Media Celebrates Absurd Charade Of Women Playing Football Against Men

[Matt Walsh]

One of the many joys of watching sports these days is that you get warmed
over, ham-handed leftist politics thrown in your face all the time. The NFL
has printed the words "End Racism" in the end zones for several years now,
for example. It apparently hasn't worked yet because the message is still
there. Or maybe racism is solved and they just forgot to remove it. In any
event, the NFL isn't alone. The U.S. Open just plastered "Equal Pay"
propaganda all over the court. Major League Baseball even had "BLM" stenciled
on the mound for a while there. And so on.

It's so pervasive and on-the-nose, that it's enough to make you give up on
professional sports entirely. On Saturdays you might find yourself taking a
hard look at, say, third-rate Division III college football games instead.
You might think: Surely all the social engineering won't be on display there,
right? How much of this insanity could have possibly filtered down into a
game no one's watching, like the matchup between, oh I don't know, Shenandoah
University and Juniata College from last weekend?

If you've ever found yourself thinking along those lines, unfortunately I
have some bad news. Even the D-list football games — including the game
between Shenandoah and that other school — have become yet another
opportunity for corporate media to tell you that two-plus-two equals seven.
They are more grist for the leftist ideology mill that has its tentacles
everywhere. Here's the "Today" show to explain the significance of
Shenandoah's recent, highly anticipated game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg1M8hitsPM

It's important to note a couple of things. First of all, they got the facts
wrong. Haley Van Voorhis was not, in fact, the first female non-kicker or
punter to play in an NCAA game. That honor went to cornerback Taylor Crout,
who played a game for Fitchburg State earlier this year. Nobody remembers
that because Crout managed to make one "assisted tackle" before leaving the
game. But as long as facts matter, which they clearly don't because the point
of this segment is to advance a fraudulent narrative anyway, I'll throw that
out there.

But more to the point, there's another unanswered question, which is: How
does NBC News know that Haley was in fact the first female playing in a non-
kicking role? If a female is anyone who thinks they're a female — and that's
the standard we must accept, or else we're transphobes — then how do we know
that dozens of other brave females aren't playing college football right now?
How do we know that women haven't already been inducted into the Pro Football
Hall of Fame? Has anyone checked with Dick Butkus or Ray Lewis to see if they
still identify as men?

When the Left talks about homosexuality in contexts like this, they use the
term "openly gay." They'll say that so-and-so was the first "openly
homosexual" person to play football, or whatever. But in this case, they're
not using that terminology. They're not talking about "openly female" or
"openly women" players here. They're not saying that Haley is the first
"openly female" non-kicking player. They're flat-out declaring that she's the
first female player and the first woman. It's almost as if the Left knows
that those words have meaning, and every now and then, they accidentally
admit it.

But back to this "history-making" game. Let's take another look at why
everyone is pretending to celebrate what Haley did. Here's the sum total of
her contribution to the game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg1M8hitsPM&t=60s

Notice she doesn't answer the question there. "Did that quarterback know what
or who had hit him?" Her response was: "Uh, I've had people come up to me and
tell me they didn't know I was a girl."

This is just speculation of course, but maybe she's dodging the question
because the quarterback knew exactly what had happened there. And maybe he
let her know about it. This woman just ran at him, totally unblocked, and
then for some reason, decided to cling onto him long after he threw the ball
to his receiver. Eventually, after a couple of seconds, she drags him to the
turf, almost like it's happening in slow motion. In any other context, that’s
a roughing the passer penalty worth 15 yards. It’s so clear that, if it was a
man making the play, a ref standing in the end zone 80 yards away would throw
that flag. There would be flags falling out of the sky everywhere.

But none of the refs wanted to interrupt the girl power moment here, and
neither did anyone else watching this. So everyone just pretended they had
seen something really impressive. Here's how the Washington Post described
the footage you just saw: "She got through and managed to hit Juniata
quarterback Calvin German an instant after he had released the ball on what
became an incomplete pass."

An instant, several seconds, what's the difference really? And she “managed
to get through” by simply running straight at the guy, unblocked. For his
part, sports journalist Dov Kleiman said this was a "groundbreaking" moment
in college football history. He said, "Haley Van Voorhis entered the game
during the first quarter, immediately leaving her mark with a QB hurry on a
crucial third-down play."

To be clear, her team was up 26 to nothing at the time of this "crucial
third-down play" in the first quarter. They ultimately won this game, 48 to
7. There are no crucial plays in a game that ends 48 to 7, especially not in
the first quarter. But who’s counting? In fact, there would not have been a
camera crew from ESPN watching this game at all if they didn't think this
gender angle might come into play.

But she was put in the game, as ESPN expected. And so now we're all supposed
to imagine that this was a really momentous, movie-like moment. Here's how
the "Today" show played up Haley's "tackle" — not a QB rush, but a "tackle,"
in their words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg1M8hitsPM&t=222s

Here's where they lay the propaganda on a little too thick. And they
introduce an idea that isn't just stupid, but also very dangerous: "Women can
play the game at whatever level," Haley says. The NBC anchorwoman agrees, and
says Haley is overcoming "stereotypes" held by troglodytes who don't "think
women can play at this level." Before I get into the implications of that —
which could very soon lead to a lot of dead women on football fields — it's
important to understand the scope of the problem here. This is not a one-off
incident. College football teams are increasingly promoting the idea that
women and men can play at the same level.

Also last weekend, a woman named Leilani Armenta was handling kicking duties
for Jackson State. There were a couple of injuries, so the coaches put her
in. This is for their matchup against the powerhouse players for "Bethune-
Cookman." Here's how her kickoff went:

twitter.com/espnW/status/1705726308611747985?s=20

It goes 25 whole yards. It's the kind of kicking you see on a bad high school
JV team. A lot of people went on social media to suggest that maybe it was a
bad idea to have a woman attempt this kick, because it's kind of an obvious
point to make. So, again, sports journalists — maybe the dumbest and least
original form of "journalist" on the planet — jumped into action. Here's how
one local reporter named Bradley Davis responded to all the haters online who
had an issue with that objectively terrible kickoff. Watch:

twitter.com/DdavisBradley/status/1706322918320554157?s=20

This is not to pick on Bradley Davis. He's obviously a smug guy, out there
saying what he has to say if he ever wants to advance in the industry of
sports journalism. This was his ESPN audition tape. But it’s worth noting
that he's presenting an embarrassingly bad argument that's typical on the
Left.

First of all, there's no reason for Bradley Davis to be talking about this
woman's extra point attempts in high school. She wasn't kicking extra points
in the clip we just showed you, she was attempting a kickoff, which requires
more leg strength than an extra point to pull off. And she completely failed
and humiliated herself in the process of attempting that kickoff. This is a
pretty significant fact that Bradley Davis somehow forgot to mention.

But let's just ignore that for a second. The thrust of this smug reporter's
"argument" is that, first of all, people are only criticizing her terrible
kick because she’s a woman. But if you’ve spent even five seconds around any
football fan, anywhere, you know that they will viciously criticize any
player who screws up that badly. A male kicker who only manages to send the
ball 25 yards will certainly be mocked ruthlessly for it. So if you want
women to be treated like men, accepted into the boy’s club and all of that,
then it means they will also be ruthlessly criticized for their failures,
because that’s what it means to be treated like a man. That’s how we men
operate.

The reporter also says that unless you can kick extra points as well as this
woman, then you should shut up. You’re not allowed to have any kind of
opinion on this topic whatsoever. What's impressive about this line of
argument is what a massive, absurd strawman it is. No one is saying that any
random guy off the street could beat this woman in an impromptu extra-point
competition. She's been kicking extra points for years, and most people have
never even tried to kick an extra point. The point is that the best women
football players, at all positions, are nowhere near as good as the best male
football players at that position — or even the 10th best male football
players, or 50th best. We know that because there has never been a female
player — this woman most certainly included — who can outperform men at a
high level of play. We also know it because biology is real, and men have
dramatically more upper- and lower-body strength than women.

This is why, literally every time they trot out a woman substitute for a male
player in football, it's a catastrophe. Remember Sarah Fuller? She "made
history" as a female college football kicker a few years ago. She kicked it
something like 30 yards and the media lied after the fact to claim that it
was a planned "squib kick" — even though it was a situation where no team
would intentionally squib the ball. In case you've forgotten that historic
kick, it's worth revisiting it — including the build-up beforehand — because
it's truly a modern classic. Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP8OUMW_C58

Notice how the crowd is really excited and loud, and then they see the kick
and go completely silent. Meanwhile, the announcers continue to read their
prepared lines, like they just witnessed the moon landing. “What a day in
college football,” they declare, after witnessing the worst kick anyone would
see until the next time a woman kicked the ball.

It’s impossible not to notice just how patronizing all of this is. Jackie
Robinson is remembered and celebrated not just because he broke the color
line, but because he was a truly great player. When we talk about Jackie
Robinson we’re not saying, “Wow look at that black player trying his best!
Isn’t it cute?” No, he actually earned the respect he gets for his play. He’s
one of the all time greats. But as the media desperately tries to find their
female Jackie Robinson, it never works like this. The girls are laughably
awful and everyone can tell they don’t deserve to be on the field. It turns
out that unlike the color line, the gender line exists for a very legitimate
reason.

Sarah Fuller's historically awful kick was only a few years ago. Now we've
already gotten to the point where a college football team is putting a 5'6"
blonde chick on the field to play defense. Fortunately for her, the other
team didn't pull a guard over to make a block with a head of steam, knocking
her into next week. When women are on the field, the players so far have been
playing along and letting her have her Rudy moment. But it's not going to
stay like that forever.

Eventually, one of these guys will treat one of these girls like a football
player, and it's quite possible that we'll see a death on the field because
of it. Then the male player will be demonized and have to live with the
trauma the rest of his life, when really it's the fault of the school and the
media that valued girl power over the safety of the players. This will
happen. Even in this modern woke era, the football field is still a place
where very big and fast men violently clash. You keep throwing women into
that mix and it won’t be long before something very bad happens. Which is
why, in a sane society, women would be banned from competing against men in
violent sports like this. In the past, no such rule was necessary because
nobody was crazy enough to actually put a woman on the field. Now people are
that crazy, and so we need policies that reflect that reality.

But nationally, everyone is ignoring the reality. Colleges and corporate
media are insisting, with a straight face, that women should be playing
football with men. If you ask any questions about this, sports reporters will
lecture you and call you a bigot. This was always the inevitable end result
of the theatrical game of make-believe that we're all supposed to take part
in. The underlying message, as always, is that men and women are exactly the
same. But everyone knows that isn't true. And one thing we’ve learned time
and time again is that eventually, one way or another, reality always
reasserts itself. Especially on the football field. And when it does, you’re
not going to like the result.

[BTR1701]

On Oct 4, 2023 at 12:39:53 PM PDT, "Matt Walsh" <da...@mailer.dailywire.com>
wrote:

> One of the many joys of watching sports these days is that you get warmed
> over, ham-handed leftist politics thrown in your face all the time. The NFL
> has printed the words "End Racism" in the end zones for several years now,
> for example. It apparently hasn't worked yet because the message is still
> there. Or maybe racism is solved and they just forgot to remove it. In any
> event, the NFL isn't alone. The U.S. Open just plastered "Equal Pay"
> propaganda all over the court. Major League Baseball even had "BLM" stenciled
>
> on the mound for a while there. And so on.
>
> It's so pervasive and on-the-nose, that it's enough to make you give up on
> professional sports entirely. On Saturdays you might find yourself taking a
> hard look at, say, third-rate Division III college football games instead.
> You might think: Surely all the social engineering won't be on display there,
>
> right? How much of this insanity could have possibly filtered down into a
> game no one's watching, like the matchup between, oh I don't know, Shenandoah
>
> University and Juniata College from last weekend?
>
> If you've ever found yourself thinking along those lines, unfortunately I

> have some bad news. Even the D-list football games-- including the game
> between Shenandoah and that other school-- have become yet another

> opportunity for corporate media to tell you that two-plus-two equals seven.
> They are more grist for the leftist ideology mill that has its tentacles

> everywhere. Here's the TODAY show to explain the significance of

> Shenandoah's recent, highly anticipated game:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg1M8hitsPM
>
> It's important to note a couple of things. First of all, they got the facts
> wrong. Haley Van Voorhis was not, in fact, the first female non-kicker or
> punter to play in an NCAA game. That honor went to cornerback Taylor Crout,
> who played a game for Fitchburg State earlier this year. Nobody remembers
> that because Crout managed to make one "assisted tackle" before leaving the
> game. But as long as facts matter, which they clearly don't because the point
>
> of this segment is to advance a fraudulent narrative anyway, I'll throw that
> out there.

This shit doesn't matter anymore anyway. In an era where anyone can be any
gender they want at any moment, what possible relevance or accuracy can there
be to claims of "first female this" or "first female that"?

> But more to the point, there's another unanswered question, which is: How
> does NBC News know that Haley was in fact the first female playing in a non-
> kicking role? If a female is anyone who thinks they're a female — and that's
> the standard we must accept, or else we're transphobes — then how do we know
> that dozens of other brave females aren't playing college football right now?
>
> How do we know that women haven't already been inducted into the Pro Football
>
> Hall of Fame? Has anyone checked with Dick Butkus or Ray Lewis to see if they
>
> still identify as men?
>
> When the Left talks about homosexuality in contexts like this, they use the
> term "openly gay." They'll say that so-and-so was the first "openly
> homosexual" person to play football, or whatever. But in this case, they're
> not using that terminology. They're not talking about "openly female" or
> "openly women" players here. They're not saying that Haley is the first
> "openly female" non-kicking player. They're flat-out declaring that she's the
>
> first female player and the first woman. It's almost as if the Left knows
> that those words have meaning, and every now and then, they accidentally
> admit it.

Yep. Looks like I owe Matt some ice cream.

Isn't it amazing how when it serves the Agenda for there to be a distinction
between men and women, leftists have no problem making that distinction even
while at the same time they call the rest of us Nazi bigots when we make that
same distinction?

> This is just speculation of course, but maybe she's dodging the question
> because the quarterback knew exactly what had happened there. And maybe he
> let her know about it. This woman just ran at him, totally unblocked, and
> then for some reason, decided to cling onto him long after he threw the ball
> to his receiver. Eventually, after a couple of seconds, she drags him to the
> turf, almost like it's happening in slow motion. In any other context, that’s
>
> a roughing the passer penalty worth 15 yards. It’s so clear that, if it was a
>
> man making the play, a ref standing in the end zone 80 yards away would throw
>
> that flag. There would be flags falling out of the sky everywhere.

Yeah, I wondered about that, too, when I first saw the clip. That was clearly
a late hit and the clinging onto the quarterback should have been a penalty
all its own.

But I guess she had +10 gurl-power immunity points for being a 'progressive'
icon.

> An instant, several seconds, what's the difference really? And she “managed
> to get through” by simply running straight at the guy, unblocked. For his
> part, sports journalist Dov Kleiman said this was a "groundbreaking" moment
> in college football history. He said, "Haley Van Voorhis entered the game
> during the first quarter, immediately leaving her mark with a QB hurry on a
> crucial third-down play."
>
> To be clear, her team was up 26 to nothing at the time of this "crucial
> third-down play" in the first quarter.

Yeah, how is the play so crucial when it's a blowout like that?

> But she was put in the game, as ESPN expected. And so now we're all supposed
> to imagine that this was a really momentous, movie-like moment.

If this was expected and ESPN was there especially to capture this
history-making event, why is the footage so damn grainy, like it was shot in
the 1970s with your dad's Super 8 movie camera?

> Also last weekend, a woman named Leilani Armenta was handling kicking duties
> for Jackson State. There were a couple of injuries, so the coaches put her
> in. This is for their matchup against the powerhouse players for "Bethune-
> Cookman." Here's how her kickoff went:
>
> twitter.com/espnW/status/1705726308611747985?s=20
>
> It goes 25 whole yards. It's the kind of kicking you see on a bad high school
>
> JV team. A lot of people went on social media to suggest that maybe it was a
> bad idea to have a woman attempt this kick, because it's kind of an obvious

> point to make. So, again, sports journalists-- maybe the dumbest and least
> original form of "journalist" on the planet-- jumped into action. Here's how

> one local reporter named Bradley Davis responded to all the haters online who
>
> had an issue with that objectively terrible kickoff. Watch:
>
> twitter.com/DdavisBradley/status/1706322918320554157?s=20
>
> This is not to pick on Bradley Davis. He's obviously a smug guy, out there
> saying what he has to say if he ever wants to advance in the industry of
> sports journalism. This was his ESPN audition tape. But it’s worth noting
> that he's presenting an embarrassingly bad argument that's typical on the
> Left.
>
> First of all, there's no reason for Bradley Davis to be talking about this
> woman's extra point attempts in high school. She wasn't kicking extra points
> in the clip we just showed you, she was attempting a kickoff, which requires
> more leg strength than an extra point to pull off. And she completely failed
> and humiliated herself in the process of attempting that kickoff. This is a
> pretty significant fact that Bradley Davis somehow forgot to mention.

And his entire argument comes down to, "Well, if you couldn't kick as many
extra points as her, then shut up." That still doesn't address or counter the
claim that a male kicker, who had the same amount of playing time,
athleticism, and training as she does, would have done a much better job.

> But let's just ignore that for a second. The thrust of this smug reporter's
> "argument" is that, first of all, people are only criticizing her terrible
> kick because she's a woman. But if you've spent even five seconds around any
> football fan, anywhere, you know that they will viciously criticize any
> player who screws up that badly. A male kicker who only manages to send the
> ball 25 yards will certainly be mocked ruthlessly for it. So if you want
> women to be treated like men, accepted into the boy's club and all of that,
> then it means they will also be ruthlessly criticized for their failures,
> because that’s what it means to be treated like a man. That's how we men
> operate.

They'll never say it out loud but they really don't want to be treated equally
to men. They want all the benefits of being a man but as soon s the negatives
rear their ugly heads, they suddenly retreat behind their petticoats and
whine, "But we're girls, that's not fair!"

See how 'feminists' feel about the prospect of just having to register for the
draft, let alone actually be drafted, for a bright-line example of this.

> This is why, literally every time they trot out a woman substitute for a male
>
> player in football, it's a catastrophe. Remember Sarah Fuller? She "made
> history" as a female college football kicker a few years ago. She kicked it
> something like 30 yards and the media lied after the fact to claim that it

> was a planned "squib kick"-- even though it was a situation where no team

> would intentionally squib the ball. In case you've forgotten that historic

> kick, it's worth revisiting it-- including the build-up beforehand-- because

> it's truly a modern classic. Watch:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP8OUMW_C58
>
> Notice how the crowd is really excited and loud, and then they see the kick
> and go completely silent. Meanwhile, the announcers continue to read their
> prepared lines, like they just witnessed the moon landing. “What a day in
> college football,” they declare, after witnessing the worst kick anyone would
>
> see until the next time a woman kicked the ball.

Meanwhile, a running back who recorded the single game stats of: 409 RYs and 8
TDs was all but ignored in that game.

> It's impossible not to notice just how patronizing all of this is. Jackie
> Robinson is remembered and celebrated not just because he broke the color
> line, but because he was a truly great player. When we talk about Jackie
> Robinson we're not saying, "Wow look at that black player trying his best!
> Isn't it cute?" No, he actually earned the respect he gets for his play. He's
>

> one of the all-time greats. But as the media desperately tries to find their

> female Jackie Robinson, it never works like this. The girls are laughably
> awful and everyone can tell they don't deserve to be on the field. It turns
> out that unlike the color line, the gender line exists for a very legitimate
> reason.

I wonder what that reason could be? I feel like it's something that will get
you called a bigot or a -phobe if you say it out loud...

Now we've already gotten to the point where a college football team is putting
a 5'6"
> blonde chick on the field to play defense. Fortunately for her, the other
> team didn't pull a guard over to make a block with a head of steam, knocking
> her into next week. When women are on the field, the players so far have been
>
> playing along and letting her have her Rudy moment. But it's not going to
> stay like that forever.

And the first team to actually treat a female player like an actual player
drop her like a sack of sand will be vilified as misogynist and bigoted and
-phobey. Just watch.

> Eventually, one of these guys will treat one of these girls like a football
> player, and it's quite possible that we'll see a death on the field because
> of it. Then the male player will be demonized and have to live with the
> trauma the rest of his life, when really it's the fault of the school and the
>
> media that valued girl power over the safety of the players. This will
> happen. Even in this modern woke era, the football field is still a place
> where very big and fast men violently clash. You keep throwing women into
> that mix and it won’t be long before something very bad happens. Which is
> why, in a sane society, women would be banned from competing against men in
> violent sports like this. In the past, no such rule was necessary because
> nobody was crazy enough to actually put a woman on the field. Now people are
> that crazy, and so we need policies that reflect that reality.

But the exact opposite will happen. We all know it.