What Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg's canceled cage match says about masculine anxiety
Washington (The Conversation): While the cage fight between Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Tesla CEO Elon Musk seems to be on hold, if these men do ever end up sparring, it'll give a whole new meaning to the term "tech bro."
The two billionaires' business interests have butted heads in the past: Musk's 2016 test launch of a SpaceX rocket destroyed Zuckerberg's USD 200 million satellite. In 2022, Musk said Zuckerberg shouldn't dominate social media and encouraged people to abandon Meta-owned Facebook. Meta also recently launched Threads, which competes directly with Musk's X, formerly known as Twitter.
But threatening to beat the pulp out of each other represents a new if not bizarre form of one-upmanship for the two men. At one point, it was rumored that the livestreamed fight would take place in Rome's Colosseum, where gladiators once gruesomely battled to the death.
What in the name of Maximus is going on?
Though Musk and Zuckerberg have attempted to frame their pugilistic pursuit as a once-in-a-generation event, they are far from alone. They join the ranks of other high-profile men in public and political positions who have shown off their physical strength to burnish their status.
As a gender scholar, I've seen how these fights let's call them "performances of virility" tend to coincide with beliefs that masculinity is either in crisis or under attack.
Money can't buy masculinity
You don't usually see two wealthy white billionaires duking it out. So what would Musk and Zuckerberg gain from fighting each other?
As sociologist Scott Melzer writes in his study of fight clubs, "Manhood Impossible," fighting is culturally associated with masculinity, and U.S. culture celebrates men's violence in the right contexts.
For white-collar white men, Melzer explains, fighting can help them to feel they have passed a test of adulthood and fulfilled the cultural requirement of strength. The fighting helps them prove to themselves that they are "real men," despite their soft probably manicured hands.
To me, the chest puffing between Musk and Zuckerberg is a desperate display of masculinity for two tech nerds with deep pockets. They say money can't buy happiness. Perhaps money can't buy masculinity, either.
Kris Paap, author of "Working Construction," explains that men who don't take risks are often seen by their peers as weak and effeminate. Men who risk their health and well-being, on the other hand, prove their bravado for the respect of their peers.
This is particularly the case for working-class men. But politicians have also put on gloves to fight for admiration and political clout through displays of physical prowess.
In 2012, Justin Trudeau squared off against Senator Patrick Brazeau in a boxing match. A member of Canada's Parliament who came from money and political royalty, Trudeau declared before the match that he was "put on this planet to do this I fight and I win."
After emerging from the bout victorious, Trudeau's image as a scrawny nepo baby all but evaporated. Three years later, he became prime minister just like his dad.
There are countless examples of other powerful men looking to showcase their virility. Russian President Vladimir Putin infamously rode horses shirtless, while U.S. President Joe Biden once said that when he was in high school, he would have taken Donald Trump "behind the gym and beat the hell" out of him.
For almost two centuries, performances of masculinity from William Henry Harrison to Donald Trump have been a part of successful U.S. presidential campaigns.
The end of men again and again
It is no coincidence that Musk vs. Zuckerberg comes at a time when there is popular perception that masculinity is in crisis. Women are obtaining college degrees at a faster clip than men, while income gaps are closing. Suicides and overdoses among men often termed "deaths of despair" are on the rise.
Belief in a "crisis of masculinity" spikes during times of progressive social change. And proponents of this view tend to blame feminists and other social progressives for critiquing traditionally masculine mores and values, which, they claim, is causing men to spiral.
Gender scholars point to the turn of the 20th century and the 1990s as other moments of social change that sparked similar anxieties.
In 1890, moves toward coeducation stoked debates around girls and boys being taught the same curriculum. Advocates suggested that sex shouldn't matter in the classroom and that girls' education should prepare them for jobs outside the home.
This didn't go over well with men who benefited from gender segregation. The Boy Scouts of America actually emerged in 1910 so that boys were assured a space where girls and women weren't allowed and where boys would be "sufficiently" acquainted with masculinity.
Similarly, the emergence of identity politics in the 1990s, which highlighted rights-based ideologies, scrutinized, in particular, the privileges of white men.
Today, social progress whether it's more women in the workplace, more women in political office or girls permitted to join what is now referred to as "the Scouts" seems to stoke men's insecurities.
You can see it in the popularity of men's rights advocates like Jordan Peterson, who claims men are being asked to castrate themselves in the name of equality. And you can see it in conservative commentator Ben Shapiro's scorn toward the "Barbie" movie, which has been lauded for calling out patriarchal values.
In these moments, men have historically taken predictable actions to reclaim the idea that they are inherently different from women and thus belong in different spaces.
Sociologist Martha McCaughey has pointed out how evolutionary biology has become the popular way to argue that men just can't help their "innate propensities."
This includes the urge to dominate others, whether that's in business, in bed or, yes, in the ring.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC says Bhojshala complex is Goddess Saraswati temple, scraps ASI order on namaz on premises
Indore (PTI): In a big win for the Hindu side, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday declared that the disputed Bhojshala complex in Dhar district is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, and the Centre and ASI can decide on its administration and management.
The HC's Indore bench, which was hearing the case, also said the Muslim community, which called the 11th century monument Kamal Maula Mosque, may approach the state government for allotment of separate land in the district for construction of a mosque.
In its much-awaited verdict in the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex dispute, the court observed that there were indications of a Sanskrit teaching centre and a temple of Goddess Saraswati existing in Bhojshala.
The religious character of the disputed complex of Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque indicates it is a temple of Goddess Saraswati, noted the HC.
ALSO READ: Bihar CM walks to secretariat from official residence after PM's appeal to spend wisely
"If the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society applies for land allotment for building a mosque in Dhar district, the state government can consider it," maintained the division bench.
The HC scrapped the 2003 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) order which allowed Muslims to offer Friday prayers on Bhojshala premises.
Nearly 1,200 police personnel were deployed in and around the complex ahead of the HC ruling.
Dhar Collector Rajeev Ranjan Meena warned of strict action against anyone spreading objectionable content on social media, as the administration erected barricades at the site where Friday prayers coincided with the court verdict.
The long-running dispute pertains to the religious nature of the ASI-protected monument in Dhar district.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala to be a temple dedicated to Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), while the Muslim side calls the monument Kamal Maula Mosque. A petitioner from the Jain community claims the disputed complex is a medieval Jain temple and gurukul.
After the controversy over the Bhojshala complex erupted, the ASI issued an order on April 7, 2003, permitting Hindus to worship at the complex every Tuesday and Muslims to offer namaz there every Friday. The Hindu side challenged the order in the HC, seeking exclusive rights to worship at the complex.
A division bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi of the HC's Indore bench began regular hearings on five petitions and one writ appeal related to the case on April 6 this year.
After hearing all the parties against the backdrop of differing religious beliefs, historical claims, complex legal provisions, and thousands of documents related to the disputed monument, the bench had reserved its decision on May 12.
During the hearing, petitioners from the Hindu, Muslim, and Jain communities presented detailed arguments and sought exclusive worship rights for their communities at the monument.
The ASI, after conducting a scientific survey of the monument, indicated in its over 2,000-page report that a massive structure dating back to the reign of the Parmar kings of Dhar predated the mosque, and that the current disputed structure was built using repurposed temple components.
The Hindu side claimed that coins, sculptures, and inscriptions found by the ASI during its scientific survey prove the complex was originally a temple.
However, the Muslim side argued in court that the ASI's survey report was "biased" and prepared to support the claims of the Hindu petitioners.
Refuting this, the ASI told the court the scientific survey process was carried out with the help of experts, including three from the Muslim community.
The HC had ordered the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex on March 11, 2024. The ASI began the survey on March 22 that year and, after a detailed 98-day survey, submitted its report to the High Court on July 15.
