Dave Meltzer stuff

[Loss]

I agree that the Dave-Peyton Royce interaction itself was what should happen in cases like this. He said something hurtful and offensive, the person hurt confronted him, and he issued a public apology. (He admittedly bungled that by calling her attractive again. Then he apologized again.) But now it's turning into something where Prichard, Russo, and Bischoff cultists, WWE apologists who don't like that he likes NJPW matches better, and more general Twitter trolls are using it for their own gain, and WWE wrestlers are piling on to get brownie points with company management and make it seem like they don't talk to him even though they do. (Charlotte in particular has probably known Dave Meltzer since she was a little girl, so she's not fooling anyone.)

The reason I'm likely to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one (while also thinking this hopefully puts an end to Dave's cheap Twitter gimmick) is that this is a guy who has championed women's wrestling for more than thirty years. Joshi was sort of viewed as this Harlem Globetrotters wrestling-like thing by Western fans (and wrestlers) until Dave started praising the athletes as being better than the men. His coverage of it affected the way that men worked. Before all of this surfaced, he was asked about why Aja Kong didn't work out in the WWF and pointed to her working style scaring old white men stuck in their ways. I'm not sure there's anyone else who has spoken out more about the treatment of women in wrestling than Dave Meltzer, although no, that doesn't give him a license to just say what he wants.

Some people are worth our contempt. Dave, as much as he deserves this public smack down in some ways, as it's the unavoidable end result of a Twitter gimmick that's beneath him, doesn't. Wrestlers are as spineless as ever when they go overboard to join the Dave pile-on and won't dare say anything critical of their own company's business practices in public. I used to sympathize with their position in that sense, but now I don't. 

[Jimmy Redman]

I won't have time to elaborate until later today, but I don't really like the idea of Dave Meltzer as a bastion of feminism in the business, or the idea that this was an isolated slip up that we can give him the benefit of the doubt for. In some ways that thinking is indicative of a much wider problem. 

[NintendoLogic]

Just to be clear, it wasn't a tweet that got him in hot water. It was something he said on Observer Radio. Making an ill-advised throwaway comment while speaking extemporaneously should not be a hanging offense, especially when so much of the expressed outrage is clearly in bad faith. Also, I thought Aja Kong not working out in the WWF was more due to her having no one to feud with after Madusa jumped to WCW.

[Loss]

I wouldn't go as far as to say he's a bastion of feminism at all. I'm not even sure I'd call it an isolated slip up so much since he's said things like this before. (I remember him commenting in a 1988 WON that the Jumping Bomb Angels were starting to look like Buddy Rose, which is honestly worse than what he said here, but was 30 years ago and for that reason won't get as much play.) I think it's more that he's wildly aloof and has covered wrestling so long that he's become numb to some of its worst practices. I don't know. I know I keep defending him, and that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to make sense of it, because there are parts of what he says and does that don't square with other parts at all, and it's a tough contradiction to make sense of.

[tim]

Dave is just a regular person who covers wrestling and makes comments about what his thoughts and impressions are, and since he doesn't take particular effort to make sure every single one of his comments fit into the space of political acceptability defined particularly by the most neurotic people who are constantly itching to find something to express their outrage about, he now and then gives opportunities for those people to find something to express their outrage about. It's hilarious that someone as benign as Dave attracts these kind of "controversies" now and then.

[donsem43]

Let's be honest: 1987 Meltzer would've called her Nia Snacks.

— Les Moore (@prowrestling) December 1, 2015

[Jimmy Redman]

OK. To be honest, I don't give much of a shit about Dave Meltzer. I'm not going to come in here and argue about the finer points of his personality or his Twitter pile on.

Who I do care about are the rest of you, the men in this thread, the men in my wider circle of a wrestling community, the men on wrestling Twitter (nightmare that it is to be sure). Particularly any of the men who have said or posted or even thought today that this isn't a big deal. That don't understand the fuss. That, in context, what he said was fine. That it has been blown out of proportion by SJWs or the outrage machine. That since he wasn't actually fat shaming her it was OK. That you agree with what he was saying.

It's you guys that worry me. That scare me. Because I'm pretty sure you mean well but I'm also pretty sure you don't fully understand the underlying problem.

Let's take a look at his actual comments, in context:

Quote

"I thought that they had a cool act in NXT and on the main roster, I don't get a thing out of them. I don't think their promos are particularly good. Their wrestling isn't good. I think Peyton Royce's transformation to look more attractive, I don't know. I don't want to say." - Dave

"She was more attractive in NXT?" - Bryan

"I thought so. Yes. To me, yes. But that's neither here nor there." - Dave

"No one is saying she's unattractive everybody." - Bryan

I know. No shit. I didn't say it at all. She doesn't stand out to me. When she was in NXT, she did..... She was a lot lighter."  - Dave

My emphasis. Because clearly the discussion was supposed to be about the Iconics as an act and why they are treading water on Smackdown. Which, sure, cool. But there is a GIGANTIC leap from the first parts of Dave's comment to the last. Promos, sure. Matches, sure, makes sense. But what on EARTH does the size of Peyton Royce's breasts have to do with the effectiveness (or not) of the Iconics as wrestlers?

Once more for the people in the back, what on EARTH does the size of Peyton Royce's breasts have to do with the effectiveness of the Iconics as wrestlers?

The answer is absolutely nothing. But we are in a society so utterly conditioned to see women's bodies as commodities and fair game that some people don't see the problem with equating one with the other. It IS a problem. Because her breasts have absolutely nothing to do with it and yet the most respected journalist we have in our world feels the need to bring them up as if they have any relevance to a discussion on wrestling.

I'm sure people feel like the Iconics have underwhelmed since moving to Smackdown (not relevant to the point but wow, an NXT act that gets lost once it gets called up! That never happens! Must be a mysterious, appearance-related explanation as to why that is!) and there could be any number of reasons why. Please, discuss them. Once more for the road, the size and shape of Peyton's breasts is not remotely one of them. Implying that they are by putting them in the same conversation as having bad promos or bad matches is a problem. If you didn't see or believe that before, please see it now.

Even if, EVEN IF it somehow were relevant, we still have the following exchange:

Quote

"She was more attractive in NXT?" - Bryan

"I thought so. Yes. To me, yes. But that's neither here nor there." - Dave

EVEN IF they were remotely trying to make a point about the size of Peyton's breasts having anything to do with wrestling, we still get the two of them straight up having a conversation about how he thinks she was more attractive before than she is now. Even if he was trying to speak in code about breast implants, that's what they said, those are the words they used. He thought she was more attractive before.

So once more, back to the chorus fellas, what on EARTH does how attractive you find Peyton Royce have to do with the Iconics as wrestlers?

This isn't a dude on Twitter talking about his #wcw, this is Dave and Bryan on their radio show discussing wrestling and introducing... THAT into the conversation. Oh you don't like her boob job? You think she was hotter before? Congratulations! Nobody fucking asked you. Least of all Peyton Royce. That's not wrestling discussion, it's not news, it's not analysis. It's objectifying.

Leave women's bodies alone. Leave women's breasts alone.

None of us are Peyton. None of us know the reasons why she decided to change her appearance in this way (assuming she did). But she is perfectly entitled to do what the fuck she wants with her body and look the way she wants. They're her breasts. This goes for Peyton, Alexa Bliss, Charlotte Flair, anyone else. They're her breasts and she can do what she wants with them. What's fucking weird is a bunch of dudes feeling so entitled to scrutinise her breasts and judge her for it. Women feel an overwhelming pressure to look attractive to men - pressure from outside, inside, conscious, subconscious. And no matter what they do to their bodies to look as good as they can, to feel comfortable with their appearance (especially women in the spotlight), there is always a man at the end going "Nah, you look worse now, you were hotter before." Congratulations. Nobody fucking asked you. Get in the bin.

There is a point to be made about the pressure that women in the spotlight feel about their appearance in general, and a point to be made particularly about WWE and what they want women to look like, even today. Any overt or even perceived pressure from WWE to the women to enlarge their breasts is a serious issue. But the way to make that point is NOT to shame the women that do enlarge their breasts. They are not remotely the problem here. They are entitled to do what they want with their own bodies, for whatever reasons, and don't owe their bodies to anyone for doing so. Even if they're a wrestler. Even if they're in the spotlight.

Leave women's bodies alone.

So I guess, please understand that this isn't much ado about nothing. It isn't about people mistaking benign comments for fat shaming. These aren't benign comments. He may not have meant them to be rude, or malicious, or objectifying, but he doesn't have to. SO MUCH of the misogyny and sexism in our society isn't malicious. It is simply ingrained. These comments and interactions that we can excuse as "benign" are the building blocks that create an environment that leads to more serious issues - maliciousness, harassment, assault, domestic violence. We have to call it out at every level. We have to see it. Acknowledge it. And ultimately, dismantle it.

One of the first steps can be, when you're having a discussion about why a wrestling act isn't working, leave their fucking breasts out of it. Start with that.

I'm terrified saying all this. Whenever sexism or gender issues come up in wrestling I become once again hyper aware that I am the only woman in a large group of men (or one of the only ones). It gives me a weird sense of... responsibility to use my voice as a woman and contribute to the discussion. But in turn I have a weird sense of expectation that I somehow have to represent the female gender for all of you guys, to speak for all women and come up with the answers. I'm not speaking for anyone else, and I don't have the answers. Today's nonsense isn't a black and white issue and I'm not saying Dave is a piece of shit and everyone trashing him is right and that's all there is. I said, I have no interest in discussing Dave's personality quirks or the Twitter meltdown that ensued. I only want to talk about his actual comments, and why they matter. Anyone could have said it and the point remains the same. I just hope anyone who isn't fully on board with the idea of his comments being problematic can try to take a step back and understand where women are coming from at times like this.

[sek69]

Dave was trying to do that thing he always does where he tries to say something by not saying it but alluding to it, in this case that WWE tends to want their women to get implants for reasons largely for the benefit of certain people in charge, but as his wont it was phrased badly. To his credit he fully owned it and hoped his mistake was a learning experience for others.

 

As far as Peyton, she absolutely has the right to do whatever she wants with her body and anyone who says otherwise can fuck right off. I'm just afraid based on history that her and others are doing things not because they wanted to, but because it's something that was impressed upon them by the company as a quid pro quo for career advancement. Same as when guys like Eddy juiced to the gills to get the look WWE wanted and it ends up negatively impacting their health.

[Bix]

Some people have defended Dave saying that he was saying that the implants have negatively affected her actual athletic performance. I don't believe that Dave had said that. That would certainly be a more legitimate avenue of discussion, but even if it was his intent, that's not something where he needed to be euphemistic, and there are better euphemisms ("Since she debuted on SmackDown...), anyway. 

[El-P]

3 hours ago, Jimmy Redman said:

I only want to talk about his actual comments, and why they matter. 

Ok, but in the grand scheme a things, what do you think matters most ? A stupid comment by Meltz about a worker's look on a weekly podcast or the fact the WWE is doing propaganda work for a State who treats women like second class citizens (among other things) in exchange for an insane amount of green (while promoting a "Women Evolution" PR campaign,  just as the cherry on a cake of showing no shame at all) ? One is not close to the other in term of fucking things up, at all.

Peyton Royce being angry : totally understood (I would be too).

Meltz apologizing : the right thing to do (I would have too).

Moral outrage galore and usual hive mentality : complete garbage and rogue waves of hypocrisy.

[Jimmy Redman]

15 minutes ago, El-P said:

Ok, but in the grand scheme a things, what do you think matters most ?

They both matter. And they should both be addressed and called out. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing or a value judgment. 

The problem with whataboutism is that it diminishes experiences. Just because she works for a company that does business in KSA doesn't mean she can't be shamed and offended by a sexist comment. When you start playing "you have no leg to stand on because your boss has done far worse" the actual message gets lost. That's why I chose to focus on the message, and not the hysteria. 

I think the difference is that I would hope that everyone in this thread understands that how women are treated in Saudi Arabia is wrong. Not everyone seems to understand that speaking about women this way is wrong.

[Beast]

9 minutes ago, El-P said:

Moral outrage galore and usual hive mentality : complete garbage and rogue waves of hypocrisy.

This overshadows anything Dave said at this point.

The context of his 35 years of covering the wrestling business and the more recent evolution of the locker room being full of performers just happy to be there. 

It's always been a cosmetic business and Dave is privy to WWE's mindset in that regard. But this was a learning experience, even if much of the reaction is disingenuous. Having spent the better part of the last decade listening to his weekly rants, this didn't stand out to me at all, but I guess that's the issue. I hope others take this opportunity to let him be the scapegoat and change their criticism coverage as well.

Guarantee he won't deliberately talk about looks anymore and if he trips up, he'll immediately apologize and backpedal. What a day.

[Downend2005]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy Redman said:

They both matter. And they should both be addressed and called out. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing or a value judgment. 

The problem with whataboutism is that it diminishes experiences. Just because she works for a company that does business in KSA doesn't mean she can't be shamed and offended by a sexist comment. When you start playing "you have no leg to stand on because your boss has done far worse" the actual message gets lost. That's why I chose to focus on the message, and not the hysteria. 

I think the difference is that I would hope that everyone in this thread understands that how women are treated in Saudi Arabia is wrong. Not everyone seems to understand that speaking about women this way is wrong.

This is a fantastic post. 

Also, the number of posts in this thread saying that Dave must be on the spectrum is actually pretty offensive.

[El-P]

44 minutes ago, Jimmy Redman said:

Just because she works for a company that does business in KSA doesn't mean she can't be shamed and offended by a sexist comment. When you start playing "you have no leg to stand on because your boss has done far worse" the actual message gets lost.

Let me try to be clear about that point. Yes, I do think Meltz actual comment was stupid. I do understand she might get angry and/or hurt by it and take it as a manifestation of daily sexism, which should be fought. But since the whole thread began by a cryptic comment about "Dave Meltzer is a disgusting human being and fuck whoever defends him", I was going for broke and all the way with excess too.

Then again, if I'm perfectly honest, I'll say this. I totally agree with you in that it's not a matter of either/or (it never is). Still, someone who works for a company like the WWE does strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical when she's expressing outrage over a feminist issue while she has no qualms in cashing her checks from her wonderful bosses who deal in really fucking seedy shit on these matters. You can't have it both ways when at the end of the day, acting feminist only works when it doesn't interfere with your little professional aspirations and monthly check. Again, that's not to say she wasn't right to be angry at Meltz and call him on it because she was directly hit by a stupid comment about her look. It's just that you don't speak from a void either.

In the grand scheme of things, her *own* reaction to the comment made about *her* was justified. But let's not make it a grand statement about "women" either, that's where it gets way tricky in this context.

44 minutes ago, Jimmy Redman said:

I think the difference is that I would hope that everyone in this thread understands that how women are treated in Saudi Arabia is wrong. Not everyone seems to understand that speaking about women this way is wrong.

Maybe. I would hope everyone does. 

[El-P]

55 minutes ago, Beast said:

the more recent evolution of the locker room being full of performers just happy to be there. 

Meltz making a stupid comment about look :

RandomWWEperformer : "Piece of mysoginistic shit ! You're a disgrace ! Sexism don't work for us brother !"

"What about those Saudi Shows ?"

RandomWWEperformer : "#WomenEvolution !!!! #FirstEverWomenPPV !!!!!"

Then again, this is the capitalistic entertainment industry, who the fuck are we kidding ? 

[Jimmy Redman]

14 minutes ago, El-P said:

Let me try to be clear about that point. Yes, I do think Meltz actual comment was stupid. I do understand she might get angry and/or hurt by it and take it as a manifestation of daily sexism, which should be fought. But since the whole thread began by a cryptic comment about "Dave Meltzer is a disgusting human being and fuck whoever defends him", I was going for broke and all the way with excess too.

Then again, if I'm perfectly honest, I'll say this. I totally agree with you in that it's not a matter of either/or (it never is). Still, someone who works for a company like the WWE does strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical when she's expressing outrage over a feminist issue while she has no qualms in cashing her checks from her wonderful bosses who deal in really fucking seedy shit on these matters. You can't have it both ways when at the end of the day, acting feminist only works when it doesn't interfere with your little professional aspirations and monthly check. Again, that's not to say she wasn't right to be angry at Meltz and call him on it because she was directly hit by a stupid comment about her look. It's just that you don't speak from a void either.

In the grand scheme of things, her *own* reaction to the comment made about *her* was justified. But let's not make it a grand statement about "women" either, that's where it gets way tricky in this context.

Maybe. I would hope everyone does. 

To your point, and I don't necessarily disagree entirely but like... I would give a damn about the hypocrisy angle if the people criticising Dave were like, Vince or Hunter or Kevin Dunn or Stephanie - people with power in WWE who have an actual hand in decision making when it comes to hiring and pushing and presentation of women and making deals with woman hating regimes. Not the women wrestlers themselves, who are far more victims of WWE's historic treatment of women than they are complicit in it. And whose job security is always murky at best. 

Like, I know Vince Russo piled onto Dave today, for example, and he can get in the absolute trash because he is one of the most egregious exploiters of women in wrestling history. He has no legs to stand on. Neither do the McMahons. 

It's one of the key facets of marginalisation that society always holds the marginalised themselves responsible for speaking out and raising issues and creating change, when they're the ones with the least amount of power in the situation. It's not the job of the women wrestlers to fix misogyny in the company or publicly square their own feminism with Saudi deals they have no control over. I don't blame workers for the sins of a corporation.

[El-P]

Agree with most of what you're saying here. Just this : 

14 minutes ago, Jimmy Redman said:

It's not the job of the women wrestlers to fix misogyny in the company or publicly square their own feminism with Saudi deals they have no control over. I don't blame workers for the sins of a corporation.

It's not their job to fix the misogyny in the company they are working for ? Why would they care about fixing misogyny elsewhere then ? Well, actually, there's a little thing called consistency. And WWE performers aren't working in a factory for minimum wage either. They are "TV stars" and public figures. No control ? Well... You're not happy about these issues ? Just quit then. You think Charlotte Flair can't find another job ? Come on now. WWE guys and girls should union anyway.

But hey, I'm fine either way, I'm not asking for anything from anyone, I found the perfect formula : I just stopped watching any WWE stuff.

[Fando]

The women collectively have more leverage now than any time in company history while they're in the spotlight amidst this PR campaign. They could organize with the support of other top stars who were very vocal today and put their foot down and decide no, we're NOT going to recite this awful promo written by a majority male writing staff, where Carmella is telling Charlotte and Becky she's better because she has a better body than them and doing the twirl on Smackdown. But this is apparently not the hill that either the women or men in the company want to die on.

[Herodes]

Excellent posts by Jimmy Redman focusing on the core issue at hand and not using it as an opportunity to conflate with other issues or find “gotchas” and whataboutism. Appreciate you sharing your perspective.

[tim]

Has Dave never mentioned in passing how a male wrestler should lose weight, bulk up, work on his physique, etc.? I'm sure I've heard it but I couldn't point you to a date or timestamp on any of his podcasts, so maybe I'm just crazy and making it up in my head. This is pro wrestling, wrestlers' appearances are commented on all the time. Men have felt so much pressure about their appearances in pro wrestling that they took so many steroids tons of them have tied awfully early deaths. I'm utterly baffled that people are outraged about a comment made in passing about Royce's appearance, when wrestlers' appearances are talked about, mentioned, critiqued all the time. It's self-evident that if Dave mentioned in passing Kevin Owens would have a better look if he slimmed down, no one would have given a shit.

[ButchReedMark]

Yeah, but for me the key he was on about her being attractive, sexualising her. Commenting on her looks rather than her look, if you get me.

[Cap]

I am sure Dave has mentioned men before but that sort of misses the forest for the trees. Women and men have not faced the same sort of social and professional pressures regarding their physical appearance in general and over time. It isn't about a single instance or persons behavior in a vacuum. It is about how those things exist in a greater context. Yes there are instances of men being exploited and objectified based on their appearance and wrestling can provide many prime examples, but men have not been primarily and historically defined by their physical appearance. Men have not been put in positions where their sexuality has been leveraged against their professional success to nearly the same degree. Even today, as things are changing (I think, I hope) men and women are defined to different degrees by appearance. Just the other day I was watching First Things First (morning sports show). My wife poked fun at Nick Wright and I jokingly said, "that was harsh, you can't judge people based on appearance ya know!" and she said, "I know, but if a woman looked like that I bet she wouldn't the show". Its anecdotal and far from perfect, but it would be hard to argue that physical appearance is disproportionately important for women in the entertainment industry (probably most industries I bet). So in any case where someone is commenting on the attractiveness of a man or a woman, the resonance of the comment isn't the same; it isn't taken the same in the broader discourse. If nothing else, you can't blame a woman for being concerned in such cases that sexuality and physical appearance are still the things that will primarily define their success when they hear and see such things.

And while in wrestling appearance is important, there is still very clearly a divide when you place a comment like that in the broader context. It wasn't all that long ago that women were - at best - an afterthought in American wrestling, particularly mainstream. It was a punchline. And I am not commenting on the women or their ability as much as the way it was treated, booked, presented, and discussed.  I mean it was what, 2012 or 2013 when they were having "santa's helpers" matches or some bullshit.  Even today, in wrestling "men" have been the standard. There is "wrestling" and "women's wrestling" (something I am still guilty of). Women in wrestling (wrestlers and fans a like I think) are still working  constantly to be accepted as equal and not to be defined by their appearance. That is why its not the same if he comments on a man or a woman. Appearance is part of the equation for everyone in wrestling (men and women), but its never been the primary and defining characteristic for men and women are in the process of making sure that wont be the case for them again.

 

As for the argument that its hypocritical to speak out against it while working for the WWE, I just don't buy it. Your employer doesn't define your entire identity. Your public and professional image of your employer doesn't automatically become your public image, especially when you have a case like this where the women involved are clearly striving for and working to make changes within the culture of the WWE (even if it is for their own benefit). I can't bring myself to judge any concessions they make or any company lines they tow because I have no idea the sorts of professional waters they are navigating. Every wrestler has to do that to ensure their success and financial security.  Women more-so because they are actively part of a shifting culture. Things are changing for women and that is exciting. I expect it is really exciting for those involved they probably want to be a part of that. I expect they have to be particularly careful in picking their battles. Its all well and good to say "be consistent, stand up for what you believe in" when you aren't in their shoes, when you aren't a woman trying to succeed in professional wrestling. I'm not saying that isn't the case with anyone here - I honestly don't know, its more of a general statement. I know I can't really judge what women in those contexts do.

 

I get fed up with the moral outrage machine on twitter as much  as anyone. The medium just doesn't foster dialogue (which is why focusing on the instance itself is preferable). It fosters jumping on the type of discourse that most closely aligns with you and running with that.  Its frustrating and plenty of people take it too far, but I don't blame anyone in the company or otherwise for trying to forward a certain climate in wrestling by shooting down certain types of talk about women from well known and influential (as baffling as that is to me) individual.

[Loss]

5 hours ago, Jimmy Redman said:

They both matter. And they should both be addressed and called out. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing or a value judgment. 

Thank you for saying what I was trying to say in a much simpler and more direct way.

Your longer post also made me think. By working too hard to "make sense" of this in a way I wouldn't do for someone I don't respect as much, the end result is that what he said -- what he said -- gets downplayed. And I was contributing to that in this thread and I regret that.

I think there is more to say about Dave's role in women's wrestling getting over to a Western audience, but it's a separate issue than his comments here, which are what they are and were wrong. Period. He offered a take that would be bad no matter who said it.

[tlk23]

This is the same company that did the Piggy James angle about 10 years ago?

Wasn't there a Carmella promo two days ago to open Smackdown talking about how she was much more attractive than Charlotte and Becky? ok

[rovert]

The last two pages covered most of everything. 

Basically, it is a real shame. As already said social media creates so much noise and a haven for bad actors.

Meltzer has been the loudest voice for worker's rights and the first one to say how phoney all of the WWE Women's Evolution stuff has been mainly because the women still don't get paid what they're worth and still get disrespected by the writing and booking.

Poor Peyton has been unnecessarily criticised for her looks since she was signed with NXT. Instagram trolls relentlessly attack her teeth and forehead. Which along with not being fluent in Meltzer speak may have lead to her firing off a hot-headed response.