The Arizona Cardinals became the first team in NFL history to add a woman to their coaching staff when Jen Welter was hired as a pre-season intern working with the inside linebackers.
Don’t care about sports? That’s fine. The breaking of the gender barrier is still important even if she is not a permanent member of the coaching staff. If she does a decent job, one can assume she will open the door for as many as two or three other women to have temporary coaching jobs in the NFL.
The article linked above is in Welter’s own words and mostly she is talking about how excited she is by the opportunity.
Later, though, she talks about friends in women’s football being called up to do interviews with ESPN because of her. And she says this:
I won four championships and two gold medals and I was never asked to go on ESPN. None of us were.
Got that? She was an accomplished athlete before she temporarily joined the Cardinals coaching staff and nobody on a 24-hour sports station wanted to talk to her. Or anyone else involved in women’s football. Until now.
Have no fear, gentlemen (including the brilliant guy who commented on the article by saying women will never be equal to men until they have to sign up for the draft). The glass ceiling is still very much intact.
I was at CONvergence having a wonderful time last week so I apologize that I didn’t post my regular column. Today, I shall play catch up on a bunch of stupid shit stretching as far back as three weeks.
This happens a lot. People tell someone they aren’t allowed to have informed opinions about anything except that for which they are most well-known.
In this instance, a white fan from Lacey, Washington, complained that a black football player from Charleston, South Carolina should not have an opinion about racism in the south. I mean sure, that makes sense. A white guy in Washington knows a lot more about racism.
He certainly shouldn’t be subjected the opinion of a black guy from the south. Unless it’s about football.
The football player in question, Byron Maxwell, was responding to the recent massacre in his home town. His home town!
How entitled do you have to be to look at comments like that and think “I don’t want to hear the opinions of that guy because I know what’s going on way better than he does?”
Writers note: What with landmark Supreme Court rulings in favor of Obamacare and same-sex marriage this week, I contemplated taking a week off. I mean, why be pissed when two things I strongly support are taking their victory lap?
Sadly, there are still things that piss me off. Please accept, though, that I am writing this week’s column with a satisfied smile on my face.
While Antonin Scalia can be counted on for red faced dissenting opinions in which he bemoans the fact that social liberals exist, much less occasionally win, Thomas’ dissent in the same-sex marriage case is positively draconian.
In it, he suggests that slaves in America and the Japanese Americans who were interred during WWII did not lose their dignity. He reasons (wrongly) that nobody can take away your dignity.
It seems odd that anyone would need to tell a black man how the system of slavery in the south was specifically designed to strip people of their dignity. It is certainly odd that I, a white guy, seem to be more aware of this fact than him. Calling a person “property” doesn’t feel particularly dignified.
While Scalia is bemoaning the death of our democracy, Thomas seems to be questioning the definition of our humanity. He wants to believe that we all have a limitless capacity for handling bullshit and the Government has no responsibility to make it stop.
Government can and has taken away human dignity. Today, it handed a little bit of dignity back.
What really bugs me about Scalia and Thomas is their dissent doesn’t feel like it is about law. They are personally pissed that they lost and because they are justices on the Supreme Court, they get to write a long dissertation on just how pissed off they are.
Guess what guys? So do I. And a nearly unmeasurable fraction of the people who read yours also read mine!
SUCK ON THAT!!!!
What I mean by that is I never believed in god as he was presented to me in Sunday school. My logical brain couldn’t reconcile the inconsistencies of an all loving god all-knowing god who held his own creation responsible for being imperfect.
What became very clear to me was god existed as an authority figure to lend support to the beliefs of the person speaking for him. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, you don’t have to be the bad guy. It isn’t you – it’s god.
And because you are using an unquestionable authority, you can get other people to believe as you do. You didn’t convince them. God convinced them.
The idea of theism alone isn’t a damaging concept. If you want to believe that something created the universe, you aren’t hurting anyone.
When you work to convince people you know what that being is thinking, I think you can begin to do harm.
In the debate over same-sex marriage, there are people of all faiths who think it is right and people of all faiths who think it is wrong. They are both using the ultimate authority of god to support their claim.
But what if none of them knows what god thinks? What if no-one has a direct line to heaven? What if we need to figure this stuff out for ourselves without an authority who cannot be questioned?
An appeals court had to overturn this idiotic ruling so I guess sometimes the judicial system works. Eventually.
If we are to believe this “irrational” mother’s story, she chose to give her child her own last name after the father abused her during the pregnancy. The judge in the case felt that she just wasn’t in the right mind to make that sort of decision and, I guess, thought it would case harm to the child if the child didn’t have his father’s last name.
An appeals court saw it differently and apparently felt the judge in the case was far more irrational than the mother.
This last name thing is problematic to begin with. I like my last name so when I got married, I kept it. That’s totally fine because I’m a dude and nobody questions when a man wants to keep his name.
Nobody questions when parents given their child the father’s last name.
But if a woman wants to keep her last name or give her last name to a child, well then it is time to take the case to court, I guess.
It’s a double standard. And a stupid one.