Oh dear ,Mr Clattenberg

[hookender]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/disrespectful-and-archaic-marler-slams-guests-comments-about-women-refs/

After all the positives about women  in sport generally and Sara Cox / women officials .

Well done Marler for Slamming him down.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

Oh dear, oh dear. You do wonder what is going through the brains of some people. I remember my newly married wife (we had been married just 3 months) being asked at a job interview for a top 5 accountancy firm's Birmingham office how she would fit in her training and work with cooking my evening meal and cleaning the house. She told the interviewer what he could do with his desk pencil sharpener and reported the matter to their corporate HR department, but never received a reply. Seems like some people are still stuck in the 50s.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Well done, Joe, but only 9/10 I’m afraid. You need to explain why and that it’s a lot more than being “fair”..

“The problem with women, …

No, it’s not the problem *with* women, it’s a problem *for* women *and* the rest of us. We want the  best person available refereeing the top games and if deciding to have children makes it difficult for women to get to the top then we have to find ways to help them and ensure that we don’t have artificial barriers in their way.

It could easily be a young man who wants to take time out for career study in case he doesn’t make it to the top and become a paid professional referee. 

Clattenberg mentions fitness, and yes women on average have less strength, power and stamina than men and no we shouldn’t drop the standards for women. What we should be doing is making sure that the minimum standard is just that, a minimum standard that has been set too high for our particular need. If it has been set too high it’s also keeping potentially good men out as well.   

And here we need to apply some early economic insights from that great French thinker, Claude Frederic Bastiat, when he talked about the seen and the unseen.  For it’s not just about those who we see get on the refereeing ladder and then drop off to have children, or breaks for their outside career advancement, it’s also, and probably mainly, about those we don’t see who don’t even start because they don’t see the point knowing that there artificial are barriers stopping them getting to the top.

So his answer should have been that if Sarah Cox hadn’t been refereeing that game, by definition someone not as good would have been and poorer decisions would have been made, and that we need more Sarah Cox’s entering the sport to ensure we have the best referees available. 

Apologies for the rant but I feel quite strongly about this subject and the same applies to other areas of arbitrary discrimination that keeps the best people getting to the top, it makes us all, at the margins, poorer.
 

[hookender]

Good point of view, B I N D .

 

[Rifleman Harris]

Well done, Joe, but only 9/10 I’m afraid. You need to explain why and that it’s a lot more than being “fair”..

“The problem with women, …

No, it’s not the problem *with* women, it’s a problem *for* women *and* the rest of us. We want the  best person available refereeing the top games and if deciding to have children makes it difficult for women to get to the top then we have to find ways to help them and ensure that we don’t have artificial barriers in their way.

It could easily be a young man who wants to take time out for career study in case he doesn’t make it to the top and become a paid professional referee. 

Clattenberg mentions fitness, and yes women on average have less strength, power and stamina than men and no we shouldn’t drop the standards for women. What we should be doing is making sure that the minimum standard is just that, a minimum standard that has been set too high for our particular need. If it has been set too high it’s also keeping potentially good men out as well.   

And here we need to apply some early economic insights from that great French thinker, Claude Frederic Bastiat, when he talked about the seen and the unseen.  For it’s not just about those who we see get on the refereeing ladder and then drop off to have children, or breaks for their outside career advancement, it’s also, and probably mainly, about those we don’t see who don’t even start because they don’t see the point knowing that there artificial are barriers stopping them getting to the top.

So his answer should have been that if Sarah Cox hadn’t been refereeing that game, by definition someone not as good would have been and poorer decisions would have been made, and that we need more Sarah Cox’s entering the sport to ensure we have the best referees available. 

Apologies for the rant but I feel quite strongly about this subject and the same applies to other areas of arbitrary discrimination that keeps the best people getting to the top, it makes us all, at the margins, poorer.

Totally agree.  Well said.