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.
Sharad Pawar's 'merger with Cong' remark shows it's difficult for him to run his party,says Fadnavis
Mumbai, May 8: NCP founder Sharad Pawar's remark on regional parties' possible merger with the Congress shows it has become difficult for him to manage his own party, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said on Wednesday.
Chief Minister Eknath Shinde latched on to Pawar's comment to target Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray, saying the latter has already become "Congress-minded".
Another leader of the ruling 'Mahayuti' in Maharashtra said Pawar's remarks reflect that ground was slipping from under his feet in his home turf Baramati and the only option before him was merging his party with the Congress.
In an interview to The Indian Express, Pawar said that in the next couple of years, several regional parties will associate more closely with the Congress or may look at the option of merger with it if they believe that is best for their party.
To a question if that applied to his own party, Pawar told the newspaper that he doesn't see any difference between the Congress and his party because both belong to the Gandhi, Nehru line of thinking.
Pawar made it clear that any decision on strategy or the next step will be taken collectively. He also said that his party is close to the Congress ideologically and that Uddhav Thackeray is positive about working together with like-minded parties.
Asked about Pawar's remark, Shinde said the Shiv Sena (UBT) has already become Congress-minded.
"Pawar is a big leader and he makes such statements. But the Sena (UBT) faction has already become Congress as they speak the language of the Congress and Pakistan," Shinde, who heads the ruling Shiv Sena, said.
"Just the formality (of merger between them) is remaining," he added.
Fadnavis said that through his remark, Pawar might be suggesting that it was difficult for him to run his party and hence he may opt to merge it with the Congress.
"It is nothing new because Pawar has formed new parties and later merged them with the Congress," he said.
Former Congress leader Sanjay Nirupam, who recently rejoined the ruling Shiv Sena led by CM Shinde, said Pawar has been thinking about merging his party with the Congress for a long time and even the Congress had given the proposal to this effect to him.
"But Congress rejected the proposal to entrust the leadership to Supriya Sule. Pawar's fresh comment suggests that the ground is slipping from under his feet in Baramati. Even if that is not the case, he has no option but merge his party with Congress which will be seen as a merger of two loss-making companies," the former MP said.
BJP leader Prasad Lad asked whether the Sena (UBT) will merge with the Congress along with the Sharad Pawar-led party.
"Uddhav Thackeray has stopped saying 'My Hindu brothers and sisters' at the outset of his speeches. He has become friends with those who criticise Veer Savarkar. Only time will tell whether Thackeray will merge his party with Congress," he said.
NCP (SP) working president Supriya Sule said her father made a generic statement.
Leader of Opposition in the state assembly and senior Congress leader Vijay Waddetiwar said there was truth in what Pawar said.
"He has a long-term vision. People are fed up with the dictatorial regime and want a change of guard," he said, targeting the BJP-led government.
Chhagan Bhujbal of the Ajit Pawar-led NCP said he doesn't think regional parties will merge with the Congress.
"They are strong in their respective states and have formed governments in West Bengal and Odisha," he said, referring to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Biju Janata Dal (BJD).
The NCP founded by Sharad Pawar in 1999 split in July 2023 after his nephew Ajit Pawar rebelled against him and joined the Eknath Shinde-led government. The Election Commission and assembly speaker later recognised the Ajit Pawar-led faction as the "real NCP" and allotted the clock symbol to it, while the NCP (SP) group was given 'man blowing turha' as the symbol.
