I have a lot to say about this, but was wanting to hear some other points of view before I let my inner feminist come out too much. He makes some valid points, yes, but I feel like he takes a backdoor approach of appearing to be on the side of women. In reality I do not feel he is. He fails to realize that the reason there are women only leagues/divisions is because women had to start seperate divisions because, even today, women aren't "allowed" to play in the "mens'" divisions. It's hard to say that we, as women, aren't just as good or better in certain sports when there is no true realm where the talents can be compared side by side. Targeting Ronda as his example was a poor choice, in my opinion. Even Dana White has said she is one of the best fighters he's ever seen. Not best women fighter...but one of the best fighters, including men. She completely changed his view on women even being a part of the UFC. So, why not celebrate her for her talent? He argues for equality, yet feels a women can't be considered the best at what she does until she "proves" it to him....by beating a man. He says women are shadowed by men in our society. Well, arguments like his do not help matters. Let her have her moment without saying a man is still better until she proves otherwise. Then, she won't be in the shadow of men. I'm sure if there were more available platforms for women to compete against men their would be plenty of women competing against men. I struggle with this notion that a women can't be recognized & applauded for their accomplishments & talents unless they do it better than a man.....even if she was THE FIRST women to complete a course/race/event. If a women is the best in her field...let HER be recognized for it.
Oops....I let her come out anyway.
