Incredibly unlikely with how sensitive people are to controversial media. Not only would feminists (both male and female) claim it's a sexist product that encourages violence against women, but it would only receive negative publicity from media as well.
Is there much entertainment in seeing a woman being beat up by a guy? I'm not easily offended or anything but even back in the AE when Mae Young was being powerbombed through a table, i never understood the appeal.
Not a chance. Taking a male finisher was never an issue ten years ago. I was expecting Rock to Rock Bottom her at WM before Ronda Rousey was called out, not just to put her heel character in her place but also for old time's sake, but yeah, it would upset too many people.
Pity this won't happen. The manner in which she belittles anyone isn't a problem, it's the fact she's systematically teaching kids in the audience that a woman can get away with what a man would otherwise get punished for, is where the problem lies.
WWE's PG stories did not allow for intergender violence,especially man on woman. Steph can slap a guy, and that's fine with me. Let her get her comeuppance another way w/o her being manhandled.
no way in this day and age especially a)the shit wwe get from media for doing stuff and b) the direction wwe has been going, they arent going to show violence towards women
We probaly wont see anymore girl hitting in this PG era'
Stone Cold stunning steph & linda, Dudleys putting girls thru tables, girls getting piledrivered, ddt'ed and cained in the face in ECW is a thing of the past now.
It looks like they can get away with a spot that looks like an accident. Lana took a bump at Mania and Stephanie did at Survivor Series. For example, Roman Reigns going for a Superman punch with HHH moving out of the way and hitting Steph by mistake will be about as bad as it gets.
There are too many bored assholes addicted to being offended and pissed off, so you wont see anything major. I mean FFS, Big Show ripped down the Russian flag and the whole fucking world knew about it an hour later and he had to apologize.
Never again. She wouldn't even take a finisher from a female let alone a male nowadays. She didn't even let Rousey properly put her in an arm bar at Mania as her ego was too high and she ended up looking stronger than HHH in that segment.
If WWE are banning finishers because poor little media don't like it, what you think they are going to do if they hit a women on TV, they'll probably campaign to have WWE shut down lol
The WWE is way to politically correct to have something like that happen. I was surprised they would even mention Orton doing a DDT on Steph when he joined the authority. Being PC kills opportunities for fun television. I would've liked to have seen The Rock deliver a Rock Bottom to her at Wrestlemania for slapping the soul out of him.
Lotta people pining for that man on woman violence, eap.
Can you really not think of a reason against it than "political correctness", "people being offended" and this decade's hot new favourite "feminism"?
Don't you ask yourself "why are they offended?" and try to find the actual answer and not some ridiculous "they're addicted to being offended" crap? If people think something isn't right, why don't you explain why they're wrong and why it is right?
Even if you have the toughest, most capable woman--like Rhonda Rousey--having Brock Lesnar attack her would be uncomfortable to watch. The reason people are uncomfortable seeing these things is real life violence towards women from much stronger men. It can be done for cheap heat, eventually numbing the audience to it and requiring the stakes to be raised e.g. elderly women through tables, but if there are a thousand other ways of getting heat then what's the point in doing it?
If the argument in favour is simply "But it looks cool/it's fun to watch" or it's to score points in a war on "political correctness" in your ignorant world of labels then the negatives outweigh the positives. If there's a better argument for it then somebody ought to share it.
it's funny how i consider the women of the 90s and early 00s more progressive than the women of today's product. Something about them being their own people, not afraid to stand up for themselves, becoming bigger than life characters, using their own sexuality whenever they wanted (sometimes over the top of course), and becoming heroes in their own sense.
I'm not saying it was great of course. There's nothing progressive when you have 10,000 males screaming "take off your shirt" when they're actually trying to put a match on. BUT you still had Chyna and Lita and Trish and Molly Holly and Ivory all acting and being bigger than life.
Having Molly Holly wrestle Crash Holly was awesome.... having chyna wrestle Jeff jarrett was awesome.... not allowing males and female to fight eachother now is regressive in my opinion. As if women need to be protected at all times. I mean honestly, what sort of values do the Bellas show young women?
Steph getting an F5 would be the greatest moment of the last 10 years. But then he'd have to go back to feuding with HHH for another round of boring matches that no one wants.
I think the last time she got physical with a male performer was when that brawl broke out and CM Punk knocked her down, to then get tossed to the canvas like a bitch by HHH :lol
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.