrestlers" getting mimicked and taunted and brutalized as if they were subhuman. It's sick. Or a 20-something pretending she really liked the forced, aggressive kiss from a man who looked 40 years her senior. Or a guy pouching on another guy for the sake of breaking a huge table, or a piece of wood, or for the sake of making "blood" gush everywhere.
I don't really understand how a woman would decide she was willing to become one of the Divas, or female wrestling characters. I don't know how you make the transition from regular woman to breast-implanted, jaw-reformated (in the case of Chyna), slut-for-everybody-to-toss-around, objectified gladiator toy. Maybe there's some rush involved, or a lot of money, or something. Definitely not worth it.
After one depiction of faked (yet realistic) abuse between two married characters after the supposed infidelity of the wife (who happens to be the actual, real-life daughter of Vince McMahon, the sick man who runs the WWE), fans were interviewed saying "She had it coming," "She deserved it," etc. It was sad to see teenage boys saying this stuff, but even worse were the women and girls who looked to be about my age. Were they just so glad that they were on the sidelines, so glad they weren't the ones being called sluts, that they honestly couldn't see that the woman out there was one of "them" (meaning one of their own gender)?
Yes, we love our big fake boobs and our fake blood and our fake pain in this great nation. Especially since there are lots of impressionable (stupid?) people out there willing to replicate the entire experience in a horrifyingly real way. I don't think these people on these shows realize how much of a backward impact they are having on society. Or else they do realize it and enjoy the power it gives them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 08:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 11:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 08:29 am (UTC)However, given that people have their freedom in this country, not a one of them was forced into it. Whether you agree with their choices of profession is irrelevant. They choose to pantomime these acts. And not without substantial compensation, I might add. Restrictiveness ostensibly not being part of the liberal mindset, I'm surprised to hear you arguing against something like this on a moral level, which is exactly what the fundamentalist conservatives do.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 11:42 am (UTC)But just because I morally oppose the WWE doesn't mean I'm somehow faltering in my Liberalness. In fact, as a Liberal feminist I think it's really important to be ready to argue against something this damaging to society and to the modern roles women have worked so hard to achieve--not to censor the program, but to try to raise audience awareness as to the backward, barbaric nature of what they are seeing.
The end of the documentary was actually about how WWE is some of the most conservative programming on TV--it enforces the idea that men are superior to women and that women should (literally) be on their knees at the mercy of men. Sure, it portrays this with a violent, "rebellious" tone, and I'm not implying that the average Conservative condones this behavior. But it's important to note that the actual restrictiveness present here isn't my feeling about the show but the content of the show itself.
I'm well aware of the difference between conservatism as a way of thinking (for instance, thinking that women are not equal to men simply because they were not considered equal in the past) and the act of being a political Conservative (many Conservative men and women are advocates of women being given the same opportunity for high-powered positions and success in general). However, it's interesting to note that The Rock was a guest at the Republican National Convention a few years back. Do with that information what you will, but he certainly wasn't stirring up unrestrictive liberal-ness in the political ring the way he stirs up adrenaline rushes in the "unrestrictive" wrestling ring.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 12:04 pm (UTC)If this is what you believe, then your definition of conservative ideology is irrevocably flawed. If you tried to present an argument against the conservative ideology on that basis, it'd be struck down as both anonymous authority and style over substance fallacies. In addition, I think the part about The Rock is a red herring. His personal political affiliation, nor the personal affiliations of any of the wrestlers, are at issue here.
The example of ideological conservatism you presented is, itself, a prejudicial language and style over substance fallacy. I have yet to see a moderate ideological conservative argue anything of the sort. Radicals, perhaps. Not moderates, and defining a situation by anything other than the average isn't productive. An average conservative wants true equality and opportunity, not special protections under the law. An average conservative is an egalitarian at heart. It's problematic that many liberals arguing the difference between liberalism and conservatism present the situation in such a way that the term "conservatism" is either anathema to normalcy, or the same definition that was used in the period of the Enlightenment. It's not. Two hundred years and more have passed since the great eighteenth-century philosophers defined the two terms, and societal ideologies are nothing if not fluid. You may encounter radicals who do fit the mold you showed above. I would wager, however, that the vast majority of ideological conservatives would reject that statement utterly.
(P.S. - Debating with you is fun. ^_^)
jumping into debates is fun! :)
Date: 2004-09-23 01:37 pm (UTC)Re: jumping into debates is fun! :)
Date: 2004-09-23 01:41 pm (UTC)Re: jumping into debates is fun! :)
Date: 2004-09-23 01:48 pm (UTC)I'm Danni, by the way. *shakes your hand*
Re: jumping into debates is fun! :)
Date: 2004-09-23 02:16 pm (UTC)I think one can pursue an action which has elements that offends one's morals, yet which is a right action. For example: I disagree on a moral level with the concept of abortion. However, I also disagree with taking away the right to have them. So, my course of action is determined what I believe to be moral, but rather, what I believe to be right. My morals aren't relevant for you or anyone else, really, so I can't argue a position in a logical debate based on those.
Besides, most people have conflicting morals, which makes morals even harder to use as the centerpiece of an argument.
I'm Patrick, as my replies should indicate. I've known Katie for, what, four years, now? :D
Re: jumping into debates is fun! :)
Date: 2004-09-23 02:35 pm (UTC)Re: jumping into debates is fun! :)
Date: 2004-09-23 02:36 pm (UTC)Re: jumping into debates is fun! :)
Date: 2004-09-23 02:52 pm (UTC)too lazy to read all the comments
Date: 2004-09-23 07:59 pm (UTC)Re: too lazy to read all the comments
Date: 2004-09-23 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 11:00 pm (UTC)