http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...5d72692e4b020c386de5151?kvcommref=mostpopular They also posted an article after her most recent victory. I read Huffpost pretty frequently, and I think the last time I saw a UFC article regarding men on that site was Weidman-Silva I. It's interesting because there's a couple liberal impulses in tension there. Ronda represents feminism, like the women who passed the Army Ranger school recently. But one of the previous articles mentioned how Ronda said she was against Fallon Fox fighting in the Women's division. (And for what it's worth, I agree there. Man or woman now: Fox has a male musculoskeletal build which would be an unfair advantage. Reminds me of the Futurama where Bender changed genders to win the robot olympics.) It's nice that Ronda is broadening the audience for the ufc. And although she is clearly talented, I can't shake the feeling that it is more spectacle than substance. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's the fact that her fights aren't even competitive? I think Brock said it recently "she's a super athlete in a weak division." Maybe it's just my own gender bias. I don't watch Women's sports, never watched women's tennis. I can see the allure for straight dudes though. Hah, I always wondered why my dad watched Women's volleyball on hungover Sundays.