Identity politics and wrestling

[funkdoc]

Having binge-watched a lot of Shonda Rhimes TV in the last few weeks, it really stood out to me in that match how WWE could stand to be a lot more racially and ethnically diverse at the top of the card. It's nothing new, but it does lead me to believe that's at least part of what holds them back.

 

yeeeeepppppp

 

this could probably be its own thread, but...

 

i know you wonder why modern heels don't get booed, and i actually think this has a lot to do with it. what i mean here is twofold:

 

1. lack of attention to diversity means the promotions aren't tapping into issues their audience genuinely cares about. imagine if you had a woman asking the fans for money to make a documentary on sexism in wrestling - you don't think that would get NUCLEAR heat if done decently? there's also the issue of not having good enough writers to pull off this sort of thing, as i doubt things have changed much there since muhammad hassan. but let's face it, you need something more hot-button than IN SOVIET RUSSIA to connect emotionally.

 

2. i remember loss saying "if someone is an asshole the fans will hate them" and others arguing that isn't true at least in today's indies. i think there's a clear explanation for at least some of this - the core wrestling fanbase has gotten much nerdier since even the 90s. misanthropy is at the heart of a lot of modern nerd culture, which is probably most blatant in stand-up comedy; if i had a nickel for every comedian whose entire act was "hey look i'm a lonely pathetic human being who hates everyone!", i could go get that grilled-cheese-sandwich-burger monstrosity from jack in the box right now! it's not uncommon to see the internet genuinely identify with characters who were meant to be arrogant and loathsome, such as dr. house or (a much more extreme example) ignatius j. reilly. i mean shit, walter white is a bigger merch mover than anybody in wrestling these days!

 

in short, being an asshole is often seen as a GOOD thing by the type of people likely to pay to see a wrestling show live, especially indies. i think promotions currently don't quite "get" their fanbase, and that's a far bigger issue than any aspect of the wrestlers' performances. it's strange because the WWF nailed that in the late 90s with antihero characters on top, but i guess going public led them to go a "safe" route that in reality is hurting their ceiling...

[anarchistxx]

 

 

1. lack of attention to diversity means the promotions aren't tapping into issues their audience genuinely cares about. imagine if you had a woman asking the fans for money to make a documentary on sexism in wrestling - you don't think that would get NUCLEAR heat if done decently?

 

Don't know what you are getting at here. Because this was not be a good idea at all. The male dominated WWE audience would boo a woman out of the building for such a promo, if she started talking about equal pay and how women are treated as sex objects to be gaped at for their tits rather than admired for their wrestling ability. It would be pretty embarrassing to WWE that their fans are exposed as sexist misogynists with archaic attitudes, and probably damaging in terms of advertisers.

[El-P]

Yeah, pushing things even further, a feminist character talking about gender theory and rape culture would be a big time heel in WWE, really.

[JerryvonKramer]

I really want to see that!!

 

 

Would be an AWESOME heel.

[JerryvonKramer]

In fact, I may have to fantasy book a feminist gender theorist's heel run, but I might do it in early 80s Mid South.

[anarchistxx]

Only last night Sgt Slaughter was enthusiastically cheered for verbally abusing a woman by screaming in her face and using threatening, intimidating body language towards her.

 

Don't think the introduction of third wave feminism into an angle would have any positive consequences at all, except for creating an extremely hated heel and having the WWE audience baying for Randy Orton to RKO her after she cut a promo on victim blaming and gender role stereotyping.

[JerryvonKramer]

Oh come on, this could be one of the all-time great angles!

[El-P]

Only last night Sgt Slaughter was enthusiastically cheered for verbally abusing a woman by screaming in her face and using threatening, intimidating body language towards her.

 

Yeah. Was I the only one to think that this segment was awful ? I mean, Slaughter could only act that way because he had the power on his side, otherwise Rusev would have killed him without blinking. In this situation, Slaughter was absolutely portrayed as being a total *institutionnal* bully, and he was supposed to be a babyface ! The fact that he focused on the woman instead of the big guy was even more disturbing. Lana's acting and funny faces kinda saved it, but really, the whole thing was totally ass-backward. It's like Jake Roberts threatening to slap Liz after Savage had been KOed at Tuesday in Texas. Same dynamic exactly.

[anarchistxx]

Oh come on, this could be one of the all-time great angles!

 

Entertaining in all the wrong ways probably. WWE already struggles with the idea that the only adults they appeal to are misogynistic, misanthropic, backwards, socially awkward nerds. Having an angle where a liberal, progressive minded young woman gets booed for talking about institutionalized sexism in the wrestling industry would only contribute to that perception.

 

WWE still hasn't had a gay character where their homosexuality wasn't used for comedy value or as a brow for commentators and performers to snidely insult them over. Even an openly effeminate character like Fandango has to be accompanied by a woman to prevent any suggestion he is 'that way inclined'. That is a problem with all male sports, not just wrestling - but it is a lot easier for WWE to do something about it rather than soccer, as it controls the product.

[JerryvonKramer]

This might be a controversial point of view, but I actually don't want wrestling to be more progressive. I like the fact that it is a hermetically-sealed all-macho environment with its own warped morality system. It's more entertaining that way.

 

I see no point in complaining about gender politics in wrestling, just as I see no point in complaining about gender politics in rap. Hip-hop wouldn't be the same without dudes bragging about how many bitches they've fucked, and wrestling wouldn't be the same if it wasn't ridiculous in the ways you've outlined. I already hate the modern product, but a PC-approved modern product would be even worse.

 

I genuinely 100% think this. I guess a love of kitsch and amorality kinda go hand-in-hand.

 

"But what about your hatred of Kamala?" Yeah that's different.

[El-P]

This might be a controversial point of view, but I actually don't want wrestling to be more progressive. I like the fact that it is a hermetically-sealed all-macho environment with its own warped morality system. It's more entertaining that way.

 

Sure. We need more racist gimmick, chauvinist pig slapping women around and some Adrian Adonis-like character to make fun of gay people too.

 

Hip-hop wouldn't be the same without dudes bragging about how many bitches they've fucked,

 

Right. It would be much better actually.

 

I genuinely 100% think this. I guess a love of kitsch and amorality kinda go hand-in-hand.

 

Hum, no. There's nothing kitsch about a guy (especially a babyface) abusing a woman, or a gay-bashing gimmick, or jingoist babyface making xenophobic promos while getting huge cheers because they are drapped in the US flag. It sucks. It sucked then. It sucks even more now that society has progressed (not much, but still somewhat thankfully). Quite frankly I was embarrassed of watching WWF during the Iraki War feud when I was 14. And I didn't like Sherri being slapped around by babyface Hulk Hogan. It has nothing to do with PC either.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't care to discuss the politics or any of the surrounding issues. Wrestling makes more sense to me when Bill Watts is calling Jim Cornette a sissy and being cheered for it, and rap makes more sense to me when the rappers are bragging about their sexual prowess.

 

It is what it is. I wouldn't want either of them to change -- although I do understand and respect all the arguments for those who think differently.

[Dylan Waco]

Wrestling is an innately anti-PC form as the entire premise of the business is people solving their problems through violence and violence alone. Having said that, that is not necessarily an excuse to run explicitly anti- "PC" storylines and angles. I actually have a lot to say about this but I'm on my phone so I'll limit it to this now - I think many of the biggest advocates for "progressive" presentation in wrestling are really using that line as a Trojan horse criticism of corporate wrestling, and/or play favorites when it comes to who gets critical appraisal on those grounds.

[El-P]

Wrestling is an innately anti-PC form as the entire premise of the business is people solving their problems through violence and violence alone.

 

The premise of the business is that it was supposed to be a *fighting sport*, not a bad sitcom with people settling their real-life issues through violence. I guess that indeed became a problem when the actual *pro-wrestling match* isn't the focus anymore...

[Loss]

I'm going to split this off into its own thread, but I have to ask this question - if you take every controversial topic off the table *and* rules are not really enforced very much, what avenue does a heel have left to get heat? Are heels that don't offend anyone really heels? I generally think they can give any undesirable characteristic to a wrestler and it's fine, as long as that wrestler is presented as a hate-worthy heel.

 

EDIT: I'm removing this paragraph from my post. While it is true that I don't like the term "politically correct", this thread truly is not the place to hash that out. I shouldn't have shared that opinion at all.

[JerryvonKramer]

Wrestling doesn't form society's prejudices and attitudes, it feeds off them. If bullying a woman gets cheers, it's the crowd you need to look at, not the product. Promoters will do whatever to get over. Wrestling just isn't a big enough thing to be a mode for social change -- it's reflective and reactive, it follows trends, it doesn't set them. It's not the booker's job to re-educate or challenge his audience.

[El-P]

I'm going to split this off into its own thread, but I have to ask this question - if you take every controversial topic off the table *and* rules are not really enforced very much, what avenue does a heel have left to get heat? Are heels that don't offend anyone really heels? I generally think they can give any undesirable characteristic to a wrestler and it's fine, as long as that wrestler is presented as a hate-worthy heel.

 

You said the magic word here : heels. Of course I think even looking back that Colonel DeBeers was just pushing it too far, but really, I have no problem with a heel being a disgusting human being. He should be. Of course a heel can bully a woman like Jake Roberts did with Liz (if he finally gets his at the end of course). Of course a heel can provoke the crowd on nationalistic issues (although this is tricky and most of the time plays on the crowd's xenophobic nature) etc... My issue is when a babyface is acting like an asshole and is cheered for it, or is being put in position of abuse and gets cheered for it, like Sarge this past Monday. I thought this was cringeworthy and just as bad as anything Russo was doing in WCW (not to mention it made Rusev look like a balless idiot).

 

edit : well, since Charles removed his sentence about politically correct, I also remove my reply so there's no confusion. But yeah, I approve.

[Loss]

I took out my second paragraph complaining about use of the term "politically correct" and explaining why. It's not fair for me to say that and then say this isn't the thread to talk that out. Let's keep this on the right side and talk about these things in wrestling and not so much our personal politics, although I realize the two are hard to keep separate at times.

[BigBadMick]

I don't care to discuss the politics or any of the surrounding issues. Wrestling makes more sense to me when Bill Watts is calling Jim Cornette a sissy and being cheered for it, and rap makes more sense to me when the rappers are bragging about their sexual prowess.

 

It is what it is. I wouldn't want either of them to change -- although I do understand and respect all the arguments for those who think differently.

Have you been watching Channel 4's 'It was alright in the 1970s', Parv?

[NintendoLogic]

I'm going to split this off into its own thread, but I have to ask this question - if you take every controversial topic off the table *and* rules are not really enforced very much, what avenue does a heel have left to get heat? Are heels that don't offend anyone really heels? I generally think they can give any undesirable characteristic to a wrestler and it's fine, as long as that wrestler is presented as a hate-worthy heel.

 

Drawing heat without being truly offensive can't be that hard, since heels managed to do it for decades. Again, I go back to the example of Stampede Wrestling getting thrown off TV after Iron Mike DiBiase cut a promo calling the fans stupid. The thing is, wrestling is escapist entertainment. People watch to get away from the bullshit in their daily lives, not to be reminded of it. That's why guys like Colonel DeBeers and Muhammad Hassan had go-away heat.

[El-P]

That's a good point. After all, the basic reason why heels had heat, is because they were cheaters. They cheat to win. Nobody likes a cheater. Then you can add layers, but that was basically it.

[Dylan Waco]

 

 

Wrestling is an innately anti-PC form as the entire premise of the business is people solving their problems through violence and violence alone.

The premise of the business is that it was supposed to be a *fighting sport*, not a bad sitcom with people settling their real-life issues through violence. I guess that indeed became a problem when the actual *pro-wrestling match* isn't the focus anymore...

The promotion of wrestling has consistently been personalized, even in the era when it was closer to sport in presentation. Once angles and tv became the norm, the form shifted even more. To argue that the premise of tv era wrestling is not based on the settling of personal disputes/problems through violence is total nonsense.

[El-P]

To argue that the premise of tv era wrestling is not based on the settling of personal disputes/problems through violence is total nonsense.

 

 

It's not that they take a gun and shoot at each others. Wait, Brian Pillman actually pulled a gun on Austin. We know how well that was recieved.

 

Anway, I agree that the focus shifted, but we are still talking about guys whose profession is supposed to be "professionnal fighers in a ring competing for an eventual World Title". They are not office guys or factory workers or students all of a sudden settling all their differences in street fights. Personalized, of course, but in a particular fighting sport context to begin with. And most fight sports actually don't promote violence as a way of settling differences in your everyday life.

[JerryvonKramer]

Like I said here ...

 

Wrestling doesn't form society's prejudices and attitudes, it feeds off them. If bullying a woman gets cheers, it's the crowd you need to look at, not the product. Promoters will do whatever to get over. Wrestling just isn't a big enough thing to be a mode for social change -- it's reflective and reactive, it follows trends, it doesn't set them. It's not the booker's job to re-educate or challenge his audience.

What fuels cheers and boos is a projection of the audience's existing attitudes back on the audience.

 

You only need to look at how rules work in World of Sport and in Japan to see that a certain amount of culture is projected into and forms the product. British people have always always been incensed by foul play, and the heels in World of Sport are a 1 to 1 mirror of that. Kent Walton is an embodiment of it.

 

American society is a bit different. American heroes are cowboys, and renegades and outlaws. They don't mind breaking the rules if it achieves a goal for the greater good. It's a different value system and from Bruno to Hogan to Austin you see it reflected in the babyfaces.

 

Someone else can talk to Japan.

 

The point is culture comes BEFORE wrestling and then wrestling reflects it. It doesn't happen the other way around.

[jushin muta liger]

I don't care to discuss the politics or any of the surrounding issues. Wrestling makes more sense to me when Bill Watts is calling Jim Cornette a sissy and being cheered for it, and rap makes more sense to me when the rappers are bragging about their sexual prowess.

 

It is what it is. I wouldn't want either of them to change -- although I do understand and respect all the arguments for those who think differently.

I understand your thinking in terms of wrestling but times have changed. If you want wrestling to be like what your view is about hip hop then wrestling should be simple like it was in Mid South with Watts calling Cornette a sissy.

 

But with Hip Hop for me as a fan, it makes sense when it speaks to me in terms of life stories and struggles ( not by the amount of women someone has slept with). If you boil hip hop to just that aspect, then you never get to know what it truly is. Current hip hop is not like it was in the 90s with gangsta music so why should wrestling have people cheering for USA vs Russia, men berating women and gay men being made fun of.

 

With wrestling, times have changed and we need more nuances in the storyline and it needs to get more progressive. The best black character that WWE has had in recent time was Floyd Mayweather and he came as the baby face against Big Show. But fans turned on him cause he's rich, he's a natural asshole and he has a history of beating women.WWE only highlighted him being rich but fans weren't stupid. With a person like R-Truth or this New Day group, they are going to highlight every racial stereotype possible.

 

Wrestling doesn't have to highlight everything to get a reaction, just get stories that are relevant and let certain things for the audience to judge whether you like them or not.