Wrestling Forum banner

Linda McMahon set to lead a new feminist movement in 2016

8K views 109 replies 71 participants last post by  LaMelo 
#1 ·
- The CT Post reports that Linda McMahon is starting a new non-political feminist venture. Linda has launched Women's Leadership Live (WLL), a new start-up geared towards promoting leadership opportunities for women.

WLL, based in Texas, will sponsor and organize events featuring prominent female keynote speakers, panel discussions and workshops, with the idea that they will encourage women to pursue advancement in their careers and life. Linda co-founded WLL with Texas-based social media strategist Debbie Saviano and former model Stacey Schieffelin. WLL's inaugural event will be a three-day conference from May 19th - 21st in Irving, Texas, with a cost of around $12000.

Their website is at womensleadershiplivecom.


Question is, how will this affect WWE?
 
#98 ·
Re: Linda Mcmahon set to lead a new feminist movement in 2016

Lord have mercy on us all... Now we´ll have to endure even more feminist propaganda from Stephanie McBitch during RAW... Thanks Linda, thanks a lot...
Won't be long until the superstars are lining up to grovel at Steph's feet. Depressing times :no:

Maybe WWE will bring in Ronda Rousey just to squash a few innocent jobbers as well...
 
#5 ·
Re: Linda Mcmahon set to lead a new feminist movement in 2016

Yay. Stephanie talking about women's rights, and all kinds of other bullshit WWE fans could give 2 shit's about.

We enjoy sports entertainment, not some arrogant silver spoon fed bitch of a woman along with 3 or 4 whorish looking divas shoving political bullshit down our throats. We enjoy wrestling and television to escape from that side of the world. Idiots.

Goddamn, I mean seriously. This woman is the wife of one of the biggest sexist scumbags on the planet, in Vince McMahon. WWE and their dire attempts to be so politically correct are nauseating and some of the most hypocritical things I've ever seen.
 
#2 ·
Re: Linda Mcmahon set to lead a new feminist movement in 2016

Every time Linda has made political/initiatives, it has had an impact on WWE programming. If this one is framed around feminism, Stephanie will never stop name dropping Ronda Rousey or Serena Williams.

It's funny that the McMahon's preach about opportunities for women, but don't give many to the women they employ. It comes off as more of jumping on a trend.
 
#28 ·
Re: Linda Mcmahon set to lead a new feminist movement in 2016

Part of a company where the female roster are known as 'Divas'.
Allowed herself to play a woman who'd been physically and emotionally abused, who then stayed with her husband.
Was part of a storyline where she allowed a fellow empowered woman to be paraded around a ring barking like a dog for one of her husbands weird fetishes.
Allowed women to compete in matches where the goal was to strip one another on national television.

Worst of all? she profited, from all of this. Some of that money is probably paying for her fucking campaign.

I mean, i'm not against someone giving women a voice (which they totally already have, by the way). But Linda? she better be running against a guy who literally murders humans with vaginas for sport or shes gonna look even more fucking ridiculous than she already did.
 
#61 ·
Re: Linda Mcmahon set to lead a new feminist movement in 2016

And Stephanie is gonna be running wild with this.
And slap every man on the roster while doing it.
 
#18 ·
Re: Linda Mcmahon set to lead a new feminist movement in 2016

If this means WWE will be more feminist and focused on the terribly untalented current divas and Stephanie McMahon, then i will stop watching once and for all. I won't tolerate any kind of feminism in my TV.

This destroys any chance of having great divas like Trish and an entertaining divas division like the one from the Attitude Era ever again. Instead we're going to have thousands of boring, ugly divas like Bayley and Becky Lynch who nobody cares about, in 30 minutes long matches and awkward segments full of botches and crap. No thanks, i won't let them push that bullshit down my throat.
 
#40 ·
Fuck women. They're not special little butterflies. Fuck'em. Why are there not mens movements?

"Who the fuck joins a group? Hey! Fuck you and your group. What about that?" - Bill Burr "I'm sorry you feel that way"
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadTouch
#66 ·
Meh, you're dismissing the fact that it's nothing but a cheap hypocritical ploy aimed toward women to maintain positive looks from the public eye.

In WWE, the treatment of women has been despicable. Let's not go there. I mean, at one point Linda McMahon was drugged while her husband was screwing the busty young blonde and making her bark like a dog, this also during high viewership around the world at the height of wrestling popularity.

Many were only looked at and viewed as sex objects for years. WWE were hiring failed models, sexing them up and putting them on television. Because that's what made a pop. Sunny, Debra, Sable, Torrie, Candice Michelle, Stacy Keibler, many more. None of these women were there as anything more than pieces of ass too look at, were always involved in crude storylines.

It still happens right now today, why does Eva Marie have a job in sports entertainment? Look how Lana was treated for announcing her fucking engagement. A moment that should be a cherished memory in her life. OMG, the horror! Fucking McMahon's are hypocrites.

People don't forget. That's why she bombed running for senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Empress
#89 · (Edited)
I love how many people have been suckered into this "feminist" movement. Market-driven outcomes must clearly be the result of sexism... right. One of the greatest economic illiteracies of the 21st century is the obsession with "income inequality." The lazy and naive mind looks for the easiest answer, such as racism, sexism, and any other cute little "-ism" or phobia that someone on the internet comes up with. It's a good thing none of these people are economists. They wouldn't get a single paper published in any economics journal. Hell, they wouldn't satisfy the math prerequisites for graduate studies in economics.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top