Officiating wave of the future? Woman to officiate NFL game for first time

[Deus Irae]

I would assume that the best football players in the world are destined to be chosen and coached based on making the best football players possible. The massive, paranoid leap that you're making from "women refs on the field" to "OMG now we can't play football anymore!" has absolutely no basis in reality. Frankly, it sounds like gender equality is a real sore spot for you, and you're doing a pretty poor job of "couching" it as anything other than that.

After all, where's all of this concern regarding the other officials? They're all scabs, and they're likely to kinda suck, yet this happens to be the only instance that's making waves. We should be concerned about all of the replacement refs, and should be evaluating all of them based on whether or not they're able to effectively do the job. If the woman in question can't, then she should be let go, just like anyone else. Nobody here's saying that she should be given a free ride even if she sucks, to fill some gender quota; just that she should be held to the exact same standard as everyone else, and not disqualified because she happens to be a woman. We can't exactly afford to be choosy about our refs right now, anyway, with all of the established ones sitting at home- anyone who's actually competent works for me.

Anyone who knows the history of gender integration into many previously male-only areas of life knows that it often has a significant impact upon said area. Having different physical requirements is just one example.

You may not agree with Joker, but he's on ground that's every bit as solid as the ground you're standing on.

 

[TyronePoole]

lol @ you not seeing that they are.

you just compared clubs with mandates specifically for their membership group, scholarships and grants given for certain demographics, women's athletics, and a law mandating equality amongst the sexes to Refereeing in the NFL.

You can't make posts like that and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[TyronePoole]

Anyone who knows the history of gender integration into many previously male-only areas of life knows that it often has a significant impact upon said area. Having different physical requirements is just one example.

You may not agree with Joker, but he's on ground that's every bit as solid as the ground you're standing on.

no he's not. He made the argument that it was bad based on a flatly sexist assumption that women would inherently see hits as more violent and be more prone to flag them than men.

Of course there is a "significant impact," you are allowing 50% of the population into it. Other than that you basically have made no point regarding this topic that carries any weight.

And unlike other areas that you foolishly listed NFL refereeing is women-free based on cultural effect, not by mandate.

 

[Deus Irae]

you just compared clubs with mandates specifically for their membership group, scholarships and grants given for certain demographics, women's athletics, and a law mandating equality amongst the sexes to Refereeing in the NFL.

You can't make posts like that and expect to be taken seriously.

No, I took a couple of exclusionary groups and asked if such exclusions meant that the groups hated men. I also mentioned programs that would specifically benefit only women and asked if that meant that it was a hatred towards men, and I took a government law that benefits females, often to the detriment of males, and I asked if that reflected a hatred towards men.

In other words, I was focused on "misogynist" v. "misandrist", as I made abundantly clear.

You can't make really lousy responses like yours and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Anyone who knows the history of gender integration into many previously male-only areas of life knows that it often has a significant impact upon said area. Having different physical requirements is just one example.

You may not agree with Joker, but he's on ground that's every bit as solid as the ground you're standing on.

Please feel free to provide relevant examples. Again, the NFL currently uses a number of senior citizen refs, so trying to sell this one on "different physical requirements" will be a tough task. If officiating was so physically taxing that women simply could not handle it, then surely the old guys wouldn't be able to either.

 

[Deus Irae]

no he's not. He made the argument that it was bad based on a flatly sexist assumption that women would inherently see hits as more violent and be more prone to flag them than men.

Of course there is a "significant impact," you are allowing 50% of the population into it. Other than that you basically have made no point regarding this topic that carries any weight.

And unlike other areas that you foolishly listed NFL refereeing is women-free based on cultural effect, not by mandate.

My last response to your posts still applies here. I can't take your posts seriously when they are as ridiculous as this.

 

[TyronePoole]

No, I took a couple of exclusionary groups and asked if such exclusions meant that the groups hated men.

So you made a straw man argument. How clever and unprecedented.

I also mentioned programs that would specifically benefit only women and asked if that meant that it was a hatred towards men, and I took a government law that benefits females, often to the detriment of males, and I asked if that reflected a hatred towards men.

In other words, I was focused on "misogynist" v. "misandrist", as I made abundantly clear.

You can't make really lousy responses like yours and expect to be taken seriously.

The poster you responded to made a post about the sexist arguments against allowing female referees. You've just admitted to responding by reducing it to whether groups are sexist on their face because they are exclusionary by nature.

You don't have to play the I am rubber you are glue game. Just do what you do and punt to semantics, take your ball and go home.

 

[TyronePoole]

My last response to your posts still applies here. I can't take your posts seriously when they are as ridiculous as this.

Good argument.

 

[Deus Irae]

Please feel free to provide relevant examples. Again, the NFL currently uses a number of senior citizen refs, so trying to sell this one on "different physical requirements" will be a tough task. If officiating was so physically taxing that women simply could not handle it, then surely senior citizens wouldn't be able to either.

Actually, selling it on different physical requirements wouldn't be a tough task at all. However, as you know from reading my post, I didn't make that claim in this case.

As for relevant examples, they're plentiful and many are/were high profile. I'm not going to get into that, because it's not what I was focusing on. I was just focusing on the stupidity of using "misogynist" as a knee jerk labeling reaction just because someone wanted to keep something all-male.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you made a straw man argument. How clever and unprecedented.



The poster you responded to made a post about the sexist arguments against allowing female referees. You've just admitted to responding by reducing it to whether groups are sexist on their face because they are exclusionary by nature.

You don't have to play the I am rubber you are glue game. Just do what you do and punt to semantics, take your ball and go home.

I'm sorry you have a comprehension problem, but that's not on me to rectify. Your responses were a joke, and they're now getting even worse. I'm done with you on this. I get bored discussing this stuff with the clueless, and this is going to end up in the political forum anyway.

 

[TyronePoole]

Actually, selling it on different physical requirements wouldn't be a tough task at all. However, as you know from reading my post, I didn't make that claim in this case.

Go on then. Give us some examples of how the 75 year old fat guys the NFL employs are fine tuned for NFL refereeing in a way women aren't capable of.

As for relevant examples, they're plentiful and many are/were high profile. I'm not going to get into that, because it's not what I was focusing on. I was just focusing on the stupidity of using "misogynist" as a knee jerk labeling reaction just because someone wanted to keep something all-male.

"I can't give you any examples but trust me, there are loads of them" :bricks:

 

[Gwedd]

As long as the individuals hired pass the requirements for the job, I could care less whether they are male or female.

Standards are there for a reason. Let's see them enforced fairly. Competition is good at every level.

 

[TyronePoole]

I'm sorry you have a comprehension problem, but that's not on me to rectify. Your responses were a joke, and they're now getting even worse. I'm done with you on this. I get bored discussing this stuff with the clueless, and this is going to end up in the political forum anyway.

Make political posts.

Get called out.

I don't have time to defend since it will end up in the political forum.

Thread just went full lolDeus.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, I took a couple of exclusionary groups and asked if such exclusions meant that the groups hated men. I also mentioned programs that would specifically benefit only women and asked if that meant that it was a hatred towards men, and I took a government law that benefits females, often to the detriment of males, and I asked if that reflected a hatred towards men.

In other words, I was focused on "misogynist" v. "misandrist", as I made abundantly clear.

You can't make really lousy responses like yours and expect to be taken seriously.

Discrimination isn't inherently misogynistic/misandristic. To get to the latter, you first have to determine why the discrimination exists. Women-only sports leagues, for example, exist because men tend to be far more athletic, so women rely on exclusion because a) without it there would be no place for them to compete, and b) in almost all cases, men have their own leagues anyway.

When you start talking about women-only scholarships, I'm more inclined to agree with your point, especially since men are actually the distinct minority in education when you look at college graduation rates. In cases like that, I'd see it in much the same way that I see Augusta National: clearly sexist, won't get my support, and deserves every bit of political blowback that it receives.

Also don't agree with Title IX, although again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the main discussion of this thread. If they're both sexist and wrong, then neither excuses the other.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Actually, selling it on different physical requirements wouldn't be a tough task at all. However, as you know from reading my post, I didn't make that claim in this case.

As for relevant examples, they're plentiful and many are/were high profile. I'm not going to get into that, because it's not what I was focusing on. I was just focusing on the stupidity of using "misogynist" as a knee jerk labeling reaction just because someone wanted to keep something all-male.

Then what claim did you make? What are you trying to accomplish by posting this? "I'm right but I can't/won't explain why" doesn't really contribute to this thread in any way.

 

[Deus Irae]

Discrimination isn't inherently misogynistic/misandristic.

That was my only point. People today can't have dialogues about serious issues because the main tactic in today's politics is to immediately demonize anyone who holds a different viewpoint. Those who demand tolerance are particularly intolerant, and I find it detestable that they can't see that they are guilty of precisely the thing that they rail against.

As for your responses on the examples, I don't think any of the examples are inherently misandristic even though they are clearly exclusionary, which was my point, but neither is the desire of men to have mens only areas of life.

 

[goheels22002]

The game played in the NFL is ONE HUNDRED PER CENT naked male aggression...call me all the sell out women libber names you want...there is NO WAY a woman belongs on an NFL field during play...unless the intent is to institute flag regulations in the near future ...along with "gee,sorry guys for the twenty holding calls in a row...it's my time of the month" excuses for over emotional response at MEN hitting MEN...give me a freakin' break...is there ANYTHING that is not going to be co-opted in the name of this ridiculous PC bullcrap?? WTF hap\pens when she gets leveled by a MLB in pursuit??..we gonna have congressional friggin' hearings over the violence in the NFL? Is every woman in a position of power going to call for "drastic measures!!!" to "curb the violence among these animals!!!"?

I'm sorry...I've had enough of this political correctness crap....what a shameless PR move by Goodell...and that is all this is...jeezus krist, where does it end...NFL hockey??..the heavyweight championship of the world? Is that where it's all heading???

"False Start on Joker. That's a 5-yard penalty. Timer, please re-set the clock to 10,000 years B.C."

 

[Wolfpack]

Please feel free to provide relevant examples. Again, the NFL currently uses a number of senior citizen refs, so trying to sell this one on "different physical requirements" will be a tough task. If officiating was so physically taxing that women simply could not handle it, then surely the old guys wouldn't be able to either.

This was the point I was trying to make earlier. Sure, a 30-something woman in good shape would be able to perform on par with a 70-something man in good shape. But what are you going to do when you have a 70-something women out there on the field? You could never, not in a million years, institute some sort of retirement age for women without holding men to that same standard. Are you comfortable with 70-something females refereeing an NFL game?

 

[TyronePoole]

This was the point I was trying to make earlier. Sure, a 30-something woman in good shape would be able to perform on par with a 70-something man in good shape. But what are you going to do when you have a 70-something women out there on the field? You could never, not in a million years, institute some sort of retirement age for women without holding men to that same standard. Are you comfortable with 70-something females refereeing an NFL game?

Then incorporate physical standards into the requirements for the job. you don't need to generalize based on gender imo.

 

[UK_Pat37]

My only concern is that they get the calls right. I don't care what sex they are.

I heard talk that they missed a holding call which would have been a Safety during the HOF game.

That was so BS! Whoever it was calling outt he highlights was jizzing over the opportunity to criticise the replacement official shouting 'is that holding?'.

I'll say this...if they called THAT every single time, we'd be competing to see who could score safeties first and be going nowhere but backwards!