|
 Much of the media has focused on the recent story about a young boy in Iowa refusing to wrestle a high school girl in a state tournament. At first, the story snagged my attention because not only did I wrestle in high school, but my junior high school had a female football player. After the initial coverage I thought the attention would die down and Iowa would go back to farming. That didn't happen and the boy's father began participating in interviews.
The story has a bit more than meets the eye. Its not a simple matter of boy won't hit girl. This particular boy and his parents only agree with the public school system when it involves athletics. You see, Joel Northrup (the boy in question) is home schooled. It would seem public academics are not worthy of his holy brain unless they involve physical grappling with other boys. That part of the public school system is acceptable. But the actual book knowledge - not so much.
Joel and his father Jamie are claiming that his religious convictions didn't permit him to inflict "violence" on a girl. His father goes on to say that there is a "biblical Christian principle of treating women with respect and dignity". I won't spend much time on the offensive insinuation that Christianity has some sort of unique superiority towards gender equality. Instead, I'll focus on the implication of his statement. Shall we demobilize the approximately 350,000 women serving in the United States military and tell them their service is no longer required or appreciated? Shall we simplify things even farther and prohibit women from serving in any occupation requiring physical labor? Better still, shall we let women know that the workplace can be challenging and combative so they should stick to the kitchen?
In my opinion, Joel would have shown his opponent - Ms. Cassy Herkelman- a great deal more "respect and dignity" by facing her as an honorable opponent. Unlike him, she attends the school she wrestles to represent. She has maintained the same high academic standards as her team mates and qualified for the state championship tournament. She has earned the right to face him in a regulated and monitored test of skill.
More to the point, it is disappointing that his father is instilling within him a discrimination against women. I'm curious if Jamie would look down on his son if he chose to be a stay-at-home dad. Hopefully he doesn't consider that "women's work". But I'll say this for the interviewing dad, he certainly seems to be involved!
|
First, the father has chosen to take the responsibility to teach his son on his own, in his home. Statistics show that home schooled students fair much better on test scores than public school children.
Second, this is a religious preference. Everyone is entitled to their own religious preference. He is not suing the school district because there is a girl wrestling. He made a choice and stuck by it. He is not foisting his belief on anyone. He is choosing to live by it on his own without any disrespect to anyone. I think the disrespect you imply e had for the girl is just that, implied. I have followed this story and not once have I heard him say that he chose not to wrestle her because she is inferior in any way. He chose not to wrestle her because he did not see it as something a man of his faith would do to a woman. That's it.
Last, you claim this is discrimination against women and yet in a similar case where a young boy played field hockey on the girls team because there was no boys field hockey team. His athletic ability far surpassed that of the girls and his team dominated each opponent. All of the stories there are about how it is unfair of him to play on the team and how he should be expected to step down.
So I ask you... Why the double standard? Why is it that a boy is deemed to not show respect for a girl when he refuses to wrestle her, but he shouldn't be allowed to compete against her in another sport ?
It makes no sense.
It's important to remember Northrup signed up to be a wrestler. He didn't sign up just to wrestle men, when he joined he agreed to wrestle worthy opponents. The girl in question qualified to be where she is as his equal. Yet he falls on back on religion as a way to justify his own discomfort in wrestling a girl.
If he really had respect for her, he'd treat her like a competitor. No more, no less.
But I don't think it rises to the level of discrimination. Ignorance and sexism? Yes. But he's not being discriminatory, just stupid.
My first issue is with the disrespect shown to his female opponent. As "Daddy Files" stated in the previous comment, Master Northrup signed up to a wrestler. If he respected her, he would wrestle her. Treat her as an equal. Instead, he refused to do so because of her gender. I return to my example of female soldiers in the United States military. Does Mr. Northrup feel they are disobeying God? Are their male counterparts and superior officers disobeying God by allowing them to serve? Should the women receive less pay due to their prohibition from serving in combat?
Secondly, why is he on the team? He doesn't attend this school, receive education from its teachers, or eat lunch with its students.
In summary, I don't believe God should be used as a scapegoat for a personal decision. The Bible doesn't say "thou shalt not wrestle girls". And I believe that if he saw Ms. Herkelman as an equal, he would have wrestled her as such.
I think you're right though. From what I've read, the boy didn't refuse to wrestle because he felt that he wouldn't be comfortable grabbing or getting grabbed in private areas -- he refused because he thought that girls and boys shouldn't fight.