Amazons vs gladiators?

[MagnusStultus]

I did not state that Gladiator fights were to the death, quite to the contrary
But I think I see now were the confusion hails from.
First you must understand that there were three distinct groups of fighters inside the arena.
1. The animal hunters and trainers i.e. Venatores and Bestiarii. These were either hunting or fighting against wild animals or goading animals to fight each other. This usually was shown in the morning of a full arena day and , if I remember correctly, female Venatores are mentioned in the sources.
These demonstrations were supposed to show the spectators how the Roman civilization had control over the dangerous wilderness.
2. Criminals who were condemned to die. the Noxii.
To show the spectators what happens to people who were not under the protection of the Roman civilization any more criminals were executed in the noon hours. They could be killed by different forces of nature like wild animals, fire and various other ways, or they could be given weapons to kill each other, sometimes, like the bigger Naumachiae reenacting historical or mythological battles. Still, none of these Noxii had a chance to survive the day.
This is what Seneca writes about in his Epistoles:
"The other day, I chanced to drop in at the midday games, expecting sport and wit and some relaxation to rest men's eyes from the sight of human blood. Just the opposite was the case. Any fighting before that was as nothing; all trifles were now put aside - it was plain butchery. The men had nothing with which to protect themselves, for their whole bodies were open to the thrust, and every thrust told. The common people prefer this to matches on level terms or request performances. Of course they do. The blade is not parried by helmet or shield, and what use is skill or defense? All these merely postpone death.
In the morning men are thrown to bears or lions, at midday to those who were previously watching them. The crowd cries for the killers to be paired with those who will kill them, and reserves the victor for yet another death. This is the only release the gladiators have. The whole business needs fire and steel to urge men on to fight. There was no escape for them. The slayer was kept fighting until he could be slain."
Though the word Glaidator is given in this translation, Seneca is not speaking about true trained Gladiators here but about Noxii and explicitly contrasts this butchery to the "he matches on level terms". So he actually does not criticize the killing as such but that no real skill at arms can be seen during these fights.
3. The trained professional fighters, the Gladiators.
They fought during the afternoon, and were the highlight of the day.
Here skill at arms was supposed to be shown and, unless the fight was scheduled "Sine Missio" i.e. "to the death" it was actually not the goal to kill the adversary during combat.
The arms and armor as well as the pairings were strictly codified and always fought as a one on one duel - with the exception of a single Pontiarius against two Secutores.
The goal of these fights was to show the audience how the low Infamia fighters embodied the Roman Virtues so they themselves had to be even better in their Virtus.
That is why, though Gladiator were of the Infamia social class, they were actually revered and held in high respect.
At least during Republican and early Imperial times, Gladiator fights were supposed fought until one fighter submitted because of the wounds he received.
This gave the Editor, who paid for the games, the opportunity to show his generosity by letting the audience decide the ultimate fate of the defeated Gladiator. If the Gladiator was put to death the editor had to pay the full worth of the Gladiator to the Lanista as the owner of the Gladiator.

Coming back to the original topic, a Gladiatrix would have been just as highly trained and capable in combat as a male Gladiator. And I actually do not think that in combat with weapons, especially if no body armor is worn, females would have such a great disadvantage against a male fighter, as speed and agility can be much more useful than raw strength.
Still for the male dominated society of the Romans it would have been a great problem to admit that a woman could display greater Virtus than a man, especially if a Gladiatrix would defeat a Gladiator in single combat.

Sorry I misunderstood your post and thought you meant that the Gladiators are Noxii.

I don't agree with your interpretation that gladiators would have a high status; I think Roman society saw them as below most others. Infamia's civic disabilities are in my opinion overemphasized (although during the Republic it is very difficult to do that; the games went on during the Empire) just look at the social disabilities. The law made very real relegation of Gladiators to a status beneath most other people and with the people who Romans looked down on/didn't like and their place in anything from public celebrations to the voting booth reflected that.

The concept in my interpretation was "look; if those scum could face death and danger like that why can't you? Do you really want those awful awful savages to outdo you in virtue?". I don't think that such a sub-Roman scum dying even at a woman's hands would be any type of threat more like "Look even expensive training and a good sword couldn't get that horrible scoundrel to be capable of fighting even a woman; if you don't have virtue you might become that pathetic to". Athletics are things Roman Women are very well attested in and isn't that a threat to patriarchy? Romans who allowed women to excel at athletics without feeling threatened wouldn't have felt threatened by the death of a man they didn't see as fully human at the hands of a woman. Female Olympians might not run as fast as male Olympians; but I bet that they sure beat out nearly every non-Olympian and the same principal applies to athletes during Roman times.

About female gladiators a few days ago I would have agreed with you completely about lack of disability; but Medusa says she has trained gladiatrix style and she is at a major disadvantage against men despite that (unless I misread her posts). I believe her.

Edit-To make it clear I don't think gladiators could accurately called scum; especially the slaves should in my opinion be called victims; I was just stating how I think a Roman would have seen it. I apologize to anyone enslaved in the Roman Empire who took offense