So I didn't have room to fit in the entire title, which should have been this:

Pro Wrestling is NOT Degrading to Women (or At Least No More Degrading to Women Than it is to Men)

A lot of people seem to think that pro wrestling is degrading to women. This is untrue (or, in some cases, if you believe it to be true, then you should have similar complaints that it is degrading to men, but no one ever seems to make those... so there is a double standard, which is unacceptable). The general arguments that wrestling is degrading to women usually take these forms:

1. The women are only there for their bodies. Examples of this would be "they have to wrestle in revealing outfits designed to show off their bodies," or "wrestling has matches like bra-and-panties matches, which degrade the women by reducing them to sexual objects to be ogled," or "it is almost entirely impossible for a woman to get hired unless she fits the classical standard of beauty."

2. Women's matches are not treated equally to men's matches.

3. Women are treated as if they are/automatically assumed to be weaker than men.

4. Gender-specific insults are used against women in order to get heat/a cheap pop

5. "This one time they did this angle where "x" happened, which was degrading to women"

I will now address the arguments in question, their fallacies and/or double standards, and flaws:

1. This is a bit of a long one, but, most of them (with the exception of the "bra and panties match" argument, all have the same overarching answer: The same is true with men. Women wrestle booty-shorts and halter tops? Most men wrestle without shirts on, revealing their chiseled physiques. Many also were attire that doesn't cover much more than a pair of tighty-whitey's would. What is the complaint about Cena? That his fanbase is entirely "prepubescent boys and teenage girls." The teenage girls aren't only there for Cena's message of hustle, loyalty, respect, never give up, stay in school, and other babyface things to tell people.

"It is almost impossible for a woman to get hired if she doesn't fit the classical definition of beauty"- this one has two different answers. The first is the same as above. The same is true for men. Unless they have an extreme amount of talent (CM Punk, Dragon) men who don't fit the classical standards of beauty usually aren't hired (Beth Phoenix is a female example of this). The other way for these people to get hired is if they have some unique, marketable quality, such as extreme size (relative to others whom they will compete against) such as King Kong Bundy, Brodus Clay, or Awesome Kong, or some other marketable attribute (super-high flying, for example).

The second answer to the above flaw is related to the first, but is also very different, as this one is not a double standard, but rather just a statement of fact. The shape you need to be in to be a pro-wrestler usually makes your body thin and toned, both of which fit into the classical definition of beauty (think Sara Del Rey).

As for the bra and panties match... this gets into one of the other major responses to most of these accusations: The bra and panties match is not intended to degrade women. It is intended, by the challenger to degrade the woman- singular- who loses. There is a HUGE difference between being degrading to women and being degrading to one single specific woman.

2. "Women's matches are not treated equally to men's matches." This is entirely true, but the problem does not lie with wrestling. It lies with our society in general. Wrestling is a business. The men get more attention because they draw more. It is the same reason that the TNT carries the NBA all the time, but rarely carries the WNBA. In our society, people want to see men compete more than they want to see women compete. Is there a problem with this? Yes... but the problem is not inherent in or isolated to professional wrestling.

3. In many cases, with the characters in question... they are. To ask someone to assume that Daizee Haze is just as strong as Hernandez is just plain ridiculous. Not because Daizee is a woman, but rather because of her physical size. To ask someone to assume that Awesome Kong, on the other hand, is just as strong as Hernandez, is entirely reasonable, as they are about the same size. Many companies also keep men and women apart in the ring, so this is usually not an issue (also, you should all follow CHIKARA, as their use of Sara Del Rey and Daizee have over the past two years has addressed- or redressed- this problem perfectly)

4. Gender-specific insults are used to get heat...because it works... but that is not justification in and of itself (after all, if someone used a racial slur, it would cause an outrage). So why are gender-specific insults okay? Because they are not degrading to women in general, but rather just the insulted woman. If someone called Mickie James' current character a whore, you should get angry. You should get angry because the heel said something to Mickie that is both mean and untrue. If you are getting angry because the heel called Mickie a word that degrades Mickie because she is a women, but that the heel wouldn't have been able to say if Mickie were a man... you are missing the point. You are supposed to want to see Mickie get revenge on the heel. You are supposed to sympathize with Mickie. Not empathize with her. She isn't getting revenge for you, too.

5. "Angle X"- This one also has both answers. Each angle is its own thing. Unless the angle is someone saying that women are stupider/weaker than men or don't belong in a man's sport like wrestling (and yes, kitchen jokes do fall into this category) solely because they are women, then the angle isn't degrading to women. It is degrading to the specific woman (or occasionally women) in question. One of the angles most often brought up to prove that wrestling is degrading to women is the whole angle with Trish and Vince. Everything that Vince did to Trish was degrading to Trish and Trish alone. It doesn't degrade all women when Vince, Regal, and Steph dumped crap on Trish, and it doesn't degrade all women when Vince made Trish strip and bark like a dog. Just Trish.

Furthermore, these complaints also suffer from the issue of the double standard. Where were these people back in 1999 when PMS was in existence? PMS was an all-female stable who had a sex slave (Shawn Stasiak) named "Meat," so named because they believed him to be "nothing more than a piece of meat?" Why did no one complain when meat was forced to kiss Terri Runnels' feet? Why was this okay, best Test abusing Stacy was not (at least there was no rape implied in that angle!)?

Pro wrestling is not degrading to women, or, if you feel that it is, you should also be complaining about the way that it equally degrades men. The belief that pro-wrestling has any sort of bias against women is born out of either an unacknowledged double standard, ignorance or over-thinking what is going on, or a combination of the two.


Let the debates begin...

I disagree with your thesis; most of your points are true, but you aren't addressing the things that DO make wrestling sexist. I'm sure you're not purposely ignoring things, just think you need to see things from the other perspective. I took several Women's Studies courses in college and it helped me to understand that other side better. The most valuable course I took was titled "the Body in Feminist Theory" and I actually wrote my final paper for that class on how wrestling degrades women. It wasn't a paper about me bashing the industry or calling it misogynistic; it was about the things (subtle and unintentional in most instances) which degraded women. It's not that wrestling makes a point to offend women, but it's undeniable that women are offended by what goes on on the show a lot of times. I'll explain by addressing your points:

1. it's not about revealing outfits; it's about bra and panty matches, mud wrestling matches, evening gown matches, lingerie pillow fights, and Jerry Lawler's constant sexually suggestive banter. The women are more often than not SEXUALIZED while one or two guys would have a gimmick that involved that. There's mention on every single show how hot Velvet Sky and Kelly Kelly are; how often do you hear such things said about men? Remember Meat? Shawn Stasiak? Remember how much that gimmick sucked? How stupid it was and how no one respected or really even liked him bc of that? Well, women see a female competitor in that light over and over and over; way more than any man has seen a male performer. I have friends who think wrestling is degrading to black folks bc guys like R Truth and Pope do the ol' sing and dance, perpetuating stereotypes; my uncles hated Koko B. War and the JYD bc they were always dancing around (plus, JYD walking around in those chains didn't help much either). The only time I ever felt really offended by something from a racist standpoint was when Shelton Benjamin was in a slump and they had his damn "Mama" show up to straighten him out (And thats mainly bc the lady was a well known black actress; I grew up watching Thea. I thought it was bullshit that they went and got Moesha's mama to play Shelton's mama. Sorry, I digress.) My point is (and this point'll prolly come up several times in my response) you can't really speak for a group you aren't apart of; you can barely speak for the whole of the group you're in yourself. I don't think wrestling degrades black folks, but a lot of black folks ARE offended by some things they see; same goes with women. So long as there are women who are offended by what they see, it's offensive. Several ppl on this for (namely me) hate the idea that pro wrestlers are spose to all look like bodybuilders. Us calling that Hogan'esque train of thought bullshit is the very same as women calling wrestling degrading.

btw, there is NO difference between being degrading towards women and being degrading to one specific woman; you have to keep in mind that not everyone is a wrestling fan, esp not it's detractors. If you're not familiar with the characters and storylines, you just see a chick standing in her underwear (maybe crying) and the fans (and sme of the commentators) applauding and cheering. I can see how a woman could be offended by that. And if they're offended by it, they're not gonna sit down and watch or give the show the benefit of the doubt.

2. I guess I agree with you here; I don't see how that would make it degrading anyways. Whoever used that excuse would need to explain that to me bc I believe the performers within the divisions are what makes the matches important.

3. I read the statement very different from how you addressed it; I figured the statement meant that women are assumed not to be as good wrestlers as men. That's another thing I don't see the degradation in. assumptions aren't really portrayed in the ring; the fans have their own eyes to judge that. So I can't really argue this point.

4. I agree with you; but by that logic it WOULD be okay to use a racial slur if you're just talking to a specific person. So, I can still see how that could offend the female viewers at home. all the things you say the fans SHOULD feel can only be felt if it gets over; you're not gonna get over with anyone if you offend them. When you use language that you KNOW will turn ppl off, how can you expect them to follow you? Why would Eminem expect homosexuals to be down with his music? He didn't specifically use homophobic slurs against gay folks; he used them against heterosexuals which made IT both "mean and untrue." So did GLAAD have no right to be offended?

5. Totally agree here; and angle is an angle. Some are tasteless, some are stupid, some are brilliant, some are tear jerkers. They can come off as sexist, homophobic, racists, and offensive in so many ways it's crazy. It's just an angle; just like a movie is a movie. Until you see the end, you cant be completely sure what the message is. Maybe I missed a part, but I'm surprised you didn't address the idea that wrestling promotes violence against women, and is therefore degrading. When I wrote that paper and gave the presentation on wrestling in my Body in Feminist Theory class, the number one thing the girls (I was the only guy in the class) all agreed on before hand was that they felt wrestling promoted violence against women. When I explained to them how the actions they saw as being glorified were actually vilified, they thought differently. They didn't stick around to see the end of the angle bc they were offended by it from the get-go. When promoters and performers put things out there to shock ppl, there's always gonna be a backlash. Someone who doesn't appreciate the use of the word 'retard' prolly would never know how great of an angle Steen v. Generico was bc they didn't want to hear the word. It's def offensive it offended someone. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great angle; but just bc it was doesn't change the fact that it WAS offensive to some.

I believe wrestling is offensive; not so much TOWARDS ME, but def towards a very large number of ppl. Of course, the majority of them are not wrestling fans; prolly bc they're offended by it. I can't deny them the right to have a problem with something just bc I don't have a problem with it; it's their choice. Personally, I'm offended by Tyler Perry movies; I think they depict black men as pieces of shit who give their wives aids and cheat on them and piss away the family's money; nobody can tell me not to be offended just bc they don't see it the same way....

I am a female and get offended when female WRESTLERS go out there an perform, stripteases, sexual dances, freakin COSTUME CONTESTS where the winner is usually the one who has the least amount of clothes on.

I've already expressed my views on the whole Kelly, Brooke and Layla expose thing. Because of it I can't respect them.

And BRM, I know you will bring up the whole male pose off things eg Rick Rude and Ulitmate Warrior. But I can tell you, that kind of thing ISN'T sexually appealing. Yes muscles are nice, But not when they look like they have balled up socks under their skin.

I used to find Jerry Lawler funny until I got fed up with him being too sexually suggestive about the women. Its kinda gross.

Earth Child wrote:I am a female and get offended when female WRESTLERS go out there an perform, stripteases, sexual dances, freakin COSTUME CONTESTS where the winner is usually the one who has the least amount of clothes on.

I've already expressed my views on the whole Kelly, Brooke and Layla expose thing. Because of it I can't respect them.

And BRM, I know you will bring up the whole male pose off things eg Rick Rude and Ulitmate Warrior. But I can tell you, that kind of thing ISN'T sexually appealing. Yes muscles are nice, But not when they look like they have balled up socks under their skin.

I used to find Jerry Lawler funny until I got fed up with him being too sexually suggestive about the women. Its kinda gross.

A few things. I agree with you about the Extreme Expose being bad, but lets face it... that wasn't wrestling, nor was it in any way related to wrestling. It was a random striptease in the middle of a wrestling show. It is something that you would find equally objectionable if it happened anywhere else. My question to you would be if you liked Kelly Kelly's original character? (an exhibitionist valet who wanted to strip but her possessive boyfriend would always come out and stop her, and as a result, it would cause him to lose matches)

I agree with you about Lawler, too, but again, that isn't something inherent in wrestling, as a lot of announcers manage to not do it.

As for the costume/bikini contests... first of all, we all know that the amount of clothes on doesn't determine the winner. The real winner is determined by who is the most over babyface. But do you have a problem with them when they are done to lead to/as part of an angle (that actually involves women wrestling ) like they were originally done (most of the ones after about 2002 didn't, but before then, they did.

Not that it excuses it, either, but I will also point out that WWE hasn't done of those in a very long time (although you have the response that we haven't seen a pose-off since Steiner-Triple H in 2003).

One other question: Have you seen the Halloween Costume Contest from Raw in 2005? I actually think it is an amazing character-segment, and should be required viewing for everyone trying to write wrestling.

Big Red Machine wrote:My question to you would be if you liked Kelly Kelly's original character? (an exhibitionist valet who wanted to strip but her possessive boyfriend would always come out and stop her, and as a result, it would cause him to lose matches)

No I don't think I would, I would side with Mike Knox because his girlfriend couldn't keep her clothes on.

Big Red Machine wrote:But do you have a problem with them when they are done to lead to/as part of an angle (that actually involves women wrestling ) like they were originally done

Hmmm, I suppose if costume contests were done as a part of an angle I wouldn't have too much a problem with it. But I still wouldn't like it. There must be other ways to advance the storyline.

Big Red Machine wrote:One other question: Have you seen the Halloween Costume Contest from Raw in 2005? I actually think it is an amazing character-segment, and should be required viewing for everyone trying to write wrestling.

I think I may have, but just don't remember it. 2005 was a while ago[/quote]

badnewzxl wrote:I disagree with your thesis; most of your points are true, but you aren't addressing the things that DO make wrestling sexist. I'm sure you're not purposely ignoring things, just think you need to see things from the other perspective. I took several Women's Studies courses in college and it helped me to understand that other side better. The most valuable course I took was titled "the Body in Feminist Theory" and I actually wrote my final paper for that class on how wrestling degrades women. It wasn't a paper about me bashing the industry or calling it misogynistic; it was about the things (subtle and unintentional in most instances) which degraded women. It's not that wrestling makes a point to offend women, but it's undeniable that women are offended by what goes on on the show a lot of times. I'll explain by addressing your points:

1. it's not about revealing outfits; it's about bra and panty matches, mud wrestling matches, evening gown matches, lingerie pillow fights, and Jerry Lawler's constant sexually suggestive banter. The women are more often than not SEXUALIZED while one or two guys would have a gimmick that involved that. There's mention on every single show how hot Velvet Sky and Kelly Kelly are; how often do you hear such things said about men? Remember Meat? Shawn Stasiak? Remember how much that gimmick sucked? How stupid it was and how no one respected or really even liked him bc of that? Well, women see a female competitor in that light over and over and over; way more than any man has seen a male performer. I have friends who think wrestling is degrading to black folks bc guys like R Truth and Pope do the ol' sing and dance, perpetuating stereotypes; my uncles hated Koko B. War and the JYD bc they were always dancing around (plus, JYD walking around in those chains didn't help much either). The only time I ever felt really offended by something from a racist standpoint was when Shelton Benjamin was in a slump and they had his damn "Mama" show up to straighten him out (And thats mainly bc the lady was a well known black actress; I grew up watching Thea. I thought it was bulls**t that they went and got Moesha's mama to play Shelton's mama. Sorry, I digress.) My point is (and this point'll prolly come up several times in my response) you can't really speak for a group you aren't apart of; you can barely speak for the whole of the group you're in yourself. I don't think wrestling degrades black folks, but a lot of black folks ARE offended by some things they see; same goes with women. So long as there are women who are offended by what they see, it's offensive. Several ppl on this for (namely me) hate the idea that pro wrestlers are spose to all look like bodybuilders. Us calling that Hogan'esque train of thought bulls**t is the very same as women calling wrestling degrading.

1. You bring up some fair points, although I will point out that in terms of the over-sexualization... that is only certain people (mostly Taz and Lawler). Other announcers manage not to do so. And I think that if you had female commentators, you would hear some things like that.

As for not being able claim non-offense for a group you are not part of, I see your point, but I also think (as I alluded to in the other thread) that there is some oversensitivity here. As I said in the other thread, I try my hardest to be post-race and post-gender, and I think that everyone else should, too. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (and please don't accuse me of pandering or manipulating by bringing up an MLK speech to the black guy, because I honestly believe that a post-race/post-gender society is the only way to achieve this. A world a society where your race is completely irrelevant. No one sees it at all. They don't even consider it in their evaluation of you. The only time that things out of your control (gender/race/sexual orientation) should be in anyway considered are things that matter biologically (i.e. woman should get maternity leave). To me, taking offense at some of these things is a barrier that is stopping society from getting to its ideal state of mind.

As for whether or not this is insensitivity, I will point out that you never see a white person complain that everyone with the gimmick of a rich, greedy, corrupt, evil business man (Dibiase, JBL, Bischoff) is white (and there are any white people offended by this... you shouldn't be).

Not that it is too relevant, but it honestly appalls me that someone would get offended by Ron Killings rapping in the ring, as rap is something that he loves doing (do the point where he was doing illegal things to make money in order to continue his career. I would be very curious to know how your friend would feel about it knowing that Ron is living his life being able to combine his two passions: wrestling and rap.

badnewzxl wrote:btw, there is NO difference between being degrading towards women and being degrading to one specific woman; you have to keep in mind that not everyone is a wrestling fan, esp not it's detractors. If you're not familiar with the characters and storylines, you just see a chick standing in her underwear (maybe crying) and the fans (and sme of the commentators) applauding and cheering. I can see how a woman could be offended by that. And if they're offended by it, they're not gonna sit down and watch or give the show the benefit of the doubt.

This statement has no place in this debate whatsoever. The case that you bring up here is someone (not you, but the type of person you are referring to) who is speaking out of ignorance. Whether these people perceive wrestling as being degrading to anyone is completely irrelevant. We here, as informed people who understand what wrestling is and how it accomplishes its goals (to entertain us and make us care about the characters and matches) are debating whether or not wrestling is degrading to women. How it is perceived by the ignorant is irrelevant. Those people are just like the people who hear that our president isn't white and is named "Barrack Hussein Obama" and assume that he is clearly a secret Muslim trying to destroy the US from the inside out, rather than doing the research and learning that he was born in Hawaii.

badnewzxl wrote: 2. I guess I agree with you here; I don't see how that would make it degrading anyways. Whoever used that excuse would need to explain that to me bc I believe the performers within the divisions are what makes the matches important.

The statement being made is the following. You have different divisions: A men's division and a women's division. Why is there so much focus on the men's division compared to the women's division? The World Heavyweight Title is the top title in the men's division and the Women's Title is top title in the women's division (I am not referring to WWE here, just using generic names for the titles). If men and women are equal, why does 90% of the focus go to the men's division. Should the company hire more women and work on its women's division. Split the time as equally as possible and make both titles seem equally important. If the women's title is also the top title in its division, why is it never defended in the main event?

badnewzxl wrote: 3. I read the statement very different from how you addressed it; I figured the statement meant that women are assumed not to be as good wrestlers as men. That's another thing I don't see the degradation in. assumptions aren't really portrayed in the ring; the fans have their own eyes to judge that. So I can't really argue this point.

I was talking specifically in terms of physical strength. Most people would assume that Sara Del Rey couldn't pick Jay Briscoe up and give him a bodyslam. Jay's billed weight is only about 90 pounds more that Death Rey's. If Daizee Haze can given Awesome Kong a German Suplex (Kong being billed at over 150 pounds more than Daizee), and people have no problem with that, then why shouldn't Death Rey be able to bodyslam Jay?

badnewzxl wrote: 4. I agree with you; but by that logic it WOULD be okay to use a racial slur if you're just talking to a specific person. So, I can still see how that could offend the female viewers at home. all the things you say the fans SHOULD feel can only be felt if it gets over; you're not gonna get over with anyone if you offend them. When you use language that you KNOW will turn ppl off, how can you expect them to follow you? Why would Eminem expect homosexuals to be down with his music? He didn't specifically use homophobic slurs against gay folks; he used them against heterosexuals which made IT both "mean and untrue." So did GLAAD have no right to be offended?

Because you are missing the point, which is the actual meaning of the word in question. A racial slur is a racial slur. Ch**k, Sp*c, and K*ke have no meaning other than being an offensive term for an Asian, Latino, and Jew respectively. N*gger is a corruption of the word Spanish and Portuguese "negro," meaning black, and identifying someone as such says that the only thing that matters to you is their skin color. They are not a person. Just a superficial attribute. The same way that C*nt is offensive because it reduces a woman to just one bodypart, whose major uses (in the context that the word is used- no one uses that word when they are talking about urinating) are physical acts that bring pleasure to men. "Slut" and "whore," on the other had, are words that have an actual meaning. The offense taken by people in those cases is one of solidarity. As I said, it is empathy, rather than sympathy.

badnewzxl wrote: 5. Totally agree here; and angle is an angle. Some are tasteless, some are stupid, some are brilliant, some are tear jerkers. They can come off as sexist, homophobic, racists, and offensive in so many ways it's crazy. It's just an angle; just like a movie is a movie. Until you see the end, you cant be completely sure what the message is. Maybe I missed a part, but I'm surprised you didn't address the idea that wrestling promotes violence against women, and is therefore degrading. When I wrote that paper and gave the presentation on wrestling in my Body in Feminist Theory class, the number one thing the girls (I was the only guy in the class) all agreed on before hand was that they felt wrestling promoted violence against women. When I explained to them how the actions they saw as being glorified were actually vilified, they thought differently. They didn't stick around to see the end of the angle bc they were offended by it from the get-go. When promoters and performers put things out there to shock ppl, there's always gonna be a backlash. Someone who doesn't appreciate the use of the word 'retard' prolly would never know how great of an angle Steen v. Generico was bc they didn't want to hear the word. It's def offensive it offended someone. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great angle; but just bc it was doesn't change the fact that it WAS offensive to some.

I didn't use it because I honestly think that idea is one of the dumbest things ever. Wrestling is a (simulated, but that's not important for now) COMBAT SPORT. If you are going to make the argument that wrestling promotes violence against women, then you also have to make the argument that wrestling promotes violence against men. And against Japanese people. And against brunettes. And against people over five feet tall. And against people named John.
Another reason I didn't bring it up (and you are right, I definitely should have) is because I don't have the same ideological reservations against it that many others seem to (I'm sure you all recall the debate from WA that wound up as me and Everlast vs. the world). As I said, I try to be post-gender. If a woman hit me (we're talking a stranger or an enemy here, not a friend), I would like to think have no qualms hitting her right back. Your argument in your women's studies class was admirable, but it doesn't work in all examples. How about the Fight Without Honor at Final Battle 2009. Sara Del Rey jumped into the ring and stated kicking away at Eddie Kingston, but Eddie eventually caught her leg and hit her with a capture suplex, which got a pop from the crowd? People cheered violence against a woman. So why should someone be okay with it? Because it was entirely justified. Death Rey attacked Kingston, so he fought back.

As for the word retard (side rant time) that is a case similar to my argument why calling someone a slut is okay but a racial slur is not. The word retard HAS A MEANING and that is the meaning that one intends when they call someone a retard. Just like the words "idiot" and "moron" originally did, the word retard (as the noun for "one who is retarded" means someone with an IQ below a certain level. Hell, the words "idiot" and "moron" became the insults we know today because they were used exactly the same way that people use the word "retard" today. It is in no way analogous to the disgusting misuse of the words "gay" or "homo" as insults, as those cases imply that there is something negative about being gay, which there isn't... but there is something negative about being retarded- the lower IQ level which is exactly what the insulter is implying that the insultee is acting like they have.

badnewzxl wrote: I believe wrestling is offensive; not so much TOWARDS ME, but def towards a very large number of ppl. Of course, the majority of them are not wrestling fans; prolly bc they're offended by it. I can't deny them the right to have a problem with something just bc I don't have a problem with it; it's their choice. Personally, I'm offended by Tyler Perry movies; I think they depict black men as pieces of s**t who give their wives aids and cheat on them and piss away the family's money; nobody can tell me not to be offended just bc they don't see it the same way....

You have a point here, for the most part... but the difference is that you understand the goal of the movie, whereas the ignorant person does not understand what is happening in the wrestling angle.

Earth Child wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:

Earth Child wrote:I am a female and get offended when female WRESTLERS go out there an perform, stripteases, sexual dances, freakin COSTUME CONTESTS where the winner is usually the one who has the least amount of clothes on.

I've already expressed my views on the whole Kelly, Brooke and Layla expose thing. Because of it I can't respect them.

And BRM, I know you will bring up the whole male pose off things eg Rick Rude and Ulitmate Warrior. But I can tell you, that kind of thing ISN'T sexually appealing. Yes muscles are nice, But not when they look like they have balled up socks under their skin.

I used to find Jerry Lawler funny until I got fed up with him being too sexually suggestive about the women. Its kinda gross.

Big Red Machine wrote:My question to you would be if you liked Kelly Kelly's original character? (an exhibitionist valet who wanted to strip but her possessive boyfriend would always come out and stop her, and as a result, it would cause him to lose matches)

No I don't think I would, I would side with Mike Knox because his girlfriend couldn't keep her clothes on.

Big Red Machine wrote:But do you have a problem with them when they are done to lead to/as part of an angle (that actually involves women wrestling ) like they were originally done

Hmmm, I suppose if costume contests were done as a part of an angle I wouldn't have too much a problem with it. But I still wouldn't like it. There must be other ways to advance the storyline.

Big Red Machine wrote:One other question: Have you seen the Halloween Costume Contest from Raw in 2005? I actually think it is an amazing character-segment, and should be required viewing for everyone trying to write wrestling.

I think I may have, but just don't remember it. 2005 was a while ago

[youtube][/youtube]


This is one example of something that furthers an angle in a good and innovative way that did an excellent job of highlighting Mickie's character.

Sometimes, though, you absolutely need to do it for the sake of the angle. For an example of this, see the swimsuit competition between Terri Runnels and Molly Holly from Raw in May 2002. I absolutely LOVE this segment was well, but don't want to spoil it for anyone, because once again, whoever's idea this was is a genius.

Your opposition to the exhibitionist Kelly Kelly character just seems fundamentally wrong to me. That is who she is. You can make the argument that she should not be allowed to do it in an area where there might be children present (and I would agree with you), but Knox's motive's are still wrong. Hypothetically, If she wants to take her clothes off and there are no children present (and especially if it is somewhere she can ensure that none will pass by, like a place with a minimum required limit for age) she should be able to do so. The same applies to a man. I don't want to see him do it (for the same reason that I don't want to see a 90 year old woman do it), but I support his right to do so.

Oh yes! now I remember, yes Mickie dressed as Trish as a part of her obsession story.

Ok yeah I get your point about this one time BRM.

Big Red Machine wrote:Your opposition to the exhibitionist Kelly Kelly character just seems fundamentally wrong to me. That is who she is. You can make the argument that she should not be allowed to do it in an area where there might be children present (and I would agree with you), but Knox's motive's are still wrong. Hypothetically, If she wants to take her clothes off and there are no children present (and especially if it is somewhere she can ensure that none will pass by, like a place with a minimum required limit for age) she should be able to do so. The same applies to a man. I don't want to see him do it (for the same reason that I don't want to see a 90 year old woman do it), but I support his right to do so.

It is wrong, its called indecent exposure.

Are you saying that who she is a stripper (I couldn't think of a better word)?
Can I put it to you this way?

What if she was your daughter, or sister? Would you aprove because thats who she is?



Ok so I've gotten a little off topic.

I didn't like her doing it because it goes against my morals as a female. I would never strip for an employer, have sex with my boss. I wouldn't expose myself for anyone except my significant other.

Earth Child wrote:Oh yes! now I remember, yes Mickie dressed as Trish as a part of her obsession story.

Ok yeah I get your point about this one time BRM.

Big Red Machine wrote:Your opposition to the exhibitionist Kelly Kelly character just seems fundamentally wrong to me. That is who she is. You can make the argument that she should not be allowed to do it in an area where there might be children present (and I would agree with you), but Knox's motive's are still wrong. Hypothetically, If she wants to take her clothes off and there are no children present (and especially if it is somewhere she can ensure that none will pass by, like a place with a minimum required limit for age) she should be able to do so. The same applies to a man. I don't want to see him do it (for the same reason that I don't want to see a 90 year old woman do it), but I support his right to do so.

It is wrong, its called indecent exposure.

Are you saying that who she is a stripper (I couldn't think of a better word)?
Can I put it to you this way?

What if she was your daughter, or sister? Would you aprove because thats who she is?



Ok so I've gotten a little off topic.

I didn't like her doing it because it goes against my morals as a female. I would never strip for an employer, have sex with my boss. I wouldn't expose myself for anyone except my significant other.

Yes, I guess I am saying that she is a stripper/porn star (exhibitionists like to be watched). If she were my daughter or sister, it would be harder to accept due to a personal connection, but, when you look at that at a base level, it is fear of how it will reflect on me/my family. The key word in the phrase "no daughter of mine will be a stripper" is "mine." On a fundamental level, that is wrong. Is it possible to get past it? Yes. Is it easy? Of course not (and it shouldn't be). Will I be strong enough to overcome such thinking? I don't know, and I hope that I never have to find out.

As for your comments about it offending your morals as a female, I don't think you are understanding the character. She wasn't stripping because she was told to. She was stripping because she wanted to. In her mind, she is like Shakespeare in the Park. She is putting on a show so that people can see it, and if they do it makes her feel good.

But It just feels so wrong to me! Even if she enjoyed do that, it doesn't make it right.

Say it really was her character in life. Would people take her seriously? No because not a lot people respect strippers.

Thats why I find it hard to accept and respect her as a wrestler and champion now.

Which brings me to another point. By all means have someone like Kelly or Ashley Masaro, Candice, Stacy Kiebler, The Kat etc in the company. Wrestling is a male dominated industry, I get that and men want to see these women. But why they get put in the title scene is what annoys me when they can have more credible, talented female wrestlers as the top of the division. When people see Kelly as champion they wont think much of the division.

case in point, when I first started watching Impact it was when Taylor Wilde was champion. I was quick to judge and thought that they has a shitty group of women wrestlers because she was champion.

Big Red Machine wrote:

badnewzxl wrote:I disagree with your thesis; most of your points are true, but you aren't addressing the things that DO make wrestling sexist. I'm sure you're not purposely ignoring things, just think you need to see things from the other perspective. I took several Women's Studies courses in college and it helped me to understand that other side better. The most valuable course I took was titled "the Body in Feminist Theory" and I actually wrote my final paper for that class on how wrestling degrades women. It wasn't a paper about me bashing the industry or calling it misogynistic; it was about the things (subtle and unintentional in most instances) which degraded women. It's not that wrestling makes a point to offend women, but it's undeniable that women are offended by what goes on on the show a lot of times. I'll explain by addressing your points:

1. it's not about revealing outfits; it's about bra and panty matches, mud wrestling matches, evening gown matches, lingerie pillow fights, and Jerry Lawler's constant sexually suggestive banter. The women are more often than not SEXUALIZED while one or two guys would have a gimmick that involved that. There's mention on every single show how hot Velvet Sky and Kelly Kelly are; how often do you hear such things said about men? Remember Meat? Shawn Stasiak? Remember how much that gimmick sucked? How stupid it was and how no one respected or really even liked him bc of that? Well, women see a female competitor in that light over and over and over; way more than any man has seen a male performer. I have friends who think wrestling is degrading to black folks bc guys like R Truth and Pope do the ol' sing and dance, perpetuating stereotypes; my uncles hated Koko B. War and the JYD bc they were always dancing around (plus, JYD walking around in those chains didn't help much either). The only time I ever felt really offended by something from a racist standpoint was when Shelton Benjamin was in a slump and they had his damn "Mama" show up to straighten him out (And thats mainly bc the lady was a well known black actress; I grew up watching Thea. I thought it was bulls**t that they went and got Moesha's mama to play Shelton's mama. Sorry, I digress.) My point is (and this point'll prolly come up several times in my response) you can't really speak for a group you aren't apart of; you can barely speak for the whole of the group you're in yourself. I don't think wrestling degrades black folks, but a lot of black folks ARE offended by some things they see; same goes with women. So long as there are women who are offended by what they see, it's offensive. Several ppl on this for (namely me) hate the idea that pro wrestlers are spose to all look like bodybuilders. Us calling that Hogan'esque train of thought bulls**t is the very same as women calling wrestling degrading.

1. You bring up some fair points, although I will point out that in terms of the over-sexualization... that is only certain people (mostly Taz and Lawler). Other announcers manage not to do so. And I think that if you had female commentators, you would hear some things like that.

As for not being able claim non-offense for a group you are not part of, I see your point, but I also think (as I alluded to in the other thread) that there is some oversensitivity here. As I said in the other thread, I try my hardest to be post-race and post-gender, and I think that everyone else should, too. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (and please don't accuse me of pandering or manipulating by bringing up an MLK speech to the black guy, because I honestly believe that a post-race/post-gender society is the only way to achieve this. A world a society where your race is completely irrelevant. No one sees it at all. They don't even consider it in their evaluation of you. The only time that things out of your control (gender/race/sexual orientation) should be in anyway considered are things that matter biologically (i.e. woman should get maternity leave). To me, taking offense at some of these things is a barrier that is stopping society from getting to its ideal state of mind.

As for whether or not this is insensitivity, I will point out that you never see a white person complain that everyone with the gimmick of a rich, greedy, corrupt, evil business man (Dibiase, JBL, Bischoff) is white (and there are any white people offended by this... you shouldn't be).

Not that it is too relevant, but it honestly appalls me that someone would get offended by Ron Killings rapping in the ring, as rap is something that he loves doing (do the point where he was doing illegal things to make money in order to continue his career. I would be very curious to know how your friend would feel about it knowing that Ron is living his life being able to combine his two passions: wrestling and rap.

badnewzxl wrote:btw, there is NO difference between being degrading towards women and being degrading to one specific woman; you have to keep in mind that not everyone is a wrestling fan, esp not it's detractors. If you're not familiar with the characters and storylines, you just see a chick standing in her underwear (maybe crying) and the fans (and sme of the commentators) applauding and cheering. I can see how a woman could be offended by that. And if they're offended by it, they're not gonna sit down and watch or give the show the benefit of the doubt.

This statement has no place in this debate whatsoever. The case that you bring up here is someone (not you, but the type of person you are referring to) who is speaking out of ignorance. Whether these people perceive wrestling as being degrading to anyone is completely irrelevant. We here, as informed people who understand what wrestling is and how it accomplishes its goals (to entertain us and make us care about the characters and matches) are debating whether or not wrestling is degrading to women. How it is perceived by the ignorant is irrelevant. Those people are just like the people who hear that our president isn't white and is named "Barrack Hussein Obama" and assume that he is clearly a secret Muslim trying to destroy the US from the inside out, rather than doing the research and learning that he was born in Hawaii.

badnewzxl wrote: 2. I guess I agree with you here; I don't see how that would make it degrading anyways. Whoever used that excuse would need to explain that to me bc I believe the performers within the divisions are what makes the matches important.

The statement being made is the following. You have different divisions: A men's division and a women's division. Why is there so much focus on the men's division compared to the women's division? The World Heavyweight Title is the top title in the men's division and the Women's Title is top title in the women's division (I am not referring to WWE here, just using generic names for the titles). If men and women are equal, why does 90% of the focus go to the men's division. Should the company hire more women and work on its women's division. Split the time as equally as possible and make both titles seem equally important. If the women's title is also the top title in its division, why is it never defended in the main event?

badnewzxl wrote: 3. I read the statement very different from how you addressed it; I figured the statement meant that women are assumed not to be as good wrestlers as men. That's another thing I don't see the degradation in. assumptions aren't really portrayed in the ring; the fans have their own eyes to judge that. So I can't really argue this point.

I was talking specifically in terms of physical strength. Most people would assume that Sara Del Rey couldn't pick Jay Briscoe up and give him a bodyslam. Jay's billed weight is only about 90 pounds more that Death Rey's. If Daizee Haze can given Awesome Kong a German Suplex (Kong being billed at over 150 pounds more than Daizee), and people have no problem with that, then why shouldn't Death Rey be able to bodyslam Jay?

badnewzxl wrote: 4. I agree with you; but by that logic it WOULD be okay to use a racial slur if you're just talking to a specific person. So, I can still see how that could offend the female viewers at home. all the things you say the fans SHOULD feel can only be felt if it gets over; you're not gonna get over with anyone if you offend them. When you use language that you KNOW will turn ppl off, how can you expect them to follow you? Why would Eminem expect homosexuals to be down with his music? He didn't specifically use homophobic slurs against gay folks; he used them against heterosexuals which made IT both "mean and untrue." So did GLAAD have no right to be offended?

Because you are missing the point, which is the actual meaning of the word in question. A racial slur is a racial slur. Ch**k, Sp*c, and K*ke have no meaning other than being an offensive term for an Asian, Latino, and Jew respectively. N*gger is a corruption of the word Spanish and Portuguese "negro," meaning black, and identifying someone as such says that the only thing that matters to you is their skin color. They are not a person. Just a superficial attribute. The same way that C*nt is offensive because it reduces a woman to just one bodypart, whose major uses (in the context that the word is used- no one uses that word when they are talking about urinating) are physical acts that bring pleasure to men. "Slut" and "whore," on the other had, are words that have an actual meaning. The offense taken by people in those cases is one of solidarity. As I said, it is empathy, rather than sympathy.

badnewzxl wrote: 5. Totally agree here; and angle is an angle. Some are tasteless, some are stupid, some are brilliant, some are tear jerkers. They can come off as sexist, homophobic, racists, and offensive in so many ways it's crazy. It's just an angle; just like a movie is a movie. Until you see the end, you cant be completely sure what the message is. Maybe I missed a part, but I'm surprised you didn't address the idea that wrestling promotes violence against women, and is therefore degrading. When I wrote that paper and gave the presentation on wrestling in my Body in Feminist Theory class, the number one thing the girls (I was the only guy in the class) all agreed on before hand was that they felt wrestling promoted violence against women. When I explained to them how the actions they saw as being glorified were actually vilified, they thought differently. They didn't stick around to see the end of the angle bc they were offended by it from the get-go. When promoters and performers put things out there to shock ppl, there's always gonna be a backlash. Someone who doesn't appreciate the use of the word 'retard' prolly would never know how great of an angle Steen v. Generico was bc they didn't want to hear the word. It's def offensive it offended someone. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great angle; but just bc it was doesn't change the fact that it WAS offensive to some.

I didn't use it because I honestly think that idea is one of the dumbest things ever. Wrestling is a (simulated, but that's not important for now) COMBAT SPORT. If you are going to make the argument that wrestling promotes violence against women, then you also have to make the argument that wrestling promotes violence against men. And against Japanese people. And against brunettes. And against people over five feet tall. And against people named John.
Another reason I didn't bring it up (and you are right, I definitely should have) is because I don't have the same ideological reservations against it that many others seem to (I'm sure you all recall the debate from WA that wound up as me and Everlast vs. the world). As I said, I try to be post-gender. If a woman hit me (we're talking a stranger or an enemy here, not a friend), I would like to think have no qualms hitting her right back. Your argument in your women's studies class was admirable, but it doesn't work in all examples. How about the Fight Without Honor at Final Battle 2009. Sara Del Rey jumped into the ring and stated kicking away at Eddie Kingston, but Eddie eventually caught her leg and hit her with a capture suplex, which got a pop from the crowd? People cheered violence against a woman. So why should someone be okay with it? Because it was entirely justified. Death Rey attacked Kingston, so he fought back.

As for the word retard (side rant time) that is a case similar to my argument why calling someone a slut is okay but a racial slur is not. The word retard HAS A MEANING and that is the meaning that one intends when they call someone a retard. Just like the words "idiot" and "moron" originally did, the word retard (as the noun for "one who is retarded" means someone with an IQ below a certain level. Hell, the words "idiot" and "moron" became the insults we know today because they were used exactly the same way that people use the word "retard" today. It is in no way analogous to the disgusting misuse of the words "gay" or "homo" as insults, as those cases imply that there is something negative about being gay, which there isn't... but there is something negative about being retarded- the lower IQ level which is exactly what the insulter is implying that the insultee is acting like they have.

badnewzxl wrote: I believe wrestling is offensive; not so much TOWARDS ME, but def towards a very large number of ppl. Of course, the majority of them are not wrestling fans; prolly bc they're offended by it. I can't deny them the right to have a problem with something just bc I don't have a problem with it; it's their choice. Personally, I'm offended by Tyler Perry movies; I think they depict black men as pieces of s**t who give their wives aids and cheat on them and piss away the family's money; nobody can tell me not to be offended just bc they don't see it the same way....

You have a point here, for the most part... but the difference is that you understand the goal of the movie, whereas the ignorant person does not understand what is happening in the wrestling angle.

BRM, a lot of your explanations don't matter by your own definition. If you're gonna say that the impression non wrestling fans have of pro wrestling DOESN'T MATTER and has no place in this discussion of whether or not wrestling is degrading to women, then your opinion (as a male) DOESN'T matter in the conversation. It's okay for a man to state that wrestling is not degrading towards women but it's not okay for a non wrestling fan to judge pro wrestling? THAT'S hypocritical. Your argument was that non wrestling fans don't know what's going on and are therefore ignorant and can't understand what's going on; but you yourself are ignorant to what it's like to be a woman, so then YOU have no business speaking on the subject (this conclusion is based on what YOU said in the passages above).

The mere fact that EC has stated she finds some things offensive proves it is such; we've got a woman right here, answering the question with a yes. It of course doesn't mean that wrestling is always degrading women or even especially offensive, but if your argument is that it is NOT offensive, you're out of touch. The evidence is right here in the thread....

Furthermore, about point 5:

You have to understand that most ppl (like a vast majority) never study linguistics or look into the history of words; to those folks, all those insults can be offensive. It DOES depend on one's individual sensitivity on the subject, that's how you know it's offensive to said individual. I don't get offended when white folks use nigga; all my friends say it and use it around me as I do around them, if they want. But I have white friends who don't use the word, and get uncomfortable when others use it; so when I'm chillin with them, I don't use it. I have black buddies and my family who don't like the idea of white ppl or other races using the word, so my non-black friends who do say it, at least don't say it around those who find it offensive. And I have family who don't like to hear the word at all; no matter what. In there eyes the word is just something mean you say to someone to bring them down bc THAT'S their experience with the word. To my white friends who hate the word; it represents a time when America was itself a lie; the land of the free where people owned people. To my some of my black peers, the word is reparations for the times when the word was used by others to oppress us; now WE would use it to bring ourselves up. To me and the majority of my friends, it's just a synonym for Dude or guys or something like that. Just bc I don't share the sentiment isn't proof that the degradation isn't there; I am just not a victim of it. And when you CAN'T be a victim of it (in this case of whether or not wrestling is degrading to women) you can't declare it's safety.

Here's a pertinent example: at the end of last year, when Cena was doing the little Juan Cena thing at house shows, I remember kirbs being upset about that and I didn't understand why. He responded that as a hispanic person, it offends him when something from his culture is ripped off by someone outside of it. While I didn't feel the same sentiment myself, I couldn't deny that the gimmick was offensive; a man sat right here and told me point blank that he was offended. For me to deny it (by YOUR own logic) wouldn't matter bc I'm as ignorant to what it's like to be hispanic, as non wrestling fans are to how pro wrestling shows progress; as ignorant as you and me both are as to what's degrading towards women. That's why I can't agree with your claim....

badnewzxl wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:

badnewzxl wrote:I disagree with your thesis; most of your points are true, but you aren't addressing the things that DO make wrestling sexist. I'm sure you're not purposely ignoring things, just think you need to see things from the other perspective. I took several Women's Studies courses in college and it helped me to understand that other side better. The most valuable course I took was titled "the Body in Feminist Theory" and I actually wrote my final paper for that class on how wrestling degrades women. It wasn't a paper about me bashing the industry or calling it misogynistic; it was about the things (subtle and unintentional in most instances) which degraded women. It's not that wrestling makes a point to offend women, but it's undeniable that women are offended by what goes on on the show a lot of times. I'll explain by addressing your points:

1. it's not about revealing outfits; it's about bra and panty matches, mud wrestling matches, evening gown matches, lingerie pillow fights, and Jerry Lawler's constant sexually suggestive banter. The women are more often than not SEXUALIZED while one or two guys would have a gimmick that involved that. There's mention on every single show how hot Velvet Sky and Kelly Kelly are; how often do you hear such things said about men? Remember Meat? Shawn Stasiak? Remember how much that gimmick sucked? How stupid it was and how no one respected or really even liked him bc of that? Well, women see a female competitor in that light over and over and over; way more than any man has seen a male performer. I have friends who think wrestling is degrading to black folks bc guys like R Truth and Pope do the ol' sing and dance, perpetuating stereotypes; my uncles hated Koko B. War and the JYD bc they were always dancing around (plus, JYD walking around in those chains didn't help much either). The only time I ever felt really offended by something from a racist standpoint was when Shelton Benjamin was in a slump and they had his damn "Mama" show up to straighten him out (And thats mainly bc the lady was a well known black actress; I grew up watching Thea. I thought it was bulls**t that they went and got Moesha's mama to play Shelton's mama. Sorry, I digress.) My point is (and this point'll prolly come up several times in my response) you can't really speak for a group you aren't apart of; you can barely speak for the whole of the group you're in yourself. I don't think wrestling degrades black folks, but a lot of black folks ARE offended by some things they see; same goes with women. So long as there are women who are offended by what they see, it's offensive. Several ppl on this for (namely me) hate the idea that pro wrestlers are spose to all look like bodybuilders. Us calling that Hogan'esque train of thought bulls**t is the very same as women calling wrestling degrading.

1. You bring up some fair points, although I will point out that in terms of the over-sexualization... that is only certain people (mostly Taz and Lawler). Other announcers manage not to do so. And I think that if you had female commentators, you would hear some things like that.

As for not being able claim non-offense for a group you are not part of, I see your point, but I also think (as I alluded to in the other thread) that there is some oversensitivity here. As I said in the other thread, I try my hardest to be post-race and post-gender, and I think that everyone else should, too. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (and please don't accuse me of pandering or manipulating by bringing up an MLK speech to the black guy, because I honestly believe that a post-race/post-gender society is the only way to achieve this. A world a society where your race is completely irrelevant. No one sees it at all. They don't even consider it in their evaluation of you. The only time that things out of your control (gender/race/sexual orientation) should be in anyway considered are things that matter biologically (i.e. woman should get maternity leave). To me, taking offense at some of these things is a barrier that is stopping society from getting to its ideal state of mind.

As for whether or not this is insensitivity, I will point out that you never see a white person complain that everyone with the gimmick of a rich, greedy, corrupt, evil business man (Dibiase, JBL, Bischoff) is white (and there are any white people offended by this... you shouldn't be).

Not that it is too relevant, but it honestly appalls me that someone would get offended by Ron Killings rapping in the ring, as rap is something that he loves doing (do the point where he was doing illegal things to make money in order to continue his career. I would be very curious to know how your friend would feel about it knowing that Ron is living his life being able to combine his two passions: wrestling and rap.

badnewzxl wrote:btw, there is NO difference between being degrading towards women and being degrading to one specific woman; you have to keep in mind that not everyone is a wrestling fan, esp not it's detractors. If you're not familiar with the characters and storylines, you just see a chick standing in her underwear (maybe crying) and the fans (and sme of the commentators) applauding and cheering. I can see how a woman could be offended by that. And if they're offended by it, they're not gonna sit down and watch or give the show the benefit of the doubt.

This statement has no place in this debate whatsoever. The case that you bring up here is someone (not you, but the type of person you are referring to) who is speaking out of ignorance. Whether these people perceive wrestling as being degrading to anyone is completely irrelevant. We here, as informed people who understand what wrestling is and how it accomplishes its goals (to entertain us and make us care about the characters and matches) are debating whether or not wrestling is degrading to women. How it is perceived by the ignorant is irrelevant. Those people are just like the people who hear that our president isn't white and is named "Barrack Hussein Obama" and assume that he is clearly a secret Muslim trying to destroy the US from the inside out, rather than doing the research and learning that he was born in Hawaii.

badnewzxl wrote: 2. I guess I agree with you here; I don't see how that would make it degrading anyways. Whoever used that excuse would need to explain that to me bc I believe the performers within the divisions are what makes the matches important.

The statement being made is the following. You have different divisions: A men's division and a women's division. Why is there so much focus on the men's division compared to the women's division? The World Heavyweight Title is the top title in the men's division and the Women's Title is top title in the women's division (I am not referring to WWE here, just using generic names for the titles). If men and women are equal, why does 90% of the focus go to the men's division. Should the company hire more women and work on its women's division. Split the time as equally as possible and make both titles seem equally important. If the women's title is also the top title in its division, why is it never defended in the main event?

badnewzxl wrote: 3. I read the statement very different from how you addressed it; I figured the statement meant that women are assumed not to be as good wrestlers as men. That's another thing I don't see the degradation in. assumptions aren't really portrayed in the ring; the fans have their own eyes to judge that. So I can't really argue this point.

I was talking specifically in terms of physical strength. Most people would assume that Sara Del Rey couldn't pick Jay Briscoe up and give him a bodyslam. Jay's billed weight is only about 90 pounds more that Death Rey's. If Daizee Haze can given Awesome Kong a German Suplex (Kong being billed at over 150 pounds more than Daizee), and people have no problem with that, then why shouldn't Death Rey be able to bodyslam Jay?

badnewzxl wrote: 4. I agree with you; but by that logic it WOULD be okay to use a racial slur if you're just talking to a specific person. So, I can still see how that could offend the female viewers at home. all the things you say the fans SHOULD feel can only be felt if it gets over; you're not gonna get over with anyone if you offend them. When you use language that you KNOW will turn ppl off, how can you expect them to follow you? Why would Eminem expect homosexuals to be down with his music? He didn't specifically use homophobic slurs against gay folks; he used them against heterosexuals which made IT both "mean and untrue." So did GLAAD have no right to be offended?

Because you are missing the point, which is the actual meaning of the word in question. A racial slur is a racial slur. Ch**k, Sp*c, and K*ke have no meaning other than being an offensive term for an Asian, Latino, and Jew respectively. N*gger is a corruption of the word Spanish and Portuguese "negro," meaning black, and identifying someone as such says that the only thing that matters to you is their skin color. They are not a person. Just a superficial attribute. The same way that C*nt is offensive because it reduces a woman to just one bodypart, whose major uses (in the context that the word is used- no one uses that word when they are talking about urinating) are physical acts that bring pleasure to men. "Slut" and "whore," on the other had, are words that have an actual meaning. The offense taken by people in those cases is one of solidarity. As I said, it is empathy, rather than sympathy.

badnewzxl wrote: 5. Totally agree here; and angle is an angle. Some are tasteless, some are stupid, some are brilliant, some are tear jerkers. They can come off as sexist, homophobic, racists, and offensive in so many ways it's crazy. It's just an angle; just like a movie is a movie. Until you see the end, you cant be completely sure what the message is. Maybe I missed a part, but I'm surprised you didn't address the idea that wrestling promotes violence against women, and is therefore degrading. When I wrote that paper and gave the presentation on wrestling in my Body in Feminist Theory class, the number one thing the girls (I was the only guy in the class) all agreed on before hand was that they felt wrestling promoted violence against women. When I explained to them how the actions they saw as being glorified were actually vilified, they thought differently. They didn't stick around to see the end of the angle bc they were offended by it from the get-go. When promoters and performers put things out there to shock ppl, there's always gonna be a backlash. Someone who doesn't appreciate the use of the word 'retard' prolly would never know how great of an angle Steen v. Generico was bc they didn't want to hear the word. It's def offensive it offended someone. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great angle; but just bc it was doesn't change the fact that it WAS offensive to some.

I didn't use it because I honestly think that idea is one of the dumbest things ever. Wrestling is a (simulated, but that's not important for now) COMBAT SPORT. If you are going to make the argument that wrestling promotes violence against women, then you also have to make the argument that wrestling promotes violence against men. And against Japanese people. And against brunettes. And against people over five feet tall. And against people named John.
Another reason I didn't bring it up (and you are right, I definitely should have) is because I don't have the same ideological reservations against it that many others seem to (I'm sure you all recall the debate from WA that wound up as me and Everlast vs. the world). As I said, I try to be post-gender. If a woman hit me (we're talking a stranger or an enemy here, not a friend), I would like to think have no qualms hitting her right back. Your argument in your women's studies class was admirable, but it doesn't work in all examples. How about the Fight Without Honor at Final Battle 2009. Sara Del Rey jumped into the ring and stated kicking away at Eddie Kingston, but Eddie eventually caught her leg and hit her with a capture suplex, which got a pop from the crowd? People cheered violence against a woman. So why should someone be okay with it? Because it was entirely justified. Death Rey attacked Kingston, so he fought back.

As for the word retard (side rant time) that is a case similar to my argument why calling someone a slut is okay but a racial slur is not. The word retard HAS A MEANING and that is the meaning that one intends when they call someone a retard. Just like the words "idiot" and "moron" originally did, the word retard (as the noun for "one who is retarded" means someone with an IQ below a certain level. Hell, the words "idiot" and "moron" became the insults we know today because they were used exactly the same way that people use the word "retard" today. It is in no way analogous to the disgusting misuse of the words "gay" or "homo" as insults, as those cases imply that there is something negative about being gay, which there isn't... but there is something negative about being retarded- the lower IQ level which is exactly what the insulter is implying that the insultee is acting like they have.

badnewzxl wrote: I believe wrestling is offensive; not so much TOWARDS ME, but def towards a very large number of ppl. Of course, the majority of them are not wrestling fans; prolly bc they're offended by it. I can't deny them the right to have a problem with something just bc I don't have a problem with it; it's their choice. Personally, I'm offended by Tyler Perry movies; I think they depict black men as pieces of s**t who give their wives aids and cheat on them and piss away the family's money; nobody can tell me not to be offended just bc they don't see it the same way....

You have a point here, for the most part... but the difference is that you understand the goal of the movie, whereas the ignorant person does not understand what is happening in the wrestling angle.

BRM, a lot of your explanations don't matter by your own definition. If you're gonna say that the impression non wrestling fans have of pro wrestling DOESN'T MATTER and has no place in this discussion of whether or not wrestling is degrading to women, then your opinion (as a male) DOESN'T matter in the conversation. It's okay for a man to state that wrestling is not degrading towards women but it's not okay for a non wrestling fan to judge pro wrestling? THAT'S hypocritical. Your argument was that non wrestling fans don't know what's going on and are therefore ignorant and can't understand what's going on; but you yourself are ignorant to what it's like to be a woman, so then YOU have no business speaking on the subject (this conclusion is based on what YOU said in the passages above).

The mere fact that EC has stated she finds some things offensive proves it is such; we've got a woman right here, answering the question with a yes. It of course doesn't mean that wrestling is always degrading women or even especially offensive, but if your argument is that it is NOT offensive, you're out of touch. The evidence is right here in the thread....

I see what you are saying, but I think that it is a little bit different. A non-wrestling fan makes these objections with no knowledge of how things in wrestling work. The stuff with Trish and Vince is a great example of this. That is one segment that draws heat on Vince, and Trish gets to play her part in giving Vince (and Steph) their comeuppance at the end of the angle at Wrestlemania X-7. But the non-fan sees nothing but that one segment and judges everything based on that, without trying to do any research at all to find out what was really going on or why. To give another example, look at Triple H giving Steph a Pedigree during the three-way match on the Raw of the first ever WWE Draft. In isolation, he is doing this for no reason. But if you do some research, it is easy to find out that she has been making is life hell for the past few months.

I understand the background concepts here. Both in terms of what is going on in the ring, and (as you and EC have helped enlighten me, at least) to the female mindset. I have done the research. Why do women think this is degrading? What are they saying about it? etc. But most of the things that EC objected to are not inherent in wrestling and in most cases, have been phased out. A costume contest with no angle attacked is just a wet t-shirt contest. It does not belong in wrestling in any capacity (and nowadays, usually isn't). Also, as I have said, in a lot of these cases, my feeling isn't that wrestling doesn't degrade women as much as it is that wrestling doesn't degrade women any more that it degrades men. If someone were to start doing commentary for WWE and talking about how hunky male wrestlers were, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

badnewzxl wrote:Furthermore, about point 5:

You have to understand that most ppl (like a vast majority) never study linguistics or look into the history of words; to those folks, all those insults can be offensive. It DOES depend on one's individual sensitivity on the subject, that's how you know it's offensive to said individual. I don't get offended when white folks use *censored*; all my friends say it and use it around me as I do around them, if they want. But I have white friends who don't use the word, and get uncomfortable when others use it; so when I'm chillin with them, I don't use it. I have black buddies and my family who don't like the idea of white ppl or other races using the word, so my non-black friends who do say it, at least don't say it around those who find it offensive. And I have family who don't like to hear the word at all; no matter what. In there eyes the word is just something mean you say to someone to bring them down bc THAT'S their experience with the word. To my white friends who hate the word; it represents a time when America was itself a lie; the land of the free where people owned people. To my some of my black peers, the word is reparations for the times when the word was used by others to oppress us; now WE would use it to bring ourselves up. To me and the majority of my friends, it's just a synonym for Dude or guys or something like that. Just bc I don't share the sentiment isn't proof that the degradation isn't there; I am just not a victim of it. And when you CAN'T be a victim of it (in this case of whether or not wrestling is degrading to women) you can't declare it's safety.

Here's a pertinent example: at the end of last year, when Cena was doing the little Juan Cena thing at house shows, I remember kirbs being upset about that and I didn't understand why. He responded that as a hispanic person, it offends him when something from his culture is ripped off by someone outside of it. While I didn't feel the same sentiment myself, I couldn't deny that the gimmick was offensive; a man sat right here and told me point blank that he was offended. For me to deny it (by YOUR own logic) wouldn't matter bc I'm as ignorant to what it's like to be hispanic, as non wrestling fans are to how pro wrestling shows progress; as ignorant as you and me both are as to what's degrading towards women. That's why I can't agree with your claim....

Id just like to point out Kirbs is in no way hispanic lol youve got your stuff mixed up

badnewzxl wrote:Furthermore, about point 5:

You have to understand that most ppl (like a vast majority) never study linguistics or look into the history of words; to those folks, all those insults can be offensive. It DOES depend on one's individual sensitivity on the subject, that's how you know it's offensive to said individual. I don't get offended when white folks use *censored*; all my friends say it and use it around me as I do around them, if they want. But I have white friends who don't use the word, and get uncomfortable when others use it; so when I'm chillin with them, I don't use it. I have black buddies and my family who don't like the idea of white ppl or other races using the word, so my non-black friends who do say it, at least don't say it around those who find it offensive. And I have family who don't like to hear the word at all; no matter what. In there eyes the word is just something mean you say to someone to bring them down bc THAT'S their experience with the word. To my white friends who hate the word; it represents a time when America was itself a lie; the land of the free where people owned people. To my some of my black peers, the word is reparations for the times when the word was used by others to oppress us; now WE would use it to bring ourselves up. To me and the majority of my friends, it's just a synonym for Dude or guys or something like that. Just bc I don't share the sentiment isn't proof that the degradation isn't there; I am just not a victim of it. And when you CAN'T be a victim of it (in this case of whether or not wrestling is degrading to women) you can't declare it's safety.

Here's a pertinent example: at the end of last year, when Cena was doing the little Juan Cena thing at house shows, I remember kirbs being upset about that and I didn't understand why. He responded that as a hispanic person, it offends him when something from his culture is ripped off by someone outside of it. While I didn't feel the same sentiment myself, I couldn't deny that the gimmick was offensive; a man sat right here and told me point blank that he was offended. For me to deny it (by YOUR own logic) wouldn't matter bc I'm as ignorant to what it's like to be hispanic, as non wrestling fans are to how pro wrestling shows progress; as ignorant as you and me both are as to what's degrading towards women. That's why I can't agree with your claim....

But you and I can both understand the concept of finding something ripping off of our culture to be offensive, and we can sympathize.

And as I said before, ignorance is not an excuse. You can't understand why a word would be offensive if you don't understand what the word means and the history behind it. The first time that I heard the word "f*g" I was in fourth grade. I had no idea what it meant. I just heard people use it. I honestly thought that it was a synonym for jerk or idiot or some other minor insult. And because of that I did not perceive the true offensiveness of the word. People need to educate themselves. Laziness and ignorance are not excuses.

Earth Child wrote:But It just feels so wrong to me! Even if she enjoyed do that, it doesn't make it right.

Say it really was her character in life. Would people take her seriously? No because not a lot people respect strippers.

Thats why I find it hard to accept and respect her as a wrestler and champion now.

how would it be different from Rick Rude or Val Venis swinging their hips around?? Or Shawn Michaels in a thong insinuating having a large penis with a Sausage?? Or a guy portraying a clown like Doink or Mankind, since not a lot people respect clowns?

Strippers and Clowns are a similar job. Both work to make a certain type of population happy and entertained for a while. the both charge for it. they have their different techniques of "degrading" themselves to do so. you could argue that the stripper does it to create pleasure and lust in their clientele, but if you're a kid with no idea of what lust, you could say that a kid gets also pleasure for seeing a clown do their act.

at the end of the day, some people enjoy making fun of themselves...the same way some people like exposing their selves. if they're not breaking the law, it's not really wrong.

Earth Child wrote: Which brings me to another point. By all means have someone like Kelly or Ashley Masaro, Candice, Stacy Kiebler, The Kat etc in the company. Wrestling is a male dominated industry, I get that and men want to see these women. But why they get put in the title scene is what annoys me when they can have more credible, talented female wrestlers as the top of the division. When people see Kelly as champion they wont think much of the division.

case in point, when I first started watching Impact it was when Taylor Wilde was champion. I was quick to judge and thought that they has a shitty group of women wrestlers because she was champion.

Same reason men have to put up with guys like Hogan, Cena, Orton, or Rey Mysterio. Because they sell and little kids and girls want to see them, this is sports entertainment. Kelly Kelly is the Cena of the Diva's division, no one gives them the credit they deserve for the amount of work they put up, or how much they improve on the ring. In a real wrestling world, neither would deserve titles they have, yet in a sports entertainment world, they're decent choices to carry the belt.

Earth Child wrote:But It just feels so wrong to me! Even if she enjoyed do that, it doesn't make it right.

Say it really was her character in life. Would people take her seriously? No because not a lot people respect strippers.

Thats why I find it hard to accept and respect her as a wrestler and champion now.

Which brings me to another point. By all means have someone like Kelly or Ashley Masaro, Candice, Stacy Kiebler, The Kat etc in the company. Wrestling is a male dominated industry, I get that and men want to see these women. But why they get put in the title scene is what annoys me when they can have more credible, talented female wrestlers as the top of the division. When people see Kelly as champion they wont think much of the division.

case in point, when I first started watching Impact it was when Taylor Wilde was champion. I was quick to judge and thought that they has a shitty group of women wrestlers because she was champion.

It feels wrong to some people that two people of the same gender can be in love. As long as she's not hurting anyone, its none of our business.

if it was her character in life people wouldn't take her as seriously, but this is a case (IMO) of the suspension of disbelief involved in pro wrestling. No one would take a stripper seriously as a wrestler. The same with a taxman or a garbage man or a clown. But in the world of wrestling, it is entirely possible for a stripper to also be a good wrestler. Just a taxman moonlighting as a pro-wrestler, it is improbable, but not impossible.

They get put near the title picture because they draw, and wrestling is a business. I see your point about the champion, but I think that people would do that with male wrestlers, too. I have seen indy shows where the champ just isn't that good, and it turned me off to the rest of the show.

Big Red Machine wrote:

badnewzxl wrote:Furthermore, about point 5:

You have to understand that most ppl (like a vast majority) never study linguistics or look into the history of words; to those folks, all those insults can be offensive. It DOES depend on one's individual sensitivity on the subject, that's how you know it's offensive to said individual. I don't get offended when white folks use *censored*; all my friends say it and use it around me as I do around them, if they want. But I have white friends who don't use the word, and get uncomfortable when others use it; so when I'm chillin with them, I don't use it. I have black buddies and my family who don't like the idea of white ppl or other races using the word, so my non-black friends who do say it, at least don't say it around those who find it offensive. And I have family who don't like to hear the word at all; no matter what. In there eyes the word is just something mean you say to someone to bring them down bc THAT'S their experience with the word. To my white friends who hate the word; it represents a time when America was itself a lie; the land of the free where people owned people. To my some of my black peers, the word is reparations for the times when the word was used by others to oppress us; now WE would use it to bring ourselves up. To me and the majority of my friends, it's just a synonym for Dude or guys or something like that. Just bc I don't share the sentiment isn't proof that the degradation isn't there; I am just not a victim of it. And when you CAN'T be a victim of it (in this case of whether or not wrestling is degrading to women) you can't declare it's safety.

Here's a pertinent example: at the end of last year, when Cena was doing the little Juan Cena thing at house shows, I remember kirbs being upset about that and I didn't understand why. He responded that as a hispanic person, it offends him when something from his culture is ripped off by someone outside of it. While I didn't feel the same sentiment myself, I couldn't deny that the gimmick was offensive; a man sat right here and told me point blank that he was offended. For me to deny it (by YOUR own logic) wouldn't matter bc I'm as ignorant to what it's like to be hispanic, as non wrestling fans are to how pro wrestling shows progress; as ignorant as you and me both are as to what's degrading towards women. That's why I can't agree with your claim....

But you and I can both understand the concept of finding something ripping off of our culture to be offensive, and we can sympathize.

And as I said before, ignorance is not an excuse. You can't understand why a word would be offensive if you don't understand what the word means and the history behind it. The first time that I heard the word "f*g" I was in fourth grade. I had no idea what it meant. I just heard people use it. I honestly thought that it was a synonym for jerk or idiot or some other minor insult. And because of that I did not perceive the true offensiveness of the word. People need to educate themselves. Laziness and ignorance are not excuses.

You're missing a MAJOR point here: words have meant different things to different ppl throughout time. When someone calls my Grandfather the n-word, he takes offense to it; when someone calls me the n-word, I say it back to them and we hi five or shake hands or whatever. My grandfather can tell me all day that the word is meant to hurt me; and I can tell him it's meant to endear him, but neither of us are right or wrong. His association with the word is negative and it ALWAYS has a negative connotation in his mind; it offends him. Just bc the word wasn't originally used to oppress anyone; and even if it's not necessarily used to be verbally abusive today, doesn't mean ppl aren't offended by it or that you can definitively state that the word is not offensive. If we use your example of the f-word, judging by what you're saying, it's okay to use the word bc it was originally NOT a homophobic slur. Slut was originally a sexist slurr referring to sexually permiscuous women; how is it okay to use this word? How is IT not degrading, but f*g is?

KILLdozer wrote:

badnewzxl wrote:Furthermore, about point 5:

You have to understand that most ppl (like a vast majority) never study linguistics or look into the history of words; to those folks, all those insults can be offensive. It DOES depend on one's individual sensitivity on the subject, that's how you know it's offensive to said individual. I don't get offended when white folks use *censored*; all my friends say it and use it around me as I do around them, if they want. But I have white friends who don't use the word, and get uncomfortable when others use it; so when I'm chillin with them, I don't use it. I have black buddies and my family who don't like the idea of white ppl or other races using the word, so my non-black friends who do say it, at least don't say it around those who find it offensive. And I have family who don't like to hear the word at all; no matter what. In there eyes the word is just something mean you say to someone to bring them down bc THAT'S their experience with the word. To my white friends who hate the word; it represents a time when America was itself a lie; the land of the free where people owned people. To my some of my black peers, the word is reparations for the times when the word was used by others to oppress us; now WE would use it to bring ourselves up. To me and the majority of my friends, it's just a synonym for Dude or guys or something like that. Just bc I don't share the sentiment isn't proof that the degradation isn't there; I am just not a victim of it. And when you CAN'T be a victim of it (in this case of whether or not wrestling is degrading to women) you can't declare it's safety.

Here's a pertinent example: at the end of last year, when Cena was doing the little Juan Cena thing at house shows, I remember kirbs being upset about that and I didn't understand why. He responded that as a hispanic person, it offends him when something from his culture is ripped off by someone outside of it. While I didn't feel the same sentiment myself, I couldn't deny that the gimmick was offensive; a man sat right here and told me point blank that he was offended. For me to deny it (by YOUR own logic) wouldn't matter bc I'm as ignorant to what it's like to be hispanic, as non wrestling fans are to how pro wrestling shows progress; as ignorant as you and me both are as to what's degrading towards women. That's why I can't agree with your claim....

Id just like to point out Kirbs is in no way hispanic lol youve got your stuff mixed up

well, he def told me that he was; I'll ask him again just to be sure, but I remember him being pretty irked about Juan Cena....

BRM, I agree with your statement that wrestling degrades women and men evenly; but it still degrades them. So, your thesis (i.e. the title of this thread) is wrong. That's the point I'm making. Women don't lose the right to state they are offended by wrestling just bc men don't exercise that right. That's what it looks like you're saying; it looks like you're saying that since Men don't complain about wrestling degrading them, then women should take it in stride just the same. I disagree with that completely....