Something funny about modern leftists; they’ve invested so much time dividing people by gender, race, and whatever else… they just assume everyone else judges their self worth based on the color of their skin or their wobbly bits. So a liberal might assume Ronda Rousey, being the most popular female athlete in the world, finds it important to be the most popular FEMALE athlete in the world.
“It’s motivating, because it’s something I have to keep earning,” she told Peretti. “When I was a kid, all I did was train. I never went to a dance, I never had a date, I never went to a single party. Training was my whole life, and it was because I wanted to be able to win the Olympics more than I wanted to go to the movies with my friends.”
“I want my name to be mentioned along with Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali. And I don’t want the word ‘woman’ to be in front of ‘champion.'”
Watching people try to squeeze Ronda Rousey into their little, ideological box is almost as fun as watching her fight. She gets asked about equal pay in every other interview, liberals complain that she isn’t a feminist in the right way, and apparently men are supposed to have a problem with her…according to feminists in whom men have no interest. So of course, feminists are now angry at her, or something…
The feminists are desperate for Rousey to be their trophy girl, but Rousey just won’t play along. She’s never played the victim card. She’s never played the “gender card” and she’s at the top of her game. Like every opponent she’s ever faced, the left is beginning to seriously fear Rousey. Ronda Rousey succeeded on her talent, her will, her drive. What does that mean for feminism? Seems like it makes the whole charade a bit irrelevant, doesn’t it? If a woman can get to the top without feminism…well, then maybe feminism isn’t needed to get to the top.