Forgive me if any of this sounds naive, but:
I have seen/read/heard/felt aikido expressed as the ideal of nullifying conflict through harmonious movement and precise physical communication, and that because of its ability to deny combat, its practitioners are supposed to be able to protect themselves and their would-be-attackers. The basis here on movement as a method of peaceful communication makes me think that comparative strength is not supposed to manifest as the primary language spoken between your bodies, dig? if you're relying on your arm strength to make shihonage work, then aren't you endangering your uke in a very nonpeaceable way, being combative with your body motion instead of harmonious? my thinking has been that technique is supposed to embody, not simply reflect philosophy. otherwise why would we need to keep training to discover more of it all? in this vain i'm putting forward the idea that a trial of strength between you and your partner is fundamentally a combative, a confrontational physical interaction. i might be full of it or off base, but them's some thought that have been cooking up.
now, there's a difference between being strong and using strength and that's a fair thing to try to dissect, but it doesn't feel like that's what's focal here, and that's ok.
btw, the statement "in my opinion aikido is easier for men, but women tend to have better technique due to the fact that they cant rely on muscle as much" is, of course, an okay thing to say; you mos def said things like "in my opinion" and "at least, thats from what I have seen," and that helps anything come out as more acceptable. But, this seems like it's not really a fair or very realistic or very well-thought-out point of view. before even addressing the gender issue that's here: what does it even mean that it's "easier" for some people vs others having "better technique?" doesn't one connote the other? if my technique is good, shouldn't it all look/feel easier? or did you mean "easier" in terms of a gendered learning curve? your statement contradicts itself in the view it offers on aikido, and also throws out some weird ideas of gender charactersistics. it sounds like you're alluding to a fundamental difference between men and women that just doesn't really seem to be based in anything, or infact necessarily related to how aikido works. i'm not sure if hashing this out is really the direction that this thread should go in, but i think that this kind of thing should not just get left out there either, without being called into some question.
don't mean to be ranting/bitching, sorry bout that if it comes through that way. just my 2p.
Last edited by Josh Bisker : 03-14-2004 at 03:59 AM.