Business Insider Names Ronda Rousey as One of Top 50 Women Changing the World
They wrote the following about the first-ever female UFC champion:
Thanks to martial arts fighter Ronda Rousey, women now fight in the UFC.
The trash-talking Olympian qualified for the Athens games when she was only 17, and was the youngest judo competitor enlisted. In 2006, she became the first U.S. female athlete in nearly 10 years to win an A-Level tournament when she took home the gold metal at the Birmingham World Cup in Great Britain.
She also graced the cover of ESPN's body issue last year.
It appears that the UFC's gamble to bring in a women's division—with Rousey as the centerpiece—was a success.
Rousey has garnered the UFC more mainstream attention than any other fighter recently. She's been on the cover of ESPN: The Body issue. More recently, she appeared on the cover of ESPN The Magazine's 15th anniversary edition. The UFC also commissioned two lists featuring Ronda Rousey on the famed viral news website BuzzFeed.com. All this is in addition to her appearances on other media outlets.
But is Business Insider's assessment correct? Is she really one of the 50 women who are changing the world most?
Such a bold statement is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. However, what can be said is that Ronda Rousey is a crucial figure in the world of female role models in 2013.
There's no Marie Curie, and there's no Billie Jean King. There are only Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift and other questionable Hollywood characters to look up to.
Rousey represents an alternative for young girls to look up to. Her rise to prominence demonstrates to American youth that it's possible to achieve greatness through grit and determination rather than through dumb luck, musical "talent" that only exists in an auto-tune machine or being born wealthy.
To paraphrase a line from The Dark Knight, Ronda Rousey is the female hero we both deserve and need right now. Business Insider recognizes this.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?