It is mind-boggling that the voters of Connecticut would even consider electing the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment to high political office -- until you realize what an abysmal job the news media have done of holding her accountable for the actual product she produced.
Make no mistake about it: until Linda McMahon decided to run as a Republican for the United States Senate, she was one-half of one of the most culturally destructive, and blatantly misogynistic, business partnerships in the history of popular entertainment. Under Linda and her husband Vince McMahon's leadership, the WWE has featured some of the most brutal, violent and hateful depictions of women in all of media culture over the past twenty years.
But incredibly, the rampant misogyny of McMahon's WWE has gotten scant coverage during this fall's U.S. senate campaign in Connecticut. Political reporters have largely rolled over and bought the McMahon campaign line that what goes on in professional wrestling is only entertainment, that the WWE has gotten more family-friendly in recent years, and that we should all just lighten up and focus on what really matters about Linda McMahon's stewardship of the WWE: her savvy business skills and experience.
Last weekend Christiane Amanpour came close, but nowhere have I seen a political reporter ask McMahon, point blank, whether she thinks misogyny and violence against women are "only entertainment."
This is a remarkable omission given how strategically -- and relentlessly -- Linda McMahon's campaign has been trying to appeal explicitly to women voters. It is especially hypocritical and cynical that McMahon is fashioning herself as a strong woman business leader when her core business -- the one whose profits fuel her campaign -- has so shamelessly sold men's violence against women as just another form of popular entertainment for the masses. And let's be clear: a huge percentage of the WWE's audience consists of kids.
Most people aren't familiar enough with what actually goes on in professional wrestling to know just how badly women are treated in WWE narratives. The less you've actually watched of the WWE, the more likely you are to have only some vague impression of this "sports entertainment" spectacle as a more or less ridiculous and fictional circus of cartoonish, steroid-infused brutes strutting their stuff and smashing chairs over each other's heads. But the fact is that while glib commentators on the political chat shows make jokes about smackdowns and wrestlers' buffoonish posturing, under McMahon and her husband's leadership, the WWE has brought the routine brutalization of women to new lows on prime time cable television.
The WWE does have women wrestlers, who are typically strong and sculpted athletes -- even if their primary objective is to rip other women wrestlers' clothes off in what amount to highly sexualized "catfights." But until recently, most women in the WWE played roles, such as wrestlers' girlfriends, where their character was set up to be ridiculed, sexually harassed, and mock raped.
One notorious plot line in the early 2000s featured Linda McMahon's daughter Stephanie playing a domestic violence victim, and the audience was positioned to cheer on her scripted (and real-life) husband, the wrestler Triple H, as he openly threatened her with further violence. Another sequence where Vince McMahon orders a woman wrestler to strip, get on her knees and bark like a dog was, in the words of University of Massachusetts communication professor Sut Jhally, "some of the most disturbing television that has ever been produced."
Don't take my word for all of this. Check out this clip on YouTube that I posted from the educational video Wrestling With Manhood. [Blogger note: I was a featured presenter in the film.] But be forewarned: this clip is not for the faint of heart. There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the full 60-minute video because of the disturbingly violent sexual content. And by all means, forward the clip along to as many friends as you can, especially if they live in Connecticut. Because contrary to the premium Linda McMahon places on entertainment, democracy isn't a spectator sport, and the voters of Connecticut -- women and men -- shouldn't allow her to run away from her record as CEO of the WWE.
A society that respects women needs to elect leaders who care more about women's lives than they do about their or their company's bottom line.
Courtney Macavinta: Ending Domestic Violence Is About Jobs, Homes and Protecting Kids, Too
Most of the republican women are against abortions even if the female was raped by a family member. What kind of crap is that? How long did it take women to fight for the right to do what they saw fit for their bodies? How long did it take women to get close to having equal pay for equal work? How long did it take women to fight for other benefits automatically given to men? Why should women today allow another woman to take those rights away and start all over again?
Are we gluttons for punishment or something? When will we learn who is speaking and acting in our own best interest? When will we realize that the republican women candidates will set us back so far that we won't even believe we allowed ourselves to put them in office?
We must wake up and smell what these women are shoveling before it's too late.
Why are you only going after WWE? Why not TNA Wrestling?
WWE's audience now are kids, just like from the Hogan era in the 80s until 1997 when the "attitude era" started, then they went back to PG in 2008.
And so, like all exploiters for the big bucks, the McMahons make their money off the most repulsive kind of theater and take advantage of the, sad to say but true, the CT woman who can only echo the greed of the corporate or hedge fund husband and does not stand for anything much at all.. Tragic.
Sorry but you can keep your feigned outrage
Is it demeaning to women? Absolutely. However, it's also demeaning to men. You mention an incident where Vince McMahon makes a female wrestler humiliate himself, it wouldn't take too much time to find dozens of examples of him doing the same to a male wrestler. The character he is playing is that of a fascist boss, after all. And there are just as many male characters that get mocked or play foolish characters as there are female characters.
How many of the male characters particpate in a "lingerie match" or a "bikini posedown"?
How many of the male characters are subjected to spousal abuse?
How many of the male characters are just arm candy for the "real" performer?
None that I know of, but humiliation IS humiliation.
"How many of the male characters particpate in a "lingerie match" or a "bikini posedown"?"
None. I'm not going to qualify this one, cause I severly doubt it has happened to men. However, if we are going to indict an industry because of overt sexualization of women we are going to be hard pressed to find any non-idicted industries.
"How many of the male characters are subjected to spousal abuse?"
It has actually happened, Triple H (mentioned in the article) was beaten by Stephanie McMahon (also mentioned in the article) as retribution. That could almost be argued as empowering.
"How many of the male characters are just arm candy for the "real" performer?"
Tons, Paul Bearer; Jimmy Hart etc. were just sideshow attractions to the real performer.
They also had Pat Patterson and Gerald Brisco dress up in drag and have a match.
Women don't have to be wrestlers. I don't hear Trish Stratus, who has been in bra and panties matches, coming out against WWE.
I never understood why I shouldn't watch something because others don't like it or approve of it.
Again though, I'm not defending wrestling. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be derisive about this "Sport Entertainment" - this one is just too forced.
What's your point?
Now write us a companion piece on whose vote Dick Blumenthal doesn't deserve because he spent 20 years falsely claiming to be a Vietnam vet.
Your friend,
OtayPanky the Despicable
Linda McMahon makes money off of treating women like garbage.
What has Richard Blumenthal done for veterans? I know, you won't answer that. It would ruin your whole point.
What has McMahon done for anyone but the McMahon's?
What does McMahon plan to do?
-Cut the minimum wage
-Privatize Social Security & Medicare
-Protect health insurance companies from covering policy holders with preexisting conditions.
-Protect insurance companies from covering college students.
-Allow insurance companies to drop policy holders with serious illnesses.
-Discontinue the federal student loan program.
-Reverse and remove federal banking regulation.
-Deregulate the financial sector
-Protect the wealthy from the unnecessary burden of paying taxes.
Here's the thing; as a man, I don't want to vote for a person (male or female) who makes a living from objectifying women. I also am white, but I would not vote for someone who made a living by demonizing minorities (e.g. David Duke).
So you can have your Malcolm X moment or the female equivalent thereof, but don't tell me that I can't base my decision of who would make the best Senator based (in part) on the type of business that they run.
I won't vote for Blumenthal. I may pass on the Senate race.
See, here is the thing I don't understand. We live in a capitalistic society. Wrestling has been a part of American culture for over 100 years now. Much like the economy it has had its highs and lows, but it has still been a part of American culture and society. If people were that offended by it or did not like the product, they had the choice to not support that product, but they have for over 100 years now, long before Linda McMahon was even a twinkle in her parents eyes.
The only way you are going to convince me that American Society did not support the product is by convincing me that someone had a gun to the head of every single person who bought, supported, watched, or whatever any sort of professional wrestling product over the past 100 years, and my guess is that you can not prove that someone has held such a gun.
Bottom line is get over yourself. The people are smarter than this. They do have the ability to think for themselves and choose for themselves, and for over 100 years, they have chose to support professional wrestling.
Katz is attacking the consumer's intelligence and freewill here., not Linda McMahon.
I like the "It's just a product" strategy. Truly inspired. Linda' getting her full money's worth with her million dollar campaign consultants. That strategy may snag a few suckers who don't care that you're so-called "successful formula" includes women putting on stripteases before a crowd made up largely of children.
Anyway, this is a good start but can we please focus more attention on WWE's notoriously awful business practices (the part Linda was in charge of)? In addition to the above, a female valet was fired for falling pregnant (Dawn Marie); performers are routinely fired for being injured in the line of duty; several performers have been fired directly for trying to start a union (wrestlers are the only atheletes without one); WWE continues to falsely and illegally classify employees as "independent contractors" to avoid paying benefits; they routinely stop paying royalties after a performer has left the promotion; the drug testing has loopholes a mile wide which can only have been deliberate and they don't pay road expenses or health coverage (while some performers might be able to afford to buy insurance, what insurance company in it's right mind is going to cover wrestlers?).
I could go on but you get the point. I love wrestling and always have but I hate what the McMahons have done to the business.
The royalties are a different matter. First off, the minor leagues generally don't produce anything to pay royalties on. Secondly, WWE's standard contract doesn't say "we will stop paying your royalties if you leave teh company", they just do it. Jesse Ventura sued and won over this in the late-eighties but they're still doing it now.