*length=1:52

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:52 - length declared by newtboy.

I like her and her attitude, but to me there is a gap of cognitive dissonance between her answer to the first question versus the second...

She will only fight women because it is never OK for a man to hit a woman. Fair enough, and she justified her reasoning on that well.

But then, MMA is the most pro-woman sport because there is no distinction made between men and women. But all the women are in the MMA "bantam-weight" division, and the men aren't ... just because they don't use the sex/gender words doesn't mean the distinction isn't there. And based on her to response to the first question, she endorses if not personally requires that distinction in order to be comfortable with the system...

Seems weird to me.

I think you're reading too much into her statements.

I too felt the same "wait, you clearly are contraindicating that women shouldn't be marginalized/kid-gloved"

But she also makes a valid point about the ... uhm.."de-genderization" of the sport. which is cool

So, yes. While what she's saying doesn't make sense.

I also understand why she's happy that women are included and have, at least, the potential to test their proverbial "shit" against men if they want.

She's just trained/socialized to accept the normative idea that " there's no reason to hit a woman"..

[clue the Bill Burr clip about times when it's acceptable to fight back against a violent female

..post/sift that shit for karma/powerpoints if you must..]

I understand your train of thought, but I tend to disagree with your assessment.

Despite the [horrible] interviewer's attempt to put the term "separate but equal" into Ronda's mouth, she is not pretending that domestic violence is commonly an equal-opportunity offense. It's not a matter of someone actively making a decision to segregate women as the victims and men as the perpetrators of domestic violence, but it is a fact of nature that in domestic violence it's almost exclusively men who beat women. She simply doesn't want to contribute in the social consciousness to the acceptance or disregard of women accepting beatings from men.

That's a very different situation than a sporting organization deciding to create a separate company with a different name and different rules to corral and promote all their women independently from the rest of their male-only "real" organization. UFC is probably the only sports organization that puts women on the same plane as their male counterparts and even features their fights as the main event above male bouts (at least in Ronda's case).

I don't watch UFC, so is this bantam weight category populated only by women then? Because that's the impression I got from the video and if that's true then it's a de facto women's league within the UFC, they just don't call it that.

It seems the divisions are based solely on weigh regardless. Seems women as of now are in two divisions. See divisions here http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/weight-classes

I scrolled to the bottom of that page, and what did I see? Listings of WOMAN'S bantam weight, and bantam weight! It seems they DO have 'woman's divisions' separately after all.
From the ufc.com page

Women's Strawweight Joanna Jedrzejczyk March 14, 2015 (UFC 185: Pettis vs Dos Anjos) 0
Flyweight Demetrious Johnson September 23, 2012 (UFC 152) 5
Bantamweight TJ Dillashaw May 24, 2014 (UFC 173: Barao VS. Dillashaw) 1
Women's Bantamweight Ronda Rousey December 6, 2012 4
Featherweight Jose Aldo f1 April 30, 2011 (UFC 129)

etc.......

Yes but im assuming because they have to be differentiated somehow as there are two. Somehow you have to tell the viewer/reader the gender difference so they know what you're talking about. Maybe it can be argued then, why not put mens in front of the weight divisions, which could be done i guess, but just would look shitty (add cluter)on the page imo.

Actually Lucky you are way off base. Domestic violence is equal-opportunity. Knox (2012) notes that women and men batter each other with relatively equal frequency. Where the domestic violence diverges is that men go much further physically and hurt women more severely. By ignoring the first part due to the level of violence some men typically display, we minimize abuse in general. No abuse is okay-abuse.

Not to mention that women abuse children quite often too...which imo is sadder than any abuse inflicted on an adult. But that's a slightly different topic.

A funny note is that in America women shoot men per ratio far more than in other countries. It is actually laughable in a disturbing kind of way...but that's 'Merica for you.

But I thought she said it's the most pro-woman sport because they don't differentiate, which I thought implied they might fight each other, just she would not do that. This implies they do differentiate and separate them. Did I miss something?

@newtboy - There is a men's and a women's bantamweight *title* because the men and women don't fight each other, so they can't have just one title, but they aren't separated as different "men" and "women" divisions. Subtle difference, but still very meaningful I think.

@Lawdeedaw - That difference in severity makes all the difference. I'm curious if Knox (2012) cites how many husbands versus wives are subject to prolonged physical and psychological torture by their spouse.

OK, makes sense. Just not quite as 'sex blind' as I thought she implied.
I'm all for them fighting together, men and women, if it's consensual. If violence is OK, violence is OK, right? At the same weight class, they should be close to the same strength...if not, figure out a ratio that makes them the same strength, and have at it, I say. Women can be tough, so if on equal footing should have equal chance of winning.
I get her point about abuse, but there's a clear distinction when it's consensual, equal, and mutual. Just my 2 cents.

I think it really may be as sex blind as she implied.

What I mean is I don't know that it's forbidden by the UFC for men to fight women (though the fighting commission(s) might prohibit it), and as you said, she is implying it's an option.

She won't fight a man but some day perhaps we'll see a woman who will and the winner will hold both the men's and women's championship title. Wouldn't that be something.

But then again it wouldn't be very sporting or enjoyable by fans if there isn't ever a woman strong enough to beat a man in her own weight class. For that reason alone man vs. woman probably won't ever happen.

I hope some day we'll see a woman champion beat the male champion and meld the belts, making one championship.
You're right, if women can't compete, it would be terrible, but I think they could, certainly if given a certain weight advantage. I know damn well that Ronda could tie me in knots and make me swallow my own buttocks.

LMFAHS

While everyone seems, to agree that Ronda's first point is right, she doesn't really explain well what makes her second statement valid. It's not that there isn't an obvious seperation between genders, it's the lack of advertising it. They just call her the "batman weight champion" not the "batman weight champion FOR GIRLS". Putting a "women's" in the title does that. It's basically just semantics but sometimes such subtleties matter.

I'm not really sure why we we're trivialising the fact that they dropped the "women's"/"men's" labels.

It's not really that small a deal, she's saying both men and women are just UFC fighters. There's no Women's UFC organisation and Men's UFC organisation.

It's deeper than just the title labels, they are all employed (or contracted, whatever the payment structure is) by the *one* company, who she believes treats both genders the same.

The organisation is sex blind as an employer. This is a big and commendable point.

Because.. it is trivial. (not to rag on your very sweet comment tho)

In effect, the gender segregation is still present and will be for quite while.

Not to mention, UFC President Dana White's long-standing assertion that "Women will never fight in the UFC. Those types of fights aren't interesting enough".

So yeah, the decision to include women in bantam/lightweight divisions is purely business driven.


The UFC first gained Bantum & Light divisions when they absorbed the WEC in 2010/11.

This was part of Zuffa, UFC's parent company, consolidating their assets following the decline of MMA's popularity. 2005/06

So essentially; Dana & Zuffa realized the easiest way re-ignite interest in the UFC was to include female fighters on the same card.

The alternative being:
Create a separate "Women's UFC" franchise with all the low-draw problems from before + the notorious low-draw attached to women's franchises i.e. - WNBA, LPGA, etc.

Any groundbreaking policies here are purely PR benefits for a company struggling to stay relevant. And moreover, solvent.


So yeah, UFC isn't all-of-a-sudden concerned for the plight of women fighters..

It's just another gimmick to sell seats/PPV.

Sexism is awesome!

Also, on a related note, I love beating my children on Sundays right before the week begins. Makes them really appreciate the mundane. It's boring but you aren't getting beaten. I hope my good intentions don't lead them down the path to hell.

Aw shucks, I'm a good mom, I just worry, ya know?

Because they aren't dropped.

If a man and woman can't step in to the ring against each other, there are two different divisions of each weight which women fight in. I think having one division would be problematic, even once you get past the awful spectacle of men beating women and women beating men.

But to claim that it's now sexless is BS, you cannot have two bantamweight champions of the exact same division.

Sorry for the late response lucky, as I found myself getting angry at some posters and took a chill pill. To answer the question--yes Knox does make that distinction. In fact he takes great pains to do so because he isn't trying to make women seem like they deserve it. In fact he explains all the discrimination women go through.

And the level of violence does matter--or I would have left it out. I don't hide facts to further my point of view...

As someone with an abusive mother and a loving father, I gotta say I don't agree that my dad put up with the abuse to himself or to us for so long...I can also see why my brother is abused by his wife, or why my other brother was in a mutually abusive relationship (Although he always took it way further.) If you haven't lived with abuse...please don't speak like an expert. If you have, then you have all the right in the world.

Sorry, but it's nowhere near as sex blind as she makes out.

Fine, I get that they don't want to have men fighting women. Personally, I don't have a problem with it (I train with women all the time). The important point is that it's not a man "beating up" a woman, it's a man "competing with" a woman where both parties are consenting.

But look at this page of weight classes.

BANTAMWEIGHT TJ DILLASHAW
WOMEN'S BANTAMWEIGHT RONDA ROUSEY

I like your point a lot and totally agree with it. If they add a sister championship class, it'd be great to see the existing one renamed. So although their action of adding women as pseudo-equals is great, they obviously aren't stomping their feet to promote equality. "Look, we renamed it to 'MEN's bantamweight champion' aren't we great and progressive!"

It's definitely like @GenjiKilpatrick says, that it's business driven, but my reply to that is: so what? To me that's kind of a huge part of the point.

The WNBA, WPGA, etc. exist as separate organizations probably in large part because they carry on different advertising relationships and get different television airing days/times and different venues, etc.

To me it's a pretty big deal that the UFC's business is relying on the fact that women competitors can just be thrown right into the same pay-per-views, advertising, venues, etc. as the men. That they can do that and that they do do that means they aren't second-class fighters and they are as good as the men in generating business.

Yeah, I think that's great and I'd add that as this point, I'd say Rousey is their most publicly recognisable fighter, certainly to people who aren't aficionados of MMA.

Ironically, part of that is because of a combination of novelty factor and that she's easy on the eyes, but that's the public perception, and doesn't in anyway reflect on her abilities as a fighter.