Skip to content

A missive from Jackson Katz

I’ve been writing off and on about efforts hereabouts to spread word about a video made by Jackson Katz about the “family entertainment” Linda McMahon spewed forth at the WWE. I tried to email to him to get his support for our efforts to post the video, but never got a response. Most likely the email address on his website is either no longer functioning or he doesn’t check it. Anyway, he’s now asked that this be circu,ated here in Connecticut, and I’m glad to do my bit. Some videos at the link he provides. Warning: quite disturbing. 

“Senator McMahon” Sounds like an Outlandish WWE Story-Line

By Jackson Katz
The Huffington Post
Posted: 10/22/2012 12:44 pm
 
Say it ain’t so, Connecticut. To many of us who have closely followed Linda McMahon’s business career, the very idea of her being elected to the United States Senate sounds more like an outlandish World Wrestling Entertainment story line than it does a realistic political scenario in the Nutmeg State.

According to many observers, the polls in the Murphy-McMahon race have tightened because McMahon has made inroads with women voters after cleverly repositioning herself as an advocate and role model for working women. In a society that desperately needs more women in positions of political leadership, it is understandable that many women have given her a second look.

But let’s get real: until Linda McMahon decided to run as a Republican for the 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, over the past twenty years the WWE has featured some of the most brutal, violent and hateful depictions of women in all of media culture.

I have a special vantage point on the Connecticut Senate race. I was a major contributor on and off-screen to an educational documentary about professional wrestling that was released by the Massachusetts-based Media Education Foundation in 2002. Entitled “Wrestling with Manhood: Boys, Bullying and Battering,” the film examined in detail the almost-unimaginable sexism, homophobia and racism of the WWE.

When we made the film we knew that many people who disdain professional wrestling had never actually watched the actual product, so we included numerous clips from WWE programs, interspersed with commentary and interviews with wrestlers and fans.

In 2010 when McMahon first ran for the senate, it was clips from our film that circulated online and awakened many voters to the crass exploitation and cultural degradation at the center of McMahon’s business “success.”

In the current campaign, WWE lawyers have been hard at work bullying countless web sites, including YouTube, to remove these clips, because viewers who watch them come away not only horrified by the sexist abuse, but also much more critical of the McMahons and their eagerness to cater to the culture’s lowest common denominator.

Instead of showing her as a “role model for businesswomen,” those clips from WWE programs expose the shamelessness of McMahon and her husband Vince’s quest for profit and power, a shamelessness that extends to their willingness to glamorize sexual and domestic violence in the name of ratings and ticket sales.

My work has principally been concerned with reducing men’s violence against women and children. In the prevention programs I run in schools, the sports culture and the military, and in books, articles and films like Wrestling with Manhood, I have examined how social norms that support sexist abuse are transmitted through entertainment media in particularly insidious ways.

For example, many fans and defenders of the WWE, and supporters of Linda McMahon, like to say that pro wrestling is “only entertainment,” and if you don’t like it, you can change the channel. This discounts the fact that over the past two decades millions of boys and young men (and some girls and young women) have laughed along and cheered as WWE wrestlers mock-raped, battered and sexually harassed women — and brutally bullied other men — in narratives both inside and outside the ring.

Defenders of the WWE claim that the most offensive narratives have been cleaned up since the end of the notorious “attitude era,” which curiously came to a close just as Linda McMahon’s Senate aspirations went public. But McMahon’s current campaign is being funded in part by WWE profits from that era. And anyone who thinks the verbal and physical abuse-fest that is the WWE today is “family-friendly entertainment” has curious ideas about what constitutes healthy families.

Most kids know the difference between the staged narratives of the WWE and real life. But the idea that this sort of entertainment has no discernible effect on young people’s psyches and belief systems is at best naïve and disingenuous. Media play a powerful role in establishing and perpetuating social norms. How are we going to bring down our society’s intolerably high levels of men’s violence against women, and bullying of all kinds, when mainstream cultural forces like the WWE reinforce their normalcy and acceptability on a daily basis?

For decades, mothers and fathers have lamented the ways that gigantic and largely unaccountable media corporations contribute to the normalization and glamorization of abusive attitudes and behaviors. One of the most common topics of conversation among parents today – especially parents of boys — is how to counteract the desensitization to violence and suffering that accompanies our sons’ immersion in music, movies, video games and television programming that so often features casual brutality and violence without consequences. Many parents feel a sense of futility amidst this onslaught on the character development of our kids.

But due to the audacious ambitions of one woman, Connecticut voters are in a unique position to do more than lament. As residents of the state from which the WWE’s culture-degrading influence emanates, they can do more than simply exercise their “rights” as consumers and change the channel.

Unlike most people around the country who have little recourse against powerful media companies, they can use their democratic rights as citizens to send a message to the Linda McMahons of the world:

You might have made your fortune through crass commercial exploitation. But your ill-gotten gain will not buy you such an important leadership role in our democracy as a seat in the United States Senate. Not this time. Not in our state. Not in our name.

Bring on St. Thomas

Who knew that the thorny question of free will would become a campaign issue?

According to Richard Mourdock, Republican candidate for the Senate from Indiana and crazy person (I know, I’m being redundant), if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, “It is something that God intended to happen”. Now that statement can really only be read one way: that god not only intended that the woman become pregnant, but that his instrument should be the rapist.

Now, that implies, if I’m not mistaken, that the rapist had no choice but to rape, just as the woman had no choice but to get pregnant (and that’s a “no choice” the Republicans want very desperately to preserve). And that implies that the rapist lacked free will. It wasn’t his idea to rape that woman, God made him do it. Hmmm, perhaps an Indiana rape defendant should try that argument out.

Now, when I was back there in Catholic school, I recall one nun valiantly trying to explain to us incredulous second or fourth graders (not third, I had a lay teacher that year) how God could be omnipotent and omniscient, know the future before it happens, and still not be responsible for what we did. Looking back, I feel for her. It doesn’t take a genius to see the problem with having to believe all those things at once (we grade schooler saw the problem), but it takes a theologian with years of training to make it seem to make sense. She wasn’t up to the task, but in retrospect, I don’t think she did too bad a job. She analogized it to a mother watching a home movie of her child falling off a bicycle. She knew the child was going to fall, didn’t want it to fall, but couldn’t prevent it. The argument, I guess, is that for God, there is only the eternal now. He observes all at once, knows all at once, but does not cause any particular choice to be made, though presumably he could take charge if he wished. Of course, I could be wrong about all this and it’s all bullshit anyway, but I believe I’m definitely correct about the basic argument Mourdock is making. If the rapist’s act is not his own, then none of our acts are our own. Each and every breath we take is only what God intends. Which undercuts all religion entirely, of course.

So, a word to the Republicans, there’s something else that follows from what is clearly a core belief of yours. You didn’t build that. We didn’t build that. There are no Galtian overlords who achieved success through their own atheistic efforts. God did it, and you can’t take any credit. We are all but pawns, being pushed around by an omniscient, omnipotent, but nonetheless quite petty and cruel God. Or does God, Zeis like, only spend his time randomly impregnating unoffending women by raping them by proxy, so to speak? Free will, with exceptions?

I just want to make it clear that I wrote the above before I read this, in which the points I’ve made are made more profoundly, but less tongue in cheekily.

McMahon video still available

Despite the best efforts of the WWE to prevent people from seeing it, the video Only Entertainment? is still available. Susan Campbell, of the New Haven Register, has the story. That’s Groton’s Liz Duarte that she features.

There are links to the video there. If you know any undecided women, or undecided enlightened men, get them to watch it.

Why we need those ships







Last night I posted about our internet problems. Shortly after we made an appointment to have a service person come out here to take a look, the problem cleared up as mysteriously as it had arrived, so we were able to take in the debate (we have no television) after all.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Obama's response about the number of ships in the Navy was brilliant. If he thought of it himself, good for him. Otherwise, the guy or gal who anticipated the line of attack, and came up with that response deserves a raise and an appointment to a high place in the government.

But, as is often the case, there was more behind Romney's inanity than stupidity. Why was I not surprised to read this at Wired?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to boost the size of the Navy by roughly 15 percent as part of a broader defense buildup. “Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” he complained in Monday night’s debate. “That’s unacceptable to me.”

But for one of Romney’s most important advisers on Navy issues, a man who oversaw a massive naval expansion for Pres. Ronald Reagan, there’s more at stake than U.S. national security. John Lehman, an investment banker and former secretary of the Navy, has strong and complex personal financial ties to the naval shipbuilding industry. He has profited hugely from the Navy’s slow growth in recent years — raising the prospect that he could make even more if Romney takes his advice on expanding the fleet.

(via Wired.com)

Perhaps we should just welcome Lehman to the 47% who can't take responsibility for themselves, but must constantly suck at the government teat. There are, of course, some substantial differences between Lehman and the bulk of his compatriots in the lower 47. First, he doesn't need the money. Second, he has enough access to make sure that all his wants are met, and he doesn't have to make do with crumbs. Otherwise, just another moocher Romney can't seem to get to take responsibility for his own life. Oh, wait, that's another difference. Romney doesn't think that he should.


Closed for repairs

Our Internet service has been cutting out periodically. We’ll get five, maybe ten minutes of service, and then it’s down for half an hour or more. A service person is coming Wednesday, so until then, no posts. I’m just hoping I can get this up before it cuts out again. 

Let these people go

A few days ago I mentioned that I was reading Chuck Thompson’s book advocating expulsion of the Southern States. I continue to support his basic thesis, but he was wrong about one thing. He wants to keep Texas, mainly on economic grounds. I say, let those people go.

Cheerleaders in the Southeast Texas town of Kountze may continue displaying banners with Bible verses during football games until a lawsuit over the issue is resolved, a judge ruled Thursday.

State District Judge Steve Thomas of Hardin County granted a temporary injunction in a lawsuit that put the town of 2,100 residents in the center of a national debate about religious freedom and the First Amendment.

Thomas ruled that a ban imposed by the Kountze Independent School District appears to have violated the cheerleaders’ rights to religious expression. Because the trial has been set for June 24, the outcome will be a moot point for this football season.

(via Houston Chronicle)

Here’s what’s going on here. The legal issue is not even close. The free speech claim is laughable on a number of fronts, particularly in light of numerous decisions allowing school authorities to restrict student speech in activities that actually involve personal speech, not speech easily attributable to the school itself, such as school newspapers, not to mention personal blogs. The schedule for the “trial” is also laughable. There are no disputed facts here, so there’s no need for such a drawn out schedule, except to protect the football schedule. Count on the judge to need a long time to mull over the issues, maybe all the way through next football season, at which time he’ll discover some novel constitutional principles that will allow this blatant constitutional violation. One has to wonder if the judge would have ruled differently if the banners had read “There is no God but Allah”.

So Texas is free to leave too. We don’t need their state religion of Christianity infused football.

Friday Night Music

Okay, here’s how I got to this one. I wanted to find a song that would somehow tie into Obama’s “Romnesia” riff (see previous post); something about forgetting (a lost cause, by the way). So, I went to the google, and put in “songs about forgetting” and this is one of the songs that came up. Which is quite strange, because it’s not really about forgetting at all, but maybe the person compiling the list forgot that. Anyway, it’s a fun song, though certainly not the greatest song that’s ever come down the pike. This is the version I first heard, by a British one hit wonder band called The Searchers.

But I learn from youtube that in fact the song was originally by a group called the Clovers. There’s no video available, but here it is, and in my humble opinion it’s far superior.

Romnesia

Great Politics. Romney can’t match this. He has no timing.

The rich are different than you and me

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

But to be fair, both rich and poor are barred from insider trading.

Federal prosecutors want Rajat K. Gupta, once one of the world’s most prominent businessmen, to spend as much as 10 years in prison for insider trading.

Mr. Gupta’??s defense lawyers would rather he spend time in Rwanda.

It is just the latest intriguing twist in the case of Mr. Gupta, who was convicted of leaking boardroom secrets about Goldman Sachs to the hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam.

Article Tools

On Wednesday, prosecutors and defense lawyers filed sentencing memos to Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who is scheduled to sentence Mr. Gupta on Oct. 24 in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Mr. Gupta is the former head of the consulting firm McKinsey & Company and the most influential of the 69 individuals convicted in the governmentâ??s sweeping insider-trading crackdown.

Mr. Gupta’s lawyers have pleaded for a lenient sentence of probation, accompanied by an order that he perform community service. Gary P. Naftalis, a lawyer for Mr. Gupta, made an unusual request in recommending that Mr. Gupta, who has played a leadership role in a variety of global humanitarian causes, be sent to Rwanda.

(via NYTimes.com)

It will be interesting to see if the punishment for insider trading is as harsh as that for stealing bread.

Adventures in copyright

A few weeks ago I put up a video about Linda McMahon. It was sort of an abridgement of a film made by Jackson Katz. The abridgment itself, as I understand it, was made by Mr. Katz, so I would have to assume that he holds the copyright thereto. He is a crusader against violence against, and degradation of, women, so I’m assuming that he would approve of the use of his video, which is directed against Linda McMahon, in efforts to block her election.

Well, the video I embedded is down, under a claim of copyright from the WWE. But before they could do that, I downloaded it myself, and then posted it on my own account, where they promptly took it down.

Now, I’m no expert on copyright law, but it seems passing strange to me that the video, which is not composed exclusively of WWE performances, could be owned, in whole or in part, by the WWE. One would think that Mr. Katz might have something to say about that. The video documents the way in which women were portrayed and treated by the WWE, and the effect that treatment had on the brain dead males that attend these events. Suffice it to say that at least some of them drew the conclusion that women enjoy being treated that way. To the extent Mr. Katz may have used videos made by the WWE there is a concept known as “fair use” that probably protects him.

The video was most recently available here, but it has also been taken down. If you move fast, you might catch this one, which the WWE apparently has yet to find. It’s not the Katz video, but it’s a particularly horrible example of the way in which Linda and her husband treated women.

The WWE takedown of this video is yet another example of the way in which corporations rule our world. I could have protested the WWE’s action, but I would have had to agree to be sued in California had I chosen to do so. Besides, all youtube would have done was register my protest. If I wanted to do anything about it, I’d have to sue, which would cost me endless time or money, while the WWE could litigate me to death with lawyers whose fees they could write off. In any event, by the time a judge declared my right to post the video, Linda McMahon would either be a Senator or a bad memory.

But look, while it’s still up there, pass the link above on. These videos change minds. One of our Liberal Drinkers showed the Katz video to a woman who had a Linda sign in her yard. She promptly took it down. That’s one less vote for Linda.

UPDATE: Another good video, here.