Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only
KawadaSmile

#SpeakingOut: Industry-wide sexual misconduct (assault/harrassment/grooming/etc) accusations and their repercussions

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, El-P said:

Well, you have not understood what I said. I said that the meaning of a proposition can't be deciphered in a vacuum. Language doesn't work in a vacuum.

[…]

Now, "She's super hot" can absolutely be an inappropriate, objectifying or even worse proposition. But everything can be an horrifying proposition. Any word of any kind can be used to produce a godawful discourse. But there's no word or proposition in a vacuum that is absolutely anything. 

You may feel i have misunderstood you again, but I’m confused here: If language doesn’t work in a vacuum (a belief I share), then I’m kind of unsure about your final point here. Why does it matter if, in a vacuum, any word can be innocuous? We live in a specific context, and these words have a significance that we ignore at our own peril— this is my entire argument, I thought. (My position, however, is that we don’t get to insist on our own ‘intended’ meaning.)

I don’t want to get into a debate, because we are seeing this issue completely differently, but this part is unclear to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, delacroix said:

You may feel i have misunderstood you again, but I’m confused here: If language doesn’t work in a vacuum (a belief I share), then I’m kind of unsure about your final point here. Why does it matter if, in a vacuum, any word can be innocuous? We live in a specific context, and these words have a significance that we ignore at our own peril— this is my entire argument, I thought. (My position, however, is that we don’t get to insist on our own ‘intended’ meaning.)

In a vacuum, words don't mean anything. They're just a symbolic system. So yeah, there's no "bad word". And when you say we live in specific context, yes, but there is not one single context, there's thousands of differents contexts (we could call them micro-contexts) made of thousands of different elements inside which the language is produced. To reduce those infinity of contexts to the specifics of "patriarchal society in which women are objectified" (which is not wrong, per say) is locking the entirety of language into a grid of interpretation that does not necassarily applies to the conditions (when, how, where, to whom, by whom etc...) of production of the proposition (whatever it is, in this case "She's super hot").

I hope it's a bit clearer now, but again I apologize if it's not as I'm trying to express notions that are quite a bit complex already in my native language and I may not use the right/exact technical linguistic terms in English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look. I feel like everyone here pretty much agrees that there should be zero tolerance for this kind of conduct in today's world. It's not the same environment as it was in the 80s, and I think that evolution is both progressive and necessary in all fields of sports and entertainment.

But, I just gotta say, it's pretty gross to have people assume they just instinctively know which apologies are sincere and which aren't.

It's also unnerving to have grown adult men pretend to not notice something as simple and obvious as physical attraction. "I don't notice beauty" or "I don't describe how someone looks." GTFO with that noise. Physical attraction is literally biology. You can act as woke as you want & be as politically correct as your little heart will allow, but you're not going to get any pats on the back or receive any awards for pretending you don't notice an attractive person when you see one.

Being considerate and a decent human being doesn't require you to say stupid shit like that. Of course you notice someone with "hot" features. That doesn't make you a fucking rapist or a part of this circus. Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add this and end with the linguistic shit because enough is enough already (:lol:). Language is a two-way street. There's coding and there's decoding. And the individual coding is not necessarily responsible when there's something faulty in the decoding. Basically what I'm getting at here is that : people who get offended always think they are justified because of their emotions, but sometimes, the reality is that people are offended but they are in the wrong. But because they are guided by their emotions, they can't accept this fact (and again, it's human, we ALL do this).

Because you (or me) are offended by something doesn't mean that you (or me) are necessarily right to be offended. Sometime you (or me) are making a mistake. And it's not easy to see because emotions, especially negative emotions, are very strong, and we always rather be right anyway.

Ok, out with the linguistics and cognitive bias talk. My brain is gonna fry any minute now !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SomethingSavage said:

It's also unnerving to have grown adult men pretend to not notice something as simple and obvious as physical attraction. "I don't notice beauty" or "I don't describe how someone looks." GTFO with that noise. Physical attraction is literally biology. You can act as woke as you want & be as politically correct as your little heart will allow, but you're not going to get any pats on the back or receive any awards for pretending you don't notice an attractive person when you see one.

Being considerate and a decent human being doesn't require you to say stupid shit like that. Of course you notice someone with "hot" features. That doesn't make you a fucking rapist or a part of this circus. Jesus.

Who is pretending/arguing this? This honestly seems like an indignant response to an imaginary argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SomethingSavage said:

But, I just gotta say, it's pretty gross to have people assume they just instinctively know which apologies are sincere and which aren't.

Not sure if you mean me for questioning whether Jimmy Havoc's choosing to go into rehab is sincere or just another scumbag move to cover his ass and is actually part of his pattern of abuse, but I stand by it, because women on Twitter have specifically pointed out all the ways Havoc has used his mental illness to continue to manipulate and control them. 

I do hope rehab works anyway and somehow makes Jimmy Havoc a better man even if that's not his intention, but I'd be lying if I said I believed that was going to be the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. You got me. I fabricated an imaginary argument. Christ, some of y'all are beyond weird.

You guys have been here through this whole thread. Both points were made a few pages back. Not everyone lives with their faces in their phones or constantly checking here to comment back and forth. My response is a little late, because I'm just now reading through those posts. And no. I didn't use the quote feature because I'm both on my phone and at work.

I said what I said. It's all stupid. Feel free to carry on pretending you don't notice tiddies or talking about the definition of language or whateverthefuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SomethingSavage said:

I didn't use the quote feature because I'm both on my phone and at work.

Something most people might not know: If you highlight a specific sentence or paragraph, a little "Quote selection" button will pop up. Makes this board so much easier to use.

Not sure if it works on mobile though - I've never tried it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, C.S. said:

Not sure if it works on mobile though - I've never tried it there.

Quoted this on mobile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, C.S. said:

Not sure if you mean me for questioning whether Jimmy Havoc's choosing to go into rehab is sincere or just another scumbag move to cover his ass and is actually part of his pattern of abuse, but I stand by it, because women on Twitter have specifically pointed out all the ways Havoc has used his mental illness to continue to manipulate and control them. 

I do hope rehab works anyway and somehow makes Jimmy Havoc a better man even if that's not his intention, but I'd be lying if I said I believed that was going to be the outcome.

Speaking from experience, those can be aspects of mental illness though. I have a family member with some severe issues and there was a nightmare decade with them until they decided to stay on their medication. 20 years later, completely fine and a better person than they ever were but the decade was beyond a nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El-P said:

In a vacuum, words don't mean anything. They're just a symbolic system. So yeah, there's no "bad word". And when you say we live in specific context, yes, but there is not one single context, there's thousands of differents contexts (we could call them micro-contexts) made of thousands of different elements inside which the language is produced. To reduce those infinity of contexts to the specifics of "patriarchal society in which women are objectified" (which is not wrong, per say) is locking the entirety of language into a grid of interpretation that does not necassarily applies to the conditions (when, how, where, to whom, by whom etc...) of production of the proposition (whatever it is, in this case "She's super hot").

I hope it's a bit clearer now, but again I apologize if it's not as I'm trying to express notions that are quite a bit complex already in my native language and I may not use the right/exact technical linguistic terms in English.

I think you are probably right about ending this specific avenue of discussion, but I would like to draw out one final point:

When you say that there are thousands of ‘micro-contexts,’ you are right, of course. However, I believe you are overstating how independent they are of the larger, dominant cultural context. Often, I think, they simply reproduce the systemic inequalities of the dominant culture in their own ways and with their own idiosyncrasies. Certainly, professional wrestling is, if anything, somehow even more oppressive and abusive to women than the larger culture, and, this being the specific micro-context under examination, then I would argue even more forcefully that seemingly benign expressions like ‘She’s super hot’ are problematic. 

You’re right that words are, in and of themselves, neutral, but I don’t think they can ever exist outside of these contexts. The reason that these words matter is because they reflect systems of oppression and exploitation. It’s about power, who has it, and who doesn’t. We can argue that individuals are able to break free of these constraints (maybe this is the ‘I don’t see color’ position?), but I don’t buy that. And even if they are, I would argue that they still need to be mindful of how others hear their words, regardless, because those words can still have unintended effects.

Again, I know that this is possibly going to be an unpopular opinion, but I felt like it should be in the mix. (In addition, as you say, this is a complex theory discussion, and I’m not really a theory guy, so it’s likely that I’m not expressing my own points very well, despite it being my first language.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, love this type of discussion because I love theory.

 

Now, it seems that over a dozen people have accused Joey Ryan of some sort of sexual misconduct, ranging from "just" sending unsolicited dick picks to flirting with underage girls, to rape and sexual assault. And those are the accusations we know of.

Fucking hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, delacroix said:

When you say that there are thousands of ‘micro-contexts,’ you are right, of course. However, I believe you are overstating how independent they are of the larger, dominant cultural context. Often, I think, they simply reproduce the systemic inequalities of the dominant culture in their own ways and with their own idiosyncrasies. Certainly, professional wrestling is, if anything, somehow even more oppressive and abusive to women than the larger culture, and, this being the specific micro-context under examination, then I would argue even more forcefully that seemingly benign expressions like ‘She’s super hot’ are problematic. 

By micro-context I rather meant a singular situation of interaction, not something like another macro socio-cultural (or economical) context like say "pro-wrestling" (which is still macro). Basically, two people in a room discussing, to take the simplest, most basic one. And from there it's full of tons of elements constituting the situation of interaction, which can indeed take in account a relationship of power and domination (a boss and his employee, a trainer and his trainee), but not necessarily.

But anyway, this discussion was basically moving away from the matters at hand here as I was making a much more general remark about how "She's super hot" was not problematic in itself. Of course that's really neither here nor there considering what was said in the discussion in question !

25 minutes ago, KawadaSmile said:

Now, it seems that over a dozen people have accused Joey Ryan of some sort of sexual misconduct, ranging from "just" sending unsolicited dick picks to flirting with underage girls, to rape and sexual assault. And those are the accusations we know of.

Fucking hell.

*gasp* 

Fucking hell indeed. Way to make me feel shitty about having both enjoyed and defended this guy's work before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, KawadaSmile said:

I, for one, love this type of discussion because I love theory.

 

Now, it seems that over a dozen people have accused Joey Ryan of some sort of sexual misconduct, ranging from "just" sending unsolicited dick picks to flirting with underage girls, to rape and sexual assault. And those are the accusations we know of.

Fucking hell.

He's in what I call Cosby territory. That's when even if 90% of the accusations are pure bullshit you are still a serial offender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mad Dog said:

He's in what I call Cosby territory. That's when even if 90% of the accusations are pure bullshit you are still a serial offender. 

I was actually thinking the exact same thing. It's appalling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, El-P said:

I was actually thinking the exact same thing. It's appalling. 

It is. My friend was asking about UK wrestlers and I told him it was probably easier to just ask who wasn't a piece of shit than to name the guilty people. And I wasn't even joking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, thoughts for the friends and former partners who trusted him and did not know about his actions, who must feel like shit right now in a mix of feeling totally betrayed, maybe guilt of not having seen it and whatnot. This is just awful on so many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact has officially fired Joey Ryan and Dave Crist, and Mike Elgin was suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sek69 said:

Impact has officially fired Joey Ryan and Dave Crist, and Mike Elgin was suspended.

Were there were new Elgin allegations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Migs said:

Were there were new Elgin allegations?

Sent an unsolicited dick pic to a female wrestler. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been following this closely for reasons I mentioned earlier, but I hope people are looking at this as both individual offenses and systemic problems. There is a need to uproot both. Pro wrestling has fostered an environment like this since the beginning of time. It's not unique in that regard when compared to sports or other forms of entertainment, although it's easier for some involved to justify looking the other way because of the secrecy surrounding wrestling in particular and ideas that wrestlers should live their gimmicks. Even in the latter territory days, babyfaces were expected to "take care" of the women on the road so that they would come back. I made the comment to someone before all of this that more than any great matches or changing the landscape post-WCW and ECW, the ultimate legacy of the 2001-present generation might be that they cleaned up wrestling. I was basing that on it seeming to be a more fan friendly business with less scam artists and less wrestlers dying young. I feel pretty stupid for that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×