Maybe you think that the Divas should be in their rightful place, which, in your world would be for them to be back in the kitchen or sprawled over your bed.
That's all you think they are good, right?
Fer. Fooks. Sake.
So, it has to be one extreme, or the other, right? Unless you're on your side of the extreme, then you have to be the complete opposite side of the spectrum. If you don't want the women to have a Royal Rumble, then you must be a backwards misogynist.
Come off it, mate. He made some good points about how there are issues to having a women's royal rumble. He said nothing about not wanting women's wrestling to be progressed.
Sometimes, it really do amaze me how much mental gymnastics we'll do to get outraged.
You know why most women's battle royals allow for the women to go through the middle ropes to be eliminated? Because most of the women (
not all, read, not all) can't make it over the top without breaking their freaking necks.
Now, you want to ask
all of the women to go over the top rope? You don't have the luxury of only picking the women that go over the top...you have to include everyone, because as is, you don't have enough women to fill the actual Rumble match. Unless you included seven surprise entrants (which, again, only works if can they go over the top rope) you can't fill a full thirty women into the match. Now, you could do twenty, but then you're dealing with massive time constraints.
I haven't even begun to consider the arena audience for the match. How are you structuring the Royal Rumble PPV? Does that mean now you have even
less matches. A diva's royal rumble, if you had twenty women, would probably take somewhere around thirty minutes. The actual rumble itself takes an hour. You're really meaning to tell me you're going to have your arena sit through ninety minutes of Royal Rumble?
Look, this is a bad idea, but saying it is a bad idea doesn't make you a misogynist. It makes you a realist.