Is Holly Warlick a Lesbian?

If she is not out of the closet, then how is her ascending to the position an event to place on a pedestal?

Jackie Robison wasn't a figure of civil rights because black people weren't supposed to be good at baseball - they weren't given access until him. Obama isn't a success story of affirmative action because black people are innately worse presidents (jokes aside) - it is a success story of race because biases that were at one time so large they would have prevented him from getting there are now not there (to the same extent). Everyone knew these guys were black, obviously...

If Holly Warlick is gay, but in the closet, then to treat her becoming head coach as a success story would suggest that gay women were all somehow less capable of being a good coach until her....and that she is an example to be looked up to. Stupid, I agree. If she were out of the closet, and everyone knew she were gay, but she got the job anyway - then that would be a positive sign for gay rights.

As it is, I don't see the comparison to those that trailblazed race issues...

 

1. How is the sexuality of a person standing post germane to their sexuality? if it's not, then why did DADT even warrant a dialogue, much less a repeal?
2. How was Tiger's sexual promiscuity related to his? Why are we seemingly ok with every aspect of his sexuality being dragged into the public realm, but Warlick is exempted?

I really have no larger point in all of this - just comparing and contrasting.

I do think that 99.478% of every movement made by liberals to push their agenda is done under less-than-the-light-of-day circumstances, in hopes of gaining through subversion what they could not hope to advance, otherwise (read: the purely liberal philosophy would be repugnant to most Americans - upwards of 80% or more - if laid both bare and in totality, before them).

But that's neither here nor there.

But my question is, why hasn't someone even posed the question to her - of course, she would then have the first and absolute right to refuse answering it, without fear of reprisal. Right? Isn't that what would happen? Nothing, really.

Coaches say, "No Comment" on every other question, right?

What's the big deal in asking her?

 

Point taken....but if Dooley were had never been married...

1. Should someone ask him the question, considering he might have just been hired to represent roughly 75% of those who may not approve of his lifestyle, though completely off the field and unrelated to his job duties?

2. What would be wrong in asking him?

If we're going to hire gay coaches, so long as they win, we can exclusively interview participants of gay pride rallies for all I give a shit....but if that's what we're doing, why not simply say it?

 

1. We neither "officially" know if she is gay or not, nor whether in the closet or open - the only way we could know would be to ask. That's my point.

2. President Obama wouldn't have a story were it not for affirmative action. What's wrong with admitting that? Were I a proponent of that system of race-based advantage, I would sing his story from the busiest corner in every town. And the bass would be bumpin' (because I prefer bass, you racist asses).

 

So the avoidance of marital bonds exempts Warlick, a person who many believe to be homosexual.

Curious turn of events, but I'll take it.

 

Telemarketers wept.

 

Petrino's lies to school officials about a wreck brought his personal life into the news. In other words, he brought it in himself, or he would have been "exempt" like Warlick is. The same goes for Pitino; he pressed charges against the lady for extortion. So, had they not put their own personal life out there, they'd share the same exempt status as Warlick. If Warlick's personal life causes some huge controversy related to her employment, then she'll lose her exempt status.

 

Military jobs are just not comparable. Holly is not being required to live with her coworkers. Tiger's athletic profession was in no way directly affected by the revelation of his promiscuity.

 

Say what? If Holly chooses to keep that aspect of her life private, you think UT should publicize it?

 

Petrino had the misfortune of wrecking his motorcycle with his mistress aboard, which resulted in a national scandal and his eventual termination.

Do you mean to say that Petino's situation only became a "story" when he pressed charges of extortion?

Surely, you jest.

And even if this were true (it's not) - how then do you explain Tiger Woods' sex life being drug into the national spotlight?

 

I disagree.

In fact, on average, I bet she spends as much time - or more - with her players than most officers spend with theirs.

If Tiger's personal life had nothing to do with his status as a professional golfer (I agree, it didn't)...why then was it a national scandal for several months?

Why was his sex life placed under a microscope, and hers is somehow off-limits?

 

Tiger was assaulted by his wife. That made national news. The rest cascaded from that. He is also one of the ten most recognizable athletes in the nation. Thus, much like Jennifer Aniston getting in a magazine for purchasing ice cream, everything Woods does gets at least a little attention.

 

Not any more than UConn's coach who, as far as I know, finds women attractive. The scandal in no way hindered his access to his profession. His celebrity transcends the sport and that is what was covered in the news. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie getting engaged has zero to do with their careers, but it is on the front page of at least a dozen magazines at the moment.

 

Excellent post.

 

Robinson, Ashe, and King all most certainly embraced and revelled in their roles at the tip of the spear in their respective movements. Holloway also could have chosen to go to school elsewhere if he didn't wish to be the first in line.

Warlick, however, has no duty to do anything other than coach her team to the best of her ability. She doesn't have any obligation to attach herself to any particular issue.

 

Fully agree

 

My point is that if we ask, and she says yes, then if she keeps her job she may become a symbol - but her getting the job is not any sort of "achievement" for the gay community if she was not known to be gay when she got the job. That's my point.

This also parallels my point with Obama. He was black, thus it could be used as a symbol that affirmative action succeeded in his case. However it is a success because we knew people always perceived him as black and he could have suffered biases if not for affirmative action (presumably).

My point is that if we don't know if Warlick is gay and she gets the job, then it is only a triumph if heretofore all gay women really sucked at coaching basketball. This would be tantamount to saying black people are innately not good enough to be president (using the Obama comparison, if you will), yet Obama broke through that and was the first black person good enough to be president and thus an achievement to be honored....just as Warlick, who despite her being gay, became a good enough coach to get the job. That is the only reason why I can think that the gay community would hold up Warlick getting the job as an achievement. Obviously, thats hogwash....which is why I content there is no reason to know because it isn't an achievement of gay rights and is nothing to be celebrated. If people didn't know she was gay and she got the job while being gay that isn't an achievement for the gay community...unless she was the first gay woman capable of coaching..again, hogwash.

So, my point is that is a bit silly to suggest that not asking her the question is denying the gay community a right to celebrate some (manufactured) achievement.

Fact is, it would probably be hard for a gay woman to recruit young women into her program. I would say that she would prefer to be able to keep that private if it is the case.

 

One of the greatest linebackers in UT history was gay.

 

?

 

Jackie Walker, UT's first African American All-American and a Knoxvillian to boot!