NFL to Hire Sarah Thomas as First Female Official

Joker said:

why?...is she sawed off shotgun proof?

Click to expand...

Tunescribe said:

Anyone who thinks this woman was hired on merit alone either is terminally naive or a blind idealist. She's now an NFL ref chiefly because of her gender's accompanying PR impact. Of course, it's not fashionable or PC, but viewing this as a prospective case of reverse gender bias trumps *****ing about "troglodytes."

Click to expand...

How do you know what type of ref she is in terms of quality? Not trying to be a pain in the ass, but if you have evaluation information on her abilities, please share them.

Jackson 2 said:

How do you know what type of ref she is in terms of quality? Not trying to be a pain in the ass, but if you have evaluation information on her abilities, please share them.

Click to expand...

Sure: she was born a female.

Tunescribe said:

Sure: she's a female.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That tells me all I need to know. About a lot of things.

Jackson 2 said:

Thanks. That tells me all I need to know. About a lot of things.

Click to expand...

No problem, you're welcome.

TheBostonStraggler said:

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...

Click to expand...

I don't want to be around if humans are destined to become a unisex species!

OhExaulted1 said:

I was giving you an out to have an excuse. What year was that?

Click to expand...

It was 1989

Tunescribe said:

Sure: she was born a female.

Click to expand...

And these are the people who go start whining and crying when they are called out as troglodytes.

I am very grateful our nation is past affirmative action. It didn't work and was destined for failure.

Can you imagine if a firefighter couldn't pass a physical or intellectual exam yet was hired anyway?!

Deus Irae said:

We were having a serious and reasonable discussion. Rlcarr jumped in and called people troglodytes

Click to expand...

That's a good one. A discussion with loads of "women shouldn't be allowed to ref the epitome of macho masculine manliness that is NFL football because reasons" is "serious and reasonable discussion". Riiiiight.

Are there likely to be a lot more qualified men than women to be refs? Sure. Does that mean there are no women who can meet the standards to ref in the NFL? No. For people who claim to be "sensible and reasonable" there's quite the whiff of desperation as you keep reaching (and failing) to find reasons why women should be categorically barred from the job.

rlcarr said:

And these are the people who go start whining and crying when they are called out as troglodytes.

Click to expand...

Really? I've never seen/heard a woman called "troglodyte." (Or anyone else either 'til you showed up.) But to suggest they start "whining and crying" as a result is kind of sexist, don't you think?

rlcarr said:

That's a good one. A discussion with loads of "women shouldn't be allowed to ref the epitome of macho masculine manliness that is NFL football because reasons" is "serious and reasonable discussion". Riiiiight.

Are there likely to be a lot more qualified men than women to be refs? Sure. Does that mean there are no women who can meet the standards to ref in the NFL? No. For people who claim to be "sensible and reasonable" there's quite the whiff of desperation as you keep reaching (and failing) to find reasons why women should be categorically barred from the job.

Click to expand...

Thank you for absolutely proving that you were trolling. Your answer demonstrates conclusively that didn't even bother reading the thread, so comprehension was obviously not the problem.


Much obliged for the clarification.

Jackson 2 said:

How do you know what type of ref she is in terms of quality? Not trying to be a pain in the ass, but if you have evaluation information on her abilities, please share them.

Click to expand...

my reply of "why, is she sawed off shotgun proof?" was a response to the statement that some tough girl who fights in a ring would beat my azz. I don't ever lay my hands on any woman. Never have in 60+ years and ,God willing, never will. ANYBODY, however, who tries to lay their hands on me with violent intent will DRAW a response I guarantee they will not like. At the point gender ceases to be any issue AFAIC.

rlcarr said:

Does that mean there are no women who can meet the standards to ref in the NFL?

Click to expand...

Don't you got the lingo down? Notice he/she doesn't say, "Does that mean there are no women who can score among the top?" Most everyone has no problem with equality of opportunity, but as Deus has already pointed out, that's not how the equality game is played. Equality of outcome is how the game is played today (which is why you and those who push equality of outcome talk about standards (which many times becomes able to meet the minimum standards) for the job. I don't know (or care) about this particular issue, but the larger issue (i.e. any type of affirmative action which allows for the less qualified to be hired over the more qualified) is sickening.

mb6592 said:

Most everyone has no problem with equality of opportunity

Click to expand...

Apparently that's not true in this thread, given all the pearl clutching about how dare any woman be allowed to ref in the NFL and a number of people here advocating they shouldn't even be allowed to be considered.

any woman with training and excellent grasp of the NFL rulebook should be considered for a position as an official in the league, if that is her focused goal in life.

But anybody who starts with the "you dinosaur!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" bullshyt because some NFL fans do not consider any woman PLAYING in the NFL to even be a rational thought, that person needs to rethink exactly what it is they ARE watching and WHY. You inject women players into the NFL, it ceases to be the NFL. It becomes some whole other sport. If enough people want it to metamorphosize into a sport that their daughters can get a fair shot to play alongside world class male athletes, then you will get your fervent wish. I won't watch it any more than I'd watch a mixed NBA league. Why I have to explain this to any man without being labeled a "troglodyte" is a puzzle I'll never solve.

mb6592 said:

This is the crux of the matter. Google women firefighters in the FDNY to get a dose of reality. Here's an example: http://nypost.com/2014/12/11/fdny-drops-physical-test-requirement-amid-low-female-hiring-rate/

Click to expand...

I'm for equal opportunity. IMHO it's a better society when it believes one who is capable be provided an opportunity to succeed using these capabilities.

With that said, "I'm for equal opportunity" is simplistic, one that involves people/emotions, media, politics to be involved in applying it. Your post highlights why un-simplistic discussion as well as caution are warranted in some instances. The FDNY example is not an outlier, it is just that the other examples are not aired/very marginally aired by the informational outlets(media).

The underlying issue with the article you linked to is: When equality of opportunity is applied, people/politics/media change it to equality of outcome when a level of gender balance isn't achieved in the occupational ranks. What this means is some of the long established 'capability requirements for the job' standards are lowered or completely erased in order to force the equality of outcome. So as much as I very strongly believe in equal opportunity, I loathe how the partisans use the nobility of the idea to leverage it into satisfying their feelings.

I don't have a problem with re-examining standards of capabilities to make sure they are wisely applicable. Occupations change over the years while, sometimes, the standards for hiring don't. But this isn't the case here/with others. The reason they changed were to satisfy political persuasions and dictate equality of outcome.
When we can confidently say that an all male (or all female) firefighting force could be the ultimate result when smartly established 'capability requirements for the job' are fairly applied, I'm very good with applying equal opportunity globally and ending the conversation/caution. We are extremely far from that reality.

Joker said:

my reply of "why, is she sawed off shotgun proof?" was a response to the statement that some tough girl who fights in a ring would beat my azz. I don't ever lay my hands on any woman. Never have in 60+ years and ,God willing, never will. ANYBODY, however, who tries to lay their hands on me with violent intent will DRAW a response I guarantee they will not like. At the point gender ceases to be any issue AFAIC.

Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to your quote. Rather, I was responding to the one which followed it. I have no knowledge of prior posts, including yours, which include references to physical contact. I was just responding to Tunescribe's.

PatriotsReign said:

I don't want to be around if humans are destined to become a unisex species!

Click to expand...

Troglodyte! Dinosaur! How dare you defy the fashionable, intractable, politically correct view that men and women are universally interchangeable in all realms of employment! Don't you believe in equality and fairness?

Really just give her a chance. Let her do her job.

TheBostonStraggler said:

I'm for equal opportunity.

Click to expand...

Sounds great as a slogan, but in practice there are too many times (and too many examples to list) where this ideal translates to this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/19/marine-corps-weighs-lower-standards-for-women-afte/