The Grumpy Sociologist

The 2011 Rugby World Cup and New Zealand's 99%

2011-10-24T15:49:00.001-07:00

Over at SociologyInFocus.com, I just posted a piece on the 2011 Rugby World Cup (RWC) and its contextualized place in New Zealand society. The piece examines the RWC accounting for:

its own status as an entity driving consumerism

the typical notions of gender in sport, and

how the RWC has masked the global "Occupy Movement" present in Auckland

Developing conspicuous consumption...

Hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity anyone?

Check it out if you have minute:

"The 2011 Rugby World Cup and New Zealand's 99%"

Numerous pictures and YouTube videos are included in the entry.

blog directory

Occupy Auckland - We Are the 99%!

2011-10-15T01:43:00.000-07:00

Aljazeera's "Slavery: A 21st Century Evil" Video Series

2011-10-13T15:26:00.000-07:00

In assigning mini-documentaries for my courses, I rely on Aljazeera more than any other news site. A pretty high majority of my students appreciate the videos, but it's not uncommon for a student to say something like, "Of course this video is biased, as it was produced by Aljazeera." I suppose that may be true (just as it would be true for virtually any site). Still, the depth that Aljazeera goes to in addressing issues of global inequality and exploitation is truly unparalleled.

Once again, Aljazeera has outdone itself by producing a large series of videos titled, "Slavery: A 21st Century Evil." Augmenting the outstanding piece titled, "The Nigerian Connection," this series has documentaries on:

The largest contemporary trial on slavery in the United States (City & County of Honolulu, Hawaii) - "Food chain slaves"

Coming soon:

And perhaps most impressive, the series offers guidance on our global responsibility as consumers who assist in driving slavery industries through a piece titled, "Your purchase is advocacy":

My consumer purchase therefore may be my most powerful act of advocacy against slavery. When a million consumers start shopping with their conscience, they shift the economics of the market.

After all, supply chains do not follow immutable laws of production. They operate as "value" chains, because economic value is assigned to those factors that the market rewards. At the moment, the human story gets lost in complex international supply chains, and hence gets assigned minimal economic value.

You can also measure your own estimated contributions to contemporary slavery by taking this "Slavery Footprint" test (courtesty of The Global Sociology Blog).

Be sure to check out Aljazeera's site for updates on this very important series.

blog directory

For-Profit Education?

2011-09-23T20:32:00.000-07:00

In the United States, a recent phenomenon in higher education has gained steam – the increasing number of for-profit colleges/universities. Typically, universities are state-subsidized institutions or private non-profit institutions. As such, the traditional university is not centrally driven on the supposition of making money; instead education remains the centrepiece of the university, where students and staff produce and disseminate knowledge.

Under the growing for-profit, private enterprise model, universities are emerging that are characterized by a number of values that are antithetical to educational excellence:

A desire to enrol as many students as possible
Targeting of under-prepared young people from low-income communities who will rely on expensive federal student loans
An increasing number of courses offered online without in-person instruction, tutoring or assistance
A standardization of curriculum, overseen by university management

In essence, this model of education is comparable to fast-food restaurants, with one key caveat. At a fast-food restaurant like McDonalds for example, a Big Mac is relatively cheap and produced the exact same way at virtually any McDonalds across the globe. Its production is standardized, available for anyone to purchase who has a fairly small amount of money.

Likewise at for-profit colleges/universities, education is readily available to anyone who can pay, who has online computer access, and who is willing to receive a standardized education that is exactly the same, irrespective of the instructor or campus location. The caveat is that unlike a Big Mac at McDonalds, tuition at for-profit colleges/universities is quite expensive relative to traditional universities.

These conditions at for-profit educational institutions are established and enforced by institutional management. I have friends and colleagues who have taught at some of these institutions. They have told me that the textbooks and PowerPoint lectures they use are set ahead of time by the management, and that a managerial assessor is present in their classroom to insure that they are not deviating from the set curriculum.

This rigid and policed educational model is one that has three critical ramifications. One, the degrees students attain (if they attain them) are not valued in society. Thus, if a student graduates, s/he exits the university often times with a massive student debt and near worthless degree. Two, innovation is completely stifled. University staff and students are not encouraged to creatively investigate the many dimensions of our local and global communities. A uniform “cookie cutter” curricula devalues innovation and the production of knowledge through research, something no university should desire.

Three, the strict managerial surveillance of university staff discourages dissent, both of the curricula and of anything happening in society at large. Obviously, this is a crucial problem, as historically universities have been vital stimulators of social movements against oppressive conditions in society. The for-profit model of education eradicates all modes of a collective critical consciousness; students and staff are denied academic freedom and freedom of expression.

So what does all this have to do with the University of Auckland? Nobody is suggesting our university be completely transformed into a for-profit institution, are they? Probably not. However, it is absolutely essential that our university does not move in the direction of the for-profit model where management makes unobstructed universal decisions, rendering staff and students completely powerless in the university’s daily operations. As we see student tuition and debt rise, while our university’s international ranking simultaneously goes down, it is imperative that we at least make connections and ask the relevant questions.

There is no reason that university management should be privileged to such a degree that staff and students are excluded from major decision making processes. The for-profit model values students as dollars and staff as static informational cogs. Is the University of Auckland moving towards the for-profit model? If so, we need to turn things around now as this would certainly not be in the students’ best interests.

See also here: For-Profit Colleges: Targeting People Who Can't Pay

blog

Labeling and Deviance at the 2011 Track and Field World Championships: Oscar Pistorius

2011-08-29T15:29:00.000-07:00

So I'm blogging over at SociologyInFocus.com now as well. Track & Field afficionados are well aware of South African 400m sprinter Oscar Pistorius, who made it to the semi-finals in this week's World Championships. While he had an outside shot, he failed to make the finals.

At SIF I argue that as Pistorius has become faster, his ascribed statuses have shifted, and are now labeled deviant by some due to his "blade runner" prosthetic legs.

Check it out here: "(Dis)Advantaged? The Changing Statuses of Oscar Pistorius"

Watch the video below for Pistorius's qualifying sprint at 45.07 seconds:

And the quarter-finals of this year's champ's, clocking 45.39:

Photo via The Guardian.

blog

Globalization, Poverty, and Slavery - Aljazeera's "The Nigerian Connection"

2011-08-20T06:12:00.000-07:00

Drug use and sex work are topics that tend to evoke high emotion in the general public. Viewed as victimless crimes by some, others note that victimization is an integral component of international systems where people are trafficked as contemporary slaves in robust drug and prostitution rings.

Aljazeera’s People & Power recently produced an outstanding two-part series on human trafficking that focuses on global connections between Italy and Nigeria. Titled “The Nigerian Connection,” the first piece examines an Italian community, Territorio di Castel Volturno, where Italian and Nigerian Mafia’s compete for supremacy of the local organized crime scene, as the second piece turns to Nigeria.

In sociology and the broader social sciences, globalization is hot topic that refers to the increasingly efficient connections facilitating economic exchanges across the global landscape. This includes everything from legal modes of communication (e.g., the internet), to money exchange industries (e.g., Western Union, typical banking corporations), to the trafficking of drugs and human beings, provided these transactions cross international borders.

While globalization has existed for centuries, today’s international exchanges occur much faster, and illegal exchanges frequently transpire under the radar of law enforcement, that is unless corrupt law enforcement agencies are directly involved in the trafficking. Conservative figures estimate that approximately 27 million people are trapped as slaves in a given year, more in absolute number than at any time in the 18th or 19th century. Most are forced to work in the agricultural sector, though slaves are also forced into drug trafficking, sex work, and industrial tasks.

Kevin Bales, author of Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, defines slavery as the total control of one person by another for purpose of economic exploitation. Bales argues that overpopulation in low-income countries has created an increasingly large and vulnerable labor class. An extremely exploitable proletariat, this class is treated by greedy and corrupt capitalists as disposable. Bales further notes that contemporary slavery is characterized by seven qualities that distinguish it from slavery in centuries past:

1. Legal ownership of slaves is avoided
2. Slaves can be purchased at very low cost (for as low as US$90, see here)
3. Slavery yields high profits since slaves are inexpensive
4. Due to overpopulation, the world has a surplus of potential slaves
5. Slaves are disposable, replaceable because of the global surplus
6. Being disposable, slaves have a short relationship with slavers
7. Ethnic differences between slavers and slaves are less important (it is not uncommon to see slavers and slaves from the same ethnic group)

Most of today’s slaves are tricked into slavery through debt bondage – the individual pledges him/herself against a loan of money tied to an inflated cost of transportation to a new country, where the individual will presumably work in a conventional, legal job. However, upon arriving in a new and unfamiliar place, the workers are forced into slave-based jobs with conditions that make it virtually impossible to pay off their debts, escape, or seek help from legal authorities (e.g., passports are taken away).

Watching Aljazeera’s two-part documentary, one can clearly see the seven qualities Bales presents that characterize modern-day slavery, as well as how globalization is facilitating slavery tied to prostitution.

Part I (25 minutes):

Part I offers additional insights into important sociological concepts. For instance, cultural norms are corrupted in order to control the Nigerian female prostitutes via a “Juju oath” that women are forced to take prior to leaving Nigeria (@16 minutes; and @ 12:00 minutes in Part II). This oath is used to control the women while enslaved in Italy. Patriarchy is also clearly evident, as systems are established that privilege men over women. With the prostitutes being predominantly female and without official paperwork, laws are established that further criminalize them. Though prostitution is legal in Italy, sex workers can be arrested (by mostly male police officers) if they do not have residency papers, which obviously these women lack since they are forced to work off the books (@ 17:30 minutes). Note also the comments by the nun regarding a male market (@ 22:30 minutes) that keeps the industry flourishing. Part II shifts to Nigeria’s economic deprivation and internal corruption that fuels an exploitable slave class.

Part II (25 minutes):

Returning to one of Bales’s key points, Part II displays how agents in Nigeria are often Nigerians themselves, who trick young Nigerian women into sexual slavery (@ 5:00 minutes). This further demonstrates the decreasing status of race and ethnicity as rigid markers in the slavery system. Mass poverty is also highlighted as a contributor to the human trafficking machine, with one third of the population in this Nigerian state living on less than $1 per day (@ 7:50 minutes). As such, becoming a human trafficker of one’s own people emerges largely out of economic desperation, while globalization and global stratification provide the distant places of hope that seduce poverty stricken Nigerians into deceit. Part II closes by exploring the illegal trafficking of Nigerian babies (@ 18 minutes).

The two videos provide for excellent pieces on discussions surrounding globalization and contemporary slavery.

South Korean K-pop, Perpetuating Patriarchy

2011-08-19T20:15:00.000-07:00

In the 1990s, The Spice Girls had an infectious global impact on young people across Europe, North America, and Australia – girls in particular. While some may argue women’s sexuality, fandom, and business prowess mix in ways promote female empowerment, others claim that despite having a central position on stage, these mainstream girl groups reproduce male privilege. In contemporary South Korea, this topic is especially germane.

I recently attended a lecture by Associate Professor Stephen Epstein (2011), Director of the Asian Studies Programme at Victoria University of Wellington, where I learned that all female “girl groups” are having major influences in South Korea and across much of Asia through the phenomenon of K-pop.

The Wonder Girls:
According to Professor Epstein, girl groups’ music and videos in the K-pop genre tend to fall in one of four typologies, which make for useful comparisons with popular female artists in the West.

1. “Desire Expressed but Initiative Given to Males” – In videos falling into this typology, female artists communicate a craving to forge romantic relationships with males, but the artists’ physical movements and lyrics privilege the desired male partners. According to Dr. Epstein, the following video, “Tell Me Your Wish” by Oh!, exemplifies this typology since the female artists ask their male partners how they can fulfill the males’ desires:

Going back a few decades, one cannot help but compare this video’s genie theme to the sit-com, “I Dream of Genie.” It is no coincidence that “I Dream of Genie” emerged in the midst of America’s second women’s movement. With women in the broader society advocating for equal pay, “I Dream of Genie” portrayed a woman considered physically attractive with magical powers confined to a small lamp and controlled by her male proprietor. In South Korea’s contemporary K-pop industry, Oh! present a strikingly similar message.

And while not a “genie in a bottle” or part of a larger group, one can still see similarities in Nicki Minaj’s recent video, “Super Bass.” In her video, Minaj and an entourage of female dancers exude a highly sexualized femininity as they indulge males with whom they hope to forge a romance. Hence, the males are ultimately in control, there to sit back as the women work for their affection:

2. “Power through Narcissistic Sexuality” – The second typology includes videos in which girl groups supposedly garner power by brazenly accentuating their sexuality. Scenarios in these videos repeatedly show the South Korean female artists rejecting male suitors as they soak in compliments and climb the social ladder, their increasing popularity tied solely to their sexual prowess. The irony, of course, is that power garnered through sexuality does not alter the gender order. Rather, it reproduces gender norms with women (and girls) objectified as sex articles. This is seen quite clearly in the somewhat comical video “So Hot” by the Wonder Girls (note how cheerleading and American gridiron football is built into the video's gendered dynamics, a sport hardly popular in South Korea):

Again, this typology is not unique to girl groups in South Korean K-pop. Keri Hilson’s recent hit, “Pretty Girl Rock,” includes a number of lyrics that encourage women to publicly flaunt their sexual supremacy: “…Mad cause I’m cuter than the girl that’s with ya. I can talk about it cause I know that I’m pretty and if ya know it too then ladies sing it with me…. Don’t question that this girl’s a 10. Don’t hate me cause I’m beautiful.” As such, men are supposedly relegated inferior to the beautiful woman(en), but in actuality, women are valued strictly for their physical attractiveness. More to the point, Hilson’s video demonstrates this theme manifesting over generations:

3. “Objectified Female Solidarity” – The third typology includes videos where members of the girl groups completely reject males, holding no desire for male attention. With such an overt rejection, a greater female solidarity is definitely present in these videos, and perhaps even a stronger sense of independence. Still, the girl groups’ body language and attire perpetuate the same visual narrative – that women are sexual objects, as seen in Miss A’s “Bad Girl, Good Girl”:

Overlap may exist in these South Korean K-pop videos with those starring Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga has been heralded as a talent who questions authority and speaks to minority issues, but doing so while simultaneously reproducing a visual imagery in line with traditional gender norms.

4. “Revenge Narratives” – The final typology stated by Dr. Epstein was that of the revenge narrative in which the girl group members plan and carry out vengeful acts against promiscuous ex-boyfriends. In doing so, girls bond to presumably reclaim a collective sense of power. However, the over-arching theme of these videos still places women’s and girls’ value in the framework of a heterosexual relationship. See, below, 4minute’s video, “Heart to Heart”:

Though perhaps not a perfect comparison, Christina Aguilera’s “Fighter,” definitely holds similar tenets. Aguilera purports a strengthened individuality after being harmed, presumably by an ex-boyfriend. The song’s lyrics state, “Makes me that much stronger. Makes me work a little bit harder. Makes me that much wiser. Thanks for making me a fighter.” These empowering lyrics on the one hand continue to exist in the context of a woman’s central focus in romantic affairs, thereby cementing the current gender order.

Marketed as a means of increasing girls’ and young women’s power and independence, girl groups in the South Korean K-pop industry follow the same gender lines seen in music videos produced world-wide that emphasize femininity. The music videos may communicate slightly different points, but their messages have the same basic implications.

Girls’ and women’s worth is connected to (1) frequently unhealthy and unattainable beauty standards, and (2) romantic relationships with men. Despite being promoted as empowering for girls and women, the videos do not challenge patriarchy at all. To the contrary, they reinforce a world where gender inequality is embedded in its social systems.

Reference:
Epstein, S. J. (2011 August 4). Girls’ Generation?: Gender, (Dis)Empowerment and K-pop. School of Asian Studies Seminar Series 2001. Auckland: The University of Auckland.

For more of Dr. Epstein’s work, conducted in tandem with his colleague, James Turnbull, go Turnbull's blog, TheGrandNarrative.com.

blog

Feminized Firearms: Marketing Violence Through Gender Norms

2011-08-18T23:55:00.000-07:00

NPR has a story up that discusses the ways gun stores are now catering to an increasingly female client-base. The images pictured here illustrate the symbolic gendering of color plastered onto these feminized firearms.

The story also has an interesting quote from a female buyer: "'If you listen to the news at night, all you hear are women in parking lots — someone coming up, or threatening them for their purse or threatening their life, or raping [them],' she says."

If in fact the news in this woman's community reports cases of women being assaulted in parking lots incessantly, her community is highly abnormal (or the news is probably over-reporting street crime, while not realizing violence within households between intimate partners is among the most under-reported type of crime).

Not to dismiss the seriousness of being attacked by a stranger, but research shows overwhelmingly that on average (1) women are at far greater risk of being assaulted in their own homes and/or by a friend than on the street; and (2) having a firearm does not enhance one's own protection (Plaxico Burress anyone?).

This just makes me wonder, is a moral panic being created to identify a new female market who will buy more guns?

Pic vis NPR.

blog

The Chi-square Formula

2011-08-18T17:15:00.000-07:00

Here are two videos that walk you through the chi-square analysis.

The University Is Me

2011-08-09T19:30:00.000-07:00

So I've walked into an interesting situation at The University of Auckland. The main concern for me is that if my research time is limited, I will have less official time to work with communities in preventing violence and building social capital. Research can be community-oriented and driven; it should be valued as an opportunity for universities to connect with the broader community in mutually beneficial ways.

I don't want my research time cut, specifically because doing so further separates me and my colleagues from non-academic community mobilizers.

Please do whatever little bit you can to support out rights as academicians with academic freedom. Protecting our worker rights will benefit the entire university, including students, as well as the broader New Zealand and global community.

Mahalo Hawai'i - On to Aotearoa

2011-07-09T22:49:00.000-07:00

It's been a hell of a run Hawai'i. Hope the research and work here has been helpful, not another modern form of colonialism and snooty academic hodgepodge. Here's the most recent stuff:

Youth Violence and Hegemonic Masculinity among Pacific Islander and Asian American Adolescents

Pathways and Predictors of Juvenile Justice Involvement for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Youths: A Focus on Gender

On to another part of the Pacific...

[Note 1: not a big fan of the tourist industry, maybe after being in Aotearoa for a while I'll realize I should take the video above down; Note 2: been absent from blogging recently due to the impending move; will be back in form soon.].

Most Dangerous Places in the World for Women

2011-06-15T05:51:00.001-07:00

Using the following six criteria, 213 international gender experts ranked Afghanistan, Congo, Pakistan, India, and Somalia as the most dangerous countries in the world for women:

health threats

sexual violence

non-sexual violence

cultural or religious beliefs

lack of access to resources

trafficking

Via Trust.org:

Mixed Martial Arts Salaries: A Look at Their Disproportionate Growth in the UFC

2011-05-01T22:21:00.000-07:00

Article cross-posted at BloodyElbow.com

Introduction

Since World War II, the face of American big business has changed dramatically. In the 1950s and ‘60s, chief executive officers of successful companies obviously made substantially more than their employees. At that time, CEOs made roughly 25 to 30 times what their average employee made. In the 1980s, big business practices changed. Factories were being moved overseas to capitalize on cheaper labor sources while government under the Reagan Administration infringed less and less on big business practices.

In 1980, the CEO of a major company made about 40 times that of an average employee. By 1990, the ratio rose to 100 times. In 2007, a typical CEO of a major company made 350 times the average company worker. Wal-Mart exemplifies this shifting trend in business relationships vividly. It was the largest U.S. company in 2005, and at that time, Wal-Mart’s CEO made 900 times that of the average Wal-Mart worker (Pickett & Wilkinson, 2011).

Forty, fifty years ago, CEOs were more compelled to maintain positive relationships with their employees and adhere to tighter governmental oversights. Employees also had stronger collective bargaining rights and better relationships with management. Today, management and owners maintain distance from employees through protective legal mechanisms and worker disposability that together, limit workers’ efforts to unite in fighting for fair pay, health care, retirement, education, and other potential benefits.

So what does all this have to do with mixed martial arts?

In 2001, Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta paid $2 million to purchase the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). It is common knowledge that the two brothers lost $44 million in their UFC investment from 2001 to 2004. But in April 2008, Forbes magazine reported that the UFC had skyrocketed in value to $1 billion. Assuming these figures are correct, then in seven years the UFC’s value increased nearly 50,000%. No, that is not a typo.

As stated from the 2008 Forbes article:

The majority of UFC revenues come from the monthly pay-per-view events. Additional cash is made from ticket sales to live fights and licensing fees from its Spike cable shows The Ultimate Fighter and UFC Fight Night. These shows in turn act as promotional tools to drive fans to pay-per-view events. More scratch comes from sales of DVDs and T shirts, as well as downloads from UFC’s library of past bouts.

In 2008, the UFC “generated a over a quarter of a billion dollars in business in gate receipts, UFC merchandise, and licensing fees” (Lim et al., 2010, p. 50).

At present it is difficult to say how much the Fertitta brothers make specifically from the UFC on an annual basis. For what it is worth, “Celebrity Net Worth” currently lists Lorenzo Fertitta's net value at $1 billion, though this would stem from much more than the UFC. And while the Fertitta brothers each own 45% of the UFC, the remaining 10% is owned by the company’s President and public face, Dana White, who is reportedly worth approximately $150 million.

Again, it is difficult, possibly impossible, to know what the three UFC owners make on an annual basis, or what percentage they each net from the UFC’s various revenue sources. But it is probably safe to say, they are making a substantial amount. Many would argue they deserve it – they had the vision and took the risks to build the UFC. They have persevered and profited under the capitalist system.

And so have some of their workers…

As noted in the prior piece in this series of essays, Georges St. Pierre made $8,000 in a winning effort at UFC 48; today a GSP win yields the current welterweight champ $400,000 – a 4,900% increase. Back in 2007 when Rashad Evans fought Tito Ortiz to a draw, he made $16,000; more recently after defeating “Rampage” Jackson, Evans was rewarded with $435,000 – a 2,618% increase. Clearly, as a UFC fighter’s star power rises, so can his salary. However, this is not necessarily the optimal way to analyze UFC fighters’ salaries over time.

Methodology

A more detailed description of the methods for this piece can be found here. In short, to collect data for this project, the available information was gathered from MMA websites for each fighter's publicly stated earned income from UFC 100 to UFC 127. Only major fight cards were examined for this project, essentially meaning cards that were held on a pay-per-view basis.

For this sample, a total of 15 fight cards were examined, in which 326 payouts (also known as a fighter's "purse") were made to fighters; fighter salaries for 13 UFC fight cards during this timeframe could not be located. These payouts will be referred to as the “Post-UFC Boom Payouts.” Additionally for comparative purposes, 100 payouts were examined from UFC 44, UFC 46, UFC 47, UFC 48, UFC 49, and UFC 51, fight cards that took place from 2003 to 2005, just before the UFC turned the corner and began making major profits. Data for these earlier payouts were gathered from a blog managed by Ivan Trembow (here, here, and here). These payouts will be referred to as the “Pre-UFC Boom Payouts.”

There are a few important limitations to these methods. First, the public compensation made to fighters within the UFC promotion does not include "backstage/locker room" bonuses that are given to select fighters by management (as noted by commenters in the first article using this data set). Nor does the data set include possible royalties that elite fighters may secure from pay-per-view buys, DVD sales, etc. (which would expand the stratification among fighters since middle and lower-tier fighters would likely not secure such compensation).

Findings and Discussion

Pre-UFC Boom Payouts (N = 100):
• Mean: $29,180
• Median: $8,000 (best measure)
• Standard deviation: $46,726

Post-UFC Boom Payouts (N = 326):
• Mean: $66,012
• Median: $27,000 (best measure)
• Standard deviation: $92,164

It is worth reiterating that the standard deviation (general dispersion from the mean) in both these cases is extremely large, demonstrating the massive inequality in payouts among fighters. Furthermore, the standard deviation has expanded substantially over time, nearly doubling from the pre-boom to post-boom years, which is attributed heavily to pay increases among the UFC’s top stars, coupled with very modest increases for prelim fighters.

A comparison of the means is statistically significant at .001, indicating a highly significant boost in fighters’ average pay over the years. However, the best measure when examining average income is the median, and clearly the median pay for UFC fighters has risen substantially, up from $8,000 in the pre-boom years to $27,000 in the post-boom years, a 237% increase.

The pay distribution between the two samples was also made, dividing each sample into rough quartiles:

Pre-UFC Boom:
* Highest paid 25%: $30,000-$225,000 (n=25)
* 2nd highest paid 25%: $10,000-$23,000 (n=19)
* 3rd highest paid 25%: $5,000-$8,000 (n=26)
* Lowest paid 25%: $2,000-$4,000 (n=30)

Post-UFC Boom:
* Highest paid 25%: $83,000-$500,000 (n=82)
* 2nd highest paid 25%: $27,000-$81,000 (n=82)
* 3rd highest paid 25%: $13,000-$26,000 (n=78)
* Lowest paid 25%: $3,000-$12,000 (n=84)

As would be expected, within each quartile fighters make considerably more in the post-UFC boom years. The top earner in the pre-UFC boom sample was Randy Couture, who earned $225,000 ($150,000 to show; $75,000 to win) at UFC 49. Couture’s top earnings at UFC 49 were less than half of what Chuck Liddell and James Toney made ($500,000) in losing efforts at UFC 118 and 115, respectively.

But even in the earlier UFC sample, status was a critical factor that increased fighter pay. Tito Ortiz earned three out of the top ten purses in the “pre-boom” sample, losing twice and both times earning $125,000. Within the lower quartile of the earlier sample, a few fighters were represented who still compete now and have heavily improved their name recognition (e.g., Chris Lytle, Josh Thompson, Jorge Rivera, Nick Diaz). However, most fighters in the lower quartile have not been active in the UFC the past two years.

The decreased activity of many fighters in the lowest quartile of the “pre- boom” sample is significant because it could suggest what will occur among the larger number of lower-tier fighters on the current UFC roster. As the global market of fighters expands, the lower-tier fighters become more expendable. Their work status is increasingly precarious in an occupation that is already erratic due to the sport’s highly physical nature.

In fact, looking at the lowest quartile of the “pre-boom” era, there were 27 fighters represented (for 30 payouts). Of these 27 fighters, only 8 had competed in the UFC in the last two years (roughly 30%), though a few of these fighters who had not recently competed in the UFC were competing in high profile matches elsewhere (e.g., Nick Diaz). Most fighters in the lower quartile remained active; 21 out of 27 had fought in either the UFC or another organization within the last 2 years, while 9 had not competed at all since April 2009.

This may not be terribly surprising – these are typically the UFC prelim fighters getting a first or second opportunity on a UFC pay-per-view card, or the aging veterans lucky enough to be given an extra chance. As time goes by, the less talented pool fades out. Under the fight game’s structure, they are replaced by younger, more talented prospects. And the callous, business-oriented perspective argues high monetary compensation is not these lower-tier fighters’ reward. Rather, they were given the opportunity, and they washed out of the sport's top organization.

For all the rhetoric among some fans and pundits who suggest fighters should be grateful for simply having an opportunity with the UFC, critics must also consider an average pro-MMA fighter’s “fighting life.” If fighting and training others is a full time job, this leaves minimal time for developing additional occupational skills, despite the fact that virtually all fighters will have a significant amount of years to live after their professional fight skills have diminished.

Although fighter purses have risen substantially, their growth is hardly commensurate with the UFC’s increased value during the same general timeframe. As one BloodyElbow commenter stated in response to lower-tier fighters’ precarious position in the UFC:

Another thing is that over time, although fighter pay has steadily increased, the amount of money the UFC makes has risen enormously. The fighter’s piece of the pie has become much smaller, and therein lies the issue. If you kept the percentage of revenue allocated towards fighter’s pay the same as it was a few years ago, then the stars would be making true star money, and the lower level guys would be making more than 3 grand a fight. That’s where the REAL money is, not in the “_ of the Night” bonuses.

Thus, when Randy Couture discusses a fighters’ union, health insurance, retirement plans, and education, people should listen and do so seriously. For health insurance, fighters are covered for injuries that happen in the Octagon on fight night only. Is it completely implausible to make health insurance available once a fight contract is signed, at which time the fighter is training specifically for a UFC fight card? Additionally, more substantial increases for fighters’ purses – at all levels, but especially the lower levels – are warranted. The UFC has grown immensely, and for that, many people are grateful, including many fans. Why not raise the fighters’ compensation at a more proportionate rate? Ultimately, they are the reason fans keep coming to watch.

Non-internet References:

Lim, C. H., Martin, T. G., & Kwak, D. H. (2010). Examining television consumers of mixed martial arts: the relationship among risk taking, emotion, attitude, and actual sport-media-consumption behavior. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 49-63.

Pickett, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2011). Preface to The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality makes Societies Stronger by Robert Reich. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

academics blogs

The Mixed Martial Arts Precariat: A Critique of Excitement Incentive Bonuses

2011-04-21T13:16:00.000-07:00

Introduction

This is the third entry in a series examining fighter salaries from the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Strikeforce prior to Zuffa’s takeover of the latter promotion. More specifically, this series has illustrated how social stratification – inequality based on wealth, power, and prestige – is rampant among MMA fighters, both men and women. The present article will focus solely on the UFC, looking specifically at how fighter bonuses extend the precarious nature of the athletes’ livelihood.

Methodology

A more detailed description of the methods for this piece can be found here. In short, to collect data for this project, the available information was gathered from MMA websites for each fighter's publicly stated earned income from UFC 100 to UFC 127. Only major fight cards were examined for this project, essentially meaning cards that were held on a pay-per-view basis.

For this sample, a total of 15 fight cards were examined, in which 326 payouts (also known as a fighter's "purse") were made to fighters; fighter salaries for 13 UFC fight cards during this timeframe could not be located.

There are a few important limitations to these methods. First, the public compensation made to fighters within the UFC promotion does not include "backstage/locker room" bonuses that are given to select fighters by management (as noted by commenters in the first article using this data set). Nor does the data set include possible royalties that elite fighters may secure from pay-per-view buys, DVD sales, etc. (which would expand the stratification among fighters since middle and lower-tier fighters would likely not secure such compensation).

Findings

Fighter "excitement incentive bonuses" refer to the "X of the Night" bonuses fighters receive on each UFC fight card. These bonuses are typically awarded to four competitors: for "Fight of the Night" (given to both the winning and losing fighter in the card’s most exciting match), "Submission of the Night" (given to a fighter who wins via the most impressive submission on the card), and "Knockout of the Night" (given to a fighter who wins via the most spectacular knockout on the card).

All of these excitement incentive bonuses come in the form of supplementary income to the fighter’s guaranteed purse (i.e., "show" money), his possible win bonus, and on rare occasion are given to more than one fighter (e.g., sometimes two fighters may be given monetary awards for "Knockout of the Night"). A fighter may also "double up" on these awards; for instance at UFC 106, Josh Koscheck earned a guaranteed $53,000 to show, $53,000 to win, $70,000 for "Submission of the Night," and $70,000 for "Fight of the Night," thereby securing a total purse of $246,000. Among the sample examined in this study, these excitement incentive bonuses ranged in monetary value from $50,000 (given to awardees at UFC 108) to $100,000 (given to awardees at UFC 100).

Again, a total of 326 UFC payouts were examined. Of these 326 payouts, 57 (17.5%) included excitement incentive bonuses, and 269 (82.5%) had none of these bonus types. Contrasts were first made examining the 57 cases, comparing the fighters’ purses including these excitement incentive bonuses versus their purses had they hypothetically not received these bonuses.

Fighter Purses with Excitement Incentive Bonuses (N = 57)

Mean: $147,477

Median: $112,000

Standard deviation: $92,570

Fighter Purses with Excitement Incentive Bonuses Subtracted (N = 57)

Mean: $74,175

Median: $36,000

Standard deviation: $89,028

One can see rather clearly the abundant impact these excitement incentive bonuses have on fighters’ purses, nearly doubling the mean, and increasing the median (the best measure here) more than three times. Obviously for these fighters, the supplementary income is a significant reward. However, these data only present part of the information.

It is also important to compare the 57 fighters’ purses with the excitement incentive bonuses subtracted versus the 269 fighter purses in which none of these bonuses were given, presented, below:

Fighter Purses with Excitement Incentive Bonuses Subtracted (N = 57)

Mean: $74,175

Median: $36,000

Standard deviation: $89,028

Fighter Purses, Never Received Excitement Incentive Bonuses (N = 269)

Mean: $48,750

Median: $20,000

Standard deviation: $82,460

The key comparison here is that the median for fighters who received the excitement incentive bonuses stands at $36,000. Recall, that is the median value before their excitement incentive bonuses were included in analyses. In contrast, the median for those who never received the bonuses is only $20,000.

This discrepancy reflects two things. First and foremost, those who receive these bonuses are more often winners of matches (a relatively obvious point), who are therefore not only receiving these bonuses, but also in most cases a win bonus (unless they were losers who received a "Fight of the Night" bonus). Additionally, the discrepancy shows that a disproportionate number of fighters receiving these excitement incentive bonuses already have high status and can leverage better contracts should they not secure a supplemental bonus.

In short, the excitement incentive bonuses extend the inequality among fighters. It is far more common to see fighters with high profile names, still in top-tier competitive form who already make substantial incomes earning the excitement incentive bonuses (e.g., Dan Henderson, Anderson Silva, Jon Jones, Chris Leben, Rich Franklin). Conversely, aging fighters and those who are greener, who typically make less money, are less likely to receive these bonuses (e.g., Frank Trigg, David Loiseau, Goran Reljic, Todd Brown).

Of course since only 17% of the payouts in this sample included these particular bonus types, numerous fighters who compete in main events or co-main events do not receive them. However, these fighters are already making healthy incomes (e.g., Vitor Belfort earned $275,000 in a losing effort with no bonuses at UFC 126).

Fighter Bonuses and the Precariat

Given these trends, it is important to consider the necessity of these excitement incentive bonuses, as well as how these particular bonuses increase fighters’ risks. Bear in mind, incentive bonuses already exist – win bonuses. Many argue that without further bonuses that encourage athletes to finish fights in exciting fashion via either submission or knockout, too many fighters will compete simply to win, opting for the safer routes to victory that lack entertainment value.

Such a perspective leans towards treating MMA as spectacle over sport. Many have argued sports in general continuously move in this direction, away from traditional sporting notions (e.g., winning yields the greatest rewards) towards a form of entertainment for fan pleasure. Hence, NFL owners push for a longer regular season that benefits them and the fans, not the athletes.

Furthermore, these particular incentive bonuses disproportionately encourage the lower-tier and poorer fighters to utilize risky fighting styles that resonate with fans who call for increased violence over winning. As early as 2007, Greg Downey stated:

"Promoters encourage fighters to use striking strategies because they are perceived to be more popular with fans. A public relations executive at Zuffa explained to me that, if a fighter put on a ‘good show’ – he was aggressive and exciting to watch – he would be invited back even if he lost" (p. 216).

While bonuses are given for "Submission of the Night," the general tenet expressed by Downey holds true across today’s MMA landscape. Chris Lytle and Leonard Garcia truly exemplify this perspective, both holding long tenures under the Zuffa banner arguably because of their risky approaches to competition. Jon Fitch and Antonio McKee, on the other hand, not only win extensively over very long periods, but win in ways that safeguard their physical and mental health. Thus despite winning extensively over the years, the latter two fighters have not been rewarded in ways that are commensurate with their records.

Up and coming less known fighters and aging out veterans are both groups of fighters looking to build or re-build their names. And they are more commonly in need of hefty monetary bonuses. These are the groups of fighters Guy Standing would refer to as part of the MMA "precariat."

They are part of the vulnerable, expendable working class, or "proletariat," but in this case, their income and work status is constantly precarious. Should they get a contract with the UFC and make it to the scheduled competition, they secure their "show" money, which is typically quite low. Their win bonus is not guaranteed, and would probably double their purse. But gaining an excitement incentive bonus may literally increase their purse six times and improve their chances of future employment. Hence, their financial vulnerability in a precarious market calls for increased risks – risks to winning and to their health.

The more one company commands control of a global industry, the less power workers have to advocate for their rights. Lower-tier fighters’ precarious employment is further threatened by the UFC’s dominance in the global market, where mixed martial artists from different parts of Asia, South America, North America, Europe, and the Pacific vie for a chance to compete and make the highlight reel on the grandest MMA stage.

A hallmark fighter like the current Georges St. Pierre (GSP) can afford financially to not take risks, and may even view risks in competition as jeopardizing his current income and sporting legacy. It is fiscally prudent for a "name" fighter like St. Pierre to fight safe. The complete opposite is true for mixed martial artists who fall in the lowest tiers of a stratified MMA global market.

This means fighters like the current GSP, Randy Couture, and "Rampage" Jackson must remember where they came from, as well as their peers from the 1990s and early 2000s who never made it the elite levels and reaped lucrative financial rewards. Today, GSP makes $400,000 (half to show; half to win) on a typical fight card. In a winning effort at UFC 48 he made $8,000. Will these fighters who currently have power ever make lasting efforts to advocate for their fellow and future workers?

Much more importantly, will administration and ownership consider how incentive bonuses jeopardize their employees? It is hardly outlandish to argue lower-tier fighters are rendered disposable and replaceable across the global market. These particular fighters know they have very limited life chances to impress the brass, and the brass knows the fighters are aware of their own uncertain circumstances.

Rewarding lower-tier fighters would not take much organizational change. On a typical UFC pay-per-view fight card, there are 11 matches with 22 fighters. If excitement incentive bonuses are set at $75,000 a piece, that is $300,000 usually distributed to four fighters. If these excitement incentive bonuses were decreased to $20,000 a piece (still a significant amount of money for lower- and mid-tier fighters), that would leave $220,000 to distribute across the fight night roster. If distributed evenly to just ten of the lowest paid fighters, each would receive an extra $22,000 in guaranteed income.

When I interviewed Guy Mezger years ago, he told me, "…to be honest man, most of the guys, a lot of the guys, they think there’s a huge amount of money in this sport, and there is, for a very small amount of people." Mezger was and still is right – the wealth is there, but not for everyone. If they truly care about all their employees, White, Fertitta and company can and should do a better job of spreading it around.

Up next: how the UFC as a company has skyrocketed in value while fighter salaries lag behind in proportionate growth.

Non-internet Source:

Downey, G. (2007). Producing pain: techniques and technologies in no-holds-barred fighting. Social Studies of Science, 37 (2), 201-226.

academics blogs

Hawaii's Fastest Human, 2011

2011-04-17T19:57:00.000-07:00

33-year-old Chad Miyamoto places 2nd in a close race:

academics blogs

Comparing Means Within a Sample

2011-04-12T16:23:00.000-07:00

Watch these two videos in order to see how we can compare means from two segments within a sample. We will see how to test for statistical significance.

blogs

Mixed Martial Arts and Masculinity: Tito Ortiz: "GSP Is Going To Make Shields Look Like A Girl"

2011-04-07T15:07:00.000-07:00

bjpenn.com has a story up in which the headline quotes former UFC Light Heavyweight Champ, Tito Ortiz (pictured above): "GSP Is Going To Make Shields Look Like A Girl."

As those who follow mixed martial arts (MMA) know, GSP (or UFC Welterweight Champ, Georges St. Pierre) is heavily favored to beat challenger, Jake Shields (April 30 fight date). Ortiz's prediction that GSP will win isn't saying much. It's how he makes his prediction that resonates with MMA fans that matters.

By saying GSP will make Shields look like a girl, he is associating a loss with femininity. This kind of hyper-masculine language takes place extremely frequently in the male-dominated realm of MMA. If one fighter wants to put down another, he emasculates him (that is, among male fighters). It is not enough to call an opponent an androgynous derogatory term (e.g., a jerk).

Instead, so many fighters feel compelled to associate their oppoents with femininity through sexist and/or homophobic language.

And so the cycle continues: fighters and the Pavlovian fans who follow them uncritically perpetuate and normalize a culture that demeans women and girls. And the promoters/owners either encourage such cultural norms or look the other way (heck, sometimes they blatantly participate). They know what sells; increased income is more important than rectifying social inequality through sport.

blog directory

Where Young Men and Boys Learn Homophobia: Wrestlemania Hype

2011-04-02T22:16:00.000-07:00

A little over a week ago on NPR's "Fresh Air," Terry Gross hosted Dan Savage and his husband (in Canada)/boyfriend (in the U.S.) to discuss the "It Gets Better" movement, in which gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender adults and heterosexual allies may post videos for young people of stigmatized sexualities who are struggling with bullying.

Click here to listen to the podcast:

Dan Savage: For Gay Teens, Life 'Gets Better'

Even President Obama made a video for the project:

It is a fantastic interview, covering everything from homophobia to family dynamics, and coping with being a minoriy on multiple levels (i.e., sexuality, gender, race, class).

At about 19:00 into the interview, Gross asks a question that she says "might be incredibly naieve": "Why do you think so many teenagers are still so homophobic considering how many people are out now, how many celebrities are out now. People in popular culture are out now. I mean, it's just so much more commonplace than it was when you were growing up."

Savage offers an illuminating response, discussing how in some ways celebrities' openness regarding their sexuality has made it worse for LGBT teens, as it is more difficult for them to "fly under the radar" in the case that it is unsafe to come out. However, the conversation went on a tangent, and Gross's question was not actually addressed.

So where is homophobia still cultivated in our society? Hegemonic masculinity is about males stepping on women and other males in order to move up the system's social order. Stepping on others in a hegemonic masculine system means putting down all that is considered feminine, which currently includes males who do not fit into the rigid heterosexual standard.

So where do boys grow up learning to be homophobic? Well, tomorrow is the World Wrestling Entertainment's annual hallmark show, "Wrestlemania." Here's part of what was used to build the hype - classic hegemonic masculinity. In other words, here we have blatant discrimination used to hype an extremely popular cultural product with a very male-heavy audience. The use of humor, role modeling, and the extensive power the WWE has in the entertainment business normalizes these discriminatory values. As a society, we are less apt to think more carefully (or even at all) about homophobia and question its existence. Of course Jackson Katz has done tons of excellent work critquing WWE's sexist and homophobic history.

For a more contemporary example, just listen to the crowd cheer wildly after each homophobic joke made by the WWE's current star, John Cena. Male socialization at its finest (sarcasm):

blog tips

The Standard Error and Confidence Intervals

2011-03-29T13:12:00.001-07:00

Here are three videos that should help you understand how to calculate:

The standard error for a sample proportion.

The standard error for a sample mean.

A 95% confidence interval for both a sample proportion and a sample mean.

A 99% confidence interval for both a sample proportion and a sample mean.

Go ahead and watch all 3 videos in order (each video is approximately 5 minutes):

blog tips

Gender Stratification in Mixed Martial Arts: What is the Future?

2011-03-26T21:44:00.000-07:00

Introduction

On August 15, 2009 Cristiane Santos and Gina Carano competed in a mixed martial arts match that had as much crowd anticipation and energy as virtually any men's match (see video, below).

While critics may suggest certain aspects of the match were sloppy or that the match did not yield pay-per-view buys on par with top UFC fight cards, one should also recall that generally speaking the women's MMA game has not been in play for nearly as long as the men's, and more importantly, as in most other sports, female athletes are not supported in the MMA industry as much as male athletes.

Since Zuffa (the UFC's parent company) announced earlier this month that it had subsumed the Strikeforce promotion, a number of analysts have discussed the precarious position in which fighters now see themselves (see for example, here). Narrowing the focus, a few pieces have noted the especially uncertain position of female fighters currently under the Strikeforce brand. Fowlkes' piece at MMAFighting.com offers particularly useful perspectives from three of Strikeforce's female fighters -- Sarah Kaufman, Marloes Coenen, and Miesha Tate:

"I think one of two things can happen," said former Strikeforce champ Sarah Kaufman. "The first is that they embrace the females and still try to push them using the Strikeforce venue and then maybe pulling them over [into the UFC]. That would be great, if that were to happen. The second option would be, they run the contracts out and then that's it. I'm definitely hoping for the former, but I'm preparing for the latter."

"I believe that with the knowledge of the UFC, Strikeforce will grow even larger," said Coenen. "If Dana and the others see that women can bring him money, it will be good for us. What we need are the role models like Gina Carano and Miesha and hopefully me, as well, that women can relate to. ...I truly believe that if they can get the women's audience, and if they can identify with a girl next door like me or Miesha, then the female fanbase, which is way more loyal than the men are, will only grow from there. That's the way I think Dana and Zuffa should look at it."

"I know Dana White isn't a huge women's fighting advocate at all, and I know he's saying he'll honor the contracts, so immediately I don't think anything is going to change," said Tate. "But I'm a little concerned about when renegotiations come around for the women. I don't know how he's going to weigh our value and how we're going to get paid. I'm also more concerned about the big picture when the Showtime contract ends for Strikeforce. That's when I think there's going to be some big changes."

Tate's point regarding how female fighters are valued in the MMA indsutry can be further analyzed by examining female fighters' recent compensation in major MMA fight cards relative to their male counterparts.

Methodology

A more detailed description of the methods for this piece can be found here. In short, to collect data for this project, the available information was gathered from MMA websites for each fighter's publicly stated earned income from UFC 100 to UFC 127, as well as a sample of Strikeforce fighters' salaries who competed within the timeframe. Only major fight cards were examined for this project, essentially meaning cards that were held on a pay-per-view basis. As noted previously, following UFC 127, Zuffa L.L.C. purchased the Strikeforce promotion, thereby putting the UFC and Strikeforce under the same ownership banner.

For the UFC promotion, a sample of 15 fight cards were examined, in which 326 payouts (also known as a fighter's "purse") were made to fighters; fighter salaries for 13 UFC fight cards during this timeframe could not be located. For the Strikeforce promotion, a sample of 8 fight cards were examined, with 156 payouts. For Strikeforce, two payouts were discarded from the analysis (one in which the majority of the payout was reportedly given to charity and second of which was paid in advance of the competition), rendering this portion of the sample to 154 (Total N = 480).

Analyses for this article will compare 18 cases specific to female fighters, all in the Strikeforce promotion, in comparison to their male counterparts in Strikeforce (N = 136) and in comparison to the combined cases of males from the Strikeforce and UFC promotions (N = 462). There are a few important limitations to these methods. First, the public compensation made to fighters within the UFC promotion (as noted by commenters in the first article using this data set noted) does not include "backstage/locker room" bonuses that are given to select fighters by management. Nor does the data set include possible royalties that elite fighters may secure from pay-per-view buys, DVD sales, etc. (which would expand the stratification among fighters since lower-tier fighters would likely not secure such compensation). Finally, reflecting gender stratification, the sample size for female fighters is very small.

Results

As noted previously, among male athletes in the total sample (UFC and Strikeforce fighters) payouts ranged from $940 to $500,000. For female athletes (only Strikeforce fighters), payouts ranged from $1,000 to $125,000. Among the male sample, however, there were 34 cases in which males made at least $200,000 for one competition (30 cases specific to the UFC and 4 specific to Strikeforce). When only examining the male cases specific to the Strikeforce promotion, payouts ranged from $400,000 at the top (paid to Fedor Emelianenko in his loss to Fabricio Werdum) to $940. The following figures display the measures of central tendency and variance for the total sample of males (UFC and Strikeforce males combined), Strikeforce males, and Strikeforce females.

All males (N = 462)

Mean: $54,109

Median: $20,000

Standard deviation: $85,443

Strikeforce males (N = 136)

Mean: $25,576

Median: $4,500

Standard deviation: $57,608

All/Strikeforce females (N = 18)

Mean: $16,608

Median: $4,500

Standard deviation: $29,379

The mean in all analyses is skewed heavily by outliers where fighters secured especially large purses relative to their co-workers. The median is a better measure of central tendency, and it is clear that the addition of UFC males to Strikeforce males alters the male sample, with the median standing substantially higher at $20,000. When comparing Strikeforce females with their male counterparts, the median is exactly the same, illustrating a degree of parity in compensation between the men and women.

However, it is also important to examine the standard deviation, which indicates the average dispersion from the mean. For Strikeforce males, the standard deviation is $57,608; for females it is much less, at $29,379. This means even though the standard deviation is quite large for the female sample, on average, female fighters tend to make more similar purses than men in the Strikeforce promotion.

Because the female sample is so small, it is useful to present all 18 cases:

Gina Carano: $125,000

Cris Santos: $35,000

Cris Santos: $35,000

Cris Santos: $25,000

Sarah Kaufman: $20,000

Cris Santos: $18,000

Marloes Coenen: $10,000

Jan Finney: $6,000

Liz Carmouche: $5,000

Elaina Maxwell: $4,000

Marloes Coenen: $3,000

Jenna Castillo: $3,000

Germaine De Randamie: $3,000

Marloes Coenen: $2,000

Miesha Tate: $1,500

Hitomi Akano: $1,450

Charlene Gellner: $1,000

Stephanie Webber: $1,000

Clearly this sample (both the mean and standard deviation) is skewed by Carano's purse of $125,000, which she earned in losing to Cris Santos. In fact, Carano's purse is more than 3.5 times higher than the next highest purse of $35,000 given to Cris Santos twice, and notably in both of those cases, Santos earned $15,000 to show, $15,000 to win, and a $5,000 championship bonus, so her income level was not guaranteed. If Carano's purse is omitted from the sample the mean drops to $10,232 and the standard deviation drops to $11,815 (the median only drops to $4,000).

Keeping Carano's salary of $125,000 in the female sample, a comparison of means was made between male and female Strikeforce fighters, and the differences were not statistically significant. Furthermore, even when omitting Carano's salary, a comparison of means between Strikeforce male and female fighters did not yield statistically significant results.

Thus, at least within the Strikeforce promotion, the data show that women were not paid less than men to a level that reached statistical significance prior to the promotion being subsumed by Zuffa. Still, a simple glance at the salaries illustrates the extensive range in salaries (high stratification) among female fighters, and the same is true for males.

Discussion

Carano's status as both an accomplished fighter and a sex symbol in the MMA game and broader popular culture at the time, clearly leveraged her more power to garner the disproportionate purse. One might argue that Carano made a "patriarchal bargain" to secure her lucrative contract. As Wade notes, "A patriarchal bargain is a decision to accept gender rules that disadvantage women in exchange for whatever power one can wrest from the system. It is an individual strategy designed to manipulate the system to one’s best advantage, but one that leaves the system itself intact."

Without question, Carano's emphasized femininity outside of sport increased her value within a sport that is particularly male-heavy (from ownership, through management, referees, athletes, and fans). This does not detract from Carano's general success as a competitor who was undefeated prior to squaring off with Santos. However, if sporting value is contingent predominantly (or at least largely) upon athletic success, one might rightfully ask why Santos continues to make so much less in comparison since defeating Carano. Additionally, Carano's participation in MMA (significant as it is) has not altered the sport's gender order.

Additionally, the data supports a question asked previously – how will Zuffa value female fighters in the future, in particular after female fighters' contracts expire. At least from a statistical standpoint, Srikeforce compensated the female fighters on their cards as a whole on par with their male fighters. This does not necessarily mean every individual fighter (male or female) was compensated fairly (fair pay encompasses a number of subjective factors). However, looking at the Strikeforce female and male groups, there was a degree of parity in compensation.

Will female fighters under Zuffa continue to be compensated with a degree of parity in the near future while contracts are still being honored? If not, why not? And in the long-term future, the bigger question is what will happen to women's MMA in general? Within the United States will women's MMA be limited to Bellator and regional promotions? Or will we see some of the more exciting competitions that women's MMA has provided for MMA fans in Strikeforce and the UFC? I'm hoping for the latter. And if the latter does come to fruition, that female fighters aren't making "$0.70 for every males' dollar."

blogging tips

Robles Wins D1 National Title

2011-03-22T13:06:00.000-07:00

blogs

Social Stratification in Mixed Martial Arts

2011-03-21T17:43:00.000-07:00

Introduction

In March 2011, the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s (UFC) parent company – Zuffa L.L.C. – purchased the UFC’s primary and only serious MMA promotional competitor – Strikeforce. In doing so, some have argued Zuffa L.L.C. has cornered the major MMA market. By essentially eliminating the competition, high-level MMA fighters are now deprived of options where they make take their talents and leverage their individual worth. As the MMA industry in the United States (and to a large degree globally) currently stands, only those promotions under the Zuffa banner can pay fighters a substantial amount of money for participating in a fairly dangerous line of work.

This article will be the first in a series that examines a sample of fighters’ salaries from both the UFC and Strikeforce promotions as a means of analyzing the industry before the merger.

Social Stratification

Social stratification is a sociological concept suggesting that society is divided into different layers based on wealth, power, and prestige. Wealth includes the amount of resources an individual or group holds; this includes financial resources and social networks that can provide access to resources. Power is defined as the ability to influence one’s own life and the lives of others. Prestige refers to the degree of status one (or a group) holds in society (e.g., popularity, respect).

These three components, of course, impact one another. A group with extensive wealth tends to have more power in influencing other groups. If one has a low level of prestige, he or she will have less life chances to acquire a substantial amount of wealth. A group with very little power will have a difficult time advocating for greater rights and resources.

Within the MMA industry, those with the most wealth, power, and prestige are typically promotional owners. They stand at the top of the socially stratified MMA world. As noted previously, however, the number of major MMA promotions across the global landscape is extremely small. Thus one may argue that as the number of major MMA promotions decreases (or fall under the same management), the owners of the large MMA promotions increase their wealth, power, and prestige.

MMA fighters in contrast, generally have less wealth, power, and prestige than owners. Moreover, there are stratified levels of wealth, power, and prestige among the fighters. Certain fighters are more connected to the owners than others, are more (or less) popular with the fans, and may have better (or less) resources at their disposal (e.g., an effective agent or manager).

The prestige and resources a fighter has impacts the amount of income one can push for on a contract. An important resource for a fighter is also his or her record. Ostensibly, a lengthy winning record over quality opponents helps leverage more money promised for competing in an MMA fight, assuming the fighter is still in competitive form.

It is a common perception that MMA fighters who make it to the “big time,” either having competed in the UFC or Strikeforce promotion, make a substantial income. MMA fighters, however, only compete at most four times per year, and it is far more likely that they compete roughly twice per year.

A fighter’s number of competitions each year is contingent upon numerous variables. A loss may lead to being released from a promotional contract. It is not uncommon for fighters to be injured in practice and then need to drop out of a fight. Fighters may have personal and/or occupational disagreements with promotional management that influences fights booked (or more likely, not booked). In short, if a fighter sits within a low level of the stratified MMA industry, he or she may get minimal fights per year.

Additionally, fighters’ purses vary immensely, which will be the focus of this article.

Methodology

MMA fighters do not have collective bargaining rights; they lack collective, organized power. Consequently, MMA promotions are not always required to release fighters’ salaries to the public after competition. However, commissions in some states require MMA promotions to make fighters’ salaries public. When this occurs, MMA websites typically report the information.

To collect data for this project, the available information was gathered from MMA websites for each fighter’s publicly stated earned income from UFC 100 to UFC 127, as well as a sample of Strikeforce fighters’ salaries who competed within the timeframe. Only major fight cards were examined for this project, essentially meaning cards that were held on a pay-per-view basis. As noted previously, following UFC 127, Zuffa L.L.C. purchased the Strikeforce promotion, thereby putting the UFC and Strikeforce under the same ownership banner.

For the UFC promotion, a sample of 15 fight cards were examined, in which 326 payouts (also known as a fighter’s “purse”) were made to fighters; fighter salaries for 13 UFC fight cards during this timeframe could not be located. For the Strikeforce promotion, a sample of 8 fight cards were examined, with 156 payouts. For Strikeforce, two payouts were discarded from the analysis (one in which the majority of the payout was reportedly given to charity and second of which was paid in advance of the competition), rendering this portion of the sample to 154.

Within the overall sample, a number of fighters competed more than once. For instance, Cris “Cyborg” Santos competed on four out of the eight Strikeforce cards examined; all four of her payouts were included and each was counted separately within the overall sample. Likewise as an example in the UFC, Brock Lesnar competed on three fight cards, and all three of his payouts were examined separately. The nine women’s matches were only in the Strikeforce promotion. Thus for women’s matches, there were a total of 18 payouts to female fighters; there were 462 payouts to male fighters, for a final sample of 480 payouts (N = 480).

Documentation was made if fighters won or lost their matches, and if a fighter won his/her match and was given a win bonus, what that bonus was in a dollar amount. For instance, in one match Fabricio Werdum was given $25,000 to “show” (i.e., compete), and since he won his match, he earned an additional “win bonus” of $25,000 for a total of $50,000. The $50,000 was the amount counted in the final analysis. The ratio of a win bonus relative to the “show” figure can fluctuate depending on each individual fighter’s ability to leverage a contract with the promotion. Chuck Liddell, one of the most popular MMA stars for instance, leveraged a flat rate of $500,000 to compete without any possible win bonus. Thus, even in losing his match, he still earned $500,000.

Finally within the UFC sample, “incentive” bonuses were documented. On each UFC fight card, a “Knockout of the Night” bonus is given to one fighter, a “Submission of the Night” bonus is given to one fighter, and a “Fight of the Night” bonus is given to two fighters. These incentive bonuses ranged from $50,000 to $100,000. The final value counted for each UFC fighter payout included incentive bonuses when applicable. On one card for example, Yoshihiro Akiyama received $40,000 to “show,” $20,000 to win, and $100,000 for “Fight of the Night,” earning him a grand total of $160,000 (the amount counted in analyses). Since he earned “Fight of the Night” by beating Alan Belcher, Belcher received his $19,000 “show” money and an additional $100,000 for also being in the “Fight of the Night.” Belcher’s $119,000 was likewise the amount counted in analyses.

Results

The sample of payouts ranged from $500,000 at the top to $940 at the bottom. Interestingly, the two fighters who both earned $500,000 for one fight both lost. James Toney (a boxer turned MMA fighter for 1 competition to date) earned the top purse after losing to Randy Couture at UFC 118 via a round one submission; for beating Toney, Couture earned $250,000 (flat rate with no win bonus). Chuck Liddell lost at UFC 115 by second round knockout to Rich Franklin; Franklin earned $225,000 ($70,000 to show, $70,000 to win, and $85,000 for “Knockout of the Night”). The lowest purse of $940 was also given to two fighters, but within the Strikeforce promotion.

The following figures display the measures of central tendency and variance for the total sample and two separate promotions:

Total Sample (N = 480):

Mean: $52,703
Median: $20,000
Standard Deviation: $84,307

UFC Sample (N = 326)

Mean: $66,012
Median: $27,000
Standard Deviation: $92,164

Strikeforce Sample (N = 154)

Mean: $24,528
Median: $4,500
Standard Deviation: $55,068

When examining data related to income, the mean (mathematical average) is frequently a deceiving measure because it is skewed by outliers, such as the $500,000 payouts to Toney and Liddell. Thus, the mean figures for all three samples, while informative, do not offer the best measure that typifies MMA fighters’ purses.

In fact, the standard deviation is an indication of how widely the cases in each sample are dispersed from the mean. Because the standard deviation is large for each sample, we can say with greater clarity that the mean does not accurately represent on average what MMA fighters in these promotions earn.

A better indicator of average income data is the median, which stood at $20,000 for the total sample, $27,000 for the UFC sample, and $4,500 for the Strikeforce sample. Obviously, by examining any measure, one can see that UFC fighters tend to earn more income than Strikeforce fighters, and this difference is statistically significant at the .001 level (which is highly significant).

Perhaps, however, a more interesting analysis of this data entails examining how many fighters fall into different brackets of income level per fight. The following numbers represent the number of fighters earning purses within six income brackets:

82 cases (roughly one sixth of the sample) earned $90,000 or more per fight
80 cases in the sample earned between $38,000 and $89,000
83 cases in the sample earned between $20,000 and $36,000
66 cases in the sample earned between $11,000 – $19,800
94 cases in the sample earned between $4,000 and $10,000
75 cases in the sample earned $3,940 or less

To put this into perspective, 35.2% of the cases in the sample earned $10,000 or less per fight; 15.6% of the sample earned $4,000 or less per fight. On the other end of the extreme, 17.1% of the sample earned $90,000 or more per fight. Only 34 cases (7.1% of the sample) earned $200,000 or more per fight.

Discussion

Within the MMA industry, status clearly plays a major role in fighters’ ability to leverage resources. James Toney is a professional athlete with an extensive professional boxing history, but who had literally no professional MMA experience. Yet, his boxing status enabled him to leverage a $500,000 payday despite losing very decisively to Randy Couture.

One then must ask, did Toney’s mere participation on a pay-per-view MMA competition yield significantly increased pay-per-view buys? If not, this certainly calls into question the fairness of Toney earning so much to lose so decisively when other, more capable and experienced MMA fighters produce more competitive fights.

These data also dispel any assumptions that most MMA fighters earn lucrative incomes as professional athletes. While it is true, most MMA fighters augment their competition purses with income through teaching combat sport classes and possibly by securing sponsorships, that supplementary income is not especially large, in particular for those fighters who do not have high status.

Furthermore, following competitions when fighters have received their purse money, they typically must distribute portions of it to their trainers, nutritionists, cornermen, and whoever else helped them prepare for the competition. One can see how fast the purse money would disintegrate if a fighter earned $10,000 or less for a competition (recall, that is approximately one third of the entire sample).

It is not terribly surprising that MMA fighters do not have collective bargaining rights, given that the sport is still less than two decades old. However, it is somewhat surprising that MMA fighters are not taking initial steps to organize so that they may secure collective rights in the near future.

As the situation currently stands, fighters are essentially at odds with one another in what is known as a “split labor market,” where those who rely on their bodies as labor within a capitalist system compete with each other to assert their value. This is commonly seen as a “divide and conquer” system that privileges management over workers.

The next series of articles relying on this data set will examine female fighters’ earned income relative to males’, as well as the impact incentive bonuses have within the UFC sample.

Photo via BloodyElbow.com.

blogs

ABC Poll Finds Majority of Respondents Support Gay Marriage

2011-03-18T14:05:00.000-07:00

According to ABC News, in 2004 roughly 32% of registered voters supported gay marriage. A national poll taken from March 10-13, 2011 of 1,005 randomly selected adults finds significant changes, namely that 53% of respondents support gay marriage (not civil unions, but gay marriage). And there are interesting, perhaps predictable, patterns.

On the support of gay marriage side:

68% of those under 30 support gay marriage
65% of those in their 30s
52% of those in their 40s
33% of senior citizens (up from 18% in 2006)
Female support has increased 10% points
Male support has increased 18% points
57% of non-evangelical white Protestants now support gay marriage, up 16% points

Focusing on a perspective against gay marriage:

opposition rises to more than 2-1 among Republicans
opposition rises to more than 3-1 among evangelical white Protestants

Picture via Salon.com.

blog directory

Response to Too Many 'Model Minority' Asians in the Library

2011-03-16T21:01:00.000-07:00

From The Huffington Post:

Although she wasn't a celebrity a few days ago, a student at UCLA, Alexandra Wallace has become something of a name for a really unfortunate anti-Asian video she posted to YouTube, "Asians in the Library," in which she makes the mocking "ching-chong" phony Chinese sound and makes a comment about how Asians in the library are irritating her even if they're getting news about their relatives "back home" after the tsunami.

What is it about this horrible disaster and the tragic aftermath -- we're on the brink of a nuclear meltdown, hello -- that is bringing out such stupid reactions?

See also HERE.

I enjoyed this response to the Wallace video. One cannot help but notice, however, how gender is built into this video towards the end as a way to put down Wallace (attack discrimination with another form of discrimination). Nevertheless, I enjoyed the bulk of the video here.

academics directory

Contradictory Connections: U.S. Rhetoric and the Money Flow

2011-03-16T18:20:00.000-07:00

So the Obama Administration is urging the leadership in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to show restraint when responding to the civil rights movements that have been pushing on across Northern Africa, and specifically in Bahrain.

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been Tunisia and Egypt, speaking to the uprisings in Bahrain specifically. From MSNBC:

Clinton called the situation "alarming" and said Bahrain and neighbors were on "the wrong track" by trying to quell unrest with troops instead of reform. Bahrain's majority Shia population has been chafing for years under the absolute rule of a Sunni monarchy and, emboldened by revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, has begun to more forcefully call for changes.

"We have deplored the use of force," Clinton told reporters in Cairo before flying to Tunis. "We have said not only to the Bahrainis but to our Gulf partners that we do not think security is the answer to what is going on."

Clinton's focus on Bahrain stems from their government's recent crackdown on the uprisings. This from Al Jazeera English:

Note from the video @0:45, "More than a thousand troops pouring in from Saudi Arabia." So we call for restraint on the part of these government forces, yet the U.S. has direct ties to Saudi Arabia's military.

Back in 2010, the U.S. announced plans to sell up to $60 billion worth of military aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The rationale for the sale:

Vershbow and Shapiro both stressed that bolstering Saudi Arabia's own defense capabilities would improve U.S. security in a vital part of the world where fears are growing over Iran's nuclear program.

"This is not solely about Iran," Shapiro said. "It's about helping the Saudis with their legitimate security needs ... they live in a dangerous neighborhood and we are helping them preserve and protect their security."

Vershbow said the sale would improve Saudi Arabia's ability to coordinate with the United States on shared security challenges "so it means we may have to station fewer forces on a continuing basis in the region."

Even if this sale was for militaristic aircrafts and not smaller arms used on the ground (like those seen recently in Bahrain), one can clearly see the connections between military contractors in the U.S. with Saudi Arabia's government. The contradictions are obvious enough. If we do not want Saudi Arabia to partake in the violent crackdown on citizens who are fighting for democratic rights, we should not be selling them the means to carry out violent crackdowns.

academics directory

Calculating a Z Score for Marion Jones' 100m Time, 2000 Olympic 100m Finals

2011-03-14T03:17:00.000-07:00

Here, we are going to calculate a z score for Marion Jones' time in the finals of the 100m at the 2000 Olympic Games. Her z score will be calculated in comparison to her elite peers in that race. In the photo, below, you can see the large distance between Jones and her peers as she crosses the finish line. The athletes' times for the race are listed, below the picture:

2000 Olympic Games, Women's 100m Final:

Marion Jones: 10.75 seconds
Ekaterini Thanou: 11.12
Tanya Lawrence: 11.18
Merlene Ottey: 11.19
Zhanna Pintusevych: 11.20
Chandra Sturrup: 11.21
Sevaheda Fynes: 11.22
Debbie Ferguson: 11.29

Now in the video, below, we go through process of getting Jones' z score and then locating it within the standard normal table to check for statistical significance. In the video, we will see that Jones' time, relative to her peers is statistically significant at the threshold of 0.05. What about at 0.01? And what does this mean?

Now, there are more important social issues than sports, but this was a good way of illustrating the process of getting z scores and locating them within the standard normal table. You could do the same thing, examining for instance, "the number of times someone was a victim of violence" or "the number of times someone had used illicit substances" in a given timeframe.

If you surveyed a large number of people, then you could get z scores for individuals' responses and see where they are located in the standard normal table. This is where statistics is very useful for more socially important topics.

academics directory

Gendered Photos: Mixed Martial Arts Event

2011-03-13T15:34:00.001-07:00

Last night, I attended the X-1: Champions III mixed martial arts (MMA) event in Honolulu. I left a bit early, so today I went online at the Honolulu Star-Advertiser to see the last few matches' results. I noticed the page has a series of 20 photos that follow the typical notions of hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity.

If you were a male at the event, you could be featured visually in this photo array in a diverse range of roles. Of course, you could be pictured as a fighter, as seen below.

Or, you could be seen as an announcer:

You could be featured ringside as part of the media or a cornerman (coach):

Or again as a winning fighter, notably with females on the side.

Females pictured has more limited roles as shown in the 20 picture photo array. You could be shown as a ring girl.

Or as a fan in attire that very much emphasizes femininity.

And by the way, there was a women's fight in which Raquel Paaluhi of Waianae, Hawaii defeated Nicole (last name not shown on results) of Las Vegas, NV by 3rd round TKO stoppage in a very exciting competition. Perhaps unsurprisingly, their photos were not featured.

academics directory

Calculating a Z Score for Usain Bolt's 100m Time, 2008 Olympic 100m Finals

2011-03-12T16:39:00.000-08:00

Here, we are going to calculate a z score for Usain Bolt's time in the finals of the 100m at the 2008 Olympic Games. His z score will be calculated in comparison to his elite peers in that race. In the photo, above, you can see the distance between Bolt and his peers as he crosses the finish line. Here are the athletes' times for the race:

Usain Bolt: 9.69 (seconds)
Richard Thompson: 9.89
Walter Dix: 9.91
Churandy Martina: 9.93
Asafa Powell: 9.95
Michael Frater: 9.97
Marc Burns: 10.01
Darvis Patton: 10.03

Here, you can watch Bolt blow away the competition in video:

Now in the video, below, we go through process of getting Bolt's z score and then locating it within the standard normal table to check for statistical significance. In the video, we will see that Bolt's time, relative to his peers is statistically significant at the threshold of 0.05. What about at 0.01?

academics directory

Understanding The Bell Curve, Standard Normal Table, and Z Scores

2011-03-12T16:08:00.000-08:00

In this video, I explain the theoretical construct of the bell curve and the standard normal table. In addition, we begin to understand how z scores fall along the bell curve and what their placement along the bell curve means.

In the next video, we will calculate actual z scores, locate them within the standard normal table, and look specifically for the area beyond z to check for statistical significance.

academics directory

Sporting Violence and Men's Health

2011-03-06T22:38:00.000-08:00

SocProf over at The Global Sociology Blog has motivated me to review some of the ways that sporting violence and masculinity intertwine in contemporary society, resulting in the systemic deterioration of men's health. Indeed the picture displayed, above, is a vivid example illustrating how so many boys are socialized to positively to value violence, both within and beyond sport.

Perhaps the young boys' smile as he watches this hockey fight is the most telling aspect of the picture. However, the picture is of former National Hockey League (NHL) player, Bob Probert, who recently passed away. From The New York Times:

The Fighter: Bob Probert
Bob Probert, who died last summer from heart failure at the age of 45, was notorious for his brutal style of hockey, which included 246 fights with other N.H.L. players over his 16-year career. But these altercations may have also contributed to his chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease, which was diagnosed after his death. While the N.H.L. has taken recent steps to reduce brain trauma, it has preserved the league-sanctioned fighting that many argue is part of the sport’s tradition and appeal. Players such as Probert, known as each team’s “enforcer,” continue to be employed, and often admired. The following YouTube videos are a sampling of Probert’s many fights [note: only one shown here].

The entire New York Times story can be read HERE. I would agree that socialization plays a central role in teaching young males over the life course to view engagement into certain types of violence positively. This was a key finding in my interviews with adult mixed martial arts (MMA) fighters, so many of whom grew up watching MMA with key father-figures, fighting with peers, fighting with family, learning to “fight” through wrestling, and so on. Violence in a variety of contexts became a very normalized aspect of their lives.

On the other hand, as Loic Waquant (2001) has noted in his research with boxers in Chicago, males involved in combat sports are not completely blinded by their socialized history to simply engage in sporting violence without thinking to varying degrees about their choices. Rather, boxers – and male athletes in general – are frequently keenly aware of the risks they take, and the ways they may be exploited when making strategic choices to pursue their athletic and occupational goals. Two boxers quoted from Waquant’s study:

All boxers, are what they call, figure of speech: they’re fucked over. You know, you see, they’re pimps, the promoters, you know. And boxers is like the whores, you know, so you pimp him. Yeah, that’s the way that go, I’m pretty sure. They don’t really have the bes’ interes’ in the fighter, you know. They jus’ goin’ for the gusto, the gusto is the money. (dejected but matterof-fact) They jus’ goin’ for the money. (p. 182).

If you go in dere with a nice tough fight, man, rewar’ dis man. I tol’, I saw Highmower fight dis boy, man, man! (chuckle) I hated fightin’, I hated boxin’ ever since, I’m serious. Because, Louie, (incensed) Highmower an’ dat boy nearly killed each other. Man, d’ crowd wen’ crazy, Ralph [the matchmaker] – I’s, I’s like, ‘Look at dis shit!’ Boy, this is slavery all over again. I mean, look at dis shit! Dese men is seriously killin’ each other for (lowering his voice and whispering in joint disbelief and disgust) for a hun’red dollars (stressing each word to dramatize his point) Highmower-cut, that-man-cut, they-all-wen’-down, three-an’-four-time-a-piece. Botha’em wen’ to d’hospital, fer what, fer two hun’red dollars, hun’red each man? I said (shaking his head vigorously), ‘No, that ain’t – tha’s not right.’ (p.183).

Despite having an awareness of their own exploitation, these boxers continued fighting as "flesh peddlers." This is because the individuals weighed the pros and cons that accompanied boxing, making calculated decisions that involved an assessment of their current resources (e.g., time invested in training, dependents, rent to be paid), potential acquisition of additional resources, social status (including the genered social prestige they would gain with victory), and their physical health.

Today, with the emerging research on traumatic brain injury manifesting through sport, there is little doubt that young athletes are aware of the long-term costs that can come with prolonged participation in collision sports. This insightful interview with former professional wrestler and Harvard football player, Christopher Nowwinski on NPR’s Fresh Air speaks to the evolving research that increasingly demonstrates how repeated concussions harm athletes (the entire interview is thought provoking):

Concussions, a type of traumatic brain injury, generally occur when the head either spins rapidly or accelerates quickly and then stops — like when a player tackles another player on the field. The National Football League and Congress have both held hearings on the head injuries, which can cause memory loss, confusion, nausea, blurred vision and long-term neurological effects, including symptoms of dementia, headaches and concentration problems.

The central problem is not that male athletes are unaware of the potential harm that comes with collision sports, or attendant violent sporting activities (namely, fighting). Instead, the problems are:

Some athletes, in particular those with fewer resources, must make the uneasy choice to sacrifice their long-term physical and mental health for immediate rewards. And for many of these athletes, those immediate financial rewards are not terribly impressive.
Secondly, male athletes too often view the short-term status increases that accompany participation in violent sport (and fighting) as a positive tradeoff. In other words, male athletes know that by partaking in violent activities (and especially if they win), the public will reward them as males, not only financially, but also through gendered adoration. Sporting violence exalts their public masculinity, if only temporarily.

Both of these social problems can be seen in FX’s recent boxing television series, "Lights Out," where the protagonist boxer must weigh his lost wealth, decreased status, and emerging family crises as he risks his mental and physical health in the ring:

Scholars that examine masculinity and its ties to different types of violence have often argued that men need to see how perpetuation of violent masculinities hurt men (e.g., gun-related homicides happen most commonly among men over slights of disrespect). But what is more critical is that (1) we do not see more vulnerable men with fewer resources seduced into violent sport; and (2) males are not rewarded socially for their violent behaviors.

Changing these two criteria means decreasing social stratification in society so that financially vulnerable men are not disproportionately risking their bodies and minds for sport's very limited rewards, and revamping media that glorifies violent men.

Michelle Martin on “Tell Me More” probably says it in a more profound way:

But it's time to ask whether sports in this country are like oil in the Middle East and Africa. We think sports are making us rich, but are they really making us poor, by keeping us from doing other things that might matter as much or more in the long run? It's an uncomfortable question, but as a fan myself, I have to ask.

Reference:
Wacquant, L. (2001). Whores, Slaves and Stallions: Languages of Exploitation and Accommodation among Boxers. Body & Society, 7 (2/3), 181-194.

Dominant-Minority Relations: Malmo, Sweden

2011-03-04T21:27:00.000-08:00

Joseph Rodriguez, with the BBC World Service, has an interesting piece posted titled, "Open Eye: Swedish racial tension." The photofilm effectively demonstrates dominant-minority relations in a community of Malmo, Sweden, known as Rosengard.

The piece is an effective tool in illustrating how social stratification (social inequality) influences youthful minority group members. As the photofilm shows, young people from Rosengard, live in a heavily segregated community, estranged from the majority population. And in this community, young Palestinians, Iraqis, Somalis, and so on compete with one another for respect in a space with limited resources.

Those interviewed speak of exclusion and stereotyping on the part of the dominant Swedish culture, who do not always offer young minority students equal opportunities to be exposed to conventional workplaces. Interviewees also describe examples of avoidance, in that some minority group members feel more comfortable remaining in ethnic enclaves, speaking their native language rather than Swedish.

Deviance is displayed as a reaction among minority youth, who resist what they define as an oppressive and exclusionary broader Swedish culture, as well as retreatism into substance use and withdrawl from the overall social system.

Because the photofilm is so heavily fixated on the minority youths' perspectives from Rosengard, viewers get a biased perspective on how these groups are integrating (or not integrating) into Sweden's culture. In other words, although youth interviewed overtly state most minority youth from Rosengard do not engage in deviant behaviors, the overall sense in the photofilm is that minority, immigrant youth tend to be trouble-makers (this is a concern that emerges whenever a complex issue is condensed into a piece with limited time).

Finally, the piece (in particular, the lengthier 22-minute podcast) offers excellent content for discussing how a society can address social stratification and deviance. Youth discuss Sweden's robust educational and rehabilitative social services. Again, unfortunately, because youth who are not succeeding according to the majority groups' standards are profiled, listeners are left thinking minority group members are more inclined to exploit these services, rather than use them constructively to secure upward social mobility.

Overall, this is a fantastic film that can spark a number of important conversations regarding multiculturalism, immigration, governmental/social support, dominant-minority relations, and how one coveys messages to the public through media outlets with limited timeframes.

academics blog

Playing with the Boys: Gendered High School Wrestling in Iowa and Hawaii

2011-02-17T14:38:00.000-08:00

One of the news stories gaining quite a bit of attention over the past 24 hours is the fact that two girls qualified for this year's varsity state wrestling tournament in Iowa. For those unfamiliar with the sport, high school wrestling in Iowa is, well, an obsession. It is huge there.

Wrestling is one of many traditionally male sports, and in most states, high school wrestling is so dominated by boys that girls essentially never sign up, or if they do, they must practice with and compete against males. Conversely in Hawaii, high school wrestling is so popular among girls that girls wrestling has its own infrastructure; at many schools they have their own coaching staff. Likewise at the end of the year the girls and boys wrestling teams in Hawaii have their own separate tournaments - but held in the same arena at the same time - where individual wrestlers and teams for boys and girls are crowned state champs.

But even in Iowa, where wrestling reigns king, girls must enter the male-dominated wrestling system. Hence, when girls are successful enough competing against boys in the regular season and qualify for the state tournament, it is big news and comes with a bit of added drama.

One of the girls who qualified for Iowa's tournament lost her two first matches, thereby eliminating her from further competition. Another girl, however, won by default because her male opponent did not feel it was appropriate to compete against a girl. He respectfully bowed out of competition stating:

"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan (Black, the tournament's other female entrant) and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times. As a matter of conscience and my faith, I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most of the high school sports in Iowa."

And it should not go unmentioned that this male competitor had a record going into the tournament of 35-4, giving him a legitimate chance to place, illustrating how strongly he felt about not wrestling against a girl even though she'd qualified by competing against boys throughout the season.

This all serves as a perfect example of the social tensions that Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano discuss in their book, Playing With the Boys: Why Separate is Not Equal in Sports. At least in explicit principle, if we do not segregate education and work by way of sex, then why should we segregate sport? Shouldn't athletic competition be based predominantly on ability, which would enable boys/girls and men/women to compete with and against each other?

McDonagh and Pappano argue that by segregating the sexes in sport, we further the broader social inequalities between the sexes. Women are further seen and treated as second-class citizens.

There are other perspectives, however, and not just those that would callously diminish women's upward mobility in sport. Take for instance the sport of track & field. If women and men competed with/against each other in sprinting events such as the hurdles, and let's assume the male standard was kept in the 110m high hurdles, how many fantastic, elite female hurdlers who now compete in the women's 100m race with lower hurdles could effecitvely clear the hurdles and sprint through them when raised to 42 inches?

If a woman/girl could do so, she should not be excluded - a key point made by McDonagh and Pappano. But I would not go so far as to eliminate an infrastructure that caters to women's smaller, on average, physical size. If we went that far, some important female role models would lose status and the rewards they have worked hard to attain.

In the case of the girls who are competing in Iowa's state wrestling tournament, we see an example where a sporting infrastructure for girls has not been established. And that is the unfortunate aspect of this story. With wrestling being so popular in Iowa, it is unfortunate that girls are not encouraged nearly as much as boys to partake in this sport. Why, because it is too violent? Girls cannot handle physical competition?

Bottom line, the athletic system is not established in a way to promote gender equity. If Iowa has a wrestling system like Hawaii that provided more expanded coaching and competitions for girls, more girls could work their way towards state recognition in a sport that garners extensive attention in Iowa. Why deprive girls of the sport's benefits when coaches constantly say, "Sports are an extension of the classroom"? Wouldn't that be institutionalized gender discrimination in education? Fix the system.

academics online

Happy Valentines Day!

2011-02-14T02:57:00.001-08:00

I thought this symbol up on the front page of "Google.com" was indicative of the massive social push to remind us all that today is Valentine's Day. Talk about a commodified holiday.

So I went into a certain store that I very, very rarely frequent (and I only went there because someone asked me to do so), and I was simply overwhelmed by the constructed pressure to spend for Valentine's Day.

As seen in the pictures, below, there is an unlimited number of ways to show your sweetheart how much you love him/her on this specific day. Just buy away! Don't worry so much about how you treat him/her the other days of the year. I mean, one shows love through the dollar on certain days (Valentine's, anniversaries, etc.), not through other behavioral actions, right?

Contextualizing Dating Violence in Jersey Shore

2011-02-13T04:25:00.000-08:00

The past few weeks of MTv’s reality television show, Jersey Shore, have provided strong examples of the ways co-occurring violence can emerge in young people's intimate relationships and have differing effects based on the respective individuals' sex. For those unfamiliar with the show, you may read a sociological perspective here.

Among the show's cast of characters are Ronnie (a muscular and physically imposing individual) and Sammi – a romantically involved couple. The couple has incessant conflicts tied to jealousy and lack of trust (Ronnie, apparently, cheated on Sammi in a past season). The show typifies many reality shows in that contentious relationships between the characters are further problematized through participants' youth, a lack of structure, and easy access to alcohol.

Jersey Shore's episodes offer little in the way of substance. Characters are given employment, consume alcohol excessively, party at nightclubs, and among a few other activities, pursue mostly transient sexual relationships. Still, due to the show's immense popularity, it merits some scholarly analysis, especially when sexuality mixes with violence to a degree of regularity.

Episode 18: "Drunk Punch Love": Contextualizing Dating Violence

In episode 18 of season 2, titled "Drunk Punch Love," Sammi verbally accosts Ronnie (pictured above) after he re-forges his friendship with another female cast-member, Jenni (a.k.a., "Jwoww," also Sammi’s enemy). Upon admitting friendship with Jenni, Sammi punches Ronnie directly on his chin as he sits on a bench, completely unprepared. Sammi storms off while Ronnie responds by sitting relatively unfazed, mildly feeling his jaw.

This episode of dating violence illustrates the problem with an emergence of teen dating violence studies that Jody Miller and Norman White critique in their important article, "Gender and Adolescent Relationship Violence: A Contextual Examination." Miller and White point out that a good portion of quantitative studies on adolescent dating violence suggests boys and girls are equally as likely to be perpetrators of dating violence (e.g., hitting a dating partner). These studies, however, are misleading because they completely de-contextualize what appear to be equal levels of violence between boys and girls (or young men and women).

Although girls may hit their male intimate partners as often as males hit their female partners, this does not mean the precursors to violence or ramifications of violence are equal. As seen in Jersey Shore, Sammi's physical violence is preceded by Ronnie's unfaithful history; she has immense trust issues specifically because he cheated on her. And though this does not excuse physical violence on Sammi's part, it helps provide a context to her actions.

Secondly, we see very vividly that Sammi's physical violence directed towards Ronnie has almost zero physical impact. Her strike directly upon his chin, with Ronnie completely unprepared, still leaves Ronnie unharmed (at least physically; he later breaks down emotionally). And in fact, teen dating violence studies have found that male adolescents frequently laugh off being hit by their girlfriends. The same cannot be said nearly as often when males hit females.

Thus, when dating violence studies find equal rates of physical violence between heterosexual adolescent couples and report those findings without proper context, they are missing critical information tied to gender imbalances between males and females. This episode of Jersey Shore effectively illustrates how irresponsible it is to report that males and females hitting one another at equal rates is actually equal.

Episode 19: "Should We Just Break Up?": Being a Bystander During Dating Violence

The Jersey Shore dating violence drama continues in episode 19, "Should We Just Break Up?" In this episode, the couple continues intensely arguing to the point that the other three male cast-members – Michael, Paul, and Vinny (a.k.a., "MVP") – intervene.

Ronnie, who is far larger and more muscular than any of the other males, never strikes Sammi (pictured above). Still, he is extremely physical when expressing his anger and has been in at least one fight with another male (non-cast-member) in a past episode. As the "MVP" trio intervenes, both Ronnie and Sammi magnify their verbal aggression and physical bravado, though neither partner strikes the other. Eventually, the male trio successfully gets Ronnie to leave, thereby creating a reprieve to the dating violence.

Unfortunately, the lure used to help Ronnie leave is taking him to a nightclub, where he may consume more alcohol. And unsurprisingly, Sammi and her female cast-mates decide to go to the same nightclub where she openly flirts and dances seductively with male patrons. Seeing Sammi's actions as a sign of public disrespect, Ronnie is infuriated, goes back to the house and tears apart her belongings in a fit of rage. The Jersey Shore cast-members watch on at this point without intervening.

This sequence of events again illustrates young people's unfamiliarity with how to address obvious forms of dating violence. Weisz and Black, in their study titled "Peer Intervention in Dating Violence: Beliefs of African American Middle School Adolescents," found that high percentages of African American middle school students would not intervene in a peer-couple's relationship even if they knew violence was taking place. Students (male and female) reported they would not intervene because (among other reasons) it was none of their business, intervening could hurt them, and their intervention may cause more unforeseen problems.

Again, the way the scenarios played out on Jersey Shore effectively demonstrated how young people do not know how to cope as bystanders with peer dating violence. Truth be told, the "MVP" trio did a good job of initially stopping the dating violence. However, both the male and female bystanders/cast-members probably did the worst thing in having Sammi and Ronnie go out and consume more alcohol in the same location. Watching Sammi dance seductively with other males, Ronnie felt his masculinity was publicly violated, leading him to engage in violent property damage.

As an outside observer, it is impossible to say how much of Jersey Shore is constructed by the production team. This notwithstanding, recent episodes showcase how dating violence emanates among young people. We can see dating violence contextualized along imbalanced gender lines, as well as how bystanders of dating violence struggle to cope with the social problem largely because they don't know how to intervene in a healthy manner.

Not that we can expect more from MTv, but it would be nice if the company at least complimented these Jersey Shore episodes with supplementary videos on how to prevent teen dating violence. They must have the resources that could speak to greater social responsibility. I mean really, does MTv want young viewers thinking that true love is supposed to be violent?

academics online

Japanese Manga and Social Norms

2011-02-09T15:01:00.000-08:00

The New York Times has an interesting story up regarding the manga phenomenon in Japan and its highly sexualized content, specifically with regard to portrayals of female minors - "Japan Debates Depictions of Young Girls in Comics."

The article offers some good examples of the way that patriarchy is weaved into Japan's formal social structure, namely, into the law. To put it mildly, manga comics frequently display animated pictures of girls in sexually suggestive situations. The industry is very lucrative, and has a history:

Japan, which has long been relatively tolerant of the open sale and consumption of sexually oriented material, lately has developed a brisk trade in works that in many other countries might be considered child pornography. But now some public officials want to place tighter restrictions on the provocative depictions of young girls — referred to as “junior idols”— that are prevalent in magazines, DVDs and Web videos.

One particularly big target is manga comic books that depict pubescent girls in sexual acts. It a lucrative segment of the $5.5 billion industry for manga, illustrated books drawn in a characteristic Japanese comic-book style.

[...]

Manga taps into a history of erotica that dates at least as far back as the ukiyo-e prints of 17th- to 19th-century Japan, including Hokusai’s famous portrayal of a fisherwoman and octopi in a salacious encounter. But it was as recently as the 1980s that comic magazines like Lemon People introduced a wider audience to sexual manga featuring young girls.

A new law specific to Tokyo's metropolitan government offers very moderate regulation of manga comics, ostensibly in order to prevent child exploitation. However, and unsurprisingly, the law doesn't have a lot of teeth.

The new Tokyo law, which applies to anyone under 18, bans the sale of comics and other works — including novels, DVDs and video games — that depict sexual or violent acts that would violate Japan’s national penal code, as well as sex involving anyone under age 18. The ordinance also requires guardians to prevent children younger than 13 from posing for magazines or videos that depict them in sexually suggestive ways.

Legal experts say that Japan’s laws against child pornography are lax by international standards. Japan has banned the production or distribution of any sexually explicit, nude images of minors since 1999, when Parliament passed a law in response to international criticism of the wide availability of such works in the country. But even now, unlike the United States and most European countries, Japan does not ban the possession of child pornography.

If patriarchy is defined as a system that privileges men over women, then we have a clear example of patriarchy here. Within Japan's current legal structure (at least since 1999) it is completely legal to own child pornography. And while child pornography harms girls and boys, the manga culture appears heavily centered on sexually embellished girls.

To this end, it is argued that the manga culture cultivates values that denigrate girls, increasing their vulnerability to male manga consumers who cannot (or choose not to) separate a patriarchal fantasy from real life experience. The manga culture is said to diffuse into the broader Japanese culture, altering cultural values and norms among males:

Hiromasa Nakai, a spokesman for the Japan Committee for Unicef, said the abundance of child pornography in Japan made it even easier for those who would normally not be considered as having clinical pedophilia, a psychiatric disorder characterized by a sexual obsession with young children, to develop a sexual interest in children.

“To a degree, it has become socially accepted to lust over young girls in Japan,” Mr. Nakai said. “Condoning these works has meant more people have access to them and develop an interest in young girls.”

And this diffusion impacts girls' self-images as well. The article describes a 13-year-old girl and her aspirations, clearly influenced by the manga industry:

“I loved the white bikini,” Ms. Iinuma, the 13-year-old model, told the adult male fans who turned out at the Sofmap electronics store in Tokyo for an event to promote the release of her second DVD, “Developing Now.” It is a plotless 70 minutes of Ms. Iinuma in various costumes and poses.

At the gathering, Ms. Iinuma performed a short dance, spoke about the video shoot, then posed as men approached her to snap photos, while her mother looked on from the back of the room.

Of course those advocating on behalf of the manga industry (or the sector of the industry that is under fire) argue that consumers are mature enough not to have their attitudes and behaviors actually impacted by the media.

The industry’s defenders say comparing manga to pedophilia involving real children is absurd. “Depicting a crime and committing one are two different things; it’s like convicting a mystery writer for murder,” said Takashi Yamaguchi, a Tokyo lawyer and manga expert.

And finally, the industry's economic health is said by some to be more important than wiping out dimensions of patriarchial culture.

Some also worry that stronger regulations will harm an industry whose fortunes have already fallen in recent years; sales of comic magazines, in particular, have dropped by a third over the last decade, to $24.3 million in 2008.

In short, eradicating sexism is not prioritized when placed against free market business ventures. And as noted previously, the society protects this patriarchial culture through the law.

Oh, and this cultural norm has diffused to some degree into American popular culture. Anyone remember the blockbuster film, Kill Bill 2, where we see the intersections of manga-influenced youth, sexism, and violence manifest in this character?

academics

2011 Super Bowl XLV Halftime Show

2011-02-08T03:35:00.000-08:00

@9:15 - "In America we need to get things straight / Obama, let's get these kids educated / Create jobs so the country stays stimulated."

MMA and Masculinity - Interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Centre with Pedro Mendes

2011-01-18T19:28:00.000-08:00

I was fortunate to be interviewed by Pedro Mendes of the Canadian Broadcasting Centre a few days ago regarding mixed martial arts and its connections to masculinity.

Mendes was particularly interested in MMA and its attendant social influences because the sport is continuing its push into Canada, and more specifically, into Ontario.

The interview lasted around 30 minutes, but with limited time for his piece, they packaged it into a podcast that lasts approximately 4 minutes. Click on the link, below, to listen in:

A Man's Guide to MMA, or How Manthropology learned to stop worrying and love mixed martial arts

Mendes features a podcast every Tuesday titled, "Manthropology: A weekly look at what it means to be a man in the 21st century" (Facebook group). Listen in via the following options:

academics

Teaching Sociology: Reading Media Critically and Cultural Relativism

2011-01-15T01:22:00.000-08:00

The past two semesters for my "Cross-Cultural Relations" courses -- all taught online -- I have required students to complete an assignment initially conceptualized in the following blog post:

How American Media Uses Violence Against Women in Afghanistan to Veil the Public

Here is how I actually present the assignment:

First read this TIME Magazine story, Afghan Women and the Return of the Taliban (warning: graphic image; be sure to read all 4 parts). Then, before reading the second assigned article, answer the following questions:

What was your general response to this article? You may focus on any type of response you had – political, emotional, intellectual.
Did this article influence you to think one way or the other about the United States’ role in Afghanistan? If so, how so?

Now go into your Supplemental Readings folder, download and read the article titled Unveiling imperialism: media, gender and the war on Afghanistan. Then answer the following questions:

How did this essay illustrate the United States’ historical and ongoing role in creating a social environment where Afghan women and girls were (and are) regularly victimized?
What does this article say about Afghan women’s lives before and after United States intervention in Afghanistan?
What would the authors of this essay say about the TIME Magazine article?
And finally, after reading this research-based article, how do you interpret the United States’ motivation for being in Afghanistan?

Of course responses vary among students who put in different effort levels and have differing levels of insight. However broadly speaking, the assignment seems to be effective in getting students to see very divergent viewpoints on Afghanistan's socio-political dynamics and the media we receive (and don't receive) that cover those dynamics.

The Los Angeles Times has an OP-ED published yesterday (1/13/11) that is a good supplement for this assignment: "In Afghanistan, a woman's place is at the peace table: Let women play a bigger role in the country's affairs and see what happens to the peace process," by Ann Jones, which points out how current Afghan President Harmid Karzai -- who the United States supported in his ascent to Presidency -- perpetuates women's exclusion from political influence. In fact, the article shows a growing trend in how the U.S. supports patriarchial Afghan leadership and regrets doing so years later:

Modern ideas, including the idea of equality between the sexes, have been at the heart of Afghan cultural struggles for at least a century. In the 1920s, King Amanullah founded the first high school for girls and the first family court to adjudicate women's complaints about their husbands; he proclaimed the equality of men and women, banned polygamy and the burka and banished ultraconservative mullahs who undermined the moderate Sufi ideals of Afghanistan. His modern ideas cost him his crown, but Amanullah and his modern, unveiled queen, Soraya, are remembered for their brave endeavor to drag the country into the modern world.

Thousands of Afghan citizens have shared Amanullah's modern views, expressed later by successive leaders, kings and communists alike. But in 2001 the U.S. — and by extension the entire international community — cast its lot with Hamid Karzai. We put him in power after a power-sharing conference in Bonn, to which only two Afghan women were invited. We paid millions to stage two presidential elections, in 2004 and 2009, and looked the other way while Karzai's men stuffed the ballot boxes. Now, it seems, we're stuck with him and his ultraconservative, misogynist "traditions," even though an ever-growing number of Afghanistan watchers now identify the Karzai government as the single greatest problem the U.S. faces in its never-ending war.

And what has Karzai done for the women of Afghanistan? Not a thing.

That's the conclusion of a recent report issued by the Human Rights Research and Advocacy Consortium, an association of prominent aid and independent research groups in Afghanistan. Afghan researchers conducted extensive interviews with prominent male religious scholars, male political leaders and female leaders at the local, provincial and national levels.

The report notes that Karzai has supported increasingly repressive laws against women, most notoriously the " Taliban-style" Shia Personal Status Law, which not only legitimizes marital rape but prevents women from stepping out of their homes without their husbands' consent. The report points out that this law denies women even the basic freedoms guaranteed all citizens in Afghanistan's 2004 constitution.

In addition to these important points, an earlier part of the article addresses Resolution 1325, which Jones refers to as "...the most enlightened edict ever passed by the United Nations Security Council." More from the article:

Passed on Oct. 31, 2000, the resolution was hailed worldwide as a great victory for both women and international peace. In a nutshell, it calls for women to participate equally in all processes of conflict resolution, peacemaking and reconstruction.

The resolution grew out of a recognition that while men at the negotiating table still jockey for power and wealth, women who are included commonly advocate for interests that coincide perfectly with those of civil society. They are concerned about their children and consequently about shelter, clean water, sanitation, jobs, healthcare, education — the things that make life livable for peaceable people.

It's been nine years since I started doing aid work in Afghanistan, and I am frustrated by the lack of progress toward a peaceful and livable society.

Yet whenever I present my modest proposal for the implementation of 1325 to American big men who lay claim to expertise on Afghanistan, most of them strongly object. They know the theory, they say, but they are precluded from throwing their weight behind the resolution by delicate considerations of "cultural relativism." Afghanistan, they remind me, is a "traditional" culture when it comes to women. Westerners, they say, must respect that. [emphasis added]

This presents an opportunity to discuss the sociological concept of cultural relativism (named directly in this article). Considering the ways violence against women manifests in certain parts of Afghanistan (and other parts of the world), particularly those parts under Sharia Law, as well as the lack of power women hold across multiple institutional spheres, how culturally relativistic should the United States be in setting Afghan policy?

And furthermore, if the United States does intervene under the declaration of safeguarding and empowering Afghan women -- thereby not employing the concept of cultural relativism -- how should such an intervention actually look such that it is not a superficial veil that masks other international motivations?

See what kind of independent, critical thinking skills students can muster.

academics

The Social Construction of Beauty and Nationality

2011-01-14T09:51:00.000-08:00

Caught this store on Honolulu. So Brazil gets associated with beauty, and beauty gets associated with musculature for men (well, 2 mannequins) and sex for women (quite a few more mannequins), and these associated perceptions get further institutionalized through a small business all the way in the middle of the Pacific. Hmm...doesn't Brazil have outrageous levels of plastic surgery?

academics

What if Jared Loughner had a Latino Last Name?

2011-01-12T15:50:00.001-08:00

Over at "All Things Considered" on NPR, Daisy Hernandez explains the political fallout that would have likely emerged had Jared Loughner been Latino. Hernandez's viewpoints illustrate how our society operates as part of a social system, where an individual's actions are attributed to different causes based on racialized perceptions, and that result in differing, racialized policy efforts:

I wasn't the only person on Saturday who rushed to her Android when news came of the Tucson shooting. I wasn't looking however to read about what had happened. My auntie had already filled me in — "Someone tried to murder una representante. People have been killed," she'd reported. What I wanted to know was the killer's surname.

My eyes scanned the mobile papers. I held my breath. Finally, I saw it: Jared Loughner. Not a Ramirez, Gonzalez or Garcia.

It's safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo. Had the shooter been Latino, media pundits wouldn't be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young man this week — they'd be demanding an even more stringent anti-immigrant policy. The new members of the House would be stepping over each other to propose new legislation for more guns on the border, more mothers to be deported, and more employers to be penalized for hiring brown people. Obama would be attending funerals and telling the nation tonight that he was going to increase security just about everywhere.

Hernandez then goes on to state the social significance of a gay, Latino man coming to the aid of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, given Arizona's current political climate revolving around immigration:

It's painfully ironic that a gay Latino man came to the aid of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the storm of gunfire. Daniel Hernandez, an intern with the congresswoman, ran to Rep. Giffords and helped to stop the bleeding. If a judge hadn't blocked provisions of Arizona's SB 1070 law, the intern's surname would have easily qualified him as a target for police under different circumstances on Saturday.

But because Loughner comes from the majority group in the United States (and Arizona), his actions are not attributed to his social in-group, but instead to a unique mental illness that does not typify white males to a significant degree in the popular public consciousness. This perspective that does not associate Caucasians, or more to the point, political conservatives, with Loughner in any way is present in Sarah Palin's perspective:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

Really, had Loughner been Latino, would Palin be expressing similar sentiments? Or, would she be staunchly using the tragedy to heighten a culture of fear and drive American immigration policy in line with a nativist agenda? And seriously, for a former Vice-Presidential candidate to say that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own" and are unaffected by any variety of other social circumstances is rather naïve. Agreed, we all have individual power, choice, and autonomy.

Likewise, we are all significantly influenced by our social surroundings. Automatically discrediting political ideology from Loughner's actions is as absurd as automatically attributing his actions wholly to his political beliefs and/or political loudspeakers. Considering that an assisination attempt was made on Congresswoman Giffords (an obvious political figure), political ideology should at the very least be explored as one variable that contributed to this tragedy.

Picture via NPR (story also available for listening via podcast).

academics

Movie Review: The Fighter

2011-01-10T19:32:00.001-08:00

On Saturday, I went to see The Fighter, a movie staring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, and Amy Adams. The film recounts the real-life experiences of boxer, Micky Ward and his family en route to the pursuit of boxing greatness.

Unfamiliar with Ward’s boxing and family history, I cannot say how accurately the film narrates this period of his life. However, the film is a beautiful tale exemplifying the tensions that run through family, work, the criminal justice system, the boxing industry, and the working-class community of Lowell, Massachusetts in the early 1990s.

Based on the film’s trailers, one might expect a typical “underdog overcomes the odds” sports flick, supplemented with a tangential love interest and spattered family conflicts. While the sporting “underdog” narrative definitely exists, boxing is used more as a medium through which a deeper familial story is told.

The Fighter Trailers:

Christian Bale gives a phenomenal performance. Playing Micky Ward’s older brother, Dicky, Bale effectively illustrates how substance use turns into a coping mechanism when one’s identity is wrapped up so heavily in an erratic athletic career. Outstanding movie.

academics

Distancing Mass Killings from Systemic Patterns

2011-01-09T17:47:00.000-08:00

Criminologists have long lamented the ways that white males suspected of committing mass shootings and being serial killers are typically profiled. As the public discourse continues to develop regarding suspected shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 6 deceased and 14 additional wounded victims, Jared Lee Loughner, we are seeing the typical pattern emerge among those on the conservative side of the political spectrum: the violence can be attributed solely to mental illness, and not to any systemic influences tied to political ideology.

Attempts to distance Loughner's alledged attack from right-wing political ideology have grown largely because Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik pointed out the possible ties between exaggerated, vitriolic political discourse and the violence that has now been thrust upon someone who was once targeted symbolically by Sarah Palin (see picture, top of post).

Now in reading through the posted explanations by those on the conservative right, we see an intensified attempt to maintain the typical explanation for mass violence committed by white males - the alleged white male suspect is an individual anomaly with mental illness who has no ties to any institutional groups and/or their influence.

In contrast, mass violence perpetrated by individual minorities is typically tied to the perpetrator's minority culture, weather that be a said culture of poverty, culture of terrorism, drug culture, etc. SocProf explained this phenomenon first:

This list is quite long and definitely establishes a pattern of political violence. But if every incident is treated as an individual act, taken in isolation, and explained by reference to individual characteristics of the perpetrator, then, the social, political and cultural background disappears, leaving the emerging social movement unexplained and unaccountable.

It is a common phenomenon, long studied and explained by social psychology that when individuals from our in-group or privileged individuals commit questionable acts, these acts are explained individually. When individuals from out-groups, or groups that are socially unpopular, commit questionable acts, these acts are explained as part of group membership, as categorical. The former are exceptions, the latter are representative. That is how racial and ethnic prejudice persist and how white privilege is preserved. One only has to imagine what media discourse would be, had the shooter been non-White, Latino or Muslim.

It is not difficult at all to now find data illustrating this phenomenon while browsing through the comments of various news stories. Liz Halloran recently penned a piece on NPR titled "'Vitriol' Cited As Possible Factor In Arizona Tragedy" that as of 5:00pm Hawaii Standard Time has 2,701 reader comments. Here are few that demonstrate how individuals are trying to distance these violent actions from right-wing ideology (obviously, this is not a representative example, as I have not conducted a full content analysis with coding and accounting for "rec's"; these are simply a few examples):

Rhetoric is not the issue here...this was a lone nutbag, with his own mad view on things, hell bent on killing many. It's a shame that both sides are trying to reap some kinda political points for this. (Sunday, January 09, 2011 8:16:15 PM).
I listened to this Sheriff again this morning and he is completely out of line and is using this tragety to promote a political agenda and I hope the good people of Pima Co. remember this when he is up for re-election... Freedom of speech cannot be closed down because there are unbalanced people that will twist the meaning of what is being said into a call to kill people... This event was caused by this man's mental illness period. (Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:32:35 PM).

And this from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash, "You know, his favorite books are 'the Communist Manifesto' and 'Mein Kampf.' I think it's important that we recognize that this is an individual that had -- that has mental challenges, and we need to act appropriately in dealing with him and making sure that justice prevails here" (emphasis added), contrasted with the following from Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md (FoxNews):

Far too many broadcasts now and so many outlets have the intent of inciting, and inciting people to opposition, to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral. And I think that is a context in which somebody who is mentally unbalanced can somehow feel justified in taking this kind of action. And I think we need to all take cognizance of that and be aware that what we say can, in fact, have consequences.

Without jumping to conclusions, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility that exaggerated political discourse was a significant component in this tragedy. Shouldn't all possible contributors to physical violence be explored in order to prevent future violence? By being immediately defensive about the possible connections between vitriolic political rhetoric and physical violence, rational attempts to uncover all the underlying causes of violence are thwarted.

Suggested reading: "Climate of Hate"

academics blog

The National Basketball Association and Global Consumption

2010-12-28T21:18:00.000-08:00

The N.B.A. has built community basketball courts in neighborhoods across India, like Nagpada in Mumbai.

Kobe Bryant is the most popular basketball player in China, but there is no denying that basketball in China was given a colossal push when Yao Ming made it to the N.B.A.'s Houston Rockets and quickly emerged as a star player. In an interesting article in The New York Times, Jeremy Kahn refers to Ming's impact in China as a "Yao Ming Moment" -- the point when Ming served as a catalyst who invigorated a critical mass of Chinese basketball fans that would not just follow Ming, but become fans of the N.B.A. in general.

With a critical mass of Chinese now playing basketball and firmly following the N.B.A., the league is turning to the world's second most populated country, India, in hopes that the sport's relatively inexpensive structure will eventually stimulate an "Indian Yao" and new mass market:

... basketball’s popularity could grow rapidly in India because of the sport’s relative simplicity and the fact that a court can be created almost anywhere one can hang a hoop. This gives it an advantage over soccer and cricket, which require open fields. Basketball also requires little
specialized equipment.

A core part of the N.B.A.’s expansion strategy in India is increasing grass-roots participation, based on the belief that people who play basketball are also more likely to follow the N.B.A. The league also knows that the more Indians who play basketball, the more likely it is that one day an Indian player will be good enough to make the leap to the N.B.A. — an event that could vastly expand the league’s popularity in the world’s second-most-populous nation.

Considering the N.B.A. a global business, it is important to illustrate how players are constructed as international symbols, used to further the capitalist culture. As explained in Robbins's (2011) Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, the capitalist culture, or consumer culture specifically, divides people into three distinct statuses, which each have separately defined roles in perpetuating mass accumulation:

Capitalists - encourage the accumulation of profit
Laborers - encourage the accumulation of wages
Consumers - encourage the accumulation of goods (p. 11)

But there are what Robbins refers to as "sandpainters," who truly orchestrate society's obsession with mass consumption.

...every society has its sandpainters, those individuals who are given or who take responsibility for representing the universe to others and who have the power to define those elements that are essential for others in locating and defining their identities.... In capitalism, the sandpainter works in churches, synagogues, or mosques, and in theaters, in front of television sets, at sporting events, or in the shopping malls that reaffirm the vision of abundance central to the consumers' view of the world. Contemporary sandpainters...create a vision of the world designed to maximize the production and consumption of goods. (p. 13).

In this case, the N.B.A. executives who begin their early marketing stages in India are the "sandpainters" who hope to find their first symbolic Indian basketball player that will turn basketball into a perceived need for that critical mass of Indian boys and young men -- the potential consumer group. More from The NY Times article:

A core part of the N.B.A.’s expansion strategy in India is increasing grass-roots participation, based on the belief that people who play basketball are also more likely to follow the N.B.A. The league also knows that the more Indians who play basketball, the more likely it is that one day an Indian player will be good enough to make the leap to the N.B.A. — an event that could vastly expand the league’s popularity in the world’s second-most-populous nation.

As the N.B.A. sandpainters take their early steps, building a perceived need for basketball among Indian boys and young men through the development of the first Indian star with mad basketball skills, a few questions are worth asking. Is the N.B.A. truly trying to spread the game for the sake of community development? Or, is it about developing the next big market that will purchase Kobe's and LeBron's jerseys?

Photo via The New York Times

academics

This is SportsCenter: The Predictable Gender Trend

2010-12-25T01:19:00.000-08:00

On today’s SportsCenter, ESPN closed out showing their “This is SportsCenter” commercials. As described on ESPN’s official YouTube, "This is SportsCenter" channel:

This is SportsCenter is the name of a series of comical television commercials run by ESPN to promote their SportsCenter sports news show. The ads are presented in a deadpan mockumentary style, lampooning various aspects of sports, and sports broadcasting. The commercials debuted in 1994.

As of tonight (December 24, 2010), ESPN’s YouTube channel profiles 77 of these short videos. Not every "This is SportsCenter" commercial is profiled, but I'm just going with what is up on this page now as the sample data set. I generally enjoy these commercials. Many of them are witty, and they are all short (around 30 seconds). Here are a few examples:

As can be seen, the commercials typically profile a famous athlete and/or a SportsCenter anchor, and on occasion a non-sports-related celebrity (e.g., Richard Simmons). In examining what athletes the commercials profile on ESPN's YouTube page, a highly predictable trend emerges. Here are the individual athletes the commercials profile (note: when no athletes are profiled and only anchors, gender of anchors profiled noted instead):

Dwight Freeney (football; male)

Derek Jeeter (baseball; male)

Floyd Mayweather (boxing; male)

Tim Lincecum (baseball; male)

Wayne Gretzky (hockey; male)

Dwight Howard (basketball; male)

David St. Hubbins (musician; male)

Arnold Palmer (golf; male)

Oregon Duck (football; gender neutral)

Usain Bolt (track & field; male)

Larry Fitzgerald (football; male)

Matt Ryan (football; male)

Brett Favre (football; male)

Adrian Peterson (football; male)

Joe Mauer (baseball; male)

Adrian Peterson (football; male)

Manny Ramierz (baseball; male)

Josh Hamilton (baseball; male)

SportsCenter Anchors (all male)

Jimmie Johnson (car racing; male)

SportsCenter Anchors (all male)

Manny Ramirez (baseball; male)

David Ortiz & Jorge Posada (baseball; male)

David Wright (baseball; male)

Chad Ochocinco (football; male)

Chad Ochocinco (football; male)

Ladanian Tomlinson (football; male)

Chad Ochocinco (football; male)

Tony Romo (football; male)

Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, & Ray Allen (basketball; male)

Michael Phelps (swimming; male)

Ladanian Tomlinson (football; male)

Jim Kelly (football; male)

Dale Earnhardt Jr. (car racing; male)

Chad Ochocinco (football; male)

Stephen King (writer; male)

Michael Phelps (swimming; male)

Jimmy Rollins (baseball; male)

Richard Simmons (fitness pro; male)

Maria Sharapova (tennis; female)

Steve Smith (football; male)

Jose Reyes (baseball; male)

Pat Summit (basketball; female)

Dale Earnhardt Jr. (car racing; male)

Carmelo Anthony (basketball; male)

Chris Paul (basketball; male)

Keyshawn Johnson (football; male) & Kobe Bryant (basketball; male)

"Moving the Franchise" (all male anchors)

"Yahtzee" (male anchors)

Kerri Strug (gymnastics; female)

"Talent Search" (male anchors)

Globetrotters (basketball; male)

Dan O'Brien (track & field; male)

"Journalistic Integrity" (male anchors)

"Sportscaster Celebrities" (male anchors)

"Live on the Set" (predominantly male anchors; female anchor at end)

Michael Andretti (car racing; male)

Gordie Howe (hockey; male)

"Reading Lips" (all male anchors)

"Makeup Buddies" (all male anchors)

"Athletes Bribing" (multiple male athletes from different sports)

George Mikan (basketball; male)

Mary Lou Retton (gymnastics; female)

"Tour" (all male anchors)

"One Track Mind" (predominanty male anchors; female anchor at start)

"Shoot" (female anchor)

"Paws" (all male anchors)

"Serious Journalism" (all male anchors)

"Write Your Own Stuff" (all male anchors)

"Sweet Science" (predominantly male anchor; short appearances by a female anchor)

"Potty Talk" (male anchor)

"Memories" (all male anchors)

Keshawn Johnson (football; male) & Kobe Bryant (basketball; male)

Glenn Robinson (basketball; male)

Barry Melrose (hockey; male)

Landon Donovan (soccer; male)

Jimmie Johnson (car racing; male)

When going through the data set, we find that out of the 77 commercials, women only appear 8 times (10.4%), in some cases in relatively peripheral roles. When looking specifically at athletes, only 3 female athletes are profiled, all 3 of whom represent historically "acceptibly feminine" sports: Mary Lou Retton and Kerri Strug (both gymnasts) and Maria Sharapova (tennis). One commercial profiles Pat Summit, the famous women's basketball coach from the University of Tennessee. All other commercials featuring athletes have males.

Examining the content of the commercials is also important. For instance, the commercial with Sharapova clearly relies on Sharapova's status as a femininized beauty figure in athletics. And while all the commercials are "presented in deadpan mockumentary style," the humor clearly calls upon dominant notions of heterosexual masculinity -- take for example the commercials that mock femininity among males, such as those in which the male anchors share makeup and mock Richard Simmons as a conditioning coach.

The trends shown here are highly predictable. It is hardly surprising that males are over-represented numerically in the commercials, both as athletes and anchors. Likewise, it is unsurprising that the humor utilized in these commercials so often mocks femininity among males in the sporting world or uses female athletes as sexualized figures.

What we see here in ESPN's "This is SportsCenter" commercials is the typical way that gender is constructed in sport -- patriarchy is reified within an institution historically reserved for heterosexual males.

academics

Reality Television and Hegemonic Masculinity: Bridalplasty

2010-12-18T22:48:00.000-08:00

Seriously, someone should create a sociology blog dedicated entirely to critiquing reality television. I suppose you'd have to be kind of a reality TV-nut, but the content would be limitless. I caught a little bit of a reality TV show called "Bridalplasty" today and couldn't watch much, so correct me if I'm wrong in the show's premise.

From what I could tell, the show revolves around engaged women competing for two things: (1) a paid celebrity-esque dream wedding; and (2) paid plastic surgery to "improve" the way they look for the dream wedding. As with most reality shows, the contestants go through a series of competitions that provoke conflict and drama as winners of competitions move on and losers are dropped.

The show exemplifies hegemonic masculinity working at its best:

The female contestants seem to truly believe that in order to improve themselves, they must engage in behaviors that actually extend male privilege (e.g., manipulating their physical appearance), an excellent example of false consciousness.

Symbolically, the leader/host of the show is also female, who represents "ideal" beauty from a traditional western standard (I wonder if the producers are male).

Rather than challenging these gender roles that obviously value women for their physical appearance, the women are forced to challenge each other (divide and conquer).

Males make minimal appearances on the show (or at least in the promos), but when they do, they are seen as doctors (high status plastic surgeons) or in clips as future husbands (the men these female contestants are trying to please).

Heterosexuality is normalized.

Another way of putting it, the show is among the most extreme examples of emphasized femininity -- women heighten the focus they place on physical appearance, are willing to risk their own health in doing so, and further value themesleves through a dream wedding that will last a day. All this in the name of being attractive for their male fiancees.

Enjoy a few YouTube videos advertising the show:

academics blogs

More Gendered Mobile Phones

2010-12-18T22:34:00.001-08:00

I've written a few other entries on the ways that gender is constructed in mobile phone commercials (see here and here). And here is another commercial, clearly relying on gender-role expectations for Net10:

Pretty self-explanatory...

academics blogs

More Football Violence

2010-12-06T15:02:00.001-08:00

Sometimes it's difficult for me to reconclie being a football fan. As you can see in the video, he got up and walked away on his own.

Made me think neckrolls might be appropriate for the NFL.

Sport, Sex, and Cinema: ESPN the Magazine

2010-12-01T19:56:00.000-08:00

ESPN The Magazine has a "Movie Spectacular" edition that was released Nov. 29. The edition features a number of stories related to sports films, including pictures of contemporary pro athletes re-enacting iconic images from famous movies.

Some of the pictures include race car driver, Danica Patrick in the movie, "Anchorman," Baron Davis and Terry Kennedy in "Back to the Future," and Tank Johnson, Dhani Jones, and Chad Ochocinco in "The Hangover" (see, below).

Not surprisingly, however, ski racer and Olympic gold medalist, Lindsey Vonn, made the magazine's cover, as she portrayed Sharon Stone's highly sexualized character from "Basic Instinct" back in the early 1990s.

There is not a whole lot to say here, other than this is yet another example of the pathway female athletes can follow if they want to "out-stage" their male counterparts -- by promoting a heightened sexuality. While the other famous athletes do get exposure within the magazine's pages, Vonn graces the cover by showing skin and re-creating a film scene that exudes sexual aggression.

In this constructed combination of sport, sex, and cinema, we see how ESPN -- a media giant in the sporting industry -- markets its magazine to what is likely a predominantly male, heterosexual audience.

Photos via Huffington Post, NYMag.com, and Slashfilm.com.

academics links

ESPN's "Outside the Lines"

2010-11-19T19:59:00.000-08:00

Part of our discussion from earilier today - ESPN's "Outside the Lines" (hopefully this video will be available for a week or so).

academics directory

Permissible Violence: Kobe Bryant, Jimmy Kimmel, and Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-11-17T23:52:00.000-08:00

In 1997, Hutchins and Phillips published an important article in the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, titled "Selling Permissible Violence." The article utilizes Australian rugby to illustrate that standards of violence fluctuate in society. These fluctuating standards of violence are contingent upon the market's commodification of violence, evolving technology and media, and political ideology. And while Hutchins and Phillips's article centers on sporting violence, the concept of permissible violence can be extended to other forms of popular culture, as well as war.

To this end, recently, National Basketball Association (NBA) icon, Kobe Bryant, and television late show host, Jimmy Kimmel, were featured in an XBOX 360 advertisement for the recently released game, "Call of Duty: Black Ops," re-enacting combat in war. Here's the commercial:

It is important to note a few other dimensions of the commercial. First, it makes a concerted effort to include a very diverse array of additional characters -- men, women, younger people, older people, those from different ethnic and occupational/class groups. This diversity tactic then leads to an ending slogan: "THERE'S A SOLDIER IN ALL OF US." In other words, all of us (supposedly) have the innate capacity and desire to partake in war (or at least buy the video game).

The commercial has generated a small degree of controversy. On ESPN, sports pundits discuss whether or not Bryant's participation in the commercial warrants a response from NBA Commissioner, David Stern:

Bomani Jones hits the nail on the head. With approximately 1 minute left in the video, Jones points out that if Bryant was re-enacting what's portrayed in the video game, Grand Theft Auto (e.g., murder, assaults, prostitution), he would be reprimanded by Commissioner Stern. However, because Bryant, Kimmel and the other actors are re-enacting war against each other, and presumably against American enemies in the game, the portrayed violence is at the very least permissible, and more likely glorified as a kind of American patriotism.

And this is the problem with America's blind fascination with war -- the general public only sees what our media wants us to see. We see the most extreme violence (death) glamorized and commodified in "benign" video games, leaving the public completely misdirected from the realities of war.

Bryant and Kimmel's participation in the commercial, and in turn support of this war-based game, speak nothing to the physical and mental health concerns soldiers (including American soldiers) experience because of war (listen to Terry Gross's fantastic interview for a discussion on soldiers' mental health concerns: Psychologist Craig Bryan: Treating Vets For PTSD).

Likewise, "Call of Duty: Black Ops" speaks nothing to the alleged war crimes that American soldiers have been accused of committing in Iraq and Afghanistan (Leaked U.S. Video Shows Deaths In Baghdad; A Murder Controversy in Afghanistan).

What we see in this commercial, is that war is not just permissible. It is cool. If Kobe Bryant and Jimmy Kimmel can have fun re-enacting war games and show "they have a soldier in them," video gamers should likewise view war-based video games that bring death upon others in fiction uncritically. But in real life, these media blitzes simultaneously and covertly also support American military efforts, without problematizing the tragic outcomes of war on all sides of the battlefield.

Should society be glamorizing war to make money, and turning to celebrities to peddle these products? I wonder, how many of the marketers for "Call of Duty: Black Ops" have been in combat, lost a limb, dealt with severe war-related mental health problems, killed someone, or had a loved one killed?

Photo via ESPN; more from The Orlando Sentinel: ESPN shot down by Call of Duty Black Ops creators over Kobe Bryant ad, Examiner.com: Activision denies ESPN use of COD: Black Ops commercial with Kobe Bryant, 'Call of Duty: Black Ops' video game commercial controversy, Media Bistro: Activision Shoots Down ESPN’s Request To Air Kobe Bryant Commercial.

academics

The National Football League Making Strides Against Breast Cancer

2010-10-03T21:35:00.000-07:00

People wondering why the National Football League (NFL) is now America's premier sporting organization can look beyond football's inherent violence. The NFL does a fantastic job of marketing to multiple demographics, including women. While watching NFL highlights today, I noticed players with pink shoes, pink gloves, pink towels, coaches in pink hats, and I thought, "What's up with this?"

The NFL is making a significant and symbolic effort to "Make Strides Against Breast Cancer":

The NFL, its clubs, players and the NFL Players Association are proud to support the fight against breast cancer. Our campaign, "A Crucial Catch", in partnership with the American Cancer Society, is focused on the importance of annual screenings, especially for women who are 40 and older. Throughout October, NFL games will feature players, coaches and referees wearing pink game apparel, on-field pink ribbon stencils, special game balls and pink coins - all to help raise awareness for this important campaign. All apparel worn at games by players and coaches, along with special game balls and pink coins will be auctioned off at NFL Auction (www.NFL.com/auction), with proceeds benefitting the American Cancer Society and team charities. This is an issue that has directly touched the lives of so many in the NFL family, and we are committed to helping make a difference in breast cancer prevention.

I thought this was an excellent example of a sport that typically exudes traditional masculinity shifting its gendered norms to actively support a cause historically considered a woman's issue. And in this public service announcement, Arizona Cardinals star wide receiver, Larry Fitzgerald, makes this statement, noting how breast cancer has had an impact on his life:

NFL PSA with Larry Fitzgerald

"High five" to the NFL. It would be nice to see more organizations that represent historically male sports (e.g., basketball, MMA, hockey) engage in similar socially responsible efforts, rather than simply supporting social causes that perpetuate violence (e.g., war-related causes).

Images via http://www.nfl.com/pink.

blog search

Racism, Xenophobia, and Homophobia in Combat Sports - The Floyd Mayweather Attack on Manny Pacquiao

2010-09-08T03:38:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard Floyd "Money" Mayweather's recent rant directed towards boxing's current pound-for-pound king, Filipino boxer, Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao, it's worth a listen. YouTube has removed the video, though it can still be seen (and heard) in its entirety HERE. Be forewarned, the content is disturbing to say the least.

Systemic discrimination in sport is nothing new. As I've documented in my blog time and time again, sexism ("America's Favorite Athletes"; "Yankee Babes vs Phille Babes"; "Blatant Sexism Tolerated"), homophobia ("Homophobic 'Slip'"; "MMA Does Not Get a Pass on Discrimination"), and classism ("Theorizing Violence in Sport"; "Marxist MMA") are rampant in contemporary sport...as is racism.

Attempting to belittle Pacquiao, Mayweather uses blatant racialized language. Embellishing verbal jabs is common in combat sports -- a promotional tactic used to build hype in the midst of long layoffs in between fights. Whether Mayweather is attempting to build "heat" for a possible showdown with Pacquiao or not, the public utilization of racism, homophobia, and xenophobia is unacceptable and requires regulation by the boxing organizations that profit from such promotional tactics. Some of Mayweather's racist, xenophobic, and homophobic words:

@ 0:57: "I'm gonna make that mutherfucker cook me a sushi roll and cook me some rice."
@ 1:40: "...gonna cook that mutherfucker with some cats and dogs" (repeated @ 2:18).
@ 2:21: "Rice with a little bit of cat, and rice with a little bit of bbq dog."
@ 2:50: "Ah man, don't tell me about what Pacquiao did, 3 losses, 2 draws. Ah, hell nah. This America baby. We built on winning. Step your game up faggot."
@ 3:10: "Supposed to be talking to Pacquiao, but you know that mutherfucker Pacquiao can't speak no English."

Again, it is not as if this is simply an individual act operating in a vacuum. True, Mayweather may have made these statements on his own. However, he is not the only individual who benefits from these discriminatory statements. Should a Pacquiao-Mayweather mega-fight happen, Mayweather, his opponent (yes, Pacquiao), promoters, the venue owner(s), television pay-per-view companies, etc. will all benefit financially from this type of disgusting discriminatory hype.

In short, the entire industry benefits financially from blatant discrimination. Therefore, it is up to individual athletes and the institutional organizations that run various sports to outlaw discriminatory behavior. As long as the organizations and their leadership allow for this type of glaring discrimination to continue, they are not only complicit in the problem. As direct beneficiaries, they actively contribute to the problem, while sitting covertly in the shadows.

Up next: James "Lights Out" Toney's use of homophobia in MMA.

Photo via The Examiner

academics blogs

"Pocahontas Meets Adriel Luis’ Slip of the Tongue"

2010-08-18T15:01:00.000-07:00

Saw this excellent example of how community advocates can re-construct discriminatory cultural artifacts from the mainstream over on Sociological Images.

Teaching Sociology: How American Media Uses Violence Against Women in Afghanistan to Veil the Public

2010-08-16T04:38:00.000-07:00

One of the more difficult things I find when teaching popular culture is getting students to connect media trends to broader trends in society. It is not difficult for students to identify patterns of discrimination. But identifying discrimination alone misses critical context.

Since 2001, the media has been saturated with coverage of “The War on Terror” (or whatever the slogan of the day is). I recently read an extremely interesting journal article by Carol Stabile and Deepa Kumar (2005) in Media, Culture & Society, titled “Unveiling imperialism: media, gender and the war on Afghanistan.”

Stabile and Kumar’s article makes the following key points:

Prior to 9/11, American politicians and American media were not concerned at all with women’s rights in Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern countries. Following 9/11, all of a sudden, the American military became Afghan women’s saviors across American televisions and in major print sources.

American media constructs the military’s efforts to liberate Afghan women from their oppressive Afghan male counterparts as a first-time effort, thereby dismissing any and all efforts Afghan women have taken to liberate themselves.

American media fails to acknowledge that when the United States armed and trained the mujahideen in the 1980s to push back the Soviet Union, the CIA was completely aware of the mujahideen’s extreme sexist tendencies. Thus, American efforts were far more invested in securing contracts to oil pipelines through Afghanistan and winning the Cold War than they were in humanitarian/women’s rights.

American media never acknowledges that since the Soviet Union was ousted and the Taliban took over Afghanistan (due heavily to American support), Afghan women’s rights declined immensely.

And since America’s military presence in Afghanistan, our media suggests Afghan women’s conditions have improved, when in reality they have hardly changed.

Some text from Stabile and Kumar’s article:

When we look at the condition of women today in Afghanistan, it becomes clear that the US never really had their liberation in mind. While some things have changed since the collapse of the Taliban for women, much remains the same. So, for instance, women may now venture out in certain regions without a male escort, but they still do not enjoy basic human rights. And while 1.5 million Afghan children now attend schools – one third of them girls – more than 3 million children do not go to schools because no infrastructure exists. Reports reveal that women are still punished according to Islamic laws. Kabul jail had no women prisoners shortly after the fall of the Taliban, but as of April 2002 women were being incarcerated for crimes such as leaving their husbands or having relationships with members of the opposite sex (Ahmed-Ullah, 2002). One year after the US attacked Afghanistan, the war-ravaged country had the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world (Sierra Leone was number one): 1700 out of every 100,000 women died during pregnancy or childbirth. In the US, the maternal mortality rate is 12 out of every 100,000 (Reuters, 2002). In December 2002, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting continued violence against Afghan women, particularly in the Western regions of Afghanistan (Human Rights Watch, 2001). (p. 775, 776).

The bottom line is that the American media does not present a realistic, accurate portrayal of Afghan women because Afghan women's so-called emancipation due to American efforts serves as a moralistic veil, influencing the American public to continue supporting the war. But what’s clear is American economic, political, and military efforts are not truly invested in Afghan girls’ and women’s rights; they are interested in oil.

How then, do we interpret TIME magazine’s recent issue and its cover portrait, showing Aisha – an 18-year-old Afghan woman whose nose and ears were cut off after she fled her abusive in-laws? Richard Stengel, Managing Editor for TIME, discusses the cover portrait in his article, “The Plight of Afghan Women: A Disturbing Picture”:

In the end, I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening — and what can happen — in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban's treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.

The much publicized release of classified documents by WikiLeaks has already ratcheted up the debate about the war. Our story and the haunting cover image by the distinguished South African photographer Jodi Bieber are meant to contribute to that debate. We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it. We do it to illuminate what is actually happening on the ground. As lawmakers and citizens begin to sort through the information about the war and make up their minds, our job is to provide context and perspective on one of the most difficult foreign policy issues of our time.

Explicitly, it appears TIME is taking an apolitical approach, simply reporting the news so to speak – reporting what is out there, in turn, allowing the public to make their own assessments. Implicitly, however, it is what is not reported (what is never reported) that makes this picture and the attendant discourse entirely political.

The messages implicitly conveyed: Afghan men and Afghan culture are horrible; American culture is great. We are, once again, the white knights coming in to save the tortured, helpless women of color from their demonic brown-skinned men. Orientalist discourse, truly at its best.

The messages never conveyed: American foreign policy helped set the stage for this hideous practice to transpire by knowingly supporting a regime rooted so deeply in sexism years ago. And now, America continues to invest more in its ubiquitous war machine than it does in say Afghan women’s and girls’ education (seriously, how many schools have been built and sustained by American efforts?) or in public health facilities. Oh, and dimensions of sexism (institutionalized and personal) persist in the United States.

At the risk of being opportunistic myself, the TIME magazine portrait and its attendant stories, coupled with Stabile and Kumar’s article make for an excellent teaching/learning opportunity. Simply viewing the TIME magazine cover and articles, one could easily point to horrifically sexist norms, and stop there. With Stabile and Kumar’s article, the questions and discussion become much richer.

Does the mainstream American media inadvertently (or deliberately) collude with American political, economic, and militaristic entities by using women’s rights as an opportunity to make our country look good, when really, we simply want resources? If efforts were truly being made to impede violence against women, why isn’t our military taking a stand in and around the Democratic Republic of the Congo (listen to this inspiring podcast)? What should America’s role really be in the Middle East if women's rights are a central concern?

Full Reference:

Stabile, C. A., & Kumar, D. (2005). Unveiling imperialism: media, gender and the war on Afghanistan. Media, Culture & Society, 27 (5), 765-782.

Academics Blogs

Mixed Martial Arts, Fighters Rights, and an Enforced Muhammad Ali Act?

2010-08-16T04:11:00.000-07:00

For those who believe that a society and all its components are best understood through its economic system, we need to examine external regulation if we are to understand and predict future worker-employer relationships. This is true for any industry, sporting or otherwise, including mixed martial arts (MMA).

Those familiar with combat sports history know that boxing is among the most corrupt sports in the modern era. While all sports include dimensions of constructed spectacle, boxing’s track record in manipulating theatrical drama is particularly bothersome. The backdrop to boxing mega-fights, dramatized press conferences and other pre-fight hype includes a plethora of unknown, underpaid fighters, sacrificed in manufactured mismatches that build prospects’ reputations.

As a combat sport promoted through gladiator type pageantry, MMA inevitably follows a good portion of boxing’s promotional structure. Fighters typically build their reputation at the local level in smaller shows, working their way through modest paydays in organizations that have varying levels of oversight. The sacrifices of today are deemed worthwhile in hopes that financial dreams are realized in a larger organization tomorrow. As noted previously, these hopes and dreams are rarely met, and the stories of unknown fighters remain, unknown.

The process for every fighter is long and arduous – physically taxing on one’s body, emotions, pocketbook, and social network. In working through the process, fighters incessantly go through what Spencer (2009) calls “body callusing” – “whereby the fighter takes his/her body as a site of action and aggressively seeks…to harden the body and turn it into a weapon” (p. 127) that can distribute and endure pain.

Because MMA has been institutionalized for under two decades, we are still unable to tell the long-term health effects its training and competitions have on participants. But considering MMA’s physical demands, it is appropriate to ask how fighters will be protected in the years to come by external regulating bodies, if they are protected at all.

Federal Regulation or Not?

Central to this issue is whether or not industries should be regulated by the free market, states, or federal government. Under the Reagan-Bush era, governmental regulation was defined as a hindrance to individual rights and private enterprise. Essentially, this political ideology professed that entrepreneurs, their innovation and business drive should not be stymied by oppressive federal oversight. The flip side to this political paradigm is that an unbridled free market without regulation fuels brutal business practices where business owners act dishonorably, exploiting labor as they market their product.

With regard to MMA, regulation in the United States materializes on a state by state basis. This was accomplished first in 2000 in New Jersey, just before Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta and Dana White took over the helm of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) in 2001. Since then, the UFC has actively sought regulation, serving as MMA’s principle lobbyists across the United States and selected cities beyond U.S. borders.

A key topic in the push for regulation is fighter safety, more specifically, how the “Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts Combat” minimize major sporting injuries. This is one of two publicly debated issues (the other being the glorification of violence). Lost in the public discourse, however, is how regulation protects fighters’ financial interests.

Maher (2010) provides a few notable examples rarely discussed across the MMA media landscape. California, for instance, does not allow individuals who have been licensed within the MMA industry within the past two years to serve on its athletic commission, thereby deterring conflicts of interests between commission members and private MMA organizations. Nevada’s commission requires a “bout agreement” in advance of matches which insures that fighters are compensated their promised purse (i.e., payment).

“Deal content,” or compensation, on the other hand, is currently not regulated. Thus, fighter pay is essentially determined by each individual fighter’s bargaining power, which is contingent upon his/her fight record, management team, and especially public notoriety. In short, there is very little, if anything, in the way of state regulation that assists fighters in advocating for what they may define as fair pay and other occupational rights (e.g., broad-based health insurance). Federally, occupational rights specific to MMA are non-existent.

Bolstering Regulation Via a Federally Enforced Muhammad Ali Act

As stated by Varney (2009), Congress passed the Professional Boxing Safety Act (“Safety Act”) into law in 1996 to help clean up the sport while providing federal oversight. The act requires that (1) all boxing matches are supervised by state athletic commissions; (2) all boxers go through a physical examination by a certified physician to determine his/her physical fitness; (3) an ambulance and/or medics with proper medical equipment be on sight; and (4) a physician be present at ringside.

The Safety Act clearly has a focus on physical safety and is more or less mimicked in the MMA industry. The Safety Act, however, does not address in any way the potential financial exploitation of fighters. Thus, the Safety Act was augmented in 2000 with the Muhammad Ali Act (“Ali Act”), which calls:

To protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitative, oppressive, and unethical business practices;

To assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and

To promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry (Varney, 2009, p. 288).

Perhaps most importantly, the Ali Act also requires that bout information be provided to the State Attorney General upon request as a means to further “discourage a promoter from engaging in unfair or unsavory business dealings” (Varney, 2009, p. 292).

Varney’s work explains how the Ali Act would benefit MMA fighters. For example, boxing matches on Indian reservations must follow Ali Act regulations. MMA matches on Indian reservations are entitled much more leeway, often allowing for matches without proper medical testing and unequal matchmaking (e.g., unreasonable weight differences between fighters).

Furthermore, Varney argues that arbitrary/subjective enhanced bonuses provided to select fighters by MMA promotions would be lessened if these financial rewards were properly and publicly disclosed. While these arbitrary bonuses help the selected fighters, they obviously do not help the majority of other fighters competing on respective fight cards. And being subjectively distributed, the bonuses could point to favoritism on the part of the promotion.

A properly administered Ali Act in MMA would also insure that title fights and ongoing employment were based on objective rankings (which would be based on fight records and opponents fought). This would help prevent deserving fighters from being released or “buried” by promotions if they expressed disagreement with certain managerial practices. And finally, a properly enforced Ali Act in MMA would standardize minimum bout agreements.

Of course, even if the Ali Act was applied to MMA, it would change nothing unless it was enforced. Title IX is a perfect example. While Title IX mandated gender equity across all sectors of educational institutions, its impact was not felt until universities began enforcing it. Enforcement for Title IX only came with threatened legal action. In MMA, fighters currently lack the power and solidarity to take such action.

Federalization and Unionization

Fighters could be empowered if MMA was legally sanctioned in all 50 states, and done so in standardized form. Maher (2010) worries that because some states currently regulate MMA with stricter guidelines than others, MMA promotions (particularly those on the fiscal bubble) may “race to the bottom” by holding events in states where regulations are the most relaxed (i.e., cheapest), thereby increasing the risk to fighters. This could also apply on Indian reservations, where regulations appear the most lenient and least costly economically for promotions.

Unionization is also relevant here. Maher writes, “Existing state regulation does little to regulate the terms of the deals between promoters, managers, and fighters…. Like laborers elsewhere, MMA athletes face significant bargaining disadvantages relative to promoters, in terms of financial and legal resources, education, and alternative employment” (p. 41).

A fighters union could help push for minimum compensation and other worker rights, such as extended health insurance and initial planning into some kind of pension plan. The alternative outlook is increased numbers of aged-out veterans who continue to fight paycheck-to-paycheck, snared in by the sport’s onerous fiscal structure (see for example, Jonathan Snowden’s recent piece on Jens Pulver).

A drive towards unionization, however, cannot materialize until a number of other legal conditions are ironed out. As Maher explains, if MMA fighters are considered independent contractors, as opposed to company employees, unionization is not an option. However, when fighters are under exclusive promotional contracts (meaning they cannot fight for another organization) and are engaged in “an essential part of the [promoter’s] normal operations” (p. 43) (i.e., fighting), fighters stand a good chance of being defined as employees, who could then advocate for unionization.

What does the future pose for fighter rights in MMA?

Maher (2010) speculates that fans may be inclined to see increased federal regulation since our current economic crisis is blamed heavily on a lack of federal oversight. Previously, I noted that most fans would not seriously support fighter rights since improved fighter rights means higher company costs, and in turn, higher costs for fans to watch MMA, and I believe this to still be the case.

In the era of Obama and the President’s extremely minor push towards expanded health care (Clinton’s health care reform proposal was actually stronger), the conservative backlash to federal regulation has been extremely strong. Coupled with the ongoing economic crisis, bank bailouts, and high unemployment rates, the American public’s frustration with “big government” continues to fester. Unfortunately, if calls for government to “stay out of our lives” continues, this allows the free market to run unchecked, leaving the average worker with less leverage, and fighters more exploitable.

That is unless, someone, somewhere, with significant influence takes action.

Non-internet References:

Maher, B. S. (2010). Understanding and regulating the sport of mixed martial arts. Hastings Communication & Entertainment Law Journal, 1-43.

Spencer, D. C. (2009). Habit(us), body techniques and body callusing: an ethnography of mixed martial arts. Body & Society, 15 (4), 119-143.

Varney, G. (2009). Fighting for respect: MMA’s struggle for acceptance and how the Muhammad Ali Act would give it a sporting chance. West Virginia Law Review, 112, 269-305.

Academics Blogs

Reading Eminem and Rihanna's 'Love The Way You Lie'

2010-08-11T03:21:00.000-07:00

Ever since Eminem and Rihanna's video for their hit song "Love The Way You Lie" was released, I've been thinking about the song's violent lyrics and its video's violent imagery. The folks over at Sociological Images helped me wrap my initial thoughts around the video:

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a beautiful song. Rihanna’s vocals are gorgeous; it’s was hard to not feel heartfelt while listening to them. And that’s the problem. It’s a powerful form of socialization. That we might internalize the message that passionate love and incontrollable rage go hand-in-hand is really very scary. It suggests not only that you should tolerate interpersonal violence but that, if there is no violence in your relationship, perhaps you don’t really love one another.

How many individuals feel happy when their partner expresses jealousy, even goes into a jealous rage? Why is that dynamic normalized in varying degrees? There's no denying the song's popularity. According to Yahoo! Finance, "Love the Way You Lie," "...has reigned at No. 1 on the Digital Songs chart for five consecutive weeks and has sold more than 1.4 million downloads." A portion of the lyrics:

Told you this is my fault
Look me in the eyeball
Next time I'm pissed
I'll aim my fist
At the dry wall
Next time
There will be no next time
I apologize
Even though I know it's lies
I'm tired of the games
I just want her back
I know I'm a liar
If she ever tries to fucking leave again
I'mma tie her to the bed
And set the house on fire

Graphic and shocking to say the least, as are the images in the video, which features movie and television stars Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan:

Graphic and shocking was largely the point. The song was authored by Eminem, who then asked to collaborate with Rihanna, in part because of her history as an intimate partner violence (IPV) victim (listen here for an excellent discussion on Rihanna, Chris Brown, and the gendered politics of IPV). Against my general principles, I dug into the "bee-bop" popular culture internet sites to see what I could find about how this song and video were intended to address IPV. In fact, there are direct connections being made between the video and IPV.

For instance, Megan Fox has donated her video appearance fee to a shelter for battered women. And in a VH1 interview with Rihanna, the music star explains her and Eminem's personal connection to the song's theme:

"It's something that, you know, [Eminem and I have] both experienced, you know, on different sides, different ends of the table," she said.

"It just was authentic. It was real," Rihanna continued. "It was believable for us to do a record like that, but it was also something that needed to be done and the way he did it was so clever. He pretty much just broke down the cycle of domestic violence and it's something that a lot people don't have a lot of insight on, so this song is a really, really powerful song and it touches a lot of people."

[...]

Ultimately, the song was something Rihanna felt was in line with her past relationship. "The lyrics were so deep, so beautiful and intense. It's something that I understood, something I connected with," she revealed.

Dominic Monaghan ads:

"The concept of 'Love the Way You Lie' was essentially a look at the relationship that Eminem was in with his wife, Kim, so I kind of felt like I was playing Eminem a little bit, and Megan Fox was kind of playing Kim.

"It's the story of them getting to know each other, and it's the story of their tumultuous relationship, and it was the story of the breakdown of their relationship," he continued. "Ultimately, what I think he's trying to say in the song ... is that he should have walked away a little bit quicker than he did and not let it get as messy as it did."

At least explicity, there was critical thought put into this popular culture artifact. My question is, how will young people from different demographics and different life experiences interpret the song's and video's violent content? The one empirical study I could find on Eminem's music and its effects on listeners found that young adults who listened to his songs with misogynistic lyrics were largely unaffected by them, though the study was only conducted with research participants who were college students (Cobb & Boettcher, 2007).

In my dissertation, adolescent research participants spoke quite openly about the ways they saw IPV as completely normal. These were teens who had experienced multiple forms of violence throughout their lives (peer, family, romantic, drug, physical, verbal) -- certainly not the average college student. I wonder what their interpretations would be.

Then yesterday, I heard a male radio DJ essentially state the following after "Love The Way You Lie" was played: "You know, Megan Fox is supposed to play an abused victim in that song's video, (chuckling) but in the video, she's the abuser. I didn't see her get hit once. She was doing all the hitting!" Uh, yeah, real funny. Was that the video's intent? And did he miss all the punching of the walls (physical intimidation)? Contrast that point of view with a female student in my Sociology of Popular Culture class:

As for the video, I think maybe it has good intentions, especially using two artists who have a history with IPV, but I don't think it will be beneficial. Using [Dominic Monaghan] and Megan Fox (a sex symbol for everyone today) [it] seems to glorify the topic by using two high end celebrities. This video seemed like it wanted to make domestic violence look sexy and possessiveness look masculine.

Perhaps for some listeners, the song and video do raise consciousness regarding IPV prevention -- what Monaghan said the video is intended to accomplish. But certainly not for everyone. For the student quoted above, the video was offensive and reified traditional gender norms. To get a little academic, from John Storey (1993):

...an image containing references to pop music culture might be seen by a young audience as an index of freedom and heterogeneity, whilst to an older audience it might signal manipulation and homgeneity. Which codes are mobilized will largely depend on the triple context of the location of the text, the historical moment and the cultural formation of the reader (p. 80).

Since people with different social histories interpret popular culture differently, I'd be interested to see how young people from different demographics digest this song and video. Do the cultural artifacts problematize IPV (the stated intent) or further normalize and perpetuate this form of violence?

Or, as indicated by the radio DJ, does this video mobilize codes that perpetuate misunderstandings about co-occurring violence in intimate relationships? For instance, too many people assume that when males and females hit each other, the physical ramifications are equally harmful. Does the video gloss over the fact that verbal abuse, social isolation, and other forms of control (e.g., forcing what a partner wears) can be more damaging than physical violence?

The song's and video's influence will likely diminish over time. Nonetheless, "Love The Way You Lie" demonstrates how people's readings of the same cultural product can vary greatly, and how received meanings can be shaped more by audiences' past experiences than by the cultural producers.

Non Internet Sources:

Cobb, M. D., & Boettcher, W. A. (2007). Ambivalent Sexism and Misogynistic Rap Music: Does Exposure to Eminem Increase Sexism? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (12), 3025-3042.

Storey, J. (1993). An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Blogging

Mixed Martial Arts: Evolution Of The Sport and Its Fans

2010-07-30T15:55:00.000-07:00

Sporting traditionalists frequently grumble when chief administrators alter sporting structures as they cater to new fans' demands. Traditionalists tend to argue that when sporting rules are changed or athletic skills are abandoned, we are witnessing a commodification of sport that values theater and spectacle over virtuous athleticism (Sewart, 1987).

In the sport of mixed martial arts (MMA), the debate is a bit more convoluted, calling for a somewhat technical and academic examination.

Despite MMA's mere 17 year history, supporters and critics have quarreled extensively over the sport's trajectory and the way MMA may symbolize a moral threshold for societal violence. However, in MMA we have seen a public effort to formalize rule structure and secure governmental regulation since the sport's 1993 inception, both before and after Zuffa, LLC took over the UFC in 2001.

Sports theorists (van Bottenburg & Heilbron, 2006) have suggested that as MMA continues to grow (or stagnate), it can follow four overarching pathways, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Abolition and demise: states or countries may pass or maintain legislation that bans MMA (e.g., the push back seen in New York State, Vancouver, and Germany). Demise may also include the folding of MMA organizations due to financial concerns (e.g., EliteXC).
Underground: abolition and demise may contribute to illegal, unregulated MMA competitions hidden from state officials (though underground competitions can also take place in regions where MMA is legal).
Re-sportization: increased state regulation with stricter rule sets that would focus not only on in-ring/cage competition, but also on refereeing, athlete health prior to and after competition, and fighter-manager-promoter relationships. In contrast with many other sports, MMA (in particular the UFC) has overtly pushed for state regulation in recent years (Smith, 2010).
Spectacularization: "...a shift of attention away from fighting skills to the show and spectacle surrounding the events" (p. 277). The recent match between Cris Santos and Jan Finney stands as an example here. The match was so uneven, some argue it never should have been allowed in the first place, but was scheduled nonetheless so fans could watch Santos' compete at all.

While all four pathways are occurring simultaneously across different MMA organizations and in different regions of the world, the modest academic literature published to date on MMA argues re-sportization is the more common trajectory being followed thus far.

Garcia and Malcolm (2010) argue in their essay, "Decivilizing, civilizing or informalizing: The international development of Mixed Martial Arts," that although MMA promoters tend to publicly advertise MMA competitions as dangerous and appear excessively violent in order to draw in more fans, sporting violence in MMA has actually decreased. They suggest that while MMA, like all combat sports, is inherently violent and can be dangerous, the violence now manifests in a highly controlled environment (when properly regulated).

The staunchest defense of MMA, however, has come from Maher's (2010) work, which meticulously details how regulation of MMA has sought to improve athlete safety through improved rules, oversight of performance enhancing drugs, and medical safeguards. Maher also argues MMA organizations have improved in promoting fair contests (as opposed to unfair matches booked to promote a more likely winner), and in restricting conflicts of interest between promoters, managers, and fighters.

Maher's very thorough work, however, focuses too heavily on the UFC. As noted previously, spectacularization still transpires in MMA, which does little to promote fighter safety. The most interesting questions Maher raises are whether or not (1) MMA can secure federalized, standardized regulation across the United States; and (2) fighters can coalesce to form a union that effectively advocates for their rights (questions I will be addressing in my next piece, and related to my last piece, "Marxist Mixed Martial Arts?").

Notably, all the above referenced work is theoretical or historical. Very little scholarly research has been conducted that relies on empirical research. In fact, the only empirical research conducted thus far relevant to the issue of spectacularization and fan desire has found that invested MMA fans do not want to see lopsided matches.

Kim, Andrew, and Greenwell (2009) surveyed MMA fans attending an amateur card in the American Midwest (N = 208) and an event held in South Korea (N = 229). In both sites, research subjects indicated that their primary motive for attending the event was their interest in the sport (i.e., they are an MMA fan and care about MMA). "Drama" ranked #2 among South Korean fans and #3 among American fans, meaning fans desired close competitions, not unfair, lopsided fights.

Among the 12 possible motives for attending the event, "violence" ranked #5 for Americans and #11 for South Koreans. These findings are especially important because they tell MMA promoters that fans want to see fights exemplifying high-level MMA skills between evenly matched, prepared opponents, not promotional "freakshows" that decrease fighter safety.

Let's give the fans what they want.

References:

Garcia, R. S., & Malcolm, D. (2010). Decivilizing, civilizing or informalizing: The international development of Mixed Martial Arts. International Review of the Sociology of Sport, 45 (1), 39-58.

Maher, B. S. (2010). Understanding and regulating the sport of mixed martial arts. Hastings Communication and Entertainment Law Journal, Winter.

Sewart, J. J. (1987). The commodification of sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 22 (3), 171-191.

Smith, J. T. (2010). Fighting for regulation: mixed martial arts legislation in the United States. Drake Law Review, Winter.

van Bottenburg, M., & Heilbron, J. (2006). De-sportization of fighting contests: the origins and dynamics of no hold barred events and the theory of sportization. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 41 (3/4), 259-281.

Blog search

How Does Society Define "Sport?": Cheerleading

2010-07-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

Over on NPR, Frank Deford asks if cheerleading is a sport. I must admit, in high school I absolutely despised cheerleading, precisely because so many cheerleaders considered themselves athletes. At least at my high school, the cheerleaders did not compete against other squads as is more common today.

I suppose we first have to ask what goes into being a "sport," and I'm not sure that there is a cut and dry answer. The two conditions I value the most are (1) a sport must involve formal competition; and (2) a sport must require competitors to utilize their bodies as the primary medium through which the competition takes place, in such a way that physical conditioning is central to the competition.

Although a courtroom legal battle is clearly competitive and relies on body parts to some degree, physical conditioning is not central to the competition. To me, horse racing and auto racing are not sports, and their participants are not athletes. I'm sure there is some heavy disagreement on that last statement, but the way I see it, the horse/car is doing the bulk of the work in those events, not the person (or athlete).

So what is the controversy surrounding cheerleading? In competitive cheerleading, the participants are engaged in highly physical training, and notably with regard to physical dangers, the risk of catastrophic injury is very high, especially for females. And as the name indicates, in competitive cheerleading, there is formal competition against other teams.

Part of the controversy might be that unlike other N.C.A.A. sports, cheerleading teams do not compete very often. Where I teach, the cheerleading team has won eight consecutive national championships, most recently at the Division II level. Unfortunately, the team only gets to compete once per year (technically, they get to compete a few times, but they only make one annual trip for competition). The rest of their activities involve practice for their national competition, and practice for their performances at university sporting events. And this is where I think the implicit controversy truly lies, though it will never be explicitly stated.

Cheerleading is traditionally gendered as a highly feminine performance-based activity that supports athletics. Under popular belief, femininized cheerleaders exist to support the "true," masculine athletes. Go to any high school, college, or pro basketball or football game, and what is the cheerleaders' primary function? To compete against the opposing team's cheerleaders? No, the cheerleaders' primary function is to support the athletes (male or female), who are considered more masculine and the central focus of the event, engaged in the central competition. The cheerleaders are peripheral.

Additionally, because cheerleading is based so heavily on being pretty, it is further marginalized from the so-called real, masculine sports. This is precisely why sports like synchronized swimming and ice skating are so often femininzed and ridiculed as sports even though those sports always involve competition (and from what I've heard, the training for synchronized swimming is among the most difficult in the sporting world).

All sports are spectacle. But the more a sport's performance-based attributes require looking pretty (e.g., smiling, wearing gaudy attire), the less it will be considered a sport by mainstream fans because being pretty is feminine, and sports are supposed to be tough masculine turf. Thus, cheerleading has key elements going against it when trying to be defined as a sport -- the competitions are few and far between (actually, many cheerleading teams never compete), and more importantly, society defines cheerleading as a highly feminine activity.

This shows us how sport is a microcosom of society. That which is peripheral, supportive, and pretty is deemed feminine. That which is central, served by others, and physically tough is deemed masculine.

Blog search

Marxist Mixed Martial Arts?

2010-07-26T17:17:00.000-07:00

Before jumping into a Marxist analysis of MMA, I wanted to follow up on my previous opinion piece posted here a few days ago, titled “Theorizing Violence in Sport: The Case of Mixed Martial Arts (July 23, 2010).” The essay gained a little bit of traction across the MMA blogosphere discussed on BloodyElbow, Sherdog, and the UG. Not a terribly big deal, but I believe responses were a bit unfair to Zuffa, LLC and the UFC specifically, both in the receptive headlines and general discourse. My original article did not mention the UFC too much more than Strikeforce. However, it seemed the UFC was presented as the sole MMA organization to be held responsible, as opposed to an example of a profitable organization that may want to foster safety measures beyond its current organization.

Additionally, I was careful not to explicitly state that any MMA organization (UFC, Strikeforce, whichever) should be responsible for investing in a kind of minor league, MMA farm system. From the final paragraph in my original piece: “Perhaps this means larger MMA organizations like the UFC and Strikeforce need to consider investing their profits in smaller organizations to help improve an infrastructure that bolsters safety precautions…” Considering broader investment in safety-based infrastrcutre across smaller organizations is not radical by any means.

A good example of a model would be the WEC before the folks at Zuffa decided to cut the heavier weight classes. Under the Zuffa umbrella, the WEC ostensibly served as a farm system for fighters in multiple weight classes (155lbs – LHW) who could matriculate into the UFC when their talents warranted promotion. And with the WEC under the Zuffa banner, it was (and still is for the WEC fighters in lighter weight classes) understood the strictest, most thorough safety precautions would be taken, in large part because the parent company (Zuffa) could afford them.

If we are going to focus on Zuffa, this could mean the Fertitta brothers, Dana White, and company identifying smaller, regional MMA organizations with whom they would like to forge formal partnerships and investing in their organizational development (e.g., promotional strategies, fighter recruitment). This would also mean enforcing the most thorough medical/safety precautions that may frequently exceed state regulations. In return, hopefully the best fighters would gravitate towards those farm organizations and safely progress to the UFC.

No model is perfect. Tensions could emerge between whatever parent MMA organization is running the show and the smaller feeder organizations over any number of issues. Mapping out and implementing such a plan would take years, but prominent, successful organizations have vision and make long-term organizational plans. One central focus (and the one with which I am obviously most concerned) is broad-based prevention. This was never and is not now an alarmist response to two deaths in sanctioned MMA. This is a public health-type prevention response, arguing those tragedies are important, and long-term, it would benefit the industry if wide-spread measures were taken to prevent/minimize future deaths and major injuries.

If we can agree that Zuffa provides the best medical precautions, why not work to expand that infrastructure? Then the issue of cost comes up, and presumably, Zuffa shrunk the WEC at least in part because having so many weight classes was not fiscally profitable, leading me to my next point…

A Marxist Interpretation of MMA

In a developed society like the United States that leans heavily towards capitalism and the free market, a highly successful private enterprise is obviously not responsible for ensuring other, smaller companies are implementing any level of worker safety. As noted in the original essay, although the bigger MMA organizations rely on the smaller ones for worker development/recruitment, there is to my knowledge no formal relationship between them. On the contrary, MMA organizations big and small may even identify one another as competition and have antagonistic relationships. And that is part of the crux in this discussion (sorry, what follows is gonna get a bit lengthy and lecture-ish).

If applying a very Marxist viewpoint, in a for-profit company, those at the top will never pay its workers their full value, let alone workers outside of their organization. In fact, capitalist companies world-wide know that the best way to maximize profit is not via sales (though sales are necessary), but via under-paying labor. Hence, within a capitalist system, the proletariat (fighters) will always be at odds with the bourgeoisie (promoters/owners), as maximizing worker cost minimizes profit margin. Thus, it is not in any company’s best interests financially to support workers, especially workers industry-wide.

Sticking with the Marxist lens, the difficult part for fighters is so many have what Marx called “false consciousness” – they genuinely believe that to a large degree they benefit from more than they are harmed by the bourgeoisie, industry, and social structure. Not only does the promoter pay the fighter, but through the industry, fighters report learning positive values (e.g., discipline) and attain a certain status (e.g., celebrity, alpha male). This status coupled with financial compensation helps fighters cope with a sense of alienation from their own bodies. Their own bodies become defined as tools for the MMA industry, in this case tools valued for their ability to destruct other fighters and absorb pain in the short-term, rather than healthy bodies over time.

And while previous research shows that fighters are keenly aware of their own exploitation (see Loic Wacqunt’s qualitative work with boxers), fighters will inevitably invest their efforts in fighting each other rather than the power structure. Supporting the company line and defeating a fellow fighter yields far more social rewards now than working with fellow workers to secure worker rights years from now (never mind trying to do so individually). And management knows this. Keeping workers invested in the company and divided among themselves means there is no collective working-class resistance to conquer.

Hence, even when the most socially powerful fighters like Randy Couture challenge management, the collective silence of all other fighters vastly outweighs Couture’s protest, and eventually he is compelled to return if he wants to continue practicing his craft at the highest level. And high-level, well-compensated fighters, like Couture, Brock Lesner, and Chuck Liddell, are portrayed almost as a norm, even though they are outlying exceptions with regard to worker compensation across the MMA landscape.

The other issue at hand for Marx is the broader public, or in this case, MMA fans. Capitalism functions more efficiently when workers as a whole have leisure time to re-charge (hence, we have weekends, holidays, vacation). Sport functions in society for workers as a site where one can have a reprieve from work, only to go back to work without complaining about it. The MMA industry is built largely from the reality that much of our society values and has commodified violence as a form of entertainment.

Thus as capitalist enterprises, MMA organizations know they can increase profits not only by increased gate and pay-per-view sales, but also through advertising deals, DVD sales, clothing sales, and so on. And as long as enough of the larger society values violence as a form of entertainment, the broader public will support the industry that creates this manifestation of violence, but not the workers that enable the industry to run.

If workers outside the MMA industry value quality MMA fights but don’t want to pay unreasonable costs to watch them, they are not going to seriously advocate for the fighters’ rights. Doing so would increase MMA company costs and in turn costs of MMA pay-per-views, tickets, and merchandising. Consequently, those who utilize their bodies as labor are resigned to (in this case literally) fight for themselves and against one another. They don’t get broad-based, radical support from the bourgeoisie, each other, or the broader public.

One could reasonably argue, fighters engage in fight sport as a personal choice, and that is ultimately true, but it is true to different degrees for different people. People are born with vastly different life chances. It is no coincidence that such a high proportion of boxers from different ethnic demographics have come from very working-class backgrounds over the decades.

And while MMA currently has a larger proportion of fighters from middle-class backgrounds, one can go back to the way our society values masculine violence as a form of entertainment. This will inevitably influence heavy numbers of males to pursue a pro MMA career, often at the expense of other, more likely and lengthy vocational paths. And back to the issue at hand, sacrificing the more likely career path means not crossing the boss once in the MMA industry.

With all this in mind, who is going to support the fighters, and not just the ones that already make six figures?

Blogosphere

When Whiteness Matters in Sport

2010-07-24T14:48:00.000-07:00

This is not a major social issue, and I am not going to make it one. Rather, I think the way this story is being presented in the media effectively illustrates how race matters and is constructed in particular social contexts. Among track and field (“athletics”) aficionados, the 100 meters is frequently considered the premier event. At the elite level, the 100 meters is a power sprint, measuring fast twitch, explosive, kinetic energy manifested through meticulously honed technique.

For males, breaking the 10-second mark is still a colossal accomplishment. One might not think so since track and field doesn’t get much media attention in general (at least not in the United States), and when it does, we’re now more accustomed to watching Usain Bolt blast away his competitors, seemingly cruising to numerous sub-10-second performances (his world record currently stands at 9.58). A few weeks ago sprinter Christophe Lemaitre won France’s national competition with a time of 9.98 seconds, squeaking below that 10-second mark. A typical headline of Lemaitre’s accomplishment (from Reuters.com, July 9, 2010):

Lemaitre first white man to run 100m in under 10 seconds

And from the article:

PARIS (Reuters) - France's Christophe Lemaitre became the first white man to run the 100 meters in under 10 seconds when he clocked 9.98 on Friday, the French athletics federation said.

Lemaitre, 20, set his time during the French championships in Valence, southern France.

"He is the first white man to run the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds," Jean-Philippe Manzelle, French athletics Federation press officer, told Reuters.

There have been other white sprinters who have excelled at the world level in recent years. Lolo Jones comes to mind in the 100m hurdles; Jeremy Wariner dominated the open 400m in recent years. And if we’re talking sprinters of “outlier” ethnicities in general, Liu Xiang of China recently held the world record in the 110m hurdles. But the early discourse around Lemaitre could be a bit more pointed in the way he is being constructed through the media as a great white hope.

When should race matter in sport, and when it does, how should it be discussed? In this case, at the very least, Lemaitre’s race is framed such that his being “white” is of greater importance than his win. As the track and field season moves on and should Lemaitre continue to run sub-10-second times, I expect to see increased media coverage about his whiteness. He is not going to beat Usain Bolt or America’s top sprinters at international competitions. But on the European circuit, I expect he will make waves. Mainstream media discussion of his success or failure should be interesting to follow.

Update (7/28/10): This post was re-posted over on Sociological Images, and in the comments section of that post, commenters have noted that Lolo Jones is multi-racial and identifies as such. My bad!

Blogcatalog

Theorizing Violence in Sport: The Case of Mixed Martial Arts

2010-07-23T19:06:00.000-07:00

In late June of this year, mixed martial arts (MMA) experienced its second death due to competition from a regulated event. Tragedies in sport and society are distressing enough for those directly involved. Added media attention does not always help, and in some cases can contribute to families’ and friends’ grief for their deceased loved ones. For this reason, I will not go into detail about the particular event noted (responsible writing on this and a previous death linked to sanctioned MMA can be found here, here, and here). Rather, this tragedy reminded me of the intrinsic competitive nature of sport, MMA’s evolving structure, and how society regulates violence in sport.

First, however, it is important that violence is properly understood and defined. Depending on an individual’s personal background, his or her threshold for violence can vary immensely, to the degree that an event may be considered violent for one individual and not another. A few years ago, for example, dog fighting received extensive media attention as a highly violent, brutal, and cruel practice following the Michael Vick controversy. In Afghanistan, however, dog fighting as a social institution has risen in popularity since the Taliban’s ousting in 2001. While not all in Afghanistan support the practice, it should not be surprising that violence like this is celebrated among a significant proportion of males, given the country’s war-torn history and lack of entertainment outlets. In short, context is critical to one’s threshold for violence.

The World Health Organization defines violence as such:

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. (p. 6).

If applying this definition to sport, and to MMA specifically, MMA is at its core, violent. Injuries, even death, are a risk in all sports. Even in non-contact sports, such as long distance running, deaths occur on occasion (though the absolute number of long distance runners is massive in comparison to MMA). However, in most sports, there is not intent to harm. In combat sports, "the intentional use of physical force…against…another person" is required and formally sanctioned.

Furthermore, MMA competitions have a high likelihood of injury. Research published in peer-review academic journals has noted that MMA competitions yield injuries similar in prevalence to other combat sports, typically facial lacerations, contusions, and joint injuries. This of course, does not automatically mean MMA is the most violent or dangerous sporting practice, but to deny its potential for brutality would be remiss.

The danger in MMA’s structure lies in its under-funded feeding grounds. Within the United States, prominent MMA organizations such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Strikeforce have the resources and existing infrastructure to prevent, or at least minimize, the most serious, tragic levels of violence. Earlier this year UFC welterweight contender, Thiago Alves, was forced to withdraw from competition because of a discovered brain irregularity. These and other medical procedures (e.g., thorough blood work) cost money that smaller, regional organizations and local fighters may not be able to afford on a consistent basis.

The conundrum for the UFC and other established MMA organizations is that they need these smaller "minor league" organizations to nurture future competitors who can one day reach the highest level of competition (currently the UFC). Yet, the major and minor MMA organizations lack a formal relationship. None of the major MMA organizations provide smaller, regional ones with the financial backing that would allow for a more robust medical infrastructure and help prevent the most serious ramifications of sporting violence. Thus, up and coming fighters must gain experience in smaller organizations, where the risky consequences of more serious violence and injury rise.

In other sports, even violent, collision-sports, such as football, an infrastructure exists that at least in theory is there to help prevent tragedy at all levels, from the NFL, down through the collegiate, high school, and even Pop Warner levels (true, serious injuries, even deaths, still occur on occasion). Granted, MMA has only been formally institutionalized in the United States now for 17 years. Still, we as a society know the immediate and long-term risks of collision and combat sports (football induced head trauma is now well documented).

Professional and semi-pro mixed martial artists – frequently seduced by the financial gains and popularity that the sport’s biggest stars enjoy – should be treated as human beings, not as collateral damage dismissed in the wake of the sport’s growth. Neither society’s thirst for violence nor a sport’s increasing popularity should be cited to justify or excuse athlete safety.

Perhaps this means larger MMA organizations like the UFC and Strikeforce need to consider investing their profits in smaller organizations to help improve an infrastructure that bolsters safety precautions – obviously a major financial undertaking and one unlikely to transpire. However, this would be an investment in the fighters, who at the lower levels receive less reward for more risk. Bottom line – until some structural change is made, sporting violence will continue to harm MMA athletes at the lower levels to a disproportionately large degree.

Blogcatalog

America’s Favorite Athletes: Results Reflect Societal Values

2010-07-22T13:43:00.000-07:00

A recent Harris Poll tells us some interesting, perhaps predictable, things about sports, sports fans, and ongoing societal values in America. The online poll surveyed 2,227 adults between June 14 – 21, 2010 (a relatively small sample, but one which accounts for population size across regions). First, let’s look at the results:

Favorite Male Athletes:

Kobe Bryant/Tiger Woods (tie)
Derek Jeter
Brett Favre
Peyton Manning
LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Dale Earnhardt

Favorite Female Athletes:

Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Danica Patrick
Mia Hamm
Maria Sharapova
Anna Kournikova
Misty May/Shawn Johnson (tie)
Lisa Leslie
Billie Jean King/Martina Navratalova (tie)

Among the male athletes, the first somewhat surprising result is that Bryant and Woods stood atop the list despite run-ins with serious marital concerns, both of which were made very public, and for Woods was very recent. Of course these results are only somewhat surprising, as professional male athletes typically find it easier to transgress social boundaries with regard to promiscuity. Thus, perhaps it should not be terribly surprising for Tiger and Kobe to still be widely popular among the American public. What is remarkable is that Bryant was the most popular athlete among females polled.

The list of favorite female athletes is far more interesting. Notably, Serena and Venus Williams repeated as the two most popular female athletes (also holding the 1-2 honors last year). As with Woods, this shows a growing acceptance of African American athletes excelling in a historically Caucasian sport. With regard to the sports athletes represent, however, there is a glaring pattern. Eight out of the eleven women (11 due to two ties) come from sports that historically have been considered “acceptably female” sports: the Williams sisters, Sharapova, Kournikova, King, and Navratalova (tennis); May (volleyball); and Johnson (gymnastics). Over half of the women on the list play(ed) tennis.

May represents soccer, historically defined as a more masculine sport. As for Patrick and Leslie, they also represent historically defined male sports (auto racing and basketball, respectively). Still, both of these athletes, Patrick in particular, have gained celebrity as part of American popular culture via mainstream modeling opportunities, as have the more contemporary tennis stars on the list (both Williams sisters, Sharapova, and Kournikova). Although Kournikova was a very successful doubles player, she was never an elite singles player on the women’s tennis circuit and is certainly not in the mix of elite players now. For athletes such as King and Navratalova, though retired, at least they can claim astounding athletic and political accomplishments that explain their ongoing popularity.

Notably missing from the list is Maya Moore, the outstanding player from the UConn Huskies women’s basketball team that just won back-to-back NCAA Division I National Championships and continued a 78-game winning streak. Diana Taurasi, who currently plays for the Phoenix Mercury, was the 2009 WNBA Most Valuable Player for the season and finals. Likewise, she was absent from the list.

Via the list of most popular female athletes we see an ongoing trend in American values that reward women not only for occupational success, but in some cases, more so for physical appearances. And of course, popularity trends tie in with individual and sporting sponsorships, which makes it all the more difficult for female athletes who don’t conform to gender norms to continue making a living in their sport of choice.

Recommended reading -- Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth Century Women's Sport by Susan K Cahn

Blog catalog

Students, ever heard of the LIBRARY???

2010-07-21T18:31:00.000-07:00

Awesome!

Blogs