Friday, February 18, 2011

Joel Northrup takes a stand

Cassy Herkelman awarded victory by default
Joel Northrup is a talented young wrestler in the US state of Iowa. He chose, however, to default at the state tournament. Why? He had been scheduled to compete against a girl, Cassy Herkelman.

He gave the following reason for giving up the chance to win the state tournament:

"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," said 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."

In modern liberal societies our sex is not supposed to matter. It is a predetermined quality that is thought to violate the principle of autonomy.

But our sex does matter. Joel Northrup clearly felt that he stood in a different relationship to Cassy Herkelman than he would to a male. He did not want to have to go against his better instinct to be physically protective towards females rather than violent. Nor, perhaps, did he want to pretend that laying hands on the body of a young woman was as meaningless as doing so to a male in a contact sport.

I don't think he should have been placed in the position he was put in. If there are girls who really do want to wrestle, they should do so in a league of their own. Nor is wrestling a sport that it makes much sense to encourage girls to participate in. How does such a sport help to develop the feminine body or soul?


  1. This man is a gentleman, and worthy of our respect. There is no way I could wrestle with a girl/woman either.

  2. Mark,

    Totally agree with you. This lad has to lose his chance at the championship because of the idiocy of the position he was put into.

  3. When I first glanced at the picture, I thought it was a boy; is this androgynous person a modern feminine ideal?

  4. I'd like to raise a point that seems to have been missed thus far.

    Most of the criticisms levelled at Northrup at the newpaper's comment section attack his reluctance to "manhandle" a girl in such a manner. Yet not a single person, that I know of have addressed what it means that girls apparently feel free rein to fondle/manhandle a boy like as would happen in a wrestling match.

    As far as Northrup is concerned, I "get" his reluctance to wrestle a girl. Yet his values are anachronistic in this day and age, and personally, I think it is incumbent upon men to take advantage of opportunities such as this to teach females what it means to compete in a man's world.

    In other words, if she steps up to him as an equal, as a man, go after her as he would a boy, which means getting as rough as he needs to in order to win.

    Problem is that, as Jesse 7 implied, he is in an idiotic position wherein the best he can do is merely break even, since he can't win. The moment some wrestler/football/other random mixed-sex contact sport chick gets hurt or is the target of rough contact, watch for opprobrium to be heaped upon his head.

  5. Elusive Wapiti said,

    "In other words, if she steps up to him as an equal, as a man, go after her as he would a boy, which means getting as rough as he needs to in order to win."

    Personally I'd wrestle her, because we can't win in my opinion by letting women waltz though life. Nonetheless its a slippery slope. If you've seen the movie Mr and Mrs Smith there's a scene where Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are fighting and he starts kicking her when she's on the ground. This was done out of camera shot but there were several cheers in the theatre, and gasps from women, when it happened.

    Women can't compete in the physical realm and they should know that, nonetheless we could be opening the door to barbarism.

  6. The honorable thing for her to have done would have been to not accept the default win. That would involve a male standard of honor though I suppose.

  7. If you read a lot of the comments on the link that Mark posted they're critical of the guy. This is really sad, also they imply that he chicked out because he thought he'd lose, even though he has an excellent record.

  8. Fighting would put him in a no-win situation.

    If he fights and loses, then he lost to a girl and incurs scornful contempt.

    If he fights and wins, then he gets no credit (you beat a girl, so what?) and possibly incurs criticism for playing "too rough".

    My vote, though, would have been for him to fight her and school her ass so harshly just to show that girls have no business being in the wrestling ring with men.

  9. "In modern liberal societies our sex is not supposed to matter. It is a predetermined quality that is thought to violate the principle of autonomy."

    I'm glad he challenged this assertion. I just hope that he doesn't ally with liberal men who think that women can do no wrong and therefore should always have their "rights" or should do whatever they want without being opposed.

  10. Joel blew it. He should have wrestled the woman, slammed her to the mat good and hard, and teach her a lesson! We have to disabuse women of the notion that they can do anything a man can do, and do it better. How else are we going to do that unless we teach the bitches a lesson?

  11. A while ago on this blog, I pointed out that the next logical progression of liberal "anti-sexism" was to abolish the meaning of biological sex and the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality altogether.

    Isn't this a case in point? Cassie's "win" tells her and the young man that there is no difference between putting your hands on someone of the same sex and putting your hands on someone of the opposite sex and therefore that Northrup had no right to treat her any differently than any male opponent.

    Doesn't that mean that there is nothing inherently sexual about putting your hands on someone of the opposite sex? And isn't that tantamount to saying there is nothing inherently sexual about the opposite sex?

    Which is absurd, yes. But isn't it what her "win" implies?

    If so, then what a coup for the homosexualist cause. After all, if there's nothing inherently sexual about the opposite sex, then why limit sexual intercourse to people of the opposite sex?

    Sure, the wrestling officials didn't go out and endorse homosexuality or even absolute androgyny. If some other male wrestler had slapped her on the butt after a match, you can bet the leftists would have remembered why biological sex matters.

    This means we're not to androgyny yet; it doesn't mean we aren't heading there. If the wrestling officials' logic is taken to its terminus on and off the mat, then absolute androgyny is the only place left for us to go.

    And liberalism is progressive.

  12. First anonymous -- apparently he's 16 and 103 pounds -- that physique may be typical of his weight class. (I assume girls are participate in the same weight classes as boys, without distinction.)

  13. papabear, now I'm more confused than before:
    does the photo feature the girl who "won" ot the boy who refused to fight?

    My first impression was it was a boy, but on second glance I decided it was the girl, hence my comment. Is it something that young girls should aspire to nowadays?

    I mean what sort of a role model she is. And think of this, she has parents, who evidently encourage her to participate in wrestling and are probably proud of her "achievement".

    I agree with those who said he should have disabused her of her illusions of being equal to men, but he is a homeschooler I read and they are all imbibed with rather misguided chivalry.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. I had someone see the blog and their comment was.

    1. He chickened out because he thought he was going to lose (which isn't impossible because she isn't small compared to him).

    2. Its discrimination, what if you refused to wrestle a black man?

    I suppose that's a fairly liberal response. Firstly that winning is the thing that really matters so then every motivation must revolve around that, therefore a desire not to compete shows a fear of losing. Secondly that if he doesn't wrestle her her freedom is being impinged and we can't have that.

    Let's assume for one moment that she is a lesbian. In such a case she would be less likely to want to aspire to feminine standards. Should people have the freedom to choose what kinds of lives they want to live? Lets also assume that there aren't enough women in the sport to make a women's division, therefore should her desire to wrestle be impinged by having a men's only divisions?

    Many of the comments on the link that Mark posted stated that men can't compete in women's highschool softball or volleyball matches. The suggestion was made that this was unfair and perhaps men should apply to join these teams. Is this a useful strategy for men to say certain restrictions are "unfair" and that such restrictions show a double standard?

    Its funny we see this as an unfortunate situation for the guy because he felt obliged to default. A leftist sees this as an insult to the woman, he refused to wrestle her etc.

  16. Anonymous, I should have looked carefully for a caption, as I see it now and indeed it is a photo of the girl who was awarded the victory. Who knows what her story is (her reasons/motivations, family history, etc.)...

  17. You enter the competition, you play by the rules. If that means you might wrestle a woman, a black man, or a nuclear komodo dragon, and you don't want to wrestle any of those, you don't enter.

    Yet another field going through the progression: dominated by men, infested by women, then dominated by women, then mocked as "not worth doing."

  18. Jaz,

    He took a stand and said no I'm not going to do it. It was gutsy and highlighted how its deemed appropriate for women to enter men's realms whilst men are expected to be silent about it. Wrestling is good, why give it up? By doing what he did, he said this is not what he wanted wrestling to become.

  19. papabear, this "gender" confusion is rather a sad commentary on our society.

  20. Jaz wrote,

    "You enter the competition, you play by the rules. If that means you might wrestle a woman, a black man, or a nuclear komodo dragon, and you don't want to wrestle any of those, you don't enter."

    When I mentioned this story to some wrestler friends of mine, they made the same point.

    I think we're talking past one another. Of course you should abide by the rules of any game you play. Games without rules are just chaos.

    The point of this post and thread is to understand what those rules mean. What does it say about an organization that assumes touching a woman is no different from touching a man? It implies this is an organization which assumes no meaningful, physical differences between men and women. Such an organization has denied the significance of the body itself.

    What does it say about the society in which such an organization holds sway among everyday, Midwestern Americans? Isn't it the same? And isn't that important for everyday, Midwestern Americans like yours truly to consider and, if wrong, correct?

  21. There's nothing wrong with girls practising wrestling, and considering all the psychotic responses this story has provoked ("bros, he should have beat the fucking shit out of her to show that fucking slut not to mess with men!") it seems learning self-defense skills would be a very prudent course of action.