PDA

View Full Version : The Truth about Violence


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


sorokod
11-10-2011, 08:45 AM
I had two thoughts as I was reading this blog

1. This makes a lot of sense
2. I am very glad not to live in the USA

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence/

Cliff Judge
11-10-2011, 09:04 AM
I had two thoughts as I was reading this blog

1. This makes a lot of sense
2. I am very glad not to live in the USA

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence/

Wasn't there a bunch of riots and stuff all over the UK a couple of months ago....?

sorokod
11-10-2011, 09:14 AM
Wasn't there a bunch of riots and stuff all over the UK a couple of months ago....?

There was, and not far from where live too. Had a different vibe to it though.

mathewjgano
11-10-2011, 02:21 PM
I had two thoughts as I was reading this blog

1. This makes a lot of sense
2. I am very glad not to live in the USA

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence/

We do have a Wild West cultural underpinning to a lot over here...not that there aren't plenty of similar expressions of aggression everywhere else. Next watch several episodes of Gangland! Thug Life is alive and well in da hood; which now spreads out to da 'burbs, thanks to pop culture. Still, much of that is a matter of "avoiding dangerous people," and knowing something about how not to look like easy prey. A lot of it is pretty easy stuff once we're made aware of it. Two things I always track are the eyes and the hands. They generally seem to be good indicators of where a person's mind is at. Body language cues seem to be something many people pay little attention to.

sorokod
11-10-2011, 03:10 PM
I find "Do not defend your property" striking especially because it follows logically from the basic premise.

Janet Rosen
11-10-2011, 03:34 PM
Totally a case of YMMV: there are neighborhoods in most cities that are pretty much battle zones. And L.A. is its own weird world with that helicopter LE culture - I so could not live in that.
But I lived 19 years in New York City and over 35 years in San Francisco. Now I live in a small town in a rural area, but drunkenness, petty crime and meth are as rife here as anyplace.
In all these years, I was mugged once, at age 15 AND with my boyfriend present; my cars broken into twice; my homes one attempted burglary.
Lest you think I have led a sheltered life, I started riding NYC buses and subways alone and going to parks, museums, etc alone at age 13. The last 2 yrs I was in NY I routinely rode subways alone between 10 pm and midnight.
I deterred potential muggers at least a couple of times I know of both in NY and SF by simple body language and have no idea how many times w/o being aware of it. I did middle of the night street patrols in the Haight Ashbury in the mid70s when it was a pretty blighted area and did fine. I had a knife aimed on me once, besides the above-referenced mugging, when I triangulated between the junkie holding the knife and a coworker who had stupidly called him out as a liar (the coworker fled into the office, leaving me to de-escalate the guy on the street, which I was succesfully doing when other coworkers pulled up in a truck - & never ever spoke a word to that asshole coworker again). I've broken up fights when it seemed the right/safe thing to do, chased people off my neighbors' roofs and my back steps, etc...And in all those decades all but one of the shootings I've witnessed was by LEOs and the only time I've had guns pulled on me has been by LEOs.

graham christian
11-10-2011, 05:00 PM
Ha, ha. Here's a point worth considering in my view. Everyone want's to think it's worse 'over there' It itself gives them a false sense of security.

The point of all martial arts in my opinion is building that thing that is the main enemy of violence, self confidence.

You start with self, with the person. Not with how to be scared and rely on walls and barred windows and look how dangerous everything is. Wrong path.

Regards.G.

Kevin Leavitt
11-10-2011, 05:35 PM
There was, and not far from where live too. Had a different vibe to it though.yea total anarchy and breakdown in basic society does have a different vibe to it.

sorokod
11-10-2011, 06:46 PM
yea total anarchy and breakdown in basic society does have a different vibe to it.

Regardless, the articles is well worth reading I think.

genin
11-11-2011, 07:53 AM
Good article. He reiterates what most of us already know. Which is that violence should always be avoided if possible. He then goes on to describe many different scenarios, but all of which the underlying goal is the same--protect yourself by avoiding or escaping violent situations.

Most violent crime victims could easily have avoided it, with a little common sense and foresight. Women who choose to be in relationships with abusive and violent men, should expect the relationship to eventually end violently. The sketchy guys that hang out outside the Circle K all night, probably will eventually find themselves on one side or the other of a violent encounter. But how easy is it to simply avoid these people and these situations? It should be fairly simple. I'd even go as far as to say that 90% of violent situations could be avoided simply by not hanging around stupid people and losers.

Belt_Up
11-11-2011, 03:58 PM
yea total anarchy and breakdown in basic society does have a different vibe to it.

Made me spit my tea out. Classic.

I'd even go as far as to say that 90% of violent situations could be avoided simply by not hanging around stupid people and losers.

Oh dear. Completely imaginary statistics. Why are they so popular?

genin
11-11-2011, 04:05 PM
Oh dear. Completely imaginary statistics. Why are they so popular?

Probably should've said "a majority" rather than giving a percentage. Sort of like saying that nine out of ten times you'll find this to be true.

Kevin Leavitt
11-11-2011, 05:30 PM
Good article. He reiterates what most of us already know. Which is that violence should always be avoided if possible. He then goes on to describe many different scenarios, but all of which the underlying goal is the same--protect yourself by avoiding or escaping violent situations.

Most violent crime victims could easily have avoided it, with a little common sense and foresight. Women who choose to be in relationships with abusive and violent men, should expect the relationship to eventually end violently. The sketchy guys that hang out outside the Circle K all night, probably will eventually find themselves on one side or the other of a violent encounter. But how easy is it to simply avoid these people and these situations? It should be fairly simple. I'd even go as far as to say that 90% of violent situations could be avoided simply by not hanging around stupid people and losers.

Its not that simple. You are wrong IMO about women in abusive relationships. The situations are not that simple. They don't go into those relationships to get abused, nor should they expect it, and they don't see that it will end violently. Domestic violence is not that simple.

All of us as prone to violence and sometimes it is not avoidable. I,ve turned the wrong corner a few times in a strange town. Broken down in the wrong area. These things happen. And it is not simply that easy to avoid it all the time.

genin
11-15-2011, 07:17 AM
Its not that simple. You are wrong IMO about women in abusive relationships. The situations are not that simple. They don't go into those relationships to get abused, nor should they expect it, and they don't see that it will end violently. Domestic violence is not that simple.

All of us as prone to violence and sometimes it is not avoidable. I,ve turned the wrong corner a few times in a strange town. Broken down in the wrong area. These things happen. And it is not simply that easy to avoid it all the time.

We usually don't seek out undesireable situations--we find ourselves in them. A person doesn't seek an abusive partner, and you don't set out to get lost in the hood. But you may still find yourself lost one day, or with a violent partner.

It should be a matter of realizing in a split second "Holy crap, I'm lost!" or "Oh no, my boyfriend is a nutjob!" A keen mind is all that is needed to make that determination. If you find yourself getting lost everyday on the way home from work and you have to battle your way back out of the hood, then that isn't a reflection of the dangers of violence in our daily life. It's a reflection of poor judgment and bad decision making.

SeiserL
11-15-2011, 09:14 AM
We usually don't seek out undesireable situations--we find ourselves in them.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If I find myself in the same parking lot more than once, I just might be driving there.

We may not consciously seek out certain situations, but unconsciously they agree with us and are familiar.

If we just find ourselves in them - perhaps we are not looking soon enough or deep enough?

If we are looking for the truth about violence - perhaps we need only look into our own minds and hearts?

Thoughts?

genin
11-15-2011, 10:00 AM
If we just find ourselves in them - perhaps we are not looking soon enough or deep enough?

If we are looking for the truth about violence - perhaps we need only look into our own minds and hearts?

Thoughts?
I agree that we must look inside ourselves to determine what attracts us to painful/dangerous situations. Low self-worth and chidhood abuse may be reasons that draw a domestic violence victim to abusive people. Sheer stupidity may be the reason why some put themselves in what would otherwise be easily avoidable predicaments, like fighting with drunken people inside or outside of bars and clubs.

But I say this from the perspective of an adult with martial training and experience. I know that when I was younger, violent situations seemed to occur for me more frequently. Maybe I was less apt to identify them back then, or perhaps I attracted violence by coming across as an easy target. Once I resolved to remove myself from questionable people and places, and let it be known that I would defend myself violently if needed, I never again became the victim of violence. I think that introspection might be your best tool to avoid violence, as it is YOU who ultimately controls where you go and how you respond to situations.

TimB99
11-15-2011, 10:30 AM
http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/03/real-case-studies-highlight-most.html

http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/12/50-year-trends-in-violent-crime-in-us.html

http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/11/understanding-assault-street-fights.html

Might be interesting...

Kevin Leavitt
11-15-2011, 11:29 AM
Some good people are just simply in bad situations that they cannot get themselves out of. They are born into it. They have become Co dependent for whatever reason and it is not out of stupidity or lack of desire to not be in those situations.

There are many good people in the world that need help and support to get out of the violent situations they are in. They did nothing necessarily wrong or made a bad choice. They simply are where they are for a multitude of reasons.

Compassionate individuals are needed to not judge this folks, but to be there for them. To help them find their way and to help them find hope and strength.

genin
11-15-2011, 12:28 PM
Some good people are just simply in bad situations that they cannot get themselves out of. They are born into it. They have become Co dependent for whatever reason and it is not out of stupidity or lack of desire to not be in those situations.

There are many good people in the world that need help and support to get out of the violent situations they are in. They did nothing necessarily wrong or made a bad choice. They simply are where they are for a multitude of reasons.

Compassionate individuals are needed to not judge this folks, but to be there for them. To help them find their way and to help them find hope and strength.
People who are placed into unavoidable violent situations are one thing, but people who end up there through their own bad choices are another. What I took from Harris' blog, was that violence should always be avoided, and for the most part, can be. All it takes is a basic understanding of human nature and practical knowledge of conflict resolution.

Kevin Leavitt
11-15-2011, 01:43 PM
I agree thathere are people that look and seek violence for sure. I would not go so far as to say violence should always be avoided. At some point and in some circumstances some times it is important to make a stand and face violence and stop it. So i would not go so far as to say it should always be avoided.

There are some very bad people in the world that simply donot care that others want a peaceful existence and will not stop and reason with you. At some point violence must be stopped.

Kevin Leavitt
11-15-2011, 02:18 PM
alsI disagree with Harris advice on fighting to escape. It might be semantics, but I can't figure out how you do this. Either you are fighting for your life or you are not. There is no middle ground of control where you can fight to escape. I think what he may mean is use minimal force necessary. However that is a different paradigm in my mind than fighting to escape.

If you are losing the fight, then you are fighting to gain control and dominate your opponent. If you are in control, then you are in control it is really a black or white issue.

Of course there are situations where it makes sense to make for a door or secure area, and,maybe this is what he is referring to. However that comes once you have the space and control to disengag. Until that point you are fighting to win and not to escape.

It might seem like a small point, but to me it KS important to make sure you understand what it is that u are doing while in the fight.

Going back to Hariss' avoidance theme...I think a better term is passive measures. There are lots of passive measures you can take to mitigate potential risk. This to me is not avoidance, but mitigation. Good locks, lighting, avoiding bad areas, walking with a buddy fall into passive measures. You are not avoiding violence, but mitigating it.

Splitting hairs? Maybe, but to me it is an important perspective and not just words.

genin
11-15-2011, 02:41 PM
I don't think violence should be avoided at all costs (in the pacifist sense), but it should be avoided if possible as a general rule of thumb.

Maybe the distinction between avoidance and mitigation is that you can avoid some situations altogher, but those you can't, you will have to find a way to mitigate the danger through passive measures.

SeiserL
11-15-2011, 02:43 PM
Compassionate individuals are needed to not judge this folks, but to be there for them. To help them find their way and to help them find hope and strength.
Yes agreed.

Many are ignorant of the familial and social patterns that were indoctrinated into and facilitate and perpetuate without knowing it.

Judgement never works to change a situation.

It takes compassion and courage to to face a conflict and conquer it.

We never do this alone.

SeiserL
11-15-2011, 02:47 PM
There are some very bad people in the world that simply donot care that others want a peaceful existence and will not stop and reason with you. At some point violence must be stopped.
Yes agreed.

And for some to be peaceful, others may have to be violent.

While in the long run, violence is seldom a long term solutions (since it usually breeds more violence), unfortunately often in the short term situation violence cannot be avoided. Then it is only a question of who is better trained.

SeiserL
11-15-2011, 02:57 PM
You are not avoiding violence, but mitigating it.
Yes agreed (again).

Some hairs need to be split and some semantics corrected to direct our interpretation and focus.

IMHO, we usually respond with fight, flight, or freeze.

Avoidance is fear based and can create a chase mentality in situational and opportunistic predators.

Perhaps "mitigating" is flowing (enter and blend) by seeing the big situational picture through strategic (not just tactical) eyes and minimize the potential and possibilities beforehand, and then manage/"mitigate" what is unavoidable?

Thoughts?

genin
11-15-2011, 03:31 PM
Perhaps "mitigating" is flowing (enter and blend) by seeing the big situational picture through strategic (not just tactical) eyes and minimize the potential and possibilities beforehand, and then manage/"mitigate" what is unavoidable?

Thoughts?

Assessing the situation. That's all that is. But again, that requires common sense and some amount of combat awareness (for lack of a better term). I know a lot of women in particular (including my mom) who can spot a shady situation from a mile away, but once in it, would be overwhelmed by fear and would respond accordingly in a knee-jerk fashion. Needless to say, thier response may not always be the best course of action.

I like the part in Harris' article where he talked about creating hypotheticals and pre-determining how to handle those situations should they ever occur in real life. I do that often. But if you don't know how to defend yourself, and if you aren't accustomed to thinking about violence along these lines, your average person won't bother doing any of this. The reality is that they'll likely be caught off guard and all they'll be thinking is "I can't belive this is happening to me right now!" while violence is being perpetrated against them.

kewms
11-15-2011, 06:48 PM
People who are placed into unavoidable violent situations are one thing, but people who end up there through their own bad choices are another. What I took from Harris' blog, was that violence should always be avoided, and for the most part, can be. All it takes is a basic understanding of human nature and practical knowledge of conflict resolution.

So easy to sit in judgment. Not so easy to recognize one's own bad choices when one is in the process of making them.

Katherine

Keith Larman
11-15-2011, 08:04 PM
So easy to sit in judgment. Not so easy to recognize one's own bad choices when one is in the process of making them.

Katherine

Amen.

Kevin Leavitt
11-15-2011, 11:12 PM
Yes agreed (again).

Some hairs need to be split and some semantics corrected to direct our interpretation and focus.

IMHO, we usually respond with fight, flight, or freeze.

Avoidance is fear based and can create a chase mentality in situational and opportunistic predators.

Perhaps "mitigating" is flowing (enter and blend) by seeing the big situational picture through strategic (not just tactical) eyes and minimize the potential and possibilities beforehand, and then manage/"mitigate" what is unavoidable?

Thoughts?

I agree. It is the removal of fear that is key. I had not thought of that in this level. Avoidance does not remove the fear, but extends it.

I also agree on the strategic picture. A big problem with self defense is that it sometimes is too narrow and only considers the immediate or the tactical level of issues. In the bigger picture we need to look beyond the tactical level considering second and third order affects. I think this is the definition of bud.

Tim Ruijs
11-16-2011, 06:13 AM
People let themselves get intimidated by the imposed situation and fear then stops them from seeing alternative situations (fixation). That fear originates from the possible outcome of the imposed/suggested situation. Fear vanishes when you can see different outcome, have options.
Now all this is easy to write comfortably sitting at my desk, but in actual practise....

I am not sure violence can always be avoided. A violent situation can occur anytime, anywhere and direct its ugly head at you for no other reason than you being there. Do you have to resort to violent actions yourself in such a situation? Depends. In love and war anything goes....
Perhaps you can escape the situation, perhaps you need to protect someone, perhaps you need to help someone... that is all down to character I guess.

genin
11-16-2011, 08:02 AM
So easy to sit in judgment. Not so easy to recognize one's own bad choices when one is in the process of making them.

Katherine

Just out of curiosity, where is the judgment thing coming from? How does that relate to violence and how to deal with it?

John A Butz
11-16-2011, 08:03 AM
Might I recomend that folks interested in some of the psychology of why people find it so hard to remove themselves from violent situations, and the general societal mindset of violence, check out "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker?

I found this to be a fascinating and incredibly interesting look at how society conditions us to treat violence (domestic, sexual predation, even assasination and sudden criminal violence) in certain ways, how we misconcieve of what the real indicators of violence are due to societal conditioning, and how we discount our own intuition. The book absolutely changed how I view violence and how I view the victims of violence, specifically folks in abusive situations,the survivors, and even the abusers and perpetrators of violent acts.

I think it is a must-read for everyone, to be honest. The issues DeBecker touches on are very germane to this thread, and specifcly to Mr. Flatley's statements about how people should be easily able to recognize a bad situation and get out of it with just a little common sense. I used to hold a similar view, but as I learn more about the realities of these things, I must say that the issues are far more complex than outside observers might think that they are.

genin
11-16-2011, 11:37 AM
I would say it's self-evident that you are in a dangerous and abusive situation if you are with someone who is physically violent toward you. To dispute that would be a sign of denial or ignorance. It may very well be the case that the person feels helpless to extricate themselves from that situation, which I agree may be a difficult thing to do. That's not to say I wouldn't have empathy for such a person, or that they should be "judged" for not handling the situation appropriately.

If you are being victimized in a domestic violence situation, then the reason this is occuring is not because you are bad at self-defense. It's because you have allowed yourself to continue to be in the war path of an abuser. Step off the path, and the abuser will pass right by you. Easier said than done, I know. But the point is that in this type of scenario, there is a clear reason why you are a victim of violence. That's all I wanted to point out. Whether or not the person is justified for being in that situation or whether "we" should have compassion for them is not relevant as it pertains to handling violent situations.

John A Butz
11-16-2011, 12:38 PM
If you are being victimized in a domestic violence situation, then the reason this is occuring is not because you are bad at self-defense. It's because you have allowed yourself to continue to be in the war path of an abuser. Step off the path, and the abuser will pass right by you.

I am going to dispute this. In many situations, the abuser will not pass by - they will continue to pursue you and possibly continue to do you harm or even kill you.

In still other situations, how is the abused to get away if they are, for example, a minor child. Or if they are responsible for a mninor child living in an abusive home.

The legal system repeatedly fails to help and protect the victims of domestic abuse. Many a restraining order ends up with the murder of the person who requested the order.

I am not implying that you are saying any of these issues are easy, Mr. Flatley, but rather saying that I think you would be well served to gather a little additional information as to the physcology, methods, and mindset of abusers, so that you can have some context for your beliefs and statements. I think you presume quite a lot about how easy, obvious, and evident these things are, as I once did. I reference myself because I too used to think similarly to your stated position, and it was only after perusing the literature, study, and a good hard look at my own experiences that i could see I had been incorrect in my assumptions.

I believe that as people with power, the power gained through the study of martial arts and ways, we have an obligation to look at how to apply that power. We can not, for example, fight others physical battles for them. Nor can we apply the physcial techniques of our art to the problem. We can't be there for every single violent encounter, and even ending a violent encounter conclusivly will not neccessarily change things.

Instead, we need to really understand the way these things work, how we as a society and a people deal with and create violence, so that we can remove the myths and lies and false conclusions that are incredibly prevelant in this area of life and see the real truth of things. Once we have an understanding of these aspects of violence (and I am by no means saying there is a single corrrect way of doing this) we can determine what effective actions can be taken to stop the continual spread of these things.

As an example, let me refer to the recent scandal at Penn State, involving the alleged abuse of children. The accused resides very near an elementary school, and there has been a lot of media attention paid to that fact, that this man is a molester and the students should be careful. And yet, the victims were not people pulled off the street or choosen at random. Instead, they were groomed carefully and slowly and then, once they were sufficently conditioned, they were abused, presuming allegations are true. So, it is not only the steroetypical "stranger in a van who offers you candy" that we should be arming our children against. We should also be teaching them how to recognize and respond to grooming behavior. And yet, instead, the image continues to be perpetuated by instituitons like this elementary school that the molester will just come along and molest your child.

Now, please note, I am not saying that that sort of thing doesn't happpen - it surely does. But rather I am saying that until we can, as a society, recognize that we put a lot of blinders and preconceptions on when we discuss these issues, we will never be able to really understand violence. We have to stop hiding behind what we think we know and look at what things really are.

genin
11-16-2011, 01:34 PM
So I guess a secondary question has come about, which is: how to address violence in domestic abuse-type situations? Initially I was just identifying that as one of many potentially violent situations one might find themselves in. The "how" question didn't seem relevant in that context, but perhaps it is worth discussing.

I would say that the obvious answer is to try to remove the victim from the situation. But if it's a parent or a spouse that the victim is finanically reliant upon, then that makes it logistically very tough. Of course, at a certain point you have to have a "whatever it takes" attitude if you expect things to change. Otherwise it just becomes a matter justifying and rationalizing why someone is allowed to abuse you. With people like that, they may not possess the wherewithal to break free. Or they may be painted into a corner that they simply can't get out of under their own doing. That is when outside help must come into play.

John A Butz
11-16-2011, 01:47 PM
Understanding the mind of the abuser and how they are empowered and rewarded by being abusive helps difuse, prevent, and correct these types of things. As I am, however, nothing more than a slightly informed, barely knowledgeable layman, I don't feel comfortable offering actual solutions. This is a set of issues that I have only recently really become aware of, and so I am still digesting the data and trying to figure out what I would do in those situations.

SeiserL
11-16-2011, 04:16 PM
So I guess a secondary question has come about, which is: how to address violence in domestic abuse-type situations?
To properly address domestic/family violence, we would have to address the underlying multi-generational family transmission of roles, rules, and relationships.

Add to that the social sanctions and we have a much larger context in which to address and apply a strategy for confronting, challenging, and changing the truth about violence.

genin
11-16-2011, 04:30 PM
To properly address domestic/family violence, we would have to address the underlying multi-generational family transmission of roles, rules, and relationships.

Add to that the social sanctions and we have a much larger context in which to address and apply a strategy for confronting, challenging, and changing the truth about violence.

That doesn't make sense, but it sounds good. "Changing the truth about violence.":confused:

Tim Ruijs
11-17-2011, 02:34 AM
That doesn't make sense, but it sounds good. "Changing the truth about violence.":confused:

I guess what Lynn says is that source of abuser is not solely the abuser himself (nature) but also how he/she was brought up (=nurture) and in what kind of environment. All this affects their view of 'normal' behaviour and violent behaviour. As Lynn said a very complex issue.

graham christian
11-17-2011, 05:50 AM
So I guess a secondary question has come about, which is: how to address violence in domestic abuse-type situations? Initially I was just identifying that as one of many potentially violent situations one might find themselves in. The "how" question didn't seem relevant in that context, but perhaps it is worth discussing.

I would say that the obvious answer is to try to remove the victim from the situation. But if it's a parent or a spouse that the victim is finanically reliant upon, then that makes it logistically very tough. Of course, at a certain point you have to have a "whatever it takes" attitude if you expect things to change. Otherwise it just becomes a matter justifying and rationalizing why someone is allowed to abuse you. With people like that, they may not possess the wherewithal to break free. Or they may be painted into a corner that they simply can't get out of under their own doing. That is when outside help must come into play.

I would say the answer lies in understanding as usual and also the best solutions therefore.

The basics once again will be the same whether domestic or non domestic.

For me there is only one true solution and that is helping the victim not to be a victim any more. (you could add on here helping the abuser or violent person not to be so any more)

It's not really more complicated than that in essence. The only complicated bit is getting someone who is able to understand and capable of changing, handling such situations.

Regards.G.

sorokod
11-17-2011, 10:45 AM
I would say the answer lies in understanding as usual and also the best solutions therefore.

The basics once again will be the same whether domestic or non domestic.

For me there is only one true solution and that is helping the victim not to be a victim any more. (you could add on here helping the abuser or violent person not to be so any more)

It's not really more complicated than that in essence. The only complicated bit is getting someone who is able to understand and capable of changing, handling such situations.

Regards.G.

and in the same spirit, by replacing "victim" with "cancer patient" we have:

"For me there is only one true solution and that is helping the cancer patient not to be a cancer patient any more.

It's not really more complicated than that in essence. The only complicated bit is getting someone who is able to understand and capable of changing, handling such situations."

graham christian
11-17-2011, 11:06 AM
and in the same spirit, by replacing "victim" with "cancer patient" we have:

"For me there is only one true solution and that is helping the cancer patient not to be a cancer patient any more.

It's not really more complicated than that in essence. The only complicated bit is getting someone who is able to understand and capable of changing, handling such situations."

Connection????

SeiserL
11-17-2011, 11:51 AM
Connection????
Perhaps the process is the same?
Only the content of understanding and compassion differs?

Ignorance and pain (fear and anger) perhaps is the root of violence?

Perhaps cultivating awareness, mindfulness, intelligence, and compassion in all we do can help?

sorokod
11-17-2011, 12:31 PM
Connection????
What you are saying is equivalent to: to solve a problem (any problem) it is just a
matter of making it not a problem. This statement is as correct as it is useless. It's a tautology.

genin
11-17-2011, 01:01 PM
What you are saying is equivalent to: to solve a problem (any problem) it is just a
matter of making it not a problem. This statement is as correct as it is useless. It's a tautology.
I think that some posters were reluctant to jump headlong at addressing domestic violence. So as you would expect with martial artists, the responses turned into "hear the sound of one hand clapping" type responses that Kung Fu master would tell to Grasshoppper. Sounds poetic, but it lacks substance.

I agree that cultivating peace in our own lives, and applying that to all we encounter, is one way to prevent and defeat violence. Combatting violence with violence has historically not produced desired results. All it does is raise the body count, meanwhile the root issues remain unchanged.

A half million dead soldiers weren't enough to give blacks in America their civil rights. It wasn't until a few unarmed men protested with non-violence 100 years later, that the battle was finally won. And as far as I know, the victors never fired a single shot. That should tell you something.

kewms
11-17-2011, 02:44 PM
So I guess a secondary question has come about, which is: how to address violence in domestic abuse-type situations? Initially I was just identifying that as one of many potentially violent situations one might find themselves in. The "how" question didn't seem relevant in that context, but perhaps it is worth discussing.

The experience of people who actually help domestic violence victims suggests that the first important realization is that the safety of the victim often is not improved by resorting to the legal system. Restraining orders don't work. Throwing the abuser in jail doesn't work, except for the time he is actually in custody. And so the answer for victims is to get out of the situation by whatever means necessary, up to and including leaving in the middle of the night with nothing but the clothes on their back. Much easier said than done, especially if children are involved.

The second important realization is that creating both real and psychological dependency is what abusers do, and they are very good at it. So a victim is probably not going to have a lot of real resources to draw upon, and may not be psychologically capable of evaluating the resources they do have. Attaching the abuser's resources means resorting to the legal system, which may not be the best idea from a safety perspective. Any system that doesn't help a victim get access to the basic necessities of life just isn't going to work.

Katherine

genin
11-17-2011, 03:13 PM
The experience of people who actually help domestic violence victims suggests that the first important realization is that the safety of the victim often is not improved by resorting to the legal system. Restraining orders don't work. Throwing the abuser in jail doesn't work, except for the time he is actually in custody. And so the answer for victims is to get out of the situation by whatever means necessary, up to and including leaving in the middle of the night with nothing but the clothes on their back. Much easier said than done, especially if children are involved.

The second important realization is that creating both real and psychological dependency is what abusers do, and they are very good at it. So a victim is probably not going to have a lot of real resources to draw upon, and may not be psychologically capable of evaluating the resources they do have. Attaching the abuser's resources means resorting to the legal system, which may not be the best idea from a safety perspective. Any system that doesn't help a victim get access to the basic necessities of life just isn't going to work.

Katherine
I've never understood how these abusers get away with it. If I had physically abused my ex, I'm sure her dad, uncle, brothers, you name it, would've come to her rescue and tried to beat me up...or worse. The same with people who abuse children too, especially in this day and age where you can't even yell at a kid without being reported.

It just donned on me. Regardless of the reasons why an abuse victim suffers from and tolerates abuse, the fact remains that they fall into the category of a person who is unable to defend themselves.
However, in these types of circumstances, it's not a matter of learning how to block and counter a punch. "Self-defense" from an abuser needs to take on a completely non-physical form--perhaps using psychological tactics to prevent the abuse.

kewms
11-17-2011, 03:48 PM
I've never understood how these abusers get away with it. If I had physically abused my ex, I'm sure her dad, uncle, brothers, you name it, would've come to her rescue and tried to beat me up...or worse.

Right. And then what happens when uncles and brothers are gone, and victim is left alone with the abuser? Unless you get the victim out of the situation, attempts to intervene can just make things worse.

With child abuse, you have a depressingly long list of cases where the child victim simply is not believed, or where the adults involved close ranks around the abuser rather than the child.

Katherine

genin
11-17-2011, 05:08 PM
This is from a recent article about a long-standing domestic violence situation that escalated to murder.
Maria's fear of her husband, intensified by 15 years of abuse, grew to the point that she obtained a temporary restraining order against him last month, according to court records.

The husband, Isaac, is accused of fatally shooting Maria the evening of Aug. 5, when an argument between the estranged spouses escalated outside a local business.

Maria, a mother of five, outlined years of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her husband in court filings, and family and friends relayed similar information.

"He just secluded her from everybody," said Maria's longtime friend, Delani. "He was very controlling, very abusive from the beginning. He had a hold on her."

In the last month of her life, Maria had become especially afraid for her safety as her husband — whom she recently left — stalked her and harassed her, according to court papers filed by the victim.

"I have tried to keep my distance, but he shows up at grocery stores, my parents' house, etc.," she wrote. "I am afraid for my safety because he reacts aggressively when things don't go his way. I am afraid for my safety when he realizes I will not be going back to him."

Maria, 35, suffered bullet wounds to her head, chest and torso, and was transported to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead. "


There you have it. A real life example. Like others have said, it always follows the same pattern and the law was helpless to stop it.

But then you start looking at the details....15 YEARS of abuse. The husband looked like he stepped right out of the yard in San Quentin--tatted up like crazy. The woman was in fear of her life, but probably didn't arm herself, despite being threatened by a person whom she knew to be violent. This story is a prime example of how domestic violence gets out of control, even when the victim tries to do soemthing about it. But it also illustrates a lack of preparation when it comes to defending yourself. Telling the law on somebody is NOT a form of self-defense. At the end of the day, a person must be prepared to physically defend themselves if they are to stand a chance at survival.

Tim Ruijs
11-18-2011, 03:18 AM
But it also illustrates a lack of preparation when it comes to defending yourself. Telling the law on somebody is NOT a form of self-defense. At the end of the day, a person must be prepared to physically defend themselves if they are to stand a chance at survival.

Question is then is the abused able to prepare himself when already intimidated and 'under control of the abuser'. I feel it is critically important that people recognise the situation as early as possible and act accordingly, but people are strange creatures....love and hate are only two sides of the same coin, separated by virtually nothing.

SeiserL
11-18-2011, 06:26 AM
I think that some posters were reluctant to jump headlong at addressing domestic violence. So as you would expect with martial artists, the responses turned into "hear the sound of one hand clapping" type responses that Kung Fu master would tell to Grasshoppper. Sounds poetic, but it lacks substance.
Yes agreed.

DV is not poetic.

Perhaps the sound of the hand slapping is up the back of our heads saying that it will take a lot more that jumping headlong into a forum discussion to address it and violence.

If you want to address DV, show up at the local shelter and look into their eyes. I cannot put that into words.

Welcome to my world.

genin
11-18-2011, 07:06 AM
Question is then is the abused able to prepare himself when already intimidated and 'under control of the abuser'. I feel it is critically important that people recognise the situation as early as possible and act accordingly, but people are strange creatures....love and hate are only two sides of the same coin, separated by virtually nothing.

Obviously, DV victims are not able or prepared to defend themselves, otherwise they would do so. I suppose some do escape it, and some do fight back, but yet there are still many who succumb to the control and abuse.

It comes down to the way people handle things on an individual basis. I can only be accountable for me. And I know I won't ever fall victim to DV. I practice martial arts and self-defense and I some times teach others, as well as share tips and insights online. But people, being differential beings, won't always be concerned with these issues. They'll turn a blind eye or be ignorant to the prevailing reality. For some, it's a bad choice which leads them there. For others, it's simply bad luck. The key is to be accountable for yourself and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Tim Ruijs
11-18-2011, 07:13 AM
On a personal note: my other left abusive situation (alcohol) when she was pregnant with me. To day she sometimes wonders what her life (and mine) would have been like had she stayed. That is over 40 years ago after successful remarriage and another son in this world. She did indeed leave without notice (from Italy to Netherlands) and arrived at her parents home, much to their surprise (mind you pregnant and all).
In Italy a family member with no legs (always on bed) terrorised his wife. My mother never understood why she did not leave: as the man had no legs to follow her! Still, she stayed and got regular beating....This glimpse of a possible future was not the future my mother had in mind and she did leave...

Love and hate sometimes go hand in hand and blur peoples judgement.
Respect to people like Lynn that work on this problem daily ;)

graham christian
11-18-2011, 11:22 AM
What you are saying is equivalent to: to solve a problem (any problem) it is just a
matter of making it not a problem. This statement is as correct as it is useless. It's a tautology.

Not so. This statement is very correct. Yes you can also and indeed must go through a process of making a problem no longer a problem if you wan't to solve it.

Regards.G.

graham christian
11-18-2011, 11:46 AM
Yes agreed.

DV is not poetic.

Perhaps the sound of the hand slapping is up the back of our heads saying that it will take a lot more that jumping headlong into a forum discussion to address it and violence.

If you want to address DV, show up at the local shelter and look into their eyes. I cannot put that into words.

Welcome to my world.

Hi Lynn. Ah so that's your world. Interesting. I have addressed DV. on numerous occasions as maybe have many. I take it you are a counsellor. Hopefully a successful one.

I have just been handling one and to a successful completion.

The shelter quote above I don't get unless you are saying you feel people should have more reality before talking about it.

Regards.G.

sorokod
11-18-2011, 12:08 PM
Not so. This statement is very correct. Yes you can also and indeed must go through a process of making a problem no longer a problem if you wan't to solve it.

Regards.G.

I did not say it was incorrect

sorokod
11-18-2011, 12:10 PM
Might I recomend that folks interested in some of the psychology of why people find it so hard to remove themselves from violent situations, and the general societal mindset of violence, check out "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker?

I found this to be a fascinating and incredibly interesting look at how society conditions us to treat violence (domestic, sexual predation, even assasination and sudden criminal violence) in certain ways, how we misconcieve of what the real indicators of violence are due to societal conditioning, and how we discount our own intuition. The book absolutely changed how I view violence and how I view the victims of violence, specifically folks in abusive situations,the survivors, and even the abusers and perpetrators of violent acts.

I think it is a must-read for everyone, to be honest. The issues DeBecker touches on are very germane to this thread, and specifcly to Mr. Flatley's statements about how people should be easily able to recognize a bad situation and get out of it with just a little common sense. I used to hold a similar view, but as I learn more about the realities of these things, I must say that the issues are far more complex than outside observers might think that they are.

This sounds interesting, just ordered the book. Thanks

graham christian
11-18-2011, 12:36 PM
I did not say it was incorrect

You did not? This statement is as correct as it is useless.

Have I misread it?

G.

Kevin Leavitt
11-18-2011, 01:35 PM
I think that some posters were reluctant to jump headlong at addressing domestic violence. So as you would expect with martial artists, the responses turned into "hear the sound of one hand clapping" type responses that Kung Fu master would tell to Grasshoppper. Sounds poetic, but it lacks substance.

I agree that cultivating peace in our own lives, and applying that to all we encounter, is one way to prevent and defeat violence. Combatting violence with violence has historically not produced desired results. All it does is raise the body count, meanwhile the root issues remain unchanged.

A half million dead soldiers weren't enough to give blacks in America their civil rights. It wasn't until a few unarmed men protested with non-violence 100 years later, that the battle was finally won. And as far as I know, the victors never fired a single shot. That should tell you something.

An over simplification of the course of events as they evolved over approximately 100 years and two generations. It is not that easy to say that non-violence is always the solution and will always work. There are conditions that must be in place in order for non-violence to be successful.

You cannot simply isolate and break the linkage between the 1860s and the civil war and the events that occurred in the1960s and say "see...fighting did not work, and non-violence did." Given the conditions of the 1860s Polictical, Military, Economic, Social, and Institutional....I would guess that the non-violent movement would have not been effective at all. First, it could get no legs under it.

Without the conditions created by the civil war, the emancipation proclamation would not have been possible or enforceable......etc, etc....fighting the war, ending the war, and reconstruction was all apart of a long process that led to the empowerment of many individuals and eventually created conditions which allowed for the civil rights movement to be effective.

Fighitng and war, while not ideal are a fact. Force and power in the form of violence can be an effective solution to given conditions. However, it must be followed by other events that in effect heal and reconcile.

Study history and look at the history of World War II and MacArthur's strategy in Japan and how that was handled. War must always be accompanied by diplomacy in order for it to be successful.

Violence, war, and all that...just are not as simple as we would like it to be.

John A Butz
11-18-2011, 02:12 PM
This sounds interesting, just ordered the book. Thanks

David, I hope you find it to be a worthwhile read.

genin
11-18-2011, 03:18 PM
Last night I began hearing commotion from a neighbors apartment. Then my apartment started shaking from someone repeatedly slamming their door as hard as possible. It was extemely loud and unsettling, to the point that I became alarmed. It was obvious to me that someone was causing trouble and didn't care who heard it. Could've been a burglar kicking doors in, I didn't know. So I had to defend my dwelling.
As a result of another recent incident, I keep shuriken on my coffee table for personal protection. It only took me a few seconds to jump up, grab the ninja stars, and run out the door. Boy, my adrenaline was racing. My intent was to let whoever was out there know that I was now out there too. So without saying a word, I clanked my cold steel shuriken together. It seemed to get really quiet, then I heard a man on the level below me sniffling, lock his door, then walk off down the stars. Maybe he was the one, and he was fighting with his girl or something, I don't know. Nothing really happened at that point, so it was otherwise uneventful.
I guess the point of this story is how you respond to threats--fight or flight. In a way, I put myself in harms way. But I also pre-empted the situation from escalating on the perpetrator's terms. This is a critical piece of the equation. He was no longer free to act a fool and take this to the next level, without at least first acknowledging that someone with conspicious metalic objects was right around the corner.

sorokod
11-18-2011, 07:19 PM
Last night I began hearing commotion from a neighbors apartment. Then my apartment started shaking from someone repeatedly slamming their door as hard as possible. It was extemely loud and unsettling, to the point that I became alarmed. It was obvious to me that someone was causing trouble and didn't care who heard it. Could've been a burglar kicking doors in, I didn't know. So I had to defend my dwelling.
As a result of another recent incident, I keep shuriken on my coffee table for personal protection. It only took me a few seconds to jump up, grab the ninja stars, and run out the door. Boy, my adrenaline was racing. My intent was to let whoever was out there know that I was now out there too. So without saying a word, I clanked my cold steel shuriken together. It seemed to get really quiet, then I heard a man on the level below me sniffling, lock his door, then walk off down the stars. Maybe he was the one, and he was fighting with his girl or something, I don't know. Nothing really happened at that point, so it was otherwise uneventful.
I guess the point of this story is how you respond to threats--fight or flight. In a way, I put myself in harms way. But I also pre-empted the situation from escalating on the perpetrator's terms. This is a critical piece of the equation. He was no longer free to act a fool and take this to the next level, without at least first acknowledging that someone with conspicious metalic objects was right around the corner.

Unleased your inner ape, didn't you?

Anthony Loeppert
11-19-2011, 01:24 PM
Last night I began hearing commotion from a neighbors apartment. Then my apartment started shaking from someone repeatedly slamming their door as hard as possible. It was extemely loud and unsettling, to the point that I became alarmed. It was obvious to me that someone was causing trouble and didn't care who heard it. Could've been a burglar kicking doors in, I didn't know. So I had to defend my dwelling.


Or ... Your uncertainty regarding your environment combined with your personal insecurities got you all worked up while the next door neighbor was throwing a temper tantrum.

genin
11-22-2011, 01:35 PM
Or ... Your uncertainty regarding your environment combined with your personal insecurities got you all worked up while the next door neighbor was throwing a temper tantrum.

Pretty much! Though I look at it as a test--one which I passed.

I heard a woman today say something about how she is very anti-confrontational about everything. This is how victims think, but it comes only from a place of weakness. Fear of the uncertain, fear of conflict, fear of violence, fear of change, fear of looking bad, and a fear of FEAR itself. And trust me, when these people are tested in life they will completey shut down. This is the same woman who would quietly murmur "Please don't kill me" as her kidnapper drags her off to rape and murder her.

I mean, I can understand the mindset. Because if you can always avoid conflict, then you'll never be forced to deal with it, and you won't require the physical or mental skills to do so. But when you are finally forced to deal with conflict, yet you've based your whole life around avoiding it, then you've set yourself up for failure.

Rob Watson
11-22-2011, 02:47 PM
I keep shuriken

Outside of the dojo that stuff lands us in jail over in our neck of the woods ...

Grabbing weapons in your story is escalation. Escalation is antithesis to aikido, no? Maybe they were just remodelling the restroom ...

genin
11-22-2011, 04:54 PM
Outside of the dojo that stuff lands us in jail over in our neck of the woods ...

Grabbing weapons in your story is escalation. Escalation is antithesis to aikido, no? Maybe they were just remodelling the restroom ...

I learned in a self-defense class to defend yourself first, then worry about dealing with the legalities of your actions later. There's truth in that statement if you know how to combine it with common sense.

Someone once said that aikido teaches us HOW to respond. Grabbing the shuriken was how I responded to a perceived threat. Would an aikidoka have responded the same why I did in my particular situation? Who knows. At least I responded, and at least it ended favorably for me and my would-be enemy.

The door slamming has continued it seems, albeit not as loud as that first time. I'm thinking it's probably just a really inconsiderate tenant. St

Belt_Up
11-22-2011, 06:44 PM
Would an aikidoka have responded the same why (sic) I did in my particular situation?

I can guarantee that no, an aikidoka would not have picked up a pair of shuriken and raced to confront someone slamming a door.

Demetrio Cereijo
11-22-2011, 06:56 PM
Shuriken?

You didn't had something better at hand?

graham christian
11-22-2011, 07:39 PM
I learned in a self-defense class to defend yourself first, then worry about dealing with the legalities of your actions later. There's truth in that statement if you know how to combine it with common sense.

Someone once said that aikido teaches us HOW to respond. Grabbing the shuriken was how I responded to a perceived threat. Would an aikidoka have responded the same why I did in my particular situation? Who knows. At least I responded, and at least it ended favorably for me and my would-be enemy.

The door slamming has continued it seems, albeit not as loud as that first time. I'm thinking it's probably just a really inconsiderate tenant. St

Were you under attack? Not worrying about legalities seems to preclude the use of common sense.

Plus a perceived threat, that's different to an imagined one.

Regards.G.

Janet Rosen
11-22-2011, 08:37 PM
Were you under attack? Not worrying about legalities seems to preclude the use of common sense.

Plus a perceived threat, that's different to an imagined one.

Regards.G.

Agree.
Another tenant slamming doors at their own apt? Nope, this almost lifelong apt. dweller wouldn't perceive that as a personal threat requiring me to leave my own apt. Just keep an ear out and be ready to call 911.

Nathan Wallace
11-22-2011, 11:15 PM
Mr. Flatley,
I would highly recommend you take the time to visit the International Hoplology Society's website

http://hoplology.com/about.htm

and read all the articles you can.

Specifically-

http://hoplology.com/articles_detail.asp?id=14

http://hoplology.com/articles_detail.asp?id=12

http://hoplology.com/articles_detail.asp?id=3

You might find them interesting and helpful.

kewms
11-22-2011, 11:17 PM
I learned in a self-defense class to defend yourself first, then worry about dealing with the legalities of your actions later. There's truth in that statement if you know how to combine it with common sense.

Sure. So what was the attack against which you were defending yourself, again?

Katherine

genin
11-23-2011, 07:04 AM
Sure. So what was the attack against which you were defending yourself, again?

Katherine

My apartment sounded like it was under attack. While that may sound strange, that is literally what it sounded like. And since I live there, I had to defend it. Also, there was another recent incident prior to that wherein an individual tried to gain unauthorized access to my apartment while I was there sleeping. That prompted me to set my shuriken out in case it happened again. And it was either shuriken or a katana, so you tell me which one is more discrete.

kewms
11-23-2011, 01:24 PM
My apartment sounded like it was under attack. While that may sound strange, that is literally what it sounded like. And since I live there, I had to defend it.

And had your apartment *actually* been under attack, you would have been perfectly justified in doing so. (At least in the US.) But it wasn't. Once you verified that, any action taken after you stepped into the hall would not have been "self-defense."

Personally, I would choose the katana over shuriken, precisely because it would *not* be discreet. If you're going to bring a weapon into the situation at all, overwhelmingly superior force gives you the best chance of *not* needing to actually use it.

Katherine

genin
11-23-2011, 02:04 PM
Personally, I would choose the katana over shuriken, precisely because it would *not* be discreet. If you're going to bring a weapon into the situation at all, overwhelmingly superior force gives you the best chance of *not* needing to actually use it.
Katherine

I'd rather have the security of having the weapon concealed and my enemy not know I was armed. Because at any moment I could reveal the weapon in order to intimidate him. Until then, I retain the element of surprise. Plus, you never know who is carrying a gun nowadays. You run out the door with a katana in your hands, that's a good way to get shot on the spot!

Kevin Leavitt
11-23-2011, 02:39 PM
Rule #1 to fighting: Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

On that subject: here is a blog post I wrote several years ago on the subject and the issue of Cognitive Dissonance in conflict and fights.

http://www.budo-warrior.com/?p=157&cpage=1#comment-134

genin
11-23-2011, 04:05 PM
Rule #1 to fighting: Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

On that subject: here is a blog post I wrote several years ago on the subject and the issue of Cognitive Dissonance in conflict and fights.

http://www.budo-warrior.com/?p=157&cpage=1#comment-134
Interesting article. Could be summed up by saying that you need to adapt to your opponent. Jumping spin kicks won't work on a midget. Squaring off and boxing a guy with a significant reach advantage won't work either. I get it.

kewms
11-23-2011, 04:59 PM
I'd rather have the security of having the weapon concealed and my enemy not know I was armed. Because at any moment I could reveal the weapon in order to intimidate him. Until then, I retain the element of surprise. Plus, you never know who is carrying a gun nowadays. You run out the door with a katana in your hands, that's a good way to get shot on the spot!

If the guy had a gun, staying inside your apartment would have been the only safe choice regardless of your own weaponry.

Intimidating someone by revealing a weapon only works if they recognize the weapon's lethal potential. Swords and guns, sure. Maybe large knives. But I'm not convinced shuriken would have the same effect.

All of which is far afield of the original topic, though. Since your apartment wasn't actually under assault, any attempt to intimidate on your part would have been legally questionable.

Katherine

Lorien Lowe
12-04-2011, 04:32 AM
Pretty much! Though I look at it as a test--one which I passed.

I heard a woman today say something about how she is very anti-confrontational about everything. This is how victims think, but it comes only from a place of weakness. Fear of the uncertain, fear of conflict, fear of violence, fear of change, fear of looking bad, and a fear of FEAR itself. And trust me, when these people are tested in life they will completey shut down. This is the same woman who would quietly murmur "Please don't kill me" as her kidnapper drags her off to rape and murder her.

I mean, I can understand the mindset. Because if you can always avoid conflict, then you'll never be forced to deal with it, and you won't require the physical or mental skills to do so. But when you are finally forced to deal with conflict, yet you've based your whole life around avoiding it, then you've set yourself up for failure.
I find myself extremely frustrated at reading a bunch of men talking about how women bring abuse on themselves by being too passive. To state the obvious, the best way to stop abuse is to not abuse anyone. Regardless of how disgustingly, incomprehensibly passive any woman is, it isn't her fault if she gets the tar beaten out of her by her boyfriend or husband. Statistically, she's most likely to be killed by him after she tries to leave, and he probably tells her that on a fairly regular basis in such a way that she'll believe him.

In addition, no one seems to be aware of just how much our society grinds into women that it's unfeminine to defend oneself. When was the last time you saw a woman (other than a cop) defend herself on tv or in the movies(and, for that matter, how many times have you seen women cops rescued on tv by their male partners)? I can think of two movies where this has occured off the top of my head, out of 30 or so years of watching movies, and in both the fact that a woman was actually fighting back was a significant 'surprise!' factor in the plot. TV isn't real life, but it does shape, and is shaped by, the culture it occurs in. Passivity is seen and shown as normal and feminine in popular culture, and for that matter the feminine physical ideal is slenderness to the degree of frailty.* Half of the women I train with are gay, and those of us who aren't are well aware that we're in violation of upper- or middle-class heterosexual female social standards. We're just perverse enough that we don't care.

My point is, don't act like these women are somehow bringing this on themselves because they're being the people that they've been taught to be by their parents, their friends, their family, and by society at large. My own mother expended a great deal of effort trying to make me more afraid, and still does.

*I saw one teenage girl in the ER sobbing and wanting to know what she could do to be stronger, less likely to be injured, and easier to treat mechanically in a health care setting, who looked absolutely horrified when it was suggested that she lift weights. 'No, she doesn't want to bulk up,' said one male RN with a paternal smile, and she looked at him with glowing gratitude that he understood why she couldn't possibly do such a thing.

genin
12-06-2011, 02:14 PM
I find myself extremely frustrated at reading a bunch of men talking about how women bring abuse on themselves by being too passive. To state the obvious, the best way to stop abuse is to not abuse anyone. Regardless of how disgustingly, incomprehensibly passive any woman is, it isn't her fault if she gets the tar beaten out of her by her boyfriend or husband. Statistically, she's most likely to be killed by him after she tries to leave, and he probably tells her that on a fairly regular basis in such a way that she'll believe him.

My point is, don't act like these women are somehow bringing this on themselves because they're being the people that they've been taught to be by their parents, their friends, their family, and by society at large. My own mother expended a great deal of effort trying to make me more afraid, and still does.

*I saw one teenage girl in the ER sobbing and wanting to know what she could do to be stronger, less likely to be injured, and easier to treat mechanically in a health care setting, who looked absolutely horrified when it was suggested that she lift weights. 'No, she doesn't want to bulk up,' said one male RN with a paternal smile, and she looked at him with glowing gratitude that he understood why she couldn't possibly do such a thing.
It's not my position to judge or condemn women for being too passive, nor to blame the victim. I was simply identifying the fact that there are many out there whom refuse to respond to violence and conflict. That itself is the problem. The reasons WHY it is a problem are like you said--society teaches women to be non-confrontational.

Also, I've heard the myth about woman feering bulking up by lifting weights. Yes, maybe if you powerlift for 6 years straight and eat nothing but chicken and creatine, then you might get a little bulky. But if you just do some basic strength training excercise a couple/few times a week, you'll be stronger and look and feel better. The fear of bulking up is just a cop out.

Kevin Leavitt
12-06-2011, 02:25 PM
Powerful Men teach women to be non-confrontational in order to make themselves more powerful. It is a perversion of power that can be equated to a subtle form of slavery. it is an oppression. Society as a whole allows it to occur once it has become institutionalized. Do you NOT agree that those that are powerless need to be helped and assisted out of their oppression? OR do we continue to say "suck it up...it is your fault and you need to get over it?"

genin
12-06-2011, 02:55 PM
Powerful Men teach women to be non-confrontational in order to make themselves more powerful. It is a perversion of power that can be equated to a subtle form of slavery. it is an oppression. Society as a whole allows it to occur once it has become institutionalized. Do you NOT agree that those that are powerless need to be helped and assisted out of their oppression? OR do we continue to say "suck it up...it is your fault and you need to get over it?"

I don't think it's as much "evil men" shaping women into this role as it is society as a whole. And even at that, women are generally not as strong, as big, or as aggressive as men, and society and daily life has adapted to accomodate women in that respect. So it makes sense that they'd be less inclined to be the ones engaging in physical conflicts and violence. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect your average woman to possess the martial skills required to defend herself against a male assailant.

It's a complex and multi-sided issue, which would in true form go beyond the scope of this discussion if we got too in depth about it. The only thing I could say would be to ask people like that woman: "Why do you feel that you don't have the right to confront people when they have wronged you?" Then maybe that would open up the discussion about their fear of violence and how that came about in their development as a person.

Mary Eastland
12-06-2011, 03:03 PM
I couldn't wait for help. I had to help myself. Once I made the decision to help myself there was no turning back. What a ride!

Cady Goldfield
12-06-2011, 05:40 PM
A little anecdote about the late Golda Meir, former prime minister of Israel:
When Israel was experiencing an epidemic of violent rapes and someone at a cabinet meeting suggested women be put under curfew until the rapists were caught, Meir shot back, “Men are committing the rapes. Let them be put under curfew.” -- from an essay on Meir by Letty Cottin Pogrebin (Link to entire essay: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/meir-golda )

Note that the guy (it was a male) suggesting the curfew on women would probably never have considered putting the curfew on men. It wouldn't even occur to him. After all, it would have affected his liberty! Yet, he could so cavalierly impose a de facto punishment on an entire population of women for being potential victims, in the name of "protecting" them. That is an attitude issue we see pretty much worldwide. Those who are in societal power have entitlements that they both take as a birthright and will not willingly relinquish.

Janet Rosen
12-06-2011, 05:47 PM
Thank you for identifying the source, Cady; I'd been thinking about that long-remembered one and couldn't for the life of me remember.

A little anecdote about the late Golda Meir, former prime minister of Israel:
When Israel was experiencing an epidemic of violent rapes and someone at a cabinet meeting suggested women be put under curfew until the rapists were caught, Meir shot back, “Men are committing the rapes. Let them be put under curfew.” -- from an essay on Meir by Letty Cottin Pogrebin (Link to entire essay: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/meir-golda )

Note that the guy (it was a male) suggesting the curfew on women would probably never have considered putting the curfew on men. It wouldn't even occur to him. After all, it would have affected his liberty! Yet, he could so cavalierly impose a de facto punishment on an entire population of women for being potential victims, in the name of "protecting" them. That is an attitude issue we see pretty much worldwide. Those who are in societal power have entitlements that they both take as a birthright and will not willingly relinquish.

Kevin Leavitt
12-07-2011, 12:57 AM
Janet wrote:

That is an attitude issue we see pretty much worldwide. Those who are in societal power have entitlements that they both take as a birthright and will not willingly relinquish.

and IMO, this entitlement is what I see is a big part of the core problem within Afghanistan from my personal observations and experiences. Empowering women and educating them, and providing them the means to be equal is the way to get them on the right track IMO.

genin
12-07-2011, 07:10 AM
A little anecdote about the late Golda Meir, former prime minister of Israel:
When Israel was experiencing an epidemic of violent rapes and someone at a cabinet meeting suggested women be put under curfew until the rapists were caught, Meir shot back, “Men are committing the rapes. Let them be put under curfew.” -- from an essay on Meir by Letty Cottin Pogrebin (Link to entire essay: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/meir-golda )

Note that the guy (it was a male) suggesting the curfew on women would probably never have considered putting the curfew on men. It wouldn't even occur to him. After all, it would have affected his liberty! Yet, he could so cavalierly impose a de facto punishment on an entire population of women for being potential victims, in the name of "protecting" them. That is an attitude issue we see pretty much worldwide. Those who are in societal power have entitlements that they both take as a birthright and will not willingly relinquish.
I don't think anyone would agree with much of what Israel does. But really any situation which seeks to polarize men and women is flawed. We are one in the same.

Janet Rosen
12-07-2011, 10:39 AM
Janet wrote:

and IMO, this entitlement is what I see is a big part of the core problem within Afghanistan from my personal observations and experiences. Empowering women and educating them, and providing them the means to be equal is the way to get them on the right track IMO.

In fairness, Cady wrote it (but I agree)... and this is true in many societies and yes, education and empowerment (incuding economic self sufficiency through genuine microloans and similar programs which have also proven to be key).

Cady Goldfield
12-07-2011, 11:01 AM
and IMO, this entitlement is what I see is a big part of the core problem within Afghanistan from my personal observations and experiences. Empowering women and educating them, and providing them the means to be equal is the way to get them on the right track IMO.

You may have seen this when it came out a couple of weeks ago:
http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-woman-jailed-being-raped-wins-pardon-060512716.html

It is my belief that sometimes, cultures and societal structures fall into the hands of sociopathic, or at least pathologically misogynistic, leaders who then twist and distort laws that originally were meant to be humane and protective (within the context of the particular environment). Creating equal rights to education goes against their personal agendas and desires, which is to be all-controlling. As soon as people - male and female - are educated, it gives them a powerful weapon against oppression. Misogynist groups in power will not, we know, relinquish such control by educating women.

I see empowerment: as a negative thing in some ways, as it implies the passive receipt of liberties by one group, from another in the position to give it --- and to take it away. Power is superior to "empowerment" in that respect. Education is the start and foundation of that power; earning income is the next rung of the ladder, and communication (among the oppressed, in order to unite and rebel) is the next rung beyond. In Afghanistan, women have been secretly educating girls and each other despite the Taliban's efforts to keep them in ignorance. In tandem with that, they are figuring out how to work around the laws to find "legal" ways to make money in cottage industries and staying under the religious police's radar. They also have the secret aid of the good men of their society who, like the keepers of the Underground Railroad in America, keep watch and provide "hidden channels" while the women do what they must do.

Tyrannies may persist for a long time, but they are not eternal, and they do have weak spots that will be eroded in time by persistent picking away ... in this case by women who will eventually give themselves power rather than wait to be "empowered" by "society."

genin
12-07-2011, 11:41 AM
You may have seen this when it came out a couple of weeks ago:
http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-woman-jailed-being-raped-wins-pardon-060512716.html

It is my belief that sometimes, cultures and societal structures fall into the hands of sociopathic, or at least pathologically misogynistic, leaders who then twist and distort laws that originally were meant to be humane and protective (within the context of the particular environment). Creating equal rights to education goes against their personal agendas and desires, which is to be all-controlling. As soon as people - male and female - are educated, it gives them a powerful weapon against oppression. Misogynist groups in power will not, we know, relinquish such control by educating women.

I see empowerment: as a negative thing in some ways, as it implies the passive receipt of liberties by one group, from another in the position to give it --- and to take it away. Power is superior to "empowerment" in that respect. Education is the start and foundation of that power; earning income is the next rung of the ladder, and communication (among the oppressed, in order to unite and rebel) is the next rung beyond. In Afghanistan, women have been secretly educating girls and each other despite the Taliban's efforts to keep them in ignorance. In tandem with that, they are figuring out how to work around the laws to find "legal" ways to make money in cottage industries and staying under the religious police's radar. They also have the secret aid of the good men of their society who, like the keepers of the Underground Railroad in America, keep watch and provide "hidden channels" while the women do what they must do.

Tyrannies may persist for a long time, but they are not eternal, and they do have weak spots that will be eroded in time by persistent picking away ... in this case by women who will eventually give themselves power rather than wait to be "empowered" by "society."
What I will say is that there is no point in empowering women in those societies just so that they can turn out to be as bad as the men. I'd rather see a group repressed, rather than let them rise up to repress others. The problem isn't that they are male controlled, it is that they are controled by tyrants who have no respect for human and civil rights. That is a genderless problem.

Janet Rosen
12-07-2011, 12:34 PM
What I will say is that there is no point in empowering women in those societies just so that they can turn out to be as bad as the men. I'd rather see a group repressed, rather than let them rise up to repress others. The problem isn't that they are male controlled, it is that they are controled by tyrants who have no respect for human and civil rights. That is a genderless problem.

You are so off the mark here.
Women who can earn even a modest living with dignity have stable homes, send their children - boys and girls - to school, pay taxes, and contribute to their communities. They pursue education themselves and become participants in society. This process in itself is what helps develop citizens who can stand up for their rights. And the rigid patriarchy IS the base model for the tyrannical society.

genin
12-07-2011, 01:45 PM
You are so off the mark here.
Women who can earn even a modest living with dignity have stable homes, send their children - boys and girls - to school, pay taxes, and contribute to their communities. They pursue education themselves and become participants in society. This process in itself is what helps develop citizens who can stand up for their rights. And the rigid patriarchy IS the base model for the tyrannical society.

Focusing on giving women rights, while allowing an oppressive regime to operate, is not addressing the root problem. With a democratic government, the issue of equal rights will fix itself. Worked in the U.S., though it took us a while.

Keith Larman
12-07-2011, 02:46 PM
What I will say is that there is no point in empowering women in those societies just so that they can turn out to be as bad as the men. I'd rather see a group repressed, rather than let them rise up to repress others. The problem isn't that they are male controlled, it is that they are controled by tyrants who have no respect for human and civil rights. That is a genderless problem.

The same argument has been made over and over again historically to suppress any number of groups.

mathewjgano
12-07-2011, 03:04 PM
What I will say is that there is no point in empowering women in those societies just so that they can turn out to be as bad as the men. I'd rather see a group repressed, rather than let them rise up to repress others. The problem isn't that they are male controlled, it is that they are controled by tyrants who have no respect for human and civil rights. That is a genderless problem.

Violence and abuse is essentially genderless, but I think any time we avoid empowering groups of people we come close to an act of tyranny, if not touch on it outright. I would agree there are cultural problems which might not make much difference in some specific regard, for example empowering women's rights in areas where they're just going to add to the oppression of, say, gay folks (I was just listening to BBC this morning about gay rights issues in Nigeria). Still, I think all individuals should be empowered where possible...sometimes you have to give a person the chance to be wrong so they can keep learning more about what it means to be a force unto themselves.

Focusing on giving women rights, while allowing an oppressive regime to operate, is not addressing the root problem. With a democratic government, the issue of equal rights will fix itself. Worked in the U.S., though it took us a while.
But what if the root of the problem is inaccessible? The root of the problem is often, if not usually, found deep in the past and is broadly embedded in subsets within the culture. Empowering the women of a tyrannical nation/culture gives rise to additional voices who act on their own and others' behalf. Simply getting rid of the tyrants will not make the people free...in my opinion....and it's important to address a problem from multiple sides where it's hard to hit it square in the center.

Mary Eastland
12-07-2011, 03:45 PM
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2GGLA_en&biw=1024&bih=720&tbm=isch&tbnid=KkfWVj-hBEzG_M:&imgrefurl=http://konwomyn.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html&docid=jaZhBRaskztoNM&imgurl=http://newsone.com/files/2010/04/ending-mass-rape-in-the-dr-congo.jpg&w=650&h=420&ei=wt3fTqeNM-Tn0QGhus24Bw&zoom=1

genderless?

mathewjgano
12-07-2011, 04:23 PM
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2GGLA_en&biw=1024&bih=720&tbm=isch&tbnid=KkfWVj-hBEzG_M:&imgrefurl=http://konwomyn.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html&docid=jaZhBRaskztoNM&imgurl=http://newsone.com/files/2010/04/ending-mass-rape-in-the-dr-congo.jpg&w=650&h=420&ei=wt3fTqeNM-Tn0QGhus24Bw&zoom=1

genderless?

Poor phrasing on my part. I don't mean at all to suggest there isn't gender-related crime, or that major trends within specific kinds of crime aren't gender biased. Sex trafficking, for example, is one of the world's biggest human rights outrages. I don't know of many societies where it's not present.
I meant that I think violence and abuse are something all people are subject to.

Marc Abrams
12-07-2011, 04:24 PM
To speak about violence as being "genderless" is to be totally divorced from scientific evidence that points strongly to genetic factors related to gender and more strongly to hormones that are considered to be "male hormones." Politically correct or incorrect agendas are simply "white noise" when you explore the scientific evidence and research into the field of "violence and aggression."

Marc Abrams

mathewjgano
12-07-2011, 05:18 PM
To speak about violence as being "genderless" is to be totally divorced from scientific evidence that points strongly to genetic factors related to gender and more strongly to hormones that are considered to be "male hormones." Politically correct or incorrect agendas are simply "white noise" when you explore the scientific evidence and research into the field of "violence and aggression."

Marc Abrams

Absolutely a good point about testosterone and aggression. When it comes to who does more in the way of violence and aggression, men tend to take the cake (at knife point).

Marc Abrams
12-07-2011, 07:04 PM
Absolutely a good point about testosterone and aggression. When it comes to who does more in the way of violence and aggression, men tend to take the cake (at knife point).

Matt:

Chronic, violent female offenders have different hormone profiles than your typical housewife. Would you mind cutting me a piece of cake with that knife? :D

Marc

genin
12-08-2011, 08:00 AM
Matt:

Chronic, violent female offenders have different hormone profiles than your typical housewife. Would you mind cutting me a piece of cake with that knife? :D

Marc

Again, I don't think gender is relevant. True, men have more testosterone, but it doesn't mean that they have to act aggressive and violently. Many don't. I guess my point is that violence, and the way in which we respond to it, is not dependent upon whether we are a man or woman.

Belt_Up
12-08-2011, 08:16 AM
If you have a certain set of genes, your probability of committing a violent crime goes up by 882% (see Inocgnito, by David Eagleman, pp 158-159). That set of genes is called the Y chromosome.

genin
12-08-2011, 08:35 AM
If you have a certain set of genes, your probability of committing a violent crime goes up by 882% (see Inocgnito, by David Eagleman, pp 158-159). That set of genes is called the Y chromosome.

If you look at statistic first, then try to extrapolate backwards, you will find yourself with all kinds of incorrect conclusions. For instance, if I look at the genetic makeup of the majority of offenders in American prisons, what commonality would I find? Statistics say that those offenders are primarily black, but we all know that genetics is NOT the reason they are in prison. It's is society and the New Jim Crow which put them there. Same goes towards violence. It's equally rooted in all of us, but society, our surroundings, and "nurture" are what make us act on it and respond to it.

Marc Abrams
12-08-2011, 08:51 AM
Again, I don't think gender is relevant. True, men have more testosterone, but it doesn't mean that they have to act aggressive and violently. Many don't. I guess my point is that violence, and the way in which we respond to it, is not dependent upon whether we are a man or woman.

Roger:

I have yet to see you respond to any thread in a manner that displays any genuine understanding, knowledge, or experience of the issues that you like to discuss. It does not matter whether or not you believe gender is relevant. Aggression and violence is related strongly to gender, which is the result of genetics and biochemistry at work. You are talking about variables of an issue. Genetics, biochemistry and gender are clearly identified and substantiated variables when there is a scientific review of aggression and violence. Your opinions are not variables and are irrelevant to an objective discussion of the topic.

Marc Abrams

genin
12-08-2011, 09:37 AM
Roger:

I have yet to see you respond to any thread in a manner that displays any genuine understanding, knowledge, or experience of the issues that you like to discuss. It does not matter whether or not you believe gender is relevant. Aggression and violence is related strongly to gender, which is the result of genetics and biochemistry at work. You are talking about variables of an issue. Genetics, biochemistry and gender are clearly identified and substantiated variables when there is a scientific review of aggression and violence. Your opinions are not variables and are irrelevant to an objective discussion of the topic.
Marc Abrams
I had no intention of directing this topic towards gender specifically, but it seemed that became the focus of this thread. I was mainly just trying to stay with it for the sake of ongoing discussion. I probably should've backed out after the one word post with the picture of rape victims. That was clearly indicative that the tone of the thread had changed.

Mary Eastland
12-08-2011, 10:57 AM
When a women is raped she can become pregnant. That would be one way that women and men react to some forms of violence. If a man is raped, he is hurt... then he can deal with it. When a woman bears a child of rape she has a life long reminder of that act of violence.

Gender is also relevant because most men are stronger than most women. Not to mention much more likely to use a weapon.

You don't hear about many bands of women roaming around the country side randomly raping anyone that comes along.

Women are socialized to be more passive so we do respond differently, generally to violence.

To say that gender is not factor is irresponsible.

genin
12-08-2011, 11:42 AM
You don't hear about many bands of women roaming around the country side randomly raping anyone that comes along.


Where at, in the Congo? Why not single them out for being black, as oppossed to being men. It's just as arbitrary. I don't see bands of white men going around the countryside raping women. It must be because they are black, since white men don't do this. Just going by your logic here.

I'm digressing, but I'm sorry, I have enough respect for myself as a man to not let anyone sit there and speak badly of men in front of me. Imagine if were to start talking about "men's rights" the way others on here have spoken about women's rights.

mathewjgano
12-08-2011, 12:33 PM
If you look at statistic first, then try to extrapolate backwards, you will find yourself with all kinds of incorrect conclusions. For instance, if I look at the genetic makeup of the majority of offenders in American prisons, what commonality would I find? Statistics say that those offenders are primarily black, but we all know that genetics is NOT the reason they are in prison. It's is society and the New Jim Crow which put them there. Same goes towards violence. It's equally rooted in all of us, but society, our surroundings, and "nurture" are what make us act on it and respond to it.

That's a good point about statistics, but I'm not sure violence is equally rooted in all of us. I think it's probably rooted to some degree in all of us, and in that sense alone are we equal in our potential for acting with violence and aggression. From what little I've learned in my handful of psychology courses, there is a definate link between testosterone and aggression. In that sense, men are more prone toward violence than women, generally speaking. This doesn't mean women are immune from cultural/situational factors that might cause violent behavior, just that all other things being equal, men tend toward violent behavior more than women.

Marc Abrams
12-08-2011, 12:53 PM
That's a good point about statistics, but I'm not sure violence is equally rooted in all of us. I think it's probably rooted to some degree in all of us, and in that sense alone are we equal in our potential for acting with violence and aggression. From what little I've learned in my handful of psychology courses, there is a definate link between testosterone and aggression. In that sense, men are more prone toward violence than women, generally speaking. This doesn't mean women are immune from cultural/situational factors that might cause violent behavior, just that all other things being equal, men tend toward violent behavior more than women.

Matt:

Actually his use of statistics was a poor attempt at sophistry. Trying to compare absolutely unrelated issues, treating them as similar variables that can be compared, is something that spin doctors do. Anybody schooled in basic statistics looks at attempts like that as clear signs of someone spinning tales with no real grounding in statistics. The totality of the body of scientific literature points to nature over nurture (sorry about that Mary). I outlined the major, substantiated variables. This information stands immune to our feelings about ourselves as men and women in a society. Violence is an easy topic to try and mold into some politically correct ideology. Only serves to take away the more important focus on real-life variables and conditions that can be addressed.

Marc Abrams

Mary Eastland
12-08-2011, 01:03 PM
Where at, in the Congo? Why not single them out for being black, as oppossed to being men. It's just as arbitrary. I don't see bands of white men going around the countryside raping women. It must be because they are black, since white men don't do this. Just going by your logic here.

I'm digressing, but I'm sorry, I have enough respect for myself as a man to not let anyone sit there and speak badly of men in front of me. Imagine if were to start talking about "men's rights" the way others on here have spoken about women's rights.

Do a little digging into Frat house behavior in America.

Mary Eastland
12-08-2011, 01:05 PM
I am not men bashing. I love men. Try to not personlize it then you can learn more about it.

mathewjgano
12-08-2011, 03:07 PM
Matt:

Actually his use of statistics was a poor attempt at sophistry. Trying to compare absolutely unrelated issues, treating them as similar variables that can be compared, is something that spin doctors do. Anybody schooled in basic statistics looks at attempts like that as clear signs of someone spinning tales with no real grounding in statistics. The totality of the body of scientific literature points to nature over nurture (sorry about that Mary). I outlined the major, substantiated variables. This information stands immune to our feelings about ourselves as men and women in a society. Violence is an easy topic to try and mold into some politically correct ideology. Only serves to take away the more important focus on real-life variables and conditions that can be addressed.

Marc Abrams

Hi Marc,
I seem to recall being told something similar about statistics though: that because stats are so specific in application, it's easy to misapply them and read too much into them. The example of prison populations is something that was given to me for how statistics can be misrepresented. I don't think he was addressing the specific statitics you were thinking of and was just trying to point out that principle as a way of supporting the doubt he has. I agree it didn't apply to what you were describing, which my basic level of study seemed to corroborate...for what little that's worth.
I take his meaning to be that we all can be violent, and that's the idea that I was agreeing with.
I do wonder how much our "junk DNA" plays a role in creating genetic markers for violence and aggression when violence is consistently nurtured though. Are there any longitudinal studies of women including the times before they began to chronically express violence?
Take care,
Matt

Kevin Leavitt
12-08-2011, 03:58 PM
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a real good read on this subject.