11/05/24
May 13, 2005
"It's pretty disrespectful": said Jesse Mish, 14, who's won several state wrestling awards. But is it discrimination? If so, is it discrimination against the girls or the boys?
posted by danostuporstar to general at 08:59 AM - 94 comments
But should it be disallowed? While you might make a case that the schools should abide by league rules, the rules do state that a person can choose to not wrestle for no reason. I say they should be able to forfeit- if the boys want to forfeit, they should be allowed to. They lose in that equation; it'd be different if the rules stated that the girls couldn't get credit for a win or completed match, which isn't the case- they have won/loss records that look better for having 3 free wins. Granted, having fewer matches might "hurt" the girls in experience, but they can still wrestle in practice, or their own team could support them by giving them extra sparring time to make up the difference (which any blossomingly heterosexual teenage boy would be happy to do). And anyway, a few years from now, when these private school whackjobs look back and realize they could have spent their formative years wrestling with girls, instead of feeling imbecilic religious guilt about touching themselves in the darkness of their bedrooms- ooooh!- they'll feel really stupid.
posted by hincandenza at 10:06 AM on May 13, 2005
Funny, all your rants about how intolerant and ingnorant ALL religious people are and yet, still, you make statements of the same nature ABOUT all people who make religion important in their life. Personally, I don't really like wrestling period. But that's just an opinion. If a girl had been playing for an opposing football team, I would not have cared, wouldn't have been afraid to tackle or run her over. Would you make the same blanket statements if a Muslim boy said he wasn't allowed to wrestle a girl because his religion said not to? But because the boys are Christians and might feel uncomfortable (for whatever reason) you feel they are somehow less enlightened than you are. And then, HAL, you enourage behavior that objectifies the girls and treats them as "play things" to fondle instead of showing them respect? How enlightened is THAT statement? And what about the argument that no matter what the boy does, he loses? If he beats the girl, or even worse, dominates her, people say "big deal, she's a girl". But if he LOSES? Can you imagine having lost to a girl while YOU were in High School? I do not know what the final answer is, but it is definitely not as easy as everyone makes it out to be. Title IX is a great law but it has been used in ways the authors never intended. And if these schools "hated" women, would it not be more likely that the boys would get out on the mat and try to hurt these girls? Careful with the words you throw around...
posted by JustADude at 11:37 AM on May 13, 2005
Nice comments "dude"
posted by daddisamm at 12:05 PM on May 13, 2005
Has anyone here wrestled? Some of the positions look like something dreamt up in the Vivid Video studios. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable putting some of the holds on a woman I just met, and I'm not a shy guy. You don't have to be some religious prude - you could just be old-fashioned or a gentleman. 
posted by dusted at 12:05 PM on May 13, 2005
I know if my daughter wanted to wrestle as a sport, I would be against it. I would give in if it were an female v female situation. Wreslting against boys? I really dont understand how a parent would support that. It goes agaisnt everything that I was ever taught.
posted by daddisamm at 12:11 PM on May 13, 2005
dusted: always bringing vivid clarity to the discussion ;)
posted by smithers at 12:14 PM on May 13, 2005
This really angers me. Why the hell can't a boy choose not to wrestle a girl if it makes him uncomfortable? What does it matter whether it's a religious reason or not? Isn't it enough that the kid and the kid's parents don't want his hands all over some young woman's body? Sure, in theory there's nothing wrong with it because it's in some structured activity, right? But as a 12 or 13-year-old kid, could you have made that distinction? Having covered lots of wrestling tournaments, I know there were TONS of boys who did go ahead and take on girls, but guess what? They were tremendously embarrassed, not because the competitor was a female, but because they were grabbing them in what are normally consider inappropriate places and being grabbed in the same fashion. Many of them wrestle tenatively to try and avoid this, but how do you do that? How do you make the kid feel better about walking off the mat having bloodied a girl's nose, or his obvious sexual excitement from having rolled around on the floor with her (and trust me, you don't have to be Peter North for it to be obvious in a singlet)? I just don't get why it's all about the girls in this case. Boys have feelings and rights also ... how about we take them into consideration?
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:23 PM on May 13, 2005
justa, to whose rants are you referring?
posted by garfield at 12:24 PM on May 13, 2005
How do you make the kid feel better about walking off the mat having bloodied a girl's nose, or his obvious sexual excitement from having rolled around on the floor with her (and trust me, you don't have to be Peter North for it to be obvious in a singlet)? By letting him know that it's entirely normal? Seriously, if we stopped making it seem like those reactions are somehow wrong, we'd be a hell of a lot better off. Sidenote: what about if a boy got sexually excited wrestling another boy...how do you make that kid feel better? Because having watched a few wrestling matches, I've seen at least one where it was painfully obvious that was what happened. What do you do there, when it's boy on boy?
posted by dfleming at 12:48 PM on May 13, 2005
And why should anyone feel bad for making a woman's nose bleed in a situation where it's part of the game? A woman wrestler who beats boys is not a delicate flower.
posted by dfleming at 12:52 PM on May 13, 2005
I wrestled two or three girls when I was in middle school. I didn't really mind it, and I never really took those matches seriously, but to be honest in middle school I hadn't really hit puberty yet, so there was no real sexual tension or anything. I never wrestled a girl when we hit high-school, but a friend of mine did a few times. It was the same girl from the same team each time, and Corey went out there and BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF HER every time. Brutally. At the time this kind of horrified me, but now I realize that it might have been a better response than the one I had. Anyway, girls should be allowed to wrestle, but boys shouldn't be forced to wrestle against them. It can be really, really awkward, especially for high-school kids. It's easy to sit back and think that this is misogynistic, but unless you've wrestled, you probably can't imagine why there's more to it than that.
posted by Samsonov14 at 01:24 PM on May 13, 2005
By letting him know that it's entirely normal? Seriously, if we stopped making it seem like those reactions are somehow wrong, we'd be a hell of a lot better off. Sidenote: what about if a boy got sexually excited wrestling another boy...how do you make that kid feel better? Because having watched a few wrestling matches, I've seen at least one where it was painfully obvious that was what happened. What do you do there, when it's boy on boy? posted by dfleming at 12:48 PM CST on May 13 Normal? by whose standards? I was taught to treat ladies with a certain amount of respect. Does it really make a girl an equal if she is a member of a boy's sport team??? Part of being an equal is being confortable with one's self. Men and women are differant and not just in the obvious ways. Girl's wrestling teams are growing around the country and I applaud that. And If boys refuse not to wrestle a girl, on a boys team, for what ever reason, that should be OK. Feminsts always have said that they dont want roles forced upon them. Equallity of the sexes can go far. Some of the "old fashoned" men/woman courtesies are still needed. Lets accept the differences between the sexes and try to make everybody fit into roles that they werent meant for. I am not talking about them being "barefoot and pg either." I will admit that a woman can do just about anyting that she wants to do. However, they do have thier limits. Woman are doing amazing things these days. That said, many will say that the most important roles, in thier lives, are the more traditional ones-wife, mother etc. What would a say about the boy on boy situation? To use your own language, the Boy would have to be taught that a sexual reaction on a wrestling mat isnt normal. He'd have to find another avenue to vent his sexual feelings. Maybe he would have to quit wrestling or forfiet a match if something "came up"
posted by daddisamm at 01:31 PM on May 13, 2005
misogynistic, Ok I know that some of you oldtimers think some of us Newbies are stupid---But what does this word mean???
posted by daddisamm at 01:35 PM on May 13, 2005
I wrestled for about 7 years all through junior high and high school. Wrestling girls is really awkward. I'm not saying it's wrong or anything, but for one, a male's mulsculature is just so much more developed, that the boy-girl matches usually devolve into either, the guy taking it easy, or the guy just physically bullying the girl around. From what I recall (and this was 15 years ago), most girls wrestled at the JV level. At varsity tournaments and duals, you never saw a girl even if she was on the team, because she would be competing in a side-JV event. As to the sexual aspect? I'm sure it happens, but it would seem to be more common, to have some kid, wrestle extra-hard against a girl to avoid losing to a 'girl'.
posted by patrickje at 01:49 PM on May 13, 2005
I was taught to treat ladies with a certain amount of respect. I was taught to treat everyone with a certain amount of respect, regardless of their gender. The idea that we should treat women differently is an outdated, un-equal type of statement, regardless of whether or not you think you're treating women "better" or not. Lets accept the differences between the sexes and try to make everybody fit into roles that they werent meant for. I don't accept the differences you're pointing out. I accept that women and men are genetically different, but the differences you're pushing are cultural ones and not set in stone. You're using your "roles" to limit what women can do, and you're trying to cover it up by saying "I think women can do anything, they just should stick to their roles". Which you proved by saying: However, they do have thier limits. Woman are doing amazing things these days. That said, many will say that the most important roles, in thier lives, are the more traditional ones-wife, mother etc. You're telling women what the most important role in their lives are? If men and women are such different creatures, what gives you the ability to read what is a woman's most important role? . Maybe he would have to quit wrestling or forfiet a match if something "came up". Except that all erections are not sexual and not all sexual feelings are as cut in stone as you'd like them to be. If a woman knows she might get a feel copped and knows that the boys will treat her differently and still wants to wrestle with them, I say do it. By saying they should stick to women's wrestling is again saying they should stick to their role as a woman wrestler, not just a wrestler.
posted by dfleming at 01:54 PM on May 13, 2005
daddisamm, here you go.
posted by garfield at 01:55 PM on May 13, 2005
".....easy to sit back...." oh please, tell me more about my imagination. and which all-boys school did you attend again?
posted by garfield at 02:06 PM on May 13, 2005
I went to a public school, mixed. What's that got to do with anything?
posted by Samsonov14 at 02:19 PM on May 13, 2005
Thanks garfield for the info.
posted by daddisamm at 02:23 PM on May 13, 2005
"...superintendent did not return phone calls about the policy... " this isn't an individual wrestler's choice. It's school policy, a type of school whose policies I'm quite familiar with, not to mention the mindset of the boys that attend this type of school. I wouldn't generalize about every student, but i'm sure certain elements, elements that could be possibly explosive in this situation, are present most every all-boys school. since the schools won't comment, this is all conjecture, but 'considerations' were probably made to protect the boys from themselves, and in effect protect the schools' reputation. we wouldn't want little johnny to make an inappropriate joke on the mat in front of all those public eyes, now would we? we couldn't have little johnny's ego bruised by the fact that he might not be superior to women, not that this would ever be explicitedly stated. I could go on, by your imagination can probably handle filling in the rest.
posted by garfield at 02:32 PM on May 13, 2005
Well, that is misogyny then. My apologies. Wrestlers should be allowed to forfeit, but schools making an automatic forfeit rule is inexcusable.
posted by Samsonov14 at 02:39 PM on May 13, 2005
i agree.
posted by garfield at 02:42 PM on May 13, 2005
garfield-the schools decribed in the article were religious private chools-not private boys schools. So your hatred theory horlds no water.. Mr Flemming. you said:I was taught to treat everyone with a certain amount of respect, regardless of their gender. The idea that we should treat women differently is an outdated, un-equal type of statement, regardless of whether or not you think you're treating women "better" or not. I was taught the same thing. If I want to treat a woman with repect-how its that out-dated? I am repecting her space her reason for being. Wheter or not I think she is special means nothing to her equality. When I talk about recpecting a woman-I am not taliing about anything sexual or demeaning. I am refering to looking are her as equal in status. My wife is my equal, yet she doesnt have what it takes to perform certain roles in out marriage. Just like I dont have the same skills she does. She likes being "treated like woman" and would kill me if a didnt. Go put your "old fahsioned/ out dated" tag on somebody else. I repsect your thoughts on this subject and I see where your coming from. We are very close to being on the same page. Dont assume that my thougts are outdated. Girls on a Boy's wrestle team is wrongs in my book period. If a boy wants to refuse to wrestle a girl for whatever reason thats OK. I have two girls and I have never told them that they could not do something because they are female. However there are sometings like wrestleing with boys is where I would draw the line.
posted by daddisamm at 02:44 PM on May 13, 2005
sorry for the snark. im have a sh!t day.
posted by garfield at 02:45 PM on May 13, 2005
daddisamm - i don't know where that came from. but your only half right. my theory still holds plenty of water.
posted by garfield at 02:55 PM on May 13, 2005
Look - no one is required to do anything like this, if they feel wrongly about it. By and large dflemming is right - no matter how you slice it, this is going to be construed as either discriminatory or inappropriate by one person or another. Frankly I don't see a problem with girls wrestling boys at that age for any reason - least of all some antiquated notion of 'roles' - which is really just another way of men telling women what they can and cannot do - let alone some crazed cry of institutional misogyny when someone/or some people don't feel right doing it. So y'all can take your individual prejudices and shove them up each others asses.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:00 PM on May 13, 2005
Does anyone else feel that wrestling is wrong on all counts regardless of gender? I can't get my head around a sport where you can get competitive advantage by reenacting the "those weren't pillows" scene from Planes Tranes and Automobiles. Several friends loved the sport in high school, but it always makes me uncomfortable in my special place. The anecdotes here about male wrestlers sporting wood just push me deeper into discomfort. No one I knew ever got that excited playing YMCA basketball, even after an egregious reaching-in violation or taking a hard charge.
posted by rcade at 03:07 PM on May 13, 2005
Rcade, it's an ancient sport steeped in tradition, not a blowjob competition. Sheesh.
posted by Samsonov14 at 03:11 PM on May 13, 2005
Jerry Connors, however, maintains private schools should adhere by public rules when they're competing against public schools in public facilities. So, by this parent's reasoning, if a public school competes at a private school, they should adhere to the private rules. Yeah, I can just imagine the outcry if the public school kids were required to pray if they competed in an athletic event at a private school.
posted by graymatters at 03:15 PM on May 13, 2005
“Every organized patriarchal religion works overtime to contribute its own brand of misogyny”
posted by garfield at 03:23 PM on May 13, 2005
Frankly, most wrestling has got to be some kind of repressed homoeroticism. Seems pretty natural to me. To quote Cartman: "What's the big fucking deal, dude?"
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:24 PM on May 13, 2005
I can't get my head around a sport where you How do you get your head around anything, wait, which part of the anatomy were you referring to? Anyway, I find this thread fascinating. I believe that I am the old-fashioned sort who would feel extremely guilty if I bloodied a woman. Yet, at the same time, I'm thankful for the women in the military who are willing to protect my life if needed, and could probably (definitely) kick my ass. Chivalry need not be abandoned, but the "women as weaker sex" thing is dead. Let them wrestle. Yet, if a boy wants to opt out, he should have every right to. Shit, sports are optional, you can choose not to participate whenever you damn well please.
posted by mayerkyl at 04:11 PM on May 13, 2005
i'd say its misogynistic behavior on the part of the private boys' schools. The schools in question were not "boys" schools. Your theory is leaking heavily. Misogyny is the hatred of woman. Most Christain schools I know of are far from anything like like. How can you make such a statement what proof do you have?
posted by daddisamm at 04:23 PM on May 13, 2005
This topic is ridiculous! This is just another case of women throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. These people need to get a life. This is going to lead to the heavyweight feeling discriminated against if the opposing team doesn't have an opponent for him or her. We need to take up more of our courts time on issues as senseless as this one, NOT. P.S. How many of you feel harmed due the fact you couldn't compete in school sports because you didn't make the team? Just because you go to school, it is not a guarantee of competition. How would fathers feel if guys hung on to their daughter crotches during wrestling matches? Not too good, I would imagine. When this happens, we will be posting threads about sexual harassment in co-ed wrestling!
posted by panteeze at 04:24 PM on May 13, 2005
The article doesn not mention if the girls have separate locker rooms from the boys? If they do, they shouldn't! What a contradiction!
posted by panteeze at 04:31 PM on May 13, 2005
As in all aspects of life, it boils down to people wanting to control others. After all, those who make the rules determine who wins. Those who get to split the hairs, get to make the rules!
posted by panteeze at 04:33 PM on May 13, 2005
I have a son who's a wrestler, junior-high level, and he says "If she wants to wrestle, she should wrestle, and if you forfeit instead of wrestling her you need to have your ass kicked". So, there you have it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 04:37 PM on May 13, 2005
Humans are, among other things, sexual beings. A lot of people can't just shut their sexuality on or off just because it is an inappopriate situation. Since we know this is the case, and since middle and high school age kids are in the throes of blossoming sexuality, A sporting activity that, by its nature, requires sex-like physicalityr is going to, ipso facto, going to result in some inappropriate arousal. Of course, this can be used strategically, but that is really icky. It seems to make far more sense, for everyone's ability to compete fairly, to try to crease an atmosphere where sexual arousla is unlikely to happen. I believe, in the case of wrestling, it might be appropriate to separate the participants by gender in order to help create this atmosphere. Of course, if they want to make sure nobody gets aroused at all, they should just pipe in Michael Bolton's latest while the wrestling is occuring.
posted by Joey Michaels at 04:38 PM on May 13, 2005
Choice is better, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.... in all things, religious or not.
posted by slackerman at 05:03 PM on May 13, 2005
Wrestlers should be allowed to forfeit, but schools making an automatic forfeit rule is inexcusable. That is pretty much what I thought about the whole thing. I don't know whether I would have forfeited or not if I ever had to wrestle a girl, but I would have been very uncomfortable... But you have to admit that when you consider things like: (1) possibly feeling emasculated from losing to a girl; (2) possible sexual thrills from wrestling a girl; (3) possible embarrassment from erectile hyper-function in a singlet during the match (embarrassing regardless of gender of opponent); (4) that it is typically a spectator event; and (5) the fact that it may conflict with how you have been brought up to treat girls, just to mention a few...you have some pretty fucked up issues going on there, Dr. Freud.
posted by chris2sy at 05:04 PM on May 13, 2005
Ipersonally feel that there are just places that girls/women don't belong. Equals or not the guys are the ones damned of you do damned if you don't. And there is a CLEAR case of reverse discrimination. Women can sue and join teams or clubs that are strictly designated as boys clubs, I.E. Boy Scouts, Hockey leagues, Football leagues, Golf Clubs(Augusta, comes to mind), Or health clubs. If that is the case, shouldn't guys be able to belong to the Girls Scouts, Womens Workout World, Curves, or if I can make the cut, LPGA? How about a whole Platoon or Brigade of Womens Infantry? How about Law Enforcement? Whats the ratio of women officers being overpowered versus men? This just opens up a whole can of worms. Let women have their own sports teams, and men have theirs. How would this affect Olympic competions? Should those all be co-ed too?
posted by volfire at 05:47 PM on May 13, 2005
I would fight for your right to join Curves, volfire. How about Law Enforcement? You don't think women should be allowed to be police officers?
posted by rcade at 05:54 PM on May 13, 2005
The guy that escaped in Washington a couple of months ago, overpowered a FEMALE officer, took her weapon and shot three people, one of whom was a Judge. And you missed my point entirely. The point was that there is a double standard as far as men and women are concerned.
posted by volfire at 06:32 PM on May 13, 2005
The guy that escaped in Washington a couple of months ago, overpowered a FEMALE officer, took her weapon and shot three people, one of whom was a Judge. Are you inferring that the same thing wouldn't have happened to a male officer? If not, what "point" were you making by saying this?
posted by dfleming at 06:59 PM on May 13, 2005
And volfire, both law enforcement and the infantry have physical standards that eliminate people who can't hack it. There are men and women competing for both and if they're physically incapable of doing the job, they don't get it. There is no special treatment for women in these cases; how can you argue, therefore, that women do a worse job in both? Without isolated cases. A 6'2, 200 pound woman who can benchpress 200 pounds (I know at least one) is different from a male of the same size how?
posted by dfleming at 07:02 PM on May 13, 2005
Focus, people, focus! Most of us seem to think the school's automatic forfeit rule is lame, and most of us agree with the boys having the right to forfeit rather than wrestle a girl. What are we arguing about now (besides the trollish religion and women-in-their-place crap)? I've wanted to do this since a newb did it a few months ago: END OF DISCUSSION.
posted by dusted at 07:34 PM on May 13, 2005
And volfire, both law enforcement and the infantry have physical standards that eliminate people who can't hack it. There are men and women competing for both and if they're physically incapable of doing the job, they don't get it. There is no special treatment for women in these cases; how can you argue, therefore, that women do a worse job in both? Sorry to get off topic, but I thought that there were different standards for male and female officers and military personnel. I distinctly remember that the requirements for things such as number of situps or pushups in the military were different based on gender.
posted by gyc at 10:13 PM on May 13, 2005
I've wanted to do this since a newb did it a few months ago: END OF DISCUSSION. I think that Newb may have been me. I didnt realize that I couldnt just speak my mind. I just need to realize my low standing on the old flow chart here. Interesting discussion on a very senstive subject. For many of you, its a cut and dried arguement. I am sorry that I cant come to the same conclusion.
posted by daddisamm at 11:28 PM on May 13, 2005
Oh daddisam, you're such a frickin' martyr. Quit yer bitchin'.
posted by dusted at 01:08 AM on May 14, 2005
Daddisamm: For the record, I really enjoy having you here. I almost always disagree with you, but at least you explain yourself well.
posted by Samsonov14 at 01:55 AM on May 14, 2005
I agree that wrestlers should be allowed to forfeit, and that a school policy requiring male wrestlers to forfeit against girls is lame. That said, I think filing suit about it is just as lame. Instead of bothering with that, just take your W and your points and train hard for the next match. I train in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (which is similar to wrestling), and we've got 3 women in our school who train with the men. I'll admit I think all 3 are pretty foxy, but frankly, when I'm on the mat with them, sexual matters are about the farthest thing from my mind. I'm just trying not to get choked or my arm locked up. In fact, the other night I was training against the smallest of these women, she's about 1/2 my size. Genetically speaking, I'm half-palooka, so I don't move particularly well. My strategy in facing smaller opponents is to get a top position and use my weight to keep them on the defensive. But this woman moved fast. Each time I tried to advance to a more dominant position (laying my torso perpendicular to hers, arms wrapped behind her head), she kept working a knee or a leg inside to hold me back and break up any advantage I worked for. Eventually, she had her legs wrapped around my head. At the time, I wasn't thinking about having my head buried in one of her thighs. I was thinking oh f*ck, blood isn't flowing to my brain and I'm seeing stars. And anyway, don't wrestlers wear a protective cup? I wouldn't go near the mat without mine - it's saved me many times - and I can't imagine anything less comfortable than an erection while wearing one of those.
posted by rocketman at 04:20 AM on May 14, 2005
Well, I'd wrestle a chick, anyway.
posted by vito90 at 04:31 AM on May 14, 2005
At the time, I wasn't thinking about having my head buried in one of her thighs. I would have been thinking, "I gotta call my friends and let them know where I am right now." Do you have any photos of the match?
posted by rcade at 06:32 AM on May 14, 2005
And anyway, don't wrestlers wear a protective cup? Generally, no. I never wore one, and I didn't see anyone else in the locker room slipping one in the jock. I think it's mainly because your groin can whack the other guy/gal in the head in wrestling, and a cup wouldn't feel too spiffy. Not that a johnson would feel much better, though. Back on topic, sort of -- dfleming, feel free to run down to your local police station and report back the number of 6-2, 200-pound women wearing uniforms in relation to men of the same stature. Now tell me that a 5-5, 130-pound officer will be able to handle an uncooperative suspect as well as the 6-2, 200-pound officer, whether male or female. Perhaps if that officer is a trained martial artist, but the advantage still lies with the bigger specimen. I don't really care about male or female here, but size matters. And as you'll see here and here, the standards are different based on gender. Finally, I don't agree with a district policy to forfeit. However, I also don't think a 12-year-old kid should be the one enlisted to break down societal norms. If a boy doesn't want to go out and spend six minutes grabbing the crotch and breasts of a girl, fine by me. If you can't grasp that it's somehow different wrestling with a girl than with another guy, that's your problem, not his. It's not just the female who has the choice here -- the male has just as much right to say, "Sorry, no dice."
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:31 AM on May 14, 2005
A point worth notation: So if a female wrestler forfeits a match because she is menstruating, is that fair to her male opponent?
posted by panteeze at 09:39 AM on May 14, 2005
No, it's not fair. Their menstruation attracts bears.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:49 AM on May 14, 2005
Thats all we need is a law or policey mandating that a kid be forced to do something that they or their parents are against. My senior year i forfieted my state title match, packed my bags & went home because a state official referee told me i could not compete in the title match until i shaved off my facial hair! The beard had not been a problem during 4yrs of sports & a record of 71-9. State rules say i can forfiet any match,period,for any reason, it,s just not any of their business. Fat,ugly,gay,black,brown,yellow,white or red, BTW which i am (tsa la gi) smells good, smells bad, maybe i have IBS & am afraid i will crap my pants, it's still none of your concern! Take your forfiet & your jock strap,(who really knows) and load your whining ass back on the bus & go home! Train hard & beat the the next poor bastard that will be scarred for life from the ridicule & stigma of being physically beat up by the feminine side. Hey lets be real here, pyschos & abusers are made not born! Paul T Adams
posted by OKLAHOMAMOSES at 11:21 AM on May 14, 2005
Their menstruation attracts bears. yeah, but you only really need to worry about polar bears.
posted by goddam at 12:25 PM on May 14, 2005
OKLAHOMAMOSES shoutin' from the mount: Thats all we need is a law or policey mandating that a kid be forced to do something that they or their parents are against. Funny, I was thinking that what we really needed was another big fat bunch of strawmen based on ignorance and just plain not reading the referenced article or the thread. wfrazerjr: Finally, I don't agree with a district policy to forfeit. However, I also don't think a 12-year-old kid should be the one enlisted to break down societal norms. I don't either, in an ideal world; however, if not there, where? Where would you set about removing society's propensity to sexualize situations that aren't inherently sexual?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:46 PM on May 14, 2005
LBB's taunt inspired me to read the article. Forget the gender issue -- a school sports league should not allow teams to participate that make it a routine practice to forfeit. It's a pattern of poor sportsmanship that's contrary to the whole point of fielding teams in school. Schools should be dropped from the league unless they stop forfeiting.
posted by rcade at 06:59 PM on May 14, 2005
Where would you set about removing society's propensity to sexualize situations that aren't inherently sexual? LLB, what is your definition of society? Can society vote? Can society make laws? Can society reproduce? I find your question to be extremely vague and generalized.
posted by panteeze at 07:43 PM on May 14, 2005
LLB, what is your definition of society? Can society vote? Can society make laws? Can society reproduce? I find your question to be extremely vague and generalized. That makes two of us, more or less, since I find all four of yours to be even vaguer and completely non sequitur.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:53 PM on May 14, 2005
I don't either, in an ideal world; however, if not there, where? Where would you set about removing society's propensity to sexualize situations that aren't inherently sexual? I think panteeze's point is a good one -- you are not society, and neither am I. If you have a young girl is wrestling in a tournament and she finds it appropriate to roll around on the mat together with a boy, fine and dandy. But if the boy across the mat doesn't find it appropriate, it's not anyone's place to force him to wrestle your daughter. Why is it more valid for him to be embarrassed and uncomfortable than for your daughter to be angry and upset? Because she's a girl? Because you think your point of view is correct? Look, I wouldn't have a problem with my son or daughter wrestling someone of the opposite sex if they so chose -- in fact, I would encourage it. But I wouldn't do anything more than perhaps go over and talk to the parents of the kid who forfeited a match because of a gender difference to try to understand why their child chose to do it and nothing more. You know why? Because that's not my kid. This isn't an ideal world, and even if you thought it was, chances are someone out there doesn't agree with your version of "ideal". Worry about raising your own child, not everyone else's.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:09 AM on May 15, 2005
Why is it more valid for him to be embarrassed and uncomfortable than for your daughter to be angry and upset? Her feelings are worth more consideration because she's participating in a co-ed sport and is following the rules, but loses out on the experience of competing.
posted by rcade at 11:32 AM on May 15, 2005
But if the boy across the mat doesn't find it appropriate, it's not anyone's place to force him to wrestle your daughter. It's my understanding that the real beef here is that the policy is institutional.
posted by NoMich at 01:09 PM on May 15, 2005
I think panteeze's point is a good one -- you are not society, and neither am I. That's what panteeze's point was? Hmm, interesting interpretation. I saw a series of mostly-rhetorical questions which, for the life of me, I can't boil down to, "You are not society." So I'll just take it that that's your point. I honestly, for the life of me, can't recall declaring myself to be society at any point, much less in this thread, so I think your point is mis-addressed. If you have a young girl is wrestling in a tournament and she finds it appropriate to roll around on the mat together with a boy, fine and dandy. But if the boy across the mat doesn't find it appropriate, it's not anyone's place to force him to wrestle your daughter. It's already been pointed out several times, most recently by rcade: the boys aren't being given the opportunity to make the decision. It's being made for them, as a school policy. I fully support the right of an individual athlete to withdraw from competition at any time, for any reason from, "I don't feel like losing again," to "I just fractured my femur". This isn't what's happening here, however. I think that if a school decides to enter a team into competition in a league, they're thereby agreeing to abide by the league's rules. These teams want a free pass on that. I don't think that's the way it ought to go. But I wouldn't do anything more than perhaps go over and talk to the parents of the kid who forfeited a match because of a gender difference to try to understand why their child chose to do it and nothing more. If the child made the choice, I'm not sure why you'd ask the parents. I'd ask the kid, preferably away from parents and coaches, to try to hear the kid's real reason and not necessarily what those in authority want him to say. This isn't an ideal world, and even if you thought it was, chances are someone out there doesn't agree with your version of "ideal". I'm a woman, wfrazerjr, and I suspect you are not. If I am correct, then please, don't condescend to me by "enlightening" me about the world's imperfections. As a woman, I've had it amply demonstrated to me in my life just how un-ideal the world is, sometimes in ways that a man will never experience -- and not a few of those were in the world of sports. I understand about the world's un-idealness, but I reject the notion that anyone -- and most particularly those of a, shall we say, more-advantaged gender -- has the right to tell me that I should curtail my beliefs and efforts about rectifying inequities.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:24 PM on May 15, 2005
If the goal is equality then inter-gender touching isn't a problem. Which is a reaonable goal and possibly a good step towards demolishing the sad attitude towards sex in our society.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:58 PM on May 15, 2005
As a woman, I've had it amply demonstrated to me in my life just how un-ideal the world is, sometimes in ways that a man will never experience -- and not a few of those were in the world of sports. I understand about the world's un-idealness, but I reject the notion that anyone -- and most particularly those of a, shall we say, more-advantaged gender -- has the right to tell me that I should curtail my beliefs and efforts about rectifying inequities. Yet another martyr, with a side of red herring.
posted by dusted at 07:03 PM on May 15, 2005
Yet another martyr, with a side of red herring. Come off it, por favor. I wasn't the one who got preachy about an "ideal world", as if I ever asked for such a thing. I've let plenty of antediluvian, knuckle-dragging krap go by in this and other threads, but when someone suggests that wanting things to change for the better = wanting an "ideal world", that misstatement calls for correction.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:00 PM on May 15, 2005
Maybe I was wrong about the "ideal world" part. I still don't think so, because you directly used the phrase and implied that having a 12-year-old be the one to step up and make the change was part of it. If so, my apologies. Also, mea culpa on the individual choice vs. forced by the district, although you saying you'd try to talk to a 12-year-old away from his or her parents/coaches is a bit ... odd. That doesn't make it sound like you'd think their choice was valid, does it? I'm a woman, wfrazerjr, and I suspect you are not. If I am correct, then please, don't condescend to me by "enlightening" me about the world's imperfections. As a woman, I've had it amply demonstrated to me in my life just how un-ideal the world is, sometimes in ways that a man will never experience -- and not a few of those were in the world of sports. I understand about the world's un-idealness, but I reject the notion that anyone -- and most particularly those of a, shall we say, more-advantaged gender -- has the right to tell me that I should curtail my beliefs and efforts about rectifying inequities. You know, I'm pretty sure my mother, grandmother, wife and my female friends have told me they occasionally have had to face some sexism. They just don't lean on it like Tiny Tim's crutch, and they don't believe I have to have a vagina to understand and sympathize with it. ...but when someone suggests that wanting things to change for the better = wanting an "ideal world", that misstatement calls for correction. Again, your version of "better", perhaps not mine or everyone else's. Hence, your "ideal" and perhaps not everyone else's. I'd take your horse in to get the legs shortened before the both of you start getting nosebleeds.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:27 PM on May 15, 2005
Her feelings are worth more consideration because she's participating in a co-ed sport and is following the rules, but loses out on the experience of competing. The boy who forfeited the match is following the rules of his school as well. I think the issue boils down to that it isn't as much about boys vs. girls as it is about public school rules vs. private school rules. Hence, getting back to my earlier thread, those who make rules determine who wins. And we have two sets of rule makers butting heads.
posted by panteeze at 11:07 PM on May 15, 2005
Making it routine practice to forfeit is not following the rules -- it's exploiting a loophole. These boys knew going in that they'd be wrestling in a coed league. Let's stop pretending they're helpless here -- they shouldn't have joined the sport if they weren't going to compete fairly. This wouldn't even be an argument if these kids were forfeiting matches to avoid wrestling black opponents.
posted by rcade at 07:16 AM on May 16, 2005
This wouldn't even be an argument if these kids were forfeiting matches to avoid wrestling black opponents. Now we're knee-deep in red herring. Seriously, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic being argued.
posted by dusted at 11:04 AM on May 16, 2005
Seriously, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic being argued. Why not? If an all-white school chose not to let their students wrestle black people on account of it's against what the administration percieved to be the students' best interest, how is that any different?
posted by dfleming at 01:14 PM on May 16, 2005
Well, for starters, black != female.
posted by rocketman at 02:52 PM on May 16, 2005
Well, for starters, black != female. If a school insisted that their [subject a] athletes will not compete against [subject b] athletes from another school, even though the [subject b] athletes have every right to compete against [subject a] (and, in fact do compete against other schools that field [subject a] athletes), how is that not discriminatory? Current case: subject a = male subject b = female Historical case: subject a = white subject b = black Please don't tell me you don't see the parallel. It's the same thing that university basketball/football teams went through less than 50 years ago.
posted by grum@work at 03:32 PM on May 16, 2005
nice, grum.
posted by garfield at 03:57 PM on May 16, 2005
Now we're knee-deep in red herring. Seriously, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic being argued. You gotta be kidding me, dusted. As others have said, white athletes did refuse to compete against black ones in this country. We're not so far removed from those days.
posted by rcade at 08:55 PM on May 16, 2005
This seems to happen a lot on SpoFi - a debate about whether boys and girls should play together (on the golf course, the football pitch or the wrestling mat) turns into a debate about skin colour. If those two things are the same argument (as seems to be the position adopted by many here), where does that leave single sex toilets? Or single sex changing rooms? Or single sex anything else that we all accept quite freely in our society? It's not the same thing - never has been, never will be - there are similarities at times, granted, but to swipe a big broad brush over both topics is being too simplistic about it. In this example, it's not the same.
posted by JJ at 05:00 AM on May 17, 2005
How is this a debate about whether they should play together? The league was coed. Everyone knew that going in. The issue is whether some participants should be able to practice discrimination by routinely forfeiting to someone with different plumbing.
posted by rcade at 06:39 AM on May 17, 2005
All I'm saying is that differences in plumbing and differences in paintwork are two separate issues.
posted by JJ at 06:57 AM on May 17, 2005
wfrazerjr: Maybe I was wrong about the "ideal world" part. I still don't think so, because you directly used the phrase and implied that having a 12-year-old be the one to step up and make the change was part of it. If so, my apologies. To clarify, I used the phrase in reply to your comment: I also don't think a 12-year-old kid should be the one enlisted to break down societal norms. ...and said that I didn't think so either, in an ideal world. The implication is certainly not that I believe we live in an ideal world, or that I expect an ideal world -- quite the opposite. The point is that, as we do not live in an ideal world, sometimes it does fall upon 12-year-old kids to break down societal norms -- because we adults aren't stepping up and dispensing with such "norms" when they create unnecessary restrictions. It's quite likely that always, or anyway in the forseeable future, only a minority of girls would be able to compete against boys in wrestling. The "norm", therefore, is that girls don't -- but there are a few who can and want to, and when such a situation exists, we need perhaps to be reminded that "norm" doesn't really mean "unquestionable universal rule". BTW, this hasn't been addressed in this thread IIRC, but I very much doubt that the girls' objective is to wrestle with boys. I suspect that they just want to wrestle, period, and not having a league of their own, this is the only way that they can do so. Also, mea culpa on the individual choice vs. forced by the district, although you saying you'd try to talk to a 12-year-old away from his or her parents/coaches is a bit ... odd. That doesn't make it sound like you'd think their choice was valid, does it? It means that I don't want to put the kid on the spot, and that I'd like to know the truth. Asking in front of the coach or parents would put the kid on the spot. The choice may indeed be one that the kid would have made himself, but possibly for different reasons, or possibly for the same reasons -- but I've interviewed a lot of teenage athletes about a lot of subjects, and even for ones much less volatile than this, I'll try to do it away from the parents, whose presence seems to make the kids a lot more self-conscious. I'm a woman, wfrazerjr, and I suspect you are not. If I am correct, then please, don't condescend to me by "enlightening" me about the world's imperfections. As a woman, I've had it amply demonstrated to me in my life just how un-ideal the world is, sometimes in ways that a man will never experience -- and not a few of those were in the world of sports. I understand about the world's un-idealness, but I reject the notion that anyone -- and most particularly those of a, shall we say, more-advantaged gender -- has the right to tell me that I should curtail my beliefs and efforts about rectifying inequities. You know, I'm pretty sure my mother, grandmother, wife and my female friends have told me they occasionally have had to face some sexism. They just don't lean on it like Tiny Tim's crutch, and they don't believe I have to have a vagina to understand and sympathize with it. You told me that we don't live in an ideal world. I told you, thanks, I got that clue a long time ago; life as a woman will do that to you. And now you're accusing me of "lean[ing] on it like Tiny Tim's crutch"? God bless us every one! The point was a simple one: you don't have to tell women that we don't live in an ideal world, we already know. That's a statement of fact, and there's no crutch-leaning in it. ...but when someone suggests that wanting things to change for the better = wanting an "ideal world", that misstatement calls for correction. Again, your version of "better", perhaps not mine or everyone else's. Hence, your "ideal" and perhaps not everyone else's. I'd take your horse in to get the legs shortened before the both of you start getting nosebleeds. I think I'd rather deal with the occasional nosebleed than engage in a fight for the basement. As for "my version of 'better'", just whose version of "better" am I suppose to champion, if not my own? You're in a real hunt here to find fault with something. First you accuse me of expecting an ideal world, and when I say no, I just want a better world, you say, "Your version of 'better'!" like that's some kind of original crime against humanity. I'm just doing what everyone else does -- everyone who's not to lazy to be engaged in issues that they care about, that is. Some people see boys wrestling with girls as a sign of the coming apocalypse. I look instead at the reasons why it's happening, and see it as an example of expanding opportunities, which -- as always -- is something of a rocky road. Some people are fixated on the bumps and can't see the road signs, that's all.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:12 AM on May 17, 2005
It's not the same thing - never has been, never will be - there are similarities at times, granted, but to swipe a big broad brush over both topics [discrimination by skin colour vs discrimination by gender] is being too simplistic about it. In this example, it's not the same. dis·crim·i·na·tion n. 1. The act of discriminating. 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice It's discrimination. You can dance around the gender != race concept all you want, but in the end, it's still just discrimination. It would be discrimination if the school said it wouldn't allow their athletes to compete against female athletes. It would be discrimination if the school said it wouldn't allow their athletes to compete against black athletes. It would be discrimination if the school said it wouldn't allow their athletes to compete against Protestant athletes. It would be discrimination if the school said it wouldn't allow their athletes to compete against Republican athletes. Are you trying to tell me that certain forms of discrimination are acceptable? Is this the kind of message you want to be telling kids during their (intellectually) formative years?
posted by grum@work at 09:29 AM on May 17, 2005
Please don't tell me you don't see the parallel. Of course I see the parallel. Please don't tell me you think they're the same thing.
posted by rocketman at 02:43 PM on May 17, 2005
Please don't tell me you think they're the same thing. Well, considering the post I made immediately before your last one, I guess I do think they are the same thing: discrimination. You keep saying "It's different!", but you don't really tell me why it's different. What is the compelling argument why discrimination based on gender is different than discrimination based on race?
posted by grum@work at 03:45 PM on May 17, 2005
I didn't know this thread was still going. I've sort of lost track of the issue here. I think everyone agrees that making a school policy of forfeiting to female wrestler is fucked. Right? Almost all of us agree on that. A male wrestler making a choice to forfeit against a female and whether or not that's discrimination is the issue now, right? If I'm wrong, I apologize, and you can ignore the rest of this. Forfeiting to a girl might be discrimination, but I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination as forfeiting against a black person. I'm having trouble formulating exactly WHY it isn't the same, though. Even though the league is nominally co-ed, it's not a real co-ed sport. It's a Title IX co-ed sport, simply because there aren't enough female wrestlers to make up their own leagues. You can expect to wrestle black kids, but how many female wrestlers are there? Not a lot. Maybe 2% of the wrestling population is female, tops. I think boys just don't expect to have to wrestle girls, and if they're faced with female opposition, they don't know what to think about it. To be honest, most of the time it's the coaches and parents that make the decision for the kids, anyway. Societal norms tell us that girls are not to be beat up. You don't hit girls. Don't be mean to girls. We all heard that growing up. Wrestling is a mean, mean sport. Then there's the whole sexual weirdness that's going on with adolescents. I wrestled girls in junior high, but I have no issues with anyone who wants to forfeit this kind of match. In a perfect world, males and females would have no problem wrestling each other. One of the biggest problems is that girls don't win co-ed wrestling matches. I've never seen it happen, anyway. I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but for the most part, girls aren't as physically well-suited to the sport as boys are - and as a result, they're going to get beat up by boys on the mat. Maybe someday these gender boundaries will be broken down, and we'll view all genders equally. I doubt it, though. Until we have co-ed bathrooms (like JJ says above), I don't see any of this changing. Anyone who doesn't want to wrestle a black person is a bigot and an asshole, according to how most of us view race today. But anyone who doens't want to wrestle a girl might have other issues, because we aren't taught to view both genders as physically equal, and in fact, they aren't. Here's the deal: If you can piss next to them, you can wrestle them. (And yes, I wrestled girls when I was in middle school, and I also went to Connecticut College, a school with co-ed bathrooms. It doens't prove anything, I know, but I'm just saying is all)
posted by Samsonov14 at 07:07 PM on May 17, 2005
Forfeiting to a girl might be discrimination, but I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination as forfeiting against a black person. I'm having trouble formulating exactly WHY it isn't the same, though. To confuse the issue further, a lot of historical discrimination against nonwhite people was based on the idea that their differences were deeper than just skin color -- for example, the notion that black people are "made differently" and therefore can't swim. That's kind of an aside, though.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:15 PM on May 17, 2005
Tell you what, LBB, we'll wrestle to see who's right. I'd add a smiley to indicate that I'm kidding here, but I don't hold with that sort of thing. I kind of understand your point, though. It does confuse the issue. Still, there are differences in the physical makeup of different races, when taken as a whole. Back in the British Colonial days, Physical Anthopology (which is pretty much a dead study now) was based on the idea that white people were superior to the "negroes from darkest Africa." Scholars went out of their way to point out how different "primitive negroes" were in comparison to the cultured Europeans. A lot of this bigoted bullshit was discredited, and with good cause. But now we find that there are indeed physical differences in people that come from various areas of the world. Google for the difference in fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers in Caucasians and Blacks. Look at the average difference in height between Asians and Africans. And check out the strength-to-weight ratio for males to females. These are all generalizations, but there's some truth to them. People of different races and genders are made differently. Whether it be our height, our strength, our epicanthal folds, our breasts or lack thereof, these differences are a matter of fact. I realize that in this world, we don't have any "pure races" (thankfully), but the fact remains that people from different backgrounds have different phenotypes.
posted by Samsonov14 at 09:16 PM on May 17, 2005
Curiously, I'm not able to use the "paste" function on my computer. Odd. grum, all I meant to say was that: Woman does not equal black. Black does not equal female. I guess I do keep saying "they're different!" (second time, now), and that's the only point I have to make. When a school orders its (male) students to forfeit matches against women, that's not right. Something should be done. What that is, I don't know. Sorry I have nothing that's more insightful than that, but I just got back from my Jiu-Jitsu class, and I'm exhausted from being choked by a woman's strong, shapely legs.
posted by rocketman at 09:45 PM on May 17, 2005
When a school orders its (male) students to forfeit matches against women, that's not right. Oh. So...um...we agree about that. *scratches head* Right then. Huh. *wanders off to look for another windmill*
posted by grum@work at 11:00 PM on May 17, 2005
Forfeiting to a girl might be discrimination, but I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination as forfeiting against a black person. I'm having trouble formulating exactly WHY it isn't the same, though both are definitely discrimination, but im having trouble discriminating a difference as well. gender/sexual bias vs. racial bias - similarities : both are socialized, learned behaviors. both are based on inaccurate perceptions and slivers of fact. differences: racial biases address segmented portions of the global populace. sexual/gender biases encompass half of humankind. please add to the list.... and does anyone else feel there is a need to define terms in these types of discussions? maybe its just an undergrad tendency, but it would help reduce the cross-talking. maybe its something I can add to the discussion, apart from inadvertently fabricating circumstances.
posted by garfield at 10:47 AM on May 18, 2005
Forfeiting to a girl might be discrimination, but I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination as forfeiting against a black person. I'm having trouble formulating exactly WHY it isn't the same, though It's not the same. Girls wear t-shirts that have the slogan "Boys Are Stupid" on the front and people barely raise an eyebrow. Can you imagine if that T-shirt had a "[Insert Race Here] Are Stupid" slogan? Even better, can you imagine the uproar if there was a "Girls are Stupid" t-shirt?
posted by jkenn at 11:53 AM on June 01, 2005
Girls wrestling Boys. It's ok if the boys wants to. If he feels uncomfortable for any reason, it falls under sexual harassment. This is the rule that women use to measure men. The boy should not be forced to lose the match. Certain girls may like to wrestle boys but that is not the boy's problem. Boys may feel uncomfortable about touching a girl in a combative manner. Girls are free to start their own teams.
posted by DC at 11:48 PM on October 26, 2005
i'd say its misogynistic behavior on the part of the private boys' schools.