Still Eeyore
New member
Re: Wisconsin Badgers 2019-2020 Season Thread
This is not an issue that can be isolated by saying, "I only talk about women's sports." Doing so requires ignoring the elephant that is squeezing everything else out of the room. When it comes to hiring coaches, being male is always a requirement to coach a men's team, but people only claim that the candidate pool is limited when discussing hiring a woman to coach women. That means that women have to cross a barrier that men never do.
Even when a school is determined to hire a woman to coach women, that isn't the only criterion on their list for who they hire.* There was a long list of things that the new coach was supposed to be able to do. Out of that list of attributes, you're focusing on "Female" as the problem. Maybe you ought to spend your time focusing on the attributes that actually matter to the job, and figure out why a given hire wasn't successful.
So long as affirmative action for mediocre white men is allowed to pass by without comment, making a big deal when someone tries to hire a woman or person of color is a problem.
*And if it is the only criterion on their list, the problem still isn't that a woman was hired. It's that the hiring was done by morons.
This is the women's forum, so I don't post much about men's teams. It's not my fault if you don't like what you read on some other forum. Let's look at Penn State women's team. Just about any female coach would have been a better option as the program's first coach. But was the problem that the AD hired a man or that the AD hired a poor coach for the position?
Most of the people that I promote to leadership positions at my workplace tend to be women, but that is because there are more qualified female candidates. I find it to be limiting to say than any hire has to be of a certain gender, because the job requirements are a set of skills, not physical attributes.
This is not an issue that can be isolated by saying, "I only talk about women's sports." Doing so requires ignoring the elephant that is squeezing everything else out of the room. When it comes to hiring coaches, being male is always a requirement to coach a men's team, but people only claim that the candidate pool is limited when discussing hiring a woman to coach women. That means that women have to cross a barrier that men never do.
Even when a school is determined to hire a woman to coach women, that isn't the only criterion on their list for who they hire.* There was a long list of things that the new coach was supposed to be able to do. Out of that list of attributes, you're focusing on "Female" as the problem. Maybe you ought to spend your time focusing on the attributes that actually matter to the job, and figure out why a given hire wasn't successful.
So long as affirmative action for mediocre white men is allowed to pass by without comment, making a big deal when someone tries to hire a woman or person of color is a problem.
*And if it is the only criterion on their list, the problem still isn't that a woman was hired. It's that the hiring was done by morons.