http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel_(professional_wrestling)

I was all ready to say that beatings with a chair or whatever happens in the ring is stuntwork and athleticism, but the storylines presented... these weren't just matches, but seriously screwed up contexts. Wow.

Most of these clips are stripped of contexts; if you pay attention to the crowd reaction, you hear that the audience is booing. These were storylines and matches designed to create the characters as unfavorable characters that you want to cheer against. McMahon's character has always been a heel; he is the man that you want to hate and want to see lose. This is not a "celebration" of violence. Rather, this is using violence against women to show exactly how vile these characters are.

Jesus. Yes, those women consented to be in that environment (hopefully anyway) but I can't imagine men getting sexually assaulted. That would destroy the Power of the Man.

I'm not sure what the point of this post is, other than a reason to write "trigger warning."

The filmmaker's point seems to be something along the lines of "This woman perpetuates abuse, and has been abused, so she's unqualified for public office." I understand he's trying to associate her political aspirations with sexual abuse, but it still feels slimy, irrespective of her role in WWE's business offices.

Something that struck me was one man saying, "If women want to enter a man's world, they should be treated just like a man." Well, fair enough in principle, but the women in these clips do not have the bodies of female bodybuilders. I don't just mean the emphasis on feminine and overtly sexual outfits, because those are often part of women's bodybuilding too. I mean their musculature. The female wrestlers are nowhere near as physically imposing as the male wrestlers, because they're there as sex objects rather than athletes. This is not to say that the women aren't athletic and fit, but if athleticism were the major emphasis, they would likely look more like female bodybuilders.

It's an act, people. A performance. Sure, sometimes folks get injured, as with any stunt-based occupation. It's also voluntary employment for the wrestlers. Is their product distasteful? Sure, but it's lowbrow entertainment - what are you expecting?

Katz and the Huffington Post are pulling the magician's trick of having you look at one hand to ignore the other. While you're focused on the unsavory product her company produces, they would have you ignore the fact that McMahon built a multi-million dollar business and thus knows intimately the effects of legislation on the real-world economy. It's politics, which is just as slimy as the WWE any day.

No comments about how more and more political campaigners are saying 'look at how well I run a business, shouldn't you want me to run the country'. Where for the most part it is the very idea of a country being run like a company that has led to so many economic and social issues.

I understand that these may be taken out of context of the story lines, but watching some of those scenes made me close to tears. Before I started to watch the video, I was going to say that of course women would get beat up in wrestling, because they are pro wrestlers just like the men, who get beat up too. But I can't imagine that men are put in the same kind of situations they showed in the video, made to strip off their clothes, forcibly kissed when unconscious (of course, acting unconscious). It just really really disturbed me to watch that, and I don't see how the argument "it's lowbrow entertainment, expect it!" or "they do that to show you how bad the bad guy is!" makes it better.

Of course, on the other hand, just because it sickens me to see it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be censored, not made, or not watched by others. After all, I can't stand to watch most horror movies because it makes me sick to see people murdered, raped, or tortured. I can't enforce my opinion on others, they have their right to express their stories, whether through horror movies or wrestling, and all I can do is chose not to watch.

I can only hope that some of these images really ARE taken out of context, and somehow in there there's an admonishing of the excessive humiliation and sexual assault of the women.

I hate seeing fictional depictions of women getting battered in the media. That's why I boycott Lifetime movies...

Furthermore, anyone who's a wrestling nerd would know how little Linda McMahon actually has to do with the creative side of WWE. I'm not saying she's oblivious by any stretch of the imagination to what happens on the show. But, she was CEO, not head writer. I doubt she had any input into anything that aired, outside of the handful of angles she's taken part in over the years, and didn't know what was going to happen until it aired in most cases. If this was Vince or Stephanie, both of whom have more creative positions, you'd have more of an argument.

Speaking of "out of context," isn't the clip of Trish and the mop from the angle where she was feuding with Stephanie McMahon because Trish was having an affair with Vince, and it was Stephanie who was mopping her? Also, wasn't Vince McMahon undoing his pants from part of his "Kiss My Ass Club" gimmick, where wrestlers who needed his help would literally kiss his bare ass in the middle of the ring, nothing else? And wasn't the first person to do that a man, William Regal? Oh wait, he's British, WWE likes to profit off of the immigration debate.

Speaking of which, if you REALLY want to complain about somewhat offensive things that WWE has done, you can do a lot better than this, and find stuff that actually upset wrestling fans: The Mexicools from a few years ago weren't in great taste, or the angle from years ago where Austin invaded Brian Pillman's home and got a gun pulled on him before the video feed cut out. Katie Vick, anyone?

Here's to the Head/Al Snow controversy not coming up!

The last time I watched wrestling was back when Chyna was still in the ring.

Seems she was the last mainstream positive (or least negative, depending on your take) female wrestler who was actually a wrestler, not a "diva".

"Speaking of which, if you REALLY want to complain about somewhat offensive things...find stuff that actually upset wrestling fans"

I think one of the main points of the article is that those images *don't* upset wrestling fans.

There are a lot of people talking about heels, and villains, and the notion that wrestling fans know the difference between entertainment and acceptable behaviour in every day life -- and y'know, there are plenty of fans who do know these things, and enjoy wrestling as entertainment, recognizing it as a form of theater. Personally, its not to my taste; however I won't tell anyone they're wrong for watching it.

However, during this video (and the entirety of the documentary, which I recommend watching since its a really neat piece on the construction of masculinity within that business) its important to look at not only the actions taking place on stage, but the reaction of the fans to the violence and sexual harassment against these women. Of course, there is plenty of booing, but there are also cheers. There are smiling faces. There are young men being titillated by the promise of female exposure that is occurring because of something often disgusting (in context or no, as it doesn't diminish the very real threat of echoes of such behaviour that may happen to women every day) wherein their sexual arousal at well toned lady parts is being combined with this woman's humiliation or abuse. Further, there are the interviews with the fans outside where many act as though the women deserve what happens to them, and find amusement in violence or humiliation. In this, there are a lot of confusing messages being presented in this entertainment, and for younger viewers -- or even older ones -- it may be harmful to how they perceive the opposite (or same) sex.

Further, even though some characters are Heels, or villains, these characters often still become favourites of audience members even if the narrative suggests they are in the wrong. Because of this, kids may wish to emulate characters such as Steve Austin or any number of other "heels" which could in turn result in the mistreatment of women; particularly if the text of the program does not enforce the wrongness of these storylines. Sometimes subtlety can be lost...

Full disclosure: I used to watch the WWF/WWE religiously. I haven't watched it in years but I still have some nostalgia for wrestling.

The problem with this video, in my view, is that there isn't any context and no comparative analysis. If someone really wanted to, it wouldn't be too hard to edit a video that shows Black wrestlers only taking beat-downs or being humiliated by Vince McMahon or suffering verbal abuse from other wrestlers. This may give off the impression that Black performers are on the bottom rung in the WWE hierarchy, which is far from the truth. Similarly, this video greatly misrepresents the degree to which the WWE relies upon violence against women. The writers reserve the most intensely violent matches for male performers for the most part. Female performers rarely appear in hardcore matches (matches w/ weapons) and they're almost never asked to "blade" so that they'll bleed during a match. The reality is matches or action skits involving women are increasingly uncommon in the WWE.

I also think there is a double-standard at work here. Why do we expect the WWE to be sanitized when other works of fiction aren't? Some people still think of wrestling as kid's stuff even though it ventured into "mature" territory a long time ago. It's really written for an older-teen/20-something demographic.

There is also a transgressive aspect to wrestling. This is less true of the WWE, the most mainstream wrestling promotion, but it is really evident when you look at promotions like Combat Zone Wrestling or Big Japan Pro Wrestling. The "wrestling" in these promotions is more akin to ultra-violent performance art than it is a display of athleticism. I've personally found that a lot of cultural liberals are okay with transgressive art when it violates traditional cultural sensibilities but are not okay with transgressive art when its performed by angry rednecks or when it violates PC sensibilities or runs counter to postmodern aesthetics.

I think that this is basically an unfair analysis. As many in this thread have pointed out the film is heavily edited to show a small portion of this WWE. It's also somewhat sexist to only be complaining about the depictions of violence against women in wrestling when clearly wrestling is violence against men much more so.

However, I would support this campaign simply because it highlights our media acceptance of unacceptable violence. Watching this video was very disturbing and even if the footage is edited (from an edited and produced entertainment product) it is a document of something that should be ended.

This campaign seems to come from an almost Victorian perspective. To complain about violence against women in wrestling - ignoring the rest of wrestling - is akin to putting women on a pedestal. As well, only the low blow cultural form of entertainment wrestling is targeted - are more expensive tastes for this same reprehensible behavior somehow ok? What of Arnold Schwartzenegger? A Victorian sensibility may not be all bad. My understanding of Victorian Feminism (from reading AMERICAN ELECTRA, Feminism’s Ritual Matricide, Susan Faludi, Harpers 10/10) is that the woman-on-a-pedestal tactic was instrumental in bringing women's suffrage victory.

It's a very powerful video. If it leads to a reduction in tolerance of media depictions against men or women then that can't be but a good thing. Even if the logic is problematic.

However for a more long term concrete solution I think we need to use other methods. Wrestling is hyperbolic transgressive expression that can tell us things about ourselves that are otherwise hidden. Clowns can bring radical changes of understanding through humour. Maybe we should be using wrestling instead of fighting it - transforming it to be expressive of less violence somehow. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic.