|
|
Post by frankp316 on May 14, 2008 4:56:02 GMT -6
Uh huh.  |
|
|
|
Post by leescoresby on May 14, 2008 7:29:03 GMT -6
Uh huh. I am duly impressed by the intellectual power displayed by your articulate counter-argument. |
|
|
|
Post by SirRobin on May 14, 2008 7:31:20 GMT -6
This thread hasn't been closed yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Hyperion on May 14, 2008 8:38:01 GMT -6
If it were indeed no more mysogynistic than the above list that would still make it quite bad enough from where I'm sitting. But here's the thing - all that rubbish is temporary, over quickly and even, in the case of water balloons and guns, the kind of stuff some people seem to actually enjoy participating in. Do you know any women who enjoy having their hair shaved? More to the point do you know many people who enjoy watching that happen? And if you do perhaps you might try asking them why they enjoy watching it. It's not misogynistic. Just because something bad happens to a women doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys it hates women. I like horror movies and like seeing people get killed in them, that doesn't mean I hate women or think they are less capable than men. It's entertainment, it's catharsis, it's an emotional rollercoaster. The hair vs hair match, when done right, either provokes a sense of grand justice (when the bad guy/girl loses) or grand injustice (when the good guy/girl loses). It means even more when someone with long hair or a woman goes through it, the greater the loss the greater the emotion the greater the entertainment. This is not misogyny, and saying so only says that you are absolutely clueless about the rich tradition of hair vs hair matches in Joshi Puroresu. If Joshi isn't a shining example of the superiority of women to men, in that context, I don't know what is. This is why Frank P rolled his eyes and didn't bother responding, because he knows that Hair vs Hair matches aren't anti women. They're an example of something women are clearly superior at, because the loss of their hair is going to be more emotional and more entertaining than a guy losing it. |
|
|
|
Post by sonicstorm06 on May 14, 2008 9:20:32 GMT -6
Yeah, must guys prefer being bald anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Digestive Ceremony on May 14, 2008 9:30:28 GMT -6
This thread hasn't been closed yet? I second that. |
|
|
|
Post by magnumgecko on May 14, 2008 9:57:06 GMT -6
I'd argue that it's less offensive than all the other matches listed, because it was wrestled as a serious match and just happened to end with a girl getting her head shaved. I don't get why this is such a big deal or why anyone expected something better from TNA. "Happened to end". What the heck does that mean? Was that not the whole angle? So is it ok for women to have their head shaved for absolutely no purpose except to give gratification to a few pathetic weirdos who aren't interested in the exhibition of wrestling ability but merely in watching attractive young women being humiliated? It means that unlike all the match stipulations listed, this one was worked, maybe not promoted, but worked as a serious match and the only questionable part in the eyes of some fans was the head shaving at the end. Therefore, it was a serious match that "just happened" to end with a head getting shaved. In short, what I said in my original post is exactly what I meant, so you might want to pull your head out of your ass and actually read it instead of taking attitude with me because you took a stupid wrestling angle where a grown woman gave her consent to get her head shaved too seriously. The next time I discuss this topic, I'll put it in crayon just for you. |
|
|
|
Post by frankp316 on May 14, 2008 10:34:38 GMT -6
If it were indeed no more mysogynistic than the above list that would still make it quite bad enough from where I'm sitting. But here's the thing - all that rubbish is temporary, over quickly and even, in the case of water balloons and guns, the kind of stuff some people seem to actually enjoy participating in. Do you know any women who enjoy having their hair shaved? More to the point do you know many people who enjoy watching that happen? And if you do perhaps you might try asking them why they enjoy watching it. It's not misogynistic. Just because something bad happens to a women doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys it hates women. I like horror movies and like seeing people get killed in them, that doesn't mean I hate women or think they are less capable than men. It's entertainment, it's catharsis, it's an emotional rollercoaster. The hair vs hair match, when done right, either provokes a sense of grand justice (when the bad guy/girl loses) or grand injustice (when the good guy/girl loses). It means even more when someone with long hair or a woman goes through it, the greater the loss the greater the emotion the greater the entertainment. This is not misogyny, and saying so only says that you are absolutely clueless about the rich tradition of hair vs hair matches in Joshi Puroresu. If Joshi isn't a shining example of the superiority of women to men, in that context, I don't know what is. This is why Frank P rolled his eyes and didn't bother responding, because he knows that Hair vs Hair matches aren't anti women. They're an example of something women are clearly superior at, because the loss of their hair is going to be more emotional and more entertaining than a guy losing it. TNA didn't handle the angle particularly well but Roxxi and the other girls deserve a lot of credit for selling the angle and elevating it. Anyone who wants to see how a hair match is really done should check out the 1982 feud between Jaguar Yokota & La Galactica or maybe Manami Toyota vs Toshiyo Yamada 1993. They should be required viewing for promoters considering such an angle. |
|
|
|
Post by sonicstorm06 on May 14, 2008 11:10:16 GMT -6
My problem w/ it is it didn't mean anything. They are supposed to be emotional moments that mean something. And really the fans didn't seem to care she was getting shaved. They were to busy chanting fire Russo or BS. Though I'm quiet confused about why the women seemed to care they didn't care enough to stop those two from getting involved and letting it be a fair fight ODB included as she has had problems w/ Velvet and Love. Or if Gail really cared she could have let Roxxi get the opportunity. There just so much retarded crap in it that it makes the luster of such a match lose it's meaning
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on May 14, 2008 11:18:42 GMT -6
This thread is close to the endangered species list Im sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonicstorm06 on May 14, 2008 11:20:10 GMT -6
No one is fighting or anything we are discussing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Demonic Eeyore on May 14, 2008 11:33:32 GMT -6
You know.... if you really think about this, it's almost laughable. Here we are, supposedly "smart marks" or superfans or whatever it is we deem ourselves. Yet here we sit bickering over an angle done in a worked sport (i wonder if people are forgetting that perhaps). Nikki agreed to the angle or she wouldnt have got her head shaved, simple as that. And why did TNA do it? Perhaps to get fans talking and create a buzz about a lady wrestler getting shaved? Hmm... seems like it worked now didn't it?
What it comes down to, as far as I can see, is people taking offense almost in a "she was ours before she was yours" kinda way and we see it as a personal affront to Shimmer and Shimmer fans, perhaps? We tend to think of Nikki as "our" Shimmer girl forever and ever but the truth is, at least for the moment, she has moved on to TNA and is making (probably) a lot more money than she was in Shimmer (no offense intended to Mr. Prazak should that be the case) so what is the real problem here? Nikki's getting noticed on national television and pay per views and becoming a success. Isn't that we WANT for our Shimmer alumni?
|
|
|
|
Post by sonicstorm06 on May 14, 2008 11:44:13 GMT -6
I'm not saying I'm not glad she is getting success, but the fans completely blew it off cause there was no emotion to it. Seriously, one of the reason TNA's ratings have been dropping lately is there is no realism to it. I hate WWE w/ a passion and if I was a wrestler I would never sign with them but at least when they do it they make it mean something. Gimmick matches have lost there luster in TNA cause they have a hard one for them. Every month we either have a UX, Cage match, street fight etc. To the point there just pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on May 14, 2008 11:55:21 GMT -6
If everyones done making speeches lol
TNA did it to sell a PPV more likely, the match should be able to get over without someone getting a chop job it's a stipulation that really was not required. And theyre going to retool Nikkis character at the same time. But you also gotta consider if you say no to Russo idea of having you head shaved, so you bet she agreed.
Im in full support of Nikki Roxx, have been for years before Shimmer was created. Im happy for Nikki Roxx and she does deserve it. But I just simple can not applaud just plain anything TNA does to try to get a storylines accross. I can look at stuff on TV and say thats not entertaining. There are better ways to draw attention, at that rate they could mount a machine gun to Nikkis leg and some fans would call it brilliant just because they blindly cheer on the women while most can say its a dumb idea.
This whole situation just reminds me of WWEs Big Dick Johnson. the fat oily guy that no body likes, you usually see when WWE does their Degeneration X angles.
I even heard one fan once say Im confortable in my sexuallity to laugh about it. It wasnt a question of if youre homophobic, its just plain stupid.
If you enjoy Nikki Roxx being bald, or Big Dick Johnson, or leprechauns biting people in the butt, more power to you, just dont complain at me when I say I dont.
|
|
|
|
Post by Digestive Ceremony on May 14, 2008 12:02:46 GMT -6
No one is fighting or anything we are discussing. No, you continue pounding this dead horse into dust. |
|
