7:22:00 AM
Introduction
It has been argued that gender is a
social construction that is ever-changing (Butler, 1995; Kimmel, 1990) and we
therefore cannot assume a singular, universal “femininity” or
“masculinity”. Instead, there are
different ways of being a man and different ways of being a woman.
Consistent with this notion, Hearn
and Morgan (1990) contend that since the experience of masculinity and of being
a man is not uniform, it makes more sense to talk about “masculinities” rather
than “masculinity” (p. 9). Likewise,
Brittan (1989) suggests that since cultural ideals of manhood change over time
and across subgroups, we cannot talk of masculinity, only of
masculinities. Indeed, Connell (1995)
outlines five different masculinities – hegemonic, normative, semiotic, positivist,
and essentialist – while Kauppinen (1995) speaks of multiple masculinities –
hypermasculinity, non-masculinity, unisex masculinity, ironic masculinity, and
reflective masculinity.
Although it is recognized that there
are multiple masculinities or many different ways of being a man, one distinct
form of masculinity tends to become the dominant and most valued form of
masculinity at any given time in a particular society (Bach, 1993; Connell,
1987; Donaldson, 1993; Hanke, 1998; Kimmel, 1999). In North American society, the dominant form
of masculinity or the cultural ideal of manhood is primarily reflective of
white, heterosexual, largely middle-class males, what is typically referred to
as “hegemonic masculinity” (Connell, 1987; Donaldson, 1993; Dworkin &
Wachs, 2000; Kimmel, 1990, 1999; Kinsman, 1993).
The ideals of manhood espoused by
the dominant (hegemonic) masculinity suggest a number of characteristics that
men are encouraged to internalize into their own personal codes and which form
the basis for masculine scripts of behaviour.
These characteristics include:
violence and aggression, emotional restraint, courage, toughness,
risk-taking, competitiveness, and achievement and success (Brannon, 1976;
Brittan, 1989; Donaldson, 1993; Kaufman, 1995; Kimmel, 1999; Nicholson, 1993;
Thompson, 1991).
Literature
Review
Investigations into popular culture
representations of masculinity suggest that hegemonic masculinity and its
corresponding characteristics are emphasized (Craig, 1992, 1993; Evans & Davies,
2000; Gauntlett, 2002; Hanke, 1992; Messner, 2000; Vigorito & Curry,
1998). This is particularly true within
sport, which has always been regarded as a male domain (Lenskyj, 1990; Messner,
1988) and highly symbolic of masculine culture (Dworkin & Wachs, 1998;
Koivula, 2001; Thornton, 1993). In
particular, sport emphasizes the characteristics of the dominant masculinity
such as violence and aggression (Dworkin & Wachs, 1998; Thornton, 1993),
toughness (Dworkin & Wachs, 1998; Messner, Hunt, & Dunbar, 2001; Sabo
& Gordon, 1995), risk-taking (Coakley, 1994; Sabo & Gordon, 1995), and
competition (Koivula, 2001; Thornton, 1993).
As a primary masculine culture in
which the characteristics of hegemonic masculinity are highly valued and
frequently displayed, sport culture may be considered an important socializing
agent for learning masculinity and masculine behaviour. Messner (1992), for example, contends that
sport is one of the most powerful socializing institutions for masculinity,
while Messner et al. (2001) maintain that sports programming sends uniquely
powerful messages that may aid in the socialization of males into the dominant
masculine culture.
While there have been numerous
investigations into masculinity in sport, few of these investigations have
focused specifically on professional wrestling.
This may be largely due to the discounting of professional wrestling as
a legitimate “sport” (Atkinson, 2002) and its categorization as a form of
entertainment. Nevertheless, Atkinson
(2002) argues that professional wrestling is conceptually comparable to
professional sports such as football, hockey, and soccer, and Schnirring (2000)
contends that professional wrestlers are much like other competitive
athletes. Thus, professional wrestling
can be considered a pseudo-sport, and as such, investigations of masculinity in
professional wrestling can be undertaken to determine whether professional
wrestling exhibits the same kind of dominant “cult of masculinity” revealed in
sport.
To date, only a handful of critical
commentaries, conference papers, and graduate research projects have looked at
masculinity or gender roles within professional wrestling, with only a footnote
or two appearing in published academic papers dealing with sport and
masculinity (see Messner et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, what has been done suggests that masculinity is presented
in professional wrestling primarily in its culturally ideal form. For example, Jhally and Katz (2002) contend
that professional wrestling glamorizes the culturally ideal form of
masculinity, emphasizing physical strength and aggression. Likewise, the Communication Studies 298
research team (2000) found evidence of a hegemonic masculinity in professional
wrestling displays which emphasizes strength, toughness, aggression, violence,
and dominance. In performing a textual
analysis of Wrestlemania events,
Cherry (2002) similarly found the dominant masculinity to be strong in
professional wrestling with themes of violence, strength, toughness, emotional
restraint, and athleticism predominant.
Moreover, Atkinson (2002) argues that many of the masculine
characteristics presented in professional wrestling are the same
characteristics exalted in conventional male sports, including violence and
aggression, physical prowess, competition, athleticism, courage, and physical
toughness.
Interestingly, Stroud (2000)
contends that professional wrestling may be even more extreme in constructing
masculinity than so-called conventional sports.
Including professional wrestling in their analysis of sport and
masculinity, Messner et al. (2001) found that messages about masculinity were
most clear in the dramatic spectacle of professional wrestling. Moreover, while Mazer (1998) argues that
alternative masculinities are sometimes presented in professional wrestling,
she maintains that it is typically the culturally dominant form of masculinity
that is packaged and sold to professional wrestling audiences.
As professional wrestling may be
considered an alternative form of sport with a heavy entertainment component,
it might be expected that this form of “sports-entertainment” would provide
more opportunity for alternative expressions of masculinity than mainstream
sports. Thematic analyses concentrating
on the construction of masculinity in televised professional wrestling were
thus undertaken to determine whether alternatives to hegemonic masculinity were
given space for expression within this popular pseudo-sport.
Methodology
The aim of this paper was to
investigate themes of masculinity in order to assess the form of masculinity
(hegemonic or alternative) commonly presented in televised professional
wrestling.
The sample consisted of 118 episodes
of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) programming broadcast between August
2001 and August 2002. Specifically, 52
episodes of RAW, 54 episodes of Smackdown!, and 12 pay-per-view events
were recorded and analyzed for themes of masculinity.
Primarily content analysis was
employed in which themes pertaining to masculinity or manhood were identified
and categorized using analytic induction and coding techniques as outlined by
Strauss (1987) in analyzing qualitative data.
Such techniques allowed for theme categories to emerge that were
relevant to masculinity presentations as well as ensured the validity and
reliability of data analyses.
Results
The themes revealed through analyses
of the WWE programs support the dominant form of masculinity – hegemonic
masculinity – with emphases on violence and aggression, emotional restraint,
power and dominance, competition, athleticism, risk-taking, toughness, and
achievement and success. These themes
effectively defined what it means to be a man in professional wrestling as well
as in society outside the context of the squared circle. Moreover, heterosexuality was emphasized as
the ideal, further contributing to a hegemonic version of masculinity.
Violence
and Aggression
To be sure, pseudo-violence is the
bread and butter of the professional wrestling enterprise, and it was therefore
no surprise that themes of aggression and violence associated with males and
masculinity abounded in the wrestling programs.
Male performers were depicted visually as engaged in all kinds of
aggressive acts both in and outside of the wrestling ring. Not only was there in-ring aggression between
male performers as part of wrestling matches, but frequently there was also
backstage aggression as well as extraneous-ring aggression between male
performers. Male performers were not
only aggressive toward each other, but were also aggressive toward referees and
various crew members including interviewers and announcers.
The aggressive nature of male
performers was further exemplified through threats of violence and a ready
willingness to fight, which generally amounted to challenging and/or calling
out other males to compete, confront, or to fight. Moreover, male performers were frequently
described by the announcers as “aggressive”, having an “aggressive streak”, or
showing aggression in their actions. As
well, in describing male performers as “vicious”, “mean”, “dangerous”,
“sadistic”, “merciless”, and “unforgiving”, the announcers effectively related
men as having violent personalities readily conducive to aggressive acts, which
served to highlight the natural aggressiveness of men.
Furthermore, visual displays of
blood and announcer descriptions of injury, hurt, and damage to male performers
underscored the consequences of physicality, reinforcing male aggression and
violence. Hurt and injury were
especially highlighted through the use of the common phrase “busted wide open”
by the announcers in describing bleeding by performers and damage to their
bodies. In graphically highlighting
injury and damage, the announcers conveyed and reinforced to the television
audience the physical aggression and violence that occurs between men.
Emotional
Restraint
The message presented concerning
appropriate male emotion was that males were expected to exercise emotional
restraint, particularly as it relates to emotional upset and displays of
affection. “Real men don’t cry” is the apparent
motto of the WWE as male performers were frequently ridiculed by their
colleagues and the announcers for any such displays of emotion. Likewise, expressions of affection by male
performers were kept to a minimum and reserved for particular circumstances,
such as a sign of friendship or a show of respect. The only emotions appropriate for men to
express seemed to be anger and frustration.
Indeed, male performers were frequently described by the announcers as
“angry”, “livid”, “seething”, “furious”, “irate”, “mad”, “enraged”, and “hot”
as well as “frustrated”, with these emotions often being related to subsequent
expressions of violence and aggression.
Even so, expressions of anger and
frustration were also subjected to expectations of emotional restraint. It was often suggested by the announcers that
too much emotion of any kind was not desirable in men and male performers were
encouraged to exercise emotional restraint.
The announcers pointed out the disadvantages of too much male emotion,
suggesting that emotion interferes with a man’s ability to compete successfully
and to make rational decisions.
Power
and Dominance
The wrestling programs were replete
with the themes of masculine dominance and power. Male performers showed dominance by having
control over others physically and mentally.
Certainly, the announcers frequently spoke of male performers as “having
control” or “being in control” of a match or an opponent, which emphasized
their dominance. Male performers were
also frequently described as “dominant” or “dominating”. Furthermore, the announcers used a variety of
other action descriptives to emphasize physical dominance by male performers
including: “manhandling”,
“overpowering”, “taking apart”, “wearing down”, “cleaning house”, “having his
way with”, “imposing his will”, “lording it over”, “owning”, and “asserting
himself”.
WWE programs also emphasized
masculine power. First, the power and
authority of male characters was routinely emphasized. As owners, commissioners, and general
managers, male characters were able to make matches and force wrestlers to
compete, to fine and suspend wrestlers, and to fire people. For example, as an ultimate show of power,
WWE owner Vince McMahon threatens to shut down the show when the Washington, DC
crowd starts playing “What?” with him on an episode of Smackdown. When the crowd
refuses to cooperate, McMahon has the lights turned out in the arena, telling
the fans “You see, that’s just how powerful I am.”
For the most part, these positions
of power were occupied by men, with the exception of Linda McMahon, who is the
CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, and Stephanie McMahon, who was the owner
of ECW and co-owner of the Alliance
during the data collection period, and later appointed the General Manager of Smackdown. However, it can be argued that it is the McMahon affiliation of these women that
make it possible for them to hold such positions of power and authority.
Competition
Competition was a regular feature of
the televised wrestling programs analyzed.
Performers “competed” in matches commonly called “contests”, and were
continuously referred to by the announcers as “competitors” and described as
“competitive”. Male performers showed
their competitive spirit by issuing challenges to other males to participate in
wrestling bouts, and by engaging in outside-ring competition. Competition between male performers
frequently extended beyond the boundaries of the squared circle. For example, during the data collection
period, Vince McMahon and Shane McMahon competed for sports-entertainment
dominance; Booker T and The Rock competed over who was the most entertaining;
Stone Cold Steve Austin and Rob Van Damm competed for popularity in the
Alliance; Edge and Christian competed over who was the better brother; and
Vince McMahon and Ric Flair competed for leadership of the WWE.
Athleticism
References to male performers as
athletes and as having athletic ability and prowess not only contributed to the
construction of professional wrestling as analogous to sport, which has
traditionally been a male domain, but also highlights athleticism as a
desirable masculine trait. The
announcers were particularly adept at constructing masculinity as athletic
through their play-by-play commentary, specifically by making references to
male performers as “athletes” and/or as having athletic ability. The message, then, was clearly that real men
should be athletic.
Toughness
Toughness was a strong masculine
theme revealed by the wrestling programs.
The announcers played a primary role in emphasizing toughness as
masculine by describing male performers as “tough” or as displaying
“toughness”. Toughness was also conveyed
by the announcers by describing male performers as showing resiliency and
tenacity, as well as having (intestinal or testicular) fortitude.
Moreover, toughness was emphasized
by the ability and willingness of men to play through pain or injury. For example, announcer Paul Heyman emphasizes
masculine toughness by playing through pain and injury when he remarks: “Do you think Stone Cold is going to admit
how injured he is? He’s a real man, he
fights through his injury.”
Risk-Taking
Risk-taking was a further theme
related to masculinity that was revealed through the analysis of the televised
wrestling programs. The announcers were
primarily involved in emphasizing men as risk-takers, though visual displays by
the performers also contributed to the risk-taking masculine ideal. Male performers were described as “taking
chances” or “throwing caution to the wind”, emphasizing the risk-taking
inherent in masculine identity. The
announcers also emphasized the risk-taking of male performers by describing
them as “putting their bodies on the line”, and as executing “high-risk”
moves.
While risk-taking was mostly
physical, men were sometimes constructed as risk-takers in other contexts. For example, on several occasions Vince
McMahon attributed his success in the sports-entertainment business to taking
chances and “calculated risks”. In
fact, McMahon’s risk-taking is demonstrated most strongly when he proposes to
his children, Shane and Stephanie, a “winner takes all” match at Survivor Series, a match that would
essentially determine which entity, Alliance
or WWE, would survive and dominate sports-entertainment. Announcer JR comments on the “high stakes” of
such a match, emphasizing McMahon’s risk-taking. Interestingly, it is Shane who accepts the
proposal, suggesting that this male McMahon is a risk-taker like his
father. Moreover, Vince McMahon proposes
a match between himself and Ric Flair for 100% ownership of the company,
proclaiming that he is “a gambling man”, which further emphasizes his
willingness to take risks in business.
Achievement
and Success
The world of professional wrestling
is very achievement-oriented, despite the fact that most achievements are
contrived. Achievement and success were
emphasized especially for male performers and male performers were depicted as
consumed with achieving wins and obtaining championships, as well as being
success-driven. As further evidence of
the achievement-orientedness of male-dominated professional wrestling, the
announcers routinely listed the accomplishments of male performers and
emphasized male success. The announcers
even highlighted the success and accomplishments of male performers outside of
the ring. The television audience was
made aware, for example, that Kurt Angle was “the first American in history to
win a gold medal” in free-style wrestling at the 1996 Olympics, that Brock
Lesnar was an “NCAA Heavyweight Wrestling Champion”, and that Mark Henry was crowned
the title of “World’s Strongest Man”. In
addition to these athletic achievements, Mick Foley’s success as a best-selling
author was highlighted on several occasions and The Rock’s success in Hollywood was emphasized.
Heterosexuality
The WWE programs analyzed promoted
heterosexuality as the dominant form of male sexuality. Heterosexuality was primarily emphasized by
depicting character relationships between men and women, and by emphasizing
female interest in males as well as male interest in females.
Heterosexuality was further stressed
through the devaluation of gay relationships and the construction of male
homosexuality as negative. To be sure,
there was only one homosexual relationship depicted between men during the data
collection period. Billy and Chuck were
presented as tag team partners who, in the early going, were suspected of being
gay based on stereotypical displays of homosexual behaviours and
attitudes. In taking on this gay
identity Billy and Chuck were relegated to the status of heels (bad guys),
suggesting that “gayness” is an undesirable trait in men. Undeniably, the reaction to Billy and Chuck
as a romantic couple was predominantly negative, indicated by frequent boos
from the crowd and ridiculing by the announcers and other male performers,
further emphasizing the undesirability of homosexual relationships. Interestingly, when Billy and Chuck finally
reveal that they are not gay, the crowd cheers and Billy and Chuck suddenly
become fan favourites. In the weeks to
follow, there is an obvious turn from heel (bad guy) to face (good guy), with
Billy and Chuck being received more positively by fans, announcers, and wrestling
colleagues.
In addition, the desirability of
male heterosexuality was maintained by negatively constructing male
homosexuality. By implying homosexuality
in other men and depicting male homosexuality as comedic, the message that real
men are not gay was effectively conveyed by the WWE performers. It was noted, for example, that implied
homosexuality was often used by male performers as a way of insulting or making
fun of an adversary, suggesting that homosexuality is something to be mocked and
ridiculed, not valued and accepted.
Discussion
Analyses of 118 World Wrestling
Entertainment programs for themes of masculinity suggest that the dominant
hegemonic version of masculinity is primarily presented, which emphasizes
violence and aggression, emotional restraint, power and dominance, competition,
athleticism, toughness, risk-taking, achievement and success, and
heterosexuality. It was further noted
that the announcers, live audience, and male performers were all involved in
constructing hegemonic masculinity as the ideal within the context of
professional wrestling.
Emphasizing the dominant hegemonic
masculinity, the messages about manhood presented by WWE programs leave little
room for alternative expressions of masculinity. Alternative masculinities, such as
non-violent, emotionally-centred masculinity, are effectively masked and even
shunned within the context of professional wrestling. By highlighting the characteristics of
masculinity associated with white, heterosexual, middle-class males, the WWE
messages stifle both minority and homosexual versions of manhood, which may
inadvertently foster racists and/or homophobic attitudes. Interestingly, both minorit (ie. The Rock, Booker T, D-Von Dudley) and non-minority (ie. Triple H, Kurt Angle,
Stone Cold Steve Austin) male performers were involved in the dissemination of
hegemonic manhood messages, suggesting that the dominant masculinity extends
beyond racial boundaries, or that minority versions of masculinity were not
given ample space for expression.
However, the heterosexual ideal remains consistent, marginalizing
homosexual masculinities.
The potential impact of such
hegemonic messages may be particularly acute in the popular televised
pseudo-sport of professional wrestling, which is male-dominated in terms of its
participants and core audience.
Consistently ranking among the most popular in weekly television ratings
(Ashley et al., 2000; Albano, Sugar, & Woodson, 1999), professional wrestling
attracts an estimated weekly audience of 50 million people (Atkinson, 2002),
the majority of which are males aged 12 to 34 years (Ashley et al., 2000;
Lemish, 1998).
By
presenting the dominant hegemonic version of masculinity, the WWE sends the
message to its primarily male audience that this form of masculinity is the
ideal, which serves to stifle and devalue positive alternative versions of
masculinity, such as homosexual masculinity.
Though difficult to assess potential socialization effects of mediated
messages through thematic analyses of popular television programs, it can be
argued that messages promoting hegemonic masculinity may influence the way in
which the television audience conceptualizes and internalizes masculinity. Thus, like mainstream sports, which have
contributed to the socialization of males into the hegemonic masculine ideal,
the popular culture pseudo-sport of professional wrestling may also serve to
promote hegemonic masculinity as the dominant masculinity, further contributing
to the subordination of alternative masculinities within North American
society. As a consequence, men who
embrace minority and homosexual masculinities may find there is little space
for expression and further may encounter negative attitudes by those who
continue to be socialized to accept the dominant hegemonic ideal through
popular culture presentations.
Conclusion
Popular culture presentations of
hegemonic masculinity essentially serve to stifle alternative versions of
masculinity, especially racial minority and homosexual masculinities. In presenting the dominant hegemonic
masculine ideal through its network, cable, and pay-per-view programming, the
WWE sends the message that there is only one legitimate kind of masculinity, a
masculinity that marginalizes and devalues non-white and non-heterosexual
expressions of manhood.
Like sport, which is considered a
male domain, professional wrestling may have important implications for the
socialization of its primary young male audience, who may come to accept
hegemonic masculinity as the ideal, while shunning positive alternative
versions. The continuing promotion of
hegemonic masculinity as the dominant masculinity may have consequences for
both males who embrace the hegemonic version and males who wish to express
alternative versions.
References
Albano, L., Sugar, B.R.,
& Woodson, R. (1999). The
complete idiot’s guide to
professional
wrestling. New
York, NY: Alpha Books.
Ashley,
F.B., Dollar, J., Wigley, B., Gillentine, J.A., & Daughtrey, C. (2000).
Professional wrestling fans: Your next-door neighbors. Sport
Marketing
Quarterly,
9(3),
140-148.
Atkinson,
M. (2002). Fifty million viewers can’t be wrong:
Professional wrestling, sports-
entertainment, and mimesis. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 19(1), 47-66.
Bach,
M. (1993). Uncovering the institutionalized masculine –
notes for a sociology of
masculinity. In T. Haddad (Ed.), Men and masculinities: A critical anthology (pp. 37-58). Toronto,
ON: Canadian Scholars Press Inc.
Brannon,
R. (1976). The male sex role – and what it’s done for us
lately. In R. Brannon
& D. David (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority (pp.
10-25). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brittan,
A. (1989). Masculinity
and power. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
Butler, J. (1995).
Melancholy gender/refused identification. In M. Berger, B. Wallis & S.
Watson (Eds.), Constructing masculinity (pp. 21-36). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Cherry,
E. (2002). The
toughest SOBs on cable: Gender roles in professional wrestling.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Southern Sociological Society.
Coakley,
J. (1994). Sport
and society: Issues and controversies.
Boston, MA:
Mosby.
Communication
Studies 298. (2000). A night with the narcissist and the nasty
boys:
Interpreting the World Wrestling
Federation. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(4), 526-545.
Connell,
R.W. (1987). Gender
and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. San
Francisco, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Connell,
R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Los
Angeles, CA: University
of California Press.
Craig,
S. (1992). Men’s men and women’s women: How TV commercials portray
gender to different audiences. In R. Kemper (Ed.), Issues and effects of mass
communication:
Other voices (pp. 89-100). San Diego, CA: Capstone
Publishers.
Craig,
S. (1993). Selling masculinities, selling femininities:
Multiple genders and the
economics of television. The
Mid-Atlantic Almanack, 2, 15-27.
Donaldson,
D. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5),
643-657.
Dworkin,
S.L. & Wachs, F.L. (2000). The morality/manhood paradox: Masculinity,
sport
and the media. In J. McKay, M. Messner, & D. Sabo
(Eds.), Masculinity, gender
relations,
and sport
(pp. 47-66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Evans,
L. & Davies, K. (2000). No sissy boys here: A content analysis of the
representation of masculinity in
elementary school reading textbooks. Sex Roles, 42(3-4), 255-270.
Gauntlett,
D. (2002). Media,
gender and identity: An introduction.
New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hanke,
R. (1992). Redesigning men: Hegemonic masculinity in
transition. In S. Craig
(Ed.), Men, masculinity and the media (pp. 185-198). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Hanke,
R. (1998). The “mock-macho” situation comedy: Hegemonic
masculinity and its
reiteration. Western
Journal of Communication, 62(1), 74-93.
Hearn,
J. & Morgan, D. (1990). Men, masculinities and social theory. In J. Hearn & D.
Morgan (Eds.), Men, masculinities and social theory (pp. 1-18). London: Unwin Hyman.
Jhally,
S. & Katz, J. (2002). Wrestling
with manhood. [Video] Media
Education
Foundation.
Kaufman,
M. (1995). The construction of
masculinity and the triad of men’s violence.
In
M. Kimmel & M. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 13-25). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kimmel,
M. (1990). After fifteen years: The
impact of the sociology of masculinity on the
masculinity of sociology. In J. Hearn & D. Morgan (Eds.), Men, masculinities and
social
theory (pp.
93-109). London: Unwin Hyman.
Kimmel,
M. (1999). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and
silence in the
construction of gender identity. In J.A. Kuypers (Ed.), Men and power (pp. 84-103). Halifax, NJ: Fernwood Publishing.
Kinsman,
G. (1993). Inverts, psychopaths and normal men:
Historical sociological
perspectives on gay and heterosexual
masculinities. In T. Haddad (Ed.), Men and masculinities: A critical anthology
(pp. 3-36). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press Inc.
Koivula,
N. (2001). Perceived characteristics of
sports categorized as gender-neutral,
feminine and masculine. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 24(4), 377-394.
Lemish,
D. (1998). Girls can wrestle too: Gender
differences in the consumption of a
television wrestling series. Sex
Roles, 38, 833-849.
Lenskyj,
H. (1990). Power and play: Gender and sexuality issues
in sport and physical
activity. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25, 235-245.
Mazer,
S. (1998). Professional
wrestling: Sport and spectacle. MS:
University Press of
Mississippi.
Messner,
M. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female
athlete as contested
ideological terrain. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 5, 197-211.
Messner,
M. (1992). Power at play. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Messner,
M. (2000). The televised sports manhood formula. Journal
of Sport and
Social
Issues, 24,
380-394.
Messner,
M., Hunt, D., & Dunbar, M. (2001). Boys to men, sports media: Messages
about masculinity. Children
Now. Retrieved July 15, 2002 from
http://www.childrennow.org/Media?boystomen/report-sports.html.
Nicholson,
J. (1993). Men and
women: How different are they? Oxford, CT: Oxford
University Press.
Sabo,
D. & Gordon, D.F. (1995). Rethinking mens health and illness: The
relevance of
gender studies. In D. Sabo & D.F. Gordon (Eds.), Mens health and illness: Gender, power and
the body (pp. 1-21). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schnirring,
L. (2000). Pain and injury are real in professional
wrestling. The Physician
and
Sportsmedicine, 28(5), 15-18.
Strauss,
A. (1987). Qualitative
analysis for social scientists. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Stroud,
S.R. (2001). The
ideology of the body-slam: A critical examination of
professional
wrestling.
Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Conference,
Media Studies Division. Retrieved June 21, 2001 from
http://members.aol.com/stroud76/wrestling.htm.
Thompson,
C. (1991). We should reject traditional
masculinity. In C. Thompson (Ed.),
To be a
man: In search of the deep masculine (pp. 4-10). New
York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
Thornton,
A.D. (1993). The accomplishment of masculinities: Men and
sports. In T.
Haddad (Ed.), Men and masculinities (pp. 121-162). Toronto,
Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Vigorito,
A.J. & Curry, T.J. (1998). Marketing masculinity: Gender identity and
popular
magazines. Sex
Roles, 39(1-2), 135-152.
Print 
PDF
0 Comments:
Post a Comment