NFL to Hire Sarah Thomas as First Female Official

[OhExaulted1]

Haven't had a drink since before you were born son.

You mad bro?

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

 

[Joker]

Remember...the dinosaurs are watching YOU every time you walk out into your backyard and start pontificating about the importance of human gender equality....in fact, some real genii are trying to backwards engineer the famous "bawkus little-us" into T-Rex...

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

When one has the superior talent pool, and can find adequate numbers via that pool, one need not access another talent pool. That's common sense.

Note that it's not the same thing as saying one should not.

Fair points of discussion.
Fortunately this is not theoretical, we all have observational data to call upon. Based on this is there reason to believe the referee talent pool is abundantly solid and able that candidates from other pools can be excluded?

This obviously glosses over the topic of should the pool be excluded. IMHO the reason for exclusion based on gender must be very very compelling. A large gulf in average spatial ability isn't compelling in my biew. The only thing those averages say to me is more males are likely to be sufficiently capable -- versus the only ones capable.

For exclusion based on gender, to me it better have very serious ramifications to exclude. I am vehemently in favor of the Delta Force, for example, remaining all male based due to the life and death consequences of the job. But the job of blowing a whistle, throwing a flag, observing players fighting for a ball doesn't rise to compelling, not even close in my view.

 

[Deus Irae]

For exclusion based on gender, to me it better have very serious ramifications to exclude. I am vehemently in favor of the Delta Force, for example, remaining all male based due to the life and death consequences of the job. But the job of blowing a whistle, throwing a flag, observing players fighting for a ball doesn't rise to compelling, not even close in my view.

You argue a difference of degree, not kind, as justification for forced acceptance. I tend to reject that argument when it's applied in situations such as these, as it's logically unsound to create a malleable sliding scale.

 

[JPPT1974]

Just hope she can succeed. Good luck to her and congrats!

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

You argue a difference of degree, not kind, as justification for forced acceptance. I tend to reject that argument when it's applied in situations such as these, as it's logically unsound.

Yes, there is an ingredient of forced acceptance. I don't actually outright support forced acceptance but it is needed at times. Humans, in general, don't like change and have to be forced into it (to some degree).

As far as logically unsound? We will agree to disagree. The exclusion from occupation based on gender should be a high threshhold to meet before it can be applied. I see that as a logical statement.

 

[Deus Irae]

The exclusion from occupation based on gender should be a high threshhold to meet before it can be applied. I see that as a logical statement.

You do not have a right to a job of your choosing.

 

[OhExaulted1]

Just hope she can succeed. Good luck to her and congrats!

If it wasn't for France, there would be no America. Suck on that righties.

 

[meatface]

I thought all refs were part time employees?

 

[Ross12]

Dunno. What happens when one of the geezer males they NFL employs does the same thing? You "women are weak" people don't have much to stand on given the NFL employs a non-trivial number of senior citizens or near-seniors.

I may just delete this post as it keeps getting misinterpreted as me trying to say "women are weak" when I was trying to ask what the public would say when such a thing happened, not actually putting in any opinion of my own whatsoever. I apologized a few posts later to @Haley regarding it but it appears no one is seeing that post.

FWIW I don't think women are weak at all. My wife can and does kick my ass on a regular basis...

 

[Ross12]

Sorry, I guess my post looked like I was questioning the ref herself. I don't doubt she is fully prepared. I was referring more to how the public/media reacts if she ends up getting hurt. Media firestorm for putting a woman on a football field? "They should've known she was more fragile!!!" Just thinking out loud. I don't agree with these sentiments.

This would be the second post, just 11 entries down.

 

[mb6592]

You're talking as if equality of opportunity is the way the equality game is played. It's not. Equality (or better) of outcome is how the game is played today, and how it's been played for decades.

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/

 

[mb6592]

Is that a common sense position or is it closer to just simplicity? When we are talking about many millions of samples, using the average to exclude the whole pool of candidates is common sense?

IMHO getting a benchmark of depth perception capability required for the job, then taking extra measures to blindly confirm that benchmark is hit in a new hiree seems to me a common sense approach.

I realize this over simplifies the topic, however, I think the gist of what I am saying came across (right or wrong)

Didn't you read Deus previous post? That's not how the game is played. Best person for the job is a dying ideal. Equality of outcome is the new wave.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Didn't you read Deus previous post? That's not how the game is played. Best person for the job is a dying ideal. Equality of outcome is the new wave.

"Best person for the job" means if you have 10 applicants for 5 ref jobs and the woman applicant is the 4th best, you hire her instead of hiring 5 men, one of whom is inferior to her. Not "let's not hire any women at all" like some of the troglodytes in this thread are advocating.

 

[Tunescribe]

"Best person for the job" means if you have 10 applicants for 5 ref jobs and the woman applicant is the 4th best, you hire her instead of hiring 5 men, one of whom is inferior to her. Not "let's not hire any women at all" like some of the troglodytes in this thread are advocating.

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."

 

[Deus Irae]

"Best person for the job" means if you have 10 applicants for 5 ref jobs and the woman applicant is the 4th best, you hire her instead of hiring 5 men, one of whom is inferior to her. Not "let's not hire any women at all" like some of the troglodytes in this thread are advocating.

You have to be trolling at this point. Your reading comprehension skills are nowhere near as bad as this.

 

[black&gold]

You have to be trolling at this point. Your reading comprehension skills are nowhere near as bad as this.

And you have to be the most unlikable poster on these boards. You're about half as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.

 

[Deus Irae]

And you have to be the most unlikable poster on these boards. You're about half as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.

We were having a serious and reasonable discussion. Rlcarr jumped in and called people troglodytes, while either completely misunderstanding the post he quoted, or plain trolling. I gave him the benefit of the intellectual doubt, and assumed he was trolling. For that, you launched a personal attack at me.

 

[black&gold]

We were having a serious and reasonable discussion. Rlcarr jumped in and called people troglodytes, while either completely misunderstanding the post he quoted, or plain trolling. I gave him the benefit of the intellectual doubt, and assumed he was trolling. For that, you launched a personal attack at me.

Spare me your sob story about your "serious and reasonable" discussion so rudely interrupted. I've been lurking these boards for years, and a huge portion of your posts are self-aggrandizing, disrespectful, and unnecessary.

 

[Deus Irae]

Spare me your sob story about your "serious and reasonable" discussion so rudely interrupted. I've been lurking these boards for years, and a huge portion of your posts are self-aggrandizing, disrespectful, and unnecessary.

You've got 7 posts since 2011 and you've attacked me in 2 of them, while complaining about me and someone else having a serious discussion relating to Hernandez (involving the criminal stuff), with a bunch of other people, in a third. You're either a dupe or someone with issues. I don't care which. Go find another ankle to bite.