Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kleveland11

ESPN Article on Iowa wrestler defaulting to girl at state!

Recommended Posts

Let me clarify what I just posted above.  I am not saying that there should not be women's wrestling.  I am simply saying that it is not an absolute right, whereby they have the right to wrestle no matter what.  I would concede that there should be a women's wrestling league of some sort, but as just that, a concession, rather than as a good in and of itself.  If they are going to wrestle, and clearly they are, then they should wrestle other women. 

 

In sum, I am morally, prudentially, and practically opposed to women wrestling men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fallacy in your argument is your first premise; namely, that girls have an absolute right to compete in the sport.  I do not admit that premise, and therefore I believe that the statement 'until more girl's only programs exist that means they have to wrestle boys' is a non sequitur.

 

You know it's just a message board right? You are not testifying under oath here.  So while I appreciate the strength of vocabulary, I won't attempt to match it. ;D

 

I don't believe I made an statement of rights as I hope the discussion isn't focused on rights as that usually means lawyers and quite frankly they suck!  And I don't make it a practice to agitate people on purpose, it just seems to be the case here. 

 

Scream and holler at the top of your lungs, but girls are going to wrestle.  And I would suggest that IF it were brought to the courts as such that means wrestling boys in the absence of opportunities to wrestle girls.  Every boy has the right to not wrestle girls.  In either case (girls choosing to wrestle boys or boys refusing to wrestle girls) each side would appear to have the right to do so and accept the outcome.

 

Sum total, I am strongly opposed to anyone being denied the opportunity to compete, the death of wrestling and parking meters.  I  am accepting of the fact that in the period of change before girl's wrestling programs are available to all girl's wishing to wrestle, that they will only have the choice to wrestle boys.  Don't like it, but it is what it is and I hope it motivates the growth of wrestling programs (boys and girls) world wide!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny cause as a soceity we don't care about someone until they are a winner.  Nobody cared about girls wrestling boys until they started winning then everyone started raising concerns. 

 

Even on the college level, nobody had a problem with a wrestling a person with one arm or leg.  Until the wrestler with one arm or leg "Robles" starts winning. 

 

I don't know how I feel about girls wrestling because I don't have a daughter.

 

If the wrestler was raised a certain way and didn't feel that wrestling a girl was appropriate then so be it.  But what did his parents teach him about forfeiting?  I disagree with him forfeiting, but then again I wasn't home schooled so I dunno. 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Robles is a staller. He stalls in the neutral position and they allow him to get away with it. Think I'm wrong? Jump backward off the whistle and get in a push up position with your chest 4 inches off the mat and see if they don't call you for stalling.

 

On the topic of girls wrestling boys, I don't like the idea of boys brutalizing girls. I personally think females should be treated with more esteem than that. Having said that, I don't have a problem with girls wrestling High School. I wonder how many little boys quit our sport because they're embarassed about losing to a girl who is more physically developed at a young age? Little boys shouldn't be wrestling little girls. If a teenage girl wants to get beat up and brutalized by a guy... OK whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarto's "Perfect Woman" :

barefoot_and_pregnant_in_the_kitchen.jpg

 

Are those lime's she's cutting? If she is making a Gin and Tonic she would certainly be up there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know it's just a message board right?

Yes.  But I do thank you for the reminder.

 

You are not testifying under oath here. 

Nor did I indicate that I was testifying under oath.  Not really sure why you got that impression.

 

So while I appreciate the strength of vocabulary, I won't attempt to match it. ;D

I am simply stating my argument as clearly and precisely as possible so that so as to avoid misunderstanding or, as is more commonly the case, being taken out of context.  I was not attempting be haughty. 

 

 

I don't believe I made an statement of rights as I hope the discussion isn't focused on rights as that usually means lawyers and quite frankly they suck! 

I am not referring to legal rights (therefore no lawyers, who quite frankly, often suck).  What is moral and what is legal are not always the same thing.

Furthermore, you are speaking in terms of ‘rights’ in some sense of that word.  See your ‘sum total’ comment for example. 

 

And I don't make it a practice to agitate people on purpose, it just seems to be the case here.

I’m not agitated.  Just enjoying a friendly discussion.

 

Scream and holler at the top of your lungs, but girls are going to wrestle.

Who’s screaming?

 

And I would suggest that IF it were brought to the courts as such that means wrestling boys in the absence of opportunities to wrestle girls.  Every boy has the right to not wrestle girls.  In either case (girls choosing to wrestle boys or boys refusing to wrestle girls) each side would appear to have the right to do so and accept the outcome.

I am not following you here.  I don’t understand this paragraph.  IF you are trying to say that the courts would side with the rights of the girl to wrestle and the rights of the boy to refuse, I would agree with you.  But as I pointed out above, my argument has nothing at all to do with what courts or attorneys would say.  I am not arguing that girls do not have a legal right to wrestle.  This entire thread is about whether the Iowa lad was justified in doing what he did, and his argument was based on morals, not the legality of the situation.  In other words he did not object to wrestling the girl because he thought it would be illegal.  He objected because he thought it was immoral.  I agree with him.  When I speak of the ‘right’ to wrestle or not, I am referring to the morality of it.  If one does not have a moral right to a thing (such as one’s right to eat, have shelter, etc.), then it can be denied in certain circumstances. 

 

 

Sum total, I am strongly opposed to anyone being denied the opportunity to compete,

Then you are implying that they have a right to compete, which is exactly what I am arguing against.

 

 

the death of wrestling and parking meters.

Not sure what this means.

 

I  am accepting of the fact that in the period of change before girl's wrestling programs are available to all girl's wishing to wrestle, that they will only have the choice to wrestle boys.

Again,  this is exactly what I am arguing against, namely that if it is a choice of having them wrestle boys or not wrestle at all, then the only option, in my opinion,  is not wrestle at all.  Obviously, that goes both ways.  If the only choice for the boy is to wrestle a girl, then, I would do just as the Iowa wrestler did: not wrestle. 

 

Don't like it,

And I don’t.  But it goes beyond ‘not liking’ it.  I am morally opposed to it.

 

but it is what it is and I hope it motivates the growth of wrestling programs (boys and girls) world wide!!

I would suggest that it will have the exact opposite effect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in official national rules is actually the reason usually given for not allowing boys to participate in sports like gymnastics or volleyball.   If that is a legitimate argument or not for not allowing them to participate what allowing girls to cross over to boys sports is an issue no one as fully tackled as of yet.

It appears to me that if/when a Boy wants? to participate in High School Volleyball, Softball or Gymnastics in the State of Indiana, all he would require is a claim of "sex discrimination".  Make a call to "Public Justice" and "Philadelphia's Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin (HASP)" and they'll take care of the rest....

 

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Title-IX/P/Public-Justices-Threat-of-Lawsuit-Prompts-Indiana-High-Schools-to-Reverse-Decision-Preventing-High-S.aspx

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, man thats a lot of cutting and pasting to reply like this!!  But you took the time to do so, so I owe you the same...so here we go..

 

I?m not agitated.  Just enjoying a friendly discussion.

Always healthy, communication often brings much better results than alternative methods  ;D

 

  This entire thread is about whether the Iowa lad was justified in doing what he did, and his argument was based on morals, not the legality of the situation.  In other words he did not object to wrestling the girl because he thought it would be illegal.  He objected because he thought it was immoral.  I agree with him.

 

I am not sure that I disagree with him either!  But I always try to consider all sides of a situation.  I have to assume that any girl that signed up for wrestling (and in this case qualified for the state tnmt) knew what they were getting in to.  I guess it comes to the "root" idea of what you believe wrestling to be.  I believe (going strictly from memory here) he described wrestling as brutal or violent?  Heck, in the history of wrestling far more time has been spent wrestling our dearest friends.  Consider all the time in the room, at freestyle, RTC's, etc. and the friendships that carry on loooong afterward and I would suggest that wrestlers respect their opponents more than any other sport.  It's not about going out and intentionally hurting someone (although I have seen my share of these whack jobs along the way too).  If we were talking about girls boxing boys or fighting men in the UFC, then I could jump right on the band wagon.  I guess I believed that wrestling was any more brutal than any other sport I wouldn't think it would be allowed in HS?  There are enough lawyers out there that if the sport was truly about brutality they would have killed it already (see how we have modified it to an "acceptable level" from the world sport of freestyle?)

 

Then you are implying that they have a right to compete, which is exactly what I am arguing against.

Yes, yes I am.  Again, putting myself in the girls shoes (not a pretty mental picture  :P), if I wanted to wrestle I would fight like mad to do so.  And if some guy felt strongly enough about not wrestling me, I would have to believe 1 of 2 things.  Either A.) He was very strong in his convictions and I could respect that OR B.) He obviously didn't want to wrestle as bad as I did!

 

Again,  this is exactly what I am arguing against, namely that if it is a choice of having them wrestle boys or not wrestle at all, then the only option, in my opinion,  is not wrestle at all.  Obviously, that goes both ways.  If the only choice for the boy is to wrestle a girl, then, I would do just as the Iowa wrestler did: not wrestle. 

In the absence of girls only programs, those are the same choices for both sides.  Girls can wrestle boys, or not and boys can wrestle girls...or not.  Seems about as fair as anything.

 

And I don?t.  But it goes beyond ?not liking? it.  I am morally opposed to it.

That's where we are different (at this point in my life) I am not morally opposed to a girl wrestling a boy if she doesn't have the option to wrestle other girls.

 

I would suggest that it will have the exact opposite effect.

I have watched Title IX kill too many college programs to believe that.  Case in point (in my world) is that last year CA crowned 14 state champions (Boys and Girls)...this year they crowned 28 (14 boys and 14 girls (ALL true state champions...no class champions here, but thats another thread!  ;D ))  Look at the growing number of women's college wrestling programs and even the Olympics!  Heck we can't get baseball in the Olympics, but women's wrestling is growing!?

 

Now the article above about girls playing baseball!?!  That is a much bigger can of worms in my mind!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sarto,

 

I respect your well reasoned arguments even if I tend to agree with awood.  If I'm not mistaken, you're with Mater Dei, right?  If so, do you happen to know if MD has taken a position on this issue?  Could have been a predicament with different pairings  at Team State considering Penn's 112, Sarah Hildebrandt.  Would MD give up 6 in a team tourney at state?  That's what it costs to be principled!

 

Btw, I think your formal, professorial style on this here high school wrestling board might have some folks confused - or at least looking up 'non sequitur.'  Nobody here but us wrasslers (and ex-wrasslers)!   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If I'm not mistaken, you're with Mater Dei, right?  If so, do you happen to know if MD has taken a position on this issue?  Could have been a predicament with different pairings  at Team State considering Penn's 112, Sarah Hildebrandt.  Would MD give up 6 in a team tourney at state?  That's what it costs to be principled!

 

 

To the best of my knowledge, the Evansville Diocese (which Mater Dei falls under) does not permit females to compete in male contact sports.  So as far as a girl wrestling for Mater Dei, it is not going to happen.  However, I do not believe they have a policy regarding competition against them.  It goes without saying that I would support such a policy, even knowing that it could effictively eliminate MAter Dei from state competition.  That is the cost of being principled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear any boy who choose to wrestle a girl isn't any less principled than  the young men who chose not to wrestle a girl, they have different principles and choose to exercise them differently.One is not superior to the the other--just different.. Sarah has wrestled since 7th grade and reading through all the post I thought I had missed something that was going on ,on the mat , so I asked the person actually wrestling,  didn't assume it wasn't happening. Has NEVER had a fellow wrestler unprincipled enough to dishonor the sport and the intgredity of the competation to for lack of a better description cop a feel! While the young man in Iowa did what he needed to do to live up to his principles many boys uphold equally admirable principles when they walk on to the mat and wrestle the wrestler they face be it male or female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear any boy who choose to wrestle a girl isn't any less principled than  the young men who chose not to wrestle a girl, they have different principles and choose to exercise them differently.One is not superior to the the other--just different.. Sarah has wrestled since 7th grade and reading through all the post I thought I had missed something that was going on ,on the mat , so I asked the person actually wrestling,  didn't assume it wasn't happening. Has NEVER had a fellow wrestler unprincipled enough to dishonor the sport and the intgredity of the competation to for lack of a better description cop a feel! While the young man in Iowa did what he needed to do to live up to his principles many boys uphold equally admirable principles when they walk on to the mat and wrestle the wrestler they face be it male or female.

 

I suppose that if we are using the term 'principle' very loosely to mean more or less anything someone does for a reason (or without one for that matter), then your statement may, in part, be true.  However, it should be clear from this thread that no one here (or very few) believes both sides are equally admirable. If we did, we would not be having this discussion. 

 

One is not commonly described as 'standing on principle' when one simply does what everyone else is doing.  You may be able to claim that the female wrestlers are standing on principle by doing what they are doing, though I would argue that those principles are poorly conceived.  So if you are going to argue that both sides stand on 'principle?, and if, for the sake of the argument I granted that point,  I would simply say that not all ?principles? are equal.  For example, The Westboro Baptist Church protests military funerals on the firmly held ?principle? that the US is evil, that the military is evil and that anyone who serves in the military is going to hell.  I would hope that we could all agree that their principles are poorly formed?  Obviously that is an extreme example.  I am not saying that these two cases are the same; rather, that simply doing something on ?principle? does not mean that the action is admirable. 

 

Furthermore, my opposition to co-ed wrestling is not based merely on the possibility of intentional misbehavior, but on the very thing itself as being inappropriate.  I don?t care if both parties are pure as the driven snow.  As I said before, I am morally, practically, and prudentially opposed to co-ed wrestling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  But I do thank you for the reminder.

Nor did I indicate that I was testifying under oath.  Not really sure why you got that impression.

I am simply stating my argument as clearly and precisely as possible so that so as to avoid misunderstanding or, as is more commonly the case, being taken out of context.  I was not attempting be haughty. 

 

I am not referring to legal rights (therefore no lawyers, who quite frankly, often suck).  What is moral and what is legal are not always the same thing.

Furthermore, you are speaking in terms of ?rights? in some sense of that word.  See your ?sum total? comment for example. 

I?m not agitated.  Just enjoying a friendly discussion.

Who?s screaming?

I am not following you here.  I don?t understand this paragraph.  IF you are trying to say that the courts would side with the rights of the girl to wrestle and the rights of the boy to refuse, I would agree with you.  But as I pointed out above, my argument has nothing at all to do with what courts or attorneys would say.  I am not arguing that girls do not have a legal right to wrestle.  This entire thread is about whether the Iowa lad was justified in doing what he did, and his argument was based on morals, not the legality of the situation.  In other words he did not object to wrestling the girl because he thought it would be illegal.  He objected because he thought it was immoral.  I agree with him.  When I speak of the ?right? to wrestle or not, I am referring to the morality of it.  If one does not have a moral right to a thing (such as one?s right to eat, have shelter, etc.), then it can be denied in certain circumstances. 

 

Then you are implying that they have a right to compete, which is exactly what I am arguing against.

 

Not sure what this means.

Again,  this is exactly what I am arguing against, namely that if it is a choice of having them wrestle boys or not wrestle at all, then the only option, in my opinion,  is not wrestle at all.  Obviously, that goes both ways.  If the only choice for the boy is to wrestle a girl, then, I would do just as the Iowa wrestler did: not wrestle. 

And I don?t.  But it goes beyond ?not liking? it.  I am morally opposed to it.

I would suggest that it will have the exact opposite effect.

 

 

 

wow....how the heck do you make all those quotes and responses come up in one post like that?......yes i am technically challenged.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

wow....how the heck do you make all those quotes and responses come up in one post like that?......yes i am technically challenged.....

 

It took a couple tries and way too much cut and paste.  Join the club on the technical challenged bit.  I think it takes me about three times longer to do anything on this machine than it would a normal person.  Short explanation: you have to put the little quote thing before and after each section.  So before it you would put

  and after it you would put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took a couple tries and way too much cut and paste.  Join the club on the technical challenged bit.

 

Actually I just tried it again and it didn't work.  Not sure what I did wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.