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

[lurker1965]

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???

I agree. You can not correctly call pass interference without a penis.

What? Is she going to try to use a strap-on?

What are we saying to the children?

(Does this need a sarcasm tag?)

 

[lurker1965]

what color is the wall of the ladies room...does your wife hold it for you when you squat to take a pee?

Wait a minute. Calling holding = going to the bathroom?

Should men be able to ref lingerie football games is the correct argument. I do not think Goodell hath decreed women in men's rooms yet.

I'll stop now. This is too easy.

 

[TheComeback]

well, call me all these names and brand me a woman hater...you STILL fail to answer the simple questions I posed...can YOU join a women's league and play on a women's team in any organized sport?...can YOU ,(I assume you are male), waltz into a ladies commode and relieve yourself freely??...yes?? tell me what country you're in, I'd like to see this first hand...no, YOU are another of these far left absolutists.,.and you're attack on my character ,calling me misogynistic, is pure post Andrea Dworkin/Neutered Nation horsecrap.

I'm saying what I feel...you don't like it, shove it.

Men have been coaching and refereeing women's sports for decades. Get over it.

 

[jcdavey]

Men have been coaching and refereeing women's sports for decades. Get over it.

epic lol.............

 

[FirstAndGoal]

Originally Posted by Joker
well, call me all these names and brand me a woman hater...you STILL fail to answer the simple questions I posed...can YOU join a women's league and play on a women's team in any organized sport?...can YOU ,(I assume you are male), waltz into a ladies commode and relieve yourself freely??...yes?? tell me what country you're in, I'd like to see this first hand.

Joker must not be too informed (assuming he is from MA)

By law, as part of the Massachusetts Constitution Amendment on Equal Rights from 1976 , boys can participate in girl's sports in school when there is no boys program. The most common example is that boys have been playing field hockey in school as a result of this rule.

In terms of private organizations, they make the rules but in terms of publicly funded organized sports, boys do play on girls teams.

BTW, since there are mens rooms and womans rooms, there is no need for this but in terms of sports where there is no equal access to a sport, it's open by law to the other gender.

Massachusetts' ERA allows boys to compete against girls in sports such as field hockey, swimming, volleyball and gymnastics - ESPNHS

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Please describe how my argument equates to reductio ad ridiculum. I am well acquainted with this principle, and I still maintain that my analogy holds water. Feel free to specify exactly how the analogy that I made is flawed -- I'm all ears, and I'm entirely open to the possibility that I may be wrong. I doubt that I am, but if you can make any kind of an argument that that is the case, then I will listen to it with an open mind.

I did not call your statement reductio ad ridiculum (or intend to). I said you were part of moving it toward that possible conclusion (helping it along quite a bit). Why? The conclusion to reductio ad ridiculum occurs because of a degenerative progression of conversation (I realize you know this). Frequently the single biggest step toward this conclusion is the interjection of race into a conversation not about race (hence Godwin's ultimate observation).

I don't want my posts to be some sort of ongoing attack on you. I strongly disagree with you interjecting race into a conversation not about race. I brought up Godwin for the explicit purpose of proving what can happen when that is done (and trying to be witty too). You disagree, feel your point was valid, feel you were justified, whatever your reasons/motivations....so be it.