NFL to Hire Sarah Thomas as First Female Official

TheBostonStraggler said:

Crudely put but true.
Deeply entrenched ideologues love the outlier (I find that most especially true of die hard liberals -- though not exclusively their domain). It makes for great sloganeering and feel good statements. It doesn't make for thoughtful discussion.
I avoid these conversations with those who use the outlier. Conversations with them almost certainly means that if you mention a nearly universal truth of gender, you will get back "Oh I know of many, just so many who prove that's not right". Ultimately talking with them is an exercise in emotion.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would ever want men and women to be the same or inter-changeable....mainly because they're not and they can't be.

But then again maybe some believe evolution will result in one sex. Imagine if each human had both a penis and a vagina!

FirstAndGoal said:

Link? Studies show that women handle pressure better than men too so do we give all high pressure jobs to women?


Studies also show that women handle multi-tasking better than men. Should we give women all jobs that require multitasking?

Click to expand...

I can't remember the exact %, but the number of people in the world who can actually do two things at once is tiny with a capital T, and I doubt that they're mostly women.

I think Hollyweird has the best take on the gender issue. I recently watched a 5'3", 100 lb woman beat the crap out of two pretty good sized FBI agents. Afterward, the two guys looked like crap for days while the woman threw a little makeup around her right eye and was good to go.

I can honestly say that I've never seen a woman play football, and I'm no spring chicken.

PatriotsReign said:

I don't think anyone would ever want men and women to be the same or inter-changeable....mainly because they're not and they can't be.

But then again maybe some believe evolution will result in one sex. Imagine if each human had both a penis and a vagina!

Click to expand...

Please don't hit "PostReply" when you've been drinking.

OhExaulted1 said:

Actually it's not about pissing off liberals, it's about pissing off fathers who have daughters that want them to believe they can acheive their goals, no matter what some tired old fat, drunk ***hole says they can't.

Click to expand...

Much of your post has identifiable merit. If I had a daughter and she wanted to be X, I'd like an avenue of opportunity to be there for her for any area that has even a modest amount of practicality that she could perform it. "equality of opportunity must be the default" unless a clear and logical reason could be given to exempt the default is what I posted earlier.
Further, to the larger view of it, I believe we all are better off with a greater pool of candidates for most corners of occupation/life. Competency is all corners is a commodity in short supply IME. The increased pools would, in a perfect world, make it a measurably less rare commodity.

Then you go off on your telling tirade of calling me a fat(not even close), drunk (yes, sometimes), tired (semi), old (if middle aged is old), ***hole(at least a few would use that term to describe me). But it's an interesting tact you take to stereotype me or those who may disagree with you when an underpinning of your argument is against stereotyping. So whould I now put up a picture of someone who disagrees with you that is young, in shape, doesn't drink, and is affable, then say he could argue the chicklets right off of you?

>>PatriotsReign said: ↑

I don't think anyone would ever want men and women to be the same or inter-changeable....mainly because they're not and they can't be.

But then again maybe some believe evolution will result in one sex. Imagine if each human had both a penis and a vagina!<<

Get the evolution party going! (just kidding).
Sure, given the passage of many millions of years, assuming earth survives as well as the human race, an asexual species could arise. Yet that's also like saying we'll be incorporeal at some point. It's a massive amount of time that will pass (how many Patriot SBs would that equal?) before those kinds of evolutionary changes might occur (assuming science of the near future doesn't get too out of control with genetics).

Much MUCH sooner in the evolutionary process is the possibility that males of the present form and in their present proportion of the human race will become counter to the irresistible evolutionary track.
Damn, seriously, I'm already out! Another walk to the liquor store comin up!

TheBostonStraggler said:

Much of your post has identifiable merit. If I had a daughter and she wanted to be X, I'd like an avenue of opportunity to be there for her for any area that has even a modest amount of practicality that she could perform it. "equality of opportunity must be the default" unless a clear and logical reason could be given to exempt the default is what I posted earlier.
Further, to the larger view of it, I believe we all are better off with a greater pool of candidates for most corners of occupation/life. Competency is all corners is a commodity in short supply IME. The increased pools would, in a perfect world, make it a measurably less rare commodity.

Then you go off on your telling tirade of calling me a fat(not even close), drunk (yes, sometimes), tired (semi), old (if middle aged is old), ***hole(at least a few would use that term to describe me). But it's an interesting tact you take to stereotype me or those who may disagree with you when an underpinning of your argument is against stereotyping. So whould I now put up a picture of someone who disagrees with you that is young, in shape, doesn't drink, and is affable, then say he could argue the chicklets right off of you?

Click to expand...

I took an unfair stereo-typed shot at you with basically a perceived opinion and from an angry-dad point of veiw.

Really what I want to say is give the girl a chance. My honest hope is she fades into obscurity as just another referee and we don't even think twice about her throwing a flag. We're not talking about her playing. Were talking about a black-and-white stripe shirted person with a whistle. Talk about gender nuetrality.

The female audience to football is expanding unbelievably. No greater evidence of that exists than right here in NE. My attitude is let's include them rather than shut them out. We love the cheerleaders. They can't play with the boys but what's wrong with having them help the sport expand?

TheBostonStraggler said:

Then you go off on your telling tirade of calling me a fat(not even close), drunk (yes, sometimes), tired (semi), old (if middle aged is old), ***hole(at least a few would use that term to describe me).

Click to expand...

This quote made me like you.

Tunescribe said:

I'm not, and also not ashamed to admit it. I see this purely as a PR gimmick. Men and women are equal but different. Not everything in life is gender interchangeable.

Click to expand...

So exactly what "differences" will make her an inferior ref in your opinion? And don't waste my time with physical crap. Not when the NFL is employing plenty of male geezers.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

How exactly does a non-profit, federally protected league like the NFL get away with not hiring a female official for over 50 years? Clap clap. Happy for her, but let's not act like they deserve a pat on the back. Too little, too late.

Click to expand...

Only NFL HQ and the Packers are non-profit. Everything else (especially the other 31 teams) are fully for-profit businesses.

rlcarr said:

So exactly what "differences" will make her an inferior ref in your opinion? And don't waste my time with physical crap. Not when the NFL is employing plenty of male geezers.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous demand. The differences are there.

Ross12 said:

What happens when she gets leveled during a play or gets in the way during a pick?

Click to expand...

Dunno. What happens when one of the geezer males they NFL employs does the same thing? You "women are weak" people don't have much to stand on given the NFL employs a non-trivial number of senior citizens or near-seniors.

Deus Irae said:

Studies indicate that men see better than women at any real distance. Studies indicate that men also are better at spacial viewing.

So, yes, actually, in the context of seeing and calling a game live, while on the field, the physical differences between men and women probably DO mean that men are generally more suited.

Click to expand...

And like most gender-based differences you have two bell curves with a goodly spread and slightly different averages. Which means there will be significant overlap which in turn means there will be plenty of women who are as good as or better than plenty of men in those areas. So trying to use those studies as a reason to not hire female NFS refs is total BS.

Make sure that anyone you hire, male or female, have the requisite minimum visual acuity and spatial reasoning -- fine. Saying "NFL shouldn't hire female refs because the average woman isn't as good as the average man with respect to visual acuity and spatial reasoning" -- BS.

rlcarr said:

And like most gender-based differences you have two bell curves with a goodly spread and slightly different averages. Which means there will be significant overlap which in turn means there will be plenty of women who are as good as or better than plenty of men in those areas. So trying to use those studies as a reason to not hire female NFS refs is total BS.

Make sure that anyone you hire, male or female, have the requisite minimum visual acuity and spatial reasoning -- fine. Saying "NFL shouldn't hire female refs because the average woman isn't as good as the average man with respect to visual acuity and spatial reasoning" -- BS.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for your claims, the difference in spacial vision between men and women is, indeed, significant, and not just some tiny little thing. Saying the NFL shouldn't hire women because the average woman isn't as good as the average man with respect to visual acuity and spacial reasoning would actually be a very common sense position.

But it's not the position I took.

rlcarr said:

So exactly what "differences" will make her an inferior ref in your opinion? And don't waste my time with physical crap. Not when the NFL is employing plenty of male geezers.

Click to expand...

Your attitude suggests being less than open to what I might have to say, already summarized in posts 43, 53 and 60.

OhExaulted1 said:

I took an unfair stereo-typed shot at you with basically a perceived opinion and from an angry-dad point of veiw.

Really what I want to say is give the girl a chance. My honest hope is she fades into obscurity as just another referee and we don't even think twice about her throwing a flag. We're not talking about her playing. Were talking about a black-and-white stripe shirted person with a whistle. Talk about gender nuetrality.

The female audience to football is expanding unbelievably. No greater evidence of that exists than right here in NE. My attitude is let's include them rather than shut them out. We love the cheerleaders. They can't play with the boys but what's wrong with having them help the sport expand?

Click to expand...

I agree that the female audience is growing. I don't find too many females following it as hard core -- still a mostly male bastion -- but being diehard isn't a prerequisite for being a fan (certainly not to the NFL). So there is nothing wrong with the NFL tailoring its product at the wider audience.

This is a good and germane topic to bring up. This move by the NFL is likely motivated by expanding the demographic. Which is not to say she is incompetent, it is to say this is what motivates the NFL executive offices, not a fundamentally fair and socially helpful one. If the NFL was sure 3% of the audience would immediately stop watching, and never watch again, the moment she stepped on the field, bet the mortgage payment the NFL wouldn't have her out there refereeing games.

I agree with much of what you're saying in this post. "Give a girl a chance" is more than alright by me as a ganeral rule. I fully admit I'm sexist, I have a preference for females (beyond just the sexual thing). But when we are talking about a very male bastion (football), one that is hyper testosterone, and when society/leaders/media have a distinct difference in various standards for each gender, placing a female amid that is certain to bring about, eventually, a clash of societal norms/standards. That clash will result in change, good or not. So I wish we could at least have some thoughtful consideration of the change versus putting our heads in the sand (and taking it out only to state the date or a feel good blurb).
((Side note, I'm not arguing against having some differing societal norms. I'm arguing that acting as of they don't exist especially when it is ideologically/politically convenient))

OhExaulted1 said:

Please don't hit "PostReply" when you've been drinking.

Click to expand...

Haven't had a drink since before you were born son.

You mad bro?

TheBostonStraggler said:

>>PatriotsReign said: ↑

I don't think anyone would ever want men and women to be the same or inter-changeable....mainly because they're not and they can't be.

But then again maybe some believe evolution will result in one sex. Imagine if each human had both a penis and a vagina!<<

Get the evolution party going! (just kidding).
Sure, given the passage of many millions of years, assuming earth survives as well as the human race, an asexual species could arise. Yet that's also like saying we'll be incorporeal at some point. It's a massive amount of time that will pass (how many Patriot SBs would that equal?) before those kinds of evolutionary changes might occur (assuming science of the near future doesn't get too out of control with genetics).

Much MUCH sooner in the evolutionary process is the possibility that males of the present form and in their present proportion of the human race will become counter to the irresistible evolutionary track.
Damn, seriously, I'm already out! Another walk to the liquor store comin up!

Click to expand...

I guess this what happens when I forget to add the wink face to indicate humor!

Deus Irae said:

Unfortunately for your claims, the difference in spacial vision between men and women is, indeed, significant, and not just some tiny little thing. Saying the NFL shouldn't hire women because the average woman isn't as good as the average man with respect to visual acuity and spacial reasoning would actually be a very common sense position.

But it's not the position I took.

Click to expand...

Is that a common sense position or is it closer to just simplicity? When we are talking about many millions of samples, using the average to exclude the whole pool of candidates is common sense?

IMHO getting a benchmark of depth perception capability required for the job, then taking extra measures to blindly confirm that benchmark is hit in a new hiree seems to me a common sense approach.

I realize this over simplifies the topic, however, I think the gist of what I am saying came across (right or wrong)

PatriotsReign said:

I guess this what happens when I forget to add the wink face to indicate humor!

Click to expand...

Ahhh, sorry PR, my bad.
Either way I do thank you for giving me a chance to blather about evolution on a football chat board. A run of the mill Saturday night got excellent for a few minutes...

TheBostonStraggler said:

Is that a common sense position or is it closer to just simplicity? When we are talking about many millions of samples, using the average to exclude the whole pool of candidates is common sense?

IMHO getting a benchmark of depth perception capability required for the job, then taking extra measures to blindly confirm that benchmark is hit in a new hiree seems to me a common sense approach.

I realize this over simplifies the topic, however, I think the gist of what I am saying came across (right or wrong)

Click to expand...

When one has the superior talent pool, and can find adequate numbers via that pool, one need not access another talent pool. That's common sense.

Note that it's not the same thing as saying one should not.