www.kmov.com/sports/Iowa-wrestler-defaul...
Whats wrong with wrestling a girl?
Or maybe that whole "it's wrong" thing is just a cover for the real reason he doesn't want to grapple with a girl in public while wearing wrestling attire.
He believes violence of any kind against a girl is wrong. I can respect that belief, even if I believe it's missplaced in this particular situation. She obviously enjoys wrestling or she wouldn't do it.
Or maybe that whole "it's wrong" thing is just a cover for the real reason he doesn't want to grapple with a girl in public while wearing wrestling attire.
I was always raised that if a woman raises fists to you that means she wants to fight like a man. This is along those lines. If he had any pride as a wrestler he would trash her as his record so adequately proves.
To him, apparently something is wrong wrestling a girl. It's his decision, at any rate, to perform or not...
Or maybe more importantly he's afraid he can't perform.
To him, apparently something is wrong wrestling a girl. It's his decision, at any rate, to perform or not...
Or maybe more importantly he's afraid he can't perform.
this ^ lol
He believes violence of any kind against a girl is wrong. I can respect that belief, even if I believe it's missplaced in this particular situation. She obviously enjoys wrestling or she wouldn't do it.
Agreed.
seriously he would have won
ever occur to you that she had to beat other boys to get to the point she's at?
(there's also another female in that competition as well)
seriously he would have won
ever occur to you that she had to beat other boys to get to the point she's at?
(there's also another female in that competition as well)
making state is easy micha I did it three times I never went though due to no way to travel.
making state is easy micha I did it three times I never went though due to no way to travel.
Maybe, but you're in Florida. We aren't known for having an amazing wrestling program. At least I've never heard it tauted as such. The girl is from Iowa. They take wrestling much more serious than we do here. The level of competition you get in Florida and in Iowa are two different things.
To him, apparently something is wrong wrestling a girl. It's his decision, at any rate, to perform or not...
Or maybe more importantly he's afraid he can't perform.
Hehe, maybe
That'd be very much weaksauce though. But you can never know...] Maybe, but you're in Florida. We aren't known for having an amazing wrestling program. At least I've never heard it tauted as such. The girl is from Iowa. They take wrestling much more serious than we do here. The level of competition you get in Florida and in Iowa are two different things.
Yeah they're nuts about wrestling in Iowa.
They think of Wrestling like, Texas does Football.
Just because she is a girl doesn't mean she isn't an excellent wrestler.
] Maybe, but you're in Florida. We aren't known for having an amazing wrestling program. At least I've never heard it tauted as such. The girl is from Iowa. They take wrestling much more serious than we do here. The level of competition you get in Florida and in Iowa are two different things.
Yeah they're nuts about wrestling in Iowa.
They think of Wrestling like, Texas does Football.
Yup... I bet if they sent her down here she would probably be one of the best wrestlers in her weight class.
I don't think he bailed for any reasons aside from his belief. They take religion serious in Iowa, too. That said, it's silly. Either violence is wrong, period, and you shouldn't wrestle at all or you should be able to wrestle a gal, too. The 'I'd never hit a girl cuz she's a girl' school of thought is outdated and something nobody sane would ever adhere to wholly. There's always an 'unless'. IMO, if somebody does something to warrant a physical response (and no, words are not enough - neither is bringin' ya a warm beer 
), then they'll get it no matter what gear they're sportin'. A woman engaging in physical confrontation - be it sport or something else - has decided to forgo any silly protections you may feel you need to give her. Odds are it's because she doesn't feel she needs them. Cuz she doesn't. Meh, it's just a stupid way to think, IMO, and it does more harm than good.
*shrug*
I mean, I don't follow the same beliefs, but he did it in a mature fashion, and (again, from the longer article), there wasn't anything but acceptance and tolerance for the boy in the wrestling community.
So yeah, it has nothing to do with violence or not wanting to hurt a girl... if she didn't want to be hurt, she wouldn't be in that ring.
The 'I'd never hit a girl cuz she's a girl' school of thought is outdated and something nobody sane would ever adhere to wholly.
I used to think that; till I found my Ex in someones elses bed.
As for the kid good for him.
I'm assuming she wasn't your Ex when you found her in that bed? Otherwise I'm not sure I see the issue
I did martial arts with my girlfriend and she though it was funny when I gave her bruises. I think we were the most fanatic amongst the start group we were in and least worried about hitting each other hard.
So yeah, it has nothing to do with violence or not wanting to hurt a girl... if she didn't want to be hurt, she wouldn't be in that ring.
Yup. I think KGMs explanation makes more sense. In wrestling, you're gonna get some contact between areas that may qualify the touching as 'familiar', I guess. Still, I don't like that either cuz it goes back to that whole seeing eroticism in a combat sport thing that I think is stupid. She isn't there to get down with the guy, he isn't there to get down with her. Any contact with certain areas is incidental and, in some cases, illegal - a foul. So where's the problem? Meh, it sucks to win by DQ but at least he didn't make some big thing about it. He could have used it to launch into a screed about why girls shouldn't be allowed to wrestle with boys, but he didn't. He kept it isolated to himself and his beliefs. I may not get his school of thought, but I can and do respect that he didn't try to force it onto anyone else or use this to further any agenda.
I did martial arts with my girlfriend and she though it was funny when I gave her bruises. I think we were the most fanatic amongst the start group we were in and least worried about hitting each other hard.
So yeah, it has nothing to do with violence or not wanting to hurt a girl... if she didn't want to be hurt, she wouldn't be in that ring.
Yup. I think KGMs explanation makes more sense. In wrestling, you're gonna get some contact between areas that may qualify the touching as 'familiar', I guess. Still, I don't like that either cuz it goes back to that whole seeing eroticism in a combat sport thing that I think is stupid. She isn't there to get down with the guy, he isn't there to get down with her. Any contact with certain areas is incidental and, in some cases, illegal - a foul. So where's the problem? Meh, it sucks to win by DQ but at least he didn't make some big thing about it. He could have used it to launch into a screed about why girls shouldn't be allowed to wrestle with boys, but he didn't. He kept it isolated to himself and his beliefs. I may not get his school of thought, but I can and do respect that he didn't try to force it onto anyone else or use this to further any agenda.
Exactly. His personal beliefs determined his decisions, but he didn't try to force them onto the wrestling community.
I used to think that; till I found my Ex in someones elses bed.
Ouch!
However, a few years back it would've been a different story. In middle school I was in martial arts. One time I was paired up against a girl and I couldn't bring myself to really fight her. I fought, but all my attacks were half hearted and even with the pads I was pulling punches because I was worried about hurting her. Now I look back and realize it was pretty sexist and I probably did her a disservice by not putting up a real fight, but it was just the way I was raised and at the time I just couldn't see doing it any other way.
I was always raised that if a woman raises fists to you that means she wants to fight like a man.
I was raised this way too. My mom told me the same thing only it went, "If a woman lays hands on you, put her on her ass. If she wants to act like a man, treat her like one."
Dad was more chivalric and tried the "don't ever hit a woman" thing but Mom over ruled him. Yet he was able to get in some good lessons about not mistreating women.
As far as the article goes. Having wrestled, I would have probably been uncomfortable wrestling a girl, more so if my religious beliefs included anything about inappropriate touching. There's a move where you actually lay on top of your opponent holding their arm and head while wrapping your legs around there's and stretching out. I could imagine the cat calls from the audience if it was used.
(For the life of me, I can't remember what that move was called.)
EDIT: @Idolis: The position is 'north/south' but I don't know the name of the technique.
I used to think that; till I found my Ex in someones elses bed.
As for the kid good for him.
I can relate man. Except It was my GF who found me in bed with someone.
Waht? I was piss drunk and hardly remember the the entire night. It was some night apparently.
Yeah...
You should be proud...
Yeah...
You should be proud...
There ain't no spores on me, There ain't no spores on me...
Anywho, I grew up with 2 sisters and my mom: I never really developed any aversion to hitting women that extended being my generally low opinion of hitting people in general. That said, I can completly see where he is coming from.
ZB said that she isnt their to be erotic, he isn't there to be erotic. Okay. But if he is? From personal experience I can say that grappling with a woman often times leads to "intimate touching". (What, some people like to role play, some people like to punch/bite/scratch/pinch/kick/bounce eachoter off walls and furniture. To each their own, kay?) Where I in his position, I would not be sure of my ability to keep my attentions sportsmanlike and for whatever reason (his was religious belife, but notions of disloyalty or impropriety work just as well) would probably decline the fight.
It would hurt me to find my girl wrestling with another guy, and I would not want to hurt her that way, so I would not wrestle with a woman.
From personal experience I can say that grappling with a woman often times leads to "intimate touching".
Not just with women...
... on the other, I just can't see how people can't take this as an insult. There's just no way to spin it that doesn't come off as sexist. Whether you have your religion, your upbringing, or you own Heinlien-inspired neurosis to blame, you're being a sexist jerk and not letting either of you prove your skills.
... on the other, anyone remember if the guy still gets to compete in this round of whatever? I think I was reading another article about this that said that because it wasn't technically a forfeit they both got to move forward and that just seems wrong. You refuse to fight and you both move forward? Uh, no.
... on the other, this is just poor sportsmanship. If someone is there to compete, then compete. Don't wuss out and try to spin it for sympathy (and yeah, I do think this boy is getting way too much of that).
... in conclusion, regardless of whether his decision to not compete against her is understandable, I can't see why people are giving him slack for this. She was a competitor first-and-foremost. He let that she happened to be a girl competitor get in the way. Maybe that lack of professionalism is okay in high school, but in the real world most people don't get to pick and choose when you feel like doing your job. Am I being harsh, and expecting a kid to act like an adult? Probably. But what can I say? Faith-exemptions always sound more like "I don't want to do everything I signed up for so I'll just half-ass it instead of quitting" to me.
.. on the other, anyone remember if the guy still gets to compete in this round of whatever? I think I was reading another article about this that said that because it wasn't technically a forfeit they both got to move forward and that just seems wrong. You refuse to fight and you both move forward? Uh, no.
From what I read, he automatically went to the loser's round (whatever it's called) to play. So basically to determine his final score on the lower part of the leaderboard, rather then the higher.
Those are things that happen in that sport, and those are things that are inappropriate for young women and men to be doing to each other.
They're not as "erotic" as those pictures make them out to be. (Unless you are violently opposed to men and women standing back to back in the subway due to lack of room, in which case you're talking about roughly the same level of "not appropriate")
Kudos to the young man.
Zeros to goldy.
Any of those things would most likely be a foul, and some of these pictures might be. Others are simply action shots.
Contrary to popular belief, genitals are just another part of your body.
I found no good way to finish that sentence.
Instead I will say this: contrary to your personal feelings, popular belifes mean alot to the majority of people (Hence the name) and your disagreeing with them really means didly squat. They can and do and should have alot of say in what happens and is acceptable in human society.
The 'I'd never hit a girl cuz she's a girl' school of thought is outdated and something nobody sane would ever adhere to wholly.
I used to think that; till I found my Ex in someones elses bed.
As for the kid good for him.
What does that have to do with hitting girls
The 'I'd never hit a girl cuz she's a girl' school of thought is outdated and something nobody sane would ever adhere to wholly.
I used to think that; till I found my Ex in someones elses bed.
As for the kid good for him.
What does that have to do with hitting girls
he was betrayed, it was probably hard to control himself in that situation. I couldn't imagine having to deal with that.
he was betrayed, it was probably hard to control himself in that situation. I couldn't imagine having to deal with that.
So you're saying that being raised to not hit girls helped him to control himself? Or that he hit her, and then found out that adhering to the school of thought that one should never hit a girl would have been preferable? Perhaps there's a cultural connotation I miss here.
he was betrayed, it was probably hard to control himself in that situation. I couldn't imagine having to deal with that.
So you're saying that being raised to not hit girls helped him to control himself? Or that he hit her, and then found out that adhering to the school of thought that one should never hit a girl would have been preferable? Perhaps there's a cultural connotation I miss here.
I'm not saying either of those
Erato!
I would've beat the hell outta both of 'em.
Honestly...
I would've beat the hell outta both of 'em.
But they're kids RH
Honestly...
I would've beat the hell outta both of 'em.
Assuming you refer to Thunder_Dragonbane, before you do make sure the other person actually knows they're doing something wrong
Not everyone tells the person they are cheating with that they're actually already seeing anyone (or that they'd mind finding out about it)Honestly...
I would've beat the hell outta both of 'em.
But they're kids RH
I thought we were talking about finding your wife in bed with another guy...
Honestly...
I would've beat the hell outta both of 'em.
But they're kids RH
I thought we were talking about finding your wife in bed with another guy...
oh yeah my bad
Nice job, HS, showing the reality of wrestling sports. Those are things that happen in that sport, and those are things that are inappropriate for young women and men to be doing to each other. I am not opposed to women learning the fighting arts, any more than I am opposed to them learning how to properly use firearms, but there is a level of appropriateness that ought to be maintained.
I think you missed my point. Saying that wrestling with a woman can lead to inappropriate touching is dumb. The pictures show what could be construed as inappropriate touching between two guys. Someone could make the claim that wrestling can lead to males touching each other in inappropriate ways. Some guy’s junk in your face seems pretty inappropriate if taken out of the wrestling context. There are times when you find yourself in a position where either your package is in the other guy’s face, or his is in your face. It isn’t a sexual act that is occurring. Sure, you can sexualize it, but that is insulting to the athletes. They aren’t there to grope and feel each other up. They are there to compete and win. The girl didn’t join wrestling to get a pair of peaches in her face. She joined to wrestle. She didn’t join to get the opportunity to grab a few boys inappropriately. She joined to compete.
You can look at the pics I posted up and see two guys competing in a wrestling match, or you can see two guys fondling each other. It all depends on you. If the kid that refused to wrestle her wasn’t mature enough to be able to compete against another athlete, maybe he shouldn’t be on the wrestling team.
Nice job, HS, showing the reality of wrestling sports. Those are things that happen in that sport, and those are things that are inappropriate for young women and men to be doing to each other. I am not opposed to women learning the fighting arts, any more than I am opposed to them learning how to properly use firearms, but there is a level of appropriateness that ought to be maintained.
I think you missed my point. Saying that wrestling with a woman can lead to inappropriate touching is dumb. The pictures show what could be construed as inappropriate touching between two guys. Someone could make the claim that wrestling can lead to males touching each other in inappropriate ways. Some guy’s junk in your face seems pretty inappropriate if taken out of the wrestling context. There are times when you find yourself in a position where either your package is in the other guy’s face, or his is in your face. It isn’t a sexual act that is occurring. Sure, you can sexualize it, but that is insulting to the athletes. They aren’t there to grope and feel each other up. They are there to compete and win. The girl didn’t join wrestling to get a pair of peaches in her face. She joined to wrestle. She didn’t join to get the opportunity to grab a few boys inappropriately. She joined to compete.You can look at the pics I posted up and see two guys competing in a wrestling match, or you can see two guys fondling each other. It all depends on you. If the kid that refused to wrestle her wasn’t mature enough to be able to compete against another athlete, maybe he shouldn’t be on the wrestling team.
AMEN!!!
Now people can argue that people shouldn't worry so much about what other people think but I personally would have a hard time concentrating on my performance as an athlete with someone shouting insults from the crowd.
You could also argue that that same asshat could also catcall if two guys are wrestling. I'm not gay so I can't speak on what a homosexual would feel about that, but being straight I could deflect that a lot easier than I could if I was wrestling a girl.
Maybe it's a level of my immaturity or a measure my own sexism but I don't think it is.
They'd actually allow someone like that in the audience? You'd expect people to be removed from the game for trying to harass athletes during the game.
not really, you'd have to be really bad to get kicked.
You also have to remember that there are fans of each team in the stands and distraction can be considered part of the match.
You also have to remember that there are fans of each team in the stands and distraction can be considered part of the match.
It is once again made clear that I know nothing about many kinds of sports
And am also glad I don't visit such events... Another example is lifting. When you have a spotter, your face is typically right under their crotch. While this could certainly be an arousing situation, you have the small matter of not being there for sex to deal with. And, you know, all that weight on the bar you need to lift off of yourself. Tends to change the mood, no? Cuz you're there to lift, not to ****. And wrestlers at a state tourney are there to wrestle, not hook up. Imagine that. Kwaziness!
Oh, and just to expand on Plu's clarification to EE on the DQ and still competing thing: Losing once just gives you different competition and lowers the final place you can actually get. He is guaranteed to not place first. I think the article I read said he's also not able to take second. Can't recall, though. This is how fight tournaments work - typically, anyway. If you have 4 fighters, for example, and F1 beats F2 and F3 beats F4, you now have to have F1 fight F3 for first and second and F2 and F4 fight for third and fourth. That's just how it works. So yeah, he can continue but he does face repercussions for his decision.
Agreed, ZB.
Unless you have some kind of creepy fetish, wrestling doesn't really turn anybody on.
*raises hand*
I hope this helps.
Personally I don't want to wrestle with anyone. I just think it is too much activity inside my personal space for my tastes with someone with which I'm not intimate. As far as "cross gender" wrestling is concerned I can see that as potentially being borderline sexual harrasment depending on how someone feels about their match. With society being so "correct" about gender relations I can see too much potential for a lawsuit/criminal charges waiting in the wings without some heavy duty legal waivers being signed in advance.
I hope this helps.
see. refer to ZB's post. People like you don't wrestle, so there isn't an issue with sexual harassment. And there really shouldn't be such a thing in regards to sports that involve contact.
Sometimes it isn't about what you think, it is about what other people see. There's always going to be an asshat in the crowd that sees sex instead of wrestling. I see nothing wrong with a guy or a girl wishing to avoid the embarassment that comes from catcalls from said asshat.
Now people can argue that people shouldn't worry so much about what other people think but I personally would have a hard time concentrating on my performance as an athlete with someone shouting insults from the crowd.
It’s part of competition. You can watch any televised game and see people taunting baseball, basketball, football…etc. players. There have been several times where fans at basketball games have said stuff that one player or another has gotten so angry that he has tried to get to the fan. When it happens we call it being unprofessional. If you can’t take people taunting you, you probably would be better off not competing.
You could also argue that that same asshat could also catcall if two guys are wrestling. I'm not gay so I can't speak on what a homosexual would feel about that, but being straight I could deflect that a lot easier than I could if I was wrestling a girl.
Maybe it's a level of my immaturity or a measure my own sexism but I don't think it is.
I’m sure there are people that catcall when two guys are wrestling. Go to the UFC site and look at videos of upcoming fights. You will find the fighters making fun of each other. The coaches and trainers get into it also. Hell, go to youtube.com and look at the fight prediction videos that people make. The people on the videos sometimes rip into these fighters in ways that has nothing to do with the fighter’s ability. It’s even worse if you read the comments left by others on such prediction videos.
They'd actually allow someone like that in the audience? You'd expect people to be removed from the game for trying to harass athletes during the game.
You’ve obviously never seen a baseball little league game. I’m sure you could google up a story or get some vids of the fights that occur between the kid’s parents. You could probably find some of the vids where adults are making fun of kids on the opposing team.
Sometimes it isn't about what you think, it is about what other people see. There's always going to be an asshat in the crowd that sees sex instead of wrestling. I see nothing wrong with a guy or a girl wishing to avoid the embarassment that comes from catcalls from said asshat.
Now people can argue that people shouldn't worry so much about what other people think but I personally would have a hard time concentrating on my performance as an athlete with someone shouting insults from the crowd.
It’s part of competition. You can watch any televised game and see people taunting baseball, basketball, football…etc. players. There have been several times where fans at basketball games have said stuff that one player or another has gotten so angry that he has tried to get to the fan. When it happens we call it being unprofessional. If you can’t take people taunting you, you probably would be better off not competing.You could also argue that that same asshat could also catcall if two guys are wrestling. I'm not gay so I can't speak on what a homosexual would feel about that, but being straight I could deflect that a lot easier than I could if I was wrestling a girl.
Maybe it's a level of my immaturity or a measure my own sexism but I don't think it is.
I’m sure there are people that catcall when two guys are wrestling. Go to the UFC site and look at videos of upcoming fights. You will find the fighters making fun of each other. The coaches and trainers get into it also. Hell, go to youtube.com and look at the fight prediction videos that people make. The people on the videos sometimes rip into these fighters in ways that has nothing to do with the fighter’s ability. It’s even worse if you read the comments left by others on such prediction videos.They'd actually allow someone like that in the audience? You'd expect people to be removed from the game for trying to harass athletes during the game.
You’ve obviously never seen a baseball little league game. I’m sure you could google up a story or get some vids of the fights that occur between the kid’s parents. You could probably find some of the vids where adults are making fun of kids on the opposing team.
dude I think we're brain mates.
Handling taunting depends on the type of taunting. We live in a PC world. If it is suggested that I'm on the mat to get fresh with guy, I can easily deny that because I'm not gay. If it is suggested that I'm on the mat to get fresh with a girl, that's a little harder to deny.
Just the suggestion is going to make me second guess a move if I was wrestling a girl. Is it right? No. But it isn't unprofessional either.
Anyone that has wrestled in highschool expects catcalls from the crowd. Some people are just freaks. You learn to block it out. Throwing girls into the mix changes things. Maybe when it becomes common place then I would expect people to just deal, but it isn't and so to expect a guy to react the same way to catcalls calling him gay to ones that say he's basically raping a girl is a little too much, don't you think?
see. refer to ZB's post. People like you don't wrestle, so there isn't an issue with sexual harassment. And there really shouldn't be such a thing in regards to sports that involve contact.
The problem with "sexual harassment" is that it exists in the mind of the person feeling it. It isn't an universal feeling that happens to everyone in the same circumstances. In the case of the article mentioned, I can easily see this young man feeling that wrestling with someone of the opposite gender as being an act which subjects him to sexual harassment. Like anyone faced with that situation, he can opt out of the activity or submit to the harassment. What he can't and shouldn't have to do is be bullied to change how he feels about it. Sexual harassment shouldn't be acceptable in the work place or the "sports arena". I view this situation as the person opting out of being subjected to it, and nothing more. Maybe he has "religious" reasons for feeling this way, but that doesn't change the reality of his feelings.
I don't feel that it should be taken as poor sportmanship, backwards gender bias, or anything else in my mind.
I hope this helps.
see. refer to ZB's post. People like you don't wrestle, so there isn't an issue with sexual harassment. And there really shouldn't be such a thing in regards to sports that involve contact.
The problem with "sexual harassment" is that it exists in the mind of the person feeling it. It isn't an universal feeling that happens to everyone in the same circumstances. In the case of the article mentioned, I can easily see this young man feeling that wrestling with someone of the opposite gender as being an act which subjects him to sexual harassment. Like anyone faced with that situation, he can opt out of the activity or submit to the harassment. What he can't and shouldn't have to do is be bullied to change how he feels about it. Sexual harassment shouldn't be acceptable in the work place or the "sports arena". I view this situation as the person opting out of being subjected to it, and nothing more. Maybe he has "religious" reasons for feeling this way, but that doesn't change the reality of his feelings.
I don't feel that it should be taken as poor sportmanship, backwards gender bias, or anything else in my mind.
I hope this helps.
he didn't back down to be proper, he backed down because in his mind beating a girl would be nothing to brag about but losing to a girl would be a crushing defeat for him. In his mind he stood nothing to gain therefore he backed down.
Personally I don't want to wrestle with anyone. I just think it is too much activity inside my personal space for my tastes with someone with which I'm not intimate. As far as "cross gender" wrestling is concerned I can see that as potentially being borderline sexual harrasment depending on how someone feels about their match. With society being so "correct" about gender relations I can see too much potential for a lawsuit/criminal charges waiting in the wings without some heavy duty legal waivers being signed in advance.
I hope this helps.
Authority Figure: Tell us what happened, young lady.
Young Lady: He ... he touched me.
AF: And what were the circumstances surrounding this touching?
YL: We ... we were wrestling.
AF: Like an improptu sort of thing?
YL: No, I'm a member of my High School wrestling team and I was competing at States.
AF: ... so, who was this boy that touched you? Someone from the stands?
YL: No, he was the boy I was wrestling with.
AF: ... in a scheduled match? Part of the competition?
YL: Yes, he was my first opponent.
AF: Well, that's wrestling. People touch each other when they wrestle.
YL: Duh! My bad!
To be less an idiot, there are certain expectations for certain situations. At the office, touching is not an expectation. At a wrestling match, it is. Incidental contact with regions deemed sensitive is a part of wrestling and, therefore, is also, at the least, understood if not outright expected. All parties are aware of this and, yep, expect it. Cuz it's what happens. Part of the game. And if it's a part of the game you don't like, you are not compelled to participate. And that's perfectly ok. All it means is that this isn't for you. The case presented shows just how expected the touching is - or at least how its possibility is recognized. He bailed because he didn't want to touch her. From that I'd have no problem guessing that all wrestlers know touching is possible. Cuz they're not stupid. So, if you put on the singlet, you're prepared to be touched and to touch. There's no need for disclaimers or waivers or anything of that nature because all parties involved are aware of what can happen.
As an aside, martial arts clubs typically ask their members to sign waivers for injury. I imagine schools do the same. So, while there isn't a real need, I'm sure it's covered anyway.
Just the suggestion is going to make me second guess a move if I was wrestling a girl. Is it right? No. But it isn't unprofessional either.
Incorrect. You're there to wrestle. Any changes you make due to influences outside the mat are unprofessional by definition. It is your momentary profession to wrestle. Do it. ****, man. You shouldn't let fans in yuor head anyway.
1)Guys and girls are different.
2)Wrestlers are wrestlers.
3)There is no gender in wrestling. So any sexual identity you have before the match vanishes the moment the match begins.
So am I reading this right?
2)Wrestlers are wrestlers.
3)There is no gender in wrestling. So any sexual identity you have before the match vanishes the moment the match begins.
I took away number one and now its correct.
Edit:
To clarify, she didn't stop being a girl just because she put on wrestling gear and he didn't stop being a guy when he put his on. Oh and if you don't recognize that men and women are different, then there is something wrong with you.
he didn't back down to be proper, he backed down because in his mind beating a girl would be nothing to brag about but losing to a girl would be a crushing defeat for him. In his mind he stood nothing to gain therefore he backed down.
As the orginal article didn't state that he defaulted to gain an unfair advantage in the tournament rankings I can't see that his motives were preservation of ego, or attempting to win at all costs. It demonstrably took him out of winning in his weight class as he was considered only elegible for consolation rounds after defaulting. He did state religious objections presumably based on the gender (aka sex) of his opponent. He did state he didn't feel it would be right, (also known as feeling harassed if he would participate in the activity). He opted not to feel harassed about engaging in wrestling with an opponent who gender would make him uncomfortable with himself.
I can't see what he stood to gain by refusing to wrestle her. He defacto took himself out of contention for winning his weight class. He's suffering unfavorable media scrutiny for being a "sexist". It certainly doesn't look like anything but a lose/lose scenario for him to refuse to wrestle her. I'm presuming the thought of wrestling her must have been worse for him. Thus the viability of "harassment" seems much greater than the possible embarassment of losing to a girl. He already lost to the girl when he defaulted without her ever laying a finger on him.
I hope this clarifies.
Since when do guys have vaginas?
Edit:
To clarify, she didn't stop being a girl just because she put on wrestling gear and he didn't stop being a guy when he put his on. Oh and if you don't recognize that men and women are different, then there is something wrong with you.
I think theres something wrong with the fact that you, in your mind, can't establish that when kids wrestle it isn't about sex.
edit: hell! Even adults can realize that what they're doing isn't sexual. ZB is a perfect example
Edit:
I would appreciate it if you didn't try to read my mind. Thank you.
he didn't back down to be proper, he backed down because in his mind beating a girl would be nothing to brag about but losing to a girl would be a crushing defeat for him. In his mind he stood nothing to gain therefore he backed down.
As the orginal article didn't state that he defaulted to gain an unfair advantage in the tournament rankings I can't see that his motives were preservation of ego, or attempting to win at all costs. It demonstrably took him out of winning in his weight class as he was considered only elegible for consolation rounds after defaulting. He did state religious objections presumably based on the gender (aka sex) of his opponent. He did state he didn't feel it would be right, (also known as feeling harassed if he would participate in the activity). He opted not to feel harassed about engaging in wrestling with an opponent who gender would make him uncomfortable with himself.
I can't see what he stood to gain by refusing to wrestle her. He defacto took himself out of contention for winning his weight class. He's suffering unfavorable media scrutiny for being a "sexist". It certainly doesn't look like anything but a lose/lose scenario for him to refuse to wrestle her. I'm presuming the thought of wrestling her must have been worse for him. Thus the viability of "harassment" seems much greater than the possible embarassment of losing to a girl. He already lost to the girl when he defaulted without her ever laying a finger on him.
I hope this clarifies.
to him he didn't lose. he defaulted.
Dude, I was a wrestler. I know perfectly well it isn't about sex. Other people don't. Reacting to those people is human.
Then its pretty easy to man up and not care. How can you get embarassed about what people say after you just went in front of them in a singlet and wrestled? If you're tough enough to not care about doing it then you're tough enough to not care what they say.
he didn't back down to be proper, he backed down because in his mind beating a girl would be nothing to brag about but losing to a girl would be a crushing defeat for him. In his mind he stood nothing to gain therefore he backed down.
As the orginal article didn't state that he defaulted to gain an unfair advantage in the tournament rankings I can't see that his motives were preservation of ego, or attempting to win at all costs. It demonstrably took him out of winning in his weight class as he was considered only elegible for consolation rounds after defaulting. He did state religious objections presumably based on the gender (aka sex) of his opponent. He did state he didn't feel it would be right, (also known as feeling harassed if he would participate in the activity). He opted not to feel harassed about engaging in wrestling with an opponent who gender would make him uncomfortable with himself.
I can't see what he stood to gain by refusing to wrestle her. He defacto took himself out of contention for winning his weight class. He's suffering unfavorable media scrutiny for being a "sexist". It certainly doesn't look like anything but a lose/lose scenario for him to refuse to wrestle her. I'm presuming the thought of wrestling her must have been worse for him. Thus the viability of "harassment" seems much greater than the possible embarassment of losing to a girl. He already lost to the girl when he defaulted without her ever laying a finger on him.
I hope this clarifies.
to him he didn't lose. he defaulted.
Difference of interpretation. I can't see how he possibly won anything by taking himself out of contention for winning his weight class. Be default that makes it a loss as it wasn't a tie.
Then its pretty easy to man up and not care. How can you get embarassed about what people say after you just went in front of them in a singlet and wrestled? If you're tough enough to not care about doing it then you're tough enough to not care what they say.
Because being called gay is different than being called a rapist. One there is nothing wrong with being, the other well...
he didn't back down to be proper, he backed down because in his mind beating a girl would be nothing to brag about but losing to a girl would be a crushing defeat for him. In his mind he stood nothing to gain therefore he backed down.
As the orginal article didn't state that he defaulted to gain an unfair advantage in the tournament rankings I can't see that his motives were preservation of ego, or attempting to win at all costs. It demonstrably took him out of winning in his weight class as he was considered only elegible for consolation rounds after defaulting. He did state religious objections presumably based on the gender (aka sex) of his opponent. He did state he didn't feel it would be right, (also known as feeling harassed if he would participate in the activity). He opted not to feel harassed about engaging in wrestling with an opponent who gender would make him uncomfortable with himself.
I can't see what he stood to gain by refusing to wrestle her. He defacto took himself out of contention for winning his weight class. He's suffering unfavorable media scrutiny for being a "sexist". It certainly doesn't look like anything but a lose/lose scenario for him to refuse to wrestle her. I'm presuming the thought of wrestling her must have been worse for him. Thus the viability of "harassment" seems much greater than the possible embarassment of losing to a girl. He already lost to the girl when he defaulted without her ever laying a finger on him.
I hope this clarifies.
to him he didn't lose. he defaulted.
Difference of interpretation. I can't see how he possibly won anything by taking himself out of contention for winning his weight class. Be default that makes it a loss as it wasn't a tie.
He wanted to be seen as noble and honourable whilst also ensuring his not being bested by a female. It happened to backfire. She technically won but in his mind he did the right thing.
Dude, I was a wrestler. I know perfectly well it isn't about sex. Other people don't. Reacting to those people is human.
Then its pretty easy to man up and not care. How can you get embarassed about what people say after you just went in front of them in a singlet and wrestled? If you're tough enough to not care about doing it then you're tough enough to not care what they say.
"Man up" because men can't feel sexually harassed? Wearing a wrestling singlet makes you immune to feeling embarassed and uncomfortable by a situation not of your liking? This is gender bias in my interpretation. The fact put forth that someone has to "man-up" and accept something that they feel is wrong because they are male. Should a woman have to "woman-up" and accept a pat on the ass by a male coworker because he also does it to his fellow male coworkers? Does a woman also have to "woman-up" and accept a female coworker "honking" her breasts because the other women in her office do? Nothing "sexual" is meant by either one, except in the mind of the person being harassed.
Hey Jesse, stop trying to read people's minds. You're bad at it. How the hell do you know what his motivation was?
because I've seen kids do the exact same thing when I was wrestling.
Dude, I was a wrestler. I know perfectly well it isn't about sex. Other people don't. Reacting to those people is human.
Then its pretty easy to man up and not care. How can you get embarassed about what people say after you just went in front of them in a singlet and wrestled? If you're tough enough to not care about doing it then you're tough enough to not care what they say.
"Man up" because men can't feel sexually harassed? Wearing a wrestling singlet makes you immune to feeling embarassed and uncomfortable by a situation not of your liking? This is gender bias in my interpretation. The fact put forth that someone has to "man-up" and accept something that they feel is wrong because they are male. Should a woman have to "woman-up" and accept a pat on the ass by a male coworker because he also does it to his fellow male coworkers? Does a woman also have to "woman-up" and accept a female coworker "honking" her breasts because the other women in her office do? Nothing "sexual" is meant by either one, except in the mind of the person being harassed.
If you feel sexually harassed then don't ****ing wrestle. Its really simple. Also, being at work is NOT the same as being on a wrestling mat.
So everyone does everything for the exact same reasons, good to know.
Did I say that? No I didn't.
Here it goes...
The boy wrestled boys his entire career. He was asked to wrestle a girl. He said he didn't want to because it could be seen as sexual and he didn't want that. He was not embarrassed by wrestling. He could have been embarrassed by wrestling a girl and the way the crowd reacted to it.
So everyone does everything for the exact same reasons, good to know.
Did I say that? No I didn't.
You said and I quote:
because I've seen kids do the exact same thing when I was wrestling.
Which means because you supposedly know that the kids you saw when you wrestled reacted a certain way for certain reasons, that anybody that does the same thing has the same reasons.
If you feel sexually harassed then don't ****ing wrestle. Its really simple. Also, being at work is NOT the same as being on a wrestling mat.
On this point we agree. He felt sexually harassed by the concept of wrestling a girl, and he didn't wrestle her. Just because he doesn't feel that way about wrestling boys doesn't mean he shouldn't wrestle anyone.
The feeling of sexual harassment also doesn't just disappear because it is a "sport". Feelings aren't rational, and he should have the right to "opt out" just like he did. It also should cost him the ability to win that match as it did as well. The record goes down as a loss by default. He lost to a girl before ever stepping onto the mat. It seems more people are really more irritated by that, than the supposed gender inequality of him refusing to wrestle her against his better conscience.
Handling taunting depends on the type of taunting. We live in a PC world. If it is suggested that I'm on the mat to get fresh with guy, I can easily deny that because I'm not gay. If it is suggested that I'm on the mat to get fresh with a girl, that's a little harder to deny.
The type of taunting should not matter to you. The purpose of people taunting you is to get you to mess up in a competition. If you can easily deny that you are not there to feel up a guy because you are not gay, you can just as easily deny being there to feel up a female competitor because you are a wrestler and not a pervert.
Just the suggestion is going to make me second guess a move if I was wrestling a girl. Is it right? No. But it isn't unprofessional either.
You would be the easiest opponent to beat. Just whisper into your ear:”You joined wrestling just to feel up my junk didn’t you? You like the way it feels don’t you?” Sure, you could deny it because you aren’t gay, but can you prove it? I mean, you would be wrestling in a tight fitting leotard and getting into positions that can be construed as Kama Sutra positions… with other guys…
By the way, if you are so easily distracted by someone suggesting that you are feeling up a female competitor, it is probably because you are. That is very unprofessional.
Anyone that has wrestled in highschool expects catcalls from the crowd. Some people are just freaks. You learn to block it out. Throwing girls into the mix changes things. Maybe when it becomes common place then I would expect people to just deal, but it isn't and so to expect a guy to react the same way to catcalls calling him gay to ones that say he's basically raping a girl is a little too much, don't you think?
No, I don’t think so. It’s the same thing. It’s people taunting you. having that mentality that you will wait until it becomes common place is what keeps it uncommon. People need to start seeing it as another student athlete competing in a wrestling match rather than a wrestler and a girl that wrestles.
The problem with "sexual harassment" is that it exists in the mind of the person feeling it.
So do schizophrenic delusions. ZB explained it quite well.
It isn't an universal feeling that happens to everyone in the same circumstances. In the case of the article mentioned, I can easily see this young man feeling that wrestling with someone of the opposite gender as being an act which subjects him to sexual harassment. Like anyone faced with that situation, he can opt out of the activity or submit to the harassment.
If he feels that getting into a wrestling match with a girl is going to put him into a situation in which he can be sexually harassed by a girl then he should feel the same way when getting into a wrestling match with another guy. Unless I am mistaken, there is no rule that requires that wrestlers admit their sexual preferences. Guys (gay or not) can sexually harass another guy. It isn’t something that occurs between men and women only.
What he can't and shouldn't have to do is be bullied to change how he feels about it. Sexual harassment shouldn't be acceptable in the work place or the "sports arena".
Unless the opponent is reaching into the wrestling uniform and grabbing the other person’s genitals or something that is purposefully intended to be sexually arousing, it isn’t sexual harassment. Also, falsely claiming sexual harassment shouldn’t be acceptable in the work place or in sports.
I view this situation as the person opting out of being subjected to it, and nothing more. Maybe he has "religious" reasons for feeling this way, but that doesn't change the reality of his feelings.
I don't feel that it should be taken as poor sportmanship, backwards gender bias, or anything else in my mind.
I hope this helps.
I find the claim that it was for religious reasons that he didn’t wrestler her to be BS. Sure, he could say that his religious beliefs do not allow for him to touch a girl in that manner, but how many times have people used religion against gay people saying that it is wrong and a sin to be gay and doing the “unnatural” things that gay people do. What is the difference between grabbing another guy’s ass in a wrestling match and grabbing another guy’s ass because you are sexually attracted to him?
Authority Figure: Tell us what happened, young lady.
Young Lady: He ... he touched me.
AF: And what were the circumstances surrounding this touching?
YL: We ... we were wrestling.
AF: Like an improptu sort of thing?
YL: No, I'm a member of my High School wrestling team and I was competing at States.
AF: ... so, who was this boy that touched you? Someone from the stands?
YL: No, he was the boy I was wrestling with.
AF: ... in a scheduled match? Part of the competition?
YL: Yes, he was my first opponent.
AF: Well, that's wrestling. People touch each other when they wrestle.
YL: Duh! My bad!
Exactly. I could see how great it would be for sports if this type of mentality was allowed.
Man 1: “Officer, arrest this man, assaulted me. I was running down the field and caught a ball and suddenly Bam! This guy tackles me out of nowhere. He hit me so hard I fell to the ground.”
Officer:”Why do you think he did it? Do you know him?”
Man:”Yes I know him. He is on the other team. We are professional football players and he was trying to stop me from scoring.”
Man 2:”Officer, arrest this guy. I was in an MMA fight and this guy that was in the ring with me just kicked me in the head out of nowhere. I was knocked out.”
Since when do guys have vaginas?
Edit:
To clarify, she didn't stop being a girl just because she put on wrestling gear and he didn't stop being a guy when he put his on. Oh and if you don't recognize that men and women are different, then there is something wrong with you.
Since when does having a vagina or a penis have anything to do with wrestling? Is there a penis requirement to wrestle?
Difference of interpretation. I can't see how he possibly won anything by taking himself out of contention for winning his weight class. Be default that makes it a loss as it wasn't a tie.
He may not have won, but it isn't counted as a loss. If it had been counted as a loss he would not have progressed in any other rounds.
On this point we agree. He felt sexually harassed by the concept of wrestling a girl, and he didn't wrestle her. Just because he doesn't feel that way about wrestling boys doesn't mean he shouldn't wrestle anyone.
So besides being able to read people's minds, what other powers do you have?
As I said, I was a wrestler. I learned to block out the guy calling me gay and I know that for me it would be harder to block out someone calling me a rapist. That doesn't make me a poor athlete. (I went to State three times in two different weight divisions.) It makes me a guy that doesn't like being called a rapist.
If accepting someone calling me a rapist is what it takes for me to be an athlete in your opinion, you can keep it.
I used to think that; till I found my Ex in someones elses bed.
What were you doing in someone else's bedroom?
@HS,
As I said, I was a wrestler. I learned to block out the guy calling me gay and I know that for me it would be harder to block out someone calling me a rapist. That doesn't make me a poor athlete. (I went to State three times in two different weight divisions.) It makes me a guy that doesn't like being called a rapist.
If accepting someone calling me a rapist is what it takes for me to be an athlete in your opinion, you can keep it.
So what you are saying is that you can accept someone calling you gay, but you can't accept the same person calling you a rapist? What if they called you a rapist when you were wrestling a guy? You could have been a gay rapist.
I used to think that; till I found my Ex in someones elses bed.
What were you doing in someone else's bedroom?
"Man up" because men can't feel sexually harassed? Wearing a wrestling singlet makes you immune to feeling embarassed and uncomfortable by a situation not of your liking? This is gender bias in my interpretation. The fact put forth that someone has to "man-up" and accept something that they feel is wrong because they are male. Should a woman have to "woman-up" and accept a pat on the ass by a male coworker because he also does it to his fellow male coworkers? Does a woman also have to "woman-up" and accept a female coworker "honking" her breasts because the other women in her office do? Nothing "sexual" is meant by either one, except in the mind of the person being harassed.
There is no reason office workers can't do their job without getting touched, but wrestling is based on touching. If you have a problem with close physical contact with other human beings, you shouldn't be a wrestler, just like you shouldn't aim to work at most office jobs if you can't stand sitting still for longer periods of time.
That being said, he is well within his rights to feel uncomfortable touching a girl, and he did the right thing by defaulting, but in wrestling, that's a handicap. Some people feel the opposite way (it's common for boys and girls to share sleeping bags on survival trips here, because guys especially tend to feel less comfortable sleeping in the arms of someone of the same sex), and that's just as valid, but people probably wouldn't accept a boy joining a wrestling team on the condition that he was only expected to fight girls.
Lying about sexual harassment would most likely be either a) lying about the feelings of harassment (a possibility here as he simply stated a "religious" discomfort with the activity which may or may not be actually present), or b) lying about the actions of the other individual.
Scenario b) doesn't really apply since the wrestler in question in this case avoided the potential harassment in the first place. The only way to disprove scenario a) would be to demonstrate several incidents in his recent past where he wrestled females without expressing discomfort with the activity.
The other tricky part of "sexual harassment" is that is isn't necessarily linked to whole classes of people, but can be set to individual reactions. For example, I could feel that getting patted on the behind by subject a) was just fine and didn't evoke feelings of harassment, while a similar action by subject b) evokes a feeling of harassment. A consistent standard doesn't have to exist for the person to feel harassed by an individual. However, this is wandering a bit far afield in this case as the wrestler in question stated a problem with a class of people instead of this particular individual.
Sexual harassment isn't an action which can only occur in a place of work. Feelings of sexual harassment are not based on the intent/purpose of the actor, but on the discomfort of the person with the feeling. Actionable sexual harassment requires the actor first be warned about the feelings of the person being harassed, and requested to desist in that activity which triggers those feelings. It is only after they persist in the activity after being warned to desist that "corrective/punitive" action can be taken against the actor.
As far as any women wrestling in the same cross gender conferance with this guy, they should simply take it that they are guaranteed an easy win as he should default all of his matches with them.
I hope this helps.
On this point we agree. He felt sexually harassed by the concept of wrestling a girl, and he didn't wrestle her. Just because he doesn't feel that way about wrestling boys doesn't mean he shouldn't wrestle anyone.
So besides being able to read people's minds, what other powers do you have?
I have the power to read the article in question.
he didn't back down to be proper, he backed down because in his mind beating a girl would be nothing to brag about but losing to a girl would be a crushing defeat for him. In his mind he stood nothing to gain therefore he backed down.
... WTF?
EDIT: As a note, I'd like to ammend my first stance. After reading EE's post, it made me think about it, and it doesn't stand up to my "race" test (ie: If the kid had said his religion doesn't allow for "familiar" touching between races, the story would have been very different.). I think I might have been taken in by the soft sell of the article.
I guess what I'd like to express most is tolerance. I think the boy's beliefs are dumb, but he has taken it upon himself to sacrifice for them (he *could* have won the whole thing, but now he has no chance), so it's his own beliefs that are limiting his life, not his beliefs limiting someone else's.
So what you are saying is that you can accept someone calling you gay, but you can't accept the same person calling you a rapist? What if they called you a rapist when you were wrestling a guy? You could have been a gay rapist.
It's harder to say a guy wrestling another guy is raping the other one. Usually, they're both assumed to be gay because they are wrestling. Why that changes when one happens to be a woman, I'm not sure. But any unwanted sexual act inflicted on a girl is ****. It's just different.
Mainly it is just my perception of the situation. I expected to be wrestling guys when I signed up for wrestling. I didn't expect to find myself wrestling girls and if I did, then I probably wouldn't sign up.
If that makes me sexist, then so be it. I know that I'm not out there on the mat for a sexual encounter, she knows that too. The fans may not, and that I'm not cool with that.
Sexual harassment is in the mind of the beholder as a behavior which causes sexual embarassment or discomfort. It doesn't have to be based on someone attempting to sexually arouse the person, grab their private parts, or otherwise engage in sexual intercourse with a person. The purpose or intent of the person "harassing" is ultimately immaterial to the feeling of harassment.
Lying about sexual harassment would most likely be either a) lying about the feelings of harassment (a possibility here as he simply stated a "religious" discomfort with the activity which may or may not be actually present), or b) lying about the actions of the other individual.
Scenario b) doesn't really apply since the wrestler in question in this case avoided the potential harassment in the first place. The only way to disprove scenario a) would be to demonstrate several incidents in his recent past where he wrestled females without expressing discomfort with the activity.
The other tricky part of "sexual harassment" is that is isn't necessarily linked to whole classes of people, but can be set to individual reactions. For example, I could feel that getting patted on the behind by subject a) was just fine and didn't evoke feelings of harassment, while a similar action by subject b) evokes a feeling of harassment. A consistent standard doesn't have to exist for the person to feel harassed by an individual. However, this is wandering a bit far afield in this case as the wrestler in question stated a problem with a class of people instead of this particular individual.
Sexual harassment isn't an action which can only occur in a place of work. Feelings of sexual harassment are not based on the intent/purpose of the actor, but on the discomfort of the person with the feeling. Actionable sexual harassment requires the actor first be warned about the feelings of the person being harassed, and requested to desist in that activity which triggers those feelings. It is only after they persist in the activity after being warned to desist that "corrective/punitive" action can be taken against the actor.
As far as any women wrestling in the same cross gender conferance with this guy, they should simply take it that they are guaranteed an easy win as he should default all of his matches with them.
I hope this helps.
With that type of reasoning you could claim that someone putting their hand on your shoulder is sexually harrassing you because you felt uncomfortable.
It's harder to say a guy wrestling another guy is raping the other one. Usually, they're both assumed to be gay because they are wrestling.
Shouldn’t this mean that it should be easier and more common for you to assume that one guy is trying to **** the other guy?
Why that changes when one happens to be a woman, I'm not sure. But any unwanted sexual act inflicted on a girl is ****. It's just different.
So what are you trying to say? Do gay men love it when any other man walks up to them and grabs them by their package and begin to grope them? Are gay men never raped? Hell, for that matter are straight men never raped? Would a straight man not feel violated if another guy walked up behind him and started humping him? Would you feel alright if someone walked up behind you and stuck their his/her hand in your pants and penetrated you in that special kind of way?
Mainly it is just my perception of the situation. I expected to be wrestling guys when I signed up for wrestling. I didn't expect to find myself wrestling girls and if I did, then I probably wouldn't sign up.
Where you expecting to get balls in your face? Were you expecting to be grabbing another guy’s ass? I don’t think people expect to get into the various sexual looking positions they get into when wrestling. However, when they do get into those positions they deal with it. I’ve never heard of some kid wrestling and in the middle of a match jumping up and saying “Hey, that guy grabbed my ass. This is not what I signed up for.”
If that makes me sexist, then so be it. I know that I'm not out there on the mat for a sexual encounter, she knows that too. The fans may not, and that I'm not cool with that.
What the fans think shouldn’t matter to you when you are competing. In fact, what the fans think obviously didn’t matter to you when you wrestled. I’m sure there were people that thought you were being gay when you were wrestling. This didn’t stop you from wrestling did it?
Yes, you are being sexist.
With that type of reasoning you could claim that someone putting their hand on your shoulder is sexually harrassing you because you felt uncomfortable.
You may think you are presenting a "ridiculous" scenario, but unfortunately that statement is very true. Even simply complimenting someone verbaly on their haircut, shoes, or choice of scarf by saying something like "Nice hat", or "I like your new haircolor" can unfortunately be taken as "sexual harassment" of an unwanted nature by someone who feels that way about the remark. Once again it has nothing to do with the intent or purpose of the actor. To protect the actor, the person "feeling harassed" has to openly express their discomfort over the issue with them, and ask the behavior not be repeated. Once this discomfort has been expressed, the only option for the actor is to refrain from that activity in the future from that point or risk a sexual harassment charge.
Nineteen years in a professional workplace that has every employee sit through annual "sexual harassment" refresher training has drilled this legal standpoint into me fairly solidly at this point. Certainly there are limits to what can be reasonably considered sexual harassment, but physical contact, and/or remarks regarding someone's appearance commonly fall into the category of things which potentially qualify.
I hope this helps.
@HS
I'm going to go straight to quote 3 because no where in what I said did I say that gay men cannot be raped.
Yes, I expected to find myself in those positions because its wrestling.
The rest, fine I'm sexist. I'm Fing proud of it too.
Yes, I expected to find myself in those positions because its wrestling.
I'm curious. Did you even notice when some dude's junk was in your face or were you concentrating on winning the match to the point where what was where was trivial to the overall goal?
You may think you are presenting a "ridiculous" scenario, but unfortunately that statement is very true. Even simply complimenting someone verbaly on their haircut, shoes, or choice of scarf by saying something like "Nice hat", or "I like your new haircolor" can unfortunately be taken as "sexual harassment" of an unwanted nature by someone who feels that way about the remark.
I love it when bait is so easily taken
Yes, you can claim it is sexual harassment. You can claim it at anytime. You can do it the first time someone puts his/her hand on your shoulder, or the 50th time. However, if you have not mentioned that it is something that causes you discomfort, you will have a nearly impossible time of finding a court to rule that this is actually sexual harassment. In fact, even if you mentioned it once and they do it again, it will be hard to prove that it is sexual harassment. Intent matters.
Once again it has nothing to do with the intent or purpose of the actor. To protect the actor, the person "feeling harassed" has to openly express their discomfort over the issue with them, and ask the behavior not be repeated. Once this discomfort has been expressed, the only option for the actor is to refrain from that activity in the future from that point or risk a sexual harassment charge.
Unless it is something that is required. In regards to the wrestling, It would be extremely hard to prove that you are being sexually harassed by another wrestler because the fact that you are wrestling means that you have already considered and accepted that you will be touching other people in places and manners that are not done in your day to day life. How often do you grab another guy by the arm and put your arm around his chest while having your pelvic region in contact with his ass? I’m going to guess (I may be mistaken) that it is not a common thing for you to do? However, this would be common in a wrestling match. Knowing this and accepting that this is part of wrestling, you would have no claim that you are being sexually harassed.
Nineteen years in a professional workplace that has every employee sit through annual "sexual harassment" refresher training has drilled this legal standpoint into me fairly solidly at this point.
Some companies go overboard.
Certainly there are limits to what can be reasonably considered sexual harassment, but physical contact, and/or remarks regarding someone's appearance commonly fall into the category of things which potentially qualify.
I hope this helps.
It all depends on context. I’d like to see a stripper sue a customer because he said she had a nice rack. How far do you think that would go?
However, I'm saying I couldn't concentrate on winning the match if "Look at the (british slang for cigarettes)s fight" changed to "Oh man, he just copped a feel and look she liked it!"
Yes I noticed and yes it was trivial to the overall goal.
However, I'm saying I couldn't concentrate on winning the match if "Look at the (british slang for cigarettes)s fight" changed to "Oh man, he just copped a feel and look she liked it!"
That seems to be your problem, not the girl's. You want to limit yourself, go for it;however, you not being able to compete against a girl should not limit her ability to wrestle.
@HS
I'm going to go straight to quote 3 because no where in what I said did I say that gay men cannot be raped.
It's implied.
Yes, I expected to find myself in those positions because its wrestling.
The rest, fine I'm sexist. I'm Fing proud of it too.
Well good for you! Would you like a cookie?
I resented the implication that I'm insensitive to homosexuals. My Mom was a lesbian. I know what the LGBT community goes through from personal experience.
I was being sarcastic with the "I'm sexist" line.
Jerk.
A realist realizes that not every conflict can be settled without violence. Most yes, but not all and in those rare cases where there is little choice then yes, I will put a woman on her ass if she decides to attack me.
It all depends on context. I’d like to see a stripper sue a customer because he said she had a nice rack. How far do you think that would go?
I concur that if someone willingly submits themselves to an activity they have a much harder time making a case for the charge of sexual harassment. If someone accepts the activity from 55 different people, but objects to the 56th person, then it is also quite hard to make the case for harassment as well. Since this is the presumably the first time this wrestler has been asked to wrestle with a person of the opposite gender in a public setting, their case for feeling wrong about it bears a bit more weight.
However, just because someone will not feel harassed when wrestling guys, it does not mean they won't or can't feel harassed when wrestling girls. Gender and sexual identity does frequently play a role in feelings of harassment. A person who doesn't feel a sexual identity with males, may not feel harassed when slapped on the behind by one, but still feel sexually harassed when a female does the same act. This isn't based on some kind of solid common sense one size fits all logic. It is based on feelings, and that ultimately is very hard to argue against.
It's analogous to saying that "slutty woman" can't be raped because she's said yes to so many others before. While it is true her colorful past may undermine her case. Yet it doesn't mean it still can't or didn't happen when she said no this time.
I hope this helps.
dude wrestling ain't sexual. The girl was just 14 and you're talking like she's a sexual deviant for wrestling. Unless you have some kind of creepy fetish, wrestling doesn't really turn anybody on.
*ahem*
Who you calling creepy?
Yeah okay, I guess you have a point there, but still, I'm far from the only one. Slap/Slap/Kiss is way to prevalent a trope for the notion to be that far out there.
And no, pretty sure his decision does not reflect at all on the girl he would not wrestle. However you think it reflects on him, I don't think it says anything about her, regardless of how you look at it.
What the hell is with the frickin' hostility toward me.
What the hell is with assuming what I posted was directed "toward you" rather than the broad "many people" I stated, in no uncertain terms, I was speaking about?
A realist realizes that not every conflict can be settled without violence. Most yes, but not all and in those rare cases where there is little choice then yes, I will put a woman on her ass if she decides to attack me.
I prefer to not get into situations where anyone, woman or otherwise, attacks me. This is a policy that has worked out pretty well so far and, in the few instances where it has occurred, I have shut it down without needing to resort to barbaric bludgeoning of the other party.
Yes I noticed and yes it was trivial to the overall goal.
However, I'm saying I couldn't concentrate on winning the match if "Look at the (british slang for cigarettes)s fight" changed to "Oh man, he just copped a feel and look she liked it!"
That seems to be your problem, not the girl's. You want to limit yourself, go for it;however, you not being able to compete against a girl should not limit her ability to wrestle.
And nowhere have I implied that because I won't wrestle her that someone else can't or that she can't wrestle at all.
Jeez, where did you get that from?
What the hell is with the frickin' hostility toward me.
What the hell is with assuming what I posted was directed "toward you" rather than the broad "many people" I stated, in no uncertain terms, I was speaking about?A realist realizes that not every conflict can be settled without violence. Most yes, but not all and in those rare cases where there is little choice then yes, I will put a woman on her ass if she decides to attack me.
I prefer to not get into situations where anyone, woman or otherwise, attacks me. This is a policy that has worked out pretty well so far and, in the few instances where it has occurred, I have shut it down without needing to resort to barbaric bludgeoning of the other party.
Maybe it was the whole quoting using the almost exact same word usage I used. I don't know. I could be wrong.
She didn’t join to get the opportunity to grab a few boys inappropriately. She joined to compete.You can look at the pics I posted up and see two guys competing in a wrestling match, or you can see two guys fondling each other. It all depends on you. If the kid that refused to wrestle her wasn’t mature enough to be able to compete against another athlete, maybe he shouldn’t be on the wrestling team.
Mabey he shouldn't be, but that is between him, his coaches, and his teamates. If he automatically loses when paired aginst girls but is still better than average for his team, then he is a boon to the team overall.
And in that regard, he probably didn't join the wrestling team to pin girls to the floor and throw his junk in ther face while lifting them by their crotch. Wether or not these things should seem inapropriate to him is one topic, wether or not he should do them if he feels them to be a problem is another: this is a sport, if something unexpected comes up that you have moral qualms about participating in, you should not participate. Which he did. Good for him.
Maybe it was the whole quoting using the almost exact same word usage I used.
If it were a quote it would be attributed.
I don't know. I could be wrong.
You are.
Maybe it was the whole quoting using the almost exact same word usage I used.
If it were a quote it would be attributed.I don't know. I could be wrong.
You are.
Funny. I thought " " were called quotation marks.
Oh well, if you say you weren't talking about me, I'll take your word for it. I was just pointing out that my assumption was an easy one to make.
Ref: *nods*
W1: Hey ref! He's doing it again! I warned him! You heard it!
Ref: Ok, that's enough. Stop the fight. Wrestler Two is hereby disqualified for sexual harassment. Officers, please escort this lad from the mat.
W2: What the ...
Doesn't quite work, does it?
Just to clarify, he did lose his match. He gets to continue to fight because that's how bracketed tournaments work. They have to determine who places where and that requires those that lose to fight others that lost.
Also, while it's certainly within his right to forfeit no matter what we think of the reasons behind his decision and it's certainly mostly on him, it still does have an impact on the girl. She doesn't get to wrestle. She doesn't get to prove herself. She has no real backing for the win. He quit before it started. She didn't beat him. She loses the experience of taking on this highly regarded competitor and what it could have taught her about the sport and herself. She loses the chance to see where she matches up. And there's more, too, but the main point here is that she signed up to compete. See that word? Compete. She didn't get to in this case. And that's not on her. So, she was denied this chance by this guy. Even though he didn't want to force his beliefs on anyone, he most certainly ended up doing exactly that.
Funny. I thought " " were called quotation marks.
And? Quotation marks are not simply used for direct quotation of a single individual. In this case the "quotation" was a generalized hypothetical paraphrase based on the distillation of a number of posts and statements.
Oh well, if you say you weren't talking about me, I'll take your word for it.
Good. A little communication can avoid a lot of misunderstanding.
I was just pointing out that my assumption was an easy one to make.
To be fair you were also pointing that out. What you were "just" doing was getting upset over the assumption you'd made. I can see how the assumption could occur, though, particularly with my post coming directly after one of yours, but rest assured I don't play stupid games like that. If I were speaking directly to something you posted I would quote your precisely and address you directly.
Cheers.
Okay Jesse.
Here it goes...
The boy wrestled boys his entire career. He was asked to wrestle a girl. He said he didn't want to because it could be seen as sexual and he didn't want that. He was not embarrassed by wrestling. He could have been embarrassed by wrestling a girl and the way the crowd reacted to it.
Alright, who here wants to feel like a rapist? No hands? Alright, moving on.
1] Do you think it is possible to have sexual feelings in a situation when another person in that situation does not?
2] Do you think it is possible to feel sexual attraction to one person in a situation and not towards another in that same situation?
3] Do you think "gender" is a typical/reasonable criteria when determining sexual attraction?
4] Do you think holding down someone you are sexually attracted to in a way that feels sexual to you aginst their will might make someone feel kind of like a rapist when doing that same thing with someone you are not attracted to would not?
If you can't object to any of thoes things, I can't really see objecting to his actions ...
It isn't about you, it isn't about her, its about him and his feelings. Unless your suggesting that he should put school sports above his sense of mental well-being and self respect. Before you call it unprofessional, quitting a job because the requierments suddenly change to something you find morally inappropriate is not unprofessional, its ethical.
Okay Jesse.
Here it goes...
The boy wrestled boys his entire career. He was asked to wrestle a girl. He said he didn't want to because it could be seen as sexual and he didn't want that. He was not embarrassed by wrestling. He could have been embarrassed by wrestling a girl and the way the crowd reacted to it.
Alright, who here wants to feel like a rapist? No hands? Alright, moving on.
1] Do you think it is possible to have sexual feelings in a situation when another person in that situation does not?
2] Do you think it is possible to feel sexual attraction to one person in a situation and not towards another in that same situation?
3] Do you think "gender" is a typical/reasonable criteria when determining sexual attraction?
4] Do you think holding down someone you are sexually attracted to in a way that feels sexual to you aginst their will might make someone feel kind of like a rapist when doing that same thing with someone you are not attracted to would not?
If you can't object to any of thoes things, I can't really see objecting to his actions ...
It isn't about you, it isn't about her, its about him and his feelings. Unless your suggesting that he should put school sports above his sense of mental well-being and self respect. Before you call it unprofessional, quitting a job because the requierments suddenly change to something you find morally inappropriate is not unprofessional, its ethical.
I think that is what I was saying. Are you agreeing with me TA?
There is no reason office workers can't do their job without getting touched, but wrestling is based on touching. If you have a problem with close physical contact with other human beings, you shouldn't be a wrestler, just like you shouldn't aim to work at most office jobs if you can't stand sitting still for longer periods of time.That being said, he is well within his rights to feel uncomfortable touching a girl, and he did the right thing by defaulting, but in wrestling, that's a handicap. Some people feel the opposite way (it's common for boys and girls to share sleeping bags on survival trips here, because guys especially tend to feel less comfortable sleeping in the arms of someone of the same sex), and that's just as valid, but people probably wouldn't accept a boy joining a wrestling team on the condition that he was only expected to fight girls.
I agree with this 100%. He choose to not engage in a passtime that made him uncomfortable. What's wrong with that?
HS,
I resented the implication that I'm insensitive to homosexuals. My Mom was a lesbian. I know what the LGBT community goes through from personal experience.
I was being sarcastic with the "I'm sexist" line.
Jerk.
HS,
I resented the implication that I'm insensitive to homosexuals. My Mom was a lesbian. I know what the LGBT community goes through from personal experience.
I was being sarcastic with the "I'm sexist" line.
Jerk.
You lost me.
I concur that if someone willingly submits themselves to an activity they have a much harder time making a case for the charge of sexual harassment. If someone accepts the activity from 55 different people, but objects to the 56th person, then it is also quite hard to make the case for harassment as well. Since this is the presumably the first time this wrestler has been asked to wrestle with a person of the opposite gender in a public setting, their case for feeling wrong about it bears a bit more weight.
Actually, the kid never mentions anything about sexual harassment. He said:
"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
While I have found it interesting to debate sexual harassment with you, you are pulling it out of nowhere. Sexual harassment has nothing to do with this article or this kid.
However, just because someone will not feel harassed when wrestling guys, it does not mean they won't or can't feel harassed when wrestling girls. Gender and sexual identity does frequently play a role in feelings of harassment. A person who doesn't feel a sexual identity with males, may not feel harassed when slapped on the behind by one, but still feel sexually harassed when a female does the same act. This isn't based on some kind of solid common sense one size fits all logic. It is based on feelings, and that ultimately is very hard to argue against.
Meh… you’re getting into a very murky area. Sexual harassment isn’t that simple. It isn’t just one person feeling bad because someone else did something. Intent is important. If it wasn’t, there would be no defense against anyone claiming sexual harassment.
It's analogous to saying that "slutty woman" can't be raped because she's said yes to so many others before. While it is true her colorful past may undermine her case. Yet it doesn't mean it still can't or didn't happen when she said no this time.
I hope this helps.
That’s a bad analogy. A better one would be the girl working in porn making a gang-bang movie. She films the first 50, but calls **** on number 51, and she has no problem with numbers 52 through whatever.
Curious though… where is **** coming from? I don’t seem to remember the kid claiming he was sexually harassed, much less raped.
Okay Jesse.
Here it goes...
The boy wrestled boys his entire career. He was asked to wrestle a girl. He said he didn't want to because it could be seen as sexual and he didn't want that. He was not embarrassed by wrestling. He could have been embarrassed by wrestling a girl and the way the crowd reacted to it.
Alright, who here wants to feel like a rapist? No hands? Alright, moving on.
1] Do you think it is possible to have sexual feelings in a situation when another person in that situation does not?
2] Do you think it is possible to feel sexual attraction to one person in a situation and not towards another in that same situation?
3] Do you think "gender" is a typical/reasonable criteria when determining sexual attraction?
4] Do you think holding down someone you are sexually attracted to in a way that feels sexual to you aginst their will might make someone feel kind of like a rapist when doing that same thing with someone you are not attracted to would not?
If you can't object to any of thoes things, I can't really see objecting to his actions ...
It isn't about you, it isn't about her, its about him and his feelings. Unless your suggesting that he should put school sports above his sense of mental well-being and self respect. Before you call it unprofessional, quitting a job because the requierments suddenly change to something you find morally inappropriate is not unprofessional, its ethical.
I think that is what I was saying. Are you agreeing with me TA?
Not exactly. I'm saying he could be embaresed to wrestle a girl because of the way he would react to it, crowd be damned.
And nowhere have I implied that because I won't wrestle her that someone else can't or that she can't wrestle at all.
Jeez, where did you get that from?
If you are her opponent and you refuse to wrestle her, you are taking away her opportunity to wrestle. She can't very well wrestle one of the other people who already have opponents when they are wrestling.
You lost me.
Just found it funny that your feelings got hurt and you had to resort to calling me a jerk.;)
And nowhere have I implied that because I won't wrestle her that someone else can't or that she can't wrestle at all.
Jeez, where did you get that from?
If you are her opponent and you refuse to wrestle her, you are taking away her opportunity to wrestle. She can't very well wrestle one of the other people who already have opponents when they are wrestling.
Nope. I'm simply stepping aside so that someone else can wrestle her. I'm not stopping her from doing anything other than wrestling me. There are apparently plenty of other people she can wrestle.
Curious though… where is **** coming from? I don’t seem to remember the kid claiming he was sexually harassed, much less raped.
Because for the past 50 posts atleast, most everyone has been discussing the morality of the decision and the circumstances, not what this particular guys motivation was in this particular instance. If you want to go back to that, feel free, Jessy seems more than happy to play pretend psychic with you. But to pretend that is what everyone has been doing all along is rather lame.
Nope. I'm simply stepping aside so that someone else can wrestle her. I'm not stopping her from doing anything other than wrestling me. There are apparently plenty of other people she can wrestle.
Not in that first round of matches.
She doesn't get to wrestle me. She moves on and wrestles someone else. How exactly did I stop her from wrestling?
Curious though… where is **** coming from? I don’t seem to remember the kid claiming he was sexually harassed, much less raped.
Because for the past 50 posts atleast, most everyone has been discussing the morality of the decision and the circumstances, not what this particular guys motivation was in this particular instance. If you want to go back to that, feel free, Jessy seems more than happy to play pretend psychic with you. But to pretend that is what everyone has been doing all along is rather lame.
I'm not sure where you are getting that I am referring to his motivations? A discussion about the morality of this decision should focus on this decision. The kid hasn't mentioned sexual harassment nor ****. Those things shouldn't factor into the morality of the decision. He made his decision based on his faith (at least that is what he said).
She doesn't get to wrestle me. She moves on and wrestles someone else. How exactly did I stop her from wrestling?
You're hopeless...
She doesn't get to wrestle. She doesn't get to prove herself. She has no real backing for the win. He quit before it started. She didn't beat him. She loses the experience of taking on this highly regarded competitor and what it could have taught her about the sport and herself. She loses the chance to see where she matches up. And there's more, too, but the main point here is that she signed up to compete. See that word? Compete. She didn't get to in this case. And that's not on her. So, she was denied this chance by this guy. Even though he didn't want to force his beliefs on anyone, he most certainly ended up doing exactly that.
If you are her opponent and you refuse to wrestle her, you are taking away her opportunity to wrestle. She can't very well wrestle one of the other people who already have opponents when they are wrestling.
And I say to this: HAN-HA! Seriously, why should anyone give a **** if a wrestler has to sit out a match? Sucks for her, whatever, it happens.
Has it occured to anyone that the "You should fight the girls to the best of your ability so that they can get good and protect themselves cause you won't always be around" school of thought is just as if not more so sexist?
He should make the decision that is right for him, not for some other random competitor.
"I want you to have my baby."
"I dont want to have your baby."
"Stop dening me my reproductive rights! Who are you to say I can't make babies!"
----------------------
She wants to wrestle with guys, why can't she?/Guys don't want to wrestle with her, why should they have to?
She doesn't get to wrestle me. She moves on and wrestles someone else. How exactly did I stop her from wrestling?
You're hopeless...
What? You said my refusal to let wrestle me kept her from wrestling at all. If she moves on and wrestles someone else, the only person I stopped her from wrestling was me. How can she move on and wrestle someone else and not be wrestling?
Edit:
Used "her" when I meant use "me".
And I say to this: HAN-HA! Seriously, why should anyone give a **** if a wrestler has to sit out a match? Sucks for her, whatever, it happens.
Has it occured to anyone that the "You should fight the girls to the best of your ability so that they can get good and protect themselves cause you won't always be around" school of thought is just as if not more so sexist?
He should make the decision that is right for him, not for some other random competitor.
"I want you to have my baby."
"I dont want to have your baby."
"Stop dening me my reproductive rights! Who are you to say I can't make babies!"
----------------------
She wants to wrestle with guys, why can't she?/Guys don't want to wrestle with her, why should they have to?
You must be thinking of someone else. I've never claimed that guys should wrestle the girl so the girl gets better.
What? You said my refusal to let wrestle me kept her from wrestling at all. If she moves on and wrestles someone else, the only person I stopped her from wrestling was me. How can she move on and wrestle someone else and not be wrestling?
Edit:
Used "her" when I meant use "me".
Did I say that? You sure about that?
Pretty sure, but I don't feel like going back and finding the post so I'll just say "Maybe."
you doubt your claim? I know I do.I'm not sure where you are getting that I am referring to his motivations? A discussion about the morality of this decision should focus on this decision. The kid hasn't mentioned sexual harassment nor ****. Those things shouldn't factor into the morality of the decision. He made his decision based on his faith (at least that is what he said).
Exactly, that is what he said about why he made the decision he did. Why someone does something is call motivation. We cannot know why he really did it, only why he said he did it. The decision is "deciding to forfeit a wrestling match when you discover your opponent is of an unexpected gender". And what everyone has been discussing is wether or not that is a moral decision. Like I said, if you want to speculate on why he made that decision, talk to jessy, as he seems to have some theories.
Yes I noticed and yes it was trivial to the overall goal.
However, I'm saying I couldn't concentrate on winning the match if "Look at the (british slang for cigarettes)s fight" changed to "Oh man, he just copped a feel and look she liked it!"
That seems to be your problem, not the girl's. You want to limit yourself, go for it;however, you not being able to compete against a girl should not limit her ability to wrestle.
And nowhere have I implied that because I won't wrestle her that someone else can't or that she can't wrestle at all.
Jeez, where did you get that from?
Didn't feel like going back and finding the original post but I found it quoted. Bolded the important part.
Exactly, that is what he said about why he made the decision he did. Why someone does something is call motivation. We cannot know why he really did it, only why he said he did it. The decision is "deciding to forfeit a wrestling match when you discover your opponent is of an unexpected gender". And what everyone has been discussing is wether or not that is a moral decision. Like I said, if you want to speculate on why he made that decision, talk to jessy, as he seems to have some theories.
I'm not interested in disussing the reason why he made the decision. The kid already said why he did it. If you are going to discuss the morality of his decision, you should be discussing the morality of the decision not how he could have felt as if he was being sexually harrassed or seen as if he was raping the girl. That would be discussing why he made the decision, not the morality of it. May be you would like to talk to jesse?
You must be thinking of someone else. I've never claimed that guys should wrestle the girl so the girl gets better.
You did not, but you where not the only one quoted in that post. ZB said something along thoes lines near the start of the conversation, and the line of thought that we should care about wether or not that girl gets to wrestle anyone she wants or is otherwise restricted from wrestling people who do not want to wrestle with her carries the implication that they have an obligation to let her prove herself aginst them. Which carries obvious similaritys and, instead of replying to you both seperatly, I replied to you both at once.
Yes I noticed and yes it was trivial to the overall goal.
However, I'm saying I couldn't concentrate on winning the match if "Look at the (british slang for cigarettes)s fight" changed to "Oh man, he just copped a feel and look she liked it!"
That seems to be your problem, not the girl's. You want to limit yourself, go for it;however, you not being able to compete against a girl should not limit her ability to wrestle.
And nowhere have I implied that because I won't wrestle her that someone else can't or that she can't wrestle at all.
Jeez, where did you get that from?
Didn't feel like going back and finding the original post but I found it quoted. Bolded the important part.
Please read what I wrote again. Focus on the word limit.
You must be thinking of someone else. I've never claimed that guys should wrestle the girl so the girl gets better.
You did not, but you where not the only one quoted in that post. ZB said something along thoes lines near the start of the conversation, and the line of thought that we should care about wether or not that girl gets to wrestle anyone she wants or is otherwise restricted from wrestling people who do not want to wrestle with her carries the implication that they have an obligation to let her prove herself aginst them. Which carries obvious similaritys and, instead of replying to you both seperatly, I replied to you both at once.
That's a mighty leap there. Going from having the girl prove her ability as an athlete to helping her be able to protect herself when a guy isn't around... I'm not seeing it.
So yeah. You did deny them a bit of wrestling-fun.
Whether that's moral/ethical/so-on or whatever is a different point entirely.
On that note, whie I think his choice was the "ethical" one, I don't agree that it was the "right" one. More-so because he went on to complain that the competition wasn't sexist enough.
I did and I'm still wondering how my refusal to wrestle her limits her ability to wrestle.
Read EE's post. He does an excellent job of explaining it. If you still don't get it, well.. I'm not sure what to tell you.
A guy forfeits a match against a girl and suddenly he's a sexist jerk limiting her ability to wrestle?
So wait, a guy forfeits a match against a guy and that goes on to wrestle someone else, that's okay.
A guy forfeits a match against a girl and suddenly he's a sexist jerk limiting her ability to wrestle?
Who said it was o.k. to forfeit a match with a guy?
I'm not interested in disussing the reason why he made the decision. The kid already said why he did it. If you are going to discuss the morality of his decision, you should be discussing the morality of the decision not how he could have felt as if he was being sexually harrassed or seen as if he was raping the girl. That would be discussing why he made the decision, not the morality of it. May be you would like to talk to jesse?
You seek to intentionally fail to understand the meaning of common words in order to goad me? That seems rather petty and is unfair to the non-native speakers among us. That said, I'll play along.
"I'm not interested in disussing the reason why he made the decision. The kid already said why he did it."
Then stop bringing it up. Yeah, he said why he did it, we know, if you do not want to talk about it, stop refrencing it.
"That would be discussing why he made the decision, not the morality of it."
No. That would be discussing reasons why the decision was an acceptable/good one. Debating about wether or not thoes are the reasons why that guy made the decision would be discussing his motivations. So, I say to you again, stop bringing it up. I do not think many people at this point are interested in exactly why he choose the path, but are busy talking about the ethics of the path taken, and your attempts to derail it into a discussion of his specific rational as an excuse to dismiss avenues of thought simply makes you look desperate and does nothing to counter thoes arguments in the least. In other words, if you do not think **** and/or sexual harassment are concepts related enough to the conversation to merit discussion, please demonstrate how they are not, the fact that that one guy, in this one instance, did not publicly list that as his rationale is not nearly good enough and honestly isn't even relevant, unless you want to discuss his personal motivation which, as you have clearly stated, you do not.
If you don't want to play, don't play. If you sign up, play.
The point is a guy can forfeit against a guy for whatever reason he wishes and no one bats an eye. But if that guy forfeits against a girl, then he's limiting her ability to wrestle and he should man-up.
He is equally limiting the guy's ability to wrestle if he forfeits a match. Whether someone says something about it or not, does not make it right.
I don't know about that "no one" of yours, but joining a competition and then forfeiting a match would certainly make people annoyed. Including any opponent worthy of the descriptor "sportsman".
If you don't want to play, don't play. If you sign up, play.
Which brings it back to "he signed up to wrestle guys not girls". His refusal is acceptable because it isn't what he signed up for.
[In the same way that someone refusing to procreate with me is not limiting my ability to reproduce]
________
1
"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
Now maybe I'm just being uncharitable here, but he is, point-of-fact, whining that the competition isn't as sexist as he would like it to be.
Um, no. He signed up to wrestle. That he didn't double check the rules to make sure they were as sexist as he would like1 is no one's fault but his.
________
1"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
Now maybe I'm just being uncharitable here, but he is, point-of-fact, whining that the competition isn't as sexist as he would like it to be.
Okay, but wouldn't you agree that he had a reasonable expectation that he would not be asked to wrestle a girl?
The point is a guy can forfeit against a guy for whatever reason he wishes and no one bats an eye. But if that guy forfeits against a girl, then he's limiting her ability to wrestle and he should man-up.
I don't think he can forfeit for whatever reason and no one bats an eye. I don't know enough of the sport, but forfeiting because your pet bunny died would probably get you labelled a wuss. More to the point, forfeiting because you can't deal with your opponent's race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, favourite band, or whatever else you give for a reason is likely to get you labelled as prejudged in some way. It's not that she happens to be a girl, it's that he points to her femaleness as the reason.
I dunno about over there, but down here that would not be a reasonable expectation at all. Most martial art classes I've visited are mixed 50/50, at all levels.
This isn't about martial arts classes, its about High School wrestling and the rules are a little different, I think.
I was going to say the same thing EE said... he signed up to wrestle, just because it's mostly a guy-thing, doesn't mean girls aren't allowed to play. If he didn't want to wrestle girls, he shouldn't sign up for competitions.
OR he could sign up, wrestle for his team, and, should it occure that he happens to get paired with what, one of 2 female wrestlers in the state, forfiet said match and accept his loss, as allowed by the rules. The possibilty of sitting out up to two matches a year is not really good justification to not play at all.
On the flip side, if she didn't want people to be able to forfiet matches to her, she should have read the rules better and not signed up for a competition that allows people to forfiet.
You seek to intentionally fail to understand the meaning of common words in order to goad me? That seems rather petty and is unfair to the non-native speakers among us. That said, I'll play along.
I am a non-native English speaker remember? I think you are misinterpreting this. I don’t seek to goad you. I am replying to your remarks. Corrected me if I’m wrong, but you responded to something I wrote to zmortis, not something I wrote to you. in any case…
Then stop bringing it up. Yeah, he said why he did it, we know, if you do not want to talk about it, stop refrencing it.
I brought it up because you claimed that I was discussing why he did it, not the morality of it. Had you not brought it up, and continued to do so, you and I would not be having this particular discussion.
No. That would be discussing reasons why the decision was an acceptable/good one. Debating about wether or not thoes are the reasons why that guy made the decision would be discussing his motivations. So, I say to you again, stop bringing it up. I do not think many people at this point are interested in exactly why he choose the path, but are busy talking about the ethics of the path taken, and your attempts to derail it into a discussion of his specific rational as an excuse to dismiss avenues of thought simply makes you look desperate and does nothing to counter thoes arguments in the least. In other words, if you do not think **** and/or sexual harassment are concepts related enough to the conversation to merit discussion, please demonstrate how they are not, the fact that that one guy, in this one instance, did not publicly list that as his rationale is not nearly good enough and honestly isn't even relevant, unless you want to discuss his personal motivation which, as you have clearly stated, you do not.
We are talking about the morality of “his” decision right? Not someone else’s decision for why wrestling girls is right or wrong right? Where does sexual harassment and **** fit into this? Hell, we could be discussing why it is or isn’t right for any guy to wrestle a girl. I can see the sexual harassment angle, but ****… really?
The point is a guy can forfeit against a guy for whatever reason he wishes and no one bats an eye. But if that guy forfeits against a girl, then he's limiting her ability to wrestle and he should man-up.
I don't think he can forfeit for whatever reason and no one bats an eye. I don't know enough of the sport, but forfeiting because your pet bunny died would probably get you labelled a wuss. More to the point, forfeiting because you can't deal with your opponent's race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, favourite band, or whatever else you give for a reason is likely to get you labelled as prejudged in some way. It's not that she happens to be a girl, it's that he points to her femaleness as the reason.
But he still has the ability to forfeit. The way I'm reading this is there should be no forfeits at all for any reason because that reason might not be to the liking of other people.
Unless the rules specifically state "guys only", he should expect to be wrestling girls at some point.
And if at that point, he decides he doesn't want to wrestle that person, he should be allowed forfeit.
OR he could sign up, wrestle for his team, and, should it occure that he happens to get paired with what, one of 2 female wrestlers in the state, forfiet said match and accept his loss, as allowed by the rules. The possibilty of sitting out up to two matches a year is not really good justification to not play at all.
He could, but then he should also accept people calling him a sexist dick.
Okay, but wouldn't you agree that he had a reasonable expectation that he would not be asked to wrestle a girl?
How should I know? I'm not familiar with the high school Iowa wrestling scene. All I know is that this is the first time a girl has qualified for the state tourney. I find it likely that girls have been competeting longer then that, and just hadn't qualified at that level before now, so I would guess that he was aware that he might have to wrestle a girl, and that just, by chance, his first time was at the state level rather then a lower level.
But regardless, that doesn't really change the fact that he not only defaulted, he then went on to complain that the tournament wasn't as sexist as he would like. And yes, I consider that much more of a black mark then him defaulting.
OR he could sign up, wrestle for his team, and, should it occure that he happens to get paired with what, one of 2 female wrestlers in the state, forfiet said match and accept his loss, as allowed by the rules. The possibilty of sitting out up to two matches a year is not really good justification to not play at all.
He could, but then he should also accept people calling him a sexist dick.
And as TA already stated, it is just as sexist to expect a guy to wrestle someone he doesn't want to simply to prove he isn't sexist.
The point is a guy can forfeit against a guy for whatever reason he wishes and no one bats an eye. But if that guy forfeits against a girl, then he's limiting her ability to wrestle and he should man-up.
I don't think he can forfeit for whatever reason and no one bats an eye. I don't know enough of the sport, but forfeiting because your pet bunny died would probably get you labelled a wuss. More to the point, forfeiting because you can't deal with your opponent's race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, favourite band, or whatever else you give for a reason is likely to get you labelled as prejudged in some way. It's not that she happens to be a girl, it's that he points to her femaleness as the reason.
But he still has the ability to forfeit. The way I'm reading this is there should be no forfeits at all for any reason because that reason might not be to the liking of other people.
Funny, you also said you would feel uncomfortable wrestling a girl because of what other people would say...
@HS,
As I said, I was a wrestler. I learned to block out the guy calling me gay and I know that for me it would be harder to block out someone calling me a rapist. That doesn't make me a poor athlete. (I went to State three times in two different weight divisions.) It makes me a guy that doesn't like being called a rapist.
If accepting someone calling me a rapist is what it takes for me to be an athlete in your opinion, you can keep it.
Because being called gay is different than being called a rapist. One there is nothing wrong with being, the other well...
Okay Jesse.
Here it goes...
The boy wrestled boys his entire career. He was asked to wrestle a girl. He said he didn't want to because it could be seen as sexual and he didn't want that. He was not embarrassed by wrestling. Hecould have been embarrassed by wrestling a girl and the way the crowd reacted to it.
] I brought it up because you claimed that I was discussing why he did it, not the morality of it. Had you not brought it up, and continued to do so, you and I would not be having this particular discussion.
No, you brought it up when you asked why everyone was talking about things that did not apply to this guys statments.
We are talking about the morality of “his” decision right? Not someone else’s decision for why wrestling girls is right or wrong right?
Again, you fail to understand the diffrence between what and why. When discussing the morality of killing someone who is trying to kill and rob you, the reasoning for why one person in the situation decided they way they did has no bearing on the morality of the situation. In identical situations, shooting your assaliant is moral or it is not, wether or not the decding factor in the shooters decision was self preservation or a belife that mitochondrians would **** him if he didnt fire his gun in the next thirty seconds is irrelevant.
Buying microsoft stock with your disposable income in the 80's was a good idea (baring mitigating circumstances). If a particular person choose to buy them because he thought it was a good investment or because he thought Bill had a nice ass does not way in on the goodness or badness of the decision.
Where does sexual harassment and **** fit into this? Hell, we could be discussing why it is or isn’t right for any guy to wrestle a girl. I can see the sexual harassment angle, but ****… really?
We are, almost. We are discussing wether it is right for any guy to refuse to wrestle a girl in this circumstance. I do not belive anyone said it should be able to be prosicuted as **** or sexual harassment, but should and might are not the same, and feelings are not always rational. If something feels like ****, should someone not be free to abstain from it?
He could, but then he should also accept people calling him a sexist dick.
He was born with a Y chromosome, that is pretty much a given.
Funny, you also said you would feel uncomfortable wrestling a girl because of what other people would say...
Congrats, you have demonstrated that Idolis has admitted to caring about what people think of him on ocassion. Woot!
And your point is?
Is there supposed to be some form of hypocrisy there or something. I wrestled despite the notion prevalent in my school that only gays would join the wrestling team. I did what I thought was right for me. I also think it would be right for me not to wrestle a girl because I don't like what people would think.
I don't see the hypocrisy.
HS,
And your point is?
Is there supposed to be some form of hypocrisy there or something. I wrestled despite the notion prevalent in my school that only gays would join the wrestling team. I did what I thought was right for me. I also think it would be right for me not to wrestle a girl because I don't like what people would think.
I don't see the hypocrisy.
He has spent too much time **** around with goldy lately, I think it is starting to affect his ability to make reasonable arguments. Hopefully it is a temporary lapse.
No, you brought it up when you asked why everyone was talking about things that did not apply tothis guys statments.
Considering we are discussing the morality of this guy’s decision, I think it was a fair question. I don’t see the connection with ****. If what you are talking about is that the guy feels like he is raping the girl while wrestling her then I can see your point. If you are talking about the guy not wrestling the girl because of how the crowd sees the interaction then I have to disagree. In that case, you aren’t talking about **** but about whether it is right or wrong to base your decision on what you think the crowd believes.
Again, you fail to understand the diffrence between what and why. When discussing the morality of killing someone who is trying to kill and rob you, the reasoning for why one person in the situation decided they way they did has no bearing on the morality of the situation. In identical situations, shooting your assaliant is moral or it is not, wether or not the decding factor in the shooters decision was self preservation or a belife that mitochondrians would **** him if he didnt fire his gun in the next thirty seconds is irrelevant.
Sorry, you lost me there.
Buying microsoft stock with your disposable income in the 80's was a good idea (baring mitigating circumstances). If a particular person choose to buy them because he thought it was a good investment or because he thought Bill had a nice ass does not way in on the goodness or badness of the decision
So wouldn’t that be the same as saying that this kid felt it was right to forfeit the match because he felt he would be harassing or raping the girl?
We are, almost. We are discussing wether it is right for any guy to refuse to wrestle a girl in this circumstance. I do not belive anyone said it should be able to be prosicuted as **** or sexual harassment, but should and might are not the same, and feelings are not always rational. If something feels like ****, should someone not be free to abstain from it?
Yes, but part of it should be whether or not it is even right to view it as sexual harassment or ****. Is it right for a person to feel like he is raping a girl while wrestling, but not feel as if he is raping a guy who happens to be openly gay? Is it right to view them as 2 separate things? Why is it that you can view wrestling a girl as a situation that may cause people to think that you are sexually harassing her or raping her, but not if you do it to a guy? That’s just discrimination.
Funny, you also said you would feel uncomfortable wrestling a girl because of what other people would say...
Congrats, you have demonstrated that Idolis has admitted to caring about what people think of him on ocassion. Woot!
Yup... in reference to this
The point is a guy can forfeit against a guy for whatever reason he wishes and no one bats an eye. But if that guy forfeits against a girl, then he's limiting her ability to wrestle and he should man-up.
I don't think he can forfeit for whatever reason and no one bats an eye. I don't know enough of the sport, but forfeiting because your pet bunny died would probably get you labelled a wuss. More to the point, forfeiting because you can't deal with your opponent's race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, favourite band, or whatever else you give for a reason is likely to get you labelled as prejudged in some way. It's not that she happens to be a girl, it's that he points to her femaleness as the reason.
But he still has the ability to forfeit. The way I'm reading this is there should be no forfeits at all for any reason because that reason might not be to the liking of other people.
Yes, but part of it should be whether or not it is even right to view it as sexual harassment or ****. Is it right for a person to feel like he is raping a girl while wrestling, but not feel as if he is raping a guy who happens to be openly gay? Is it right to view them as 2 separate things? Why is it that you can view wrestling a girl as a situation that may cause people to think that you are sexually harassing her or raping her, but not if you do it to a guy? That’s just discrimination.
Pretty sure when it comes to sex [the act and things relating to it], discrimination by gender is both expected and acceptable.
Yes, but part of it should be whether or not it is even right to view it as sexual harassment or ****. Is it right for a person to feel like he is raping a girl while wrestling, but not feel as if he is raping a guy who happens to be openly gay? Is it right to view them as 2 separate things? Why is it that you can view wrestling a girl as a situation that may cause people to think that you are sexually harassing her or raping her, but not if you do it to a guy? That’s just discrimination.
Pretty sure when it comes to sex [the act and things relating to it], discrimination by gender is both expected and acceptable.
If we were discussing sex you would be correct;however, we are discussing a girl competing in an athletic event. It just happens that this is being sexualized because she is a girl.
While it may be expected, it should not be acceptable.
Funny, you also said you would feel uncomfortable wrestling a girl because of what other people would say...
Congrats, you have demonstrated that Idolis has admitted to caring about what people think of him on ocassion. Woot!
Yup... in reference to thisThe point is a guy can forfeit against a guy for whatever reason he wishes and no one bats an eye. But if that guy forfeits against a girl, then he's limiting her ability to wrestle and he should man-up.
I don't think he can forfeit for whatever reason and no one bats an eye. I don't know enough of the sport, but forfeiting because your pet bunny died would probably get you labelled a wuss. More to the point, forfeiting because you can't deal with your opponent's race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, favourite band, or whatever else you give for a reason is likely to get you labelled as prejudged in some way. It's not that she happens to be a girl, it's that he points to her femaleness as the reason.
But he still has the ability to forfeit. The way I'm reading this is there should be no forfeits at all for any reason because that reason might not be to the liking of other people.
Sorry for the long quote job.
Still not seeing it HS.
Sorry for the long quote job.
Still not seeing it HS.
Don't know what to tell you buddy...
Unless you can say that sentence in a less vague, less trapy way, I'm not going near it with a 10 foot pole. Be more specific please, that is a trap I have no intrest in toying with.
I'm sorry you have dificulty with the notion that, to some people, wether or not rolling around on the floor with a person can feel sexual or not sexual based on certain critera and that thoes criteria can include your gender and orientation and the gender of your partner. If you want to continue down that line of discussion, please see the numbered list I posted a while back that breakes it down into the component parts necessary to follow the thought process..
Sorry for the long quote job.
Still not seeing it HS.
Don't know what to tell you buddy...
Couldn't have been important, then.
Or then again, maybe there isn't anything there to see.
Oh well.
Oh, she is being sexualized? Thats nice.
Unless you can say that sentence in a less vague, less trapy way, I'm not going near it with a 10 foot pole. Be more specific please, that is a trap I have no intrest in toying with.
I'm sorry you have dificulty with the notion that, to some people, wether or not rolling around on the floor with a person can feel sexual or not sexual based on certain critera and that thoes criteria can include your gender and orientation and the gender of your partner. If you want to continue down that line of discussion, please see the numbered list I posted a while back that breakes it down into the component parts necessary to follow the thought process..
The situation, not the girl. Just curious, but how would you react if this had happened and instead of a girl it was a guy and this kid said the same exact thing.
"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Larry and Steven and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a boy in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
Sorry for the long quote job.
Still not seeing it HS.
Don't know what to tell you buddy...
Couldn't have been important, then.
Or then again, maybe there isn't anything there to see.
Oh well.
Nothing you would care to try to understand.
You've been riding my case all day.
Okay, I'll play. What exactly am I missing? You know it is possible that I hold two points of view on a subject and my head not explode.
You're talking in riddles man. If you have something to say to me, then say it.
But if you do, do me honor of spitting it out and not asking a list of irrelevant questions intended to incite my anger or imply that I'm biased against gays or something.
If not, then drop it.
HS,
You've been riding my case all day.
Okay, I'll play. What exactly am I missing? You know it is possible that I hold two points of view on a subject and my head not explode.
You're talking in riddles man. If you have something to say to me, then say it.
But if you do, do me honor of spitting it out and not asking a list of irrelevant questions intended to incite my anger or imply that I'm biased against gays or something.
If not, then drop it.
Buddy, we are just having a discussion. I have nothing against you... just some of your points. No need to get all riled up.
It's very simple. Is the kid's decision understandable? Yes. Is he sexist? Yes. Did he disrespect the girls as well as the tournament itself? Yes. Did he act fully within his rights? Yes.
Well... you should never have gotten to the riled up pont. It was wrong. Let's discuss the morality of it...
Oh, she is being sexualized? Thats nice.
Unless you can say that sentence in a less vague, less trapy way, I'm not going near it with a 10 foot pole. Be more specific please, that is a trap I have no intrest in toying with.
I'm sorry you have dificulty with the notion that, to some people, wether or not rolling around on the floor with a person can feel sexual or not sexual based on certain critera and that thoes criteria can include your gender and orientation and the gender of your partner. If you want to continue down that line of discussion, please see the numbered list I posted a while back that breakes it down into the component parts necessary to follow the thought process..
The situation, not the girl. Just curious, but how would you react if this had happened and instead of a girl it was a guy and this kid said the same exact thing.
"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Larry and Steven and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a boy in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
If he wants to forfiet all his fights agisnt boys? Whatever. Go for it. Seems silly though, as you likely won't have any fights at all, given the apparent boy/girl ratio in Iowa wrestling. He should take it up with his team though, they probably will not want him to be a part seeing as he is unwilling to engage 98.7% of possible competitors in his league. Practical objections aside, I have no objections.
On one hand, you have someone who is refusing to respect someone who wants to be seen as a person, as a competitor, not as a gender. He's otherwise pissing on someone's desire to have their worth as an athlete determined by their skill and the work put into training, not the shape of their genitalia. It's a cowardly move to deny her those rights, to be treated as an actual equal by claiming that wrestling with a girl is "sexual," and his spirituality/religion forbids that. If it would prevent you from competing in a situation where the entire lot of participants ultimate feel the same way as the girl, wanting to be seen for skill and dedication, you shouldn't be in that situation to begin. Find a new sport, get over your issues and find a new form of spirituality, or just admit that you're a wuss.
However, I was raised in a household where if someone in the family struck their wife, girlfriend, or daughters, traditionally, the males in the family (and whoever else felt up to it) would get together and otherwise beat the everloving s*** out of the guilty party. The fear of a family-led lynching has gotten to me more than once, and I've almost taken part in one a couple times. While I've never been motivated to hit a girl, and things like empathy (as well as any other emotional response rooting from the situation) would come into play, and in context, hitting or knocking around isn't part of the problem, the "tradition" has otherwise prevented me from doing things as simple as rough-housing with girls, experimenting with certain things (I'll leave your imagination to wonder), and sorts of things like that... even though the intent of that tradition was to prevent and punish domestic abuse, not so much things like wrestling or rough housing. If the male wrestler had been brought up in a similar household, I would be a little more understanding. To be honest, in the same situation, I'd be straight up about it, how I have issues with fighting/wresting with members of the opposite gender, because of upbringing and psychological issues. Then again, I don't wrestle...
Hiding behind religious faith to claim that something you've been doing for a while is somehow sexual now, even though with members of the same gender its not sexual, is a cowardly move, though. I mean, wrestling with a girl isn't going to turn into something sexual if you don't turn it into something sexual, just like wrestling with members of the same gender, if you're straight, isn't going to turn you gay/lesbian.
And I mean, I don't recall verses in the Quran or Bible that say anything like: "thou shalt not wrestle with womankind as thou wrestles with mankind; for it is an abomination. The wrestlers shall surely be put to death."
Maybe that makes me hypocritical given my stance and upbringing, but that's my two cents.
I mean, wrestling with a girl isn't going to turn into something sexual if you don't turn it into something sexual, just like wrestling with members of the same gender, if you're straight, isn't going to turn you gay/lesbian
What becomes sexual in your mind is not something you can always control. If you cannot stop it from being sexual, to you, and it is not wanted by the other party to be something sexual, you should not engage in said activity.
I don't think he can forfeit for whatever reason and no one bats an eye. I don't know enough of the sport, but forfeiting because your pet bunny died would probably get you labelled a wuss.
Just wanted to say sometimes you paint something so beautifully with your words.
I mean, wrestling with a girl isn't going to turn into something sexual if you don't turn it into something sexual, just like wrestling with members of the same gender, if you're straight, isn't going to turn you gay/lesbian
What becomes sexual in your mind is not something you can always control. If you cannot stop it from being sexual, to you, and it is not wanted by the other party to be something sexual, you should not engage in said activity.
If you can't put gender aside and wrestle then you shouldn't be wrestling.
If you can't put gender aside and wrestle then you shouldn't be wrestling.
Try reversing the genders here and see if your platitude holds true. A girl has been only wrestling other girls as a homeschooled student participating in public school atheletics programs. She comes to a tournament with her team, and is told she has to wrestle the boys now, and decides for religious reasons she's not comfortable with it. Does your stance remain the same? Does the girl get to opt to take a default loss without you calling "poor sportsman" or "sexist"?
Let me know.
If you can't put gender aside and wrestle then you shouldn't be wrestling.
Try reversing the genders here and see if your platitude holds true. A girl has been only wrestling other girls as a homeschooled student participating in public school atheletics programs. She comes to a tournament with her team, and is told she has to wrestle the boys now, and decides for religious reasons she's not comfortable with it. Does your stance remain the same? Does the girl get to opt to take a default loss without you calling "poor sportsman" or "sexist"?
Let me know.
NOPE!!! It goes both ways zmortis. It might even be harsher for her cuz wrestling is typically a male dominated sport so maybe 1/30 matches will be a girl? They would wonder why she even signed up to wrestle if all she did was default to boys. Its sexist.
I'm also curious how this would've gone if his religious beliefs would have made it inappropriate for him to wrestle a black guy instead of a girl
Yeah same thing goes... if you sign up for wrestling, you should wrestle your opponents. Unless you specifically sign up for a male/female league, you should expect to wrestle both.
I'm also curious how this would've gone if his religious beliefs would have made it inappropriate for him to wrestle a black guy instead of a girl
ohhhh my godddd LOL!!! This topic would have been locked by now if that were the case.
Exactly.
could it be that all of us are sexist?
What do you mean "all of us"?
If he wants to forfiet all his fights agisnt boys? Whatever. Go for it. Seems silly though, as you likely won't have any fights at all, given the apparent boy/girl ratio in Iowa wrestling. He should take it up with his team though, they probably will not want him to be a part seeing as he is unwilling to engage 98.7% of possible competitors in his league. Practical objections aside, I have no objections.
They would have got a lot more participation in sports if if you only had to wrestle hot teenage girls.
Try reversing the genders here and see if your platitude holds true. A girl has been only wrestling other girls as a homeschooled student participating in public school atheletics programs. She comes to a tournament with her team, and is told she has to wrestle the boys now, and decides for religious reasons she's not comfortable with it. Does your stance remain the same? Does the girl get to opt to take a default loss without you calling "poor sportsman" or "sexist"?
Let me know.
Nope stance would be the same. You're in a mixed gender league. You better do it.
Where did your train of thought derail this time?
What do you mean "all of us"?
sorry
i had to make offtopic!!!If you can't put gender aside and wrestle then you shouldn't be wrestling.
Try reversing the genders here and see if your platitude holds true. A girl has been only wrestling other girls as a homeschooled student participating in public school atheletics programs. She comes to a tournament with her team, and is told she has to wrestle the boys now, and decides for religious reasons she's not comfortable with it. Does your stance remain the same? Does the girl get to opt to take a default loss without you calling "poor sportsman" or "sexist"?
Let me know.
Let's not only do that, but let's make the scenario a little more accurate to reality...
We live in a matriarchal society where males had to struggle for their own rights. For as long as we've had sports, it was dominated by the females, and males either weren't able to play sports, or were segregated into seperate leagues based on their gender. Finally, a male wants to wrestle an equal of the opposite gender, and be seen for his skill and dedication as an athlete, not his genitalia. He doesn't think that feeling is truly fulfilled if he's only respected by his fellow male athletes, but he wants to be respected by the female athletes, too. It's not even so much an attempt to break gender expectations as it is an attempt to be respected as a true equal.
He actually gets onto a wrestling team that doesn't discriminate based on gender. He's been training his mind and body hard for a coming wrestling match with someone else, and he's not only amped, but his friends and family, especially his parents, tell him that they're looking forward to watching the match, and that they're proud of him. However, an opponent, looking at his gender, forfeits ahead of time, saying that her religion prevents her from engaging in semi-sexual contact. It's pretty obvious that its because he's a guy, and that religion wasn't the only determining factor. Imagine the disappointment and the bruise to his ego, and that's probably the same one felt by the female wrestler in real life. The male in the hypothetical situation wanted to compete, to be treated as an equal, and he's been denied that right. She's pretty much been put into the same boat. She trained and worked hard, probably been told all of the things that parents who are proud of their athlete children tell them, and wanted to be treated as an equal and seen an athlete first and a girl second... and she's been denied that too.
If you reverse the situation, and make the analogy an accurate one, I'm gonna go ahead and say "yes," it would still be sexist and poor sportsmanship. I don't know about Jesse, but my stance is still the same based on that information.
If you can't put gender aside and wrestle then you shouldn't be wrestling.
Try reversing the genders here and see if your platitude holds true. A girl has been only wrestling other girls as a homeschooled student participating in public school atheletics programs. She comes to a tournament with her team, and is told she has to wrestle the boys now, and decides for religious reasons she's not comfortable with it. Does your stance remain the same? Does the girl get to opt to take a default loss without you calling "poor sportsman" or "sexist"?
Let me know.
Let's not only do that, but let's make the scenario a little more accurate to reality...
We live in a matriarchal society where males had to struggle for their own rights. For as long as we've had sports, it was dominated by the females, and males either weren't able to play sports, or were segregated into seperate leagues based on their gender. Finally, a male wants to wrestle an equal of the opposite gender, and be seen for his skill and dedication as an athlete, not his genitalia. He doesn't think that feeling is truly fulfilled if he's only respected by his fellow male athletes, but he wants to be respected by the female athletes, too. It's not even so much an attempt to break gender expectations as it is an attempt to be respected as a true equal.
He actually gets onto a wrestling team that doesn't discriminate based on gender. He's been training his mind and body hard for a coming wrestling match with someone else, and he's not only amped, but his friends and family, especially his parents, tell him that they're looking forward to watching the match, and that they're proud of him. However, an opponent, looking at his gender, forfeits ahead of time, saying that her religion prevents her from engaging in semi-sexual contact. It's pretty obvious that its because he's a guy, and that religion wasn't the only determining factor. Imagine the disappointment and the bruise to his ego, and that's probably the same one felt by the female wrestler in real life. The male in the hypothetical situation wanted to compete, to be treated as an equal, and he's been denied that right. She's pretty much been put into the same boat. She trained and worked hard, probably been told all of the things that parents who are proud of their athlete children tell them, and wanted to be treated as an equal and seen an athlete first and a girl second... and she's been denied that too.
If you reverse the situation, and make the analogy an accurate one, I'm gonna go ahead and say "yes," it would still be sexist and poor sportsmanship. I don't know about Jesse, but my stance is still the same based on that information.
Same here Shef! Well said m8!
I have no idea, and it makes no sense. It's probably a left-over from "yonder days" that still has to receive its well deserved neckshot.
women's lacrosse :/
NOPE!!! It goes both ways zmortis. It might even be harsher for her cuz wrestling is typically a male dominated sport so maybe 1/30 matches will be a girl? They would wonder why she even signed up to wrestle if all she did was default to boys. Its sexist.
I did think it should be enforced both ways, but quite frequently it doesn't end up that way in reality. Quite often I've seen people very quick to jump on the male in this situation, and give a female the "you have to understand" response. As long as you are willing to call it the same both ways. I'm ok with your position. I don't necesarilly think someone should have to abstain from any atheletic participation if they want to not feel uncomfortable about a certain aspect of it, but at least you're willing to give each position equal consideration.
Personally, I'd rather not wrestle anyone I don't know well. I'm not real fond of someone I don't know or like being that much into my personal space. I'm uncomfortable regardless of their gender, sexual preference, race, age, or religion. That's why I chose to opt out of my high school wrestling team way back in the day when they were trying to recruit me (I was a fit lanky 110 pounds back then and would have helped flesh out their light weight classes). I stuck with Cross Country and Track as my fall and spring sports of choice (where I excelled as the best varsity runner in the long distance events on my teams).
Given my own discomfort with wrestling, I can understand someone else having the potential for situational discomfort based on their upbringing, religion, raging teen hormones, or personal psychosis. I would credit them for having this discomfort regardless of their gender, male or female. I would allow that rather than be forced to abandon their sport of choice they could be allowed to default without rancor.
I also always question why once side of an issue must "bow" to the public opinion of fair play and be considered to be violating someone rights by refusing to participate. As a former sports competitor I personally wouldn't worry that someone on the opposing team defaulted by failing to show up at the starting blocks at the appointed time. I really wouldn't think twice about it, care about their reason for missing the race, or feel cheated by their lack of participation. I would simply think that it was one less person that I had to beat, and that my life was going to be a touch easier that day.
I also wouldn't worry that their lack of participation really had anything to do with me as an individual, and I could accept it had everything to do with their own personal hangups. Such is life. People have personal handicaps, and I'm not thinking I have to be offended that my rights are somehow being violated because they do. I didn't see in this article that the wrestler in question made any disparaging remarks about his female opponent. In fact there were complimentary remarks about her skill and abilities made without any comparison to his own skill.
I certainly didn't come away with the impression this was done because he didn't respect his opponent or their abilites. That to me doesn't ring as poor sportsmanship compared to the amount of horrid trash talking, threats, cursing, race baiting, dirty tricks, score running, etc. I've seen as the default "sportsman like" behavior during other high school sports in my era.
Personally given my experience with it, I to this day will never encourage my child to participate in organized sports at that level if nothing has improved since then. Talking to several co-workers over the years who coach various youth sports my impression is that the lack of general sportsmanship is gradually only getting worse than my day in my local region. It's somewhat interesting that I don't hear too many people complaining about that particularly nasty trend yet here.
I hope this helps.
I also want to clarify something as it appears I was greatly misunderstood. When I mentioned that whole 'not fighting a woman to the best of your ability will not allow them to get better and you can't always be there' thing, it was not from my perspective but as an argument against the sexist idea that you shouldn't fight a woman as best you can because women deserve protection. If you believe it is man's duty to protect woman, you do her no service by refusing to engage her fully when you spar. I personally do not think this way and this was meant as an argument against those that do.
Here's what I believe on the matter: No matter who you're fighting, they deserve your best. If you fight an opponent and do not give your best effort, you cannot help them improve. It's that simple.
I also believe EE summed the whole thing up best a li'l bit back. You want an idea of how I feel about this particular case, look at that.
We do talk about other sportsmanship issues here from time to time, zmortis. The last I can recall was about running up the score. Just wanted to point that out as you're likely not familiar with that. But yeah, we do touch on other aspects of sportsmanship from time to time.
I don't doubt you on that point regarding OTT in general, I meant "here" in context to this particular forum thread. This is hardly the most agregious example of poor sportsmanship I've ever seen, or been subjected to in my experience with high school or college sports. The only reason it stands out at all is what I personally consider an media based oversensitivity to gender relations/religious expression issues.
I don't remember any media outcry back in the early 1980's when the kids from the "rich" high school across town were playing my school's football team from the wrong side of "the river" calling them every foul racial epitath in the book. It clearly was poor sportsmanship at it's worst, but the game went on regardless without any later media comment about it. Our team sucked it up, and played hard in response. What they didn't do was stoop down to that level, or let it bother them enough to upset their game because our coaches wouldn't tolerate either kind of poor behavior from our team. I don't remember the final score in the game, but I know that our team clearly came away the winner from that game regardless of the score.
I was not on the football team, but I did hear it first hand since the Cross Country team members frequently acted as towel boys/water boys to help out the football team. I'm still friends to this day with some of the guys back then who sucked it up and put up with it. Only one other school in our conference (a 10 high school conference) ever presented our team this problem. Ironically for me it was the Catholic private high school who behaved like such a group of poor sports right under the noses of their own coaches who had to be able to hear the same stuff I was from the sidelines on our side of the field.
Compared to that level of poor sportsmanship, this wrestling bruhaha kind of seems a bit like a very minor issue to me. If this female wrestler is all hurt feeling about him stepping away from the match, then I would give her the same advice our coaches gave our team. "Suck it up, and play your best game. Don't worry about their personal problems."
I hope this helps.
As far as the other stuff goes, we live in a very different world that it was in 1980whatever. Hell, I graduated in 1996 and school (as seen through the eyes of my future 12 year old step son and activities at the school I've been to - including orientation) is a vastly different thing. People didn't care about a lot of stuff then that they do now. The media didn't report a lot of things then that it does now. It's just the way of the world.
I imagine, too, that if a school saw its team bombarded with racial epithets that there would be an outcry today. I have to imagine cuz I just don't know, but that sort of thing is looked at more seriously now than it was then.
True, it's not the most egregious example of poor sportsmanship ever or even recently, but it does have the distinction of being the example of poor sportsmanship this thread is about. ;)
As far as the other stuff goes, we live in a very different world that it was in 1980whatever. Hell, I graduated in 1996 and school (as seen through the eyes of my future 12 year old step son and activities at the school I've been to - including orientation) is a vastly different thing. People didn't care about a lot of stuff then that they do now. The media didn't report a lot of things then that it does now. It's just the way of the world.
I imagine, too, that if a school saw its team bombarded with racial epithets that there would be an outcry today. I have to imagine cuz I just don't know, but that sort of thing is looked at more seriously now than it was then.
My proposed solution to the problem. Ban school sports from any school which can't practice the common current definition of sportsmanship. That will show them all.
Of course I've seen a lot more negatives come out of school sports in my day than any supposed positives so I might be a lot more extreme about it than some.
Can't abolish school sports. Even if 'true' sportsmanship is not practiced or even mentioned, there's still immense value to organized sports. They give kids a goal, achieving a goal takes time and requires work, a good work ethic is important, time spent working toward a goal that can be seen as neutral at worst and good at best is time spent doing something other than something that's seen as bad, etc. Cliche it may be, but sports can keep kids off the streets and make them better people. Besides, colleges would never let school sports die. They need kids to want to play sports so they can make the hundreds of millions of dollars they do on college athletics. ;)
I certainly agree that sports taught with sportmanship, honest fair competition, and team cooperation can provide positive life messages for the participants. It just seems that this is not what is happening in a lot of cases (not to imply the majority of cases). Too much emphasis on being a winner at any cost, emphasis on grinding down your opponent mentally and emotionally, and emphasis that the rules are just what gets enforced by the referees and aren't actually broken unless you are caught seems to have permeated professional down through intramural youth sports leagues. Every corked bat, every prima-dona high priced sports figure, every appologist for "doping to compete" brings this to the forefront in my mind. This might possibly be my overly pessimistic view, but I can't help but respond that way with every negative "sports" story broadcast by the media.
In the face of some of these "larger issues" in sports, I think this wrestling issue is a very minor bump which is only interesting by being a relatively "new" example of a different direction in current "sportsmanship". Being the politically correct "sportsman" who doesn't hurt someone's feelings by defaulting on a match is hardly the biggest issue facing sports today, but the media is certainly willing to play it up to grind a gender relations axe. If anyone really wants gender equality in sports, then lets start with not dividing professional tennis by men and women. Then professional golf next. If that works out fine without any problems, then I'm prefectly willing to accept mixed gender participation in boxing, wrestling, basketball, football, etc. as the defacto standard at all levels. I wonder how many "sports fans" are willing to accept the same.
I hope this helps.
Given my own discomfort with wrestling, I can understand someone else having the potential for situational discomfort based on their upbringing, religion, raging teen hormones, or personal psychosis. I would credit them for having this discomfort regardless of their gender, male or female. I would allow that rather than be forced to abandon their sport of choice they could be allowed to default without rancor.
If he had just defaulted and left it at that? That would be a different scenario. Because not only did he default, he went on to make a very public statement in which he basically said "it's not me, it's her. I mean really, she shouldn't even be here and the tournament shouldn't have let her compete. It's so unfair that this tournament isn't more sexist."
Given my own discomfort with wrestling, I can understand someone else having the potential for situational discomfort based on their upbringing, religion, raging teen hormones, or personal psychosis. I would credit them for having this discomfort regardless of their gender, male or female. I would allow that rather than be forced to abandon their sport of choice they could be allowed to default without rancor.
If he had just defaulted and left it at that? That would be a different scenario. Because not only did he default, he went on to make a very public statement in which he basically said "it's not me, it's her. I mean really, she shouldn't even be here and the tournament shouldn't have let her compete. It's so unfair that this tournament isn't more sexist."
I missed that part of the original article, but if that was the actual case in terms of his behavior, then I have no problem saying I think he was demonstrating poor sportsmanship. The remark I caught was that he appreciated her skill, and drive, and that it was his "religious" upbringing which made him uncomfortable with his participation. I did not catch that he said she should not be allowed to participate. If it was there (or in another reliable media source) then I don't think calling him a poor sport is off base.
"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
Yep we both read that part. I took away something different from the comment than you perhaps. I did not take it to mean he thought she should have been the one who withdrew to preserve his religious convictions. Just that the values presented by the situation were in conflict with his own personal value system he is basing on his upbringing and personal religious interpretation. If I were his competitor hearing this comment, my reaction would still be, "it is his personal psychosis and no reflection upon me or my abilities". I also wouldn't care that he "wussed out" on competing against me. Obviously I am not the subject of the remark. I do believe she is also free to "wuss out" and have hurt feelings about something as fundamentally silly as this as well if she chooses.
What I can't say is that I believe either one must abandon their personal system of values in order to placate the other. He opted to walk away with a default, and that was his choice. Free will man. As I read it he didn't ask or require her to walk away.
If you want to ban or prevent his school from participating in sport activities over poor sportsmanship on the part of one of their atheletes, then as I said before I'm perfectly fine with it. I do think object lessons about sportsmanship of this nature should happen across the country for more reasons than just this. If you want to disagree with his personal value system, I'm not going to stand up in his corner either. If you want to disagree with his right to follow a personal value system which isn't harming her, then we will be on opposite sides of that fence.
I'm really not sure how you can read "I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa." and not get that he doesn't think she should be there or that the tournament should let her be there. I mean, he flat-out says it. He's very much not making it about himself, he's making it about her.
Or that, well, he thinks it is bad luck on his part that he happens to live in Iowa. "Hi, I'm hindu!" "Hey man, welcome. We are currently celebrating hamburger day!" "Oh, thats unfortunate. I do not eat cow for religious reasons, so none for me thanks."
Completly stomping on everyone elses right to eat hamburgers...
Sure, that would be a suitable analogy. If the hindu guy also said that he didn't think anyone should eat hamburger.
Where did anyone say that?
"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," wrote Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
Saying you have belifes about something is now automatically attempting to force your belifes on others? "My religion says boys and girls shouldn't do this together so I am not going to" is now the same as "My religion says boys and girls shouldn't do this together and it is an abomination for you to allow this and I demand that you stop it at once!"
I'm still fine at this point with calling it poor sportsmanship and banning the school from all atheletic competitions. Making the organization responsible for the actions of the individual shouldn't be a problem.
Can't abolish school sports. Even if 'true' sportsmanship is not practiced or even mentioned, there's still immense value to organized sports. They give kids a goal, achieving a goal takes time and requires work, a good work ethic is important, time spent working toward a goal that can be seen as neutral at worst and good at best is time spent doing something other than something that's seen as bad, etc. Cliche it may be, but sports can keep kids off the streets and make them better people. Besides, colleges would never let school sports die. They need kids to want to play sports so they can make the hundreds of millions of dollars they do on college athletics. ;)
Agreed. It teaches kids teamwork and how to interact with others, and aids in social bonding. Competition encourages determination, and can also teach kids how to deal with adversity and how to overcome challenges, and at the very least, how to deal with defeat or disappointment.
And the exercise thing and self actualization are pretty important, too.
Disregard this portion of the statement unless you are inquiring if he mentioned what he thinks of the participants.
The troubling quotation (the one where you humans are divided upon) is the next part.
"However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times. As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner."
My processors analysed this as the human male describing that he feels it is inappropriate for any boy to conduct a violent, combative sport against a girl. There isn't enough information to definitively declare he is telling others that they should adhere to his way of thinking, but one could come to that conclusion.
"It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa." Being that the previous quotation is subjective to different interpretations, this could be the metaphorical icing on the cake or an apparently botched form of apologetic description of the situation he was in. One could deduce that he is intending to mean oh woe is me that I be subjected to such a situation that is unheard of in Iowa high school football. There is still a lack of information for me to declare the human male is metaphorically being an arsehat of depravity disguised as a tophat of gentry.
I have said that his views are understandable. I've said he was rude (frankly, defaulting on a competition is rude). I have said that he's whining that the tournament isn't as sexist as he is. I have not said that he's trying to force or change anything. I have not said he's violated anyone's rights to anything.
________
1"I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner."
2"It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."
Agreed. It teaches kids teamwork and how to interact with others, and aids in social bonding. Competition encourages determination, and can also teach kids how to deal with adversity and how to overcome challenges, and at the very least, how to deal with defeat or disappointment.
And the exercise thing and self actualization are pretty important, too.
While I concur that sports can be used to teach or instruct these values, I also think it does not follow that it always will result in those lessons being learned. For example as the "last one picked for the baseball team everytime" what do you think the lesson being taught there is? We all know that these people exist, and that the lesson too frequently learned is that if someone is not part of the accepted group it is perfectly fine to devalue that person.
The teams both hold off on picking the individual because social ostracization is considered a perfectly fine act when the thought exists that having someone on the team might not result in a victory. Victory is usually what is considered important, not teaching teamwork, acceptance, and graceful fair competition. It's usually considered perfectly fine to "cut" someone who doesn't meet the desired team criteria, and push them out of participation. It can create a divided society of those who are allowed to participate, and those whose participation is not desired.
Thus we have the situation of this wrestler where some people will have no problem with saying, if he does not want to wrestle girls, then his participation is not desired, and that's just ok. It doesn't matter that he wants to wrestle boys, or is capable of wrestling boys, just that it's ok to devalue and dismiss him because his social views don't agree with the group consensus. He's one of "them" and its ok to treat "them" like that.
The problem is that in every way possible everybody can be considered one of "them" by some group or another, and everbody has to then live in a society where devauling someone considered "them" is an accepted practice. The funny thing is no one seems to like it when they become "them" to someone else and are devalued because of it. You might think we'd learn that lesson as the human race, but so far my impression is that it hasn't seemed to sink in at all.
I hope this helps.
Yep we both read that part. I took away something different from the comment than you perhaps. I did not take it to mean he thought she should have been the one who withdrew to preserve his religious convictions. Just that the values presented by the situation were in conflict with his own personal value system he is basing on his upbringing and personal religious interpretation.
Basically, it comes down to the difference between using an 'I'-sentence, and a 'you/it/them'-sentence. He didn't just say he felt uncomfortable wrestling a girl, he said he felt it was inappropriate for girls and guys to wrestle each other at all. And instead of admitting he made a mistake signing up for a tournament that wasn't boys-only when he wasn't prepared to wrestle anyone but boys, he had to talk about how unusual (i.e. not something anyone should reasonably expect) it was, and that it was unfortunate that he had been placed in such a situation (as opposed to placing himself in it).
Basically, he has a serious weakness as a wrestler, and it's completely fair if that weakness causes him to lose. More fair, I think, than someone who had trouble dealing with the harassment often found in sports. But his statement does make it sound like he's blaming the tournament for being inappropriate, instead of blaming his own hang-ups. And it is unfortunate for the girl, however much he's in his right to default, because she loses out of the experience, and if she wins, many people will suspect it's because of her sex.
The teams both hold off on picking the individual because social ostracization is considered a perfectly fine act when the thought that having someone on the team might not result in a victory. Victory is usually what is considered important, not teaching teamwork, acceptance, and graceful fair competition. It's usually considered perfectly fine to "cut" someone who doesn't meet the desired team criteria, and push them out of participation. It can create a divided society of those who are allowed to participate, and those whose participation is not desired.
While there are a lot of bad things to be said about sports (gym class taught me one thing and one thing only: physical activity, even the kinds I used to enjoy, suck), this isn't one of them. I've sung in a lot of choirs, school, church, music conservatory, evening school, you name it, and the one thing they all had in common was that people whose musical and vocal capacities were not up to it ruined it for everybody else. When altos started singing what the sopranos were singing because it was easier, it not only broke the harmony, it also meant the altos who were still trying to be altos got confused and couldn't hold their own.
If you can't, or wont, do what the others are doing, they're not obligated to stop doing what they do or take time off to provide you with a chance to shine. There are places for that, but state tournaments, and choirs who want to be able to perform at least moderately demanding works, are not it.
Thus we have the situation of this wrestler where some people will have no problem with saying, if he does not want to wrestle girls, then his participation is not desired, and that's just ok. It doesn't matter that he wants to wrestle boys, or is capable of wrestling boys, just that it's ok to devalue and dismiss him because his social views don't agree with the group consensus. He's one of "them" and its ok to treat "them" like that.
It's not about whether he's an us or them, it's that he doesn't want to wrestle on state championship level unless they change the rules to cater specifically to him. If you're in a choir who sometimes sing church music and perform in churches, and you don't want to do this because praising Jesus is against your religion, then your participation (or rather, lack of it) is not desired either. It has nothing to do with sports and everything to do with people on the same page in regards to what they want to achieve.
If a state tournament is about the best wrestlers competing, period, and you want it to be about the best boy wrestlers only, find some place else to wrestle. If one of those girls had been sexually molested by a man, and couldn't deal with having guys forcefully grab their ass and shove their crouches into their face, they should avoid competing in state tournaments too. Their lack of participation is not desired. It's unfortunate, but it's no different than if they'd damaged their knee. They can't compete in the state tournament, so they should find somewhere else to do it. Just like I'm not fit to sing the places I used to any more, because my voice is out of shape and I'd ruin it for everybody else.
I also want to add that I read the statement the same way as EE.
Yep we both read that part. I took away something different from the comment than you perhaps. I did not take it to mean he thought she should have been the one who withdrew to preserve his religious convictions. Just that the values presented by the situation were in conflict with his own personal value system he is basing on his upbringing and personal religious interpretation.
Basically, it comes down to the difference between using an 'I'-sentence, and a 'you/it/them'-sentence. He didn't just say he felt uncomfortable wrestling a girl, he said he felt it was inappropriate for girls and guys to wrestle each other at all. And instead of admitting he made a mistake signing up for a tournament that wasn't boys-only when he wasn't prepared to wrestle anyone but boys, he had to talk about how unusual (i.e. not something anyone should reasonably expect) it was, and that it was unfortunate that he had been placed in such a situation (as opposed to placing himself in it).Basically, he has a serious weakness as a wrestler, and it's completely fair if that weakness causes him to lose. More fair, I think, than someone who had trouble dealing with the harassment often found in sports. But his statement does make it sound like he's blaming the tournament for being inappropriate, instead of blaming his own hang-ups. And it is unfortunate for the girl, however much he's in his right to default, because she loses out of the experience, and if she wins, many people will suspect it's because of her sex.
Personally if I were in her shoes (understanding of course that I am not the person in question) I wouldn't feel I lost out on a chance to wrestle him, just that I was granted to opportunity to not have to put up with his personal grandstanding in the ring. Whether or not she choses to take this as a personal slight is still her choice. She if free to make that choice, but it is not a choice forced upon her without any option by another.
Someone can only be offended or insulted in this situtation if they choose to feel that way about it, or if their own mental condition won't allow them any other option. If someones own mental condition won't allow any other response, then that is their psychological problem just like the male wrestler's opinion of males and females wrestling is his own psychological problem. I personally don't really grasp why others want to make it their personal psychological problem also if they are not him or don't agree with him.
Not of benefit to all involved != not of benefit. Some kids get picked last, sure. Some kids don't get picked at all. That doesn't mean that the benefit does not exist. It may not for them, but it's certainly there for others. It also sometimes provides a different benefit to those picked last or not at all. Some are not satisfied with that and strive to make the improvement needed to be picked before the last or to make the team at all. Still a benefit
The problem isn't the benefit, it's that it's also a disadvantage. Even if a school can't benefit you because of the way your mind works, it at least shouldn't make you worse. In my best estimation, I'm in worse shape now, and have less control over my body, than I would if I hadn't had gym classes in primary school. I hated them so much I started to reject it when my father wanted to do sports with me at home, because it was terrible enough being forced to it in school.
It's one thing to benefit some students and not others, it's something completely different to require some students to disadvantage themselves just so the students who're deemed more athletic can get a further advantage. Team sports in schools are generally a terrible idea, because a lot of students will get nothing out of it except a wish top avoid sports for the rest of their lives, even if they're talented, and the kids who enjoy are often bullies and cheaters who're encouraged to continue their bad behaviour. However, joining a sports team out of your own free volition is something completely different.
Didn't matter. 'Course I was also one of the kids that got the other type of benefit out of it. I found things I could do and spent my time working on them. I resolved not to be that kid anymore. But, as stated before, not everyone goes that route.Still, I do believe sports are important and teaching them in school is a great way to get kids interested. It seems silly when you look at it and there is a nasty side to it, too, but I also know myself and how I was when I was a certain age and how much worse I'd have been had I not had something to care about. Obviously that something doesn't have to be sports or even athletic, but a lot of people are drawn to activities of that nature for various reasons ranging from a need for vigorous competition to the prevalence of sports in entertainment. To me, I guess, the overall benefit outweighs the overall negative.
While there are a lot of bad things to be said about sports (gym class taught me one thing and one thing only: physical activity, even the kinds I used to enjoy, suck), this isn't one of them. I've sung in a lot of choirs, school, church, music conservatory, evening school, you name it, and the one thing they all had in common was that people whose musical and vocal capacities were not up to it ruined it for everybody else. When altos started singing what the sopranos were singing because it was easier, it not only broke the harmony, it also meant the altos who were still trying to be altos got confused and couldn't hold their own.If you can't, or wont, do what the others are doing, they're not obligated to stop doing what they do or take time off to provide you with a chance to shine. There are places for that, but state tournaments, and choirs who want to be able to perform at least moderately demanding works, are not it.
Thus we have the situation of this wrestler where some people will have no problem with saying, if he does not want to wrestle girls, then his participation is not desired, and that's just ok. It doesn't matter that he wants to wrestle boys, or is capable of wrestling boys, just that it's ok to devalue and dismiss him because his social views don't agree with the group consensus. He's one of "them" and its ok to treat "them" like that.
It's not about whether he's an us or them, it's that he doesn't want to wrestle on state championship level unless they change the rules to cater specifically to him. If you're in a choir who sometimes sing church music and perform in churches, and you don't want to do this because praising Jesus is against your religion, then your participation (or rather, lack of it) is not desired either. It has nothing to do with sports and everything to do with people on the same page in regards to what they want to achieve.If a state tournament is about the best wrestlers competing, period, and you want it to be about the best boy wrestlers only, find some place else to wrestle. If one of those girls had been sexually molested by a man, and couldn't deal with having guys forcefully grab their ass and shove their crouches into their face, they should avoid competing in state tournaments too. Their lack of participation is not desired. It's unfortunate, but it's no different than if they'd damaged their knee. They can't compete in the state tournament, so they should find somewhere else to do it. Just like I'm not fit to sing the places I used to any more, because my voice is out of shape and I'd ruin it for everybody else.
I did not say everyone should be allowed to participate. I also did not say that everyone could contribute to the same level. I did say the problem is that the lesson frequently learned is that it is ok to "devalue" someone as a person who doesn't "fit" the desired pattern. This last part is what I am questioning.
This is the parallel complaint many people have with wanting to participate in "religious" activities but being told their behavior is not consistent with the group's standards, and they can't join unless they change their behavior. When they "devalue" the person and treat them as less than a human being in the process of excluding them I don't see this as "right". When they simply say, "this is the rules for our organization" without "devaluing" the person as a human being when excluding them, then I don't see it as "wrong".
I'm perfectly fine with the right of free association, and I think this male wrestler in question exercised that right in this case. I did not see him as "devaluing" this female wrestler, but instead potentially "over valuing" her as a female instead. What I will not claim is that he is treating her as an equal, but as noted by you this isn't required for competition in sports, participation in a musical group, or any other activity which establishes a set of standards. They are simply exercising discrimination which actually is different from illegal discrimination although some people have trouble distinguishing between the two.
However, if people are worried about "gender discrimination" in this case (a actual form of illegal discrimination), then as I advocated earlier we should be legally starting by requiring integrated gender professional sports teams. Tennis and golf should start as the examples for this test bed of "equal" competition. Then we should require half of all sports teams to be female, and all players in play at any event should be an exactly equal mix of genders, races, religions, handicaps, sexual orientations, and ages. That way everything will be equal for all the protected categories of discrimination and better for everyone of course right?
I just really don't see it that way. And I was one of the kids that was picked almost last every time. Small, glasses, awkward - all the marks of a winner.
spoilered for size
There are (at least) two kinds of kids. Those who like competing against themselves, better themselves, and perform activities out of curiosity or for the sheer joy of it, and those who like to beat others and be on top. The latter group contains most cheaters and bullies. Those were the kids who already in first grade, when told "you have to crawl from one end of the room to the other without using your legs" would use their legs, enthusiastically declare themselves winners when they got there first and make fun of the kids who did the exercise properly, or complain that they were bored half-way through.
In order to motivate those kids, the teachers resorted to ballgames. With almost twice as many boys in the class, and most of them having the same hobby, the teacher's question "what would like to do today" always resulted in a resounding “FOOTBALL!”, and we ended up playing that most of the time (until around 5th-6th grade where several of the boys had tired of football and most of the girls had started playing handball).
The thing about football is that if the majority of players are faster and more aggressive than you, and furthermore actually know the game and practice it in their spare time, there's not much to do. And I mean literally, you can't do anything except standing around somewhere near your team's goal and hope to catch maybe one shot at it. If you ever get the ball, it'll usually be taken away from you before you have a chance to give it a kick, and none of your team mates (or rather, the 4-5 boys who always have the ball) will ever kick it in your direction. The same thing goes for handball, basketball, hockey, etc., and games like tennis and badminton should be more aptly named "pick up the ball" when played by amateur 4th graders.
Catching up is almost impossible, because your opponents have an extra two hours to play a week (gym class, where you're stuck doing nothing, and will be as long as they're way ahead of you, which they will be as long as they practice more), and frankly, I had better things to do with my time, such as reading and having fun, because unlike the competitive kids, I didn't get that extra fun in gym class, running around yelling at the other kids "You suck! Loser! Why aren't you taking the ball! Where losing because of you! Whaaaaaaaa!".
The best gym class I ever had was in our equivalent of high school, where my boyfriend and I got to play badminton together. We decided that since he was much better at it than me, his goal was to shoot the ball so it was as easy as possible for me to catch, and my goal should be to shoot it in a way that made it as hard as possible for him to catch. We played for 15-20 minutes, and it was amazing. Where the other students rarely managed to pass the ball between them more than 2-3 times before they had to stop and pick it up, we were in almost constant motion, both sweating and gasping for breath.
I improved rapidly, to the point where I started controlling where the ball was going (if he was close to the net, I'd place the ball in the upper left corner to let him run for it, and then immediately after gently tip it over the net in the lower left corner), and ended up being able to hit the ball even when he hadn't delivered it perfectly. Afterwards, we were both grinning, and he said it was the best workout he'd had that year, and probably the best badminton practice ever. He was a somewhat competitive type of person, so it had never occurred to him to play badminton the rational way before.
Right now, gym classes focus on giving the kids who thrive on negative reinforcement (kids who like to beat other kids) positive reinforcement, and the students who thrive on positive reinforcement (kids who like to better themselves) negative reinforcement. It's ineffective, and no amount of ideological "But if we force kids to play games they don't enjoy and can't participate in, and call them bad names, they'd start getting motivated to better themselves"-BS is going to change that.
Right now, gym classes focus on giving the kids who thrive on negative reinforcement (kids who like to beat other kids) positive reinforcement, and the students who thrive on positive reinforcement (kids who like to better themselves) negative reinforcement. It's ineffective, and no amount of ideological "But if we force kids to play games they don't enjoy and can't participate in, and call them bad names, they'd start getting motivated to better themselves"-BS is going to change that.
Wow... that is a complete misunderstanding of what negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement is.
And, again, sports provide something to those that enjoy them that's quite important: a goal. This gives them direction, focus and drive. All good qualities. The fact that some do not find this here does not take anything away from the fact that some do.
Wow... that is a complete misunderstanding of what negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement is.
The people who weren't into sports in my class didn't play to win, they played not to lose.
Wow... that is a complete misunderstanding of what negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement is.
The people who weren't into sports in my class didn't play to win, they played not to lose.
Yeah.. as I said, it is a complete misunderstanding of whsat positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement are. Positive (+) and negative (-) have nothing to do with good or bad.
And, again, sports provide something to those that enjoy them that's quite important: a goal. This gives them direction, focus and drive. All good qualities. The fact that some do not find this here does not take anything away from the fact that some do.
I never doubted that some people had positive experiences with it. Most of the boys who played football in my class, and the girls who played handball, undoubtedly did so. But it should not be done at the cost of other kids. If you can't teach kids anything, then excuse them from the class and allow them to find something better to do.
Some kids need a goal, other than doing their best and improving their skills. They need the goal of beating other kids, or avoid getting picked last, and so the teachers give it to them. The problem is that other kids don't need that goal, and aren't motivated by competition. Those kids not only gain no benefit from being pressured into competitive sports, they actually become less motivated. Forcing them to participate just because it makes the kids who need a goal feel better, is little different from picking out a bunch of students and order them to carry the bags of the other kids and fetch them lunch, so that those kids can feel better about themselves and thus do better at school.
If gym classes are supposed to get kids into sports, then it makes no sense to give them bad experiences playing it. And if the purpose is to teach them stuff and get them into shape, then there are far more efficient ways of doing it, which aren't being used right now because the kids who love competitive sports enough to do them in their spare time whine about it every time they're not allowed to use gym class as playtime. In fact, it's teaching kids a terrible lesson that if the teacher tells them to do an exercise and they complain and make a scene because the exercise is boring, they're rewarded by getting to play their favourite game, which was pretty much what happened at my school.
Yeah.. as I said, it is a complete misunderstanding of what positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement are. Positive (+) and negative (-) have nothing to do with good or bad.
If you don't understand what I'm writing, that's OK, but don't invent some fictional statement and ascribe it to me. I never said positive or negative reinforcement was good or bad, just that people react to them differently. The kids who're getting the most positive reinforcement (praise, trophies) are usually the ones best motivated by negative reinforcement (at least according to themselves), and the kids who're getting the most negative reinforcement (blame, slurs) are usually the ones best motivated by positive reinforcement. At least when it comes to competitive ballgames in gym classes.
As far as some kids not liking it goes, too bad. It's school. I didn't like art. Made me feel like I was uncreative and had no talent to make something beautiful. Honestly. Should I have been allowed to opt out? What about math? Didn't like that, either. Maybe I should have been allowed to head over to shop class instead. This is, quite simply, how school works. It's, for various reasons, formatted and all who go have to follow that format. And that in itself is a good thing because it teaches you that you've gotta learn to deal with doing things you don't like - aka: life. Kids make fun of other kids for everything. If that's reason to allow kids to opt out of a class or remove something from school, we may as well just stop sending kids to school altogether.
Unfortunately as Erato noted, some people just can't feel good about themselves unless they feel superior to someone else. Those people favor the "win-lose" scenarios which play to their personal strengths. If those sports which contribute to this "win-lose" mentality get banned from schools, then personally I'm not going to cry about it one bit.
There are other athletic activites where the participants only really compete against themselves and their prior performance. Personally I chose Cross Country and Track way back in high school where at the end of the day it really didn't matter if I was first or last. It only really mattered whether I improved from my last attempt. If anyone else performed better because of competing with me, then I was happy that I inspired them to do so, not jubulant that I out performed them. If anyone outran me, they simply set a goal for my next level of personal improvement. I didn't lose to them, we both simply won based on our personal goals in my estimation.
Which I think is why I don't have a problem with this wrestler dropping out with a default in this case. His value system dictated that "Wrestling" was a sport where you win by defeating your opponent. His value system also dictated that physically "defeating" women is akin to physical abuse, and thus wrong. The two value systems being in conflict resulted in him chosing his faith/belief over his need to "defeat" an opponent.
If "team" wrestling wasn't predicated on a need for a "Win-lose" scenario to be considered a success, then I wonder if he would have wrestled the girl after all? I know of plenty of guys who do martial arts who have no problem sparring with girls when the martial art is predicated on learning a skill set and not on forcing defeat on an opponent. I also knew a martial arts dojo master who regularly beat up his own students until they quit to prove his own personal martial superiority.
That's an issue with that teacher at that school. I never had a PE teacher bow to the whims of his class.
As far as some kids not liking it goes, too bad. It's school. I didn't like art. Made me feel like I was uncreative and had no talent to make something beautiful. Honestly. Should I have been allowed to opt out? What about math? Didn't like that, either. Maybe I should have been allowed to head over to shop class instead. This is, quite simply, how school works. It's, for various reasons, formatted and all who go have to follow that format. And that in itself is a good thing because it teaches you that you've gotta learn to deal with doing things you don't like - aka: life. Kids make fun of other kids for everything. If that's reason to allow kids to opt out of a class or remove something from school, we may as well just stop sending kids to school altogether.
No, but I would have been fine with just being allowed to do physical exercises, just like I could paint a picture. But never getting to kick a ball? That's not terribly helpful. I did learn a couple of things, like which areas of a field the ball was least likely to come by, and which of those areas looked most vital. I'd stay there, rarely ever touching the ball, but looking kind of useful. It was better than being somewhere close to the ball, have idiot competitors scream bad words to distract me, miss the ball, and have idiot team-mates scream bad words to distract themselves from the fact that if they were half as good as they claimed they wouldn't need my help winning. I also learned that kids are idiots, and their degree of idiocy tended to match their interest in sports.
I'd also be against having kids officially rank each other's pictures, especially if they took it as seriously (and were as prone to bullying kids who did poorly) as in sports. And i especially wouldn't make a painting competition in which only the kids who were already experienced in painting got to paint anything, like it happens in most ballgames. In fact, I find it odd that here, they usually don't give kids grades until around 6th - 7th grade and even then the grades are are private matter that don't need to be shared with anyone, but in sports, which is the scene of more bullying than academics, arts, and crafts combined (only surpassed by clothing and appearance, and then possibly only for girls), teachers constantly want to rank students, because it's supposed to be fun.
That's an issue with that teacher at that school. I never had a PE teacher bow to the whims of his class.
As far as some kids not liking it goes, too bad. It's school. I didn't like art. Made me feel like I was uncreative and had no talent to make something beautiful. Honestly. Should I have been allowed to opt out? What about math? Didn't like that, either. Maybe I should have been allowed to head over to shop class instead. This is, quite simply, how school works. It's, for various reasons, formatted and all who go have to follow that format. And that in itself is a good thing because it teaches you that you've gotta learn to deal with doing things you don't like - aka: life. Kids make fun of other kids for everything. If that's reason to allow kids to opt out of a class or remove something from school, we may as well just stop sending kids to school altogether.
I don't know about her school, but I'll go back to my days on the wrestling team. I was a heavy kid. I hated running, hated it with a passion but running was part of the physical conditioning we had to do. I remember during the build to the season wanting to give up because I just couldn't keep up with the other kids. But I didn't, it wasn't because the coach was pushing but because the other kids didn't want me to quit.
Three or four of them got behind me and started yelling encouragements or give me a little shove now and then to keep me moving. It's all I needed. I wound up wrestling in the heavy weight devision that season (190 lb- 275lb). I was only 205 lbs at the time so I gave up at least 30 lbs to everyone I wrestled but the other guys on the team still didn't let me quit.
The following season, I tried out again and the guys helped me trim down to the 189 lb division.
Don't get me wrong, the coach could have been a hard ass but I didn't notice because the other guys on the team just wouldn't let me quit and because of their encouragement I decided wrestling was the sport I wanted to be good at.
Best experience of my life despite the jeering I recieved from the student body that weren't on the wrestling team. Good times.
Agreed. It teaches kids teamwork and how to interact with others, and aids in social bonding. Competition encourages determination, and can also teach kids how to deal with adversity and how to overcome challenges, and at the very least, how to deal with defeat or disappointment.
And the exercise thing and self actualization are pretty important, too.
While I concur that sports can be used to teach or instruct these values, I also think it does not follow that it always will result in those lessons being learned. For example as the "last one picked for the baseball team everytime" what do you think the lesson being taught there is?
Effectively, because it teaches most kids who partake those lessons, but not all, and because there are kids outside of school sports who are picked last, you're saying that school sports are bad? I mean, you do have a point, that no matter how many kids it teaches the values of teamwork and how to overcome adversity and to handle disappointment, there will always be someone who doesn't learn those lessons... but do you hear yourself? "There are kids in the neighborhood who get picked last in sports, so that's a point again school sports or little league sports."
As far as the kids in the neighborhood, there is always the option of either not playing, playing with someone else, or honing one's skills so that they're not the last one picked. However, I think you've conflated a school's baseball/football/hockey/lacrosse team with the kids from the neighborhood. It's not the same situation. It's a fallacy of equivocation.
Getting back to the actual topic at hand here, sure, you have kids who don't do well in sports, or don't learn the valuable lessons sports has to teach. In little league, those kids are usually bench-warmers, and they have the chance to either improve or, worst case scenario, to withdraw from the team. In school teams, the option is usually handled for them. If they don't perform well, aren't skilled enough, and/or aren't team players, they're typically either not allowed to sign up in the first place, or are later cut from the team. Even then, they still have the option of withdrawing. My point is that, in spite of these instances, where not everyone is valued as an equal member of the team, or where someone just doesn't learn certain lessons, that doesn't diminish the good that school sponsored athletics does. Most of the people who go for it getting something positive out of it is better than only a few or no one getting anything of value out of it. I think the most important thing though, for the kids who don't learn how to act as a member of a team, comradery, how to overcome adversity, etc. through sports, there are other places to learn those things besides just sports at a high school, college, or little league team.
We all know that these people exist, and that the lesson too frequently learned is that if someone is not part of the accepted group it is perfectly fine to devalue that person.
If that's really what someone took from sports, then they missed the point in the first place. But that's not really the source of that attitude. It comes from forming in-groups and out-groups. Humans typically do it, other social organisms do it. Cliques form because of it, radical members of a religious/ideological organization demonize other religions/ideologies because of it, bigotry exists because of it. Effectively, others identifying people as "allies" and "enemies" is a survival mechanism, the product of countless millenia of natural selection. It's a well-documented social behavior that has its evolutionary roots in a time long before our ancestors were able to walk on two legs, let alone upright. That doesn't justify such behavior, but I think you're choosing to label the cause as "sports." If that's not your actual argument, please correct me. I'd hate to look like a prick because I assumed that's what it was.
The teams both hold off on picking the individual because social ostracization is considered a perfectly fine act when the thought exists that having someone on the team might not result in a victory.
That's not always the case, or the point of rejecting someone from a team. There are a limited number of spots on a team, usually not enough to go around. You can only have so many people play in a single game at one time, and if you pick too many, some people will never get to play at all. Some people are rejected because of skill. Obviously, the point of playing on the team is learning how to win the game, and the good things sports has to teach come from that, like working for the things you want, working as a team to attain a higher goal, etc, but it won't happen if some or most of the players are unskilled to begin with. Some players are just not healthy enough. For example, they're too frail, they have certain medical conditions, they're not yet fully recovered from a previous injury. That's just an issue of insurance and liability. Sure, an injury or two during a game is no big deal, but if a sizeable number of the players are sickly or stand the risk of being easilly injured, its not just victory on the line, but expensive insurance claims for the school. It's also not like they're barred from joining the team forever. One always has the option of training harder, or just waiting until they're healthy enough, to try out for the team next time. One also has the option of looking for other things to prove their worth, things that might even be more up their alley. Getting cut or rejected from a team must certainly suck, but its not the end of the world.
Victory is usually what is considered important, not teaching teamwork, acceptance, and graceful fair competition.
You have that backwards. The latter is more important, because it can lead to victory, I mean hence the saying "it's not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game." People are often rejected from or cut from teams for failing to consider team work, determination, acceptance, good sportsmanship, and fair competition first.
It's usually considered perfectly fine to "cut" someone who doesn't meet the desired team criteria, and push them out of participation. It can create a divided society of those who are allowed to participate, and those whose participation is not desired.
So, given your nightmarish misrepresentation, and dare I say, straw man, of school sponsored sports in general, are you really saying that it effects society as a whole? I understand that sports, just like religion and tradition, literature, and art, is the product of culture, but give me a break.
Again, go back up to see my remarks about the formation of "in-groups" and "out-groups."
Thus we have the situation of this wrestler where some people will have no problem with saying, if he does not want to wrestle girls, then his participation is not desired, and that's just ok. It doesn't matter that he wants to wrestle boys, or is capable of wrestling boys, just that it's ok to devalue and dismiss him because his social views don't agree with the group consensus. He's one of "them" and its ok to treat "them" like that.
I don't think anyone said anything like that. In the same comment, you've gone from misrepresenting the point of sports to misrepresenting what people here in the forum have been saying. I think we pretty much said that its poor sportsmanship and that the guy is a bit of a wuss, and that its unfair to the female athlete, who probably wants nothing more than to be treated like an equal. I don't recall a lynch mob forming at any point, unless of course, I just wasn't paying attention...
The problem is that in every way possible everybody can be considered one of "them" by some group or another, and everbody has to then live in a society where devauling someone considered "them" is an accepted practice.
It's not so much accepted as it is unnoticed by most but ecologists and people with substantial training in ecology.
You might think we'd learn that lesson as the human race, but so far my impression is that it hasn't seemed to sink in at all.
I hope this helps.
I'm saying this entirely for your benefit. The closing line might be profound if it were supported by intelligible points. I'm no philosophy major, but this one response alone was both a strawman and non-sensical.
I see where you're trying to come from, but you also seem to have this bias towards jocks picking on nerds. I don't know if that's the result of some deep-rooted yet unresolved personal issues, or because of some past experience, but a strawman fallacy is a strawman fallacy. The experiences in sports aren't all doom and gloom and jocks picking on nerds. In fact, not all jocks or athletes are bullies, elitists, or even beligerent.
Yeah.. as I said, it is a complete misunderstanding of what positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement are. Positive (+) and negative (-) have nothing to do with good or bad.
If you don't understand what I'm writing, that's OK, but don't invent some fictional statement and ascribe it to me. I never said positive or negative reinforcement was good or bad, just that people react to them differently. The kids who're getting the most positive reinforcement (praise, trophies) are usually the ones best motivated by negative reinforcement (at least according to themselves), and the kids who're getting the most negative reinforcement (blame, slurs) are usually the ones best motivated by positive reinforcement. At least when it comes to competitive ballgames in gym classes.
You're still not getting it. Trophies, praise, rewards, blame, and slurs have no good or bad associated with them when you are talking about positive reinforcement.
Your misunderstanding of the term and what I am saying is partially my fault. Let me explain.
First, we must understand what reinforcement is.
Reinforcement is a procedure in which a stimulus is either presented or removed contingent upon a response, and there is an increase in the strength of that response.
As for positive and negative reinforcement…
Positive reinforcement is a procedure in which a stimulus is presented, contingent upon a response, and there is an increase in the strength of that response.
Negative reinforcement is a procedure in which a stimulus is removed, contingent upon a response, and there is an increase in the strength of that response.
The stimulus that is presented or removed can be either praise or insults. It doesn’t matter. If you praise a kid and the response (behavior) increases, positive reinforcement has occurred. If you scream at a kid and call him/her useless, and the behavior increases, positive reinforcement has occurred.
The feeling of bettering themselves is the same as the feeling of beating others and making others feel like they are less when it comes to positive reinforcement.
As for negative reinforcement, if you are constantly calling the kid useless but stop doing so when he/she performs the target behavior, and there is an increase in the behavior, negative reinforcement has occurred. If you are constantly praising a kid, but stop doing so when he/she performs the target behavior and there is an increase in that behavior, negative reinforcement has occurred.
As I said, you don't know what positive/negative reinforcement is.
In line with several of Erato's remarks so far, philosophically I have an issue with "physical conflict" oriented sports as most of them promote the agressive "Win-Lose/Superiority-Inferiority" mentality in the midst of their execution. It allows that you can't feel good about yourself unless you "beat" the other person and make them feel bad about themselves.
Protip: You're doin' it wrong.
You can always feel good about yourself and your performance. If you need to humiliate your adversary in order to feel good about yourself, it's an issue with you and not with the sport in question. The sport provides an avenue for this behavior but so does a lot of other things. Individual issues with something are just that: individual.
I know of plenty of guys who do martial arts who have no problem sparring with girls when the martial art is predicated on learning a skill set and not on forcing defeat on an opponent. I also knew a martial arts dojo master who regularly beat up his own students until they quit to prove his own personal martial superiority.
I regularly spar women and I just as regularly try to defeat them. That's what we're there for. She won't learn anything if I hold back and I won't learn anything if she holds back. Were we to fight in a tournament, I'd behave the same way. And I have fought women when it counted for something more than simply sparring and practice, too. And I have done my best to win. There's nothing wrong with that. If we're competing against each other, we're trying to defeat each other. One defeating the other doesn't mean anything beyond that, either. It simply means that that fighter one that one fight. Nothing else.
I've won my share of fights over the years and I've done so in the privacy of the gym and in front of people watching, too. I was a kid that beat other kids in front of that kid's friends and family. And I've been on the other side, too. I've lost my share of fights, too. In the gym and in competition. I've lost in front of my friends and family. And no matter what, win or lose - especially when there was a trophy on the line, my opponent and I would shake hands, possibly embrace and then we'd watch the rest of the fights and chat with each other. I remember (cuz I can't forget) a full contact bout that I won that left me with a permanent raised area on my right hand from blocking a kick. After the fight, I talked to the guy and told him he had some heavy ass feat and I had the proof to show him. We laughed and he complimented me as well. He was defeated, yes. I was the victor, yes. And ya know what? That didn't mean a thing. My next fight I went up against a good friend of mine that had about 40 pounds on me. He was fighting in front of his wife and father, me in front of my fiancee and mother. I lost. And, at the end, we hugged, I congratulated him, he congratulated me and I told him to kick the next guy's ass for me. He did, too (not literally, of course. the fight was clean and equally respectful). And it didn't matter that I lost and he won. That I was defeated and he victorious. That's what we were there for - to compete - and that meant that someone had to win and someone had to lose. That's how it works. If that's something you can't handle (either winning or losing), you're in the wrong activity and it only says something about you - not the sport. Anyhoo, my long winded point is that humiliation and the like aren't part of any sport. They're part of people.
No, but I would have been fine with just being allowed to do physical exercises, just like I could paint a picture. But never getting to kick a ball? That's not terribly helpful. I did learn a couple of things, like which areas of a field the ball was least likely to come by, and which of those areas looked most vital. I'd stay there, rarely ever touching the ball, but looking kind of useful. It was better than being somewhere close to the ball, have idiot competitors scream bad words to distract me, miss the ball, and have idiot team-mates scream bad words to distract themselves from the fact that if they were half as good as they claimed they wouldn't need my help winning. I also learned that kids are idiots, and their degree of idiocy tended to match their interest in sports.I'd also be against having kids officially rank each other's pictures, especially if they took it as seriously (and were as prone to bullying kids who did poorly) as in sports. And i especially wouldn't make a painting competition in which only the kids who were already experienced in painting got to paint anything, like it happens in most ballgames. In fact, I find it odd that here, they usually don't give kids grades until around 6th - 7th grade and even then the grades are are private matter that don't need to be shared with anyone, but in sports, which is the scene of more bullying than academics, arts, and crafts combined (only surpassed by clothing and appearance, and then possibly only for girls), teachers constantly want to rank students, because it's supposed to be fun.
I really don't know what to say. We're pretty far apart on this and have had vastly different life experiences (well, not really - more in the way we reacted to them) influence our thoughts on the matter.
Just an aside, for the most part kids still get grades here even when young. There are schools that don't do this, too, but for the most part it seems they still hand 'em out. Our youth sports, otoh, are becoming increasingly score bare. The coaches keep score - for reasons unknown - and the kids never find out if they won or lost. To me, that's incredibly stupid, but I don't get to make the rules. Just an odd difference, IMO.
I'm saying this entirely for your benefit. The closing line might be profound if it were supported by intelligible points. I'm no philosophy major, but this one response alone was both a strawman and non-sensical.
I see where you're trying to come from, but you also seem to have this bias towards jocks picking on nerds. I don't know if that's the result of some deep-rooted yet unresolved personal issues, or because of some past experience, but a strawman fallacy is a strawman fallacy. The experiences in sports aren't all doom and gloom and jocks picking on nerds. In fact, not all jocks or athletes are bullies, elitists, or even beligerent.
I never mentioned jocks or nerds. As a matter of fact my personal experience is that I was friends with the nerds, the jocks, the artistic people, and the typical working class joes in school (I also fell into each of those groups in some manner or another). I was a socially adaptable person for the most part, and I still am. The only group of people I didn't get along with were the burn out pot smokers/underage drinkers who wanted to scoff and not participate in anthing that wasn't directly related to their personal self gratification. I also didn't get along with any individual who thought it was ok to bully someone from an "outsider" group.
I also already predicated my earlier remarks with the statement that I think sports participation can teach positive values as well. I don't think the problem is inherently sports, but on the emphasis provided bysome of those doing the teaching, and by some of the needs/desires/actions of those participating. I was specifically pointing out the instances where sports sometimes can fail to achieve a positive result in the participants, and instead ends up instilling negative values in some individuals.
All you have to do is look at the incidents of cheating, doping, unsportsman like conduct, and blood thristy levels of competition (anyone remember Nancy Kerigan and Tonya Harding?) in some instances to see that not all sports everywhere are a positive event for all participants. I wonder what the general public reaction would have been if this male wrestler had acted with some of the real (and commonly overlooked) bad behavior prevalent in some sports, been doping to "win", and then ended up causing an injury to this girl during the match. Would it have been a bunch of people congratulating him on his "win at any cost" performance, or people castagating him for treating a woman in a brutal manner? I imagine it quite possible you would find people in both camps of thought.
On another track of thought there is frankly the "physical" cost of sports participation, especially with "contact" sports. I don't know how many people my age I've encountred (in the mid 40's) who are still dealing with the increasing disabilities in later life which started with a high school/college sports injury. The number of replaced hips, knees, ankles, etc. which track back to a sports related injury in youth is actually quite staggering when I think of all the people I know with these issues.
I personally know from my days of running that my left ankle is highly prone to becoming sprained again after accidentally putting my left heel in a rabbit hole during one Cross Country practice. It swelled up like a grapefruit at the time with "torn ligaments" according to the doctor, but that didn't prevent my coach from having me tape up my ankle and run while still requiring painkillers so our team would have the necessary five people to race that weekend. While I don't personally hold any rancor for my coach (I did like him pretty well as a coach overall), I do question now if he was more concerned with the right choice for me, or the team in having me run then.
I hope this helps.
I never mentioned jocks or nerds.
Well, that's how you seemed to convey your point, the stereotypical relationship between the meat-head jock bully, and his victims, the people whom he chooses to belittle because they're not as elite or high on the food chain.
Either way though, I still addressed the point about being cut from teams, being rejected outright, or otherwise being subpar players, and those points still stand.
I also already predicated my earlier remarks with the statement that I think sports participation can teach positive values as well.
But conveyed your argument as if the bad apples ruined the whole bunch.
I was specifically pointing out the instances where sports sometimes can fail to achieve a positive result in the participants, and instead ends up instilling negative values in some individuals.
But that's not how all athletes or even most athletes are, and there's still not enough of the bad apples to reflect badly on the good ones.
See my above point.
All you have to do is look at the incidents of cheating, doping, unsportsman like conduct, and blood thristy levels of competition (anyone remember Nancy Kerigan and Tonya Harding?) in some instances to see that not all sports everywhere are a positive event for all participants.
The bad apples DO eventually get caught, or you wouldn't hear about it. Reflect on the number of athletes who DON'T do those things vs. the number of those who DO, and you'll see a marked and significant difference. But that also isn't the sports, its the selfish, greedy people who got into the sports, or people who really did learn those things, and got desperate and sunk to lows they shouldn't have. The fact that these scandals exist at all is not evidence of sports causing these things, but that those who oversee the competition and coaching of these athletes care about the values that competing in sports is supposed to instill.
In professional sports, athletes are not only kicked from the team or suspended, but they lose respect and status, and ultimately, that has an effect on income, and the effects can last long after the mistake is done and over with. Schools and athletic organizations care enough to punish cheating, unsportsman-like conduct, using illegal substances, and doping to send a message to other athletes. But again, look at all the athletes who DON'T do those things? Why ignore them?
I wonder what the general public reaction would have been if this male wrestler had acted with some of the real (and commonly overlooked) bad behavior prevalent in some sports, been doping to "win", and then ended up causing an injury to this girl during the match.
It wouldn't even be the injury that'd be the relevant part. In fact, the injury would perhaps be overlooked, because when you get into contact sports, you otherwise agree to put yourself at risk for injury. She'd eventually recover and be back in the game in no time. At least he had the honor to actually face her instead of hiding behind his spirituality like a wuss, because of the shape of her reproductive anatomy. If anything would go punished, it would be doping.
And what do you mean "commonly overlooked?" Can you provide a primary source?
Would it have been a bunch of people congratulating him on his "win at any cost" performance, or people castagating him for treating a woman in a brutal manner? I imagine it quite possible you would find people in both camps of thought.
See my previous point. But you've left out at least a third option, and perhaps far more popular than the other two... people who would castigate him for cheating and poor display of sportsmanship... not for inadvertantly injuring an opponent, but rather for cheating. Unless of course, intentionally injuring the opponent was part of the cheating. In which case, it wouldn't so much be injuring the opponent, but still the mere act of cheating which got him castigated to begin with.
On another track of thought there is frankly the "physical" cost of sports participation, especially with "contact" sports. I don't know how many people my age I've encountred (in the mid 40's) who are still dealing with the increasing disabilities in later life which started with a high school/college sports injury. The number of replaced hips, knees, ankles, etc. which track back to a sports related injury in youth is actually quite staggering when I think of all the people I know with these issues.
That's not an argument. Like I said before, you willingly take that risk when you sign up for the sport. If its worth complaining about, its your own damned fault.
I hope this helps.
Not really. Because you seem intent on overlooking the good things in exchange for the bad.
I regularly spar women and I just as regularly try to defeat them. That's what we're there for. She won't learn anything if I hold back and I won't learn anything if she holds back. Were we to fight in a tournament, I'd behave the same way. And I have fought women when it counted for something more than simply sparring and practice, too. And I have done my best to win. There's nothing wrong with that. If we're competing against each other, we're trying to defeat each other. One defeating the other doesn't mean anything beyond that, either. It simply means that that fighter one that one fight. Nothing else.
I've won my share of fights over the years and I've done so in the privacy of the gym and in front of people watching, too. I was a kid that beat other kids in front of that kid's friends and family. And I've been on the other side, too. I've lost my share of fights, too. In the gym and in competition. I've lost in front of my friends and family. And no matter what, win or lose - especially when there was a trophy on the line, my opponent and I would shake hands, possibly embrace and then we'd watch the rest of the fights and chat with each other. I remember (cuz I can't forget) a full contact bout that I won that left me with a permanent raised area on my right hand from blocking a kick. After the fight, I talked to the guy and told him he had some heavy ass feat and I had the proof to show him. We laughed and he complimented me as well. He was defeated, yes. I was the victor, yes. And ya know what? That didn't mean a thing. My next fight I went up against a good friend of mine that had about 40 pounds on me. He was fighting in front of his wife and father, me in front of my fiancee and mother. I lost. And, at the end, we hugged, I congratulated him, he congratulated me and I told him to kick the next guy's ass for me. He did, too (not literally, of course. the fight was clean and equally respectful). And it didn't matter that I lost and he won. That I was defeated and he victorious. That's what we were there for - to compete - and that meant that someone had to win and someone had to lose. That's how it works. If that's something you can't handle (either winning or losing), you're in the wrong activity and it only says something about you - not the sport. Anyhoo, my long winded point is that humiliation and the like aren't part of any sport. They're part of people.
I congratulate you on your gender equality. I also wonder if you want to get into a match with someone who is a 4th don black belt in Gracie Ju-Jitsu. They also compete to "defeat" the opponent, but "defeats" are counted by physically disabling injuries, not points, not tap-outs, not surrenders. Broken bones and torn ligaments are their "standard" for competitions. My friend from college who is now a 4th don black belt is standard Ju-Jitsu does not compete in the martial art Ju-Jitsu as it was specifically desiged to physically harm an opponent in a injury causing disabling manner. It is a battlefield art, not a competition one. In their dojo you instruct, you learn, you don't compete. The closest competition form to Ju-Jitsu is Judo which restricts the use of harmful injury causing manuvers and introduces a scoring system.
I also personally shoot AR-15 to compete with myself. My success is counted in how close I can group 30 rounds to the bullseye on a paper target. I don't think too many people are willing to compete against me in this "event" as a true "Win-Lose" competition and willingly suffer a loss. I know I can reliably group headshot sized targets out to 300 yards, I'm quite certain I know other people who can shoot even better than I can.
However, I am willing to compete against myself and see if I can better my earlier performance. I am also willing to join another person also competing with themselves to better their own performance. This is the win-win scenario I am talking about, and what seems to be the same kind of win-win performance you are talking about in your martial arts competitions. You are not winning against the other person. You are both winning by taking something positive away from whatever result happens. When you can only "win" by making the other person take something negative away from the experience, then I think a problem exists as a "sport".
I hope this helps.
I congratulate you on your gender equality. I also wonder if you want to get into a match with someone who is a 4th don black belt in Gracie Ju-Jitsu. They also compete to "defeat" the opponent, but "defeats" are counted by physically disabling injuries, not points, not tap-outs, not surrenders. Broken bones and torn ligaments are their "standard" for competitions. My friend from college who is now a 4th don black belt is standard Ju-Jitsu does not compete in the martial art Ju-Jitsu as it was specifically desiged to physically harm an opponent in a injury causing disabling manner. It is a battlefield art, not a competition one. In their dojo you instruct, you learn, you don't compete. The closest competition form to Ju-Jitsu is Judo which restricts the use of harmful injury causing manuvers and introduces a scoring system.
Gracie Ju-Jitsu is overrated. Also, their competitions don’t require you to maim you opponent. That is a bunch of BS.
I congratulate you on your gender equality. I also wonder if you want to get into a match with someone who is a 4th don black belt in Gracie Ju-Jitsu. They also compete to "defeat" the opponent, but "defeats" are counted by physically disabling injuries, not points, not tap-outs, not surrenders. Broken bones and torn ligaments are their "standard" for competitions. My friend from college who is now a 4th don black belt is standard Ju-Jitsu does not compete in the martial art Ju-Jitsu as it was specifically desiged to physically harm an opponent in a injury causing disabling manner. It is a battlefield art, not a competition one. In their dojo you instruct, you learn, you don't compete. The closest competition form to Ju-Jitsu is Judo which restricts the use of harmful injury causing manuvers and introduces a scoring system.
Gracie Ju-Jitsu is overrated. Also, their competitions don’t require you to maim you opponent. That is a bunch of BS.
Yeah... and I'm a little skeptical of ths shot group at 300 yards... unless he is using a scope, of course...
Yeah... and I'm a little skeptical of ths shot group at 300 yards... unless he is using a scope, of course...
No, I think you misunderstood what he said. He throws the rifles at the target from 300 yards. Granted, it is a lot of riffles that have to be carried around when going to the range, but he’s just cool like that.
I have one clarification. I am not refering to all sports, the majority of participants, the inherent nature of competition, or trying to generalize the "bad apples" as spoiling everything. I am saying the bad apples exist. Too often in my observation the "bad apples" are not called out, and certain "competitive behaviors" of people too invested in winning at any cost can ruin sports for other people.
As far as "covering up doping" have you forgotten (or not heard about) the ridiculous congressional inquiries (a complete waste of tax payer dollars) into major league baseball. It took legal action, not a self regulating sport to expose it and try to clean it up. Everyone knew it was "cheating" and while for over ten years most players probably didn't do it, the ones who did, and the ones who stayed silent about it certainly cast a pall across the whole group. While I agree the sloppy bad apples get caught, this doesn't mean all the bad apples are automatically eliminated.
There is also the common societal behavior that as long as someone is good enough at sports (or acting, music, or other celebrity status type activity), little "social indiscressions" (drinking and driving, cheating on their spouse, recreational drug use, etc.) can be overlooked until they reach the level of criminally agriegious (fighting dogs, ****, vehicular homicide). In some cases these bad apples are sought right back into the sport because their "in game" performance lets someone think that overlooking of their past poor behavior is worth it.
I perfectly agree this is not the majority of cases of participation in sports. (I will also point out the majority of sports are not equal gender participation in co-ed style sports.) However, you haven't yet seemed to agree that this is a bad thing and does happen within the context of sports participation. I don't think this means you condone this behavior by assent. However, I wonder if it does mean you tacitly condone it through silence?
I congratulate you on your gender equality. I also wonder if you want to get into a match with someone who is a 4th don black belt in Gracie Ju-Jitsu. They also compete to "defeat" the opponent, but "defeats" are counted by physically disabling injuries, not points, not tap-outs, not surrenders. Broken bones and torn ligaments are their "standard" for competitions. My friend from college who is now a 4th don black belt is standard Ju-Jitsu does not compete in the martial art Ju-Jitsu as it was specifically desiged to physically harm an opponent in a injury causing disabling manner. It is a battlefield art, not a competition one. In their dojo you instruct, you learn, you don't compete. The closest competition form to Ju-Jitsu is Judo which restricts the use of harmful injury causing manuvers and introduces a scoring system.
Umm ... I'm pretty sure there's tournaments for BJJ that don't involve intentionally injuring your opponent. Any martial arts instructor that advocates injuring an opponent in competition is a fool as it removes a competitor from the pool. You don't get better if you've got nobody to compete against.
The tournament I mentioned where I spoke to the guy after our fight about my hand was a full contact tournament. Points are scored only if the technique delivered a 'staggering blow'. In other words, if it just touches it isn't enough. And trust me when I tell you we both would have gladly knocked each other out if that's what went down. Less time in the ring is more time to rest between bouts. ;) That fact, though, changes nothing about how we felt about each other, our ability or the fight itself.
Additionally, you seem to think competition somehow makes it impossible to teach or learn. My 20 years of experience says otherwise. How are you going to learn to fight if you don't fight? Fights are competition.
Oh, I'd also probably get into a match with a 4th dan BJJ black belt were I also one. Then again, I'm sort of messed up like that. And I'd have more readily done something like that when I was younger.
I also personally shoot AR-15 to compete with myself. My success is counted in how close I can group 30 rounds to the bullseye on a paper target. I don't think too many people are willing to compete against me in this "event" as a true "Win-Lose" competition and willingly suffer a loss. I know I can reliably group headshot sized targets out to 300 yards, I'm quite certain I know other people who can shoot even better than I can.
People compete in target shooting constantly. There's an entire industry devoted to it. And I do believe that they consider what they do 'true win-lose' events. Losing isn't being physically destroyed somehow. When you lose a game of Checkers, you've still lost even though nobody punched your nose sideways or called you an ignorant twit. In short, loss != severe injury or death. I'm baffled as to why you'd present it that way. Maybe I'm missing something ...
However, I am willing to compete against myself and see if I can better my earlier performance. I am also willing to join another person also competing with themselves to better their own performance. This is the win-win scenario I am talking about, and what seems to be the same kind of win-win performance you are talking about in your martial arts competitions. You are not winning against the other person. You are both winning by taking something positive away from whatever result happens. When you can only "win" by making the other person take something negative away from the experience, then I think a problem exists as a "sport".
I hope this helps.
Well, that's not how it is. In that first match, I won and he lost. We both still won. But he still lost. He was out of the tournament. Done.* No chance at a trophy. No place but last. Most comepetitions are like this - if that's what the participants want to take out of the experience. For whatever reason you've decided that a loss can be only a bad thing. That's not the case. It can be if that's how the defeated decides to take it, but that's on them. A loss is a loss but still is a win. It does not have to be one or the other.
*Most of our tournaments feature bracketed competition and require that the losers fight for whatever places are open. When we do black belt full contact, we do not do the weight division stuff and if you lose you're out. Lights a li'l hotter fire under your ass. ;)
I really don't know what to say. We're pretty far apart on this and have had vastly different life experiences (well, not really - more in the way we reacted to them) influence our thoughts on the matter.
There's also the fact that, no offence, you're delusional. Seriously, you're acting like there is a choice, like someone can just become better. If you don't have the talent, it's like expecting dyslectics to become among the top readers in the class if you just bombard them with slurs, present them with texts way above their reading level, demand that they read aloud and rip the books out of their hands if they can't do it in three seconds, and then figure that, hey, if they don't like it, it'll just be a great motivation for them to go out and learn to read by themselves.
School should not be about expecting students to do all of their learning outside class by themselves and then punish them if the practice they get outside school doesn't pay off well enough. We already have people for that, they're called abusive parents. If it was that easy to get kids to perform well, we could just forfeit all teaching and replace schools with a boot to the head of the kids who didn't perform well enough. Personally, I'm more of a fan of replacing team sports with a boot to the head of kids who use it as an excuse to bully others, but I'd be satisfied with making participation optional and finding something better to do for the kids who need some help (you know, the stuff schools are supposed to do) instead.
Just an aside, for the most part kids still get grades here even when young. There are schools that don't do this, too, but for the most part it seems they still hand 'em out. Our youth sports, otoh, are becoming increasingly score bare. The coaches keep score - for reasons unknown - and the kids never find out if they won or lost. To me, that's incredibly stupid, but I don't get to make the rules. Just an odd difference, IMO.
Grades are OK if they're just a measure of how the kids are doing. If they aren't a measure of how the kids are doing (like team sports, where it's always more important for the result which team-mates you have than how well you do, and where the popular kids can get selected for the best team and aren't blamed for performing badly) they lose their value.
And worse, if kids are being told that the grades they get are dependant on how well some other kids are doing, that those other kids are in full control of their performance (because you can always just choose to be good at something), and that behaviour that would normally be classified as unacceptable was OK in this context... well actually, I would have liked to see some of the kids who were most enthusiastic about sports (i.e. prone to harassing other kids) be singled out, with the teacher telling us that normally, we'd have done OK, but because of this kid we all fail the class. I think it would teach them a great lesson.
Yeah... and I'm a little skeptical of ths shot group at 300 yards... unless he is using a scope, of course...
Not necessarily. Even a red dot reflexive optic can greatly enhance accuracy (well maybe you meant to include that anyway, but when I hear scope I think of something with magnification). But he didn't really specify the size of the target nor the circumstances (prone, kneeling, standing, on a firm table with the rifle sitting in a stand) so who knows.
Anyway, how did this thread go from debating sexism in competitive wrestling to questioning the merits of junior high gym class?
To sumarize: I believe their is a distinct difference between martial arts and sport martial arts. In my opinion the point of martial arts is to harm/kill your opponent in an attempt to force a loss in the form of death/surrender/capitulation to your will. The point of sport martial arts is to have fun, play in some tournaments, and hopefully learn about good sportsmanship and other positive life lessons.
If you can't understand the difference between these two dramatically different emphasises in martial arts vs. sport martial arts, then I will gladly "wuss out" and default on a match with you.
I hope this helps.
Yeah... and I'm a little skeptical of ths shot group at 300 yards... unless he is using a scope, of course...
Not necessarily. Even a red dot reflexive optic can greatly enhance accuracy (well maybe you meant to include that anyway, but when I hear scope I think of something with magnification). But he didn't really specify the size of the target nor the circumstances (prone, kneeling, standing, on a firm table with the rifle sitting in a stand) so who knows.
Anyway, how did this thread go from debating sexism in competitive wrestling to questioning the merits of junior high gym class?
I found the MOA objective on a typical red dot obsured the target too much at 100 yards and out, and instead have a 4 power Tridjicon ACOG mounted to my BHI-15 for better shot groupings out past 200 yards. As my friend with straight iron sights on his Rock River Arms AR-15 said when shooting my AR, "this is too much like cheating." Anyone intested can find a picture of my AR-15 on my web site linked in my signature under the category "off topic photo".
I hope this clarifies some.
I found the MOA objective on a typical red dot obsured the target too much at 100 yards and out, and instead have a 4 power Tridjicon ACOG mounted to my BHI-15 for better shot groupings out past 200 yards. As my friend with straight iron sights on his Rock River Arms AR-15 said when shooting my AR, "this is too much like cheating." Anyone intested can find a picture of my AR-15 on my web site linked in my signature under the category "off topic photo".
Well then, I find it entirely believable that you are nailing targets at 300m with an ACOG. At one time I wouldn't have been impressed and would have said anyone can do that. However, I have had to help out far too many soldiers at the range who couldn't even zero their sights much less qualify with the weapon to believe that anymore.
Well then, I find it entirely believable that you are nailing targets at 300m with an ACOG. At one time I wouldn't have been impressed and would have said anyone can do that. However, I have had to help out far too many soldiers at the range who couldn't even zero their sights much less qualify with the weapon to believe that anymore.
I am also not self taught in the operation of my AR-15. I attended a professional training session from Blackheart International to aclimate myself to the particulars of that weapon platform. In general I have been (under proper supervision) using firearms since I was about 10 years old. I'm a big fan of using .22 LR rounds for teaching the fundamentals of basic firearms handling to younger shooters (It is where I got my start with .22 LR pistols and varmint hunting rifles). For older shooters (teens and up) I tend to recommend 12 gauge shot guns. In my experience nothing gets you past recoil flinch like shooting 50 rounds worth of trap targets with a 12 gauge every summer Sunday morning for three years.
For middle distance I'm pretty happy with the AR-15 shooting 5.56 NATO FMJ. I really haven't settled on what long distance rifle I may eventually obtain. There is a pretty nice 600-1000 yard range in my county, and I wouldn't mind working my way up to a skill consistent with being able to shoot on it without embarassing myself.
Sorry to say I had an eloquent (if not appreciated) reply ready for ZombieBabies, and hit the post button only to at the last moment fail to realize I was using IE 9 which hates the wizards forums and loses my posts. Now over on google chrome to try again.
To sumarize: I believe their is a distinct difference between martial arts and sport martial arts. In my opinion the point of martial arts is to harm/kill your opponent in an attempt to force a loss in the form of death/surrender/capitulation to your will. The point of sport martial arts is to have fun, play in some tournaments, and hopefully learn about good sportsmanship and other positive life lessons.
If you can't understand the difference between these two dramatically different emphasises in martial arts vs. sport martial arts, then I will gladly "wuss out" and default on a match with you.
I hope this helps.
You do know the point of Martial arts period is to disable your opponent correct? Every single form of martial arts that I can think of currently in practice today both Western and Eastern have tournaments. And outside of illegal cage fights none of them, have "Till one of you is physically crippled!" as the victory condition. Yet all of them, you are taught how to maim and cripple your opponent.
You don't see those moves used in tournament because their purpose is for Life or Death situations. But all martial arts have them.
The reason for this is because that's what martial arts are for. I've been in a life and death close combat situation before (when I was especially young and stupid), and I know my way through a fight. I'd never be so stupid as to think I could handle a 4th degree black belt in any martial art, unless I had a gun, or a Blade I was very familiar with handy assuming they were aware of me before hand.
In the martial art I am most practiced in (firearms) opponent on opponent competition means someone is likely getting shot with a 5.56 NATO or 7.62mm round in a manner likely to result in serious injury or death. It is not a game or a sport, but it is definitely still a martial art. Thus when "competing" in martial arts of the non-sport nature I am meaning, the only real opponent is your last score. The only thing with meaning in the martial art tournament competition is bettering yourself. Winning a trophy without bettering yourself along the way is pretty meaningless in my personal estimation.
The only meaning in fighting an opponent is found in surviving to impose your will upon the opponent through forced death/surrender/or capitulation. Do some martial arts "sport" tournaments try to mimic this function of the military martial arts? I do think this is the case. Once again I don't this is a good emphasis for a sport to take. Military martial arts have almost nothing to do with sportsmanship, and almost everything to do with defeating an opponent in any way necessary. In my opinion too many sports have adopted this military martial arts focus and intensity to the point where it is no longer a game, but a serious business. I feel this is one of the negative messages learned by too many sports competitors.
Cute.
I have one clarification. I am not refering to all sports, the majority of participants, the inherent nature of competition, or trying to generalize the "bad apples" as spoiling everything. I am saying the bad apples exist. Too often in my observation the "bad apples" are not called out, and certain "competitive behaviors" of people too invested in winning at any cost can ruin sports for other people.
Understandable. But here's my advise. If that's not what you meant, don't type your statements in such a way that they can be construed that way.
As far as "covering up doping" have you forgotten (or not heard about) the ridiculous congressional inquiries (a complete waste of tax payer dollars) into major league baseball. It took legal action, not a self regulating sport to expose it and try to clean it up.
Truth-be-told, I don't keep up with sports. I don't watch sports, and about the closest I come to engaging in any real sport is amateur kenjutsu, fishing, and throwing the football around with my father and brother on holidays. However, yes, I did hear. But it wasn't this massive, monolithic conspiracy that all or even most athletes, coaches, regulatory officials were a part of. I'm not saying the bad apples don't exist, and that seems to be where we're losing each other. The fact of the matter is that most major league baseball players weren't involved in that. And sometimes, it takes a congressional hearing or two, because people have this tendency to be completely oblivious to things unless something drastic happens. It's not necessarilly intentional.
Everyone knew it was "cheating" and while for over ten years most players probably didn't do it, the ones who did, and the ones who stayed silent about it certainly cast a pall across the whole group.
Really? Because as far as I can tell, people that are were aware still play and watch baseball shamelessly, even if they are aware of the whole doping scheme. They still root for teams and athletes shamelessly... In hindsight, it seems more like a bunch of people got in trouble and everyone else either let it pass, or said "let's learn from the mistake and tighten regulations on our athletes, but at the very least move on with life." People frown on doping as a result, lesson learned, and beyond stricter regulations, I think that's it as far as the legacy of that.
While I agree the sloppy bad apples get caught, this doesn't mean all the bad apples are automatically eliminated.
If you work in sports, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say you're sloppy at covering up a conspiracy. No one gets away with it, even if they think they are. Even the people who had been doing it for years were eventually caught and exposed. Yeah, sure, the regulations and regulatory organizations aren't perfect, but they do eventually catch cheaters. It's like the system of peer review. It's the best way to analyze scientific data and conclusions, however, while its not perfect, and the occassional mistake or fraud does get in, those mistakes or frauds are eventually caught. That doesn't say anything bad about scientific peer review, and likewise, some people sinking to the level of cheating doesn't say anything about sports. People cheat at different things in life all the time, and sports can be no different. It doesn't instill the mantra of "cheat if you can't win" in anyone, because there are consequences for getting caught, dire in some cases.
There is also the common societal behavior that as long as someone is good enough at sports (or acting, music, or other celebrity status type activity), little "social indiscressions" (drinking and driving, cheating on their spouse, recreational drug use, etc.) can be overlooked until they reach the level of criminally agriegious (fighting dogs, ****, vehicular homicide). In some cases these bad apples are sought right back into the sport because their "in game" performance lets someone think that overlooking of their past poor behavior is worth it.
As far as rapists and murderers being allowed back into the NFL after getting busted, I'd like to see some primary sources showing this to be true. And well, I'd like to tackle this part of your response, but I have the feeling that when I response to the use of the word "common," you're going to say "oh no, that's not what I meant." Either way, its a sweeping generalization (another logical fallacy).
Either way, those behaviors are both not "common," "easilly overlooked," or even relevant to sports. It's not caused by the sports, its caused by pre-existing behaviors and tendencies in certain players.
I perfectly agree this is not the majority of cases of participation in sports.
Then its not "common."
However, you haven't yet seemed to agree that this is a bad thing and does happen within the context of sports participation.
I haven't said it isn't. But I also don't think playing football turns football players into delinquints or hooligans, which you seem to keep implying that it does in some cases.
However, I wonder if it does mean you tacitly condone it through silence?
You've not asked, first of all. ;) Secondly, I don't think its necessary for me to explicitly state the entirety of my stance and all related stances on a given matter and related matters in every response. For you to even ask such a question or make such an implication is just silly. Just because I haven't commented on the supposed bad behaviors of a few bad apples actually being bad, that somehow even remotely approaches that I might support that behavior or be okay with it? I've otherwise stated that the school sports don't make the delinquants, even the few bad apples. The bad apples, or the players who lie and cheat to win, were bad apples to begin with, or they were that easilly influenced to begin with. That mindset of wanting to cheat to get ahead can appear in just about any social facet of life where communication or interaction with others is a regular occurance. That's all I'm saying. You appear to be trying to say the same thing, just backwards...
To summarize where I think we are in agreement:
1) neither of us is in favor of bad sportsmanship. Check.
2) the examples of bad sportsmanship are representative of the minority of participants in sports. Check.
3) sports participation can teach positive life lessions about coorperation, teamwork, and good sportmanship when instructed under coaches who care about such things. Check.
Where I think we have a variance:
1) some people participaing in sports (and teaching sports) overemphasize winning over good sportsmanship. Disagreement on this perhaps.
2) sports can be an exclusionary activity (aka if you don't meet the team criteria you can't play). Disagreement on this perhaps.
Let me know what you think.
Understandable. But here's my advise. If that's not what you meant, don't type your statements in such a way that they can be construed that way.
I agree that is the goal. However, I am certainly not in full control of how my intended message is preceived by every possible reader. Too many variances in possible personal interpretations exist to get three people to agree on getting the same identical message from something read, let alone the thousands of potential readers present here.
I also want to point out that in another thread here I essentially said the same message you just gave me here to another poster and went through several days of grief about me "accusing them" of something. I'll chalk it up to the general fun that comes from communicating with another human being using mere written words instead of all the "normal" implications that come along with face to face vocal communications.
Misinterpretations happen. Being willing to ask questions for clarity with a sense of good humor is appreciated.
I hope this helps.
I've got to say, I've never heard of a martial art that didn't have ANY form of nonlethal competition or scoring. Even modern military combatives training resembles "sport" martial arts in that respect. No one wants to get permanently ****ed up during training. Otherwise very few people would really learn the art. To be able to use it effectively you have to be able to practice it in realistic situations (i.e. against an opponent). However, if every match results in maiming, crippling, and death, not only will you find yourself short on volunteers, but your pool of students will be cut in half every time you do this. I'm pretty sure the people that developed these martial arts, whether it was peasants learning them for self defense or militaries training for their use in war, may have been somewhat brutal by today's standards, but nothing like what you describe. It had nothing to do with "sportsmanship" and everything to do with practicality.
To use your analogy of firearms, although the military trains you to shoot to kill (one shot one kill being a common mantra in basic) you shoot at paper targets. If you want to see who is the better of two shooters, you have them both shoot at paper targets. Or have them put on MILES gear (essentially military laser tag) and have them go at it. They don't go and kill each other, even though that is what they are required to do during war.
I also want to point out that in another thread here I essentially said the same message you just gave me here to another poster and went through several days of grief about me "accusing them" of something. I'll chalk it up to the general fun that comes from communicating with another human being using mere written words instead of all the "normal" implications that come along with face to face vocal communications.
For reference, zmortis is referring to the thread [Curveball was a liar].
Particular posts of interest are: [64-67], [71], [136], [139], [150], [152-153], [155-156], [164], [169-170], [173] and [176].
And quite frankly, if you're going to whine about anyone "accusing" you of anything, perhaps you should reconsider the part where you decided what my motivations were and refused to hear any explanation of what I actually met? Multiple times?
You do know the point of Martial arts period is to disable your opponent correct? Every single form of martial arts that I can think of currently in practice today both Western and Eastern have tournaments.
Hm, I used to do Jiu-jitsu and I was told they don't do tournaments because it's considered too dangerous.
Although maybe they do risk it in the US, but just about all the moves we were taught came with a "be careful or you'll break something" warning. Even in the white belt group.
Every martial art has moves that are dangerous. Last I check, a kick to the head is not the safest thing. As for Ju-Jitsu, you can have a tournament, you just prohibit certain tactics like the use of pressure points. You can look at MMA fights. A lot of the fighters learn Ju-Jitsu and use it in fights. Lots of joint manipulations and dangerous strikes meant to incapacitate opponents.
I also want to point out that in another thread here I essentially said the same message you just gave me here to another poster and went through several days of grief about me "accusing them" of something. I'll chalk it up to the general fun that comes from communicating with another human being using mere written words instead of all the "normal" implications that come along with face to face vocal communications.
You lose alot when you change the medium of communication to text. You also learn the importance of capitalization and punctuation very quickly when you are trying to convey in a forum that...
"One time at a dude ranch, I had to help my Uncle Jack off a horse."
Every martial art has moves that are dangerous. Last I check, a kick to the head is not the safest thing. As for Ju-Jitsu, you can have a tournament, you just prohibit certain tactics like the use of pressure points. You can look at MMA fights. A lot of the fighters learn Ju-Jitsu and use it in fights. Lots of joint manipulations and dangerous strikes meant to incapacitate opponents.
And if you watch UFC, there are some moves and tactics not allowed because they are dangerous and potentially deadly.
For instance, no kneeing an opponent if his knees are on the ground, and no hitting the back of the head... 2 things I would have no problem doing if fighting for my life and/or safety.
But not very good to do in competition.
Did he get off?
The horse, or Uncle Jack?
And if you watch UFC, there are some moves and tactics not allowed because they are dangerous and potentially deadly.
For instance, no kneeing an opponent if his knees are on the ground, and no hitting the back of the head... 2 things I would have no problem doing if fighting for my life and/or safety.
But not very good to do in competition.
They are all dangerous and potentially deadly. Next time one of your buddies is around, get him in a guillotine choke and hold it for a while after he passes out. See how safe that works out for you.
Did he get off?
The horse, or Uncle Jack?
Exactly.
I also want to point out that in another thread here I essentially said the same message you just gave me here to another poster and went through several days of grief about me "accusing them" of something. I'll chalk it up to the general fun that comes from communicating with another human being using mere written words instead of all the "normal" implications that come along with face to face vocal communications.
For reference, zmortis is referring to the thread [Curveball was a liar].
Particular posts of interest are: [64-67], [71], [136], [139], [150], [152-153], [155-156], [164], [169-170], [173] and [176].
And quite frankly, if you're going to whine about anyone "accusing" you of anything, perhaps you should reconsider the part where you decided what my motivations were and refused to hear any explanation of what I actually met? Multiple times?
I was simply pointing out some people don't like having their intent misinterpreted. I choose not to go into specifics or name anyone. Other people understand these misinterpretations of intent can happen instead of denying it could ever happen. I just find it interesting that when I'm personally misinterpreted I can understand why.
I was simply pointing out some people don't like having their intent misinterpreted. I choose not to go into specifics or name anyone. Other people understand these misinterpretations of intent can happen instead of denying it could ever happen. I just find it interesting that when I'm personally misinterpreted I can understand why.
Dude, you're still crying about that? Here you go. Fill this out.
@zmortis
I've got to say, I've never heard of a martial art that didn't have ANY form of nonlethal competition or scoring. Even modern military combatives training resembles "sport" martial arts in that respect. No one wants to get permanently ****ed up during training. Otherwise very few people would really learn the art. To be able to use it effectively you have to be able to practice it in realistic situations (i.e. against an opponent). However, if every match results in maiming, crippling, and death, not only will you find yourself short on volunteers, but your pool of students will be cut in half every time you do this. I'm pretty sure the people that developed these martial arts, whether it was peasants learning them for self defense or militaries training for their use in war, may have been somewhat brutal by today's standards, but nothing like what you describe. It had nothing to do with "sportsmanship" and everything to do with practicality.
To use your analogy of firearms, although the military trains you to shoot to kill (one shot one kill being a common mantra in basic) you shoot at paper targets. If you want to see who is the better of two shooters, you have them both shoot at paper targets. Or have them put on MILES gear (essentially military laser tag) and have them go at it. They don't go and kill each other, even though that is what they are required to do during war.
The point being if competitor Bob and competitor Jim are really fighting without holding back, restricting capabilities, limiting abilites, etc. someone is going to be injured or dead. Sport forms of Martial Arts deliberately restrict the potential for leathality. Non-sport forms of martial arts prove their effectiveness on the battlefield not in any kind of simulation training. Training is training, not a sport. Simulation training such as MILES gear isn't used for the purpose of proving Bob is better than Jim. It is to help both Bob and Jim improve their capabilities. If neither one improves and the only thing learned is that Bob is "better" than Jim, then the MILES training becomes effectively ineffective at its purpose.
Certainly training can take on "game like" aspects to make it more enjoyable for the participants, but at the end of the day the purpose of training is to make someone personally better at the subject than they were before training. The purpose of "sport" is athletics, learning good sportsmanship, teaching a particular skill set involved in the sport, and to have fun. While sport, and "training" have elements in common, they are not the same thing. Sport also ads an element of entertainment, and I really don't want to talk with anyone who finds real combat "entertaining".
I was simply pointing out some people don't like having their intent misinterpreted. I choose not to go into specifics or name anyone. Other people understand these misinterpretations of intent can happen instead of denying it could ever happen. I just find it interesting that when I'm personally misinterpreted I can understand why.
Dude, you're still crying about that? Here you go. Fill this out.
For a fine example of the grief that comes from misinterpreting someone else's intent when they get hurt feelings over it, I wish to thank Homicidal Squirel.
For a fine example of the grief that comes from misinterpreting someone else's intent when they get hurt feelings over it, I wish to thank Homicidal Squirel.
And if you watch UFC, there are some moves and tactics not allowed because they are dangerous and potentially deadly.
For instance, no kneeing an opponent if his knees are on the ground, and no hitting the back of the head... 2 things I would have no problem doing if fighting for my life and/or safety.
But not very good to do in competition.
They are all dangerous and potentially deadly. Next time one of your buddies is around, get him in a guillotine choke and hold it for a while after he passes out. See how safe that works out for you.
Yeah, but guillotine chokes are allowed. Other moves, like I posted above, are not allowed.
I'm just saying that, indeed, certain moves are/ may be prohibited in competitions.
Yeah, but guillotine chokes are allowed. Other moves, like I posted above, are not allowed. I'm just saying that, indeed, certain moves are/ may be prohibited in competitions.
Of course. That was my point. Certain moves are prohibited... in competitions. Prohibiting these few moves does not in any way stop a person from competing in martial arts competitions. You don't have to kill or maim your opponent to show you are better than they are.
I'm so proud of Homicidal Squirrel and his ability to demonstrate examples of poor sportsmanship to everyone.
I'm so proud of Homicidal Squirrel and his ability to demonstrate examples of poor sportsmanship to everyone.
I don't think H_S is demonstrating that at all.
However, I do think you are demonstrating something... the inability to get over something and let it go.
H_S is demonstrating a realistic, mature response to your whining.
Yeah, but guillotine chokes are allowed. Other moves, like I posted above, are not allowed. I'm just saying that, indeed, certain moves are/ may be prohibited in competitions.
Of course. That was my point. Certain moves are prohibited... in competitions. Prohibiting these few moves does not in any way stop a person from competing in martial arts competitions. You don't have to kill or maim your opponent to should you are better than they are.
Oh, I agree 100%.
I'm so proud of Homicidal Squirrel and his ability to demonstrate examples of poor sportsmanship to everyone.
I don't think H_S is demonstrating that at all.
However, I do think you are demonstrating something... the inability to get over something and let it go.
H_S is demonstrating a realistic, mature response to your whining.
I'm so proud of Homicidal Squirrel and his ability to demonstrate examples of poor sportsmanship to everyone.
I don't think H_S is demonstrating that at all.
However, I do think you are demonstrating something... the inability to get over something and let it go.
H_S is demonstrating a realistic, mature response to your whining.
Hmm, am I saying I was wronged? No. Am I saying anyone is hurting my feelings? No. I am I discussing the possiblity exists that someone could easily be misread? Yes.
Do I consider this whining? Possibly. What does the TOS say about whining? I don't see anything that says it's against the rules. What does the TOS say about name calling? That does seem to be against the rules. I wonder who is playing by the rules here?
p.s. just trying to get back on topic a little more.
You should just stop now... before more people get annoyed with you.
Let.
It.
Go.
Now you're acting like a brat, talking about "whining isn't against the rules"...
Well, it's against the OTTers rules.
I wonder who is playing by the rules here?
Well, I certainly bend the hell outta 'em...
zmortis...
You should just stop now... before more people get annoyed with you.
Let.
It.
Go.
Now you're acting like a brat, talking about "whining isn't against the rules"...
Well, it's against the OTTers rules.
I believe that the TOS for the forum owner says no name calling. Do you believe it?
Hmm, am I saying I was wronged? No. Am I saying anyone is hurting my feelings? No. I am I discussing the possiblity exists that someone could easily be misread? Yes.
Do I consider this whining? Possibly. What does the TOS say about whining? I don't see anything that says it's against the rules. What does the TOS say about name calling? That does seem to be against the rules. I wonder who is playing by the rules here?
p.s. just trying to get back on topic a little more.
Just so we know, how many more threads will you be bringing this up in?
In any case...
Can someone be misinterpreted? Yes. Now that it’s settled, can you move on from this?
zmortis...
You should just stop now... before more people get annoyed with you.
Let.
It.
Go.
Now you're acting like a brat, talking about "whining isn't against the rules"...
Well, it's against the OTTers rules.
I believe that the TOS for the forum owner says no name calling. Do you believe it?
Certainly.
I have received rides on the banned wagon due to it.
Doesn't change the fact that you are whining and acting like a brat.
And, please, feel free to report me for "name calling" if you wish... *yawn* been there/done that...
Hmm, am I saying I was wronged? No. Am I saying anyone is hurting my feelings? No. I am I discussing the possiblity exists that someone could easily be misread? Yes.
Do I consider this whining? Possibly. What does the TOS say about whining? I don't see anything that says it's against the rules. What does the TOS say about name calling? That does seem to be against the rules. I wonder who is playing by the rules here?
p.s. just trying to get back on topic a little more.
Just so we know, how many more threads will you be bringing this up in?
In any case...Can someone be misinterpreted? Yes. Now that it’s settled, can you move on from this?
I figure it will only happen when people misinterpret what I mean from what I say, and I don't get mad at them over it.
I'm perfectly happy not to be personally abused in any manner. I didn't mention any names, or point to any threads. I simply made the point that misinterpretations occur when I was misinterpreted, and some people react differently to being misinterpreted so that the person who did so with me might possibly learn from my error. Yes. My error.
This being stretched into an estimation of my emotional state is another misinterpretation of my intent, but I'm not having hurt feelings about it, even thought your previous "riding me" is actually not too helpful for the overall situaiton.
Once again, I'm not saying close this thread, or reporting any behavior here. I am currently discussing the concept of sportsmanship, team orientation, and the "us" vs. "them" mentality which develops in real life, and unfortunately translates in negative ways into "sports" on occassion.
In this forum I understand there is no "us" on my side of the divide. There is usually only me. I'm an individual competitor not a team sport participant. The only way I "win" is by performing better than my last attempt.
That's enough, humans. Do you want another thread closed or deleted?
I think ORCs have to respect a certain quota.
Yeah right...
I figure it will only happen when people misinterpret what I mean from what I say, and I don't get mad at them over it.
I'm perfectly happy not to be personally abused in any manner. I didn't mention any names, or point to any threads. I simply made the point that misinterpretations occur when I was misinterpreted, and some people react differently to being misinterpreted so that the person who did so with me might possibly learn from my error. Yes. My error.
This being stretched into an estimation of my emotional state is another misinterpretation of my intent, but I'm not having hurt feelings about it, even thought your previous "riding me" is actually not too helpful for the overall situaiton.
Once again, I'm not saying close this thread, or reporting any behavior here. I am currently discussing the concept of sportsmanship, team orientation, and the "us" vs. "them" mentality which develops in real life, and unfortunately translates in negative ways into "sports" on occassion.
In this forum I understand there is no "us" on my side of the divide. There is usually only me. I'm an individual competitor not a team sport participant. The only way I "win" is by performing better than my last attempt.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah...
Seriously... get over it. I'd call you emo, but even emos doen't cry as much as you...
I figure it will only happen when people misinterpret what I mean from what I say, and I don't get mad at them over it.
I'm perfectly happy not to be personally abused in any manner. I didn't mention any names, or point to any threads. I simply made the point that misinterpretations occur when I was misinterpreted, and some people react differently to being misinterpreted so that the person who did so with me might possibly learn from my error. Yes. My error.
This being stretched into an estimation of my emotional state is another misinterpretation of my intent, but I'm not having hurt feelings about it, even thought your previous "riding me" is actually not too helpful for the overall situaiton.
Once again, I'm not saying close this thread, or reporting any behavior here. I am currently discussing the concept of sportsmanship, team orientation, and the "us" vs. "them" mentality which develops in real life, and unfortunately translates in negative ways into "sports" on occassion.
In this forum I understand there is no "us" on my side of the divide. There is usually only me. I'm an individual competitor not a team sport participant. The only way I "win" is by performing better than my last attempt.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah...
Seriously... get over it. I'd call you emo, but even emos doen't cry as much as you...
Oh Noes!
You called him a name! That's against the CoC!!
Zoinks!!
Some of us may be getting tickets.... for a ride on the BANNED WAGON!!!!!
I figure it will only happen when people misinterpret what I mean from what I say, and I don't get mad at them over it.
I'm perfectly happy not to be personally abused in any manner. I didn't mention any names, or point to any threads. I simply made the point that misinterpretations occur when I was misinterpreted, and some people react differently to being misinterpreted so that the person who did so with me might possibly learn from my error. Yes. My error.
This being stretched into an estimation of my emotional state is another misinterpretation of my intent, but I'm not having hurt feelings about it, even thought your previous "riding me" is actually not too helpful for the overall situaiton.
Once again, I'm not saying close this thread, or reporting any behavior here. I am currently discussing the concept of sportsmanship, team orientation, and the "us" vs. "them" mentality which develops in real life, and unfortunately translates in negative ways into "sports" on occassion.
In this forum I understand there is no "us" on my side of the divide. There is usually only me. I'm an individual competitor not a team sport participant. The only way I "win" is by performing better than my last attempt.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah...
Seriously... get over it. I'd call you emo, but even emos doen't cry as much as you...
Oh Noes!
You called him a name! That's against the CoC!!
Zoinks!!
Some of us may be getting tickets.... for a ride on the BANNED WAGON!!!!!
Shrugs. Not from me in any case. You are both welcome to express any feelings you have about me without fear of my using the report function. I've been using computer bulletin boards (the precursor to forums) since the early 1980's and have never reported a post in all that time. I don't see any purpose to doing so now.
What I do see an opportunity to do is talk about this in context to sportsmanship. For example in sport martial arts is it generally considered fair play to come multiple opponents against a single opponent at one time? Under what circumstances is that allowed? Does this mean I'm considered some kind of writing black belt here to be faced off with two writing blue belts?
Just curious.
Shrugs. Not from me in any case. You are both welcome to express any feelings you have about me without fear of my using the report function. I've been using computer bulletin boards (the precursor to forums) since the early 1980's and have never reported a post in all that time. I don't see any purpose to doing so now.
What I do see an opportunity to do is talk about this in context to sportsmanship. For example in sport martial arts is it generally considered fair play to come multiple opponents against a single opponent at one time? Under what circumstances is that allowed? Does this mean I'm considered some kind of writing black belt here to be faced off with two writing blue belts?
Just curious.
I'm starting to understand your problem with sports. Tell me, do you feel you are being targeted unfairly?
Shrugs. Not from me in any case. You are both welcome to express any feelings you have about me without fear of my using the report function. I've been using computer bulletin boards (the precursor to forums) since the early 1980's and have never reported a post in all that time. I don't see any purpose to doing so now.
What I do see an opportunity to do is talk about this in context to sportsmanship. For example in sport martial arts is it generally considered fair play to come multiple opponents against a single opponent at one time? Under what circumstances is that allowed? Does this mean I'm considered some kind of writing black belt here to be faced off with two writing blue belts?
Just curious.
I'm starting to understand your problem with sports. Tell me, do you feel you are being targeted unfairly?
The short answer is no. I'll leave the interpretation of why up to you. It should be amusing.
The short answer is no. I'll leave the interpretation of why up to you. It should be amusing.
The short answer is no. I'll leave the interpretation of why up to you. It should be amusing.
Much better than the internet memes. It is good to see you playing nice. Thank you.
The short answer is no. I'll leave the interpretation of why up to you. It should be amusing.
Much better than the internet memes. It is good to see you playing nice. Thank you.
zmortis^^^^^
Pretty funny...
Edit: I decided to take it down. Not interested in re-starting the same discussion... meh...
most epic post on the internet. EVER.
I estimate the closure/destruction of this thread is imminent.
With all the master baiting going on I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.
N B4 Lock!
I estimate the closure/destruction of this thread is imminent.
With all the master baiting going on I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.
I know it's childish of me, but that's funny.
I'm really curious, TA, just how you jump from me saying that he doesn't think girls shouldn't be allowed to compete at all1 and that he's whining that the tournament isn't as sexist as he is2 to me saying he's trying to force anything on anyone.
Not sure I understand your complant with me.
Or that, well, he thinks it is bad luck on his part that he happens to live in Iowa. "Hi, I'm hindu!" "Hey man, welcome. We are currently celebrating hamburger day!" "Oh, thats unfortunate. I do not eat cow for religious reasons, so none for me thanks."Completly stomping on everyone elses right to eat hamburgers...
Sure, that would be a suitable analogy. If the hindu guy also said that he didn't think anyone should eat hamburger.
I do not know how to read your 'correction' to the presented analogy if not along the lines of "yes, thats correct, if the analogy presented was also attempting to force his views on others". A reading that, while I do not agree, certaintly makes sense in the context of the thread where many others have commented on how his refusing to wrestle was forcing his views on others (specifically, the person he refused to wrestle with).
The only other way I can reasonably make sense of your statment, now that you have declared my first interpretation to be apparantly false, is that your coming from a postion that either:
1) Belevies that religious belifes, particularly hindu belifes, are written in such a way that they are only supposed to be applicable to followers of that religion and not people in general (eg: Christians should not commit adultry instead of Man should not commit adultry). I cannot speak directly to the wording of hindu belife on the matter, and it may be the case that that particular tennet of faith is or that religion in general is only intended to apply to followers of the relegion but in my experience that is not the general case for things of that nature so not what I at first assumed.
2) Have no concept of thinking something is wrong but allow others to do it anyways through accepting that their beilifes may be diffrent from yours and mabey more correct than your own. As you yourself have, in my experience, pointed out many times that saying someone should not do something, and saying someone should not be allowed to do something are very diffrent, this is particularly unlikely.
---------------
So, if your intent there was to imply somethign other than that he was attempting to stop girls from wrestling, I have no idea what you where trying to convey.
zmortis...
You should just stop now... before more people get annoyed with you.
Let.
It.
Go.
Now you're acting like a brat, talking about "whining isn't against the rules"...
Well, it's against the OTTers rules.
...
What?
That's, like, all anyone does here.
Bitches.
I know it's childish of me, but that's funny.
???
Call me crazy, but I'm gonna have to disagree.
He is bitching about fellow posters in a less confrontational manner than normally displayed here, his showing slightly more manners than you lot, while possibly annoying, does not in any way warrant the amount of animosity and flameing going on here.
Seriously, WTF?
It's simple. He didn't say it was wrong for him to wrestle girls, he said it was wrong for boys to wrestle girls. Hence why your comparison would be better if the Hindu didn't just decline to eat a hamburger himself, but said that no one should eat a hamburger.
Still not him trying to force their beliefs on other people though, as that implies a certain degree of, well, force, as opposed to just him whining in a very public fashion about how unfair it is that the tournament isn't as sexist as he is.
Thats not how thoes things are done. I'm fairly certaint that hindu belife is that people should not eat cow, because they are sacred.
In order for his words to have the meaning you want (to me, that you seem to be drawing from them) he would have to declare that his relegious belifes are the only ones that could be true, that everyone must follow them. Saying he belives boys should not wrestle with girls is simply stating his belife. How else would you expect it to be phrased?
"Oh, thats unfortunate. I do not eat cow for religious reasons, so none for me thanks."
Compared to the boy's "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner."
Do you see the difference? One is being respectful to others and abstaining without criticizing. The other is not, and is making it rudely clear that they disapprove of the event entirely. He then goes on and whines that the event isn't as sexist as he is, which would be equivalent to your hypothetical Hindu complaining that barbeque's happen at all.
One is respectful and isn't trying to make a scene or turn their abstaining into a political statement, the other is going out of their way to criticize the event as a whole and making a very public, very political statement.
Honestly it sounds like he was trying to explain that his forefetting was not done on the belife that women are inferior/incapable [I have much respect blah blah] but out of religious objections instead of secular concerns. In other words, saying his actions are motivated out of a religious belife (that men and women should not wrestle with one another) and not gener elitism.
Your appear to have some assumptions about the intent and situation in which the statment was given, I see a diffrent series of events to be more likely.
One is respectful and isn't trying to make a scene or turn their abstaining into a political statement, the other is going out of their way to criticize the event as a whole and making a very public, very political statement.
Seems likely to me that the scene was not made by him and that the statment itself was asked for. But, obviously, I have no more information than you do, so it could well be that I am simply wrong about the circumstances, but you could be as well.
"As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that is is appropriate for me to engage a girl in this manner." And then leave it at that. You plead religion, you don't try to say that everyone should adhere to your beliefs, and you don't whine. Ta-dah.
Whether the statement was asked for or not, doesn't change that it's the statement he chose to give. And it's not like you can't excuse you from something politely without being an ass about it. Here, I'll give an example:
"As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that is is appropriate for me to engage a girl in this manner." And then leave it at that. You plead religion, you don't try to say that everyone should adhere to your beliefs, and you don't whine. Ta-dah.
Whether the statement was asked for or not, doesn't change that it's the statement he chose to give. And it's not like you can't excuse you from something politely without being an ass about it. Here, I'll give an example:
"As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that is is appropriate for me to engage a girl in this manner." And then leave it at that. You plead religion, you don't try to say that everyone should adhere to your beliefs, and you don't whine. Ta-dah.
Hindsight is 20/20. I'll bet if he knew how much people would be taking apart each and every word he spoke and possibly twisted incorrect presumptions out of it he probably would have said something like that.
(or maybe not, im just doing exactly what you are doing, take words and applying meaning to them as well. Im just giving him the benifit of the doubt.)
I know it's childish of me, but that's funny.
???
Call me crazy, but I'm gonna have to disagree.
He is bitching about fellow posters in a less confrontational manner than normally displayed here, his showing slightly more manners than you lot, while possibly annoying, does not in any way warrant the amount of animosity and flameing going on here.
Seriously, WTF?
I was referring to Boraxe saying "master baiting." I'm not sure what you are refering too.
Hindsight is 20/20. I'll bet if he knew how much people would be taking apart each and every word he spoke and possibly twisted incorrect presumptions out of it he probably would have said something like that.
I didn't realize it was a presumption to take someone at their word. That's very curious.
Hrm. Maybe it's an always-on kinda thing. Da da dee da da. Whether the statement was asked for or not, doesn't change that it's the statement he chose to give. And it's not like you can't excuse you from something politely without being an ass about it. Here, I'll give an example:
"As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that is is appropriate for me to engage a girl in this manner." And then leave it at that. You plead religion, you don't try to say that everyone should adhere to your beliefs, and you don't whine. Ta-dah.
Hindsight is 20/20. I'll bet if he knew how much people would be taking apart each and every word he spoke and possibly twisted incorrect presumptions out of it he probably would have said something like that.
(or maybe not, im just doing exactly what you are doing, take words and applying meaning to them as well. Im just giving him the benifit of the doubt.)
Exactly. I'm not saying he is innocent of the charges aginst him, but damn, there is no where near enough evidence to warrant all the heat he is getting.
I'm not sure what you are refering too.
I thought I was pretty clear...
One men ARE physically stronger then women on average, this IS a FACT. Men are built to be hunters and warriors, women are not. Women can indeed kick ass but men have the evolutionary advantage.
Second no matter what beliefs you may hold, you don't reflect society as a whole. In the eyes of the onlookers it was a lose lose for him. If he won, he just beat a girl, if he lost? he was just beaten by a girl. Its not sexist at all, go back to my first point and acknowledge facts.
Third if she was particularity attractive popping a bone is not always a choice, especially since men are visually stimulated combined with actually touching her. Its not that the wrestling itself is arousing at all but the visual and physical connection to your brain can cause arousal whether or not you are even in the mood. Not to mention its not uncommon for men anyway due to the testosterone pumping through them during the match.
I've been in martial arts for 20 years. I have never once 'popped one' during a fight. Even with hot chicks. Know why? Those hot chicks were trying to kick me in the face. In other words, I had more pressing matters to attend to. Seriously, if you've never fought quit pretending to know what'll happen. Go out, get in a fight with a hottie and see if you get all excited. If you do, you're not normal.
First of all we are talking about wrestling not martial arts, martial arts is far more painful coupled with far less touching outside of literally taking blunt impact from fists and feet. Wrestling is an on the floor grapple where you attempt to pin another person. Please don't compare apples to astronaut chimpanzees smoking a hookah and expect to be taken seriously.
I'm not sure what you are refering too.
I thought I was pretty clear...
Not at all. When I said I was being childish and I thought it was funny I meant Boraxe saying "master baiting." I'm not really sure what your rant had to do with what I said or referred too.
I've been in martial arts for 20 years. I have never once 'popped one' during a fight. Even with hot chicks. Know why? Those hot chicks were trying to kick me in the face. In other words, I had more pressing matters to attend to. Seriously, if you've never fought quit pretending to know what'll happen. Go out, get in a fight with a hottie and see if you get all excited. If you do, you're not normal.
LOL. And, at least, you should not be wrestling/in a sport where you would fight. ;)
The girl beat other guys to get where she was. Even if guys have a greater potential strength than girls, one shouldn't apply a generality to a specific case - she is stronger (and/or a better wrestler) than the guys she's come up against. There is no reason to assume you're better than her simply because you're a guy.
I've been in martial arts for 20 years. I have never once 'popped one' during a fight. Even with hot chicks. Know why? Those hot chicks were trying to kick me in the face. In other words, I had more pressing matters to attend to. Seriously, if you've never fought quit pretending to know what'll happen. Go out, get in a fight with a hottie and see if you get all excited. If you do, you're not normal.
First of all we are talking about wrestling not martial arts, martial arts is far more painful coupled with far less touching outside of literally taking blunt impact from fists and feet.
Wrestling is a martial art.
I've been in martial arts for 20 years. I have never once 'popped one' during a fight. Even with hot chicks. Know why? Those hot chicks were trying to kick me in the face. In other words, I had more pressing matters to attend to. Seriously, if you've never fought quit pretending to know what'll happen. Go out, get in a fight with a hottie and see if you get all excited. If you do, you're not normal.
I agree with Z_B.
I am an equal opportunity ass-kicker
There is no reason to assume you're better than her simply because you're a guy.
Excellent point.
I know next to nothing about wrestling and would bet she could kick my ass rather quickly... or at least submit me...
There is no reason to assume you're better than her simply because you're a guy.
Excellent point.
I know next to nothing about wrestling and would bet she could kick my ass rather quickly... or at least submit me...
"Average" this and "average" that don't mean much in individual instances. One of the biggest reasons I'm against sex-based stat modifiers in D&D (and that they tend to reinforce stereotypes with which I disagree).
... OMG, I just referenced D&D in the OTT ...
*ducks*
I mean, even if you did wrestle, there's still no reason to think that you were better than her because you're a guy - she's already proven she can beat other guys, so that's not exactly an advantage anymore. There are plenty of reasons to think you're better than her, but that one isn't really rational. ;)
I didn't know...
Older editions of RoleMaster had sex based stat mods, but we ignored them...
And the newer editions no longer have them...
There are sex based stat mods in D&D now?!
I didn't know...
Older editions of RoleMaster had sex based stat mods, but we ignored them...
And the newer editions no longer have them...
LOL. No, thank God! But it's a very common modification to be discussed on certain boards. ;)
Oblivion and Mount&Blade have them, and I think fallout 3 does as well (at the very least it has gender dependent perks)
One of the reasons I didn't play Oblivion, and they fixed the gendered perks in Fallout: New Vegas (now there's one for hetero and homosexuals of each gender).
Though taking the Black Widow perk in Fallout 3, I felt I ran up against a TON of female adversaries, as if the game was cheating to get out of giving me my 10% extra damage against the mens. :P
Though taking the Black Widow perk in Fallout 3, I felt I ran up against a TON of female adversaries, as if the game was cheating to get out of giving me my 10% extra damage against the mens. :P
Really? The only enemy groups I remember that consistently had women at all were the raiders, and they were normally pretty fifty-fifty from what I recall. I don't think the enclave had female soldiers... then again, they had the power armor, so it wouldn't have been as obvious.
But in New Vegas the vs. Men perks were a definite bonus if you were choosing anyone but the legion. I mean really... there was the legion, the boomers, and still half of everyone else.
Though taking the Black Widow perk in Fallout 3, I felt I ran up against a TON of female adversaries, as if the game was cheating to get out of giving me my 10% extra damage against the mens. :P
Really? The only enemy groups I remember that consistently had women at all were the raiders, and they were normally pretty fifty-fifty from what I recall. I don't think the enclave had female soldiers... then again, they had the power armor, so it wouldn't have been as obvious.
But in New Vegas the vs. Men perks were a definite bonus if you were choosing anyone but the legion. I mean really... there was the legion, the boomers, and still half of everyone else.
Yeah, the vs Men perks were/are still waaaaay more useful than the vs Women ones, unfortunately. Especially because there are so many more men to interact with, which is a flaw in my book.
I meant the raiders/random encounters. I ran into like a ton of female raiders, much more than the playthrough without the Black Widow perk. It may have been random, but it didn't feel random, you know?
Hindsight is 20/20. I'll bet if he knew how much people would be taking apart each and every word he spoke and possibly twisted incorrect presumptions out of it he probably would have said something like that.
I didn't realize it was a presumption to take someone at their word. That's very curious.
Obviously there is some kind of ambiguity to his statements otherwise there wouldnt be such a fuss over the wording.
All im saying is that you are deriving intent from a quote that may have been taken out of context.
Much like you are doing with my own qoute.
First of all we are talking about wrestling not martial arts, martial arts is far more painful coupled with far less touching outside of literally taking blunt impact from fists and feet. Wrestling is an on the floor grapple where you attempt to pin another person. Please don't compare apples to astronaut chimpanzees smoking a hookah and expect to be taken seriously.
Umm ... wrestling is a martial art. Also, arts such as Judo, Ju Jitsu, Sambo and others involve grappling. Knowing what it is you're talking about before you open your mouth is a good thing. Thank you for illustrating my point. To repeat: if you've no experience fighting, you only have assumptions. Your assumptions are not fact. If you wish to tell us about 'poppin' one' when fighting, try, I dunno, fighting to see if it happens. Otherwise just stop. Cuz all you're doing is makin' **** up.
Oblivion and Mount&Blade have them, and I think fallout 3 does as well (at the very least it has gender dependent perks)
One of the reasons I didn't play Oblivion, and they fixed the gendered perks in Fallout: New Vegas (now there's one for hetero and homosexuals of each gender).
Though taking the Black Widow perk in Fallout 3, I felt I ran up against a TON of female adversaries, as if the game was cheating to get out of giving me my 10% extra damage against the mens. :P
They do make perfect sense in Mount&Blade though, as it is a mixed-up middle-ages world and stats are mostly related to upbringing, not biology.
My first character to become a ruler of their own country was a woman though... and a peasant at that
Hell, I was playing this character on foot! In Mount&Blade!
Oblivion and Mount&Blade have them, and I think fallout 3 does as well (at the very least it has gender dependent perks)
One of the reasons I didn't play Oblivion, and they fixed the gendered perks in Fallout: New Vegas (now there's one for hetero and homosexuals of each gender).
Though taking the Black Widow perk in Fallout 3, I felt I ran up against a TON of female adversaries, as if the game was cheating to get out of giving me my 10% extra damage against the mens. :P
They do make perfect sense in Mount&Blade though, as it is a mixed-up middle-ages world and stats are mostly related to upbringing, not biology.
My first character to become a ruler of their own country was a woman though... and a peasant at that
Hell, I was playing this character on foot! In Mount&Blade!
Meh, I never heard of it before this thread, and so can't comment on it.
"Average" this and "average" that don't mean much in individual instances. One of the biggest reasons I'm against sex-based stat modifiers in D&D (and that they tend to reinforce stereotypes with which I disagree)
Technically the very same could be said about race-based stat modifiers, people just simply find them less offensive ;)