Female UFC fighter Ronda Rousey has caused a stir with her boasting that there isn’t a man in the UFC in her weight class she couldn’t beat:
I never say that I’m incapable of beating anybody, because I don’t believe in putting limits on myself.
So I mean, I would have to say if you’re just talking about what’s in the realm of possibility of what’s possible of who I could beat, well, I could beat 100 percent of them. But, um, you can’t tell me that there’s a zero percent chance that I can beat anyone on the planet, so I’m never gonna say that.
Rousey’s own mother thought this was foolish enough that she contradicted this to the press:
Seriously, that’s a stupid idea. I’m as much a feminist as anyone but the fact is that biologically, there’s a difference between men and women.
Hello. Duh. A woman who is 135 pounds and a man who is 135 pounds are not physically equal.
When pressed about her boasting Rousey didn’t back down, but explained that she rightfully won’t ever be allowed to prove her boasts because doing so would mean allowing a man to hit a woman. She objects to fighting a man on philosophical grounds, because while she is quite pleased with with the image of a woman beating up a man, the thought of a man hitting back is unconscionable:
It’s not a reality. They’re not gonna do anything like that. Fights are chaotic. Anything can happen. And there’s no setting in which we should condone a man hitting a woman. I really just don’t think that any athletic commission on Earth would ever condone something like that.
Fights are going to go both ways. You’re going to see both people hitting each other. I don’t think we should celebrate a man hitting a woman in any kind of setting.
I can only assume Rousey is a staunch opponent of women in combat. If a man punching a woman is taboo, a man shooting a woman or blowing her up must disturb her all the more.
Rousey knows she will receive a great deal of deference from men, and she is so free to boast about her ability to beat them precisely because she can rely on this deference. What isn’t discussed is what kind of deference Rousey owes to men in return.
Pingback: She would beat you up, but her mom is calling. | Manosphere.com
Pingback: She would beat you up, but her mom is calling. | Neoreactive
I read this not as a boast that she had any reasonable likelihood of beating any man, but rather that she doesn’t believe it is a categorical impossibility. I haven’t seen this anywhere in more context than this quotation, so there may be something that I’m missing. But it seems more that she’s saying “it’s possible that I could beat 100% of men” in the same way that I might say “it’s possible that I could survive being struck by lightning.”
I don’t dispute the overarching point you’re trying to make here, but I’m not sure that this particular statement is as boastful as it appears at first glance.
I believe in treating women as equals. If she came at me, I’d drop her like a man.
I’ve felt that way since dropping an ex-girlfriend who tried to stab me. Act like a man, get treated like a man. Gallantry my ass.
There’s a dozen men on every high school wrestling team and every MMA gym across America that could tear her arms off and beat her to death with them.
She’s beating opponents with basic armbars, like Gracie was back in UFC 1 and 2 when no one knew what BJJ was. No man can win with such a basic move nowadays, since everyone is any good knows how to defend against it. It just means her opponents are complete jokes who shouldn’t be allowed in the Octagon. The hype about her needs to end, now.
Having seen her fight, my observation is that Ms. Rousey is a very highly skilled judoka, and an exceptional female athlete… and that if she were to fight a male UFC fighter of her own 135 lb weight class, the likelihood of her being killed or permanently disabled is infinitely greater than of her securing a victory. This is all just to sell more tickets and pay per view. Even her mother, who was one of the greatest female judokas of her generation, realizes that Rousey would have no, as in 0, chance against a male athlete in such a competition. Knowing that Ms. Rousey does in fact use male training partners to prepare for her fights I suspect she is well aware of this. It’s all mouth to sell fights to people who want to believe that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is somehow real life.
Well said, Mrs Rousey. Te biological differences in men vs women is that men have about 33% extra muscle due to testosterone. They also have thicker skulls.
Evolutionary selection has ensured that the ancestors of fighting men (and all of us) survived due to muscle mass and thick skulls, which they passed on to their offspring. Meanwhile, Rouseys female ancestors passed on their ability to mate with fight survivors: the same selection criteria didn’t apply in human evolution. Thus, when men hit each other with those 8oz gloves, they destroy each other. Women simply get a cut and bruise.
This isn’t the dirt time Rousey has talked trash. As a trainer on a Reality TV show she became so unpopular she was booed in subsequent fights.
A talented martial artist and fighter she might be, but she still has a massive amount to learn with humility.
What does she owe men? If it weren’t for men, there would be no UFC. As usual, men invent things. Then women enter them and change them in their “Long March of Envy”.
Ms. Rousey also noted that she does not believe any fight between herself and a man would ever be sanctioned by any state commission or the UFC itself, and she is probably correct at this point in time. This begs the question, however, as to why such a prohibition is acceptable… After all, if da womynz are truly equal to men in every way, why should da womynz be prohibited from entering such a match of their own free wills? Isn’t that denying them equal opportunity? Especially since da womynz will be fighting men their own size in the UFC… don’t have to worry about those big guys. How is it fair or just to prohibit da womynz from such a competition if they really want it?
Whenever this topic comes up, I reference Vox’s excellent article from over a decade ago, “Beating down a woman”:
http://www.wnd.com/2003/04/18255/
I thought Rousey changed his name to heartise????
lzozozozozo
Against a completely unskilled male who has never trained, she’d stand a good chance of winning. Against a trained male, not so much. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9xjs2fWJEs
Wait, isn’t this the same dame who slammed that post-op tranny male-to-female MMA fighter and said no woman should have to fight him? She also said she could take him in a fight (as well as Cain Velasquez and Ray Rice). She seems to have a habit of picking fights she doesn’t actually have to show up to in order to win. Clever marketing. But most guys I know who have a masculine view of the world and their priorities and lives in order find her as obnoxious and annoying as I do. It only seems to be the feminized men that have an innate need for bossy, dominant women in their lives that find her compelling.
There was a hockey game a couple years back. US women’s team played a high school prep team from somewhere in the northeast. Not the varsity team either, JV. No hitting allowed. The women were smoked something like 10-0. By a JV team. No coincidence that you likely never heard of this game.
“I can only assume Rousey is a staunch opponent of women in combat. If a man punching a woman is taboo, a man shooting a woman or blowing her up must disturb her all the more.”
This is an excellent point. I’m not sure why it didn’t occur to me before.
a man shooting a woman or blowing her up must disturb her all the more
There are so many much more pleasant things a man can do with a woman…
In all fairness, Roussy’s so dominant amongst female fighters that she’s continuously asked by the fight press about her chances against men. While on one hand she’s said it’s not statistically impossible to beat every man in her weight class, she knows damn well she would be mauled by most if not all of them. There are youtube clips of her bjj and judo sparring with men, and you can hear her breathing accelerate pretty quickly as her standard fare isn’t working against the men. She does this to improve her chances against female fighters, and it seems to work. It’s the same reasoning GSP used by practicing against heavyweight wrestlers as training for his middleweight bouts. Which is why she’s proffered the “there’s no setting in which we should condone a man hitting a woman.” She’s saying this as a means to get the press to shut up and stop asking her questions about fighting men. She understands better than any non-fighter exactly what her chances would be in a sanctioned bout against a guy (close to nil).
@Michel Mason & Barry
This post’s closing seems lost on you guys.
Such a deference would sound like: “Thankfully, we won’t have to find out that men in my weight class would trounce me.”
Barry, you said:
The fastest way to get the press to shut up would be for her to admit that men would whoop her. They would never ask her again, and that thought horrifies Rousey because she is aware that she is a circus freak who, like a bicycle-riding bear, is pretending to be a man. If she busts the illusion she is out of a job, out of the money, and nobody will want to talk to her.
Ever seen a tiny dog in a fight with a bigger dog? That is Rousey. Kudos to her for saying that she will walk into any fight, with anyone, man or woman, and will not concede defeat until someone actually gets pinned. A 90lb man saying the same boast about heavyweights would be lauded for his courage…but maybe not his judgment.
Take your point entirely, CC. She seemingly is even dimly aware of the truth, which is something along the lines of “Not going to happen, I’m not an idiot”. Won’t put female (and not a few male) telly-gogglers’ vast bums on seats though, that attitude.
Aw, no, let’s do it! Her against 122-lb Scott Quigg. Get Eddie Hearn on the blower right away, my son.
He’s a nice boy (a bit too nice IMO). I’m sure he’ll respect her.
“.. strength and conditioning coach Ric Moylan University of Salford, Human Performance Laboratory …: “When it came to fitness levels, Scott was up there with elite endurance athletes like Sir Chris Hoy and Mo Farah. I have been involved with professional sportsmen for 15 years and Scott is one of the fittest guys I have ever seen.”
I wouldn’t like to bet her against Carl Frampton though. Obvious no-contest. Even if she’s allowed to kick him.
Any average guy off the street with minimum, maybe 6 months, training and conditioning would fucking destroy her.
I always say give women full equality and treat them like men especially bottom men until they can prove that they can be top men on 100% their own merits without any help. A large minority of women if not a majority when held to the standard of men will surrender their equalist and feminist mindset and a smaller number would surrender their right to vote. The Chinese have proverb: Be careful of what you ask for, you may get it. I say Western women and particularly American women and above all Rhonda Roussey asked for it so give it to them long and hard without any relent.
She’s just like most feminists in today’s society. All bragging about how they are better than men with no tangible proof.
Lucia Frederica Rijker is a Dutch professional female boxer, kickboxer, and actress.
Rijker has been dubbed by the press and opponents “The Most Dangerous Woman in the World”.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_Rijker
Lucia Rijker (woman) vs. Somchai Jaidee (man) Muay Thai match
@FailFailFail
There is no courage in saying “I’d kick his ass!” followed by “But I can’t prove it, because then he might hit me back, and it wouldn’t be fair for him to hit someone like me!”
There is no courage in saying “I’d kick his ass!” followed by “But I can’t prove it,
Heh. I could leave that Hawking guy in the dust, me. Just as long as I wasn’t forced to do Hard Sums and Other Unfair Stuff …
I could be the best wide receiver in the NFL as long as the defense isn’t allowed to tackle me.
I almost feel bad for her, because they’re putting her in an impossible spot. A top competitor can’t say, “Yeah, I’d lose that one for sure.” Logically, she could say, “No, I couldn’t beat a man, are you nuts? But I don’t fight men, I fight women, and I’ll crush any of them.” But they’re trained to maintain a mindset of dominance that allows no doubts, no exceptions, so her instinct is to ramp up the confidence.
That doesn’t work coming from a woman in a man’s sport, because as Dalrock points out, she knows she won’t have to back it up. Instead of pro-athlete trash talk, it’s empty bluster. If this were a male featherweight being asked if he could beat the heavyweight champion, he’d recite the same sort of pablum, but he’d also know that someone just might set up the fight and he’d have to take his punishment like a man.
It also doesn’t help that the interviewers take her statements at face value instead of recognizing them for the psyching-herself-up bluster that they are. If she were a man, they’d shrug it off as standard athlete talk; but coming from a woman, they take it seriously and want to score ideological points on it.
It’s all just so stupid. Women shouldn’t be competing in men’s contact sports in the first place; and when they get all butch and competitive like this, the people around them should respond with disgust instead of you-go-girl cheering.
They should do what they did with Bobby Riggs in tennis: get an old guy well past his prime to beat her. I think George Foreman is still alive.
‘Women shouldn’t be competing in men’s contact sports in the first place; and when they get all butch and competitive like this, the people around them should respond with disgust instead of you-go-girl cheering.’
Yeah it’s sad because she’s a decently attractive gal. But the butch, the fighting, empty bluster. and feminist personality makes it nosedive dramatically.
@ Cane Caldo, said:
The fastest way to get the press to shut up would be for her to admit that men would whoop her.
She will never admit to that, the same way if we had been invaded by aliens 40 years ago, a prime Mohammed Ali wouldn’t have admitted to the chance of losing to them. “They’re an alien life form and I’ll beat them like a storm.” These aren’t just fighters, they’re P.T. Barnum promoters of themselves… they have to be, that’s part of the sales pitch… who wants to see the arrogant, all powerful champion be brought to their knees? Pay the man right here and enter, you might just see it happen.
@Barry & Cail
&
Sure they can. They just have to put honor and respect before their pride and envy. But you are right that Rousey is a descendant of Ali and other sporting blowhards. Regardless of their records and talent, we should not honor such behavior.
o/t and apologize for that. but just wanted to know if anyone else has seen this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2989511/Ex-wife-hippy-turned-wind-farm-tycoon-millionaire-split-wins-right-fight-2million-divorce-payout.html
@BarryBarryStupid
Aliens don’t exist. Male UFC fighters do exist. Her reason for not fighting them is it wouldn’t be fair for them to hit her back because she is a girl. She isn’t saying she won’t fight them because they have outdated inhibitions against fighting someone like her. She is saying she has these inhibitions. Yet she doesn’t have any inhibitions about saying she could beat them. As Cane noted above, the point of the post is being lost. If men owe her this deference, what deference does she owe back?
@Dalrock
Aliens don’t exist.
Right, and if Ali had been asked about aliens it would have been asked once, he would have postured up, everyone would have had a good laugh then it would have been over. Since men exist, Roussy gets asked about fighting men all the time. She’s never going to fight one the way Ali was never going to fight an alien. Since it will never happen, she’s not going to concede to losing. Of course she has inhibitions which she won’t concede to, because there’s no reason to concede. I have a friend that insists he can defend himself from a polar bear attack by head-butting it on the nose. He’s been saying this for 20 years. For a couple years I argued with him using logic, to no avail. Eventually (slow learner here) I realized logic cannot be applied against an unrealized happenstance. In the polar bear case, Ali vs Aliens and Roussy vs Men, there is no, and never will be an example to use as evidence. My friend doesn’t believe what he’s saying, I now understand it’s a form of amused mastery in a way… he just says this for his own amusement to get others worked up. No matter how ridiculous the statement, if it can’t be proven wrong (by experience) then it can’t be wrong.
I’m sure Roussy would love this topic to disappear, but for as long as it’s being asked, she’s not going to concede. Her mother might, her manager might, every guy on the planet might, but she won’t. She doesn’t have to, it’s just more press attention for her. Hell, if I were in her shoes I’d be laughing at how everyone else is getting so worked up about the idea of head-butting a polar bear.
i’m glad there are at least 3 men who understand what she is saying. Michel Mason, Cail Corishev & BarryBarryStupid. this post is just nonsense. no one should go around saying “sure i would lose”
@zodak
She is saying she could beat them in a fight, but it would be mean if they beat her because she is just a girl. She is talking smack while simultaneously explaining why they had better not call her out.
The proper response to this boasting is not to ask for deference from her but to put her in the ring with the top class male fighter in her weight group. Get her to sign a waiver covering death and or mutilation, cognitive impairment and any other loss, physical or monetary and get it on.
If she doesn’t sign it, tell her to get off the fighters list for being a blowhard coward.
lol death and or mutilation lol! You know what I mean!
There are plenty male MMA fighters willing to beat the living daylights out of a woman. The morals won’t hamper them at all.
Cail Corishev @ 8:20 am:
“I almost feel bad for her, because they’re putting her in an impossible spot. A top competitor can’t say, “Yeah, I’d lose that one for sure.””
That’s my take, too. Of course she’ll say such things in a highly competitive, image-conscious milieu. The bigger story is the media putting her on the spot to make such statements in order to push their agenda.
I’ve had the opportunity to see media types up close. There’s a Hollywood mentality that reality is defined by what the camera sees. That’s great for moviemaking but in journalism, what you have is people creating their idea of utopia by controlling the narrative. If Rousey were to admit she didn’t have any chance against men because of her biology then she would become like garlic to the media vampires… who, in turn, would banish her from their world of make-believe.
In the media’s mind, reality is whatever they give attention to. People like Rousey play along because the attention is valuable. It’s a hellish partnership.
@Dalrock
They understand you. They just don’t understand why you have a problem with it because to them it is acceptable behavior.
Kind of like a GI Jane movie! Let’s get those Warrior Women Vikings Shield Maidens and put them in combat. ISIS won’t know what hit them..
Nothing brings a tear to my eye more than seeing women in combat!
Dalrock, I just found the solution to the going pandemic of 30 and older never married or divorced women! Damn! It’s so easy. Send them off to do their patriotic duty! They don’t need no stinking man!
People should say they will lose when asked to compete in things they are vastly outmatched in. I understand she is being both confident and delicate. However, I also don’t think Roussy should say: 1) I can do brain surgery 2) Compete in Nascar 3) Win the Fields medal.
So – in non contract sports this happens occasionally. The Williams sisters of Tennis fame are amazing. They bragged they could beat most the men on the circuit. Number 203 in the world over heard them, set up the game, and dominated them.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19980127&id=kqJjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mggGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3506,5011601
Even ultra confident people should not become retards, and she doesn’t need to answer these bizarre questions. She can say, as someone said above – I don’t fight men, I fight women. End of story. And if pressed, yes of course I would lose, haha. Don’t ask me dumb questions.
As someone else said a HS team beat the womens hockey. Not surprising. Awhile ago there was a publication (maybe series of articles) about men and women athletic difference. Peak athletic women are about the same as 16-17 year peak males. The sprinting time records match very close – female world record is very close to world record of male 16-17 yo. WNBA teams don’t practice against male college quality teams, they practice against HS quality. It is what it is.
I also agree with Cali – women fighting is mostly gross. Most of this biology denial sets society up for this worship of male traits which is a stupid thing in of itself. We celebrate male accomplishments (own a business, graduate law school, beat people up) as the TRUE accomplishments and denigrate feminine accomplishments. And its the feminists who push this. We will get more feminine women when we celebrate womens unique abilities, not their ability to be second best in male pursuits like fighting. But since apparently its all about power, we cannot do that.
Can you guys just imagine it! Hoards of sassy, independent, moxie filled, bossy feminists just descending on Mosul. Do it now Obama, no need for boots on the ground, heels are more than enough to fix this teeny problem!
Emma Watson can lead the charge! For the feminists!
Off-topic, but… not just no, but HELL NO:
“Former Hippy Wins Right to Claim Ex’s Post-Divorce Wealth,” by AFP via Yahoo! News, 11 Mar 2015
http://news.yahoo.com/former-hippy-wins-claim-exs-post-divorce-wealth-135026562.html
It’s in England, but still NOT a good precedent at all for Divorce Rapery here in the States.
The proper response to this boasting is not to ask for deference from her but to put her in the ring with the top class male fighter in her weight group.
Actually, I think that putting her in the ring with an average-sized, average-weight, untrained male picked at random off the street would result in a better than 50-50 chance of her being torn limb from limb. THAT would put the kabosh on any further bragging, by her or any of her other loudmouthed dyke sestren trying to convince they world that they’re are better build of men than are the real thing.
No, you actually need a man who has been able to delve into his violent side. A man on the street would need 3 to 6 months to be ready for basic combat and one of the reasons for that is to disabuse him of the notion of remaining non-violent towards the enemy.
@Kevin
Yes! Excellent comment!
Quick: name a great female composer? Cant? alright, name just one female composer. Most of you are still struggling I would suppose, yet the BBC who are nothing if not politically correct know five great female composers, all English (with middle class-names) and all under thirty five years of age. Remarkable.
For seventy years the BBC have produced an hour-long programme which runs Monday to Friday entitled Composer of the Week devoted to someone generally regarded as a great composer. I think I can safely say (without checking) that prior to this week no weekly slot was ever awarded to any composer then under thirty-five, but now, five, all of whom have that previously unrecognised essential musical skill, a vagina, are being touted as the next great-white hope.
Naturally I reeled-off an e-mail or two but limited myself to the hope that at least they might all be hot-totty (as I presume is Miss Rousey).
Women shouldn’t be competing in men’s contact sports in the first place
This!!! I don’t feel bad for her because she (with the help of her feminist parents) has put herself in this position. I guess we are supposed to pity these poor oppressed 1st world women in spite of the fact that most of their complaints would seem to stem from penis envy (pardon the pun).
If men owe her this deference, what deference does she owe back?
…
no one should go around saying “sure i would lose”
To quote the great philosopher Harry Callahan, “A man’s got to know his limitations”. Emphasis on man. Children who prattle on about stuff they don’t understand can be patted on the head and ignored; women who prattle on about stuff they don’t understand should be sent to the kitchen to make sammiches.
BTW, Dalrock, the headline to this post is perfect.
[D: Thank you.]
AmicusC@10:22am (and Anon@11:50am) it’s a goody, innit? It’s been bubbling up on the radio all day, mainly at the behest of bien-pensant bluestockings such as Baroness Deech, who’s been bumping her gums about this state of affairs just about forever
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a0e7332-7bb9-11e4-a695-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3U6QnZhPf
On the grounds (“can you tell what it is yet?”: /rolfharris) …
… that it is going to prove to be Unfaiiiir To Women. Stops them from menstruating on the glass ceiling, or some such typically mystical incantation. The common little hussies will simply snag themselves a footballista, instead of getting Upper First type Firsts (with a gold star) at the University of First, and striking on and up for the Cause like wot they ort ta, she sneers.
And, horrors, some deadbeat ex-man might burst forth from the arras to make a claim, decades after the thrusting steeljawed lady has made squillions being generally thrusting, and feisty. As one does.
She was wibbling about this particularly absurd example of Mr Vince this p.m. on the wireless, link is good for a week if you want to catch the flavour of her attitude. I thought it was a hoot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054p0bn (not up yet, only a couple of mins into the Chelsea match buildup following, will be soon)
From 1hr08mins into the broadcast. They also raise the whole mess again at 2hrs39min, with a young chap weighing in on the hub’s side. “Get a court order the minute the divorce is through, chaps” seems to be the general advice. Sort of a statute of limitations, IYSWIM.
And this abomination of law only obtains in Englandshire, not among its colonies like Here, Wales or N.I.
BTW Ms Wyatt has not “won” a penny, just the right to have her run her scam past the beak again and see what falls out of the Magic Money Tree. It’s alright, she’s been on the dole since she left the hippy convoy they were shacked up in all those decades ago. Cheers, people of Britain!
Opus bin in? He should be the goto guy on this.
craig on March 11, 2015 at 1:43 pm
Made my day.
@Tam,
yes I know she hasn’t won anything yet, other than making him pay the costs of suing him + his own legal costs fighting this bogus claim, but its ridiculous on the face of it. even with the draconian child support laws its still based on income, or imputed income, for each individual year. and all the “facts” support the theory that he was a homeless bum not making much money till after the kid was 18 anyway. it will filter to the colonies shit runs down hill after all. my mind is officially blown that there is no limitation date on wasting this guys time and money.
‘Benevolent sexism’: Men who open doors for women can be as sexist as those who are rude to them, study finds
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/11/benevolent-sexism-men-who-open-doors-for-women-can-be-as-sexist-as-those-who-are-rude-to-them-study-finds/
“…women who prattle on about stuff they don’t understand should be told to STFU, then sent to the kitchen to make sammiches.”
Fixed.
‘Benevolent sexism’: Men who open doors for women can be as sexist as those who are rude to them, study finds
The word “sexism” is being used as “any sexual discrimination”.
We’re all sexists now. (So is reality)
Good find. This is the perfect metaphor for modern feminism.
“…while she is quite pleased with with the image of a woman beating up a man, the thought of a man hitting back is unconscionable”
Women are encouraged to compete against men for jobs, power in relationships, custody in divorce, as “equals” even if it involves hitting, punching, assaulting or defamation, but it is unconscionable for a man to respond except to be a good victim for the cause of women.
“Equals” – you keep a using that word. I don’t a think it means what you think it means.
– my apologies to Mandy Patinkin
‘Benevolent sexism’: Men who open doors for women can be as sexist as those who are rude to them, study finds
So what does that make a man who asks his wife to make him a sammich? Any man who is a man by default has to be a sexist from the point of view of feminism. You are a sexist if you do, and a sexist if you don’t. I for one wear it like a badge of honor. Or to put it in feminist speak, “Where’s my sammich wench?”
@opus – “name a great female composer”.
Hildegarde of Bingen.
.. Carla Bley.
Hildegarde of Bingen… Carla Bley.
He said great, not good.
Woman claimed she could outbox any Marine on base. They gave her one of the smallest guys.
“He said great, not good.”
Hey ho, it’s a matter of degree, innit?
Josquin beats Hilde, Miles beats Carla, OK?
All four, parsecs beyond most stuff passed off as music to us mug punters.
135 pounds: I would LOVE to see her fight a 100 pound guy. Or maybe they could take guys off the street, get them staggering drunk, and put them in the Octagon with her.
All four, parsecs beyond most stuff passed off as music to us mug punters.
Where does lady gaga fit in to this picture?
To be clear: I’m not saying she’s right to talk that way. Cane and Dalrock are right: she could choose humility and honesty. Unfortunately, the kind of people who make it to the top in sports — and who therefore end up on camera as role models — are generally not that type. To be the best at something, out of millions of people, seems to require (or produce) an irrational level of self-confidence.
So I understand why she answers the way she does, but she’s still wrong. If being the champion requires you to be prideful and dishonest, maybe it’s not worth it?
“He said great, not good.”
Hildegarde’s music is still being listened to a thousand years after she wrote it. And musicians are still reinterpreting it :
A very good bass player:
A master bass player:
Probably bests if you don’t look at the first one while listening to it. The eyes might trick the ears.
Interesting post! This makes me think of the recent Hollywood trend of having bad-ass female characters in nearly every action film. I recently watched the library version of “300 Rise of the Empire”. The main female character was as strong and skilled with weapons as the lead male character. Of course this is as nonsensicial as swords that could chop through armer as easily as a hot knife would cut butter. Hollywood has never been known for historical accuracy. The Hunger Games and Divergent are other examples of this trend. I suspect that this trend is here to stay just as the idiot dad theme is also here to stay. I’d like to know what others think.
“Where does lady gaga fit in to this picture?”
On a spit, being turned by Ron Swanson
Hildegarde’s music is still being listened to a thousand years after she wrote it.
Granted, and far be it from me to criticize the works of this marvelous woman (of which were much more than just composing). But was she a great composer?
Romanos the Melodist flourished during the sixth century and it is said that he composed more than 1,000 hymns? His works have been translated as late as 1970. Was he a great composer?
Byzantine abbess Kassia who served prior to 865? She wrote many hymns which are still used in the Byzantine liturgy to this day. Was she a great composer?
Were all the Medieval composers great?
865? = 865.
I could probably beat up Muhammad Ali too. (Except it would be right to be punched by the elderly).
Self-promotion is garish. The answer is: “We’ll never know since it isn’t going to happen and I have nothing but respect for the Men’s Divisions, those guys are warriors.” Where is it written that every fighter has to be braggadocios in order to promote fights.
Fact is she is dominating a weak division that people shouldn’t be paying good money to see. Minor league fighting hiding behind a skirt,
Oh I see, it’s that kind of fighting.
I must admit, looking at the vid that mad_kalak posted, I was sort of thinking, blimey she’s a bit of a porker now, those “actress” stills were a bit misleading, eh. Just a question of backing off and dodging about, with the odd smack to keep her focused, till she’s purple in the face and dizzy.
So I nominate the late, great, Shirley Crabtree as a worthy opponent. Or Giant Haystacks.
Where does lady gaga fit in to this picture?
Lady Gaga is a singer-songwriter, not a composer. If she composes any music at all, it is more than likely she composes very little. She has a bunch of men scoring the music behind her. The same is true of almost all of the modern pop-music female stars — they’re singer-songwriters, not composers of any significant degree.
Women in general do not make good composers, and this is one of the main reasons you see so few all-female bands. They can generally only play other peoples music which means they can’t really make a name for themselves. There are good female instrument players, but this is mainly a task of memory and playing existing compositions, rather than creative ability like what the male composers demonstrate.
Lady Gaga is a singer-songwriter, not a composer.
But is she a great singer-songwriter?
(Please don’t take that question seriously.)
Deference for sure..there’s an article in the latest Cosmo mag titled “I threw a glass of water in my ex’s face and you should too”
If a man did that there would be a fight,but women can do this and call it empowerment because of deference.
Young couple with marriage issues
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=950502
Guys Night Out for a Married Man?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=950520
Couldn’t Rousey just say, “Ha ha. I think you need to compare apples to apples..” This would make the Press guy look stupid, would have respected her male UFC peers and kept the reputation she earned as top female fighter.
The big problem with this reasoning is of course that I’m looking at it like a man would.
Seems to me that WE (i.e. men) should petetion the gaming commission to allow said fight.
As for other matter’s reguarding separate professional sports .. Non-Professional (i.e. Average) men who have athletic abilities should sign-up for and compete against women. For example the LGPA, USTA, etc. Just as women have demanded the right to have equal yet maintain separate purses (ie winnings).
Its sexist to to have a gender specific league .. and we should demand we be allowed in (so called) women’s only club’s / events.
You fight fire with fire (e.g. women demanding access to men only club’s and activities).
Someone needs to pick up the torch and burn ‘th wimminz’ delussional dreams to the ground.
Or more needless women (re: army woman v marine man) will need to learn a harsh leason. If you run your mouth / hit a man long enough a man (somewhere) will enjoy making you his personal punching bag. Gloves optional.
Like Vox I’ve ‘spared’ with women in a dojo. As a young man of 13-14 years of age I beat all the veteran Brown and Black belt Women Martial Arts students as a mere orange belt. These same women were not allowed full contact with the older men (i.e. 16+ years old). Our Master instructor didn’t want to lose that revenue stream. Heck, I had no problem beating standing up or on the ground and I was a runt as a young man. I graduated HS at 115 pounds. As a 18+ year old I quickly put on 35 pounds of muscle and 3 inches in height in a year of college. It was then that not even the men wanted to spare me either. So, those women got a free shot at a 5’5″ 95 pound athlete with minimal training and they they still lost like that army big mouth woman.
At least RR’s mom has half a brain .. maybe mom knows how to make sammichs too!!!
spike said ..
Couldn’t Rousey just say, “Ha ha. I think you need to compare apples to apples..”
Ego .. pure ego .. and a lil promotional juices .. at any rate RR is writing checks here ego can’t cash. And her own mom doesn’t want her daughter to loose her good deal to stupid die’uh’re’uh of the mouth.
If the UFC was smart they would tell her to shut-up before the gaming commission issues a letter of approval. The UFC can tell its men to stand down and not to commit due to the fact they are under contract. But if the fans and the commission get behind this then maybe DW can give us (men) a chance to see RR career dis’uh’pay’shun light go into over-drive.
I heard Turngalilla (can’t stand it these days) at The Proms when still a teenager and for the first half they performed – as contrast – a sequence of melodies from the middle-ages. Even then I rather suspected that it had far more to do with the 1960s than the 1260s. We are all supposed to HIPP (Historically Informed Performance Practice) but frankly I think these early musicians are making it up as they go along (largely because they are not as good as the musicians who can commend top dollar without historical pretence).
I may have a blind spot (or perhaps I just don’t understand music) but it seems to me that most music written before about 1600 is incomprehensible to our ears, and it is beyond dispute that most of it – clever though it is with its isorythms and faux bourdon and the like) was written for Church Performance. The renaissance changed all that. The Florentine Camerata (re)invented Opera in the 1580s such that early opera (fully formed as with Orfeo) is exactly contemporary with Hamlet, and public concerts gets going a century later with Concertos in London at the Argyle Rooms (which was where the Palladium now stands).
I have never heard a note of Hildegard and though I once knew all the names of all the older composers cannot recall hearing her name or that she was made a bigger noise of than say Dunstable who is generally regarded by reason of his reputation during his life as the greatest of European composers of his time (14th century) – and thus greatest English composer ever, a distinction not even achieved by Purcell – amazingly – but I would not recognise a note of Dunstable if you played it to me so I rather suspect that Hildegard is a myth that is being added to.
May I add that Purcell would not have been given a COTW spot because being male and dying when thirty-five (or thirty six) would not be within the criteria regarded as essential by the BBC. Purcell incidentally died tragically young by reason of domestic violence – his wife locked him out of the house and catching cold he succumbed to the elements.
OT, but some good fodder. 70% of men age 20-34 are not married. You’ll get the tone of the article very quickly.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married
Let them have it gentlemen.
That CNS article has been making the rounds on the internet over the past few days, interestingly, given that it’s a month old. The comments (and there are many) are almost all red pill in variety, but I think that’s because it has gotten some publicity on red pill sites in the last week, and so the comments were flooded with guys who think that way.
Good find Earl. Thanks.
That CNS article seems to be simple promotion for a female author who’s predictably solipsistic and captive to the apex fallacy.
Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.
“And I know the feminists just yell and scream if you say anything like this, but time was, girls set the cultural morays, the standards, the parameters for intimate activity. The girls were the ones that set those boundaries. And now it’s the guys who do.
And even then, they were very concerned about the fact that young women today are not as likely to get married. And their prospects, if they are not sexually promiscuous, are really low because the guys, if they can sleep around, they’re not interested in going with the girls who don’t put out.
And it’s doubly terrible because the colleges now are predominantly female. So you have some – up to 60 percent of the student bodies are female. And almost all of them are more than 50 percent female. And so the ratio [of] male/female is out of sync.
“And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance. They don’t date.
It’s the usual nonsense one expects from tradcon women. Yawn.
Curious what a “Cultural Moray” is? Is that an eel that bites you if you use the wrong fork for salad?
The Walk of Shame…not that shameful anymore? Interested in your take.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/03/11/morning-after-mayhem-controversial-new-vh1-show-depicts-college-students-walk/
Here are some quotes from the article.
On the show, premiering March 18, shuttle drivers pick up young people (both women and men) in the morning so they won’t have to do the infamous “walk of shame” after a night of sex.
Those getting the rides home then confess their steamy adventures from the night before to their shuttle drivers—and VH1 viewers.
Wargo told FOX411, “My job as the driver is to cheer them up and say, ‘Hey, everyone does crazy stuff, we’ve all been there. You’re not alone in this experience. Let’s swap stories.’”
The college grad turned entrepreneur said she even gives her riders high fives to let them know, “You made it though the night, you’re on your way home. Congrats you got laid. Anything to cheer them up.”
But Wargo believes the walk of shame is a common part of the college experience and should be explored on TV.
Wargo admitted to FOX411 that she has been there: “Of course I have. It sucks having to wear high heels home at 7 a.m. or not knowing where you woke up.”
Peace Gentlemen.
8 in the Gate
Every so often the human genome shakes things up. We recognize it as war or insurrection. Point is, the weak generally get killed. Most folks know that some really hard times are coming. Those who aren’t well acquainted with reality will be in direct competition with those who are. You see, dog eat dog times weed out such fallacies as “fairness”. I reckon that most white feminists won’t survive. That loudmouth woman that went up against that Marine. In a real situation, she would have been down on the floor all busted up in the first few seconds. If he didn’t use a bayonet. As the good book says, you can’t do anything with a stupid woman. If civil order breaks down, who will help such women? Think about it…..helping a rebellious woman? Insofar as that female fighter, she wouldn’t last long either. After Berlin fell, women who tried to fight off their rapists were simply killed. The Russians owed some serious payback for the German atrocities. This went on for days. Going back to that loudmouthed army woman, she actually thought she had a chance. You should read up on that account. That Marine was PLAYING with her. Everyone there knew it. Here’s the point…..we are fixing to have a real societal correction. America is not the good guy. The literal blood of 50 million aborted babies cries out to God. ANYONE that reads the Bible knows that blood guilt MUST be atoned for. Dalrock, it is becoming obvious that civil insurrection is right around the corner. Who will protect a rebellious feminist? Will you waste your food on one? Can you trust one not to betray you? You see, if a woman is pro abortion, she is morally unfit. She us broken, and can’t be fixed. God set those rules up a long time ago.
Women, including female journalists, seem to be incapable of understanding why a man would not want to get married. Their brains cannot comprehend the risk that men face with the current legal system with divorce. And don’t get me started on female nature and being at the mercy of their whims. I will never get married.
Smart move Beeker. Think about surrogacy if you get a case of the baby rabies.
‘Women, including female journalists, seem to be incapable of understanding why a man would not want to get married.’
I think women are more incapable of understanding the part they are playing as to why men don’t want to get married. They want us to fulfill our end of the bargain while they forgo theirs. Life doesn’t work that way.
There’s a reason that rebelliousness is classified the same as spiritism or divination in the Bible. The affected person wasn’t salvageable. Feminism is rebelliousness writ large. All a man can do is hunker down. You cannot reason with a rebellious individual. Young women today are in most instances feral. That’s just another way of saying they’re rebellious. If you see the calamity coming, run from it! Once a young woman accepts abortion as a done deal, her morality is gone. That’s the real legacy of Feminism. How in the world can a man trust a woman whose morality is corrupt? He cant. American women are essentially tainted goods. Sad, but that’s just the way it is.
You might think that something like a video game would provide an even playing field.. but not so much.
And gaming culture is weird enough that they had too many transgendered competitors they tried to put a limit per team in a women’s league because transgendered men were winning too much, http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/02/league-of-legends-e-sports-organizer-puts-limits-on-lgtbq-participants/.
Even in top level video games there are no women, only male-to-female trans.
All of the articles that I’ve seen seem to promulgate the false reasons that men don’t want to marry as being too immature (“Peter Pan syndrome”), too lazy, not making enough money, no ambition regarding their career, etc. Wrong. Men face a very real mortal threat to their financial, legal, and emotional lives. Divorce is an ever present Sword of Damocles over every married mans’ life. Young women are also inculcated with a completely over the top entitlement mentality regarding what kind of man they think they should be able to marry. The man that they hope for as a husband, and what he should do and provide, does not exist, not for them anyway, and they won’t settle for anything less. There is no reciprocity in relationships. It’s all entirely one way, for her – and he should just be happy that she is giving him the privilege of being her manservant.
I’m not sure if womens’ bad attitudes and behavior towards men is innate/biological, and Feminism just let it go unleashed, or learned behavior from bad culture and up bringing.
Successful cultures have always controlled feral females. Interestingly, weak, failing societies do not. Americans are historically illiterate, by and large. What we see happening today
Successful cultures have always controlled feral females. Interestingly, weak, failing societies do not. Americans are historically illiterate, by and large. What we see happening today has happened before. Once women go feral, it destroys society. Look at what is happening to marriage.
If Great Expectations was written today the main character would be a girl and it would be called Unrealistic Expectations.
easttexasfarmboy, are you undergoing a name change?
The Brass Cat …
I think so (re: easttexasfarmboy name change).
Gents: That would be a slip of the tablet. ☺ Would ya’ll agree that we’ve seen societal failures before due to feral female behavior? The problem is that it’s rinse and repeat.
Synod on the Family survey and domestic violence.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=950776
I need the courage to break up with an atheist
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=950734
“And there’s no setting in which we should condone a man hitting a woman.”
The hypocrisy of the gynocracy will never, ever cease to amaze me. And I’m sure there are a plethora of naive, white knight morons out there willing to throw other men under the bus for a sniff.
That one sentence tells you all you need to know about the psy ops that go into keeping men in their disposable places. The sad fact is – the majority of men are blue pill manginas and will agree with her.
It was men who wrote, legislated and enacted all misandric legislation to date, including no-fault divorce. They did this at the behest of the gynocracy. The patriarchy does exist – and it’s filled with white knights, captain-save-a-hos and manginas – all of whom will gladly betray the majority of men to get a sniff, keep their jobs and get re-elected. Feminists are only half the battle. The other half of the battle are those that live on bended knee, with swords drawn, ready to sacrifice other men for a self esteem boost, ego stroking, gynocentric approval and a taste of tuna taco.
There is nothing more damaging to the vast majority of men than the patriarchy and white knight/chivalrous men. These men are extremely naive, ignorant and self-serving. Men in power will gladly throw the majority of men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy, to keep their jobs (get re-elected) and to maintain the status quo (see ‘1 in 5′ and ‘yes means yes’).
Alimony, child support and default maternal custody are constructs of men and constructs of a time when women could not support themselves financially. This is American patriarchy. Men made these rules, which have, through divorce, destroyed countless millions of men’s lives. Though feminists did milk it for all it was worth, the patriarchy made men the disposable gender, not feminists.
It was mandated by society that men be providers and protectors of their families, just like women were mandated by society to be homemakers and caregivers. It was mandated that men go to war and sacrifice their lives for women and children. Those men that refused were branded cowards and ostracized socially and financially. Men and women that didn’t play ball were demonized by both patriarchs and matriarchs. In the past, for a man to get a top-level job, he had to be married with kids. This social rule still exists today – enforced by both the patriarchy and the matriarchy.
The patriarchal structure was designed to benefit women and those men at the top – and to make the majority of men disposable. This is how we arrived at male-only selective service and the male only draft. Feminists distort the real truth when they paint all men as evil oppressors. Why do they still do it? Because it’s served them well for many, many decades. Now, as things are backfiring, you can smell the desperation. The patriarchy and gynocracy are seeing the err in their ways. Naive white knights and misandric feminists are getting their just due. Better late than never.
The single most misandric institution is marriage. Men give all of their power over to their wives when they marry, which is why men should never marry. It is the patriarchy that gave women this power over men though marriage, not feminists. If you look deeply into the agendas of major women’s groups, you’ll find them fighting to hold onto this anti-male power.
What men really need to understand is that both the patriarchy and feminism are working against the vast majority of men; hence the debunked rape, wage and domestic violence statistics. That feminists and many male world leaders continue to run with the deeply flawed statistics tells you everything you need to know about their agenda. Why do they keep using the debunked wage, rape and DV stats? Men are now and have always been the disposable gender. This fact has never been more clear than today. The powerful, cowardly, white knights of the patriarchy will continue to throw men under the bus to appease the gynocracy. I guarantee.
Our future is Sweden’s present. High out of wedlock births, low marriage rate, low indigenous birth rate, mass immigration, feminist movie censors, males made to pee sitting down, the redefinition of speech against feminism as hate speech, sky high taxes and misandric government leaders. Our future leaders will be split between feminists and their cowardly white knight lap dogs.
Expect to see more and more policies and laws that shift men’s assets over to women in the relatively near future. Of course, these policies won’t be called “Bachelor Taxes” outright. Instead, men’s wealth will be shifted under the guise of equality and fairness, with a clear bias against the evil men and in favor of the poor, poor women. If you look carefully, many such laws and policies are now/have been in place for decades.
All of this “I am woman” chest thumping is just posturing. Rousey is desperately crying out for recognition and respect. Perhaps she thought an undefeated record against women would give her more cachet than it does. Turns out people don’t care all that much who the toughest woman is. They do care about who the hottest female fighters are, though. The fact that she’s attractive has got to be at least 90% of the reason why she scored a role in the new Expendables film.
As someone that trained with the Gracies, was brought up in Okinawan karate as a child, boxed and wrestled in high school, and know exactly who her instructors are and what she accomplished before entering the UFC; I’m going to say that Ronda Rousey may be the only woman in the world that can professional MMA males in her weight class and win.
She is a true mixed martial artist who’s mastered each phase of mixed martial arts (standup, takedowns, and grappling). Ronda has world class technique in each fighting art and sport she claims. Furthermore, she has years and years of experience. On top of that, she has a warrior mentality and spirit. Her ability to fight hurt and transition from that to victory is well documented. On top of that, her physiology is among the best for fighting that the female gender presents. She has an excellent base, a strong core, large bones with good density, a very good balance of muscle mass and dexterity.
Sorry guys, but Ronda really is the one woman in the world who can make a claim that she consistently could beat (by submission of course) professional male MMA trained fighters and actually back it up. And, she does all the time in training during live sparring matches when preparing for an event.
Now that said, that’s not the claim she made. She said she could take them ALL. Well, not ALL of them. If she started fighting in the men’s division, she would have both victories and defeats. But that’s really quite a statement for a woman. She may be overselling herself but if you’re one of the posters selling her short, then you don’t really know the score with respect to HER. She’s rates as an exception for all the reasons I listed.
American says:
March 14, 2015 at 12:42 am
Sorry, no sale. The physiological differences between male and female athletes are too great.
AT&T American
You’re a dumb ass. Miss Rossi can’t beat a man as she is a woman and therefore we can’t real fight. If MAA is like what Vince McMann does any wins she had are probably fake.
Darlock, men have the right to hurt discipline or even kill* a woman ( DTR and wives) so why is two coworker flighting in career flinging wrong because one of the coworker is a woman?
*my point is back up Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22:18 KJV) witch is defined by 1 Samuel 15:23 “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. ” therefore sinful woman are to be kill by a godly man. All woman are sinful and rebellion, maybe this is why Paul was not married umm?
Red Pill Lesson Number 1: Ignore what women say, watch what they do.
American wrote:
As someone that trained with the Gracies
Lots of people have trained with the Gracies. I even took a class that Royce was teaching once.
I’m going to say that Ronda Rousey may be the only woman in the world that can professional MMA males in her weight class and win..
And I’m going to say it’s delusional nonsense. Rousey would be dropped like a bad habit by male flyweights. Her own mother is embarrassed by her trash talk.
If she started fighting in the men’s division, she would have both victories and defeats.
Why doesn’t she go against Cyborg, who’s only slightly heavier than Rousey?
JDG says:
March 14, 2015 at 3:12 am
“Sorry, no sale. The physiological differences between male and female athletes are too great.”
The physiological differences certainly are marked and your post is correct in the right context. However, it’s not in this context.
Striking the word athlete for just one minute here, there are girls of elementary school age who can beat up some of their boy peers. It happens regularly all over the world. And certainly there are instances from antiquity right up to the present in which trained women martial artists defeated their assailants.
But, of course, we’re talking about trained MMA fighters and not children nor situations in which a female is competent in one or more fighting arts and her opponent is not and that was your statement.
But where your statement fails is that there have been exceptions in history and Ronda is one of them. Many of the fighters say so, the UFC president says so, my own understanding with respect to Ronda is so, and even UFC announcer and martial artist Joe Rogan (a man who has emphatically stated and defended that the physiological differences between males and females preclude women fighting men in the UFC) came out publicly acknowledging that in his view Ronda can presently defeat approximately half of the male MMA fighters in her division. No sale to you but a definite sale to all of them and myself.
Put her in the ring then. Back up the words. If she can beat up half the MMA fighters in her weight group, put up or shut up. Time for her to fight.
Everytime American or some other femcunt spleens her mind, just say ‘fight’! That’s all, until they actually fight men and continue to do, just say fight.
Fight!
Have her fight Fallon Fox
American wrote:
there are girls of elementary school age who can beat up some of their boy peers.
Then the boys grow up and the girls are completely outclassed. So I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up.
And certainly there are instances from antiquity right up to the present in which trained women martial artists defeated their assailants.
How about you stick with instances where there’s extensive and objective documentation of sexual differences? Such as with athletic records.
But where your statement fails is that there have been exceptions in history and Ronda is one of them
Where have there been exceptions? In numerous sports, there’s universally a huge gulf betwen men and women. Here’s an example of 15-year-old boys beating the women’s Olympic hockey team http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=8630.0 . I believe there was no hitting allowed either.
Many of the fighters say so,
More than enough of them say shes FOS.
the UFC president says so,
I guess he believes that controversy sells tickets. Apparently so does listing women at the top of the fight card even when much more deserving male fighters are ignored. At least it does for now. Women’s MMA is on the same trajectory as the WNBA and women’s boxing.
my own understanding with respect to Ronda is so,
Your “understanding” contradicts abundant historical evidence. Unusual claims require unusual proof. Rousey hasn’t even stepped in the ring with Cyborg. Why can’t she gain 10 lbs and go against her? If she beats Cyborg she can move on the the men’s flyweight division.
and even UFC announcer and martial artist Joe Rogan (a man who has emphatically stated and defended that the physiological differences between males and females preclude women fighting men in the UFC) came out publicly acknowledging that in his view Ronda can presently defeat approximately half of the male MMA fighters in her division.
I lost quite a bit of respect for Rogan with that pronouncement.
Lol at the dipshist claming that there are many men who could beat Rousey in a fight.
Uh…most would. I know, I know….you’ve been caught up catching a glimpse of that Entourage trailer where Miss Rousey gets to kick a guy’s ass…acording to a script, mainly for laughs.
Or you may have even caught yourself watching Lara Croft: Tomb Raider the other day.
Reality is an entirely different script.
I did an image search on Ronda Rousey, and I’m not sure she should be classified as female. That would eliminate the problem.
I don’t think chivalry is meant to cover tomboys and lesbians.
American, as of now, not gonna happen –
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/mma/ronda-rousey-confirms-she-will-never-fight-a-man/ar-AA9PMAI?ocid=mailsignoutmd
Miss Rhonda will never take part in a sport where it is alright for a man to hit a woman!
Period!
For now!
Until enough money is on the table!
Dana insists!
Now her mother who also won’t shut up is saying that she would break Cyborg’s arm. I realize that silly boasting is common in that whole community but it never stops being incredible with those two.
Watch: https://youtu.be/sDJ-_NJLBmI
Related:
From “Women in the Military” by Brian Mitchell (1998):
p. 57-8: “The most common complaint heard from male cadets and midshipmen was that integration had lowered the academies’ physical standards. Physically, the women simply could not keep up. The dropout rate on morning runs during West Point’s “Beast Barracks” was 23 percent for women and less than 3 percent for men. In the seventh week of training, 26.3 percent of female cadets reported for physical “reconditioning” instead of the morning run, compared to 5.6 percent of men. Women reported for sick call an average of 6.8 times per female cadet, compared to the male average of 1.7 times. They suffered more than ten times as many stress fractures as men. Attrition during the first summer was 16 percent for women, 9.7 percent for men. Even after a year of regular physical training, West Point women in the first integrated class suffered five times as many injuries as men during field training. The following year, the injury rate for women in field training was fourteen times the rate for men.
p. 141-2: “Women’s physical advantages are that they are less susceptible to altitude sickness and, normally, have a greater tolerance of cold temperatures due to their extra body fat. But by all other measures, men have enormous advantages physically. The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength of the average male. She is also at a significant disadvantage when performing aerobic activities such as marching with heavy loads and working in the heat, since fat mass is inversely related to aerobic capacity and heat tolerance. Her lighter frame, moreover, makes her more likely to suffer injuries due to physical exertion. An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.
Tests of men and women entering the West Point class of 1980 found that, on average, the upper-body strength of women was 56 percent the strength of men, their leg strength 80 percent, and their gripping strength 69 percent. Even when height was kept constant, women possessed only 80 percent of the overall strength of men. After eight weeks of intensive training, male plebes demonstrated 32 percent more power in the lower body and peformed 48 percent more work at the leg press than female plebes. At the bench press, the men demonstrated 270 percent more power and performed an extraordinary 473 percent more work than the women.”
So Dalrock: In the light of Ms Rousey’s spectacular loss to Holly Holm in UFC 193, is she worth revisiting?
@Spike
No, she is not worth revisiting.
What that fight proved ‘hands down’ is that she wouldn’t last 1 round with a UFC man in her weight class.
Ronda Rousey is chock full of crap, as are all feminists. She is big on smack talk and short on talent while she parades around in a man’s domain (UFC fighting).
Like it or not, there are real differences between male and female.
Women were not put on this earth to do everything a man CAN do. They were put on this earth to do everything that a man CANNOT do. That’s why the two sexes exist in the first place.
However, the list of CAN-do’s that women excel at (and that men appreciate) is dead last on every woman’s TO-do list.
One may note that, even in ignominious defeat, Rousey is still getting a wildly disproportionate share of attention whilst the victor(ine), Holm, is still all but unknown.
Funny, that.
@PokeSalad
That’s because Ronda Rousey is the ‘brand’ (mule) to which feminists have hitched their cart.
Rousey will receive an immediate rematch against Holm, and she will be the fan favourite going in. I hope Rousey gets her ass handed to her a 2nd time.
UFC fighting isn’t my thing, but I will be routing for Holm if for no other reason than Rousey so richly deserves a BIG slice of humble pie.
Pingback: Dalrock
Pingback: Modern women say “follow the rules while we break them”