Wrestling #MeToo #SpeakingOut

[David]

13 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

So it's not reasonable to expect these people to feel guilt and actually deal with the consequences of their actions?

Not really, no. It would be great if they do, but to be the type of person who would engage in this behaviour to begin with I don't think we should expect them to feel guilt or even responsibility. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them believe they're the victims and that they really did nothing wrong.

15 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

Yes, I absolutely blame him. It shows there's no remorse if he's happy to go out there and get back into it like nothing's happened. 

I meant blaming him for going back into the industry and taking advantage of an opportunity given to him? If he's the type of person I described above (and it seems he may very well be) then he'll likely believe he's entitled to continue working within the industry.

Consider the fact that he began his so-called explanation/apology Tweet with the words "The current story that has been released is neither accurate nor true."

That right there tells you all you need to know about how he feels. No apology from the get-go, the first thing he does is claim that his victim is lying.

I don't blame him for taking the opportunity, because he's a scumbag. It's what I expect from a scumbag. I blame the people and organisations for providing the opportunity.

He's a wrong 'un, as the kids say. I expect very little from those types of people. I do expect more from the promoters, talent and even fans though.

22 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

Am I meant to sympathise with someone who's snuck their way back in because they're dealing with (a) someone who's naïve or (b) someone who's dodgy? 

Why would you sympathise with someone like that? No one has said you should sympathise. I'm saying you can't blame him for taking advantage. It's what he does, it would appear.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, David said:

Do you actually blame him? 

.....

Many of these types don't think they did anything wrong, and that their victims led them on, were asking for it etc, all the usual shite we hear such individuals come away with.

And these individuals are to blame for that, ergo they can be blamed for actions they take based on that false belief/self-justification.

We can criticise their employers and colleagues without removing agency from these folks just because we expect nothing better from them.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Uncle Zeb

[David]

5 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said:

We can criticise their employers and colleagues without removing agency from these folks just because we expect nothing better from them.

Without the opportunities being afforded them they wouldn't be in the industry, though. I'm certainly not saying these individuals shouldn't be held accountable and blamed for their actions, incase anyone is reading that from what I'm saying.

I'm saying that without the participation and cooperation of promoters, fans and other wrestlers these types of people would no longer be a factor in the industry. They can't wrestle if they're not booked, basically. 

And I look more to the promoters to not book them than I do the individual not to accept the opportunity.

[Keith Houchen]

5 minutes ago, David said:

And I look more to the promoters to not book them than I do the individual not to accept the opportunity.

Jobs for the boys, innit. I can’t accept ignorance as an excuse, if you’ve started promoting and are unaware of the Speaking Out movement, then stop. 

[David]

5 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Jobs for the boys, innit. I can’t accept ignorance as an excuse, if you’ve started promoting and are unaware of the Speaking Out movement, then stop. 

Even if a promoter is oblivious to the movement, which I find hard to believe, it's on them alone to do their due diligence on whoever they hire. It isn't difficult. And it's a small industry.

[DavidB6937]

8 minutes ago, David said:

Without the opportunities being afforded them they wouldn't be in the industry, though. I'm certainly not saying these individuals shouldn't be held accountable and blamed for their actions, incase anyone is reading that from what I'm saying.

I'm saying that without the participation and cooperation of promoters, fans and other wrestlers these types of people would no longer be a factor in the industry. They can't wrestle if they're not booked, basically. 

And I look more to the promoters to not book them than I do the individual not to accept the opportunity.

This is what confuses me though. Why would the onus be on the promoters etc to not give someone a place to do this stuff, rather than on the individual/perpetrator to not go there?

I agree that promoters, fans etc shouldn't be out there allowing the opportunities and supporting them but the primary blame always has to come back to the person in the wrong at the first instance.

As an extreme example, if a son was murdering people and his mother knew about it and allowed it to continually happen in her home, I'd still blame the son more. I wouldn't be like "oh well, he's been given the opportunity to do it. I can't blame him for taking that opportunity." You absolutely should be blaming the person doing this stuff and taking advantage of situations. Enablers and those that turn the other way are an extension of that of course and that shouldn't be ignored but the decisions and behaviours of the perp must be at the forefront.

[BomberPat]

4 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

rather than on the individual/perpetrator to not go there?

Of course the onus is on Ligero, or whoever, to stay the fuck away. But he's clearly not doing that.

We are able to put pressure on promoters, because it hurts their bottom line if we as fans or as performers say "hang on, I'm not buying tickets to your show" or "I'm cancelling that booking" if El Ligero gets booked. We can't put pressure on El Ligero to fuck off, evidently, because if that worked, he'd have fucked entirely off already.

Edited October 21, 2021 by BomberPat

[Keith Houchen]

3 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

Why would the onus be on the promoters etc to not give someone a place to do this stuff, rather than on the individual/perpetrator to not go there?

 

Because most abusers don’t think they’ve done anything wrong, or if they think they did something wrong, it’s been blown out of all proportion. Entitlement is a big thing with abusers. They think they’re entitled to carry on with their life because they didn’t do anything wrong. 

[Guest]

I think confusion has arisen from David using the word blame when what he's really trying to talk about is where efforts to apply pressure are most effectively served.

[David]

25 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

This is what confuses me though. Why would the onus be on the promoters etc to not give someone a place to do this stuff, rather than on the individual/perpetrator to not go there?

Because the individual is a fucking scumbag, that's why. He began his "apology" by saying accusing the victim of lying. The onus is on civilised society to not provide him with the platform to perform, and if they choose the dollar (or pound) over what is right, it's on the public to boycott. 

28 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

I agree that promoters, fans etc shouldn't be out there allowing the opportunities and supporting them but the primary blame always has to come back to the person in the wrong at the first instance.

The blame for his actions should be on him, but the blame for providing an avenue to perform or work in the industry that allowed him the opportunity to abuse people is on the promoters who hire him.

For example, if some nonce gets caught being a wrong un' working at a school and loses his job, only to resurface months later in another school, who's to blame? The school that hired him! 

25 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Because most abusers don’t think they’ve done anything wrong, or if they think they did something wrong, it’s been blown out of all proportion. Entitlement is a big thing with abusers. They think they’re entitled to carry on with their life because they didn’t do anything wrong. 

I think this is partly the issue here, as most of us seem to think that the likes of Ligero knew what they were doing was wrong, but decided to be deviants. That's almost never the case. I would put money on him privately agreeing with us that abusers are scum, but never in a million years believing he was an abuser. 

22 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said:

I think confusion has arisen from David using the word blame when what he's really trying to talk about is where efforts to apply pressure are most effectively served.

Yeah, you could be correct. I just don't think we can expect much by way of responsibility and thoughtful action from someone who's did what he did. It's on those who run the industry to shun him.

[Tamura]

On 6/19/2021 at 11:06 AM, Tamura said:

Lots of shows on a Candian tour by punk band The Casualties were cancelled after the singer was exposed as a rapist, as a direct result of grass roots activism.

https://nowtoronto.com/the-casualties-become-a-casualty

Things are potentially a bit more complicated due to COVID as some venues will be happy just to have bookings of any description making it a bit more difficult to apply pressure. But if you never try, you'll always fail.
 

Bringing this post back from the dead, since it's still relevant now. Boycott The Casualties had tremendous success in convincing promoters and venues to not book gigs by punk band The Casualties. They weren't some government created body or watchdog composed of a group of senior promoters, they were a people that decided to put their DIY ethics into action and do what needed to be done themselves. One thing that appears to be missing (to the best of my knowledge) is an easily accessible list of which wrestler has been accused of what, it's no use expecting promoters and venues to scour wrestling newz sites or read all 128 pages of this thread. Once you have that, it's a lot easier to inform venues and promoters that a wrong un will be appearing on their show, by flooding their email and/or social media channels with complaints for starters. 

 

[AntiDote]

1 hour ago, Tamura said:

 One thing that appears to be missing (to the best of my knowledge) is an easily accessible list of which wrestler has been accused of what, it's no use expecting promoters and venues to scour wrestling newz sites or read all 128 pages of this thread. Once you have that, it's a lot easier to inform venues and promoters that a wrong un will be appearing on their show, by flooding their email and/or social media channels with complaints for starters. 

 

Good idea in theory but what would prevent someone with a grudge against a guy on the show from emailing the venue with false accusations? I’m sure anyone mischievous enough could concoct a real-enough looking list.

Edited October 21, 2021 by AntiDote

[Keith Houchen]

11 minutes ago, AntiDote said:

Good idea in theory but what would prevent someone with a grudge against a guy on the show from emailing the venue with false accusations? I’m sure anyone mischievous enough could concoct a real-enough looking list.

An organisation carries more weight than a lone person. BTC can link to stories about the individual in question and mobilise people to mass email the venue of promotion, so it carries more weight than a single email. Ultimately it’s down to the promoters/venues but which one of the above looks more credible?

[AntiDote]

16 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

An organisation carries more weight than a lone person. BTC can link to stories about the individual in question and mobilise people to mass email the venue of promotion, so it carries more weight than a single email. Ultimately it’s down to the promoters/venues but which one of the above looks more credible?

Again a good theory but who would be behind such an organisation? The abused? Possibly but how much weight would it carry if there haven been no convictions/prosecutions?

Edited October 21, 2021 by AntiDote

[Keith Houchen]

10 minutes ago, AntiDote said:

Again a good theory but who would be behind such an organisation? The abused? Possibly but how much weight would it carry if there haven been no convictions/prosecutions?

Good and fair points. In my opinion anything like this for Britwres needs to be led by women. Ultimately it’s up to the promoters to decide what threshold there is. Usually targeting a loss of money by a campaign of information to the consumers is the way to go but this being wrestling, profit isn’t always an attainable goal for promoters.