Replies

Letting them be kickers shows the inherent dishonesty of the entire project. Basically they are saying that since a woman soccer player can kick a ball and the kicker doesn't get tackled on every play, or even most plays they think they can get away with it. Every so often one of these girls will be crippled but they won't all get crippled right away so they can maintain the illusion of equality. They won't make females linemen because the line has to take the full brutality of the sport on every play. All you are really doing is abolishing the requirement that all of the members of the team be able to sustain the maximum level of violence and injury in order to play the sport. Even if you could give a woman enough steroids to build up the same amount of muscle as a man, you still can't duplicate the male skeleton in a female. This is why female basketball players have a significantly higher risk of knee injuries than male basketball players. It has to do with the angle of the hips which in turn is a result of the female pelvis having to accomodate childbirth.

The military has been doing the same thing which you advocate for football which is to take what have traditionally been combat positions and redefine them as non-combat positions. Restrictions and standards which apply to combat then no longer apply to those positions. The problem is calling it a non combat position doesn't make it a non combat position when a war actually happens. Nobody is denying that your Mom is a tough lady but saying that there is no physical difference between males and females and then staking peoples lives on that is dishonest.

They're letting them be kickers because that's the girls currently pushing to get in. And they've got the easy arguement to make, if you can consistently put it through the uprights from 40 yards out then you can be a kicker. Since kickers rarely get hit they're just avoiding arguments. But once female kickers are well entrenched it will spread. And of course anybody that's watched Martin Gramatica jump into teammates' arms (and twist his ankle on the turf, those Gramatica boys are just too excitable) has a hard time defending the fine manly tradition of kicking fieldgoals. As for whether or not there are women that can make linemen while I'll admit that it will be a low percentage, but anybody who's seen the footage out of Sturgis knows there are some 200+ pound women that are plenty tough. Let's also not forget that the Broncos had the smallest offensive line in the league for 3 years and blocked for 3 consecutive different 1000 yard rushers, it's not all about size.

That's not what I'm advocating for the NFL or the military. Actualy it's exactly the opposite of what I'm advocating. What i'm advocating is letting those that can live up to the standards do the jobs for which they are qualified. I haven't said there's no physical difference, what I've said is that while the AVERAGES are different some women CAN pass the tests and we should let them do the job. I have no doubt that a lower percentage of women would be able to meet the requirements than men, and I have no problem with that and don't feel the requirements should be changed to make it easier. I just think that barring those that can meet the requirements from doing the duty is not how you bould the strongest possible military.