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

Richard Dawkins Offends Muslims

As a particularly outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins regularly offends Christians. But this time he managed to offend Muslims. I know, that's real difficult to do. His great offense? Expressing his true feelings about the burkha, feelings that are probably shared by the vast majority of non-Muslims, and no doubt even many Muslims.

The 69-year-old author and Oxford academic said he is filled with “visceral revulsion” when he sees women wearing the traditional Islamic covering.

Who isn't, other than people who like seeing the subjugation of women? He also compared it to a trash bin liner. I never though of that, but now that he mentions it, there is some similarity. Naturally these comments were just so offensive to those claiming to represent Muslims in Britain.

He has sparked fury among Muslim groups, who have accused him of being “ignorant” and “Islamophobic”.

If disliking the sight of a burkha equals "Islamophobia," then it's a good thing and should be promoted. And it's pretty funny that people who think women can't be allowed to go out in public without wearing a shapeless sack covering their body are calling others "ignorant."

Seyyed Ferjani, of the Muslim Association of Britain, accused Professor Dawkins of “Islamophobia” ... "“It is a woman’s choice if she wishes to wear a burka, a niqab or not. Why does it matter to this man what a woman is wearing?”

It matters because you are a blatant liar. There is definitely a minority of women stupid or brainwashed enough to voluntarily choose to wear a burkha. But many do not have that choice. Dawkins is speaking out against a symbol of widespread oppression & backwardness.

Dawkins is pretty far on the left, and I disagree with him on many issues, including some regarding atheism and the best way to critique religion. But I applaud him for having the guts to speak out on this issue, knowing that even his mild comments -- he explicitly rejected banning the burkha -- would produce shrieks of outrage and attempts to label him as an "Islamophobe."

Top Ten Worst Countries for Women

The organization CARE, through its Norway branch, released a list of what it concludes are the ten worst countries for women. Here's the list, most of which will be no surprise:

1. Afghanistan

2. Somalia

3. Congo

4. Sierra Leone

5. Niger

6. Yemen

7. Bangladesh

8. Mali

9. Burkina Faso

10. Guinea-Bissau

It's difficult to ignore the fact that 9 out of 10 of these countries have something in common. They are all majority or overwhelmingly Islamic. The lone exception is Congo. The article gives the criteria for why these countries were chosen as the worst places in the world for women. No doubt there were plenty of other contenders as well. Also worth noting is that these countries aren't exactly paradises for men either. Being a male, destitute, starving farmer in Bangladesh might be better than being a female resident, but it's still not good.

Canadian Muslims For Burqa Ban

A Canadian Islamic group, the Muslim Canadian Congress, has called for a ban on the burqa in that country.

‘In Canada we recognize the equality of men and women. We want to recognize gender equality as an absolute. The burqa marginalizes women.’

That's Farzana Hassan, the group's spokesperson. Hassan said that burqa wearing has risen in popularity among Canada's 800,000 Islamic inhabitants because of "extremist Muslims.'

According to the article, the Muslim Canadian Congress is a small group with 300 members.  It's unclear how representative they are of mainstream Muslim thought in Canada. But it's nice to see a Muslim organization of whatever size taking a strong stand against an instrument of female subjugation.

Starving Women for Sex

That's legal, according to our ally Afghanistan -- you know, the country whose war we are fighting and where we are spending billions in aid. According to The Guardian,

Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands

The law also gives the guardianship of children to fathers and grandfathers, and forces women to get permission from their husbands if they want to work.

The next time some Muslim or useful idiot attacks critics of Islam, and starts screaming about "Islamophobia," keep this type of law in mind. It's supported by far more than just a tiny minority.

The law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some of the country's Shias, which make up around 20% of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders

When people in the west see Islam as a threat to our societies and freedoms, it isn't a phobia -- it's concern based on the reality of how Islam is practiced in many places, especially when it is backed by governmental authority.

Jimmy Carter on Religion as it Affects Women

Former President Jimmy Carter has an article in the Guardian called, "The words of God do not justify cruelty to women." It's a fascinating look at how liberal Christians prefer to deceive themselves about their own religion. Carter essentially argues that religious doctrine advocating subjection of women is based on incorrect interpretation of scripture and "a few carefully selected Bible verses."

This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.

There's one big problem with Carter's argument -- he has things exactly backward. One doesn't need to rely on selective interpretation to understand that women have second-class status in the Bible.  Instead, creative interpretation is necessary to pretend otherwise. This is typical of liberal Christians. Rather than accept that their religion, the scriptures, and their God are horribly flawed, and that the Bible promotes many things that are repulsive to moral and ethical people, they just pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to accept. The rest is dismissed out of hand or interpreted away as no longer relevant.

In some ways this is similar to liberal interpretations of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't really mean what it says; it means whatever they think it should mean. But with Christianity the Bible is supposedly the holy word of God. If it means whatever you think it should mean, and you can discard any unpleasant parts, what good is it? Why not just admit that it isn't the word of God, just a collection of ancient writings that you are cynically using to support your own particular ideas?

Islam Promotes Women's Rights?

There is an interesting article in the Kuwait Times, by Aftab Ahmad Khan called, "What the Quran says about women's rights." Although Islam is often blamed for the poor treatment of women in much of the Islamic world, Khan argues that the Quran defines men and women as equals. He quotes a verse and writes

this verse clearly demonstrates that men and women in Islam are equal to each other both intrinsically - within the very act of creation - and extrinsically, with respect to both their relationship with one another and their duties before God.

Khan notes that Islam actually helped elevate the status of women in certain areas, and essentially argues that cultural traditions and biases are the problems behind the oppression of women, not Islam.

Forced marriages, "honour" killings, and women's confinement to the home by culture, tradition and societal norms have no endorsement from Islam.

He also advocates equal education for women from an Islamic perspective. Professor Khan makes an eloquent case, and his article is worth reading -- especially for those who claim there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. But unfortunately his view of Islam as it pertains to women is not shared in many of the areas where women have few rights, including neighboring Saudia Arabia. But it is good to see someone in the Arab world willing to speak out on this issue, even if his argument will probably fall on deaf ears in the places that most need to hear it.