If you mention Iowa around Washington, D.C., the first thing that will pop into most people’s minds is “caucuses.” But in Iowa, if you asked a local about the match-ups, he’d most likely assume you were talking about wrestling. That’s right, the non-metaphorical, sweaty, rough-and-tumble-on-the-mat sort of wrestling.
This year’s Iowa state championships attracted attention nationwide when the promising home-schooled sophomore Joel Northrup (the fifth-ranked wrestler in the state) defaulted on his first match. He had drawn Cassy Herkelman, a female freshman, as his opponent, and he could not, in good conscience, wrestle a girl.
Advertisement
Northrup’s statement was a model of clarity and simplicity: “I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan [another female wrestler who made it to the state championships] and their accomplishments. 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. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most high-school sports in Iowa.” Had he not declined to wrestle Herkelman, he might have won it all.
The New York Times, the Associated Press, and other national news organizations noted that Northrup’s father is a minister — the suggestion being that such peculiar and backward views as the young man expressed must be chalked up to a religious sensibility. Most of the coverage stressed the “girl against the old boys’ network” angle. The Times headline captured the tone: “On Mat, Girls Still Face Uphill Struggle.”
But not every issue fits neatly into the little boxes that the Times headline writers like to arrange. The liberal template is always that conventional practices — such as not having boys and girls wrestle one another — are obsolete now that we believe in pure sexual equality. Clinging to the outmoded notion that wrestling might be one sport best kept separate is evidence of sexism.
Rick Reilly, writing at ESPN.com, responded to the Reverend Northrup’s view that “We believe in the elevation and respect of woman” with contempt: “That’s where the Northrups are so wrong. Body slams and takedowns and gouges in the eye and elbows in the ribs are exactly how to respect Cassy Herkelman. This is what she lives for. She can elevate herself, thanks.”
Are we really sure we want to obliterate the last traces of chivalry in young men — to stamp out every trace of protectiveness from the male psyche?
Even if we agree that young women should be body-slammed and gouged and hurt if that’s what they’ve signed up for, you have to be living in a dream world not to face the other reality of co-ed wrestling: It puts the boy at a disadvantage.
Not only is any well brought-up young man going to hesitate to use his full strength against a young lady, he is also going to have to be very careful about where he touches her. The genital areas of both sexes are off limits, obviously. But girls also have breasts. So the boys have to be very careful not to grab the girl in such a way as might cause his hands to touch her breasts if she moves in an unexpected direction. One finger slip and the wrestler becomes a sexual harasser, no? The girl, by contrast, can push and shove and grab the upper body of her opponent without impediment.
And why are boys being put in this awkward situation? Because a small minority of high-school girls has decided to wrestle. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, more than 275,000 boys competed in wrestling during the last school year — compared with only 6,000 girls. Five states — California, Hawaii, Texas, Washington, and Tennessee — sponsor girls-only high-school wrestling tournaments. In the other states, girls are asked to compete against boys.
Supporters of co-ed wrestling insist that sex is the last thing on the kids’ minds when they’re in the arena, which is almost certainly false. These are, after all, teenagers. Even when not in close proximity to the opposite sex, even when not coming into physical contact with the opposite sex at all, a teenager will spend a generous amount of time thinking about sex.
Joel Northrup did the honorable thing by bowing out and refusing to wrestle a girl. He cited his conscience and his faith. They have been better guides for him than this gender-neutrality ideology has been for the state of Iowa.
I'm puzzled. On the rare occasions I watch sports, I see competitions separated by sex, and assumed that was normal. NBA teams don't play WNBA teams, for instance; the Williams sisters always seem to face other women across the net; males race against other males in track and females against other females. (Big news story a while ago about whether one runner was truly a woman.) And then I read this story -- I didn't know ANY sports were coed (OK maybe horse-racing,) but wrestling should be absolutely the last to go there!
When I first heard of this I thought that Joel's behavior was something he and his family could be proud of. Now, revisiting the story, I think Joel's behavior is something our society should be proud of.
River has it correct. Most sports are separated by gender. What would the coed proponents do if a boy wanted to compete in gymnastics? Either girls wrestle girls or we should expect gender neutrality. What would gender neutrality do to track, field, cross country, swimming, fencing, bowling, shooting, curling, gymnastics, tennis, skiing, rowing, curling, field hockey, and so on - all have gender specific teams. Why should girls be diminished by having separate teams? We should have one swimming or track team. If that team is all boys - fine. All girls fine. A mix fine. Why is it noble in one sport and not another.
A boy wanting to play field hockey at a school with only girls field hockey would be not be at the center of a gender neutrality love fest.
My son wrestles. And yes, he's pulled a female opponent. My wife and I have always taught him to respect women. To treat them like the gifts they truly are. And while I respect Joel's well-thought and clearly stated decision, I've always told my son, "If she puts her toe on the line, put her shoulders on the mat."
By deciding to wrestle against boys, a girl (and her parents for allowing her) has chosen to be handled in some indelicate ways. It is not up to me, or my son to re-think their decision for them. It is my son's duty as a wrestler to respect the sport, respect his opponent and give her his best.
I do not question Joel's decision. It is one that each wrestler has to make in his or her own heart. In my book, he is a champion for standing up for his beliefs. We could all learn something from him.
And for the record, when my son wrestled the girl, he tells me sex was the farthest thing from his mind. Not getting pinned by a girl was all that mattered.
Several years ago, a girl living in Prince George's country, Maryland, decided she wanted to play high school football. The coach and school administrators explained at length that this was inadvisable on several levels, not least of which the danger of injury.
The girl and her mother resisted all such advice and--surprise, surprise--threatened to sue. The school system caved and permitted her to join the team.
On the first day of practice, she was severely injured. She quickly faded from the headlines, relegated to the dustbin of radical feminism. The lesson should have been clear, but there apparently is no lack of young women available for use as politically correct cannon fodder.
Joel Northrup displayed far more courage and wisdom than the adults who supposedly are running the program. Congratulations to a true champion.
I am a youth wrestling coach with 3 sons who wrestle at different levels.
Joel, Cassey & Megan and a lot of other wrestlers from youth level to high school are actually Title IX victims.
The wrestling community is split between the traditionalists who want an all boys format, those that think a boys and girls division makes sense and those who think it is alright for boys to wrestle girls, all the time.
Wrestling has been decimated by Title IX and a drive for "balance" between girls and boys sports. The thing is that girls entry into the sport is much more welcomed today because the chances that the sport makes a resurgence is raised if it is considered a co-ed sport rather than a boys only sport.
People like Rick Reilly who know sports but don't know wrestling don't get it. Wrestling is an intensely personal sport, a mental sport like no other. All 3 of these kids, to be wrestling at that level, train hard, suck weight, spend the holiday break in a wrestling room sweating with a coach barking at them. It isn't a sport for the casual athlete.
If Joel had wrestled her when his moral foundation said "NO" he would have changed who he is at the core. Nothing against the boys who decide to wrestle a girl. We've put them in that position.
I've seen girls hurt because the boy had no compunctions about putting the hammer down on a female. Do we really want to teach that that is ok?
This is just another example of the mindless stupidity of the "education" establishment mindlessly following more critical correctness and forcing it on kids and their parents. These people are ultimately bullies; to wit, the teachers in Wisconsin. Like there, we are finally seeing that along all these mindless theories and proposals from multiculturalism on down, it is now time to push back real hard and let common sense prevail. Enough. And you can win too just like with the bullies on the playground!
The young man who passed did the right thing by following his values, but so did the young ladies. Wrestling is combat sport, but it is still a sport.
When I was in junior high our wrestling squad had one girl. We had two girls on our co-ed tennis squad. I was one of the girls, and I learned a great deal about losing. (Our co-ed team play against boy-only teams, and other co-ed teams.) The guys always defeated me, the other girl she one many matches.
Of course she was number two on the roster and I was number eight. Skillwise there was a big difference between 2nd and last. On a girls team I would have been second. One coach, six girls and two boys lost the chance at tennis team, but the school only had to fund one team of eight players rather than two teams of 16 players.
In the first year of title nine I remember alot of changes. We lost our female tennis team, and the boys who played volleyball, and gymnastics met much more resistance then the girls on the boy teams.
The female volleyball and gymnastics coaches did not want boys on their teams and all-girl teams forfeited rather than play against teams with boys. My school was small and made many teams co-ed in response to title nine.
To elaborate on a point denroy made earlier: according to the code of chivalry, a man gains nothing in competing in a physical contest against a woman. If he wins, he does not increase his probitas; if he loses, he decreases his probitas. Of course, it was necessary to discredit and destroy chivalry in order to realize the changes the feminist movement desires, and they have been very effective. Although it should be noted that 20th century men were astonishingly eager to lose that battle. Yet there is still a vestige of the lost nobility of the tradition of chivalry as we can see from Northrup's decision. Small wonder that thoroughly modern, meterosexual men like Rick Reilly from ESPN find the concept of chivalry so alien, incomprehensible and, let's admit it, threatening. The code of chivalry is difficult to follow and pansies like Reilly are justified to be threatened by it.
Forcing a teenage boy to wrestle a girl is sexual abuse. In what other situtation is a boy forced to grab a girls breasts, put his hand between her legs, etc.? The girls are choosing to do it, and I do understand it's frustrating for them to be told they can't. But it's not the guys' fault that there are not enough women who want to wrestle to make their own league.
Not to be crude, but wrestling singlets don't hide much and teenage boys get "excited" pretty easily. It's completely unfair to put them in that situation in front of an audience.
Speaking of wrestling, when liberals wrestle with human nature they lose, even with Title IX at their back.
If agility, strength and speed define an athlete, then boys are better athletes than girls, always have been, alwys will be. After decades of Title IX, we have 275,000 boys and 6000 girls wrestling ... If that doesn't testify to the power of human nature and the vanity of the attempts to legislate it away, nothing ever will.
The liberals, they're swimming upstream again.
As a conservative, I have to confess, I don't get that upset at incidents like this one. They're not tragic; they're comical to me. What the boy in Iowa should have done, in my opinion, is wrestle the girl with one arm (maybe the other one would hold a box of chocolates). That would have said it all.
A problem exists in that a young person who behaves with honor in this manner receives public scorn by the MSM which discourages young people from this sort of behavior. This could be at least partially combated by having a scholarship (lets call it the NR scholarship) where seniors write essays about what honorable tasks they did to deserve receiving it, and provide evidence in the form of supporting letters, news articles, etc. The best essays based upon their moral achievement in a more traditional manner (progressive moral relativists need not apply) receive an NR scholarship to be used towards tuition at the university of their choice. The issue of money comes up, but a charitable contribution could be set up by a click on a weblink.
I would never let my daughter date a guy who had wrestled girls. It shows that he is willing, in principle, to treat a girl as someone he may overpower and dominate. That might never come out in the relationship, but it shows he has it in him to cross that line.
Sorry, I must disagree with the majority on this one. When this girl entered the arena of co-ed wrestling, she placed herself beyond the requirements of chivalry. I would have gladly wrestled her, touching her everywhere necessary (and even unnecessary ;-)) to win the match and showing no more concern for her physical well being than I would for a male opponent. Win or lose, I would have winked at her father when the match ended.
Freedom can be a brutal taskmaster! Her choice, her consequences.
Follow
