Ideology trumps common sense
Saturday February 17, 2007
The NYT brings us news today that more and more girls are participating in high school wrestling. If you're me, you think what kind of girls would want to do that? But it gets better, or worse: because there are...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Shameless sexism, Rod. Marcotte will have to punish you through casual sex with a random partner.
I completely agree with you, Rod. This will lead to more harm than good.
As a public school teacher for ten years before becoming a college instructor, I have also noticed an alarming physical aggressiveness in adolescent girls when it comes to fighting (not in the context of sports, mind you, but illegal fighting on campus). When I was a kid, on-campus fights between girls, or between girls and boys, were virtually unknown. (That was back in the '50's and '60's.) I fear that in an effort to promote total egalitarianism between the sexes, our society has contributed to the breakdown of some barriers that are seriously problematic. Here's a question I'm still trying to answer: Why do so many teenage girls now act as if their main sex hormone is testosterone?
"Ten, twenty years from now, when Rich Wood is having a terrible argument with his wife or girlfriend, one wonders if it will be that much easier for him to give in to the temptation to strike her." Or maybe he will be less likely to hit her because she will be empowered enough to fight back. Men hit women because they are viewed as weak and subservient and because men see it as their job to use physical power to control them. It's a world where women are placed on pedestals as frail sex objects that leads to relationship violence, not a world where women are seen as equals and capable of defending themselves. Spend a little time with domestic violence victims or a homeless shelter of women and children and see if you are still convinced that it seeing women as equals that leads to relationship violence.
The idea that men protect women hasn't done much to help women through history, only made them more vulnerable to the power and whims of those protectors.
"Men hit women because they are viewed as weak and subservient" No, men hit women because when men are angry they want someone else to suffer. (See: revenge; vengeance, vows of). Good men strangle their desire to hurt others. Bad men don't. All but a small minority of women can't beat up men. They can shoot men, but not beat them up.
" men hit women because when men are angry they want someone else to suffer." And who better than a woman who is viewed as subservient and powerless.
And is, nine times out of ten, incapable of self-defense, however badly she tries.
On a different point (namely, the connection of sex and violence), read "On Killing," by Dave Grossman. He has a chapter on the manner in which soldiers find combat to be equivalent to sexual activity. It's not funny.
"men see it as their job to use physical power to control [women]." Well, I don't (I'm a late-teenaged male, just so you know). My dad doesn't. No man I know sees that as their job. Of course, I and they may be anomalies.
I have personal knowlege of one female wrestler who competed on the boys team in HS. She found that the boys she wrestled were often so aware of her femaleness that they couldn't wrestle effectivly, or became aroused when wrestling. She claimed it gave her an advantage. Once, in casual conversation, she mentioned that she had to get used to "forced sex play" at tem parties etc., and eventually learned to like it. The women in the room were appaled and explained to her that forced sex, when someone makes you engage in sexual activity is rape--even when it's your team mates. She had been taught in school that BDSM was just another varient of the normal human spectrum of sexuality. Right after that she had a nervous breakdown, started sleeping with everything and everyone that moved and began to use pot and alcohol--when she couldn't get pills. This proves nothing, but makes me prejudiced. BTW--I was a highschool wrestler, and loved the sport.
Sorry ladies, but women are physically weaker than men in almost all cases. To say that women are 'viewed' as weaker is quite disingenuous. The occasional exception to the rule does not make the case for widespread physical competition between the two sexes. Those men who physically abuse women are weak-minded, hence their resort to physical domination.
I had the privilege of studying the martial arts when I was young. I was the only girl in my class and competed toe-to-toe with the boys, teens, and men in the class. I took my lumps and gave them and I will always treasure the discipline and camaraderie I learned there as well as the confidence to handle myself in a world where chivalry is a quaint as fountain pens and pocket watches. I attribute much of the success I have had in life to the lessons learned in that school. Yes, there were cracked ribs, crushes, bruised egos, and other life lessons among myself and my peers. But it was worth it. I hope that other young women will be able to study martial arts/ sports with less societal derision, a little more support, and a bit less spectacle.
OK ... trying to channel Camille the Great "Ten, twenty years from now, when Rich Wood is having a terrible argument with his wife or girlfriend, one wonders if it will be that much easier for him to give in to the temptation to strike her." Or maybe he will be less likely to hit her because she will be empowered enough to fight back. What planet are you living on, lady? First of all, whether she will fight back simply does not speak to whether he will hit her in the first place. Second of all, the fact that some girl is on a wrestling team is hardly going to change the psyche of another woman a decade later in some other place. Third, the man in question has been a high-school wrestler, so her fighting back is probably the one thing she should NOT do.
Men hit women because they are viewed as weak and subservient No better sentence than this has ever been written as a chemically-distilled unintentional demonstration of how Social Constructionism has completed blinded feminists to reality and prompted them to foist these hysterical delusions on society. Collectively-speaking (so don't cite the exceptions ... we're talking about society as a whole) women are not *viewed as* weaker. They *are* weaker. Which causes them to be viewed as weaker, sure, but geez ... reality bites, doesn't it? One may as well say that the sun is *viewed as* being in the sky, as though this view is unrelated to whether it actually is. The only protection from this fact, again generally rather than in specific cases, is chivalry. The notion that it is dishonorable and unmanly to use your physical advantage against a woman, no matter the circumstances. And that's a notion that mixed and even all-female combat sports (and mixed combat) undermines.
and because men see it as their job to use physical power to control them. I have never heard a man say this, and I've been a man a lot longer than Susan and have been in all-male groups on occasion (she never has, by definition). Practically the first thing you learn as a man is that it's your duty to protect women, particularly one's own, and even that you're less than a man if you don't. It's even a Kenny Rogers songs fercryingoutloud. How do you claim to know this about men? From Mary Daly's male-free classes? Honestly, feminists smear men with their hysterical garish delusions and then pass off these fact-free insular fantasies as if it were The Latest Scholarship. It's about as scholarly as The Clansman/The Birth of a Nation or The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk. Honestly, read this sentence: "women see it as their job to use physical power to control them." Would that get anything but laughs, particularly if written by a man, i.e., the Other. Could you get tenure at a Western university for nothing but elaborations on such a reductively tedious bit of sexism. But hey ... if it's men (or the Negro Folk at the Univ. of Mississippi, circa 1900) ... any smear from the Other is taken seriously. Leave men alone, Susan. We know ourselves without your help.
Honestly, read this sentence: "women see it as their job to use physical power to control them." should have read ... Honestly, read this sentence: "women see it as their job to use sexual power to control them."
coaches, parents and wrestlers both boys and girls agree ... that sex is the last thing on wrestlers minds as they pull and push and turn their partners, same sex or opposite. They re so pumped up with adrenaline when they re out there on the mat, they re not thinking of anything but wrestling and winning, said Gary Wilcox, Jessica Bennett s coach. What? I don't know whether it would be worse if the coach were actually right/believed it or was wrong/spouting the party line. I mean ... wrestling has erotic elements. Period. Two people in minimal clothing rolling around on the floor is sexual. Period. Anybody who doubts me, I can show you around some gay sites where the erotic elements of wrestling are shown quite forthrightly and clearly (and both using legitimate wrestling and "fantasy matches"). As I say, I don't know whether it would be worse if a boy and a girl were actually wrestling and thinking about sex, or wrestling and NOT thinking about sex. As a man, I can pretty much assure you that at least 50 percent of the parties are. And same-sex wrestling is not the same because two men can wrestle without thinking about sex precisely because it's normative and understood-without-being-said that two men aren't (or shouldn't be) attracted to one another. But as for the rest of what the coach says -- what is he thinking? Adrenaline unrelated to sex? Is he a eunuch? I shouldn't be so hard on him, I guess because I'm quite sure that he has to say that lest he run afoul of the teachers union or the girl's (insane) parents.
"The only protection from this fact, again generally rather than in specific cases, is chivalry. The notion that it is dishonorable and unmanly to use your physical advantage against a woman, no matter the circumstances. And that's a notion that mixed and even all-female combat sports (and mixed combat) undermines." Based on what evidence.
Chivalry, my friend, has failed to prevent domestic violence and rape. I'm not one of those women who believes every man is a potential rapist, but I have known enough victims of domestic violence to know that as quaint as your idea of chivalry is, it has done little to prevent women from being battered by men for centuries. So if chivarly is more quaint notion than actual means of proteting women, where do we go next. I would also add that this isn't just about the men and boys, but also about the girls and women. What are the girls gaining from this experience and is it important enough or powerful enough to compensate for the injured 15-year old ego of a boy who discovers that girls are not just cheerleaders and sex objects.
Notice I didn't say there shouldn't be female wrestling teams. I said that it's insane to put girls and boys on the same WRESTLING team.
If chivalry is dead, it's important to not who killed it. The answer to that, of course, is feminism, and its insistence that "person" is the only relevant category, and that "man" and "woman" are accidents, social constructions, power games and even patriarchal fictions. (There's plenty of evidence for feminist contempt for chivalry in this thread -- "quaint" has been used twice.) In fact, Susan's initial complaint was not that the double standard was ineffective, but that it constituted the grounding of rape and domestic violence -- as in her 449pm note that "It's a world where women are placed on pedestals as frail sex objects that leads to relationship violence.")
So feminists complaining about the consequences of the end of chivalry is about as coherent as someone pushing someone pushing someone else down the stairs and then demanding the right to treat their victim, according to their vision. In the real world, you don't get to choose your impacts. Only your ideas. There are unintended consequences.
Susan, who is not my friend, says: Based on what evidence. ... but puts it under a segment containing about four quite distinct thoughts.
On the assumption (most consistent with the note's general tack) that she is referring to my first sentence: "The only protection from [the fact of general male physical superiority], again generally rather than in specific cases, is chivalry," the answer to that is ... well, all Western history. Which you have completely bass-ackwards, blinded by Social Constructionism and a simplistic Rousseauism that equality exists in nature, and inequality is the result of culture (i.e., in this case, chivalry and the double standard). A stronger group in nature, i.e. men in this case, don't need social sanction to dominate the weaker. Nature gives them that. The whole point of society and civilization is to put restraints on the baser angels of our nature. Only if you think men and women are physical equals in nature (i.e., you are completely deluded) could any social sanction be needed. The evidence is also so obvious as to hardly need explanation. The notion that "a man doesn't use force against a woman" cannot, by absolute definition, cause men to use force against women, except to the extent that it is ignored. A restraint can only be a restraint. To argue otherwise, again, is to assume some acadian or edenic myth of natural equality and perfect harmony.
Chivalry, my friend, has failed to prevent domestic violence and rape. Oh ... and feminism has done such wonders. Treating men and women the same would NEVER lead men to think it's OK to use violence against women. Let me let you in a little secret, Susan. Men direct violence, in every form, socially acceptable or not, mostly against other men. This isn't even disputable, whether we're talking crime, combat sports, war or schoolyard fights. Thus to tell men to treat women like men is objectively an incitement to violence.
I'm not one of those women who believes every man is a potential rapist, but I have known enough victims of domestic violence to know that as quaint as your idea of chivalry is, it has done little to prevent women from being battered by men for centuries. Centuries? You're old enough to have "known enough ..." over that long? Chivalry has only "done little" compared to your edenic fantasies. It is a restraint, albeit an obviously imperfect one (welcome to life outside the Garden). Heaping contempt on it ain't gonna help women. You can deny meaning a man-hater in the first sentence all you like, but again your implicit model is one or both of two things (1) violence and rape don't exist in nature; or (2) violence and rape are the normative and normal model of male-and-female roles under chivalry (as you first claimed as I cited above). (1) is nuts; (2) is exactly what you're denying.
Well actually, Rod, I *would* say that.
Susan S. Chivalrous men aren't raping and battering women, bad men dp. How could you blame gentlemen (i.e., men who are gentle) for violence against women? That makes no sense whatsoever.
What are the girls gaining from this experience ... That men and women are the same.
That if an individual wants something and claims it as his "right," society can't or won't tell him "no." Both of which are bad lessons. She will also, if she keeps at wrestling, come in for a nasty shock. Because of differences in the maturation process, women become physically adult in the ways relevant to wrestling sooner than boys. In other words, a 13- or 14-year-old woman can handle a 13- or 14-year-old boy (assuming we're talking about appproximate percentile equals in general athletic talent for the two sexes). But an 18- or 19-year-old woman cannot handle an 18- or 19-year-old man.
and is it important enough or powerful enough to compensate for the injured 15-year old ego of a boy who discovers that girls are not just cheerleaders and sex objects. Is that all boys are to you? You can deny being a man-hater all you want, but your contempt for teenage boys in this sentence fairly burns off the screen. The male ego is nothing but seeing girls as just cheerleaders and sex objects?
I am the mother of two young sons (and a daughter) and I would not want them wrestling against teenage girls for all the reasons listed above. I will teach my sons to treasure and protect females...to treat them with respect, and to never use their physical advantage against a girl in any way. I will do my best to teach them to view their future wives as friends, companions and worthy of the highest degree of respect. I will not teach them that men and women are the same because THEY ARE NOT!! To teach them such would only cause them incredible problems in their marriages when they discover that treating their wives as they would their buddies (albeit with special privileges)does not make for a happy marriage. Men and women are different at base..we were created that way with a purpose by God himself. Only by learning about our basic differences and appreciating them can we truly learn to love each other. Otherwise we're just playing pretend. You can argue all you want about this basic premise, but if you've ever started out a complaint by saying "Men are always..." or in any way complained about men as a "species", then you inherently understand that there are indeed basic differences. Equaity doesn't mean that we ignore differences...we can embrace what makes us all unique and still treat each other as "equals".
When my son participated in a wrestling tournament, we were informed that there might be female wrestlers there. We (his parents and coach) told my son he would have to forfeit if his opponent was a girl. The practice of co-ed wrestling is most definately unfair to boys, especially the honorable ones, which is what we want all our boys to be.
"We (his parents and coach) told my son he would have to forfeit if his opponent was a girl. Why?
Susan S., Our son is in a small Christian school. We were participating in a tournament with public schools who were required to allow girls to wrestle. To us, the thought of young adolescent boys wrestling with young adolescent girls was and is still apalling. We couldn't let our son do that since it is so antithetical to the laws of nature a well as those of common sense.
Being a woman, I can appreciate your concern that women would be trained to protect themselves since men do not always step up to the plate to protect them. I just think that sanctioning co-ed competion like this is counter-productive to your goal(strong women) as well as to my goal (raising my sons to be gentlemen).
Why? First, because it is dishonorable for a male to wrestle a female. If he wins, there's no honor in it; if he loses, he's been dishonored in a profound and psychologically harmful way. (To be beaten physically by a girl is devastating to most boys; you don't want to have teenage boys who have been humiliated in that way by girls). Second, because it's stupid, from a psychosocial point of view. You don't want boys to have to overcome their natural instinct to protect women. Whether put there by nature or by nurture, it is there, and it is sociopathic to teach boys to eliminate it. And it is sociopathic to teach young women that there's nothing wrong with them forcing young men into that position.
"One thing that coaches, parents and wrestlers both boys and girls agree on is that sex is the last thing on wrestlers minds as they pull and push and turn their partners, same sex or opposite." Very applicable to that basketball player who "hates" homosexuals. He seems to think sex is the only thing on a gay person's mind too. What is it with you "straight" guys, anyway? Get a clue.
Mitch S. "She had been taught in school that BDSM was just another varient of the normal human spectrum of sexuality." It IS. You have confused BDSM with "forced sex" and beating/rape. They have NOTHING to do with BDSM.
Rod Dreher: "First, because it is dishonorable for a male to wrestle a female. If he wins, there's no honor in it; if he loses, he's been dishonored in a profound and psychologically harmful way. (To be beaten physically by a girl is devastating to most boys; you don't want to have teenage boys who have been humiliated in that way by girls)." Oh, give me a break. If he wins, he gets points for the team. If he loses, it's probably to a better competitor. The loser may get some razzing, big deal: That's life and something everyone has to learn. There are any number of women in martial arts who could kick my butt any day of the week. I've played on co-ed teams where many of the women easily outperform many of the men. I'd feel no in shame losing to a woman in sports. If boys are traumatized losing to girls that's mostly because they've been pre-conditioned by parents and friends to be irrationally sensitive to that outcome (Another "trauma" all should learn to manage).
Spoken like a true totalitarian. If people react badly to something, it can only be because they haven't had their consciousnesses properly raised.
This reminds me of the movie GI Jane, which was, of course, pure hoakum. I'm sure there's a genetic freak of a gal out there that could make it through Navy Seal training, but she sure as heckfire ain't gonna look like Demi Moore. Speaking of chivalry, I held the door open for a lesbian once. I still have blood in my urine from that social faux paux. I am consoled by the knowledge that at least I wasn't beaten by a girl.
I went to a film club that gave advanced screenings to sight-unseen films, and saw a movie called GIRLFIGHT about a female boxer. Really dumb. And of course it had to end in a mixed-sex boxing match. Against her boyfriend. And of course the woman had to win. And sure enough, some feminist type afterward stood up and said she thought it was "very empowering for women" while I sat next to her wondering how this could be so without being "very disempowering for men." At least MILLION-DOLLAR BABY had the good sense to turn into a euthanasia apologia, making promoting women's boxing the least offensive part of it.
There is no dishonor in losing to a more faster,agile, stronger, competent, practiced or experienced opponent on the mat, in the classroom, or in the workplace. Only humility. If a young boy learns that it is disgraceful and he should feel shame to lose to a female in sports, how is the young one to translate that experience in adulthood when he loses (and we all lose at something sometime) to a female in the community. We must learn humility in triumph, perseverance in defeat, and respectful conduct in all. A digression. As for the demise of chivalry, it is no longer practiced because men are to cowardly to do the right thing because someone might be cross with them. If you can't hold a door open for a woman or an elder because you may get a negative reaction you won't have the confidence or courage to come to anothers aid in time of physical peril, or stand up for right ideology and practice because people may disagree with you.
Physical =/= mental. No comparison whatever. Boys have no problem competing with girls intellectually.
As for the demise of chivalry, it is no longer practiced because men are to cowardly to do the right thing because someone might be cross with them. And who is this disembodied "someone"? I agree that chivalry is largely dead in practice, but I blame feminists and other equalitymongers for that.
Blame and whining change nothing and serve merely to weaken us. If a more courteous and chivalrous society is desired, those that desire it must be more courteous and chivalrous in life. Outcome of such action will be evident to all and will encourage others to live with greater courtesy and chivalry.
Blame and whining change nothing and serve merely to weaken us. What is feminism but one long whine about The Big Bad Patriarchy? One incessant Blame Game against men? And blaming that which is bad does not weaken, in any event.
Outcome of such action will be evident to all and will encourage others to live with greater courtesy and chivalry. Not when the response ... a la Susan and her ilk ... is contempt and (well...) blaming and whining about how this demeans them. Yes, the chivalric code, like all forms of graciousness, depends on the beneficiary receiving it in a gracious way (or cooperate in their oppression because of false consciousness if you prefer). Yes ... society really is that fragile that a willful few can wreck an "institution" or custom that depends on something other than the force of law.
If one declines to do what is right because the act will not be rewarded with gratitude and praise then the chivalry practiced as such is empty and hollow and not worth encouraging. Right action is its own reward. Those who blame others for their own failings have no hope.
"he's been dishonored in a profound and psychologically harmful way." Oh heavens, look who has bought into the therapeutic sociiety. Do you really believe it is pyschologically harmful for a girl to beat a boy in a sport?
Why is that women always come out as the losers because we need to cater to the fragile psyches of men and boys. This was the rationale for preventing women from being in the boardroom and in the battlefield. Somehow, men have survived these indignities with their fragile psyches intact.
Do you really believe it is pyschologically harmful for a girl to beat a boy in a sport? The fact that you even think this is a question worth asking is an indication of either contempt for men/boys or complete removal from reality. Oh ... and also if Rod is engaged in any sort of double standard vis the therapeutic society, then so are feminists like yourself (albeit on the opposite side of each question -- therapeutic society good for women, bad for men; rather than bad for women, good for men, as you gloss Rod as saying).
Why is that women always come out as the losers because we need to cater to the fragile psyches of men and boys. Oh, come off it. Always? I thought you weren't one of those man-haters looking frantically under the bed for every sign of patriarchy. Anyhoo ... if one were determined to look at it as a power contest, chivalry and the double standard actually handicap men by telling them not to use their (collective) natural advantage and (implicitly) telling men that because it's a man's duty to protect women, that his life is more expendable and thus less valuable.*
This was the rationale for preventing women from being in the boardroom and in the battlefield. So if an argument is ever misapplied once it's precluded from being right in other contexts for all time? To call this "bad argument" is to give it too much; it isn't even "argument" just a hysterical emotional knee-jerk.
* In case it isn't obvious, I think this is a retarded way of looking at it. But I think (1) it is the more rational way if everything is about power (which it isn't, but nevertheless) and (2) it is typical of feminism to look at existing social institutions and then construct the values they serve as always anti-women.
Were woman once barred from the battefield to protect the psyches of men? Or was it because of the very thing we are discussing: the natural protective instinct of men? They would naturally wish to shield the women from as much harm as they could. Doing that, they could endanger themselves and others. Women do not belong in a combat situation for many of the same reasons they do not belong in contact sports with men.
"Why is that women always come out as the losers because we need to cater to the fragile psyches of men and boys." No man who cares about his daughter and her happiness would ever allow her to compete in a wrestling match with a boy. It is a sickening thought. Every athlete, male or female, is first of all a human being who to be happy must embrace his sexual identity and be secure in it. Those who tolerate co-ed wrestling are treating children at a most vulnerable age in an abstract way rather than as real flesh and blood human beings at a delicate stage in their psycho-sexual development. All of our children are damaged by this sort of activity whether they participate or not. In a saner age the people promoting this kind of outrage would be arrested for corrupting minors - if anyone ever took them seriously at all. Women are "losers" because girls wrestle with girls and boys wrestle with boys??? Women are winners when boys learn that their physical strength is there to protect women and never ever to subdue them. This lesson needs to be taught especially during that brief period in human development when girls can be stronger than boys.
"Ten, twenty years from now, when Rich Wood is having a terrible argument with his wife or girlfriend, one wonders if it will be that much easier for him to give in to the temptation to strike her." Rod, I wonder what you re saying here. I assume that you are a decent human being who would never even think of striking your wife even if she argues with you. But when you say it will be that much easier to give in to the temptation to strike her, (emphasis mine) it sounds as if you are saying that whenever other men get into arguments with their wives or girlfriends, the thought is present in their minds as an impulse they can only restrain with difficulty. That which is tempting is defined as having strong appeal; enticing. Did you really mean that abusing women seems strongly enticing to most men whenever they get angry? I have a feeling that if I had said that, someone here would be calling me a man-hater . However, if that s what you, as a man, really think of your fellow men, it would certainly be interesting to know that. Perhaps you would care to explain.
These are the same arguments (against) that were used in the 70s when women wanted to play basketball in high school. "It's not ladylike." "It's too physical." "Boys won't like athletic girls." Really, I agree that co-ed wrestling is . . . questionable, but you guys (Victor in particular) seem like if you had your preferences, women wouldn't participate in any sports.
Disclaimer: I'm the mom to a daughter and son. I'd prefer it if neither of them wrestled, because it isn't really a sport.
It IS. You have confused BDSM with "forced sex" and beating/rape. They have NOTHING to do with BDSM. Distinction without a difference. In my view, BDSM is more revolting, because it is consented to and enjoyed. Sigaliris: But when you say it will be that much easier to give in to the temptation to strike her, (emphasis mine) it sounds as if you are saying that whenever other men get into arguments with their wives or girlfriends, the thought is present in their minds as an impulse they can only restrain with difficulty. Sig, I've never been tempted in the least to do such a thing, but then again, I've never been tested, and God please spare me from that. I remember being an unwilling witness to one fight between a married couple in whose guest room I was staying. They thought I was sleeping, but I could hear their fight (couldn't NOT hear their fight). The wife, normally a kind, demure person, was abusing the husband fiercely. She was saying things to him that, I kid you not, came from a dark, extremely ugly place. Things designed to humiliate him, especially his sense of manhood. How he took it I don't know. I wanted to get up and let myself out. The next morning at breakfast the couple acted like things were normal, but I could never look at the wife the same way again, hearing the way she spoke to her husband, with such unhinged hate. If my wife ever talked to me that way, I would have to leave the house. I couldn't imagine hitting her, but I couldn't do as the husband did, and just bury my head in my pillow and beg her to stop, to calm down (I had the impression from listening to all that that he'd been in that situation before). I can imagine that an average man being taunted and mocked and scorned and humiliated as that man was might have to work hard not to backhand his wife. I know the kind of family from which my friend the husband came from, and it was a traditional family, and I'm quite sure that he had it deeply instilled in him never to hit a woman. I'm assuming that's where he found the strength to bear up under his wife's merciless and cruel verbal assault. Whatever it was that man had that let him take that kind of hatred without lashing out in any way, I hope I have it. I hope my sons have it. I don't want to do anything to diminish it in them. My friend the husband is known to me to be a physically courageous man, and one who has a particular heart for defending the weak against bullies. So it's not like he's in any way a wimp.
So, in general, I don't think that men in general are just lying in wait to abuse women. Far from it. Not in our culture, anyway. But anything that civilizes the beast within both men and women should be encouraged, not broken down.
Let me make something else clear: I don't have any problem with men and women competing in intellectual games, or non-contact sports (e.g. golf, softball). It's the contact sports, most especially of all wrestling, that become problematic. I think it's a bad idea for men to accustom themselves to engaging in full-on physical aggression against women. If my sons were wrestlers, I would instruct them to forfeit before wrestling girls. I believe that asking a young man to put aside his internal restraint against acting out physical aggression against females, even if only for the sake of an athletic competition, is in some sense to violate his sense of manhood, and his conscience.
I wrestle for Horace Mann, a private school in New York, with multiple female wrestlers on the team. I am not feminist and I don't believe that many female wrestlers are, because that definitely won't help a person survive a 2-hour Cuilty practice and wrestling camp in the summer. Yes, male and female wrestlers aren't always equal in terms of strength but skill and smarts are more important. Many moves don't require a lot of strength and the ones that do can be avoided. On the point of sex and violence: I've seen many wrestling rivals end matches with pats on the back and hugs, so violent may not be the correct word. Wrestling codes also point out that competitors are "friendly rivals", not enemies.
I've never met a wrestler that wanted to have sex with a wrestler that he was supposed to beat up and if there are, there is always the possibility that they feel the same way when wrestling a person of the same sex. There are gay wrestling leagues that should be banned by your standards and beliefs, but whatever.
Although I can't say that I know how my opponents on other teams feel about me, I do know that I see the guys and girls on my wrestling team as brothers ad sisters and I doubt that they have any sexual feelings when we wrestle, because our passion is fixed on the State title and the journey to get there.
"I believe that asking a young man to put aside his internal restraint against acting out physical aggression against females, even if only for the sake of an athletic competition, is in some sense to violate his sense of manhood, and his conscience." What would you say to a daughter who wanted to participate in a contact sport with boys? Would you tell her that those boy's psyches are more important than her desires? That she needs to realize that her place as a woman is to accommodate the needs of boys and their natural maleness? That damaging a man's psyche is more dangerous than her asserting herself and therefore she "should learn her place."
Aw, Max--if you held the door for me, I promise I'd just say thank you. Your urine would not suffer for the experience.
What would you say to a daughter who wanted to participate in a contact sport with boys? Would you tell her that those boy's psyches are more important than her desires? That she needs to realize that her place as a woman is to accommodate the needs of boys and their natural maleness? That damaging a man's psyche is more dangerous than her asserting herself and therefore she "should learn her place." I would say, "Just because you want to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. One of the worst ideas of our time is that desire is self-justifying. There are very good reasons why you as a female should not participate in contact sports with males." And then I would explain them to her.
The posts by the feminists here show in spades that they fundamentally misunderstand men and masculinity. Stands to reason, really, since they have a warped view of the feminine as well. For enlightenment on these issues I'd highly recommend reading anything by Anthony Esolen you can get your hands on. He writes for Touchstone, First Things, and Crisis, and when he deals with gender issues he's always dead on.
Aw Angela...thanks.
Thank you, Rod. Hearing your thoughts helps me to understand better. I know what you mean. I ve heard verbal abuse between husband and wife, and it does give one a sick feeling. To me, this scenario raises a lot more questions, most of which don t have a lot to do with girl wrestlers and may belong in some other topic. But I will make a stab at a couple of them. In my experience, what predisposes toward abuse, whether in words or actions, takes place long before one goes to high school and encounters teenagers of the opposite sex on or off the playing field. If you were screamed at, berated, terrified, belittled or slapped around by the adults in your life, you will tend to lash out any time you feel trapped, even as an adult. Before you can respect others, you have to have self-respect.
You can t wrestle with girls because then you might grow up to be an abuser? What kind of message does that send to a boy? Doesn t that tell him that at heart he s some kind of a monster? I think I can safely say that my sons could wrestle with girls all day, and lose all day, and never in this world consider striking a woman. They re not that kind of guys. I respect you, but I m having a hard time with some of the assumptions that I feel are hidden in your earnest and thoughtful statement. It still seems as if you re saying that when the average man is mocked/scorned, that hitting someone is an option. One responds to perceived slights by lashing out. Your assumption is that this is only natural. Actually, it isn t. A person who hasn t been conditioned through fear as a child doesn t necessarily feel that way. There are alternative reactions that are just as natural to some. Like, when someone abuses you for no apparent reason, shrug and walk away because you know it s not about you. Or, if it s someone you really care about, instead of trying to silence them one way or another, listen with compassion and love and ask them what you can do to help. There aren t too many people like that, but they do exist. Jesus was one of them. It seems to me that you are trying to maintain a system where beating people up is always an option--for boys--and yet expect that they won t actually exercise that option. Frankly, I would not want to be around someone I knew was restraining himself with great effort from beating me up--because he had chivalry or for whatever reason. I d rather be with someone who wouldn t beat me up because he did not want to--because that was not even on the table as a desirable option.
Hey ladies, give it up. You can't understand. It's a guy thing.
Normally I find the forced mixing of the sexes in this type of setting to be stupid and harmful, like most of you. I find the argument that anything a guy can do a girl can do to be stupid as well. I thought GI Jane was also silly and that I wouldn't like Girlfight (though I haven't seen it).
But I think you guys are also missing something important here. Jessica Bennett (the girl in the story) has gone 23-12 in her matches. She's GOOD. She's not being forced to do this in the name of gender equality, nor is she getting pummeled by most of the guys. Chances are there are few, if any, girls besides her in this league. I don't really understand why we have to shelter Jessica, make her think that this actually ISN'T something she can do and that she shouldn't try.
As for Rich Wood, he has to learn to suck it up. Jessica beat 22 other guys (most likely) besides him. I'm a guy, and I'm sure there are plenty of girls who could kick my butt. That doesn't make me any more likely to hit women to assert my manliness. And of the girls I know that could probably hold their own, very few of them buy the "gender equality in all things" line. The argument about how losing to a girl is damaging to a teenage boy's psyche is ridiculous. There are a lot of sports where boys are "supposed" to beat girls, whereby actually losing to a girl a lot more talented than you can be damaging. You get over it. Parents don't delude their (male) kids into thinking they're as good as the average NBA player, and they shouldn't delude them into thinking they're as good as the average WNBA player either.
The arguments about the sexual connotations involved with wrestling, however, are more applicable in my mind. The story that one person told about the female wrestler on the all male team was pretty tragic. Also, Victor Morton said: "I have never heard a man say this, and I've been a man a lot longer than Susan and have been in all-male groups on occasion (she never has, by definition). Practically the first thing you learn as a man is that it's your duty to protect women, particularly one's own, and even that you're less than a man if you don't. It's even a Kenny Rogers songs fercryingoutloud." I'm a guy, I've been taught this, as I'm sure you have, and most men have. I don't feel guilty for being a man, as many feminists would like. The sad fact, however, is that there are a LOT of men who either aren't taught this or don't live by it. I think Susan S had a valid point there. The arguments about sex, and the one person who
I guess my last sentence got cut off. I was saying the arguments about the sexual connotations of wrestling are more valid, in my mind. That one story about the girl on the all guys team was quite tragic.
I think it's funny that there's a private school named Horace Mann.
Take a look here at this picture of two men. Now imagine that same position as a man and a woman. As I said, the two would or would not sexualize one another -- either would be awful (making sure the poor wrestlers didn't would be the surest eros-killer in the world). I note that this required no effort whatever (20 seconds on Google and an eye for the kind of pic I wanted). And it is from a legitimate wrestling site. I did not look on the gay sites that both have wrestling tapes/pictures made-for-porn and legitimate wrestling pictures used as tittilation or porn (standard beefcake, plus things like wrestlers whose jock has slipped).
"Ten, twenty years from now, when Rich Wood is having a terrible argument with his wife or girlfriend, one wonders if it will be that much easier for him to give in to the temptation to strike her." If that turns out to be true, then Rich Wood is a weak man.
People are notorious for being weak.
First, because it is dishonorable for a male to wrestle a female.If he wins, there's no honor in it; if he loses, he's been dishonored in a profound and psychologically harmful way. (To be beaten physically by a girl is devastating to most boys; you don't want to have teenage boys who have been humiliated in that way by girls). Second, because it's stupid, from a psychosocial point of view. You don't want boys to have to overcome their natural instinct to protect women. Whether put there by nature or by nurture, it is there, and it is sociopathic to teach boys to eliminate it. And it is sociopathic to teach young women that there's nothing wrong with them forcing young men into that position. This is just ridiculous. When I'm getting my arm twisted around to the breaking point or am ass up flying through the air in judo, it doesn't matter if it's a woman or man doing it to me, I'm getting my ass kicked. I train with women all the time. That I have no qualms throwing one or being thrown by one in training and competition has no bearing on my psychosocial conditioning to "protect" women.
Aaron is notorious for being strong, even when getting his ass kicked.
Nothing like laughing while being thrown through the air.
That I have no qualms throwing one or being thrown by one in training and competition has no bearing on my psychosocial conditioning to "protect" women. Sure it does. The very fact you are justifying it here by playing down sex differences is the proof needed. Men and women are the same in The Brave New Feminist World.
Sure it does. The very fact you are justifying it here by playing down sex differences is the proof needed. Men and women are the same in The Brave New Feminist World. Huh? Where did I down play sex differences, all I said is that my fragile masculine ego is/was not shattered by getting beat by a woman in a fair competition nor did it water down my "psychosocial" conditioning to protect the female sex. Try sticking with what people say rather than your misread insta-gut reaction.
Aarons post reminded me, and how I had forgotten escapes me, that judo was developed to give a smaller, less physically robust person equal footing (ha!, terrible pun) with a larger attacker. And that judo players have been playing co-ed well before Victor and Max were ever irritated by the less palatable aspects of feminist idealogy. Or that white crane kung fu, (one of Bruce Lee's early styles) was developed by a teenaged Buddhist Nun.
I still say I and my cohorts are better people for our co-ed contact sports, than we would have been without such experiences. And abusers by and large are born and bred in abusive homes with abusive behavior modeled daily by the folks who should know and do better. My 2 cents. If we want a more civil society that shows respect to its members then we got to lead the way by our example.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.