View Single Post
Old 04-30-2014, 07:24 AM   #23
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,829
United_States
Offline
Re: Effective Technique

Quote:
Susan Dalton wrote: View Post
Mary,
The way I've understood "aikibunny" is to describe those who fall down before you even touch them and want no force used at all. (Yes, I have been guilty as charged.) Often, these folks are so fearful about falling, getting hurt, or hurting others that they barely hold on and fall before being thrown so that they are totally in charge of where, when, and how they fall. I looked behind me before every back fall to be sure I wasn't falling on anything until I was a brown belt, which unfortunately often caused my neck to hurt. Probably more of these type students are female just because they may not have had experiences falling, but I have had plenty of male students I would describe this way too, just as I have had both male and female students who were more comfortable in the masher role.
I think this is a common fallacy even among those who know better: to assume that by virtue of his gender, a man is likely to have fighting skills or experiences. Certainly I don't think that the average man has any experience falling (where would they get that?).

Quote:
Susan Dalton wrote: View Post
I had hoped to start a productive and civil discussion, and I wasn't trying to offend when I used language shortcuts. But perhaps I have.
I know you weren't trying to offend. That's the thing about loaded language, though -- it creeps into common usage, associates itself with existing biases, and influences thinking even when used without intent. This is why I will not use the b word. But most people are not open to that discussion. Leaving gender out of it, I don't think anyone can deny that the term "aikibunny" is pejorative and used disparagingly, and I don't think pejorative terms are helpful in a discussion where the intention is to explore the potential value of a range of approaches. When we begin by pejoratively labeling the other -- or even (especially?) ourselfes -- we start from a perspective of skepticism that the approach has anything of value. Maybe, as Mary Eastland says, we should chuck the labels. When a label gets to the point where people have long since stopped really thinking about what it means, it's kind of lost its usefulness anyway, as is the case with all unexamined language.
  Reply With Quote