Training: Separate the Sexes?

Christopher Li wrote: They did win the case, but not because the court didn't have jurisdiction. It was implicit in the ruling that the dojo was being treated as a public conveyance, or else the whole thing would not have been an issue. So any behavior that's legally permissable should not be commented on or criticized, is that what you're saying? What about your criticisms of people exercising their right to free speech? Best, Chris

My post never indicated anything about jurisdiction, so I am not sure why that has been brought up. As to whether the dojo was a public place, that would depend on the facts and circumstances of that dojo. I have perused Mr. Linden's website and he is not holding his dojo out in a "come one and all" manner.

Let us put aside your attempt to put words into my mouth ("...is that what you're saying?") and examine the issue. My position is not that if something is legal it is free from criticism. Rather, my position is that if you really believed that Mr. Linden has the right to run his dojo as he sees fit but disagree with that decision, you would make the statement and move on. Rather, you have written post after post after post after post after post on the matter. Certainly you have the right to write as many posts as you want, but it is completely reasonable for others to speculate that maybe, just maybe, your assertion that you recognize Mr. Linden's rights might be a bit disingenuous given your unwillingness to let it drop. This is particularly so when one considers a separate factor - no one is being damaged by Mr. Linden's business practices. As he himself stated, there is another ASU dojo right in the city that takes students that he does not. Therefore, the numerous criticisms of him are not equivalent, say, to speaking out again and again against public marches by the KKK.

Finally, I have in no way criticized anyone's right to free speech. I have simply been around the block enough to know a few things. One of those things is that many people do not respect other's rights to free association but recognize the necessity of paying lip service to them while chipping away at such rights bit by bit. When one encounters someone who states his case but then continues on and on, it is not beyond reasonable speculation that one has encountered such a person.

Dan Herak wrote: This position is untenable. Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be on the receiving end of vioent crime than are women.

I have a hard time swallowing that one, so I did a little google search. Here are some statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm#gender
Scroll down this page and look at self-defense measures, among other interesting stats: http://www.gendercenter.org/gencrime.htm

More likely, yes, but not overwhelmingly more likely. In addition, it seems to me that women are socialized to be a bit more cautious than men. The idea that women don't need self-defense skills strikes me as downright creepy.

Dan Herak wrote: My post never indicated anything about jurisdiction, so I am not sure why that has been brought up. As to whether the dojo was a public place, that would depend on the facts and circumstances of that dojo. I have perused Mr. Linden's website and he is not holding his dojo out in a "come one and all" manner.

It was brought up because whether or not a dojo can be classified as a public conveyance is a key issue in this kind of case. You're right, Dan's dojo may well escape that classification - I never said that it didn't, my point was to illustrate to another poster that such issues are not always as clear cut as they appear.

Dan Herak wrote: Let us put aside your attempt to put words into my mouth ("...is that what you're saying?") and examine the issue.

Asking a question is putting words in your mouth?

Dan Herak wrote: My position is not that if something is legal it is free from criticism. Rather, my position is that if you really believed that Mr. Linden has the right to run his dojo as he sees fit but disagree with that decision, you would make the statement and move on. Rather, you have written post after post after post after post after post on the matter. Certainly you have the right to write as many posts as you want, but it is completely reasonable for others to speculate that maybe, just maybe, your assertion that you recognize Mr. Linden's rights might be a bit disingenuous given your unwillingness to let it drop. This is particularly so when one considers a separate factor - no one is being damaged by Mr. Linden's business practices. As he himself stated, there is another ASU dojo right in the city that takes students that he does not. Therefore, the numerous criticisms of him are not equivalent, say, to speaking out again and again against public marches by the KKK.

It had been dropped for months - I wasn't the one that revived the thread. In any case, if you actually read through the thread my statements that Dan has the right to things as he likes were in response to posts implying or stating the he did not. In other words, they were contained in responses in the course of a discussion.

Is there any damage? Well, I don't know. Certainly some people would believe that such practices damage the art of Aikido as a whole - which may or may not be true. There are sure to be some issues for many ASU members in belonging to an organization that permits (or at least turns a blind eye to) this kind of practice.

Dan Herak wrote: Finally, I have in no way criticized anyone's right to free speech. I have simply been around the block enough to know a few things. One of those things is that many people do not respect other's rights to free association but recognize the necessity of paying lip service to them while chipping away at such rights bit by bit. When one encounters someone who states his case but then continues on and on, it is not beyond reasonable speculation that one has encountered such a person.

Didn't you already say that ?

Best,

Chris

Amelia Smith wrote: url]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm#gender[/url] http://www.gendercenter.org/gencrime.htm

Nice, Amelia. Thanks.

Amelia Smith wrote: More likely, yes, but not overwhelmingly more likely. In addition, it seems to me that women are socialized to be a bit more cautious than men. The idea that women don't need self-defense skills strikes me as downright creepy.

Using the cites that you yourself provided:

"Males were 3.4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2002" and it seems beyond unlikely that 2002 was an anamolous year. Further, "[m]ales experienced higher victimization rates than females for all types of violent crime except rape/sexual assault." I certainly would consider a 3.4 times more likely chance of being murdered to be appropriately characterized as "overwhelming."

There is nothing in my post expressing any idea that women should not learn self-defense. In fact, I pointed out that Mr. Linden expressly stated that another affiliated dojo in the same city trains students that he does not accept. Although you did not explicitly accuse me of making such a statement, it was so clearly juxtaposed in your response to me that your "downright creepy" characterization is clearly nothing more than a cheap shot against me.

As an additional matter, maybe women are socialized to be more cautious. I think that only takes us so far as such socialization parallels intrinsic differences between men and women hardwired into us. However, I cannot help but notice a pattern and, although you did not necessarily contribute to it, your post provides a good opportunity to address it. If women are socialized in some manner that may be maladaptive, i.e. coy and non-confrontational which might hold them back in the business world, many would point to the socialization and make all sorts of arguments that such socialization constitutes sexism, etc. etc. etc. But if males are socialized in a way that might be maladaptive, i.e. being aggressive which might be a big problem when one encounters one tougher than oneself, well there never seems to be any similar analysis regarding that. Instead we hear things along the lines of, well, maybe more men are attacked but they were out looking for trouble. Why shouldn't the same analysis hold true and force us to look at similar issues, i.e. the socialization of men that makes them less cautious in such situations? Ledyard Sensei recently posted a response to me that tried to point out (incorrectly I might add) that many male victims of crime are parts of gangs or in such situations in which violence is likely to result and that when one takes such factors into account, the gender disparity in violence reverses. I did not see any post from you as to the socialization of men that would tilt the perspective in a more sympathetic light.

Christopher Li wrote: Asking a question is putting words in your mouth?

It was a loaded question and therefore my characterization was accurate. At this point, we have made our respective positions clear. I stand by my statements and am sure you stand by yours. Let others read them and reach their conclusions respectively.

dan h.

Dan Herak wrote: Certainly you have the right to write as many posts as you want, but it is completely reasonable for others to speculate that maybe, just maybe, your assertion that you recognize Mr. Linden's rights might be a bit disingenuous given your unwillingness to let it drop.

I haven't been particularly vocal on this thread, so I don't think I'm in this category. But I believe you're confusing legal and moral rights. Speaking only for myself, I believe that Linden has a legal right to do what he is doing, but that it is morally questionable. However, it is also morally questionable to use legal coercion (rather than logical persuasion) to have him stopped.

This is particularly so when one considers a separate factor - no one is being damaged by Mr. Linden's business practices. As he himself stated, there is another ASU dojo right in the city that takes students that he does not.

I am not sure that no one is being damaged by these practices. I think it's fair to conclude that Linden may well be doing his students a disservice by not giving them a wider choice of training partners. His practices may also be reinforcing their prejudices, but having no experience with his dojo, I certainly can't say for sure.

Therefore, the numerous criticisms of him are not equivalent, say, to speaking out again and again against public marches by the KKK.

Well, public marches by the KKK may be ugly spectacles, but they don't harm anyone. I fail to see your point.

public marches by the KKK are legally protected, but i feel they do indeed harm (both participants and observers)... this is being used as an example in this discussion, not as an indictment of Mr. Linden

Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: I am not sure that no one is being damaged by these practices. I think it's fair to conclude that Linden may well be doing his students a disservice by not giving them a wider choice of training partners. His practices may also be reinforcing their prejudices, but having no experience with his dojo, I certainly can't say for sure.

FWIW, I have trained with Dan, consider him a friend. His dojo is a beautiful, backyard, labor-of-love affair. This in itself speaks to variety of participants. The guys who are there are fun to train with, however, and Dan runs a good class.

Don't know why he keeps out women, if he still does. The training is solid but not brutal, and nothing women I've trained with couldn't handle. As to reinforcing prejudices, I think the guys I've met there are perfectly capabel of thinking for themselves.

All the best.

Dan Herak wrote: ... Why shouldn't the same analysis hold true and force us to look at similar issues, i.e. the socialization of men that makes them less cautious in [dangerous] situations?...

There are quite a few feminist analyses out there that do point out things like this. Of the top of my head, Susan Faludi's Stiffed is one (focusing more on the employment aspect of things, specifically with reactions to downsizing).

-LK

Don J. Modesto wrote: Don't know why he keeps out women, if he still does. The training is solid but not brutal, and nothing women I've trained with couldn't handle. As to reinforcing prejudices, I think the guys I've met there are perfectly capabel of thinking for themselves. All the best.

That's the thing that has always puzzled me. Dan's good people, and well loved here in Germany. People I love to train with, train with him. I was invited. Sadly, couldn't go. :-(

Having spent almost 6 years now on an Army post, watching women in command, women in combat, and women in the community, the whole discussion has become a complete non sequitur.

Observing it, a couple years out, I see it's still a non sequitur.

That is, a problem which didn't exist, wasn't relevant, and, quite simply, wasn't.

Good.

Let us train together as human beings, to the best of our abilities.
The rest, don't matter.

E.D. Gordon.

its funny, i was having this very conversation with one of our highest ranking black belts a couple months ago and another girl, and we were wondering just how many girls leave aikido due to what they felt was inappropriate touching. Since uke and nage are supposed to be very close for most throws, i wonder if some of them just cant get past that?

Personally i dont necessarily think classes should be split, however i do think its nice to practice with someone your own size. Otherwise you end up just basically being nice to each other both when throwing and being thrown and no one really learns anything. In talking to the women at our dojo the common consensus is "dont go easy on us we want to feel the technique" however i've abided by that wish and then been told "not to go so hard" by the very same people....which is irritating...because then it becomes a waste of everyones time.

**sigh**

First of all, in 39 years, I have yet to meet a woman studying ANY martial art or participating in ANY sport who will let a guy get away with not giving his full. Period. Not only is it disrespectful to her, it is disrespectful to yourself.

In our society, many men liken women to "June Cleaver" and many have a hard time dealing with women on "equal footing". I don't understand this. I never have. Frankly, If I am facing a woman in a sport who is at my skill level or better, I am going to push my skill set and hers. If she is below my skill level she gets the same experience as would a male.

If you have a woman come at you with a sharp pointy knife, are you going to treat that threat any differently than a man coming at you with the same knife and intent? Somehow, I don't think so..

After all, the ancient Celts had women train the male warriors and men train the female warriors. I suppose they were just more enlightened then we are today....

Be Safe and Be Well.

Chris

First of all, in 39 years, I have yet to meet a woman studying ANY martial art or participating in ANY sport who will let a guy get away with not giving his full. Period. Not only is it disrespectful to her, it is disrespectful to yourself.

Well many, including myself, have had very different experiences. But I think the issue usually arises from size and not sex.

If you have a woman come at you with a sharp pointy knife, are you going to treat that threat any differently than a man coming at you with the same knife and intent? Somehow, I don't think so..

Actually, if a guy comes at me with a knife and I am able to disarm him, I am probably going to make him pay for it. Whereas a woman, who is statistically likely to be smaller than me, who is attacking me, I'd most likely just try to retrain after a successful disarm.

Actually, if a guy comes at me with a knife and I am able to disarm him, I am probably going to make him pay for it.

That could get you put in jail (although I very much understand the sentiment).

Whereas a woman, who is statistically likely to be smaller than me, who is attacking me, I'd most likely just try to retrain after a successful disarm.

And that could get you killed. Truth is, you do what you have to, and live with the consequences.

Best,
Ron

Joseph Connolly wrote: Well many, including myself, have had very different experiences. But I think the issue usually arises from size and not sex.

I think that is my point. Everyone is different. However, it is up to the experienced to help instill things like self confidence in anything that a person chooses to pursue. Size has nothing to do with it. A short 115 pound woman can still fling a 6 foot 230 pound guy around. I personally believe that what's lacking are more positive role models of both genders. There is a lot of ambivalent sexism going on out there and sadly, that is slow to change.

I won't even go into the Social Psychology angle as there are more qualified people here to discuss things like Social Cognition, Social Roles and Status and Stereotypes.

Joseph Connolly wrote: Actually, if a guy comes at me with a knife and I am able to disarm him, I am probably going to make him pay for it. Whereas a woman, who is statistically likely to be smaller than me, who is attacking me, I'd most likely just try to retrain after a successful disarm.

That is interesting! So you would make a male "pay" for the knife attack and not the female. That is an interesting (and common) hypothetical response. Why not restrain both?

The whole point of my stand on the issue is to encourage us to evaluate the reasons behind their gender role beliefs and perhaps break out of certain social group mentalities.

Personally, I think we all would benefit in "easy bake ovens" for boys. Then, maybe more future bachelors could learn how to cook!

(yes..I realize that I am fostering the stereotype that bachelors can't cook.. )

{edit}

Ron Tisdale wrote: And that could get you killed. Truth is, you do what you have to, and live with the consequences.

Ron has a good point. Just because your attacker is smaller than you Does not mean you should under estimate them!
{/edit}

Be safe and Be well.

Chris

Andrew Lang wrote: its funny, i was having this very conversation with one of our highest ranking black belts a couple months ago and another girl, and we were wondering just how many girls leave aikido due to what they felt was inappropriate touching. Since uke and nage are supposed to be very close for most throws, i wonder if some of them just cant get past that?

Or maybe something WAS going on which wasn't appropriate. Whether you are aware of it or not, sexual harassment on (and off) the mat *is* a common problem.

Andrew Lang wrote: Personally i dont necessarily think classes should be split, however i do think its nice to practice with someone your own size. Otherwise you end up just basically being nice to each other both when throwing and being thrown and no one really learns anything. In talking to the women at our dojo the common consensus is "dont go easy on us we want to feel the technique" however i've abided by that wish and then been told "not to go so hard" by the very same people....which is irritating...because then it becomes a waste of everyones time.

Has it occurred to you that it may not be a "woman thing"?

I often go after the bigger guys on the mat to test my technique. The guys *really* throw me - and I *like* it.

Jennifer Yabut wrote: Has it occurred to you that it may not be a "woman thing"? I often go after the bigger guys on the mat to test my technique. The guys *really* throw me - and I *like* it.

I have to agree with Jennifer on this one. I need a lot of work on my ukemi! I have been working with a lot of the new people lately, mainly teenage girls, and I have not been thrown around hard enough to get some good hard throws in! I am using the time to concentrate on cleaning up my movements while teaching them the fundamentals. When we are done practicing a move, I have one of the big guys come over and work through with them so that they know what it's like to have to defend them selves.

I also don't think its an issue of the size of a person either, from what I understand O'sensei was not too tall of a person !

~TG

So you would make a male "pay" for the knife attack and not the female

Because it has been my experience that women are generally not as aggressive as men. There are guys I train with who are overly aggressive all the time, even if you try to tell them differently. They just don't learn. Women I have trained with are usually less aggressive.

Whether people like it or not, life is a numbers game. We are conditioned based on likely outcomes. It is more likely if a woman is trying to stab me that it is something I did whereas if a man is trying to stab me it is more likely something in that individual.


--added
And by make him pay I don't mean kick him on the ground and stomp him, but I would be more likely to throw him than I would a smaller woman. I have a general distaste for hitting anyone (unfortunately).

I believe both sexes should train together. Women tend to be more flexible, and faster. And that in itself helps me. I recall a sparring session I had a few years back with a young lady. She was wayyyy smaller than me, and damn sure didn't weigh as much. Anyway, she got past my defense and hit me right in the mouth! Believe it or not, I wasn't mad, my ego/pride wasn't hurt. In fact, I was very proud of her! I believe my Sensai purposely paired us up so I can learn to be faster, and she could learn to not fear someone of my stature who has been fighting in one form or another all their life.

On another note; Men tend to underestimate the ferocity of women. BIG MISTAKE! In my dealings with female inmates, they tend to play sex games in order to gain your trust. When they don't get what they want, they tend to be more violent than males. Quite a few male staff have been assaulted by females because the males underestimated them. If a woman comes at me with a shank, I'm not going to *restrain* her, it's going to be open season on her ass!

My whole point here is, men can benefit from being paired up with a female from time to time, and women can benefit from being paired up with men from time to time. Being paired up with a member of the opposite sex can be mutually beneficial in training. And don't ever underestimate the power of a woman!

If a woman comes at me with a shank, I'm not going to *restrain* her, it's going to be open season on her ass!

The prison population does not adequately reflect the general population. And my comments were directed to after actually surviving a disarm. Whatever it takes to get out of a knife's way takes priority over gender, size, metnal state,etc.

Joseph Connolly wrote: The prison population does not adequately reflect the general population.

One might say it adequately represented the "goes after you with a knife" population however...

Chris Lacey wrote: **sigh** First of all, in 39 years, I have yet to meet a woman studying ANY martial art or participating in ANY sport who will let a guy get away with not giving his full. Period. Not only is it disrespectful to her, it is disrespectful to yourself. In our society, many men liken women to "June Cleaver" and many have a hard time dealing with women on "equal footing". I don't understand this. I never have. Frankly, If I am facing a woman in a sport who is at my skill level or better, I am going to push my skill set and hers. If she is below my skill level she gets the same experience as would a male. If you have a woman come at you with a sharp pointy knife, are you going to treat that threat any differently than a man coming at you with the same knife and intent? Somehow, I don't think so.. After all, the ancient Celts had women train the male warriors and men train the female warriors. I suppose they were just more enlightened then we are today.... Be Safe and Be Well. Chris

Chris,
I respectfully disagree, completely. What constitutes "giving ones all"? I am a large man. For the majority of my career I have outweighed my female partners by 100 to 150 pounds. I have trained with many of the very best female teachers in the United States... but until someone gets to the level of a Mary Heiny, a Pat Hendricks, or a Kayla Feder, they simply cannot handle the kind of power I can put out. Training full power way with a woman of typical size (or a man of smaller stature for that matter) would be abusive. It would unnecessarily stress them physically and would almost certainly imprint fear and tension in the training that would run counter to what we are attempting to imprint via the training.

My Assistant Chief Instructor for a number of years was Lee Crawford Sensei, who now runs Aikido Northshore. When I was throwing her one night I dropped her very hard. She was tough and had excellent ukemi and when I asked if she was ok, she said yes. She took the same hard fall a second time and it turned out that I had hurt her neck. I had quite simply exceeded her ability to handle the kind of power I was generating. I had this misplaced idea that I should treat her like any senior student. That was wrong. Senior or not, I should have been smart enough to adjust to the fact that she had a much smaller structure to absorb impact. I learned the hard way.

Anyway, we all have to temper how we train. We adjust for age, for size, for injuries, handicaps, and even different personal preferences about how to train. It isn't about the sex of your partner... when I find a 300 pound female who has trained for 30 years, I'll hit her as hard as I can too.

Aiki is about finding the proper balance with the particular partner you have at the time. Your goal as a partner should be to create a positive training experience with any partner, male, female, large, small, brave, fearful, whatever. The goal is to leave your partner better off than they were before they trained with you. If you are training the same way with everyone, you are forcing your own ideas about training on your partners. That almost certainly does damage, physically and/or emotionally.

This crap about size doesn't matter... it's just that, crap. In martial arts it always matters. That's why there are weight classes in every sport fighting system. That's why the men and women don't compete against each other in full contact fighting. A large man can manhandle his small female partner in a way that simply cannot be done in the reverse.

This idea that adjusting ones training to fit with a given partner's capabilities is somehow making ones training less is the source of a tremendous amount of elitist thinking. Seniors who don't train with juniors, men who won't train with women, young people who won't train with older folks...

Aikido is about fostering a highly developed sensitivity, both psychically and physically. You can work on this with any partner. In fact, Tres Hofmeister Sensei pointed out that sensing very small changes in an energetic system needs to be done at low energy states. Dial up the voltage too high and you can't discern subtle changes in the system. So, whereas getting your yah yahs out by training at high intensity with partners who can handle it is an important aspect of training, it is not necessarily the part of training which is most valuable.

I know of several folks who, when young, thought hard, physical training was everything. Later in life, they saw that they had ignored many aspects of the training which were at least, if not more important. I think that people need to be aware of the different styles of training and goals for training which people have. The idea that there is a one size fits all approach isn't true. There's no way you can train with everyone the same and be training in the proper spirit nor will that way of training optimize what you get out of the training over time.

Thank you for that post Mr. Ledyard. I was just sitting here shaking my head at the (quite frankly, wrong or at the very least oversimplified IMO) same comments about size and gender in martial arts compared with my own training experiences in Aikido and elsewhere, but am definitely not able to articulate those thoughts as clearly as you.

Thank you Mr.Ledyard,

Your response has given me much more to think about during my training!