Thread: Are you sick of Stephanie McMahon taking the credit for the women's revolution?
View Single Post
Old 02-03-2018, 05:53 PM   #101
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 60,927
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
You can see the difference between the talent hired when John Laurinaitis is head of talent and when Triple H takes it over. It's down to a bunch of compounded factors though. WWE has always had good enough female talent. Nattie, Beth, Molly, Victoria, etc. Look at how Michelle McCool was treated in the Royal Rumble. She came from the Diva Search era, was first Divas Champion, etc.

It's a PR stunt. But they got the chance to have "men's matches" in NXT with Paige and Emma. But Ronda Rousey was proving women can draw before that, and before that, Dutch booked the women to be legitimate in TNA too. So it's like, what even is the Women's Revolution? It's just a change of presentation.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote