SPORT AND COMBAT AND POLITICS AND COMBAT, AND WOMEN

SPORT AND COMBAT AND POLITICS AND COMBAT, AND WOMEN
by Andy Weddington
Friday, 07 August 2015

"Fighting is essentially a masculine idea; a woman's weapon is her tongue." Hermione Gingold

Never had I heard of Ms. Ronda Rousey.  

That is, not before some short video clips of her swamped social media a week or so ago. They're still floating around. 

I delete them. 

If her name is not familiar she is a mixed martial arts artist - fighter. She is the current bantamweight Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) champion. 

Ms. Rousey is listed as 28 years old, 5 feet 7 inches tall and 135 pounds. 

What exactly is her trade?

Simply, she enters a ring/cage to square off against another woman of similar size. They attack each other. Most anything - full power use of fists; elbows; feet; knees; immobilizing holds; etc., - goes. The multiple rounds bout is refereed. 

Admittedly, only passing glimpses of the UFC (men) have I seen when, on rare occasion some evenings, there's time to relax before television.

I do not watch the fighting. To me, it is pointless. And thus the pointless brutality uncivilized and something I question as to why it is ongoing in our culture. 

That women, too, are engaging in this hand-to-hand combat disturbs me beyond words. It turns my stomach for the simple reason I was raised to the contrary. My rearing and position has neither softened nor "modernized" with age. 

How much further can this uncivilized "sport", to satisfy blood lusting crowds, be taken?

Yes, I understand the money. However. 

Bull-fighting can be made child's play in comparison. 

So perhaps combatants are armed with primitive weapons - axes; maces; fighting knives; and sabers? Or pitted against man-eating animals? And the combat, just as battlefield combat, is to death? Surrender not an option. 

Were the barbarism to escalate and even if people volunteered to so engage, is there duty, in the name of civility, to say "NO!" Especially when the "game" is only for entertainment and profit? 

Of course, I think. 

If not, the NFL, NBA, MLB, PGA, USTA, et al., may as well fold or make barbarous the rules of their games.  

Is there (ever) enough blood to sober arena crowds and boob tube audiences?  

I wonder - ah yes, the Romans. And conclude probably not. 

And then last night I purposely tuned in a television channel to watch a woman fight - to engage in another sort of combat. 

It was not the UFC. 

Though about the stature of Ronda Rousey this woman would not stand a chance in the ring/cage against the UFC champ. None.

But the woman's physical attributes and prowess not her forte. Her weapons brain(s) and tongue. 

It was how she handled herself in verbal combat that was captivating. 

On stage at dais, in the political ring/cage, voluntarily in combat against larger and stronger male opponents but not necessarily more skilled, Mrs. Carly Fiorina fought. 

She fought with directness, skill, courage, and cunning. Add wit and humor. Poise and polish and class complemented her fighting skills. And before her opponents she did not cower, she did not run. She stood her ground. 

Metaphorically, she drew blood. A lot of blood. 

Little more than 75 minutes with several short breaks, the fight was too short. 

With finesse vice brute force her victory was compelling. Overwhelming really. She took her opponents down and out. So for some it's over - they'll not return to the fight. 

And, not having to face others directly, she took out some opponents in a later bout. 

Videos of Carly Fiorina quickly flooded social media. Chatter did too. Her visibility is exploding and reputation growing. She is dominating Google searches. And on one of the world's largest "countries" - Facebook - she is dominating posts. Her face and name everywhere. 

Now... 

Ronda Rousey is surely a warrior. But why, in what seems gruesome combat for pure sport, stumps me.

Carly Fiorina is surely a warrior. But her combat is not gruesome. Her fighting is for purpose. Important purpose. She wants to lead America. And she not only wants to lead but restore our country to power - atop all others; where the United States belongs.

Leaving the arena Thursday evening Mrs. Fiorina left no doubt she's up to the job.  

But there's a long fight ahead - against multiple opponents in ongoing combat. The presidency - the "championship" - is not gifted but won by earning the citizenry's trust, faith, and confidence not, per se, fulfilling a taste for blood.  

Stay tuned. 

The moral of women in combat - any combat - story?

There's a place for women (in combat) - and that place is where bright defeats brawn. 

In closing...

Why, between Ms. Rousey and Mrs. Fiorina, is Mrs. Fiorina the superior combatant?

Because Mrs. Fiorina can take on any opponent, multiple opponents simultaneously, male or female of any size and at any time and place, and most likely defeat them - one, some and all. 

Ms. Rousey cannot do that. Ms. Rousey's reality is that one male of her size or larger with equal or superior fighting skills would most probably kill (literally) her. Some woman, too, though that has yet to happen. 

There may be beauty in the spectacle of UFC fighting. I do not see it. And femininity is forfeited. 

But watching a woman in political combat dismantle opponents, and critics, is a beautiful thing. And femininity, strong indeed, flourishes. 

Let's keep fighting (physical combat) a masculine idea. And practice. 

Certainly Hermione Gingold, a master of tongue for weapon, would agree. 

Post Script

For the record, during days in uniform I ever earned highest marks for judgment. As such, with great respect for both women, I'd not enter the ring/cage with Ms. Rousey nor Mrs. Fiorina. Nope. No way.