Muffet Speaks Empowering Women

[Wbbfan1]

 

[TheFarmFan]

MM is far from my favorite coach, but I can't help but respect her views on this issue. She is an eloquent and powerful spokeswoman. (And wow, she knew a lot of statistics off the top of her head!)

 

[Plebe]

MM is far from my favorite coach, but I can't help but respect her views on this issue. She is an eloquent and powerful spokeswoman. (And wow, she knew a lot of statistics off the top of her head!)

She's good at paying lip service, and at wearing her social consciousness skin-deep.

Beyond that I have nothing good to say.

 

[PacoBlaze]

This thread should draw some interesting posts...oh boy!

 

[Plebe]

MM is far from my favorite coach, but I can't help but respect her views on this issue. She is an eloquent and powerful spokeswoman. (And wow, she knew a lot of statistics off the top of her head!)

It's one thing to wax eloquent and rattle off statistics. It's another to correctly diagnose a problem and put forward the best and most progressive solution.

First of all, let's call this what it is: Muffet is using gender as a cudgel with which to bash Geno over the head. Do we really think she's pissed that, say, Doug Bruno is allowed to be the WBB coach at DePaul? Or that Scott Rueck is the coach of Oregon State? Of course not.

Now, treating her claims at face value for a moment: Her reasoning and solution are that: (a) because 99 to 100 percent of coaches in men's basketball are men, (b) therefore 99-100% of WBB coaches should be women. Good grief. This is so wrong-headed I don't know where to begin. She's invoking the logic of de jure segregation. By that logic, back in the day when (for example) virtually all doctors and lawyers were males, her solution would have been to allow only female physicians and female attorneys to treat female patients and clients — rather than challenging the notion that any client or patient can be equally well served by a professional of the opposite sex.

This is a retrograde philosophy masquerading as progressivism. No thanks.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

I agree with what Muffet's saying, but I would prefer to see women getting MBB HC jobs as opposed to seeing both sports without diversity of gender in the coaching ranks.

 

[Orangutan]

The fact of the matter is that in men's basketball there is an unspoken acceptance that 99% of the coaches will be men. No one questions this.

Then, in women's basketball, men are suddenly real keen for a meritocracy where men and women deserve an equal shot.

Muffet can't snap her fingers and suddenly integrate women in to coaching in men's sports. What she can do is hire women in her own program.

People will say that it should be about who is best at the job. Exactly right. Muffet's greatest success has come in recent years with an all-female staff.

 

[Plebe]

The fact of the matter is that in men's basketball there is an unspoken acceptance that 99% of the coaches will be men. No one questions this.

Then, in women's basketball, men are suddenly real keen for a meritocracy where men and women deserve an equal shot.

Muffet can't snap her fingers and suddenly integrate women in to coaching in men's sports. What she can do is hire women in her own program.

People will say that it should be about who is best at the job. Exactly right. Muffet's greatest success has come in recent years with an all-female staff.

Why aren't people questioning this? That's the real issue. If Muffet truly wants to be the voice of empowerment, that's what she should be questioning.

Pat Summitt was offered the Tennessee MBB job multiple times. She had her reasons for declining, and her situation was far from typical, but just the fact that she was offered the job gives the lie to those who claim women cannot break into the MBB coaching ranks.

 

[IrishTiger]

I’m a ND fan and a Muffet fan and heck I don’t even agree on how she views the world. I think the best qualified person should get the job. No matter what the job is.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Pat Summitt was offered the Tennessee MBB job multiple times. She had her reasons for declining, and her situation was far from typical, but just the fact that she was offered the job gives the lie to those who claim women cannot break into the MBB coaching ranks.

So the most successful women's basketball coach in history (at the time) is offered a head coaching job of a (then-inferior) men's program, and that's evidence that for 99% of women, they stand an equal chance as a man of landing a job coaching men's basketball?

I’m a ND fan and a Muffet fan and heck I don’t even agree on how she views the world. I think the best qualified person should get the job. No matter what the job is.

The problem is that what constitutes "best qualified person" is based on inherently subjective factors. Will male players respond to a woman coach the same way? If not, and if she can't command the respect of her players, doesn't that make a female applicant less qualified?

Will male players be taunted by opponents for having "mom" coach them, and will it create distractions that affect performance? If so, and her presence as head coach creates distractions, doesn't that make a female applicant less qualified?

Will coaches of other programs use that as a neg in recruiting ("Do you really want to go be sassed by grandma?")? If even one recruit is scared off because of that, doesn't that make a female applicant less qualified?

Will fans be quicker to call for the firing of a head coach who's a woman? Will parents be more inclined to second-guess her coaching and push their kids to transfer? If she can't garner community good will from fans and parents, doesn't that make a female applicant less qualified?

The fact that the second best WBB coach of all time was once offered to lead the men's program at her school doesn't disprove the very real fact that the vast majority of women have no chance of working their way up the coaching ranks in men's basketball, and that even if they did, there's no guarantee they would garner equal respect from their players, the players' parents, other coaches, and the fans.

MM's point is also that if you don't create a pipeline, there will never be women who are the "best qualified" candidates. How are women supposed to become "best qualified" when they can't even land jobs as assistants? Becky Hammon is making news because one woman is an assistant coach for an NBA team. One. And it's for Pop, who is pretty progressive and outside-the-box. I would venture to guess most NBA coaches wouldn't hire a female assistant no matter her credentials. And Hammon's are way better than 90% of assistant coaches in the NBA, and yet she's a news story, while dozens of random men who never started in an NBA game, let alone win gold medals and championships, get to work their way up as assistant coaches.

I'm not even sure I agree with MM that the best solution is to only hire women in WBB. But I think MM can't control all of the things I mentioned above, but she can control who she helps enter the pipeline. She's choosing to help women where and how she can.

Just my two cents.

 

[JordyG]

I don't have a problem with this. So why am I seemingly in the minority on this site in agreeing with just about everything Muffet said. Is it because it's Muffet saying it? Sure, in a perfect world the best qualified would always get the job, but in reality it just isn't so. To me sports is the closest thing to a meritocracy in all of America, but that's the demographics on the field of play.

Why aren't people questioning this? That's the real issue. If Muffet truly wants to be the voice of empowerment, that's what she should be questioning.

Pat Summitt was offered the Tennessee MBB job multiple times. She had her reasons for declining, and her situation was far from typical, but just the fact that she was offered the job gives the lie to those who claim women cannot break into the MBB coaching ranks.

To say that one exception voids the rule is wrong. In actuality this almost never happens. Remind me again, just how many women head coaches are there in all of BB? How many women are there in front offices? Plebe, I generally agree with you, but to say Muffet instead should question the idea of empowerment instead of it's reality in the job place is standing things on its head. I don't see this as a slap at Geno as much as the environment that nurtures and mentors men for leadership and fails to do so for the myriad of qualified women in this sport, WCBB, in which they are and always will be the only participants.

 

[JordyG]

So the most successful women's basketball coach in history (at the time) is offered a head coaching job of an (then-inferior) men's program, and that's evidence that for 99% of women, they stand no chance of landing a job coaching men's basketball?



The problem is what constitutes "best qualified person" is based on inherently subjective factors. Will male players respond to a woman coach the same way? If not, and if she can't command the respect of her players, doesn't that make a female applicant less qualified?

Will male players be taunted by opponents for having "mom" coach them, and will it create distractions that affect performance? If so, and her presence as head coach creates distractions, doesn't that make a female applicant less qualified?

Will coaches of other programs use that as a neg in recruiting ("Do you really want to go be sassed by grandma?")? If even one recruit is scared off because of that, doesn't that make a female applicant less qualified?

Will fans be quicker to call for the firing of a head coach who's a woman? Will parents be more inclined to second-guess her coaching and push their kids to transfer? If she can't garner community good will from fans and parents, doesn't that make a female applicant less qualified?

The fact that the second best WBB coach of all time was once offered to lead the men's program at her school doesn't disprove the very real fact that the vast majority of women have no chance of working their way up the coaching ranks in men's basketball, and that even if they did, there's no guarantee they would garner equal respect from their players, the players' parents, other coaches, and the fans.

MM's point is also that if you don't create a pipeline, there will never be women who are the "best qualified" candidates. How are women supposed to become "best qualified" when they can't even land jobs as assistants? Becky Hammon is making news because one woman is an assistant coach for an NBA team. One. And it's for Pop, who is pretty progressive and outside-the-box. I would venture to guess most NBA coaches wouldn't hire a female assistant no matter her credentials.

I'm not even sure I agree with MM that the best solution is to only hire women in WBB. But I think MM can't control all of the things I mentioned above, but she can control who she helps enter the pipeline. She's choosing to help women where and how she can.

Just my two cents.

You've said it far more eloquently than I.

 

[the Q]

The fact of the matter is that in men's basketball there is an unspoken acceptance that 99% of the coaches will be men. No one questions this.

Then, in women's basketball, men are suddenly real keen for a meritocracy where men and women deserve an equal shot.

Muffet can't snap her fingers and suddenly integrate women in to coaching in men's sports. What she can do is hire women in her own program.

People will say that it should be about who is best at the job. Exactly right. Muffet's greatest success has come in recent years with an all-female staff.

I hope they their pants sued off from prior applicants.

Not to mention half her other comments are laughably false, like the myth of the pay gap.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Christine Brennan Tweet:

Every college athletic director should watch this and then be asked to explain why they keep hiring men to coach women. This has to stop. Girls and young women need role models/leaders who look like them. @MuffetMcGraw is so right. (And get rid of that “Lady ___” nonsense too.)

Tweeter Co Wrote Pat Summitt's Book and is well known as a Geno Detractor.

 

[the Q]

Christine Brennan Tweet:

Every college athletic director should watch this and then be asked to explain why they keep hiring men to coach women. This has to stop. Girls and young women need role models/leaders who look like them. @MuffetMcGraw is so right. (And get rid of that “Lady ___” nonsense too.)

Tweeter Co Wrote Pat Summitt's Book and is well known as a Geno Detractor.

I love when the self righteous tweet laughably bad logic.

Apply this to female reporters in men sports....

Or non black coaches in the nfl or nba....

 

[triaddukefan]

I didnt play the interview.....but I assume it has something to do with McGraw and all female staff?

The Iowa coach said something similar in her interview on Monday Night.... I havent seen any uproar over that

 

[Plebe]

I didnt play the interview.....but I assume it has something to do with McGraw and all female staff?

The Iowa coach said something similar in her interview on Monday Night.... I havent seen any uproar over that

Did the Iowa coach also accuse a rival male coach of being a "bully" who belongs to the "old boys' network" and gets away with murder with the officials?

 

[triaddukefan]

Did the Iowa coach also accuse a rival male coach of being a "bully" who belongs to the "old boys' network" and gets away with murder with the officials?

No she didn't

But McGraw said that?

 

[Plebe]

No she didn't

But McGraw said that?

Yes, you haven't seen the 4 or 5 other threads that have talked about this??

 

[Orangutan]

I didnt play the interview.....but I assume it has something to do with McGraw and all female staff?

The Iowa coach said something similar in her interview on Monday Night.... I havent seen any uproar over that

I wouldn't say there's been much uproar. A couple male columnists didn't like her comment in a recent profile that she didn't plan to ever hire another male assistant coach.

So she was asked about it in this press conference. This little 2 minute video is getting mostly lauded by everyone from Dawn Staley to Barack Obama.

I haven't seen a whole lot of attention to Muffet & Geno's latest war of words over the "bully" comment. Here's the context of that:

 

[shinobimono]

Now, treating her claims at face value for a moment: Her reasoning and solution are that: (a) because 99 to 100 percent of coaches in men's basketball are men, (b) therefore 99-100% of WBB coaches should be women. Good grief. This is so wrong-headed I don't know where to begin. She's invoking the logic of de jure segregation. By that logic, back in the day when (for example) virtually all doctors and lawyers were males, her solution would have been to allow only female physicians and female attorneys to treat female patients and clients — rather than challenging the notion that any client or patient can be equally well served by a professional of the opposite sex.

This is a retrograde philosophy masquerading as progressivism. No thanks.

I hesitate to enter the fray here, but I add this in response to your post.

I'd say her view is progressivism. It is also critical theory (a tool of progressivism), which seeks to politicize social problems, moving off the college campus and into the mainstream. With critical theory, you look at any social issue and ask, for example, why are the vast majority of coaches male, why is there a gender imbalance? The answer is then "sexism." To change "sexism" you have to change the incorrect thinking (a potential "thought crime") of "sexists." Gender then becomes a tool in the culture war. Muffet mentioned the dearth of female CEOs in companies to support her argument. However, she omits the fact that many companies are run by their founders (who happen to mostly be male, though women have long been able to start their own companies, and do), so her criticism (and critical theory) paints with an excessively broad brush and asks why there isn't 100% equality now? There should definitely be push back against ideas like this that draw inaccurate conclusions, but people are afraid of the labels that get thrown at them if they do. This is progressivism, and it is meant to reorder society in line with progressive ideology, which the majority of American's do not adhere to. Thus the top-down hectoring and attempted reeducation of non-complying American's who are not "progressive" by setting the parameters of acceptable thought and speech by labeling certain views (even if inaccurately labeled) as "sexist," "racist," "transphobic," etc. Looking at a social issue in a particular field and asking why there isn't complete gender equality is not going to effect immediate change, but it will lead to lots of name-calling, such as "old boy network," "bully," and "sexism," and in my view, create even greater social division and conflict. In college, you do not question the progressive view, for example on "sexism," just ask Lawrence Summers, former President of Harvard University, who resigned after the "furor" he created by suggesting there were differences between the sexes. I think we would be better off to honestly discuss gender differences and how they affect women's basketball, coaching, and other areas, rather than suffer a barrage of name-calling.

 

[the Q]

I hesitate to enter the fray here, but I add this in response to your post.

I'd say her view is progressivism. It is also critical theory, which seeks to politicize social problems, moving off the college campus and into the mainstream. With critical theory, you look at any social issue and ask, for example, why are the vast majority of coaches male, why is there a gender imbalance? The answer is then "sexism." To change "sexism" you have to change the incorrect thinking (a potential "thought crime") of "sexists." Gender then becomes a tool in the culture war. Muffet mentioned the dearth of female CEOs in companies to support her argument. However, she omits the fact that many companies are run by their founders (who happen to mostly be male, though women have long been able to start their own companies, and do), so her criticism (and critical theory) paints with an excessively broad brush and asks why there isn't 100% equality now? There should definitely be push back against ideas like this that draw inaccurate conclusions, but people are afraid of the labels that get thrown at them if they do. This is progressivism, and it is meant to reorder society in line with progressive ideology, which the majority of American's do not adhere to. Thus the top-down hectoring and attempted reeducation of non-complying American's who are not "progressive" by setting the parameters of acceptable thought and speech by labeling certain views (even if inaccurately labeled) as "sexist," "racist," "transphobic," etc. Looking at a social issue in a particular field and asking why there isn't complete gender equality is not going to effect immediate change, but it will lead to lots of name-calling, such as "old boy network," "bully," and "sexism," and in my view, create even greater social division and conflict. In college, you do not question the progressive view, for example on "sexism," just ask Lawrence Summers, former President of Harvard University, who resigned after the "furor" he created by suggesting there were differences between the sexes. I think we would be better off to honestly discuss gender differences and how they affect women's basketball, coaching, and other areas, rather than suffer a barrage of name-calling.

There was an article during last years final four that said 70% of applicants for wbb coaching positions are male.

Frankly she’s a misandrist. Plain and simple. No psudeo-political or intellectual commentary required.