Mumsnet views on Women’s Boxing

Mumsnet is just a load of bitter Karens and women who are clapped out from having children and achieving little else in life.

 

It's a dumb knee jerk reaction from them. Sure people get hurt boxing, but that's true of a lot of sports but I guess none of them think football should be banned after all the news stories of older players all suffering from brain related diseases from heading the ball all those years.

They also don't factor in the benefits of the sport. Fact is boxing takes a lot of kids of the street and keeps them on the straight and narrow, they go from being future criminals to disciplined, physically fit individuals with direction and focus. Would they say the same if it meant a rise in crime rates and then increases in prison populations later on down to line as all the kids saved from this life by boxing end up in prison.

Then you have to realise just because you ban something doesn't mean it stops. You'd end up with illegal fighting where people are more likely to be injured due to the lack of proper regulations and safety precautions. But no they just take the most simplistic view and spout out nonsense.

 

I love big mummy milkers

 

ESB/BF24 is merely reflecting current affairs. The existence of threads like this in a boxing forum is a testimony to how far all our institutions are falling (how total and unrelenting the march through them is).

^ She's right, boys. Do a little snipping and there's a point somewhere in Greer's screeds;

"Equality means you have an idea of what you want for women, which is what men have got.

For example, in England we hear all the time how women have to be introduced to the boardroom. How the boardroom must be 30% female and you think, why 30%? What’s so holy about 30%?

There is actually no point. They’re not doing anything for women."


So what does it actually do for women (besides lead them from their true transcendent purpose) to program greater numbers of them into believing that realization of birthright for womankind includes battering each other for a (Louis Vuitton) purse?

And what of the useful idiot males who #StandWith this creepy doctrine, i.e. that greater numbers of girls should be encouraged to pursue a career of beating other girls, in the belief that they have elevated themselves to a superior moral high ground than the rest of the out-of-touch, sexist cavemen who follow the sport?
Some ostensibly upstanding fellows (hello, @Noel857) have a choice to make. You can believe in the image depicted here, or you can support the normalization of this — it's not possible to do right by both, they're antithetical.

Just wait until boxing's Lia Thomases arrive at some inevitable juncture and proceed with smashing these girls' faces in (give it time, give it time). You reckon it would help the right-on advocates of womens' boxing see this slippery slope for what it is? Think again. They'll have embraced that idea, too, by the time it becomes commonplace. 'Listen, fellas, M2Fs aren't going anywhere, so let's just cool it with the transphobia and discuss this week's natty vs. dilater bouts'.

Male hardwiring lends itself to (among other things) fighting. Female hardwiring assuredly does not. It neither celebrates nor benefits women to offer them the actual debasement that is glorification within a distinctly male framework.

What a vile state of affairs has been achieved under the banner of 'progress'.

 

I am sorry i am not intelligent enough to pretend to understand what your saying here.Freedom of choice is the issue for me and if the girls want to fight let them

 

And me, i.e. freedom of choice for men and women to be what they are, nature's anomalies aside, with no regime interference, programming or engineering. Left to their own devices, men and women will sort themselves into the roles that best suit and benefit them.

Try to recall, Noel, the number of women you have ever personally known, compared to the number of men, who expressed a genuine interest in fighting (i.e. engaging in combat with members of their sex on a regular basis, which is what actual boxing entails, as opposed to learning the basic moves and hitting things for fitness). You are more than twice my age. I have grown up in the twenty-first century, my life lived entirely in the post-WLM age, and the numbers in my own experience are wholly one-sided. The only girls I've ever met who wanted to fight are among the scarce few serious students, distinct from the keep-fitters, who frequented the gyms I've frequented. With the exception of one former colleague who trained a few weeks for a 'pink collar' bout to raise money for charity and who was left mildly traumatized by her sole competitive experience, I've never known any girls who wanted to fight in my social life beyond the boxing gym.

Yet and still, we have lately been witnessing a concerted and contrived, media-driven regime push behind womens' boxing, among whose undisguised objectives it is (openly stated in the considerable amount of column inches dedicated to it) to swell the number of female boxing professionals in the world far beyond the current 1,500 or so. Whether or not that goal can really succeed, there exists a clear intent to exponentially boost the numbers of women beating each other in the head for a living. Why? You're not so lacking in intellect that you can't figure out where it's coming from and what the bigger picture is, if you care to.

 

But it is all right for men to beat each other in the head for a living despite the many tragic outcomes? I just don`t get it

 

@DramaShow you're 18 and on mumsnet, you looking for a milf?

 

Testosterone. Biological hardwiring is a reality. Men are driven to aggression, competition, displays of physical prowess/superiority. Women, infinitely less so by nature. Which accounts for the experience I described here;

Besides which, you missed the point. We were talking about freedom of choice, not the barbarism of boxing per se.

 

Your right your point has gone completely over my head.Any way i enjoy all boxing so i will just leave it at that

 

I feel that you underestimate yourself. But, to each his own. No hard feelings here.

 

On either side of the fence too many people are pig ignorant, and can't develop a fair and balanced assessment.

Taylor vs Serrano was undoubtedly a great fight, comfortably in the top 50% of the fights I've seen in my lifetime....You have to be seriously bigoted to think otherwise.
On the other hand, the other 99% of women fights I've seen on undercards, have been an absolute bore and have had less skills/intensity/drama in comparison.

Once you get to a stage where fights like Taylor vs Serrano are more the norm, and not a freak occurrence, then sure I think it would be wise to have 12x3 minute rounds like the Men. The fight should again push and encourage more Female, and Male, involvement in the Sport, which will improve the standard again.

If you can genuinely say that Fury vs Whyte/Fury vs Klitschko or Joshua vs Usyk (2 Olympic Gold medallists) were more entertaining than the fight at the weekend, you're completely unable to be fair and honest....Likewise if you think the standard of 99% of Women's fights we have seen would be fun to watch over 12x3 minute rounds, you're delusional.

 

I'd say, "Watch more fights", but I know you're just putting us on. Notting Hill is in the top 50% of the movies you've seen in your lifetime, too, right?

Decent alt.