12-09-2018 07:26:58 PM -0800
12-09-2018 12:55:00 PM -0800
12-09-2018 11:28:28 AM -0800
12-09-2018 09:15:50 AM -0800
12-08-2018 06:24:35 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Should Women Be NFL Coaches? Feminists Have an Interesting Answer

ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported yesterday that the Cleveland Browns football team was considering former secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a potential candidate for head coach. Browns general manager John Dorsey has apparently stated that he is “open to hiring a woman as Cleveland's next head coach” and an unnamed source said that Rice was in the running. Dorsey has since denied that Rice was being considered: “[W]e are still in the process of composing the list of candidates and Secretary Rice has not been discussed.” Rice also weighed in, tweeting, “I love my Browns — and I know they will hire an experienced coach to take us to the next level,” concluding, “I’m not ready to coach but I would like to call a play or two next season if the Browns need ideas!”

But, even if the Rice rumor has proven false, the whole story has kicked up an interesting question: should women be coaches in the NFL? And, if so, which women?

Funnily enough, no one seems to disagree that women are capable of coaching professional sports. For all the feminist weeping and wailing about the exclusion of women, when it comes to something like this where there’s no real reason why women shouldn’t be included, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum are on board. There is nothing about the brains of women that makes them less capable than men at understanding football. I mean, they shouldn’t play football against men — this isn’t The Hunger Games, everyone is meant to survive to the end of the game — but they can coach it. What is interesting, though, is the differing reactions to the news that Condoleezza Rice, in particular, might be the woman in the running for the job.

In general, feminists tend to support the inclusion of women in male-dominated fields regardless of their qualifications. One would think that Rice — who is both female and a minority — becoming an NFL head coach would be a feminist coup. But one would be wrong. Because, even though Rice is technically a woman, she doesn’t actually count, for one very simple reason: she’s a Republican.

Because of Rice’s politics — she served as secretary of state to George W. Bush — feminists were quick to denounce her on political grounds. Actor and TV writer Angela Belcamino tweeted, “I don’t want to live in a world where Condoleezza Rice is head coach of the Cleveland Browns and Donald Trump is President.” Making reference to her time as secretary of state, CNN political contributor Paul Begala said, “Great. She will invade Cincinnati under false pretenses.” Writer and LGBTQ activist Charlotte Clymer tweeted, “The Browns are a terrible team. What's the worst that could happen by hiring Condoleezza Rice as head coach? It's not like they're going to illegally invade another country under false pretenses and contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.”