Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2011 18:41:39 GMT -5
And in here you raise a great point. Having a woman as a special case in the mens wrestling makes womens wrestling look inferior by claiming she is above it. If SDR can go into the mens ranks, then why dont they send Primo into the womens division and have him stomp every Diva and win the Butterfly Belt? One is no different than the other. On the absolute contrary, there is a monumental difference: semi-segregated competitions in our events have always (or virtually always, there may be an exception I cannot think of) been "open section" vs "women's sections". Women may compete either in either women's sections or open sections. Your point would be accurate if the only alternatives were "open" and "fully segregated". The precedent of "semi-segregated in favor of women" is well established in our society, therefore it is not the case that having a female compete against men would pave the way for Primo to destroy the Divas division. I, myself, would rid all segregation, ensure all women who compete are treated fairly and equally, and let the chips fall where they may. Many women would not. I'll elaborate more when I'm off my phone but my definition of feminism was worded pretty close to that on webster's dictionary. I look on Wikipedia first but that site gets a negative response if you use it. So I just went to the first sourced site, and it was webster's dictionary. If you are correct and I am not, then it would be the case that feminists also fight to end sexism that favors them. Prominent feminist activist groups that I am aware of do not. If anything, they fight to maintain or increase that advantage. Of course, some folks who DO identify as feminist are in fact egalitarian, and would redress pro-woman sexism as well. They identify as feminist rather than egalitarian, I suspect, because they are either A) women themselves or B) believe that women still suffer the majority (but not all) of sexism in society. Thus to clarify, when I refer to "feminists", I am going by the definition as practiced by the N.O.W., the largest feminist organization in North America, both in their statements of core beliefs (they are explicitly in favor of pro-woman affirmative action and pro-woman double standards of qualification "when equality just won't do") and in their actions (they protest to move and block legislation that would undo sexist advantages women enjoy in society, or to further enhance advantages women already enjoy). I mean, by a strict Webster's definition of "white pride", that simply means being proud of the cultural roots of Caucasian history. In practice, we both know that groups who primarily identify with that term do something far, far more insidious.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Nov 20, 2011 19:07:52 GMT -5
And in here you raise a great point. Having a woman as a special case in the mens wrestling makes womens wrestling look inferior by claiming she is above it. If SDR can go into the mens ranks, then why dont they send Primo into the womens division and have him stomp every Diva and win the Butterfly Belt? One is no different than the other. On the absolute contrary, there is a monumental difference: semi-segregated competitions in our events have always (or virtually always, there may be an exception I cannot think of) been "open section" vs "women's sections". Women may compete either in either women's sections or open sections. Your point would be accurate if the only alternatives were "open" and "fully segregated". The precedent of "semi-segregated in favor of women" is well established in our society, therefore it is not the case that having a female compete against men would pave the way for Primo to destroy the Divas division. I, myself, would rid all segregation, ensure all women who compete are treated fairly and equally, and let the chips fall where they may. Many women would not. I'll elaborate more when I'm off my phone but my definition of feminism was worded pretty close to that on webster's dictionary. I look on Wikipedia first but that site gets a negative response if you use it. So I just went to the first sourced site, and it was webster's dictionary. If you are correct and I am not, then it would be the case that feminists also fight to end sexism that favors them. Prominent feminist activist groups that I am aware of do not. If anything, they fight to maintain or increase that advantage. Of course, some folks who DO identify as feminist are in fact egalitarian, and would redress pro-woman sexism as well. They identify as feminist rather than egalitarian, I suspect, because they are either A) women themselves or B) believe that women still suffer the majority (but not all) of sexism in society. Thus to clarify, when I refer to "feminists", I am going by the definition as practiced by the N.O.W., the largest feminist organization in North America, both in their statements of core beliefs (they are explicitly in favor of pro-woman affirmative action and pro-woman double standards of qualification "when equality just won't do") and in their actions (they protest to move and block legislation that would undo sexist advantages women enjoy in society, or to further enhance advantages women already enjoy). I mean, by a strict Webster's definition of "white pride", that simply means being proud of the cultural roots of Caucasian history. In practice, we both know that groups who primarily identify with that term do something far, far more insidious. Back on my phone, I'm at the gym. I listen to two feminist podcasts, and generally, they do seem against sexism that favours them. I don't have good examples right now, one though was two women arguing about father's rights, and one was arguing for father's rights, the podcast was awhile ago. Others may get too political, the same arguments are on YouTube, and most feminists I listen to are generally egalitarian in their thinking. Bias is a bad issue, for anything. I'm against sexism that favours me, but again, I'm not big into bias.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Nov 20, 2011 19:09:41 GMT -5
If Vince McMahon thought Francine was too "ugly" to be featured on TV regularly, then he'd probably think the same about Del Ray. Hell, according to XPac, WWE didn't want Faby Apache after he put in the word for her because she's too "bottom heavy", and she's not any bigger than Del Rey. Okay, what's the deal with WWE's beef with big-bottomed women? That's so not cool. You sure he still has a beef with junk in the trunk? He did sign Mickie James and Naomi, after all. Don't get much more "bottom-heavy" than them.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Nov 20, 2011 21:47:40 GMT -5
And in here you raise a great point. Having a woman as a special case in the mens wrestling makes womens wrestling look inferior by claiming she is above it. If SDR can go into the mens ranks, then why dont they send Primo into the womens division and have him stomp every Diva and win the Butterfly Belt? One is no different than the other. On the absolute contrary, there is a monumental difference: semi-segregated competitions in our events have always (or virtually always, there may be an exception I cannot think of) been "open section" vs "women's sections". Women may compete either in either women's sections or open sections. Your point would be accurate if the only alternatives were "open" and "fully segregated". The precedent of "semi-segregated in favor of women" is well established in our society, therefore it is not the case that having a female compete against men would pave the way for Primo to destroy the Divas division. I, myself, would rid all segregation, ensure all women who compete are treated fairly and equally, and let the chips fall where they may. Many women would not. I'll elaborate more when I'm off my phone but my definition of feminism was worded pretty close to that on webster's dictionary. I look on Wikipedia first but that site gets a negative response if you use it. So I just went to the first sourced site, and it was webster's dictionary. If you are correct and I am not, then it would be the case that feminists also fight to end sexism that favors them. Prominent feminist activist groups that I am aware of do not. If anything, they fight to maintain or increase that advantage. Of course, some folks who DO identify as feminist are in fact egalitarian, and would redress pro-woman sexism as well. They identify as feminist rather than egalitarian, I suspect, because they are either A) women themselves or B) believe that women still suffer the majority (but not all) of sexism in society. Thus to clarify, when I refer to "feminists", I am going by the definition as practiced by the N.O.W., the largest feminist organization in North America, both in their statements of core beliefs (they are explicitly in favor of pro-woman affirmative action and pro-woman double standards of qualification "when equality just won't do") and in their actions (they protest to move and block legislation that would undo sexist advantages women enjoy in society, or to further enhance advantages women already enjoy). I mean, by a strict Webster's definition of "white pride", that simply means being proud of the cultural roots of Caucasian history. In practice, we both know that groups who primarily identify with that term do something far, far more insidious. I'm wondering exactly how much you know about feminism because fighting against "benevolent sexism" is exactly what many feminists do. And we're shit on whenever we try to fight against that because "geez, why would you complain about THAT? It's BENEFITING you!" What you need to understand is that feminist viewpoints are not all the same. I mean, even in this thread I disagree with AztecaDragon - personally, I'd prefer scrapping male/female divisions and replacing them with size divisions where women were featured prominently. And I certainly know that the two of us share many feminist viewpoints in common just from seeing her other posts around here. Disagreements in feminism are ALL OVER THE PLACE. There are certain issues within feminism that cause very huge rifts within activism itself, from sex work to transgender issues to men's issues to all sorts of things. Painting "feminism" as one thing isn't something that can be achieved. There is no one feminist viewpoint. There is no one feminist strategy. But, from the fact that you don't even recognize that benevolent sexism is something that many, many feminists hate, I have to wonder how well you know about even the basics of feminism, because benevolent sexism is certainly one of the basics.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Nov 20, 2011 21:56:03 GMT -5
This may make me a bit of a heel, but I think it's important to take note of. The biggest reason I would like Sara Del Rey to compete with men is because I think it could draw money, which is what's really important in wrestling.
What draws money in wrestling? A beloved babyface and a hated heel. Austin/McMahon, Hogan/Piper. Back in the 80s, they built up these hated heels for Hogan to defeat, because the love/hate dynamic is what drew money. Hogan/Orndorff is another good example. Hogan/Savage. Austin/Rock, Austin/Undertaker, Rock/HHH.
I put over Kelly Kelly for having great sympathy, but that's not a trait that one should sneeze at. Ricky Morton made a killing as a sympathetic babyface. That's why Kaitlyn won NXT season 3, I knew she would win it when Vickie started berating her. She got sympathy and was against a hated heel. It's not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Nov 20, 2011 22:03:44 GMT -5
^ I just want a Boy From Mexico
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2011 0:12:06 GMT -5
Back on my phone, I'm at the gym. I listen to two feminist podcasts, and generally, they do seem against sexism that favours them. I don't have good examples right now, one though was two women arguing about father's rights, and one was arguing for father's rights, the podcast was awhile ago. Others may get too political, the same arguments are on YouTube, and most feminists I listen to are generally egalitarian in their thinking. Bias is a bad issue, for anything. I'm against sexism that favours me, but again, I'm not big into bias. As long as they acknowledge that said "pro-woman sexism" cannot be corrected solely by a strategy focused solely on elevating the status of women, then they would be feminists of the kind who are actually egalitarian but identify as "feminists" for one of the reasons I mentioned. Bottom line is, there has to be a reason why the term "feminist" is being used instead of "egalitarianist". I mean, MLK didn't call himself a "Negroist, right? Whatever that reason is for any individual is a key to their motivations IMO. I'm wondering exactly how much you know about feminism because fighting against "benevolent sexism" is exactly what many feminists do. And we're s*** on whenever we try to fight against that because "geez, why would you complain about THAT? It's BENEFITING you!" The feminists that s*** on you for doing it? That is the brand, the flavor, the variety, the sliver of feminism that I am objecting to. I claim that is the brand of feminism as practiced by the N.O.W., and I've cited the reasons for my claim. Look back at the post I wrote. I made it completely crystal clear that not all feminist viewpoints are the same. How much more clear can I make it that I understand? ... and you even agree with me, viz-a-viz combat sports, which makes me wonder if you are letting your personal animosity getting in the way of reading what I am actually saying. .. which is exactly what I stated, in clear detail. I highlighted a specific group who identify as feminists, stated why I disagree with their methodology, and acknowledged that not all people who identify as feminists share that strategy. What more do I need to do? From the fact that I in fact stated that I understand some people who identify as feminists hate benevolent sexism, I have to wonder if you even read my post. Just to repeat, in summary: feminism, as practiced by the N.O.W. (along with other similarly-motivated groups in Western culture), according to their stated core value beliefs and their history of activism, does not fight benevolent sexism. Again, I don't know how much clearer I can be than exactly citing the specific 'flavor' of feminism I am objecting to it, and why I am objecting to it.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Nov 21, 2011 0:20:34 GMT -5
I'm wondering exactly how much you know about feminism because fighting against "benevolent sexism" is exactly what many feminists do. And we're s*** on whenever we try to fight against that because "geez, why would you complain about THAT? It's BENEFITING you!" The feminists that s*** on you for doing it? That is the brand, the flavor, the variety, the sliver of feminism that I am objecting to. I claim that is the brand of feminism as practiced by the N.O.W., and I've cited the reasons for my claim. I have never been shit on by a feminist for that. I have, however, been shit on by plenty of men and non-feminist women. I don't have personal animosity for you. I've agreed with plenty that you said in this thread. But I disagree very strongly with what you said about feminism and so I argued against it. I also find it pretty irritating when non-feminist men, who don't really know much about feminism at all, try to educate me, somebody who actually is a feminist, about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2011 0:27:03 GMT -5
The feminists that s*** on you for doing it? That is the brand, the flavor, the variety, the sliver of feminism that I am objecting to. I claim that is the brand of feminism as practiced by the N.O.W., and I've cited the reasons for my claim. I have never been s*** on by a feminist for that. I have, however, been s*** on by plenty of men and non-feminist women. I don't have personal animosity for you. I've agreed with plenty that you said in this thread. But I disagree very strongly with what you said about feminism and so I argued against it. I also find it pretty irritating when non-feminist men, who don't really know much about feminism at all, try to educate me, somebody who actually is a feminist, about it. Alright, that is fair enough. Let me focus my arguments specifically on the brand of feminism as practiced by the N.O.W.; do you have any disagreements with my description of their particular brand of feminism, and how it is not synonymous with egalitarianism?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Socko's Brother on Nov 21, 2011 1:24:08 GMT -5
.. and insulting 100 million American people with a single bigoted statement wasn't a statement on society? Yep. I'm a total bigot. You pegged me bro. #cornetteface A VERY VERY small minority of the people in the world want to see a woman get punched and kicked in the head, choked, and beaten up by a man. It's just a fact. The vast majority of the people that would want to see it are the people from the darkest edges of society. Way to generalize. I couldn't be more glad for the existence of TV Tropes right now, because it provides plenty of examples of people paying to be entertained by fiction wherein just that sort of thing takes place. And since wrestling is in many ways "fiction" (the only real thing about it being the fact that people do get legit hurt sometimes), I don't see how it's any different. So, here are some examples. -Done beautifully in a Justice League International issue, where time-traveling new recruit Booster Gold has caught the female villain. She asks him if he really would hit a girl. He goes "Well... You see, it's like this..." the next panel shows her on the ground after being punched in the face by him. "Where I come from equality of the sexes is a given, so we can hit anyone." -Classic Spider-Man, meanwhile, started out as a Wouldn't Hit A Girl type back in The Sixties, which caused him some problems with Princess Python of the Circus of Crime. He eventually shed this viewpoint, best highlighted in Secret Wars in The Eighties, when he simultaneously gives a No-Holds-Barred Beatdown and a Reason You Suck Speech to villainess Titania. -James Bond. On the other hand, he notably avoided killing a woman in cold blood (hey, it's James Bond, that shows restraint) for a considerable chunk of his career — IIRC, one of the Pierce Brosnan films. -In the Die Hard films, John McClane has no qualms about hitting a woman, just as long as she's a terrorist. -In Hot Fuzz Nick Angel has no qualms about vaulting a stone wall and kicking an old woman in the face when she has a shotgun pointed at him. -Batman: The Animated Series During the climax of the first part of a 2-part episode, "The Cat and the Claw", Batman finally comes face-to-face with Starter Villain Red Claw, a mysterious international terrorist leader who turns out to be a woman. During their fight, Red Claw asks if he's surprised to learn that she's a woman. Batman knocks her down with a sweep kick and quips "I'm an equal opportunity crimefighter." And finally... -Chris Jericho once punched a woman who attacked him in the face [in real life]. Now if everybody can forgive Jericho for that--and I don't think he should have just stood there and let himself get hit by anybody, particularly not when he was surrounded by a big crowd of people who were all trying to get at him for one reason or another--then I think that people will forgive people who only pretend to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Nov 21, 2011 1:40:53 GMT -5
What have I done? WHAT MADNESS HAVE I SPAWNED!? MAKE IT STOP!!!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Socko's Brother on Nov 21, 2011 1:51:28 GMT -5
Saying that you 'sort of' hope any wrestler you like never makes it to the WWE is ridiculous. Say what you want about WWE and Vince, but it is the 'major league' of wrestling - it is the biggest wrestling organization in the world by a great margin and until you've made it here, in many ways you haven't made it in wrestling. Even if you're a jobber, that is vastly more prestigious and well-paying than wrestling in front of 12 people at a school gym on a Saturady afternoon. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. If I'm a fan of a wrestler, like CM Punk for instance, I want to see that wrestler win. I want to see that wrestler pushed. If I see them being jobbed out or humiliated, that makes me feel bad. It makes me want to stop watching. I like Claudio Castagnoli/Antonio Cesaro. If they bring him up from FCW only to have David Otunga squash him, that's going to piss me off. I want to see Claudio win or at the very least get in a decent amount of offense before losing. I don't want to see him turned into a joke. Now, if he think it's worth it, then that's his business, and I would never tell the man "Please quit WWE and go back to ROH, because I want to see you win!" I realize that saving money for your old age is more important than your win/loss record in pretend fights. But that doesn't mean I have to like it if I see him being buried by WWE. (And if you really believe that being a jobber in the 'E is "more prestigious" than being a main eventer in ROH, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Being a failure on the biggest stage of them all gets you zero respect. Zero. All it means is that you fail in front of millions of people instead of hundreds or thousands of people. Low Ki's jobbertastic run in WWE didn't do anything for his cred as a badass.)
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Nov 21, 2011 2:01:00 GMT -5
I have never been s*** on by a feminist for that. I have, however, been s*** on by plenty of men and non-feminist women. I don't have personal animosity for you. I've agreed with plenty that you said in this thread. But I disagree very strongly with what you said about feminism and so I argued against it. I also find it pretty irritating when non-feminist men, who don't really know much about feminism at all, try to educate me, somebody who actually is a feminist, about it. Alright, that is fair enough. Let me focus my arguments specifically on the brand of feminism as practiced by the N.O.W.; do you have any disagreements with my description of their particular brand of feminism, and how it is not synonymous with egalitarianism? You would have to explain to me your specific issues with NOW if you want me to tell you how I feel about them. But I'm not entirely sure I'm in the mood for getting into a discussion about feminism with anybody who isn't already well versed in feminist ideas and terminology and what that terminology refers to, and I very rarely am if that person is just looking to disagree with me as opposed to actually learning.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Nov 21, 2011 2:13:27 GMT -5
Saying that you 'sort of' hope any wrestler you like never makes it to the WWE is ridiculous. Say what you want about WWE and Vince, but it is the 'major league' of wrestling - it is the biggest wrestling organization in the world by a great margin and until you've made it here, in many ways you haven't made it in wrestling. Even if you're a jobber, that is vastly more prestigious and well-paying than wrestling in front of 12 people at a school gym on a Saturady afternoon. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. If I'm a fan of a wrestler, like CM Punk for instance, I want to see that wrestler win. I want to see that wrestler pushed. If I see them being jobbed out or humiliated, that makes me feel bad. It makes me want to stop watching. I like Claudio Castagnoli/Antonio Cesaro. If they bring him up from FCW only to have David Otunga squash him, that's going to piss me off. I want to see Claudio win or at the very least get in a decent amount of offense before losing. I don't want to see him turned into a joke. Now, if he think it's worth it, then that's his business, and I would never tell the man "Please quit WWE and go back to ROH, because I want to see you win!" I realize that saving money for your old age is more important than your win/loss record in pretend fights. But that doesn't mean I have to like it if I see him being buried by WWE. (And if you really believe that being a jobber in the 'E is "more prestigious" than being a main eventer in ROH, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Being a failure on the biggest stage of them all gets you zero respect. Zero. All it means is that you fail in front of millions of people instead of hundreds or thousands of people. Low Ki's jobbertastic run in WWE didn't do anything for his cred as a badass.) It's not even a matter of winning for me. To use Alex Shelley as a handy example because he's right here plastered on my page, I prefer to see him wrestling in the indies over TNA for one reason: he gets longer matches. I don't care if Shelley gets absolutely destroyed in the match, I just want to see the guy wrestle, because I enjoy his matches, I think he's talented, and he entertains the hell out of me. Wins or losses don't matter to me at all. There is also the matter of how often I get to see them wrestle, and this is where TNA is better than WWE. If Shelley were used weekly on TNA, I'd be getting several short matches of him per week, but he's not. Luckily for me, as a Shelley fan, TNA allows their wrestlers to work in the indies, so I have the chance to see him if he were to wrestle for a PWG or ROH show, and if that were to happen, I know that I'd be getting a longer, high quality match, likely against another wrestler that I also enjoy. If not, there's always a chance for him to get booked for my local promotion, or the chance that one of his matches for a small promotion will show up on youtube. With WWE, that doesn't happen. So, basically, I'm a selfish as hell fan who would rather see my favorite guys in the indies than in WWE. TNA works, but I prefer the indies. I fully admit that I'm selfish. It's not that I don't enjoy their work once they come to WWE, and I am excited for the fact that they are likely going to get to wrestle WWE people now, and for the fact that they're likely living their dream, and that they're going to earn more money (well, for the most part). But as a fan, it makes me sad to lose somebody from the indy scene. There's also the fact that I just assume that WWE will never use the wrestlers I like, because WWE does that to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Socko's Brother on Nov 21, 2011 2:34:52 GMT -5
I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. If I'm a fan of a wrestler, like CM Punk for instance, I want to see that wrestler win. I want to see that wrestler pushed. If I see them being jobbed out or humiliated, that makes me feel bad. It makes me want to stop watching. I like Claudio Castagnoli/Antonio Cesaro. If they bring him up from FCW only to have David Otunga squash him, that's going to piss me off. I want to see Claudio win or at the very least get in a decent amount of offense before losing. I don't want to see him turned into a joke. Now, if he think it's worth it, then that's his business, and I would never tell the man "Please quit WWE and go back to ROH, because I want to see you win!" I realize that saving money for your old age is more important than your win/loss record in pretend fights. But that doesn't mean I have to like it if I see him being buried by WWE. (And if you really believe that being a jobber in the 'E is "more prestigious" than being a main eventer in ROH, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Being a failure on the biggest stage of them all gets you zero respect. Zero. All it means is that you fail in front of millions of people instead of hundreds or thousands of people. Low Ki's jobbertastic run in WWE didn't do anything for his cred as a badass.) It's not even a matter of winning for me. To use Alex Shelley as a handy example because he's right here plastered on my page, I prefer to see him wrestling in the indies over TNA for one reason: he gets longer matches. I don't care if Shelley gets absolutely destroyed in the match, I just want to see the guy wrestle, because I enjoy his matches, I think he's talented, and he entertains the hell out of me. Wins or losses don't matter to me at all. There is also the matter of how often I get to see them wrestle, and this is where TNA is better than WWE. If Shelley were used weekly on TNA, I'd be getting several short matches of him per week, but he's not. Luckily for me, as a Shelley fan, TNA allows their wrestlers to work in the indies, so I have the chance to see him if he were to wrestle for a PWG or ROH show, and if that were to happen, I know that I'd be getting a longer, high quality match, likely against another wrestler that I also enjoy. If not, there's always a chance for him to get booked for my local promotion, or the chance that one of his matches for a small promotion will show up on youtube. With WWE, that doesn't happen. So, basically, I'm a selfish as hell fan who would rather see my favorite guys in the indies than in WWE. TNA works, but I prefer the indies. I fully admit that I'm selfish. It's not that I don't enjoy their work once they come to WWE, and I am excited for the fact that they are likely going to get to wrestle WWE people now, and for the fact that they're likely living their dream, and that they're going to earn more money (well, for the most part). But as a fan, it makes me sad to lose somebody from the indy scene. There's also the fact that I just assume that WWE will never use the wrestlers I like, because WWE does that to me. I can definitely understand that. IIRC, while TNA will let their wrestlers work indy dates, they'll often charge the other promotion quite a lot for the use of the wrestler in question, sometimes to the point where the indy fed decides it just isn't worth it. As for the assumption that WWE either won't use the wrestlers you like from the indies, or will bring them up only to have them do a string of jobs, usually that's a pretty safe bet.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Nov 21, 2011 2:40:03 GMT -5
It's not even a matter of winning for me. To use Alex Shelley as a handy example because he's right here plastered on my page, I prefer to see him wrestling in the indies over TNA for one reason: he gets longer matches. I don't care if Shelley gets absolutely destroyed in the match, I just want to see the guy wrestle, because I enjoy his matches, I think he's talented, and he entertains the hell out of me. Wins or losses don't matter to me at all. There is also the matter of how often I get to see them wrestle, and this is where TNA is better than WWE. If Shelley were used weekly on TNA, I'd be getting several short matches of him per week, but he's not. Luckily for me, as a Shelley fan, TNA allows their wrestlers to work in the indies, so I have the chance to see him if he were to wrestle for a PWG or ROH show, and if that were to happen, I know that I'd be getting a longer, high quality match, likely against another wrestler that I also enjoy. If not, there's always a chance for him to get booked for my local promotion, or the chance that one of his matches for a small promotion will show up on youtube. With WWE, that doesn't happen. So, basically, I'm a selfish as hell fan who would rather see my favorite guys in the indies than in WWE. TNA works, but I prefer the indies. I fully admit that I'm selfish. It's not that I don't enjoy their work once they come to WWE, and I am excited for the fact that they are likely going to get to wrestle WWE people now, and for the fact that they're likely living their dream, and that they're going to earn more money (well, for the most part). But as a fan, it makes me sad to lose somebody from the indy scene. There's also the fact that I just assume that WWE will never use the wrestlers I like, because WWE does that to me. I can definitely understand that. IIRC, while TNA will let their wrestlers work indy dates, they'll often charge the other promotion quite a lot for the use of the wrestler in question, sometimes to the point where the indy fed decides it just isn't worth it. Yeah, that's also an issue. I remember the Young Bucks coming to the local promotion I go to and they were telling some of us that they probably wouldn't be coming back because of TNA making it such a hassle for them to get dates. And this was before TNA made that vague attempt at pushing them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2011 12:55:09 GMT -5
You would have to explain to me your specific issues with NOW if you want me to tell you how I feel about them. But I'm not entirely sure I'm in the mood for getting into a discussion about feminism with anybody who isn't already well versed in feminist ideas and terminology and what that terminology refers to, and I very rarely am if that person is just looking to disagree with me as opposed to actually learning. Wait.. I'd have to explain the NOW's platform to you? I thought that non-feminist men had no business explaining feminism to feminist women.. yet it seems that there exists one substantial aspect of feminism (the methodology of the most popular feminist organization in North America, and why it is not synonymous with egalitarianism) that I am better informed on than you are. Now what are we to do? Rest assured I've got my own criteria about getting into discussions -- such as, I'm not into getting into discussions where I have to say everything three or four times. My post at the start of this page explains the specific parts of the NOW methodology that I feel differ it from egalitarianism. It also shows me stating over and over that I understand full well that feminism is not a "one-size-fits-all" term, something you accused me of yet the record shows you to be completely in the wrong and I to be completely vindicated. Which is another one of my criteria, I generally hate "getting into it" with people who are not as diligent as owning up to their mistakes as I am. Yet in spite of the umpteenth mud-bath I find myself wearing when sharing a thread with you, I will put it all aside for the sake of showing that, all our friction aside, we are capable of having a concrete and productive discourse on a very small and very specific facet of this little war zone. All I want is for you to give me your opinion on whether the NOW's brand of feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism. The key search term is "Constitutional Equality Amendment". My apologies for once again telling you something about feminism that you didn't know.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Nov 21, 2011 13:41:01 GMT -5
What have I done? WHAT MADNESS HAVE I SPAWNED!? MAKE IT STOP!!! You're Victor Frankenstein and your monster is destroying the countryside.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Nov 22, 2011 10:20:50 GMT -5
I DEMAND MORE TOYS! I WANT SOME PANTS! A DECENT PAIR OF PANTS!But anyway, why not have her in female four horsemen/evolution type stable with Sara, Melissa, Mercedes, and Eagles? You bring in those four, and the division would be deeper than ever. Solomon Grundy want pants, too!
|
|