Sexism against guys

Post Reply New Topic

guns and practical self defense

You have my word that I don't believe everything I read.

I practise with firearms at least twice a month, sometimes as much as eight times. From my first hand experience, I don't think they'd be useful in the self-defense situations that seem most likely to come up; I'm not going to go everywhere with a weapon drawn, and I'm not going to assume every man who comes within ten feet of me when I'm walking alone at night is a threat. There are a number of circumstances I must frequently encounter (like entering my house at night) where it would be easy for someone to hide and come up behind me, and who had the gun would swiftly be about grappling.

When statistics and logic seem to disagree, either or both might be faulty, and they should both be subject to scrutiny.



I think women (/people at risk of physical violence) shouldn't have to defend themselves. Since as a practical necessity they must, this is a logistical issue, and depends greatly on the situation.

I like jujitsu for domestic violence and date-rape situations because you don't have to commit to the kind of damage weapons cause; you can restrain, cause pain, or cause damage, and there's a lot of control over exactly how much damage you're going to do--far more than in other martial arts. It's often possible to stay safe without doing damage to someone you're emotionally attached to, which is a big issue in a lot of domestic/romantic violence scenarios.

I'd like to learn some muy thai and/or krav maga, in the off chance of a stranger rape scenario where I'd have no qualms on damage. If I were well enough trained, I would probably carry the sort of weapon that's not very effective unless you really know how to use it, such as a small baton.

If my country were occupied by a foreign military force, or if (basically the same thing) I lived in an area extremely high in gang violence, I would probably carry a gun.


dojos

For information, my dojo is exceedingly awesome.
It's the only I've ever been that I'd recommend children be sent for training. The general attitude is very sportsmanly and playful, with an unusual level of respect towards violence; it also specializes in exceedingly practical forms, specifically jujitsu and muy thai, and--also for the sake of effectiveness--offers good focus on conditioning and technique. Women are maybe a third or a quarter of the adult students, though less and less so as the ranks get more advanced. My best advice on dojos, for whoever, is: shop around, don't settle for a bad atmosphere or a teacher who fails to run a safe studio. Also, the best aren't always the prettiest.

I do know it's possible for jujitsukas not to be stupidly macho and crazy. I'm aware that I've lucked out in this regard by not having to search very far.



why practical self-defense isn't a solution

There are two problems with focusing on "taking matters into your own hands."

First, no matter how prepared you are, there is always a possible situation where you will fail.

Second, a large part of the issue is not actual threat, but rather, ambient threat--such as the sort of street harassment I've already described.

Between these two, one is constantly facing the challenge of balancing paranoia and safety. I wish to make violence and harassment against those smaller and weaker than one's self completely socially unacceptable.


feminism and academia



Then you are a feminist by my definition, though we may disagree on what constitutes "equal rights and protection from harassment." I want to live in a society that does a better job of physically defending people--of any age and gender--who are unable to defend themselves.

Effectively, the majority of benefit from this would be towards women. . . but it shouldn't be because they are women; it should be because we've decided as a society that we're going to be grown-ups and quit letting people get pushed around just because they're less able to defend themselves.

Girls do better in school--at the less wage-earning subjects. Thus, it doesn't translate into a power advantage in the real world. Personally I think our schools are pretty f****d up in a variety of ways, and fail to serve virtually all students.


BTW, this argument doesn't carry a lot of weight unless you're familiar with theories of language and meaning, but the words like "b***h" and "whore" personify the negative as feminine, no matter who they're applied to. I'm aware that there are words that personify the negative as masculine as well. I don't think using either is a particularly good habit, though there are, of course, contextual exceptions.

If, as a matter of fact, harassment is routinely directed from one gender towards another--and especially if the fact of that harassment is based on characteristics of societally determined gender roles--then the situation has become one of oppression.

self defence:
Model Mugging is specifically designed to teach women how to protect themselves from verbal and physical attacks. It's based on the ways in which women are usually attacked by men (e.g. being pulled to the ground) and uses full force on padded assailants. (They look ridiculous with all the gear they wear. ) A lot of it is learning to fight while lying down.

Model Mugging is strictly a get-in-there, learn-the-method, get-out class. It's not for exercise at all. I think most martial arts are partly just to keep in shape.

Most people of both sexes would be reluctant to shoot another person. In war, soldiers frequently shoot over the enemy's head (rather than at them). Personally I think guns are a waste of time, unless you're moose hunting. But some people like them.

Well its certainly not illegal, but the fact is that I really Despise women who aggressively flaunt their sexuality to have power and influence over others....particularly ME . Thats why I get very irritated VERY quickly when some woman is being a tease and I do what I have to(within reason and law) to get her to knock it off and go away. AFAIC, the whole "you want me but you cant have me" attitude belies narcissism as well as the intent to manipulate. The irony is that I am somewhat of a narcissist so I view narcissism in others as a threat and as competition. BTW Jainaday, how did you get that guy to stop calling you? If it happens again, either unplug the phone or if you have a cell keep it off most of the time and delete any messages from that person. IIRC there are some phone plans which will block certain #s from calling you as well as screen out unidentified calls.

a) Model mugging won't save you from four or five simultaneous attackers, and neither will a gun.

b) Jujitsu is mostly about hard core ground fighting, and my training has included full force with a padded assailant; actually, that's generally the final every semester. Krav Maga is what the Israeli army uses, and I don't think it needs any further defense than that.. . . it's not cardio-kickboxing. Model mugging is an ok program, for what it is, but I'd far recommend six months of Krav Maga, or a few months of Krav Maga and a few of Jujitsu, over model mugging if you can possibly get it.

c) What on earth do you mean by "protecting themselves from verbal attacks?"

d) Most of these courses put a high emphasis on "prevention," aka living one's life in fear. I don't want to go to a "rape prevention" course and hear that many of the things that make it possible for me to enjoy my life--like living alone and spending a lot of time alone out at night--constitute Me not making a big enough effort not to get raped.




You feel that women who "tease" do more harm than men who create an environment of constant physical threat, so you're willing to be part of the latter to prevent the former?

A lot of men spend huge amounts of time and money to be able to look at things--things which ought to be people--that they'll never be allowed to touch. Why should women on the street assume you have the opposite approach?

Sexuality is the only way women are encouraged to exercise power in our society. I agree that it's a sh***y set-up, and that it's poor taste on their part. . . but I don't blame them, under the circumstances, Nearly as much as you do--and I don't think it in any way justifies creating an ambient sense of physical threat.


I did not make him stop calling me; he just stopped. My only concern is that he's just laying low for awhile.

If it were just phone calls, I could just hang up, and whatever, someone was being an ass. However, he called me by the nickname that my friends and family called me, and told me that he couldn't live without me, and that he was watching me. I do not have a high level of physical security in this circumstance.

Blocking calls from unidentified numbers not only wouldn't solve the actual problem, but would block calls from a couple of numbers that are important to me. Turning off my phone not only doesn't solve the actual problem, but substantially interrupts my life and possibly decreases my physical security. . . it takes a minute to turn back on.

To that I must say. Words are simply combinations of phonemes and other language based schematics. Some of these words started as a descriptive in history, and transformed into something else. Some started good, went bad. Some started good, went bad, than changed again. etc. etc. You get the point.

I don't care about the history of the word used. The only thing that matters is the context of the use by the persons involved and the current uses of the word in present language.

Politically correct BS must end. It must collapse into nothingness, and be redirected toward more empirical and functional mindsets/goals.

I do Not take well to or tolerate people trying to exert power over me ; NO MATTER WHO is doing it and regardless
of what means they use to do so. I dont like this *battle of the sexes* and I get very defensive when I come across women who see men as rivals. But I really think its insulting to women to suggest that their sexuality is the ONLY power they have. There ARE smart women out there who can and do use brains instead of looks. Its usually women who are very smart but not good looking who get things accomplished. I personally think that brains in the body of a beautiful woman often go to waste because it is much easier to use your sex appeal for personal gain that it is to put in the time and effort to achieve something of merit.

Maybe we're talking past each other, but that sounds like a response to the argument I made about using specific words with a specific history.

I qualified that argument at the time by mentioning it wouldn't be very strong unless one understood modern continental theories of language and meaning, e.g. deconstructionism, or post-modern linguists at the very least. I understand that it really doesn't hold a lot of water without that background, and I'm fine with that; I was just throwing it out there.

My argument about harassment as an incidence of oppression is based Not on the specific words in play, or on the use of any words at all, but on Ambient Sense of Physical Threat, no matter what words or actions it arises from.

So--

a) you're an anarchist?

and

b) you don't have a universalized morality--that is, you are willing to do things to other people that you accept upon yourself?

For the record, I didn't say sexuality was the only power women had; I said it was the only power they were encouraged to exercise by our culture. Y'all kids should learn to read.

No, I am NOT an anarchist. I stay within the legal limits but you cant blame me for having enough pride not to let other people push me around.

As far as self-defense goes Jainaday, Ive given you my advice and my suggestions-take it or leave it. Cuz its yo' thang, do whatcha wanna do! You keep coming up with reasons why what I said will not work, and no matter what I say you'll continue to do the same. *sigh*

I actually can.

In what way is staring at you the same as pushing you around?

The fact that you take it as such is a sign of your own weakness.


And, for the record, I am an anarchist. . . though probably any further discussion of that is best reserved for another thread.

Well...just to throw it out there...perhaps unrelated to the last few passages, but something that came to mind with this passage regarding your notion of "ambient sense of phyiscal threat."

How would you define it universally, without overbalancing the equation? This could be brought upon by misunderstanding.

What I mean is...are we talking about "Actual intended threat" (something I could easily agree can very easily become a bad thing) or your "feeling of threat?"

If you feel threatened, there is the possibility it could all be a product of your own mind. Given past experiences, something someone does, out of ignorance to your situation, could set off a flight or fight response and cause you to feel threatened.

Assuming they meant no ill-will...the fault lies in the individual who experienced the feeling of concern. They have deeper problems, the rest of the community is unaware of. As a result, claiming the person who set this off, is "oppressing someone", is simply ludicrous. This is made much more clear, when someone misunderstands something meant in Kindness, but reacts with a disturbing and harsh reaction or criticism.

As someone who feels they "may or may not have aspergers" you likely have experienced this yourself. Where you meant something friendly or kind, but it was taken another way or for granted.

Sad but true, from what I've seen, too.



I think it's because very attractive women have a hard time being taken seriously no matter how competent they are and how professional they look. John T. Malloy found attractiveness to be helpful up to a point but detrimental when the woman was too attractive. Some women told him they wore makeup to make themselves look less attractive so they'd be taken seriously at work.

I've read elsewhere that men often feel comfortable around women at work who don't look too attractive, but around attractive women they tend to freeze up. It's hard to hold down a job (or do well in school) when your male superiors/colleagues avoid talking to you because they're uncomfortable around you. That has nothing to do with acting sexy.

Though it's also true that when a woman smiles, men are more likely than women to think she's sexually attracted, women more likely to think she's just being sociable. So a woman acts friendly at work - she gets labelled as someone who uses her sex appeal. Huh. (Of course sometimes she is using her sex appeal.)

Last time I checked, they had advanced classes (two attackers, attacker with guns) but of course there's a limit to how much they can teach. The kind of people who take model mugging aren't looking for Batman's level of fighting skill. They just don't want to get hurt by a mugger or ex-husband. And the average women is more likely to be attacked by only one or two people (especially by someone she knows) than by a handful of thugs from central casting. I can well believe there are systems that do teach that level of skill, and people keen to take them. Not my thing, though.



Have they always used padded assailants? Model Mugging was developed in the 1970s, and I wouldn't be surprised if other disciplines have copied elements of the model. Of course many martial arts have used some padding all along, but not to the same degree. Bruce Lee was using full force and padding, too, in his stuff. But then he died. So maybe it was just time to incorporate it everywhere about then. I suspect fighting from the ground is newer all-round, too, but don't know as much about that.

I'm not familiar with Krav Maga, except I've read a bit that makes it look brutal. The women in my Model Mugging course would never have taken it. What I saw in the class I took tells me that the course has to do more than teach moves - it has to do them in a context that fits with a person's self-concept. Most martial arts are too rough and aggressive for most women, so most women won't take them. But on the other hand there's a stigma associated with women's self-defence - most people don't think of it as real martial arts, so they take Aikido instead of Wen-do even if it's the same moves. I was like that in my early 20s. The Aikido class was full, but I couldn't be talked into taking the Wen-do class instead, because it was packaged wrong for where I was at the time, even though they insisted it was the same moves.



They include scenarios where some guy comes up to you and harasses you, or even just makes you nervous, and you feel threatened, but there's no actual physical assault. You learn how to deal with it verbally, to get the guy to leave you alone. Of course, if he then attacks, you then use physical moves. My scenario was some guy coming up and bugging me while I was waiting at a bus stop. I didn't find it difficult, but some of the other people in the class found it terrifying. I guess they drive more and aren't used to bus stops.



People don't usually take MM unless they're already afraid, and fed up with being afraid. It typically takes a lot before someone will take one of these courses, because it involves admitting being vulnerable. It took me 15 years to finally take a course (after hearing about it). Many of us (though not all) had first hand experience with being attacked, and so had personal issues to deal with. The instructors gave the impression of being very capable of helping us with flashbacks if we had them. This particular course was not fear-mongering. It was therapy.

I think that's the main difference between MM and other martial arts. MM is therapy - designed to deal specifically with bullying and violence against women (though they have a class for men, too), including the psychological effects, whereas the other martial arts tend to be more combat-oriented in their philosophy. And when I said fitness, I didn't mean cardio-kickboxing. I meant the way the military needs to keep its soldiers in top shape all the time so they're combat ready. You need to keep up conditioning in some systems. Whereas with MM you're learning a cognitive shift and some skills, and then you go home and watch TV. No coloured belts. Just an optional follow-up potluck a month later.

No. In fact, I think I've made it quite clear that I don't believe that might makes right regardless of gender. What you could have done was approach to, say six feet away - far enough away that you couldn't touch her without moving again - and then said (calmly), 'Is there a problem?' You might even say 'Excuse me, is there a problem?' if you want to be really polite. She'll either tell you that your fly is open, or be really embarassed for staring at you.

Hell, maybe she thought you were hot and was trying to get you to talk to her.

This is legit. I often have a hard time with socially appropriate facial expressions unless I'm specifically focusing on it, and I've never actually been diagnosed with AS; I used to have problems all the time, offending or "challenging" people and not even realizing it. I'd feel terrible about it afterwards, but have no idea how to fix it--and if someone had done to me what you did to her, it would have scared the s**t out of me and I would have gone home and cried.

Not at all the case now, thank goodness. . . but in general, it's something to take into account.