CBS Sports’ Tracy Wolfson on-the-field whiny narcissism once again justified our ongoing disdain for women who are hired to cover male sports.

Obviously “mental toughness” was the last thing Tracy Wolfson displayed on the sidelines in Foxborough. Despite their insistence to the contrary, everyone knows why women are really covering men’s sports and it’s not their life experience on a field, court or rink.

Yes, it was cold. The MEN on the field handled it professionally because they were paid to be there. It’s highly debatable that a male sports reporter and/or former player would whine about the weather conditions for three consecutive broadcast segments, let alone complain about frigid weather before even leaving for a destination Wolfson is paid very well to cover.

Very few men complain that there’s a lack of opportunity to appear on daytime talk shows that cater to the housewife demographic. Why men can’t have estrogen-free commentary for three-plus hours on a Sunday afternoon is a question yet to be sincerely asked.

UPDATE: 1/13/18

We responded (rather mildly considering the platform) to yet another lame Tweet from Tracy regarding the “crazy” weather in Foxborough prior to the New England Patriots-Tennessee Titans Divisional round playoff game. The thin-skinned, high-profile CBS sports “analyst” blocked us.

Guess we struck a nerve.

One would think ” mental toughness” would be a requirement on the professional sports level, or is that only expected of men?

Matters only got worse after the press conference in question when the exchange between Newton and aggrieved sports journalist Jourdan Rodrigue continued after the fact.

The conversation, according to Rodrigue, was not taped but went something like this: she asked the quarterback if he really didn’t think a female could understand routes.

Newton said she wasn’t really seeing specific routes when watching the game, she was just seeing if somebody was open. She argued that he didn’t know what she saw nor how hard she had studied football, and that maybe the two of them needed to have a deeper conversation.

Newton said that maybe he should have said it was funny to hear “reporters” talk about routes and that, if she actually did know about them, then she knew more than most reporters. Then he gestured toward the locker room, still filled with her colleagues.

Rodrigue ended by asking Newton — whom she had introduced herself to on the first day of her employment with The Observer in October 2016 — if he knew her name after she had covered the team almost every day for the past year. Newton said he did not.

“Jourdan Rodrigue, Charlotte Observer,” she said, and then walked away.
— Scott Fowler, Charlotte Observer, 10/14/17

Our position regarding women in sports journalism roles are known: we don’t believe women, most of whom have never set foot on a field with cleats and pads, should be reporting on professional sports.

Of course, all hell breaks loose when the obvious is stated for obvious reasons.

A rule that prohibits women from entering locker rooms is the right thing to do. The absolute right thing to do is to ban all reporters from locker rooms. The place where men shower and shave — the bathroom, essentially — is no place to be conducting interviews in the first place. It’s an outdated notion. And when TV networks send their perfectly made up, beautifully dressed reporters into a locker room filled with naked sex symbols, they’re creating sexual tension and courting potential conflicts of interest.

Yeah, I know female sports reporters are a beacon of morality and professionalism. So are priests and presidents and Jimmy Swaggert. So come on, let’s be honest.
— Jason Whitlock, Sex and the locker room

When you watch CNBC, Bloomberg, or Fox Business for the closing numbers on Wall Street, you’ll normally see them interviewing people who’ve actually been CEOs or traders. You don’t see women with plunging necklines, hair bleached Fox News blonde, and hooker-length heels they quickly remove once the segment is over if leg shots were involved. Aside from the show hosts (which is another topic altogether), we see and hear from people who have practical experience in the field in which they speak.

Except in sports.

      
Last year, we met a woman who ran a nonprofit that took in used furniture donations and gave them to those in need. She invited us to see the operation and there we met a young black man who worked for her. He was a former NFL middle linebacker for two seasons whose career was essentially ended by a knee injury.

The conversation obviously diverted from furniture-altruism to pro football and for the next hour-plus, we were kids in the candy store, asking questions we’ve never heard asked and in that time we got more behind-the-scenes insights than in ALL the years of reading, watching, and hearing the “professional” commentary presently issued by heavily made-up women as well as old, fat, balding or skinny, scruffy millennial men who’ve also never set foot on a field as a player.

If only the sideline reporters and sports channel talk panels were populated by former players, knowledge about our favorite sports would be so much more enhanced than to have a field reporter intercept a head coach going to the locker room at halftime and asking him something as vapid as how he feels or a player about his emotions.

While Rodrigue was briefly hoisted as America’s latest female victim of “gender equality”, the Twitter equalizer of all things unearthed items that proved to be embarrassing, if not hypocritical.

Female reporter who was insulted by Cam Newton’s sexist comments apologizes herself after tweets surface of her using the N-word and enjoying her ‘father’s racist jokes about Navajo land’

Of course, the enormity of Newton’s gender crime almost excused what normally gets any racist male fired and if you look at it from the liberal prism, the white woman is almost always more valued than the predator black male. Cam Newton has lost and may lose a lot more while Rodrigue will walk away almost unscathed.

“Gender equality” in sports journalism. Yeah, right.

Disclosure: We are New England Patriots fans and normally have nothing good to say about Cam Newton or the Carolina Panthers.

It was a lament right out of the Women’s March on Washington where some of the participants tastefully argued that women should not have to pay taxes for feminine items they need, in particular hygiene products.

Did you know that in California, pads and tampons are taxed because they are not deemed “necessities” by state law? Other items like food, are excluded from sales tax, because they are necessary for most people to live comfortably. But people who have periods know that menstrual products are absolutely necessary. That’s why we are asking that California stop taxing tampons and pads. Will you sign our petition and join us?
— change.org petition, 2016

Of course, there are products that are exclusive necessities for men but that reality doesn’t fit the agenda.

And if one were to be intellectually honest, there is NO comparison between the costs incurred by women on items they NEED and the costs incurred by men for women some EXPECT because it’s a entitlement of pressure and the more expensive the better.

Men are expected to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on engagement and wedding rings, Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas, as well as those occasional cheer and/or make-ups. Advertisers guilt men, ramp up the expectations of women and no one ever suggests men get any kind of relief with regards to some kind of tax break.

It’s also suspicious how gender inequality is now coming up as a Republican is in the White House. The implication of pay inequality wasn’t so stark years ago….

In Obama’s White House, men earn 16 percent more than the average woman, according to The Washington Post. In 2014, The Post did an article on the White House pay gap titled “Male-female pay gap remains entrenched at White House.” Two years ago that gap was 13 percent, they reported.

So in a span of two years, the pay gap has grown by 3 percentage points, not narrowed.
— Washington Times, 9/14/16

But back to the Pink Tax. Both genders have to buy things exclusive to themselves, however the cost men incur to have some women in their lives is severely disproportionate.

Like most things progressive, this is NOT about equal treatment. This is about special treatment and men treat women pretty special.

Just ask Jared.

Since when did that ever stop me….

With all the high profile murders of Armed Forces females by spouses or boyfriends, is it time to revisit the wisdom of allowing men and women to serve together in the military? Of course, in our politically correct society, that conversation will never occur until it personally impacts an elected official on Capitol Hill. But the fact remains that in our efforts to create a gender neutral society, the mission of our military and social engineering may be on a collision course. Don’t get me wrong; there are very responsible adults serving, but the bad news always tarnishes the reputations of the mature.

And I’m not even going to get into the gay effect on the military, so don’t ask. Been there, done that.

While on the USS Midway (and I don’t think much has changed since), the crew engaged in routine evolutions called the “Delta working party”. A supply vessel would pull up alongside to replenish our carrier with fuel and food for the crew. While dispensing the fuel was a job unto itself, the loading of food was an all-day affair.

This is something you never see in the Navy recruitment literature or videos. Delta working parties were made up of lower-ranked sailors who would form a human chain from the flight deck (where tons of provisions were placed on pallets) to the bowels of the ship were our food would be stored. This would involve dozens of crew members, and take hours to accomplish. Hours of handing off hundreds of bags of sugar, containers of ice cream, hundreds of cans, and to illustrate just how long this went on, box meals were provided so the work could continue uninterrupted.

I also got an opportunity to talk to shipmates who may have recently transferred from a supply ship, and their biggest gripes were that the females, literally, didn’t pull their weight. I was told that groups of women coincidentally had their “time of the month” during Delta working parties.

Because of Navy regulations, female medical issues could never be challenged (sexual harassment), thus many women based solely on their word, could get out of Delta working party duties, leaving it to increasingly resentful males.

The military has that purpose we all hear about, “To kill people and break things.” As simplistic and barbaric as that sounds, that’s the mission.

Let’s face some facts. The majority of those serving are men, and those men are taught to be aggressive. Passivity isn’t the preferred trait to take into battle. Within their own, that aggression can be tempered, but those outside the unit can be affected. Marriages of soldiers and civilians are hard enough to keep together, given the stress of deployments, but adding sexual tension within the ranks to the mix is not something the military disciplines should have to deal with.

The purpose of the military is not to be a social networking arena. While fraternization is technically illegal, we see more and more examples of military couples with disproportionate ranks. While that should raise red flags, the fact that unwed military personnel are breeding also means that eyes have been taken off the mission to the detriment of the Armed Forces.

There was a time when the military was segregated by sex, and it’s logical to assume we didn’t have these issues. But until we set political correctness aside and separate the boys and girls, we will continue to have all the social and instinctive distractions our gender-neutral military is having.

I don’t know what’s going on at Fort Bragg and if these murders of female personnel is purely coincidental or indicative of some “culture” on that base. But the media has noticed the pattern, and they’re eating it up. Many anti-war types would dissolve the military if they could, so something has to be done to not only keep women safe on bases, but men less distracted as well.

After all, when we signed on the line for service, there was no guarantee that we’d get laid by fellow soldiers. “Make love, not war” is good enough for civilians. It should never be sanctioned by the military.