WWE may not be a homophobic company internally, but it markets to homophobic fans. The jury is out on whether Vince McMahon is racist or not, but he certainly loves to play fast and loose with racial and ethnic stereotypes. For as much progress as they seem to make on social issues, I am nagged by the feeling that they live in the past where straight white males wrote characters for everyone regardless of the kinds of experiences they have being anything but a straight white male.
RAW has room for colorful characters, no doubt. I didn't hate Los Matadores' debut along with the rechristened Mascarita Dorada as El Torito because of kitsch value. I'm a bona fide Chikara fan. I love goofy shit. Wrestling will always have room for comic relief, and the more absurd it is, the more I tend to like it. But where does authorial intent come into play? If Chikara were to produce the Los Matadores gimmick, would they have the moral authority to do it? I'm not sure in the absolute sense, but relatively speaking, they don't force Latino wrestlers into stereotypes. But even so, the room seems divided, and the line between "fun" and "racist" sometimes is obscured.
I don't think Jerry Lawler's or JBL's homophobia leading up to the Ryback/Paul Heyman "proposal" segment is arguable at this point. Honestly, anyone who has a problem with me pointing it out can partake in some introspection as to why they're so eager at jumping on me for pointing out homophobia rather than attacking homophobia itself. Regardless, did the announcers even matter? As Eamon Paton pointed out on Twitter, Heyman baited thousands of people in attendence to expose their homophobia and then called them out on it bluntly. Why the heels have to be the civilized ones, the progressive ones, the voices of reason, I'll never know. Then again, maybe the way Vince McMahon thinks about presenting his product, or even moreover the audience to whom he's presenting isn't as forward as some of the other trappings around him in his own company.
When McMahon was learning the ropes, America was a way more conservative place than it is today. Not to say that this country is even close to being socially liberal yet now; the voices of opposition just don't have to scream as loud to be heard. For all the good he's done in the arena of business, and for how welcome and open the backstage area seems to be from everything I've heard, he's not done a great job of moving his art forward socially.
One could argue that the fans want to embrace their lizard brains, but good art is never about giving the audience what they want. Good art is about leaving a product out for consumption and making people want it. Music, cinema, and television didn't become socially liberal or rife with message because the fans clamored for it. Even in New York City and San Francisco, folks who press the "vote Democrat across the board" button in the polling places still have their long held biases. Social change comes about with force.
Honestly, WWE does not need to be Tom Morello-levels of leftist to get a positive message across. Wrestling will never be even considered left-wing because it is a violent art. The very soul of pro graps is embedded in fighting, however staged. But the bare minimum of what they can and should do is promoting diversity. Maybe Los Matadores wouldn't tickle the nerve as much if, say, a vibrant cadre of Latin stars in WWE weren't all pigeonholed into traditionally defined roles by the establishment. WWE would go a long way by hiring Eddie Kingston and not changing a thing about his gimmick. Maybe Alberto del Rio can just be an aristocrat dickhead whose only lingering Mexican-ness is emphasized by an accent he can't easily shake.
Vince McMahon's America still exists in his head, and as long as it does, WWE will be held back. The shame part is that in a vacuum, Los Matadores and El Torito are a fucking awesome act, and Paul Heyman's subversion is brilliant. But I can't get the feeling that no matter how progressive WWE is purported to be behind the scenes to its "real" people, the way they conduct business in character markets itself to such a scuzzy clientele that I feel just a bit dirty enjoying great performance art at times.
RAW has room for colorful characters, no doubt. I didn't hate Los Matadores' debut along with the rechristened Mascarita Dorada as El Torito because of kitsch value. I'm a bona fide Chikara fan. I love goofy shit. Wrestling will always have room for comic relief, and the more absurd it is, the more I tend to like it. But where does authorial intent come into play? If Chikara were to produce the Los Matadores gimmick, would they have the moral authority to do it? I'm not sure in the absolute sense, but relatively speaking, they don't force Latino wrestlers into stereotypes. But even so, the room seems divided, and the line between "fun" and "racist" sometimes is obscured.
I don't think Jerry Lawler's or JBL's homophobia leading up to the Ryback/Paul Heyman "proposal" segment is arguable at this point. Honestly, anyone who has a problem with me pointing it out can partake in some introspection as to why they're so eager at jumping on me for pointing out homophobia rather than attacking homophobia itself. Regardless, did the announcers even matter? As Eamon Paton pointed out on Twitter, Heyman baited thousands of people in attendence to expose their homophobia and then called them out on it bluntly. Why the heels have to be the civilized ones, the progressive ones, the voices of reason, I'll never know. Then again, maybe the way Vince McMahon thinks about presenting his product, or even moreover the audience to whom he's presenting isn't as forward as some of the other trappings around him in his own company.
When McMahon was learning the ropes, America was a way more conservative place than it is today. Not to say that this country is even close to being socially liberal yet now; the voices of opposition just don't have to scream as loud to be heard. For all the good he's done in the arena of business, and for how welcome and open the backstage area seems to be from everything I've heard, he's not done a great job of moving his art forward socially.
One could argue that the fans want to embrace their lizard brains, but good art is never about giving the audience what they want. Good art is about leaving a product out for consumption and making people want it. Music, cinema, and television didn't become socially liberal or rife with message because the fans clamored for it. Even in New York City and San Francisco, folks who press the "vote Democrat across the board" button in the polling places still have their long held biases. Social change comes about with force.
Honestly, WWE does not need to be Tom Morello-levels of leftist to get a positive message across. Wrestling will never be even considered left-wing because it is a violent art. The very soul of pro graps is embedded in fighting, however staged. But the bare minimum of what they can and should do is promoting diversity. Maybe Los Matadores wouldn't tickle the nerve as much if, say, a vibrant cadre of Latin stars in WWE weren't all pigeonholed into traditionally defined roles by the establishment. WWE would go a long way by hiring Eddie Kingston and not changing a thing about his gimmick. Maybe Alberto del Rio can just be an aristocrat dickhead whose only lingering Mexican-ness is emphasized by an accent he can't easily shake.
Vince McMahon's America still exists in his head, and as long as it does, WWE will be held back. The shame part is that in a vacuum, Los Matadores and El Torito are a fucking awesome act, and Paul Heyman's subversion is brilliant. But I can't get the feeling that no matter how progressive WWE is purported to be behind the scenes to its "real" people, the way they conduct business in character markets itself to such a scuzzy clientele that I feel just a bit dirty enjoying great performance art at times.
