Fighting to define equality down
In the late 1990s, when women’s boxing was emerging as something that really existed, The Onion printed a satirical list of reasons for the sport’s emergence. The last reason on the list explained that “Women can do anything men can do, no matter how (expletive) stupid it is.”
Two weeks ago, mixed martial arts megastar Ronda Rousey pummeled Brazilian challenger Bethe Correia into submission in 34 seconds. Rousey is one of sports’ biggest stars, having compiled a 12-0 record since 2011. In the process, she has unified two distinctly different demographics: feminist women who think MMA fighting is “empowering” and men who would prefer to see those feminists strip down to spandex and punch each other in the face.
Ideally, neither men nor women should participate in MMA fighting. According to a University of Toronto study last year, brain injuries in MMA outpaced those in football, hockey and even boxing. MMA fighters suffer traumatic brain injuries in nearly one-third of all professional bouts. Deaths in the “cage” aren’t entirely uncommon. The sport is essentially human dogfighting.
Thus, women’s participation in ultimate fighting doesn’t demonstrate “empowerment,” it merely shows that women are capable of male-level stupidity. Beating someone in the head until she becomes a bloody mess isn’t “progress.” In fact, if there were an antonym for “progress,” it could be a picture of one of Rousey’s vanquished opponents.
Further, it’s not as if men are gathering to hear Rousey’s thoughts on Chaucer or the efficacy of conversion to the euro. They want to pound energy drinks and see a scantily clad gorgeous woman pummel another woman until she can’t move anymore. If Rousey weren’t as comely as she is, she’d be an afterthought.
Of course, that’s not to say that women shouldn’t be just as physical or aggressive in sports as men. I’ve spent plenty of time teaching my daughter the art of the box-out and the pick-and-roll in basketball. The physical dominance of the American women’s soccer team in last month’s World Cup was inspirational;
Women’s participation in ultimate fighting doesn’t demonstrate “empowerment,” it merely shows that women are capable of male-level stupidity.
every week my Facebook feed is filled with women bandaging themselves from rough roller derby matches.
But in those sports, physical damage is the byproduct of activity, not the ultimate goal.
And the whole Rousey phenomenon reeks of paternalism. People appear to be shocked that a woman can dominate when fighting other woman. This is what makes Rousey such a novelty. Apply this to your office — imagine someone saying, “Isn’t it adorable that Heather was able to file her report on time, given that she’s a woman and all?”
Again: I don’t think men should participate in MMA either; I actually just expect women to be smarter. (This is actually sexism against men, right?) And I fully recognize this puts me squarely in the mid-1800s in gender relations — next thing you know, they’ll allow women to vote!
Obviously, there aren’t enough people repulsed by MMA fighting to curtail its popularity; the fights will go on. But as they do, I’ll be like Mike Huckabee at a gay wedding; I can’t stop it, but I don’t have to look, either.
As for Rousey, she seems pleasant and is free to do anything she wants with her life. Rumor has it that she has an acting career ahead of her. I just hope she has the sense to quit before she does any real damage to herself. (Although in her case, that seems like a longer shot, as someone would have to hit her first.)
It remains to be seen whether ultimate fighting will ever be more than a fringe sport enjoyed by a small group of young, overstimulated males. But when women’s equality is won by lowering themselves to the level of men, count me out.