Showing posts with label Masculinity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Masculinity. Show all posts

Sunday, December 5, 2010

WWE, Wrestling, and Popular Culture

As children, adolescents, and adults we are ubiquitously exposed to images regarding gender in the media; we are bombarded with messages reinforcing gender stereotypes and social norms. The World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) provides examples of how to be a man by wrapping displays of hegemonic masculinity around what many consider to be a male version of a soap opera. In the WWE world, men define their masculinity by bullying others, often using vocal taunts which include derogatory comments as regards to women and gay men. Women are portrayed in a hyper-sexualized manner while beaten, humiliated, and at times stripped of their clothing. This behavior is reinforced by the WWE’s story lines that lead announcers and audiences to conclude that these women have somehow brought the punishment upon themselves. With a worldwide viewing audience of more than 14 million fans weekly, the WWE inundates viewers with messages about gender roles thereby reinforcing the acceptability of violence against women in our culture.

Men & Masculinity

Masculinity in our culture is often represented in one of several ways. The version discussed here is often referred to as hegemonic masculinity. Men are expected to possess qualities such as being physically strong, in control of their emotions, and dominate. This type of masculinity is often represented in our popular culture through beer commercials and sporting events. Research has shown that the WWE frames masculinity as: real men are aggressive and violent, men settle things physically, a man confronts his adversaries and problems, real men take responsibility for their actions, men are not whiners, and that men are winners (Soulliere, 2006). In an effort to defend their manhood, wrestlers will question other men’s masculinity. This can be done by referring to other men in terms reserved for women, such as bitch, sissy, and pussy, or by questioning their heterosexuality. Other ways of reinforcing their manhood is by using women as props, sometimes forcing themselves on the women of the WWE world. In this imaginary world women are portrayed as enjoying this forcible kiss. In one episode we see Lita, a female wrestler who is unconscious, and Dean Malenko who walks up to her lifeless body, we see him grab her and make out with her. We then hear one of the announcers, Jerry Lawler, saying “She likes it, she likes it!” (Jhally, 2003). So we see this image of men perpetuating violence against women in a sexual manor and it is being glorified.

Men’s heterosexuality must also be reinforced because of the homosexual overtones that exist. These connotations are squashed with images of men forcing themselves upon women and by devaluing wrestling characters in the WWE world that display any nuance of homosexuality.

The women of the WWE are primarily used as demonstrations of the men’s heterosexuality, thus dispelling any notion of homosexuality.

Women of the WWE

Before the 1990’s women were not represented much in the WWE except to accompany a man to the ring, generally as a girlfriend or wife. Now “the conventions of pornography have made their way more and more into the main stream” (Jhally, 2003). Women resembling porn stars are used to “provide a spectacle for men” (Jhally, 2003), all the while reinforcing their heterosexuality. Women play small parts in the WWE and are often seen as “bit players in a male narrative, as sexual playthings” (Jhally, 2003). Men abusing and humiliating women is offered as entertainment; when this occurs it is almost always presented in the context that the woman deserves it or her actions have led to the punishment. “When you make this sort of abuse fun and entertaining, it has the effect of normalizing, justifying, and rationalizing men’s violence against women” (Jhally, 2003).

In the WWE there is also glamorization of sexual assault in the workplace and the humiliation of women in relationships. During one episode Trish Stratus’ punishment for crossing Vince McMahon, the owner of the WWE and her theoretical lover, is to get on her hands and knees and bark like a dog. That wasn’t enough though, she was then told to remove her clothing, further humiliating her. Vince McMahon’s justification for this when questioned by Debra Austin, Steve “Stone Cold” Austin’s wife, is that Trish deserved it because she is trash (Jhally, 2003).

All in the Name of Entertainment

It has been argued that the WWE is just entertainment; it’s a soap opera for men, and there is no harm in a little fun. Soulliere’s study (2006) found there to be positive messages in the WWE such as “encouraging responsibility, accepting defeat gracefully, and success through winning” (p. 9). But the messages that are being sent and received by the audiences who watch WWE programs are more insidious than the fans may realize. The WWE’s display of hegemonic masculinity leaves little room for alternative forms of masculinity, “such as non-violent, emotionally centered masculinity,” (Soulliere, 2006, p. 9) which is often ridiculed. Men who internalize this dominant form of masculinity may be putting themselves at physical and psychological risk and men who emulate this hyper- masculinized culture “provide erroneous justification for physical and sexual aggression against women . . . the WWE messages stifle both minority and homosexual versions of manhood” (Soulliere, 2006, p. 9). The beating of women shown in the framework of a story line creates desensitization to this violence and makes it more difficult for fans to relate to the victim because they are rooting for the aggressor. In order for us to change the culture of abuse and violence we need to “confront the jokes that are at the basis” (Jhally, 2003) of it.

Conclusion

The WWE is a part of the culture that is represented in the spectrum of violence against women. On one end of the spectrum there is physical violence that actually occurs in reality and on the other end are culturally significant mediums that create imaginary worlds, where there are no consequences for the violence. This is what creates a culture that is more accepting towards violence against women. There is no causation between professional wrestling and violence against woman, but it does provide a culture that is conducive for it. It provides a narrative where women become objects and are viewed for their sexuality, not as human beings. In addition to its degrading depiction of women, the WWE also provide a “hyper-masculine wrestling subculture” that is “infused with homophobic anxiety” (Katz, & Jhally, 2000). By only providing a hegemonic form of masculinity the WWE has taken us back fifty years to where sexual harassment in the workplace is deemed acceptable, beating up women is OK if they deserved it, and alternative forms of masculinity are deemed as weaknesses. So while many may argue that this is just entertainment and to not take it seriously, there are lasting effects on our popular culture and the viewers who watch it.

Works Cited

Jhally, S. (Director). (2003). Wrestling with manhood boys, bullying, and battering [VHS]. Northampton: Media Education Foundation.

Katz, J., & Jhally, S. (2000, February 13). Manhood on the mat: the problem i snot that pro wrestling makes boys violent. the real lesson of the widly popular pdeudo-sport is more insidious. The Boston Globe, Retrieved from http://www.jacksonkatz.com/manhood.html on 2010, December 5

Soulliere, D. (2006). Wrestling with masculinity: messages about manhood in the wwe. Sex Roles, 55. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/content/h10w36l087v288k5/ doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9055-6

Written by Kari Anne McDonald

Friday, September 11, 2009

How to Be/Not Be a "Nice Guy"




by Sarah Jeanne Lombardo
PCC Sylvania

A group of men gathered several times at my school to discuss the need for a Men's Resource Center on campus. Now, I'm all for Men's Resource Centers as places where fellas can gather to discuss and then change the ways society constructs and maintains gender norms--i.e., that men are perfect and stoic and strong and should beat up anyone who says they're not (which usually means calling them womanly or gay), and women are pretty and polite and accommodating and should never say or do anything offensive (like talk about the ways "being accommodating" harms women). I'm all for MRCs as places where dudes can put together programs that help other dudes be nicer to themselves and women, especially where "be nicer" means stop hating women and gays or anything about themselves that could be considered womanly or gay.

From what I hear, some of the discussions have been about how unhealthy these gender roles are. But most of the conversations have been about the ways that men are made to feel bad about being men. The example that keeps coming up is a poster (full disclosure: I co-created this poster) for a school-sponsored play that discussed how women are treated on campus after sexual assault, and how these create an unfriendly atmosphere for women in higher ed. The poster featured a close-up shot of a man with very "angry hands" taking off his belt, presumably to assault someone, either physically or sexually (and yes, I know the latter encompasses the former). Below the image was the quote "1 in 3 college men say they would rape a woman if they thought they could get away with it."*

The discussion regarding this posters often consisted of "this poster says all men want to rape women, and I don't rape women, so this if unfair." Of course, that's not what the poster said, and if anything is unfair, it's the stuff women do on a daily basis to protect themselves from rape, or the things guys get away with because women are afraid they might get attacked if they say something, but I do see how men who don't rape might get itchy when they believe someone is calling them a rapist. Unfortunately, the discussion rarely veered toward "what can we do about it," and when it did, the answer was never "ask men why they might feel rape is something you don't do because it's illegal, not because it's wrong--and then work on ways they can stop."

The answer was either "get women to stop saying these things" or "we should prove to women that we're the nice guys." While the former was just dangerous--if we don't say these things we don't get any closer to stopping these things from happening--the latter was really misguided. The group pondered volunteering at a shelter for raped and/or battered women. When, afterward, one of the participants asked me how I felt about it, I didn't really offer an opinion, but I did wonder aloud if men were even allowed to volunteer at shelters, since women might want to recover from the trauma of their male partners' violence in the absence of males. His response was a kinda sorta chest-thumpy "but I'm not her husband...she needs to see that I'm a nice guy!"

This was frustrating for multiple reasons--the most important being it was just plain selfish. Dudes should work with survivors of domestic and sexual violence because they want to help women become empowered after a thoroughly horrifying experience, not because they want to look good. Moreover, if the space they want to work in doesn't really work well if they're there, and they refuse to accept a policy that addresses this, they are failing to recognize the importance and validity of a safe space. In failing this, they reaffirm the idea they should be welcome into any space on their terms. Barging into a space to say they're not the barging-in type isn't really nice. The first thing guys have to do to prove they're nice is listen to women when they say they're doing it wrong.

Now, I understand that this argument is hard to swallow--what's the difference between not allowing men into a shelter and not allowing women into the military, or blacks onto a golf course? What's the point of sheltering women from men, when they're just going to be encountering men in their daily lives once they get out of the shelter? Et cetera. I don't agree with these lines of thinking, but I know it takes a lot of education to get away from them, so I don't push it. I did, however, impress this:

Women don't just want nice guys to prove they're nice guys, they want nice guys to help other less-than-nice guys be nice guys. There are a lot of spaces that work with survivors of domestic and sexual violence, but not nearly enough places that work with perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence. Men need to create these spaces, and better yet, create spaces where they can discuss with other non-perpetrators ways they might develop perpetrator-y tendencies, before they actually get to perpetrating. Something like.....a Men's Resource Center, informed by feminism, and for the betterment of men and women and everyone outside and in-between! HUZZAH!


*Some places the 1-in-3 statistic has been published:


Fisher, B., and J. Sloan III (1995). Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

Koss M.P., Dinero, T.E., Seibel, C.A. Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim's experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1988:12:1-24.

Malamuth N.M. Rape proclivity among males. J Soc Issues. 1981;37:138-157.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Eyes Wide Open: Will the dominant one please stand up?


by Talia Jae Potter

I have joined twitter... I caved in. I am finding it quite interesting because, instead of using it as yet another social network, I am following news media that is unbiased and groups or people who discuss topics that are close to me.

One such person I added admits to being a feminist man and thinks strong, driven women are great and likes to be the submissive one in the relationship. I don't know this guy but he does have some interesting points to make. So we struck up a conversation about dominance in relationships....

His opinion was that women deserve to be the dominant leader in the relationship and for a lot of men this is attractive. He states that gender roles are an issue and media peg holes us into stereotypes. I agree somewhat with him but asked this....

"Why does there need to be a dominant person in the relationship?"

His response was that women who are natural leaders and men who are submissive are a good match. I guess I can see how this is true. Two highly competitive leaders in a relationship could get ugly when it turns into a competition for success. It could also be a power-house couple.

But in reality wouldn't a relationship with two EQUAL partners be best? Idealistic at best but it seems to me that there is this strong push, on both sides of the topic, for one or the other gender to dominate, leaving the other to submit. Relationships are full of moments where one person may take over and the other backs down but I would like to think that equals, no matter the gender, sexuality, etc.., would be the most successful in their partnership.

This whole dominance vs submission argument reminds me of another hot topic: Why does there have to be good vs bad?

Why can't we just be......

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Guest Contributor: On Virginity

(originally posted 4/09 at wordpress.com)

Photobucket
by Daphne

What a strange concept virginity is. The idea behind such a status can be mind-boggling. How do we give meaning to virginity individually? There are a multitude of differing notions on which activities one can lose their virginity doing. The dictionary defines virginity as never having experienced intercourse. However, many would interpret it otherwise. Certain sexual acts would be included and others would be excluded. The definition of virginity is socially and contextually constructed, therefore the very conception of virginity is culturally based, not something one can reliably base on fact or certainty.

Eyes Wide Open: Manhandle

(originally posted 4/09 at wordpress.com)

Photobucket
by Talia Jae Potter

–verb (used with object), -dled, -dling.
1. to handle roughly.
2. to move by human strength, without the use of mechanical appliances.
(Dictionary.com)

Pronunciation: \ˈman-ˌhan-dəl\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1851
1 : to handle roughly
2 : to move or manage by human force
(Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Wow. I was just pondering the word manhandle. What does it mean, where does it come from, why do we use it. I have used it. I looked the word up in a few dictionaries and found approximately the same answer in every one. "To handle roughly."

What does this mean? It's a very simple example of ways that society have used a term to consciously, or subconsciously, ingrain the idea of what a man should be. I know it may seem completely ridiculous to look at a word like this and analyze it but I do. This is telling men, yet again, that to be a man you must be rough, strong, dominating, etc... At least this is my perspective of what it is saying in the undertones. The fact that this word has been in the dictionary and used commonly for over 150 years is amazing.

I believe men have so much to live up to in order to fit into society's idea of what a man should be that it is really detrimental to men as much as to women. If a man isn't overtly strong, rough-and-tough, dominating, overt, boastful, then is he not a man? Of course not. But what does that tell men anyway? That in order to be seen as a man in society as well as to women they must fit into this very tight, tiny box.

Sexism is hurting women in so many ways but it is also hurting men just the same. It is a shame.