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

[Wolfpack]

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

I believe such standards are already in place.

I believe we'll see women NFL refs eventually, but not anytime in the near future (barring this gimmick involving temporary replacements). Right now, there just really aren't too many in the pipelines.

 

[chicowalker]

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.

If the argument is simply that you, Joker or anybody else just wants it to be men only, fair enough. I'm not sure where you draw the line, but that's up to you.

The misogny comes in when somebody like Joker starts talking about how women will ruin the game because they'll make unnecessary roughness calls, etc. He's making an assumption about these potential refs based solely on their gender.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

The claim was one we seem to agree on (the "misogyinist" claim). As for examples regarding the physical standards, you can look to the military and to fire departments, as two very high profile examples.

 

[Deus Irae]

If the argument is simply that you, Joker or anybody else just wants it to be men only, fair enough. I'm not sure where you draw the line, but that's up to you.

Personally, I don't care if women ref games, as long as they are qualified. I can see some potential issues, but those issues are more of degree than kind.

The misogny comes in when somebody like Joker starts talking about how women will ruin the game because they'll make unnecessary roughness calls, etc. He's making an assumption about these potential refs based solely on their gender.

That's not misogyny. Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women based solely upon their sex. It's not the belief that men and women have differences, are different, or react differently.

Misogyny is a term used to squash debate and discussion, and tends to be used inappropriately as a way to label one's opposition in a manner designed to isolate that opposition, much like the term "homophobe" and others.

 

[chicowalker]

Personally, I don't care if women ref games, as long as they are qualified. I can see some potential issues, but those issues are more of degree than kind....

agreed

...That's not misogyny. Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women based solely upon their sex. It's not the belief that men and women have differences, are different, or react differently.

Misogyny is a term used to squash debate and discussion, and tends to be used inappropriately as a way to label one's opposition in a manner designed to isolate that opposition, much like the term "homophobe" and others.

Then substitute the term "predudice," "discrimnatory," whatever.

Few people don't think that men and women generally have differences. But to think a woman is incapable of doing something because of these generalized differences goes beyond a harmless stereotype. And that goes the other way, too, of course.

(You brought up homophobe, and the comparison is an apt one. While an opinion may be mislabeled as homophobia, when you get into the conversation, the denied homophobia often exists, despite a person's initial claims otherwise. This may be getting towards the political forum, though...)

 

[Deus Irae]

agreed




Then substitute the term "predudice," "discrimnatory," whatever.

Few people don't think that men and women generally have differences. But to think a woman is incapable of doing something because of these generalized differences goes beyond a harmless stereotype. And that goes the other way, too, of course.

I disagree. It's clear that there are things which are sex-specific. Ignoring that is silly, as some of them are as obvious as a baby bump.

(You brought up homophobe, and the comparison is an apt one. While an opinion may be mislabeled as homophobia, when you get into the conversation, the denied homophobia often exists, despite a person's initial claims otherwise. This may be getting towards the political forum, though...)

I'd respond to this, but it would take this to the political forum.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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?

No, but you wouldn't have to be. Simply institute basic physical requirements that are prerequisites for doing the job. Anyone who cannot meet those standards, male or female, can no longer officiate. If unfit officials are still being left on the field, then make the requirments more stringent. Problem solved, and these standards should have been put in place a long time ago anyway.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

When the tone of the discussion is "women can't be officials because they can't handle men hitting men and they'll call 15 holding penalties in a row when they're on their periods", then the "serious dialogue" ship has clearly already sailed.

 

[Deus Irae]

When the tone of the discussion is "women can't be officials because they can't handle men hitting men and they'll call 15 holding penalties in a row when they're on their periods", then the "serious dialogue" ship has clearly already sailed.

No offense to Joker, but what are you doing taking him word for word when he's having one of his rants?

Also, period comments and jokes are standard fare, are used by both sexes, and are understood for what they are, which is a nod to both the emotional roller coaster that some women ride during certain times of their cycle and to the impact of that roller coaster on those around them.

 

[Wolfpack]

No, but you wouldn't have to be. Simply institute basic physical requirements that are prerequisites for doing the job. Anyone who cannot meet those standards, male or female, can no longer officiate. If unfit officials are still being left on the field, then make the requirments more stringent. Problem solved, and these standards should have been put in place a long time ago anyway.

Sorry, but that solution opens up a whole new can o' worms. Men are, on average, physically stronger and faster than women so such standards are considered (by some) to be inherently sexist. That's why most organizations who do have physical standards, such as the U.S. military for example, have separate standards for women as they do for men.

Since the NFL isn't exactly in the business of saving lives, that solution you propose would be a never ending P.R. nightmare.

 

[chicowalker]

I disagree. It's clear that there are things which are sex-specific. Ignoring that is silly, as some of them are as obvious as a baby bump....

Yes, it is clear, which is why I said that most people acknowledge there are differences between genders.

But assuming that a woman can't do something because of gender differences -- and preventing her from trying -- is simply wrong. Just like it's wrong to do the same for men.

Assuming that a female referee would call a hit unnecessary roughness when a man would not has no basis in reality and likely reveals something about what that person thinks about women. (Assuming a man can't be as good a parent as a woman also has no basis in reality and likely reveals something about whoever believes that.)

 

[Deus Irae]

...But assuming that a woman can't do something because of gender differences -- and preventing her from trying -- is simply wrong. Just like it's wrong to do the same for men.

You're making an incorrect blanket statement condemning a blanket statement.

Assuming that a female referee would call a hit unnecessary roughness when a man would not has no basis in reality and likely reveals something about what that person thinks about women. (Assuming a man can't be as good a parent as a woman also has no basis in reality and likely reveals something about whoever believes that.)

Actually, it does have a basis in reality, as women around the world are less inclined towards acceptance of general violence than men. Again, that's without question. The question is whether or not that basis is one which will matter when it comes to officiating football games at the NFL level.

As for the "parent" thing, that would take us to the political forum, again, so I'll just note that there are 2 parent roles, and there are studies that support that arguments that men are much better in the father roles and women are much better in the mother roles.

What you're doing is making absolute claims while disparaging absolute claims.

 

[chicowalker]

You're making an incorrect blanket statement condemning a blanket statement....

Then prove it wrong. Explain to me when it is OK assume that a woman can't do something and prevent her from trying to do so based on your or anybody else's take on gender differences.

...Actually, it does have a basis in reality, as women around the world are less inclined towards acceptance of general violence than men. Again, that's without question. The question is whether or not that basis is one which will matter when it comes to officiating football games at the NFL level.

As for the "parent" thing, that would take us to the political forum, again, so I'll just note that there are 2 parent roles, and there are studies that support that arguments that men are much better in the father roles and women are much better in the mother roles.

What you're doing is making absolute claims while disparaging absolute claims.

A woman who wants to be an NFL referee and is training to become one isn't "women around the world." Unless you think all women are the same, the general stereotype is meaningless.

I don't think you realize it, but your own conclusion -- "The question is whether or not that basis is one which will matter when it comes to officiating football games at the NFL level" -- contradicts the point you're trying to make and is exactly what I'm saying.

Have you ever watched football with women who really like the sport? I have, and they love the hitting. How does it matter, then, that women may be more averse to violence?

As for parents, you've again sidestepped the point I made in order to make your own separate point. Both US and foreign courts, and many people, historically have favored women over men when it comes to parenting. One may argue that has some basis in reality, but reality is also that simply applying that blanket judgment to a father's detriment is wrong. That has nothing to do with mother roles and father roles, as what I referred to is parenting -- not fathering, not mothering.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Sorry, but that solution opens up a whole new can o' worms. Men are, on average, physically stronger and faster than women so such standards are considered (by some) to be inherently sexist. That's why most organizations who do have physical standards, such as the U.S. military for example, have separate standards for women as they do for men.

Since the NFL isn't exactly in the business of saving lives, that solution you propose would be a never ending P.R. nightmare.

There is plenty of legal precedent for this. Feel free to read about it:

Bona fide occupational qualifications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a certain trait or skill is required to effectively perform a job, then employers are allowed to discriminate for these skills in the hiring process. This is why women, for example, can't typically sue their way into jobs that require levels of physical aptitude that they, individually, do not possess. It is also why men can't sue Hooters for gender discrimination.

I also find it slightly odd, that, out of the following two situations:

A) the NFL explicitly prohibits women from being officials simply because they're women
B) the NFL spells out certain physical requirements that are deemed necessary for someone of either gender to officiate at an acceptable level

You think that B will create a larger PR problem.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're making an incorrect blanket statement condemning a blanket statement.



Actually, it does have a basis in reality, as women around the world are less inclined towards acceptance of general violence than men. Again, that's without question. The question is whether or not that basis is one which will matter when it comes to officiating football games at the NFL level.

As for the "parent" thing, that would take us to the political forum, again, so I'll just note that there are 2 parent roles, and there are studies that support that arguments that men are much better in the father roles and women are much better in the mother roles.

What you're doing is making absolute claims while disparaging absolute claims.

What "woman around the world" are inclined to doesn't matter. If the individual in question proves unable to evaluate which hits should be penalized, then clearly that individual is unfit to be an official in the NFL. Your "women around the world" argument is only relevant if you're trying to claim that women are universally incapable of fairly evaluating clean vs. dirty hits, and I don't think that that's what you're trying to do.

 

[Deus Irae]

Then prove it wrong. Explain to me when it is OK assume that a woman can't do something and prevent her from trying to do so based on your or anybody else's take on gender differences.

If you can't think of examples, you're not trying. However, I'm not going down this path, as it will lead to this heading to the political forum.

A woman who wants to be an NFL referee and is training to become one isn't "women around the world." Unless you think all women are the same, the general stereotype is meaningless.

I don't think you realize it, but your own conclusion -- "The question is whether or not that basis is one which will matter when it comes to officiating football games at the NFL level" -- contradicts the point you're trying to make and is exactly what I'm saying.

Have you ever watched football with women who really like the sport? I have, and they love the hitting. How does it matter, then, that women may be more averse to violence?

So you've now demonstrated that you either don't understand what's meant by "basis in reality" or you're too far in the political correctness tank to accept the obvious. Either way, further discussion on this isn't going to get us anywhere.

As for parents, you've again sidestepped the point I made in order to make your own separate point. Both US and foreign courts, and many people, historically have favored women over men when it comes to parenting. One may argue that has some basis in reality, but reality is also that simply applying that blanket judgment to a father's detriment is wrong. That has nothing to do with mother roles and father roles, as what I referred to is parenting -- not fathering, not mothering.

Your post was wrong. I responded to it in a way that would hopefully avoid getting this thread moved. Your response does nothing to refute mine, and you can't seem to see that you're guilty of what you're railing against. That being the case, there's nothing more to say on the topic.

 

[Deus Irae]

What "woman around the world" are inclined to doesn't matter.

Of course it mattered in the context, which was a response to a post claiming "has no basis in reality ". That the post mattered in response to that is beyond question.

If the individual in question proves unable to evaluate which hits should be penalized, then clearly that individual is unfit to be an official in the NFL. Your "women around the world" argument is only relevant if you're trying to claim that women are universally incapable of fairly evaluating clean vs. dirty hits, and I don't think that that's what you're trying to do.

Ok, you've now decided to ignore the context involving my response a second time, so this isn't going to get us anywhere. As I said earlier:

Personally, I don't care if women ref games, as long as they are qualified.

I'm able to separate the idea of a "basis in reality" from what can happen in actual practice.

There's a basis in reality to saying that men are stronger than women, too, but it doesn't hold that my agreeing with that means that I think that all men are stronger than all women.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

When the tone of the discussion is "women can't be officials because they can't handle men hitting men and they'll call 15 holding penalties in a row when they're on their periods", then the "serious dialogue" ship has clearly already sailed.

Bloody Hell!
How can folks rag on women like that?
Mention some things, and the comments flow.

 

[Deus Irae]

Bloody Hell!
How can folks rag on women like that?
Mention some things, and the comments flow.

Wow, looks like PWP is seeing red.

 

[chicowalker]

If you can't think of examples, you're not trying. However, I'm not going down this path, as it will lead to this heading to the political forum....

You can't think of examples that would lead to the political forum? You're the one trying to make a point here -- I can't read your mind. (Thinking I can is a decidely female trait, btw )

...So you've now demonstrated that you either don't understand what's meant by "basis in reality" or you're too far in the political correctness tank to accept the obvious. Either way, further discussion on this isn't going to get us anywhere.....

You're either ducking the question or you think that stereotypes apply to all members of the stereotyped group.

this has nothing to do with political correctness, and the fact that you're resorting to that shows the weakness of your "argument."

..Your post was wrong. I responded to it in a way that would hopefully avoid getting this thread moved. Your response does nothing to refute mine, and you can't seem to see that you're guilty of what you're railing against. That being the case, there's nothing more to say on the topic.

No, it wasn't, which is why you're continually either moving the goalposts or refusing to elaborate.

Parenting is different from mothering is different from fathering. If you don't understand that, you're right, there's nothing more to say.