First Female to Tryout for NFL

[Deus Irae]

We disposed of the issues dozens of posts ago.

Nobody's arguing that a woman should get an NFL placekicker job unless she can excel at that job, ALL PARTS OF THE JOB CONSIDERED. Some of those parts include delivering or taking hits.

If you can't even survive the job, then in particular you can't excel at it. Except, of course, if you want to be a suicide bomber -- but that's not currently an NFL position, due to restrictions upon the use of explosives on the field.

The only thing that has been disposed of, as indicated by the trending of the posts, is reasoned thought.

 

[Haley]

One question I'd like to ask you all is if you think there is a place in our country today for any single-gender organization or institution (sports leagues, clubs, schools, etc.). If so, why? If not, why not?

I think any organization that isn't the among pinnacle of such organizations should be able to choose a homogenous membership if that is what they desire. When an organization is the best at something and they make access dependent on gender, race, creed, religious affiliation, etc, they are intending to discriminate.

 

[neuronet]

It is the posts in threads like this that restore my lack of faith in humanity. Thank you.

 

[TyronePoole]

This makes absolutely no sense.

Let's not go full LolDeus here, please elaborate.

 

[Tunescribe]

Nope. You can want all you want, but you won't get it.

The argument is whether the TOP level of competition should be open to everybody good enough to compete. Whether there are also subsidiary levels restricted by age or gender or nationality or physical handicap or level of schooling or whatever is a separate matter.

This is a fool's fantasy. The solution to all this utter silliness is for the NFL to officially BAN female participation from tryouts. Women have their own football leagues designed specifically to accommodate their physical capabilities. I honestly don't care whether somewhere on this planet there is a testosterone-laden female freak of nature who could marginally handle the functions of an NFL placekicker. Let her join a women's league and become a superstar.

I suspect that the league hasn't officially banned female participation for one reason only: it doesn't want to alienate its female fan base. But suffice to say that ANYONE here who truly believes that ANY woman has what it takes to make an NFL roster is nuts. You're talking about the elite of the elite at the NFL level of competition, where even an elite female wouldn't stand a chance.

This purely is a matter of physiology. To marginalize that in the interest of pushing a cultural philosophy or sociopolitical agenda defies common sense.

 

[TyronePoole]

Now we see the liberal PC Police textbook agenda in action. If you can't argue against science and what would most certainly happen should a woman go head up with a world class athlete in peak physical condition, label the person you're arguing against a sexist. Well done. That crap might work down in the sewage runoff that you're used to posting in, but I won't bite. So call me a sexist all you want.

Your thesis here is that women as a rule should be barred from competing in male leagues because 1) only effeminate nancy-boy PC libruls advocate for such insanity 2) they are the same ****ies who want to make it "flag football" 3) a woman will get hurt then 2) those people will react in an extremely disproportionate manner to witnessing such a thing and then 4) use a gender-based argument that women are weaker and thus the rule must be changed to accomodate their presence in the sport which they also argued was deserved to begin with.

This is some bizarre and convoluted logic. It also has zero bearing on whether a woman has the ability to compete at a high level. Basically all you are saying is that women will sissify the sport, and doing it in a pretty dishonest way so as to pin it on some nefarious cabal of elitist whiners.

I'd love to hear the "science" you think you have presented that I've disagreed with. I can't ever imagine a woman being strong enough or fast enough to play Defensive Tackle or Wide Receiver at the NFL level, and I've yet to see anyone argue that it's a legit possibility. But a female NFL kicker doesn't seem at all implausible to me, so if I'm missing some study that's been conducted or some astute physiological insight that you have I'd love to hear it.

I challenge you to quote me saying that.

I should have been more clear that that part wasn't addressed towards you but to the posts several above yours.

EDIT - And I never called you sexist, I accurately labelled your argument as being sexist.

 

[TyronePoole]

This is a fool's fantasy. The solution to all this utter silliness is for the NFL to officially BAN female participation from tryouts. Women have their own football leagues designed specifically to accommodate their physical capabilities. I honestly don't care whether somewhere on this planet there is a testosterone-laden female freak of nature who could marginally handle the functions of an NFL placekicker. Let her join a women's league and become a superstar.

I suspect that the league hasn't officially banned female participation for one reason only: it doesn't want to alienate its female fan base. But suffice to say that ANYONE here who truly believes that ANY woman has what it takes to make an NFL roster is nuts. You're talking about the elite of the elite at the NFL level of competition, where even an elite female wouldn't stand a chance.

This purely is a matter of physiology. To marginalize that in the interest of pushing a cultural philosophy or sociopolitical agenda defies common sense.

why make a blanket rule if no team is ever going to draft or sign a female that isn't good enough?

 

[Tunescribe]

But a female NFL kicker doesn't seem at all implausible to me ...

It just might if you would stop and consider who she'd be competing against for a roster spot. (Hint: the best male kickers in the world.)

why make a blanket rule if no team is ever going to draft or sign a female that isn't good enough?

That's my point. The league knows there never will be a female player, which speaks to its dishonesty in allowing a woman to try out for purposes of pandering to the female fan base.

 

[TyronePoole]

It just might if you would stop and consider who she'd be competing against for a roster spot. (Hint: the best male kickers in the world.)

The universe of female soccer players in the United States is way bigger, and kicking a ball is one area where the physical difference isn't that great. if it were just about who has the biggest leg, then Tony Meola would have been successful. I really don't think a skillful female kicker is at all implausible.

And making it a rule just because you've decided that it is and to carry on as if it isn't is a lie you just can't live with isn't a very compelling argument.

 

[mgteich]

If women continue to kick in high schools and colleges, then perhaps one will be able to make an nil squad. I agree that there is no reason to prohibit such practice.

Women should play if they can compete as a race car driver, golfer, tennis player, soccer player and yes, a place kicker.

And, no, I don't think a woman will win a place on an nfl team for decades.

why make a blanket rule if no team is ever going to draft or sign a female that isn't good enough?

 

[Tunescribe]

If women continue to kick in high schools and colleges, then perhaps one will be able to make an nil squad. I agree that there is no reason to prohibit such practice.

Women should play if they can compete as a race car driver, golfer, tennis player, soccer player and yes, a place kicker.

My question to you and others is: WHY? Women have their own female-only leagues/teams/competitions in which men are not allowed. They have their own golf/tennis/soccer/football organizations. They have their own category in the Olympics. WHY should they be encouraged to compete with men instead -- in any sport?

Danicka Patrick is the only exception that I can think of that makes sense, and that's because there isn't a female division of NASCAR.

 

[TyronePoole]

My question to you and others is: WHY? Women have their own female-only leagues/teams/competitions in which men are not allowed. They have their own golf/tennis/soccer/football organizations. They have their own category in the Olympics. WHY should they be encouraged to compete with men instead -- in any sport?

Danicka Patrick is the only exception that I can think of that makes sense, and that's because there isn't a female division of NASCAR.

because it's a higher level of competition?

 

[Tunescribe]

because it's a higher level of competition?

It's a pretty wild leap of ill-logic that a woman in any sport wouldn't find ample competition with her own gender. But your question is moot for the simple fact that you're not accounting for the inherent physiological differences between genders. It comes down to chromosomes and testosterone. That's why the sexes are segregated in the sporting world. It is not a political/sociological/cultural question, which you're trying to make it. Men and women are equal but DIFFERENT in ways that never will change.

 

[TyronePoole]

It's a pretty wild leap of ill-logic that a woman in any sport wouldn't find ample competition with her own gender. But your question is moot for the simple fact that you're not accounting for the inherent physiological differences between genders. It comes down to chromosomes and testosterone. That's why the sexes are segregated in the sporting world. It is not a political/sociological/cultural question, which you're trying to make it. Men and women are equal but DIFFERENT in ways that never will change.

This doesn't really address my post at all or make much sense. Are you trying to argue that a female football league will be as high a level of competition as the NFL? I don't think I'm the one not accounting for the physiological differences.

The problem for people in your camp is that the physiological advantage only goes one way, and so the need for segregation only goes one way. That reality creates what you ostensibly argue is an unfair situation but in reality just scares you. If there ever was a useful situation for the term "PC" to be used I'd say that mirroring the segregation rules just for the sake of being "fair" warrants it.

 

[mgteich]

I believe that you are incorrect.

Women have been marred from men's organizations for centuries because of political/socioligical/cutlural reasons. Yes, this is because it is has always been because women are physiologically different.

And, yes, women's sports teams were formed because women couldn't compete elsewhere.
It is only a few years ago that colleges were forced to spend real money on scholarships for women athletes.

No one knows if any women will be able to make the grade on a male sports team. However, if women continue to play all the sports in large numbers and are allowed to compete, it is extremely likely that we will see a female tennis player compete with men, and a soccer player, and a golfer and so on.

In the end, there will be open teams (with very few women) and women's teams. Most women would choose to be superstars on women's teams and some will choose to try to compete on open teams. Would the Williams sisters (tennis) really be uncompetitive with men if they played against them routinely?

It's a pretty wild leap of ill-logic that a woman in any sport wouldn't find ample competition with her own gender. But your question is moot for the simple fact that you're not accounting for the inherent physiological differences between genders. It comes down to chromosomes and testosterone. That's why the sexes are segregated in the sporting world. It is not a political/sociological/cultural question, which you're trying to make it. Men and women are equal but DIFFERENT in ways that never will change.

 

[Deus Irae]

Would the Williams sisters (tennis) really be uncompetitive with men if they played against them routinely?

They'd get destroyed.

Karsten Braasch v the Williams Sisters

During the 1998 Australian Open, sisters Serena and Venus Williams boasted that they could beat any man ranked outside the world's top 200. The challenge was accepted by Karsten Braasch, a German player ranked No 203 (his highest ranking was No 38). before the matches, Braasch played a round of golf in the morning, drank a couple of beers, smoked a few cigarettes, and then played the Williams sisters for a set each, one after the other. He defeated Serena, 6-1, and Venus, 6-2. Serena said afterwards "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/tennis/men-v-women.htm

 

[Tunescribe]

I believe that you are incorrect.

Women have been marred from men's organizations for centuries because of political/socioligical/cutlural reasons. Yes, this is because it is has always been because women are physiologically different.

And, yes, women's sports teams were formed because women couldn't compete elsewhere.
It is only a few years ago that colleges were forced to spend real money on scholarships for women athletes.

No one knows if any women will be able to make the grade on a male sports team. However, if women continue to play all the sports in large numbers and are allowed to compete, it is extremely likely that we will see a female tennis player compete with men, and a soccer player, and a golfer and so on.

In the end, there will be open teams (with very few women) and women's teams. Most women would choose to be superstars on women's teams and some will choose to try to compete on open teams. Would the Williams sisters (tennis) really be uncompetitive with men if they played against them routinely?

Ah, so the chief reason women have their own leagues/organizations/competitions is a response to male oppression -- NOT because they are physically unable to compete with men at most levels athletically. What nonsense. Your socio-political blinders have led you to dismiss key differences in gender physiology, which is where this argument ends.

You suggest that one day there will be "open" cross-gender teams and women's teams. Why not have exclusively "open" cross-gender teams across the board? Because women would be generally excluded at most levels and totally excluded in professional sports.

Honestly, it's really OK to acknowledge and honor differences between the sexes and not feel compelled by nonsensical socio-political idealism to pretend they don't exist. We never will see women in MLB, the NBA, the NFL, international pro soccer leagues, men's Olympic events, etc., etc. Believing otherwise simply is ignorant.

This doesn't really address my post at all or make much sense. Are you trying to argue that a female football league will be as high a level of competition as the NFL? I don't think I'm the one not accounting for the physiological differences.

I TOTALLY addressed your post and made complete sense! What doesn't make sense is your weird notion that a female football player should challenge a male NFL player to "experience a higher level of competition." That's not "competition," it's an exercise in sheer futility.

The problem for people in your camp is that the physiological advantage only goes one way, and so the need for segregation only goes one way.

Your gripe lies with several billion years of biological evolution, not me.

That reality creates what you ostensibly argue is an unfair situation but in reality just scares you.

That is hilarious!

If there ever was a useful situation for the term "PC" to be used I'd say that mirroring the segregation rules just for the sake of being "fair" warrants it.

I don't know what the hell you're trying to say here.

 

[mgteich]

Only a very few women will ever be able to compete in most of these sports. That is the rationale for keeping women's sports (other than the fact that there is a market).

In any case, this is not a real issues for another couple of decades. For now, girls will continue to add their numbers to high school golf, tennis and swimming teams (and yes, an occasional place kicker).

Ah, so the chief reason women have their own leagues/organizations/competitions is a response to male oppression -- NOT because they are physically unable to compete with men at most levels athletically. What nonsense. Your socio-political blinders have led you to dismiss key differences in gender physiology, which is where this argument ends.

You suggest that one day there will be "open" cross-gender teams and women's teams. Why not have exclusively "open" cross-gender teams across the board? Because women would be generally excluded at most levels and totally excluded in professional sports.

Honestly, it's really OK to acknowledge and honor differences between the sexes and not feel compelled by nonsensical socio-political idealism to pretend they don't exist. We never will see women in MLB, the NBA, the NFL, international pro soccer leagues, men's Olympic events, etc., etc. Believing otherwise simply is ignorant.

 

[Tunescribe]

Only a very few women will ever be able to compete in most of these sports. That is the rationale for keeping women's sports (other than the fact that there is a market).

In any case, this is not a real issues for another couple of decades. For now, girls will continue to add their numbers to high school golf, tennis and swimming teams (and yes, an occasional place kicker).

What's going to happen in the next couple of decades? Will the entire female species undergo some sort of mass hormonal mutation? Because short of that, nothing is going to change in the next couple decades or couple thousand decades.

 

[ivanvamp]

I think any organization that isn't the among pinnacle of such organizations should be able to choose a homogenous membership if that is what they desire. When an organization is the best at something and they make access dependent on gender, race, creed, religious affiliation, etc, they are intending to discriminate.

So an organization that isn't at the pinnacle of its kind that chooses to be single gender is not intending to discriminate? Help me understand what you're thinking here.