So, in a followup to this post, Chris Kanyon has posted a commentary about his recent 'coming out' and some of the wrestling 'media' have responded. And it just keeps getting weirder.
Kanyon's commentary has some interesting comments on sexuality and gender, and how such problematic concepts can be further problematized when put into a spectacular and constructed environment like professional wrestling. Perhaps the most important quote from Kanyon's commentary is when he mentions that
Kanyon's commentary has some interesting comments on sexuality and gender, and how such problematic concepts can be further problematized when put into a spectacular and constructed environment like professional wrestling. Perhaps the most important quote from Kanyon's commentary is when he mentions that
"Ultimately, you will know the truth, but the question now is less about me and
more about you, how you deal with and perceive the question and possible
answers. The question is less about my sexuality and more about our society and
how homosexuality fits into sports, entertainment and our culture in general."
What is interesting is that Kanyon has come out as gay, but Chris Klucsarits, the man who portrays the character Chris Kanyon, has not. Klucsarits says that he will address his own personal sexuality at some point in the future, but for the time being, he is content to leave the question out there.
Now, I agree with some of this, but other parts of it leave me a little disturbed. I like the idea of Klucsarits/Kanyon problematizing notions of gender and sexuality in the realm of professional wrestling. Just as one is never sure where reality ends and performance begins in professional wrestling, the same holds true for gender. How much of our gender and sexuality is a performance, and how much is a natural extension of our true selves? Is there anything natural to gender and sexuality, or is it all learned behaviour?
How many women wear certain clothing only because they feel it is expected of them? How many men? More importantly, how many men deny a homosexual attraction because they feel it is 'wrong'? How many women? How much of what we do as men and women is because it is expected of us, and how much is simply something that we feel comfortable doing? These are the sort of questions that need to be asked when addressing issues of sexuality and gender. Hell, they're just barely scraping the surface, and I'm sure that post-feminist gender theorists would have my head for trying to simplify such a complex issue.
So thats why I think Kanyon's outing is a good thing. However, where I have a problem is in Kanyon's attributing his firing from WWE to revelations of his sexuality. If, as Klucsarits says, Kanyon and Klucsartis need to considered separately, one as a character, and one as a performer, then it is impossible for Kanyon to have been fired. Klucsartis was released from WWE, not Kanyon. Kanyon could not be released, because Kanyon exists only as a perormance. Kanyon's sexuality had nothing to do with it, because Kanyon's sexuality is merely part of the performance. By blaming the release on WWE's attitudes towards homosexuality seems to be either a cheap attempt to garner sympathy from people who resent WWE for other things, or is something that was said before it was decided to bring the performative nature of gender to the forefront of this debate. Either way, such an accusation should not have been made if Klucsartis was not prepared to be completely honest about his own sexuality.
Of course, this is merely response to the way this 'story' has evolved, and others have had their own take. Of the three sites I mentioned in my first post, PWTorch and PWInsider have both addressed it. The Wrestling Observer still has not, but that doesn't surprise me. Meltzer is, for the most part, a reporter of facts, not a commentator. While Meltzer's opinion is respected, it is not the reason people read the site or the newsletter. I've been assured that Da Meltz knows all about this, and he has chosen not to address the issue. Besides, Meltzer has Burgan, Martin, Williams and others to provide commentary for him.
On PWTorch, columnist James Caldwell posted an editorial on the subject, essentially dismissing Kanyon's commentary as trivializing the issue. But Kanyon has responded to Caldwell on his site, so I don't feel any need to do so. The issue received less coverage on PWInsider, where Dave Scherer posted Kanyon's commentary with the following caveat,
Now, I agree with some of this, but other parts of it leave me a little disturbed. I like the idea of Klucsarits/Kanyon problematizing notions of gender and sexuality in the realm of professional wrestling. Just as one is never sure where reality ends and performance begins in professional wrestling, the same holds true for gender. How much of our gender and sexuality is a performance, and how much is a natural extension of our true selves? Is there anything natural to gender and sexuality, or is it all learned behaviour?
How many women wear certain clothing only because they feel it is expected of them? How many men? More importantly, how many men deny a homosexual attraction because they feel it is 'wrong'? How many women? How much of what we do as men and women is because it is expected of us, and how much is simply something that we feel comfortable doing? These are the sort of questions that need to be asked when addressing issues of sexuality and gender. Hell, they're just barely scraping the surface, and I'm sure that post-feminist gender theorists would have my head for trying to simplify such a complex issue.
So thats why I think Kanyon's outing is a good thing. However, where I have a problem is in Kanyon's attributing his firing from WWE to revelations of his sexuality. If, as Klucsarits says, Kanyon and Klucsartis need to considered separately, one as a character, and one as a performer, then it is impossible for Kanyon to have been fired. Klucsartis was released from WWE, not Kanyon. Kanyon could not be released, because Kanyon exists only as a perormance. Kanyon's sexuality had nothing to do with it, because Kanyon's sexuality is merely part of the performance. By blaming the release on WWE's attitudes towards homosexuality seems to be either a cheap attempt to garner sympathy from people who resent WWE for other things, or is something that was said before it was decided to bring the performative nature of gender to the forefront of this debate. Either way, such an accusation should not have been made if Klucsartis was not prepared to be completely honest about his own sexuality.
Of course, this is merely response to the way this 'story' has evolved, and others have had their own take. Of the three sites I mentioned in my first post, PWTorch and PWInsider have both addressed it. The Wrestling Observer still has not, but that doesn't surprise me. Meltzer is, for the most part, a reporter of facts, not a commentator. While Meltzer's opinion is respected, it is not the reason people read the site or the newsletter. I've been assured that Da Meltz knows all about this, and he has chosen not to address the issue. Besides, Meltzer has Burgan, Martin, Williams and others to provide commentary for him.
On PWTorch, columnist James Caldwell posted an editorial on the subject, essentially dismissing Kanyon's commentary as trivializing the issue. But Kanyon has responded to Caldwell on his site, so I don't feel any need to do so. The issue received less coverage on PWInsider, where Dave Scherer posted Kanyon's commentary with the following caveat,
"Note from Scherer: I wasn't sure if we should run this or not, since I am not
sure what the point of it is, but in the interested of bringing the readers the
latest news, here it is."
He then followed that up with this post later in the day.
"For those who have emailed me about the post that Chris Kanyon sent out, I
don't get it either. As I said in the post itself, I debated whether we
should even run it since I wasn't sure if it was work, shoot, worked shoot, shot
work or what. I am not a big fan of running angles on the net, and I never
was. I think it alienates more people that it intrigues."
To me, it seems that Scherer wants some form of authenticity. Of course, what Kanyon's commentary and post are about are the lack of authenticity, both in the world of professional wrestling, and in the realm of sexuality. He seems to want to ignore the greater social issues of Kanyon's commentary, and instead chooses to focus on the ambiguity of the situation. But then again, as I said in my first post, the first rule about Gay Pro Wrestlers is...We Don't Talk About Gay Pro Wrestlers. To me, Scherer's comments indicate a desire to increase traffic to his sity by posting something about the situation, but a refusal to address the situation in any meaningful way, thereby avoiding any actual discussion of the larger social issues.
Is Kanyon's recent admission of homosexuality a work or a shoot? That doesn't matter. Gender, like professional wretling, is a performance. Nothing is false, because nothing is real. What is more important about this whole situation is that it should be causing people to think about how we think about sexuality. Its not often that professional wrestling can be seen as a site of social commentary, but in this instance, I think that opportunity has arisen, and we should take advantage of it.
But of course, there is one other site that has yet to address the issue. GayProWrestling.com. I mean, come on, they've been handed this thing on a silver platter, and nothing!
Is Kanyon's recent admission of homosexuality a work or a shoot? That doesn't matter. Gender, like professional wretling, is a performance. Nothing is false, because nothing is real. What is more important about this whole situation is that it should be causing people to think about how we think about sexuality. Its not often that professional wrestling can be seen as a site of social commentary, but in this instance, I think that opportunity has arisen, and we should take advantage of it.
But of course, there is one other site that has yet to address the issue. GayProWrestling.com. I mean, come on, they've been handed this thing on a silver platter, and nothing!
No comments:
Post a Comment