Photo by the fantastic Esther Lin.
The rise in women’s MMA brings about an opportunity for writers to recycle their 1996 “human cockfighting” articles. Just update a few names, add in some bullshit about the precious nature of two X chromosomes, and you’re ready to go.
I expect to see this sort of drivel from the Boston Globe or the Po-Dunk Times-Herald. I do not expec to see it from MMA Fanhouse. Traitors!
The ancient Greeks who started the Olympics treated women like property. Now we’re letting women treat themselves like animals.
If female combat is going to ever make it big, it will need competitors who look like strippers and fight like bouncers.
From all accounts, the crowd loved it. Of course, some people like snuff films and Michael Vick’s ex-hobby. And our ancestors had season tickets to the Christians vs. the Lions.
That sounds frighteningly familiar doesn’t it?
Such thinking only goes so far. If dog fighting were to be sanctioned and televised, there would undoubtedly be a sizeable audience, consisting of the eager, the curious, and even the repulsed. Presumably that would lead to expensive ring-side seats, video games, and a beer sponsorship. But lawmakers, media, and business people would never condone it. Why they are willing to view “human dog-fighting’’ differently is something the culture of Dr. Phils ought to consider.
David Whitley, I can understand not getting off on women’s MMA. It’s not easy to deconstruct the smothering teachings of society.
To turn around and blast women’s MMA with the same garbage we’ve heard about the sport at large speaks volumes to me. If you’re going to label female fighters as “animals” and compare the women’s MMA to dogfighting and Roman bloodsport, why don’t you carry those arguments to the sport as a whole? How do you separate the two?
