Hero or hypocrite? The reader of “When in Rome: Heterosexism, Homophobia, and Sports Talk
Radio” must decide. Author David Nylund,
depicted The Jim Rome Show, a popular
sports talk radio program, as both promoting hegemonic masculinity as well as challenging
practices that promote a dominant social position of heterosexual men. Jim Rome, the show’s host, has been revealed
in this article being regularly and openly derisive toward gay men and women. In regular broadcasts, Rome was capable of
reinforcing sexism. Yet, Rome had also
shown intolerance for homophobia. How
does one radio personality succeed with this wide span of positions? Perhaps Jim Rone is a master showman – a
modern P.T. Barnum who said “Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the
taste of the American public.”
Who comprises
the American public that listens to talk radio?
It’s middle class men – white men, that is – in the age range from
24-55. Unlike more typical ‘talk’ show
formats, Rome did not directly interact with callers in an exchange of
ideas. Instead, Rome broadcast callers’
comments that he found favorable while disconnecting callers if their viewpoint
was deemed unacceptable. Rather, Rone’s
observations were made after the caller completed his/her comments.
At first, the author
discussed the boisterous and disorderly style of Rome’s remarks, which were
often sexist and misogynistic, referring to women as “skanks” and “tramps” as
well as prejudicial of homosexuals. What
drove the popularity of this format? Nyland
explained that men crave affiliation with other men, hungering for approval
within their peer groups. To be
accepted, men will banter about and ridicule others outside the group. Thereby, a hostile form of bonding occurs in
the context of disrespecting others – especially those who are different from
their cohorts. The author would have us
believe that male unity against a common aggressor is the source of Rome’s
popularity. That is, men connect through sports talk radio as a form of bonding whereby
they confront their loss of dominance in society to homosexuals and women.
Later in the
article, however, the author lauds Jim Rome’s efforts to undermine hegemonic
masculinity. Three specific instances
are given as to when Rome used his “authority to stand against the intolerance
often engendered by homophobia” (234). He
admonished Julian Tavarez for his homophobic comments about San Francisco
Giants fans. Rome also respectfully interviewed former
professional athletes who had declared their homosexuality, allowing them to be
conspicuous in the public eye, but not condemned. Additionally, Rome’s interview with baseball veteran
Eric Davis, who spoke of the discomfort among ballplayers of having a gay
teammate, was handled with respectability.
In fact, in Rome’s monologue he disagreed with Davis’ concerns about showering
near a gay teammate. Clearly, Jim Rome shared a range of perspectives, not all
of which encouraged hegemonic masculinity.
The central
premise was whether Rome’s radio program reinforced social inequality,
homophobia, and sexism thereby promoting male superiority and dominance. Some men interviewed by Nyland pointed to entertainment
value as their reason for listening to Rome’s radio program while others
identified more deeply-seeded anxieties with their role in society as well as
their needs to bond and uphold their masculinity with other males. The Jim
Rome Show reminds of a modern version of ‘The He-Man Woman Haters Club’
popularized in Our Gang (also known
as The Little Rascals) a comedy which
began as silent short films in 1922. One
could surmise that men began to question their dominance in society as early as
1920, when the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. It has been a century since then. Yet, men continue to flock to mass media,
such as sports talk radio, where their social dominance can be reaffirmed with
other men. When will men become
comfortable with their role in society?
Whenever that occurs, it will make media circuses, such as The Jim Rome Show, obsolete.
No comments:
Post a Comment