It was not my intention to make it about RR, she was just the fighter i watched when i had the idea. "I wouldn't call it hypocrisy, as it's not the fault of the sports sexualising their participants but it's how everyone in society sees things." This is the point of contention i think. I already gave an example of the great software writer that is a female. There are many other areas where how hot one is, matters little for what success one has. Once again, my point, indisputable IMO, is that hotness is critical to becoming a super star in combat sports when you are female; but more importantly, a lot if not most men seem to be in denial of this.
Read the thread mate; i don't care about your favorite anything. EDIT: you got you shorts in a twist when you read about RR; i'm not downing her achievements, i'm not even talking about her. We all love her ok?
There's your key word right there. Unmarketable. Apart from visual attractiveness (which is obviously the first thing people see), there's personality and talent that also needs to play a part. Let's swing this round to male sports. Hands up who has seen Beckham, Cristiano Ronaldo in their briefs? Marketable, right? Easy on the eye, good personalities and generally liked personalities. Now name an unmarketable football/MMA person. Distinctively noted male fighter, who can easily be classed as one of the future greats is Demitrious Johnson. Great talent, great fighter, but pretty much refuses to be marketed as heavily compared to his counter-parts. Also Jose Aldo, look at the difference between him and Connor McGregor. Aldo I personally believe is the better fighter, but he really doesn't like the publicisation of himself, Connor however is a press whore (to use the media term). Both aren't exactly good looking but they are widely well regarded in their own fields.
Attractiveness does not equal marketability. Attractiveness is more related to familiarity and accessibility. If someone is so different you can't relate to them or if the person seems completely unattainable, you probably will not find them as attractive compared to someone you are more familiar with and within grasp. Marketability is more about uniqueness and perceptions. It's the uniqueness (Olympic bronze medalist, MMA champion, etc.) that makes her marketable. The piece that is carefully managed is the perceptions. There are those that don't like Ronda Rousey for various reasons, one of them was a female Thai boxer that I talked to last year. Making Ronda Rousey a household name through marketing, makes people more familiar with her. This makes her more attainable, and more attractive. Attractiveness is the last stage in marketing, not the first stage. You made it sound like attractiveness is the first stage in determining who is marketable. There are plenty of pretty faces out there and not so pretty that never get the opportunity to be marketed because they don't stand out. There are some that did stand out, but for other reasons such as reputations did not make them good candidates for making household names.
He answered your question and you claimed him to be a hypocrite. And we all seem to be talking about RR, including yourself, as you used her as an example to get the thread going. This is a good discussion, so let's not ruin it quickly.
But i am agreeing with you. America knows David Beckham even though they berely heard of the Premir League. The thing is, Beckham fans will always tell you in the face they know him and like him because he is hot. Few know he was one of the best right sided mids because he was an extrime hard worker, vision of passing, etc. In combat sports though, SHE IS A FORCE OF NATURE!!! THAT IS WHY IS IS KNOWS. you know, hypocrisy.
So - everyone who doesn't agree with you, is a hypocrite? Good basis for a discussion. "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong." Works every time.
Interesting, maybe my decoder is broken but a few women that told me they were Beckham fans to the point of wanting to take their pants off if he ever showed up at their door... well long story short, they "like him, he is so hot!" I'm pretty sure they never said or intended to say they like him because he is hot. That would make them shallow Rousey is becoming more accessible to people, so her attractiveness is growing on people. She didn't get to where she was by being hot. However, the NEXT stage into super-stardom is likely related to how hot she is to people. The difference between star and superstar.
ha funny. I gave an opinion and in future posts supported by arguments. If you don't agree, i don't care. If you don't agree and have counter argument, then i listen and we talk. The "indisputable" part was a tongue in cheek comment.
I looked it up and it says "the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity." I really do make an effort to express myself as clear as i can. You post on things that have nothing to do with the thread, you pretend not to understand when you do; you do not respond to posts when your mistakes are pointed out. What do you want Hannibal? English is not my first language and there is a slight chance you might be better at it then me. EDIT: RR is cweeeeeel
Nope sorry - one of the rare times I disagree with you. Just log onto Sherdog or other MMA forums and see how women MMAists are treated vs male MMAists. No, men don't get their marketability based on looks on anywhere near the same scale as women do. Not even close.
"Looks" in the "pwhoar!!!" sense perhaps not - but with a massively male fanbase that is not suprising; but "a certain look"? Most definitely - Lesnar springs to mind MMA is a business and what puts bums in seats in mainstream exposure. Ronda happens to be a very attractive lady, but what raises her profile is not her looks it is her ability; its why average people have no idea who Rin Nakai is or Gina Carano...the had the package but nothing riding it Rondas fanbase has a large female demographic too and as the figurehead of women in MMA this is unsuprising. She didnt become the "face" by accident; she annihlated everything in her path
I think you've given yourself away there. I don't like threads like this as there is nearly always a hidden agenda. Take a look at our Twitter page and who we follow (and who follows us). Martial artists mainly. Some female some male. Looks don't come into it. If I were you I'd walk away from this thread and let it die a death. I certainly wouldn't be using terms such as "chick", then arguing as you are.
I think you're confusing being viewed as sexually attractive vs being viewed as a particular body type and preference.
I'd be interested if you know of any particular studies we can read online or links to said studies? I'm finding it's far more productive to waste a few hours and actually read the damn studies than just accept people's generalisations on what the studies say. I'm also finding in many cases, a lot of studies that are reported turn out to be absolute bumpkiss and a total embarrassment that should not be taken seriously or provide any meaningful data (example: like that one a few months back about "sexist male gamers are literal losers"). Also, those damn pay walls.
If attractiveness were the defining factor of superstardom then Gina Carano would be Beatles famous. As it is RR is outspoken, a lot of personality, Olympian, dominant mma champ, and let's be honest, a 5.5/10. Basically, she's famous because she's a beast, and now wears heels occasionally.
Exactly. The thing with all of this is that if fighters like Carano, Rousey, Tate, Holm (etc) were crap fighters then they wouldn't get the TV time, they wouldn't get the contracts and we would never know of them. Looks are all well and good, but it is still their mad ninja skills people watch them for. Anything else is just window dressing compared to that.
Definitely not the defining factor. Just a very important one for promotion, IMO. I didn't mean for the thread to be about RR like this, but about the fans unwillingness to admit that in sports, like in most other industries, looks play a major role in how much one is promoted.
