What is personal responsibility? Where should we draw the lines as it pertains to what should and should not be aired on television, and for whose benefit? The purpose of this blog is to create a better discussion about this issue, which was raised by theone86 in the comments to my recent blog, "The insinuation that wrestling fans are stupid." By relocating it here, I think we can better focus on the issue at hand without impeding the progress of a completely separate topic.

For the sake of completeness, I'm reposting the relevant comments from the previous blog, so if you've seen them already, please skip ahead to Section II for my reply to theone86's final comment in Section I before leaving your own thoughts in the comments for this blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section I. Previously-made comments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From theone86 on 2/5/08 12:52 AM

I have to say that I know a lot of people who criticise me for watching wrestling, and lately it's becoming harder and harder to defend myself. "But there's a certain psychology that goes into working a ma...OK, but the cruiserweights can put on some great macthes without having to don some stupid gimmi...OK, but the women aren't just for show, there are some that are genuinely athle...OK, but these wrestlers are very creative on the mic and can do some pretty deep stu...You know what, screw it."
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that wrestling fans are by nature stupid. I am saying that I think we are becoming more pedestrian in what we expect from wrestling. That's not to say that we're getting dumber, but I think there are a lot of people who take Vince McMahon's word as gospel truth. Wrestling seems to me to be more and more of an opiate. And if you really want to change public opinion of wrestling, and by extension its fans, I would suggest trying a little bit harder than proving you can read a numbering system that's really only around because of historic significance and asthetic value. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just saying that reading Roman Numerals is a pretty simplistic thing. Maybe start a correspondence with WWE about certian issues (you probably won't get more than a, "we value your input," email, but every little bit counts. I personally send WWE tons of emails about how breast implants and steroids help support unhealthy ideals of hegemonic masculinity, or how I'd like to see more athletic women fued regularly for the title, or how the Women's and Cruiserweight Divisions get no exposure, or how I wish they'd change ECW up a little bit in order to attract a new demographic, or how their writing is just getting piss poor, or how their work schedule is completely ridiculous, or how I think that Vince McMahon's desire to push the envelope goes beyond trying to inspire social change and into plain irresponsibility, or at how apalled I was at the Condemned. It's not just WWE either. I've sent TNA a good number of fire Russo emails, among other things. It doesn't really do anything but piss them off, but that's the first step in any real change. Plus, like I said, if the wrestling community actually starts demanding standards people might actually look at us as fans of a legitimate art and not just a bunch of yokels who get riled up watching "fake" competition.

From theone86 on 2/5/08 12:53 AM

And I know a lot of shit's mispelled. It's late, I'm tired, it's not a professional paper, and I still have better grammar than half the people on this site.

From DXSSI on 2/5/08 4:32 PM

Those are all valid points and worthy of their own blog. But personally, I feel differently about the issue. I like sports entertainment the way it is (which isn't to say there aren't things I dislike; I'm speaking generally), and I would rather change people's perceptions about the viewership of professional wrestling than change professional wrestling itself.

Inducing those kinds of changes in professional wrestling will take years, if not decades, and besides, it will most likely all be for naught so long as WWE is the #1 sports-entertainment company and a McMahon or descendant-of-McMahon is running things. As a quick example, sure, we can certainly complain about lack of athletic women and reliance on breast implants, but the sad truth is that the Diva Search typically boosts the ratings. This has nothing to do with wrestling fans, by the way.

All Hollywood entertainment and professional sports, in some way, uses these same concepts in their programming. Sex sells. Attitude sells. Conflict, aggression, competition, controversy... these things all get ratings. You can hardly fault the WWE for simply providing what America has shown that it wants, and the WWE is no different from any other entertainment company in that regard. And you can hardly fault any competitor who strives to be more like WWE in an attempt to surpass them. And unless America's overall attitude changes, I don't see this type of programming changing anytime soon, in professional wrestling or elsewhere.

[note: the remainder of this post is irrelevant to this topic and has been omitted]

From theone86 on 2/5/08 8:51 PM

I can fault WWE on any number of things. Personally, I'd rather not stand idly by and just let media outlets, WWE or otherwise, get off the hook for certain things.

First off, that's such a cop-out excuse, that the American viewership asks for sex and gets it. It's not just about sex, but degrading depictions of women and simplistic depictions of beauty. I can find a lot of studies myself that say a great deal about how hegemonic masculinity affects the psychic of impressionable youths, and how it affects suicide rates, depression, and other things. This isn't just about women, either. Supporting the ideas of narrow sex roles plays a great deal into men's health when it comes to health of the heart, psychiatric health, being able to have healthy relationships, and so on. Now the American public may eat this up, but does that make it right to sell it to them? An 8 year old will buy crack if you offer it to him, does that mean the kid's the person at fault for not being knowledgable? Of course not, we don't expect the kid to have mature knowledge at that age, we expect others in society to have the reponsibility not to sell crack to eight year olds. Most people in America either have no clue as to the effects of such simple things as the portrayal of women on TV, or they choose to remain ignorant to it. Does that mean we should continue to sell them a product that traps children in a mindset of what roles women belong in and what roles men belong in? Should we doom another generation to abusive relationships, hurtful stereotypes, and rigid sex roles that can cause major health issues at any given point in their lives? Absolutely not. I agree that things won't change overnight, but if we become indifferent to it altogether, we're never going to do any good. The best way to combat this type of thing is by taking personal responsibility and trying to get the word out to as many people as possible, like I'm doing here. Do I have any illusions that everyone on wrestlingmarks is suddenly going to start demanding WWE treat its female talent with more respect? Of course not, but it's too important for me to just not say anything.

Also, this isn't about likes and dislikes, it's about serious issues in society. You may not think it effects you, but I can almost 100% garuntee you that someone you know, or maybe even you, have been affected personally, whether you realize it or not.

As for changing the perception, here's where the problem lies. If I made snuff films, and I came out anonymously and asked the public to accept snuff films as a legitimate art form, they're simply not going to. The general public might not be very discerning, but there are groups out there that are dedicated to these issues and who do put pressure on WWE about them, and it's not a bad thing. Vince McMahon comes out and acts like he should be able to come out and not only air anything he wants, but not be subject to any criticism for it. That's the exact definition of irresponsibility, not being subject to any standards. The fact is that these people aren't just a bunch of crazies, they're basing their action on legitimate studies with a legitimate concern for the general population. Anyways, public opinion is what it is because wrestling has somehow managed to escape criticism on every issue from steroids, to treatment of women, to fair business practices, and more. They can do that because they cater to a portion of the population that, by and large, likes to stay away from any major issues. These issues ARE problems, and public opinion of wrestling and its fans is never going to change unless people start to educate themselves on these issues, and start demanding change. Porn is always going to be porn, smut is always going to be smut, women crawling around on all fours for Vince on national TV is always going to be distasteful, Necrophelia humor is always going to be frowned upon, Vince pulling things out of a plastic ass or having other people kiss his ass is always going to be low-brow, and athletic women who are dedicated to a profession getting pushed aside for mud wrestling matches is always going to be wrong. If Vince wants respect, he has to stop running this crap. If we want respect, we have to send Vince a message that we're not going to watch it anymore.

From SvRKingofKings on 2/5/08 11:00 PM

Hah...Im 16, and AM a nerd. For some reason, I believe "entertainment" is just being used as a moniker in the WWE nowadays. Not saying that I am discontent with my Monday, Friday, and (during PPV's) Sunday nights of WWE, (notice the very deliberate skip over Tuesday nights' rendition of what we hoped to be the rebirth of Extreme Championship Wrestling, but instead got Vince's Extremely Crappy Wrestling) but I think that the post-Attitude Era was a downgrade. Currently on RAW, we see nothing but eye-candy divas (There are some that look good and can perform - Mickie James...Victoria!...;D ) I guess I loved watching Chyna in the 90's because she was dominant and wasn't just all show. I want Divas that use more than their breasts, and giving Jerry Lawler an erection to get over with the fans. But...on the topic of "entertainment"...the "Kiss My Ass" club? Vince, are you serious!? I was truly "entertained" when Stone Cold Steve Austin was kicking your ass, and The Rock shoved your face into Rikishi's saggy ass!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section II. My response (new)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal responsibility. A lot of people use this term, but how many are really willing to stand behind personal responsibility (and nothing else)? In my opinion, what theone86 posted bears little resemblance to the actual endorsement of personal responsibility.

theone86 referenced hegemonic masculinity, narrowly defined sex roles and the controversial sale of illegal narcotics to our nation's eight-year-olds as just a few of the reasons he emails WWE to try to induce changes. Emailing WWE about unsatisfactory programming is all well and good, and I wouldn't fault him for doing that, if it was really for his own sake. If you're not happy with a product, contacting the manufacturer of that product and letting them know why and how is a worthwhile venture. However, as theone86 has described it, with references such as "traps children in a mindset" and "doom another generation", it sounds like a lot more than personal responsibility to me. It sounds like carrying the weight of the world on one's shoulders.

There's no denying that what the WWE airs each and every week can have a negative influence on an untrained mind. Women do get degraded, and artifically-created beauty is exalted. These are not standards to which one should aspire in life. So then, suppose we all initiate a grass-roots letter-writing campaign and a boycott of WWE, and are successful in getting the WWE to change their ways? You still have a product that depicts violence, ruthless aggression, trash-talking, backstabbing, lying, cheating & stealing, and the list does go on. Are these influences any better?

This is where actual personal responsibility comes in. Now, if we're talking about raising the next generation, then in some cases your average eight-year-old is not equipped to deal with some of life's challenges. Parents have to be personally responsible for their children and teach them the difference between right and wrong; bad and good. Once this is done, parents need to assess whether they've done their jobs appropriately. Fun fact: your child will not be under your continual guidance forever. If you fear for the things that will enter his or her mind the minute you're not helicoptering over them, you'd better start working harder.

This could mean watching WWE programming with them, and explaining the difference between right and wrong as the opportunities present themselves, or this could mean calling the police if you're afraid you've created a monster. You could outright prevent your children from watching WWE programming, but past a certain age, this becomes completely unreasonable; all you're doing is putting off the inevitable, and if your children are going to pick up the bad influences of the programming, they'll still do it, but (a) in secret, behind your back, (b) later on when they become adults and have moved out on their own, or (c) after you're dead and buried.

As far as what's "right" for the children? I think that crack cocaine is a bad example; at eight years old I certainly understood the concept of illegal drugs well enough to know not to take them. If someone offered me crack cocaine, I'd have known to say no. If someone offered to sell me crack cocaine, I'm even more sure I wouldn't have had the money to buy it. Crack cocaine is usually valued at hundreds of dollars per ounce (sorry I don't have a better figure, I don't know any dealers I can ask), and even the most generous allowance isn't going to cover it. However, I doubt that I'd have known crack if I'd seen it; if someone had given me some, lied and said it was candy, maybe I would have tried it (although I pretty averse to putting icky-looking things in my mouth back then). But people generally don't go around handing out free crack cocaine, given the cost.

How did I know about crack cocaine at the age of eight? I was taught about it by my parents, as any child should be, long before the age of eight. Children should know this before entertaining grade school, where constant supervision becomes an impossibility. Of course an eight-year-old wouldn't and couldn't know any of this if someone wasn't teaching them otherwise. That's entirely besides the point. And yeah, in spite of their education, some kids will inevitably do crack anyways. That's unfortunate, but short of keeping our kids in handcuffs and muzzles, you can't stop them from doing it. You can only hope to influence them not to.

Now, if instead we're talking about the influence this type of programming has on adults, that's slightly different. A well-adjusted adult, of course, should be perfectly capable of watching anything you can put on TV (and things you cannot) and still walk away with the same sense of morals, right and wrong, bad and good. Not all adults have their heads screwed on straight; no doubt, there are people on trial every day, people imprisoned for life, and victims who have suffered at the hands of these people. These are all unfortunate cases, but what can we do about them?

Sometimes, we can take reasonable actions. The harmful effects of crack cocaine are serious enough that the pleasure derived from "getting high" does not warrant its use, and thus it should be outlawed and anyone attempting to sell it to others, especially eight-year-olds, ought to be prosecuted. As it is, and as they are.

But when you're dealing with entertainment and fiction, you have to let it be, more or less. Yes, bad influences abound in it. Depending on the program you're watching, you may witness violence, murder, nudity, sex, rape, philandering, cussing, dirty jokes, and/or people hitting each other in the face with cream pies. Some of these actions are more acceptable than others (ranging from "in the right context" to "not at all") but if you're going to advocate the removal of bad influences from works of fiction, you're advocating cleaning up the airwaves by censorship.

And who decides what gets censored and what doesn't? Perhaps a consumer advocacy group like the Parents' Television Council (PTC), a group founded for the express purpose of taking down the television programs whose content they disagree with and which is freely accessible to their children. Advocates, yes, but not for personal responsibility. Rather than being personally responsible for themselves and their children, these parents and grandparents want blanket coverage during certain hours so that not only can their kids not watch naughty television programs, but neither can anyone else.

In the WWE's case, if you take things to the extreme, you can pretty much obliterate the whole product. You could, perhaps, send well-dressed men out to the arena floor (there would be no purpose for a wrestling ring) to participate in arm-wrestling competitions. After all, the unchecked physical contact and tight spandex commonly seen in professional wrestling could potentially influence our innocent children to become violent, or worse still, homosexual. (Please note: sarcasm.)

Is this really the way to go about things? I don't want to pretend that there are no ill effects from entertainment. Yes, mentally-weak people can be and are influenced by it. But we've come a long way from the days of barbarianism. Even so, there is still a lot of strife in the world, there is still a war in Iraq, there is still poverty, homelessness, disease, intolerance, and many, many other problems that afflict the human race. But on the whole, we're progressing, and considerably at that.

Personal responsibility does not entail protecting innocent eyes from all bad influences. It's been said many times before, but there was violence, murder, rape, etc. before television existed, hell, before the printing press existed. Man invented bad behavior all by himself, and does not necessarily need someone or something to make the example for him before deciding to act wrongly. Then what is personal responsibility? True personal responsibility is achieved by subjecting the next generation to good influences greater in amount and value than the bad influences they will inevitably encounter.

Looking at things from another perspective, isn't it better to have bad influences played out on television? If you look hard enough, you may even find the shiny glint of a moral in the story. In most cases, you'll see murder and rape in crime dramas, where the bad guy gets caught and goes to prison. Or take last Monday's episode of Raw, specifically, the Kiss My Ass Club segment. That Mr. McMahon character sure did some heinous things. He unfairly berated his bastard son, he demanded that his son kiss his naked ass as a form of punishment, and then he lectured the viewing audience on how they ought to be more like him; never mind the fact that the presence of his bastard son is a continual reminder of the philandering ways of the Mr. McMahon character. Indeed, all of these are terrible things.

But I would suggest to you that anyone watching WWE television who is old enough to form a coherent sentence can see that the Mr. McMahon character is not a role model. Anyone watching that segment (who was previously undecided for whatever reason) should have come away with the impression that being like Mr. McMahon is bad.

Again, if you're trying to change the WWE because you personally dislike the brash content and want to watch professional wrestling without all the cockteasing, that's reasonable. If you're trying to change the WWE because you think the objectionable content is going to ruin the youth of America when allowed to run rampant, you're barking up the wrong tree. Once you get through to Vince McMahon and the WWE and they stop airing filthiness, you still have dozens upon dozens of other production companies, hundreds of television networks, thousands of other television programs, and millions of other individual corruptible sources of entertainment to cleanse. And if you stop after having changed WWE, thinking you've done your part, then you're doing a disservice to our youth, because they'll just get their filth from another source, such as an estranged uncle who likes to tell dirty jokes. There's tons of it out there, and it's not always where you'd expect to find it.

And you'll still have to deal with people like me, who like things fine the way they are, who are capable of thinking for ourselves, and who may very well get violent if you take away the entertainment we enjoy in the name of safety. ;)

Time which is intended to be spent towards bettering life for the generations which will follow is best spent educating others. True, there doesn't yet exist a good forum for this on the global or even national scale, which is why television is so quickly attacked; it's an easily exploitable forum. The Internet isn't half-bad; we have virtual communities in which people can civilly conduct discourse, but users ultimately have control and must seek this out on their own, or else they can use AIM or IRC to get in touch with their drug dealer. And even if we did have the perfect forum in which to do this, there would still be fights over who gets control... which would incite violence. In many ways, it's a never-ending cycle.

If you still have a serious problem with fiction and its portrayal to our youth, then you are advocating life in a world where legislators have control over what you get to see on TV and in movies, where Jack Thompson can censor your video games, where your local library can burn books with objectionable content... where free speech is outlawed.

And if you choose to work towards the erosion of free speech under the guise of personal responsibility, then it's hard for me to have much respect for your means or your intentions.