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.
'Rear-guard action': BJP over Mamata accepting sports minister's resignation after Messi event
New Delhi (PTI): The BJP on Tuesday alleged that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's accepting Aroop Biswas' resignation as the state sports minister is nothing but a "rear-guard action" to douse public anger over the mismanagement of football icon Lionel Messi's event last week.
BJP co-in-charge for West Bengal Amit Malviya alleged that this is also an "open confession" that the Messi event fiasco was not accidental but a government-manufactured disaster, borne out of the poor governance of Banerjee, her ministers and the state bureaucracy.
Banerjee on Tuesday accepted Biswas' resignation as the sports minister in the wake of the controversy over the mismanagement of football icon Messi's event last week, a senior leader of the ruling TMC said.
Biswas, who had written to the chief minister seeking to be relieved of his responsibilities as sports minister, will continue as a cabinet minister, retaining charge of the power department.
ALSO READ: Slain Australia beach shooting suspect native of Hyderabad: T'gana police
Reacting to the development, Malviya said in a post on X, "TMC Sports Minister Aroop Biswas resigns after the Messi fiasco and Mamata Banerjee accepts it in record time."
"Do not mistake this for accountability; this is nothing but a rear-guard action to douse public anger. anger! This is not 'Raj Dharma'," he added.
The BJP leader alleged that the incident was the outcome of "loot" of common people which is "so synonymous" with the TMC.
The incident was also the outcome of the "shameless VIP culture that TMC thrives on and deep-rooted cronyism promoted by Banerjee," he charged.
Malviya further alleged that Biswas' resignation exposes a "collective failure of Mamata Banerjee, her partisan bureaucracy, and her crony cabinet".
"This is a symbolic sacrifice, a political hoax, soon to be buried under layers of bureaucracy, with no justice, no accountability, and no remorse," the BJP leader said, adding, "No resignation will bring back the time lost, the money wasted, or the stolen chance for football lovers to witness Messi in Kolkata."
