McMahon Feminism and the Hypocrisies of Its Invocation in WWE

Steph can change the atmosphere, but she won't, and that's a problem Photo Credit: WWE.com

Last night, Stephanie McMahon came the closest to outright reading Judith Butler on the air that WWE has had in a long time. She talked about the ideas of reprimanding those who degrade women and the harsh punishment therein. The only problem? She wasn't telling this to the men who have actually done it. When Stephanie McMahon accused AJ Lee of her recent actions being degrading to women, it is immediately hollowed by reality. Stephanie, by leading the creative department, is guilty for placing women in this stage to begin with. But let's avoid the obvious parts for why simply saying feminist things is not even close to being feminist.

In 2005, the book Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy was published. In it, Levy posits the idea that women in leadership positions can be just as guilty of extending and strengthening patriarchy as their male counterparts simply by how they view women. Levy's arguments fit more of a second-wave model, at points becoming almost too finger-wagging at female sexuality, but her arguments that a raunch culture enabled by women saying "these women are empowered!" when referring to a Paris Hilton are exactly parallels to Stephanie's product (even if it is ultimately Vince's baby).

Moreover, she actually attacks the most interesting female performer in the company for her cunning ways, which again, is kind of parallel to the on-screen character Steph has been. While the past year and a half has turned her from a proto-feminist figure to a more stereotypical "she's crazy man she is so crazy that crazy girl with her crazy pants" figure, AJ Lee has also been the one figure that, while not feminist in the sense of her motivations, has also exclusively been seen as the one interesting woman on the roster. No one knows what her mantra is or why she behaves in crazypants fashion. She is the lone female performer in WWE allowed to be addressed as more than "person with vagina."

So when McMahon Feminism™ reared its head on Monday, Stephanie's claims seem fit to discount the women on the stage rather than AJ Lee. AJ is admonished for being a precocious but cunning figure, because apparently "bitchy" behavior is the real degrading element and not the environment that causes it. But worse than this is an underlying chauvinism in Stephanie's words. AJ has become the most popular figure of the women on the WWE roster. Even though she is with a man, she is seen as in control with an even power dynamic. And other than commentary, nothing AJ does anymore is particularly crazy. Her ruse on Kaitlyn was evil, but shit, so is a majority of the behavior on Monday nights.

In Levy's book, there is a recounting of the process for the greenlighting of the HBO series G-String Divas in the early 2000s. G-String Divas, by its title, is a series devoted to stripping. I note the title because it is shockingly similar to how WWE describes women, but even more so for how Levy portrays this. G-String Divas was greenlit by a woman, HBO executive Sheila Nevins, who refers to herself as a feminist. Levy argues, however, that this creates a flawed power dynamic. Nevins argues that there is empowerment in stripping (which can be true), but Nevins is also by her nature more powerful than the women she is showcasing. Stephanie the character feels the need to directly insist that AJ is terrible for women, despite the fact that merely being a woman in WWE hasn't done anyone a bit of good in the past few years. In fact, it has been even worse than those folks who hold a penis. And the figure degrading women in that process has to be her, incidentally. If she has the power, why can't she change the vision?