Sunday, February 27, 2011

Women's Wrestling and Civilization

I have the American Thinker site linked on my blogroll. It has many good articles. But it also has some that spew irrational nonsense. Case and point is today's post, "Wrestling with Morality: Boys vs. Girls on the Mat," by Selwyn Duke. Duke is outraged about the rare examples of girls competing with boys in high school wrestling, to the point that he concludes with the following piece of insane hyperbole,
I would say that this portends the death of civilization, but that's not entirely accurate. In reality, it only happens when civilization has already died.
Duke is writing specifically about the case of Cassy Herkelma in Iowa, who competed on the boy's team in the 112 pound class. He praises one of her male opponents who refused to wrestle her and forfeited a chance to win the state tournament. There's just so much idiocy in Duke's article it's hard to know where to start. But let me first state where I agree with him. Boys and girls are different. These differences make it necessary in most cases to separate the sexes in sports, in the interests of fair competition. I have no problem with the decision of her opponent to withdraw rather than wrestle a girl. That's obviously going to be an uncomfortable situation for many boys to face. But then Duke goes off the rails.
few will unabashedly say what should be said: Having girls and boys grapple on mats in front of spectators is nothing short of social perversion.
It's an athletic competition. They aren't having sex on the mat. Duke thinks it's obvious that a such a wrestling match is "immoral," and an example of "impropriety." It's not enough that he thinks his personal standards for morality as it applies to this particular situation should be followed by all. When he says "social perversion" he means that women need to be kept in their proper place -- and that proper place is to be defined by he and his ilk. That's why he's so upset about this situation, and why he sees it as a sign of the collapse of civilization.
As for allowing girls and boys to wrestle, it's only a degraded society that has to even debate the issue. First, such contact is plainly immoral
What nonsense. There's is nothing "plainly immoral" at all about a wrestling match between a girl and a boy.
At the level of population, a prerequisite for men being gentlemen is that women are ladies.
And what he means by this is of course "ladies" based on his personal definition of what that means, and how girls should behave.
I won't shrink from saying that a girl who wants to engage in organized wrestling simply hasn't been raised correctly.
And I won't shrink from saying that making such a statement is completely idiotic. Women fighting or participating in mock forms of combat is not a new phenomenon. A minority of women are drawn to such pursuits, as a minority of men are interested in things than tend to be favored by women. The particular interests of this girl have nothing to do with "not being raised correctly," and the suggestion is both stupid and offensive. Duke knows nothing about her family situation and is allowing his own prejudices to substitute for reasoning ability.

The entire article is basically a gigantic rant about how women need to be locked into "traditional sex roles." Why? Because that's how Duke thinks things should be. What are the odds that religion has something to do with his attitude? And you have to laugh when he writes the following.

what happens if you dare talk about teaching girls to be ladies today? You're cast as a bearded mullah with an iron burka.

The reason you are compared to a mullah is because you are behaving like one. Duke's attitudes would be looked upon with favor throughout much of the Islamic world.

Naturally Duke left out some relevant points in his rant. Cassy Herkelma had this to say.

it would be a "lot more fun and more exciting" if girls could wrestle other girls in Iowa instead of having to face boys.
The reason Herkelma was wrestling on the boys team is because she's exceptional. It's not that she wants to wrestle boys, it's that she wants to compete in that sport and it simply isn't available to girls in that school. She and one other girl were the only ones to qualify for that tournament in 85 years. Even if it were the bad thing Duke thinks it is, it's hardly a common phenomenon. My suggestion to people like Duke is to try joining the modern world, and stop pretending that your retarded view of women is some sort of truth that's being perverted. If you can't handle it, convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia where your ideas on the "proper" place of women will find a great deal of support. Women's combat sports are here to stay. I'll end this article by giving a plug to Women's Mixed Martial Arts, a growing sport with many excellent competitors. And just to make the heads of Duke and his kind explode, here's a picture of Strikeforce Women's Bantamweight Champion Miesha Tate, who once wrestled on the boys team in high school.
image link


  1. Oh, my. It's writers like Duke who have put me off American Thinker altogether. Homophobia and bible-thumping were bad enough. Now I guess we have to add sexism of the most idiotic order to the list. It's a shame, because much of what AT publishes is great.

    If girls wrestling is a symptom of the death of civilization, then what, pray tell, are honor killings of American women like Noor Faleh Almaleki?

  2. Yeah, you just never know what you are going to get at American Thinker. There can be a great article followed by one that makes me cringe at the thought that I'm going to be associated with that sort of thinking because I'm on the political right. I wonder if Duke thinks women shouldn't be allowed to work outside the home?