Wrestler refuses a match on religious grounds - Page 11 - Religion, God, and Theology

Yeah - it seems to me he thinks violence against women is always wrong, but violence against men is sometimes ok. That means he is forming moral judgements as to how to treat people based on their gender. That means he is making his moral judgements for sexist reasons.

(I obviously don't know all of his principles, but this seems consistent with what he said).

Quote:

What if we do things we don't want to do sometimes in the best interest of a person or thing? The actions may be unpleasant, but the motivation may be of good morality.

If the motivation is 'to do good', I think it is a moral act (even if it results in great harm).

Last edited by bunny; 03-10-2011 at 10:00 PM.

Quote

03-10-2011 , 10:04 PM

#252

Icheckforvalue

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 527

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

We're definitely speaking at cross-purposes then. I don't think an action can be sexist. The motivation is what is important, imo. I also think his reasons (though he hardly spelt them out in detail) consitute a discrimination based on gender - which seems to be the definition of sexist to me.

Also, as I said - I don't think the axiom you suggested:

"It is immoral to violently engage women, but they have the right to waive this junction ( as evidenced in this woman being allowed to wrestle with boys)"

is consistent with the explanation he gave. He seemed to be saying it was wrong to wrestle her, even though she was a willing participant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

Well then if motivation is to do good, and he understand the physical inequalities between men and women, why attempt to exploit them against your convictions? Is there bad motivation behind that?

Quote

03-10-2011 , 10:42 PM

#253

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icheckforvalue

Well then if motivation is to do good, and he understand the physical inequalities between men and women, why attempt to exploit them against your convictions? Is there bad motivation behind that?

I don't see how wrestling a willing competitor counts as exploitation - is he 'exploiting' anything if he wrestles a male he knows to be weaker than him?

I really don't see why we keep shifting around to consider differing hypotheticals.

If (in any of these hypothetical scenarios) he makes one decision in the man's case and another in the woman's case then his motivations (whatever they are) are sexist, since they discriminate on the basis of gender.

Quote

03-10-2011 , 10:43 PM

#254

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icheckforvalue

Well then if motivation is to do good, and he understand the physical inequalities between men and women, why attempt to exploit them against your convictions? Is there bad motivation behind that?

Note also that I'm not saying he shouldn't necessarily. If he thinks it is immoral to wrestle her then he shouldnt wrestle her (trivially).

What I'm saying is that, if his reasons for doing so are founded on treating men and women as different in some moral status, then they are sexist morals.

Quote

03-10-2011 , 11:13 PM

#255

Icheckforvalue

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 527

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

That ultimately begs the question...do you see men and women as the same?
Are they equals? Do you believe in equality? or the ideal of equality?

Quote

03-10-2011 , 11:27 PM

#256

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icheckforvalue

That ultimately begs the question...

It doesn't beg the question. What do you think 'sexist morals' means?

Quote:

do you see men and women as the same?

They have the same moral value. There are biological differences.

Quote:

Are they equals? Do you believe in equality? or the ideal of equality?

They are morally equal. Yes. Yes.

Saying men and women should be treated equally doesn't mean that I haven't noticed they have different chromosomes. The two are unrelated - this thread is not asking 'are men and women identical in every respect?' it's saying 'should men and women be treated equally when deciding how to treat them?'.

Quote

03-11-2011 , 06:19 AM

#257

grumpy64

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,621

did you guys ever stop and think that maybe he was afraid of getting a boner? I mean if he has humility he may be embarrassed at the thought of his dong poking the chick in the back On top of that it's a no win situation for him.

Quote

03-11-2011 , 10:05 AM

#258

timex2xparty

enthusiast

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 65

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy64

My thoughts exactly. If you are a male, and you are dry humping another male from behind (or what is more commonly reffered to as "wrestling") and you are not gay, your wee wee will not be stricken with rigamortis (hope it is spelled correctly). Now if you are a heterosexual male and your genitalia was rubbing the genitalia of a female roughly your age, one could not help if the blood flow rushed to a certain part of your body, putting you in quite a "pickle."

Quote

03-11-2011 , 11:19 AM

#259

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,420

The last two reponses has nothing to do with the OP. Regardless of what he "might have" been afraid of, he very clearly stated that he would not wretle her based on his religious beliefs. Maybe his religious beliefs prevent him from gettign a boner while rolling around with a woman (and if so, I feel sorry for him later in life) but his specific reasons for not wrestling (as stated by him) are what the issue is. Not what we think he might have been afraid of.

Quote

03-11-2011 , 11:56 AM

#260

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icheckforvalue

Well then if motivation is to do good, and he understand the physical inequalities between men and women, why attempt to exploit them against your convictions? Is there bad motivation behind that?

It seems to me that you are trying to convince us that the wrestler was motivated by his principles and so he was trying to do the right thing. That might be true (I think most people on this forum have been fairly agnostic about this). What you have failed to address is the view of those who think that his principles, based as they are on sexist religious ideas, are themselves sexist. So even when trying to do the right thing, he is still motivated by sexist ideas.

Quote

03-11-2011 , 01:19 PM

#261

duffe

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 1,306

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I agree with Bunny's general position that if the reasoning is patronizing and/or discriminatory, then the sexism line is crossed. I'm just not sure if the reasoning is in this case, religious based or not.

If a father refused to allow his teenage daughter to wrestle because of the physical contact (straddling, possible groping, etc.), I'm not sure I'd label his reasoning sexist. Or, if a teenage girl didn't want to wrestle (with boys) based solely on the nature of the physical contact, would you consider her motivated by sexist ideas?

Quote

03-11-2011 , 01:40 PM

#262

madnak

Cooler than Sammy Hagar

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 19,742

Quote:

Originally Posted by duffe

No, the sexual part is a legitimate concern, there are sick perverts like me who would get a chubby and go for a rear mount.

The article said that had nothing to do with it, though.

Quote

03-11-2011 , 02:31 PM

#263

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by duffe

It is possible that the kid did not refuse to wrestle with the girl for non-sexist reasons. I don't know him, and there could other relevant psychological issues leading to his decision. My view is that the reasons given in the article seemed to be based on sexist assumptions about the nature of women. If, however, those reasons are only rationalizations, then who cares?

Quote:

If a father refused to allow his teenage daughter to wrestle because of the physical contact (straddling, possible groping, etc.), I'm not sure I'd label his reasoning sexist. Or, if a teenage girl didn't want to wrestle (with boys) based solely on the nature of the physical contact, would you consider her motivated by sexist ideas?

Obviously in both cases there are non-sexist reasons available. If they gave the reasons cited in the article, then I would consider them to have made these decisions for sexist reasons.

Quote

Page 11 of 11

First

6 7 8 9 10 11

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 11 of 11

First

6 7 8 9 10 11

Last