Men and Women Training Together

John Hogan wrote: I think that when someone says they don't like training with type A, it is assumed they mean it because of those type A's they have trained with, not the entire world.

Then you need to go back and re-read what he said.

Krista DeCoste wrote: I would like to add my two cents...men are not allowed in women's shelters because the women and their children have been traumatised by men (a small percentage by their same sex partner). Women and children need to feel as safe as possible in order to regain some balance and healing.

I think this is poor reasoning, and the discrimination involved is probably self-defeating. Instead of huddling together, hiding from "men" and telling each other how they have been traumatised by "men", they would be much better off in a place where they focussed on the fact that they were traumatised by a particular person, probably technically a criminal. If there were men and maybe even gay men at the shelter in exactly the same predicament, it could only benefit them. It might be that women and children don't want to be exposed to men in this situation, but I think that if people who run these places indulge this fear and reinforce a prejudice against "men" they are doing their clients a disservice.

I train in a small dojo that consists of three women, and three men on the regular, with the occasional newbie. I am usually the largest and strongest of the people in the dojo, which has served as more of a disadvantage for me, and an advantage for the smaller people in my dojo.

However, it has been a fantastic experience for everyone involved to have such diversity. When switching from uke to uke, the change in height, strength, and flexibility helps open everyone's mind on how to perform techniques on people of all shapes and sizes. The women are fully committed and the men are as well for the most part (There is the occasional man afraid to commit to attacking a woman, with new students). Training with both sexes, for me, has done nothing but help me progress further and faster in my aikido training. You really begin to learn how to improvise quicker during randori and experimental techniques.

Just thought I would add in my thoughts.

Matt Feldmeyer

I am going to stay off the main topic and address a side tangent: women's shelters. The issue is not the avoidance of psychic trauma by being around men. The issue is one of security: most women in shelters have literally fled from men who are intent on harming or killing them, and who DO use all kinds of ploys to try and find their whereabouts. These are ongoing extreme situations, well outside the norm of civil human interaction, where courts and police and families have often been incapable of preventing murder. Therefore the location of shelters for battered women is usually a secret (from men AND women) and keeping men not only out but not able to discover their locations is a prudent form of security.
Feel free to return to your regularly scheduled discussion :-)

Mike Sigman wrote: The question I keep asking is whether anyone really thinks that there is inherently no difference in women's sports and men's sports. No one seems to really want to address it. At best, I seem to have the idea proffered that perhaps sports should be dumbed down in order to give the poorer performers some more equal footing... which of course totally "discriminates" against the people who are capable of doing far better. Does someone who prefers to work out with 200-pound, very aggressive martial arts partners have to have been "traumatized" to want that kind of workout? Does he have to be accused of "discrimination" and "prejudice" because he prefers that kind of workout? Or do the people who are wringing their hands about these sorts of personal preferences need to take a long look in a mirror somewhere about what kind of people *they* are??? FWIW Mike

All that stuff in the first paragraph is strawman nonsense, if not flat-out absurdity. I have stated repeatedly that discrimination should be on the basis of ability, not sex. In such a scheme, no one would be competing where they weren't qualified, and no one would be unfairly discriminated against. This is about the fifth time I have expained this with crystal clarity.

As for the second, I'll try this one more time in a different way, to see if you get it. What if a 200 pound, aggressive, butch woman wants to get in on that training? Should she be allowed to 'train with whomever she wants'?

By now, surely onlookers can see that you are just repeatedly reiterating fallacies and ignoring counter-arguments, so I think I'll leave you to do more of it without further interference.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: Then you need to go back and re-read what he said.

You talkin' about this, his 1st post where he explained himself?

"... I am sure there are lots of women (aikidoka and others) who could teach me something, kick my ass, or both. But my experience has been that classes segregated by sex work out better. I say that not only as a student of martial arts, but also as a teacher. I teach at 4 different public schools in Korea (about 2 hrs a day on the motorcycle, good fun). Of those four 2 are middle schools. One segragates the sexes, the other does not. Of thesse two schools the one with segragated classes does exceptionally better (at least in my classes) than the one that does not. I am not suggesting that we segragate the sexes all the time. I am saying I enjoy it more and I think the training (whatever that may be) is more focused that is all...Just my observations about classes I have been to. later bettis

Sounds like he meant he formed his opnion based on those he has trained / tought with and not the whole world.

Give it up John. He expressly said that he did not like to train with women, and would prefer not to in the future - not just those whom he had already trained with, but 'women'. He formed his opinion based on his experience - a limited sample - but then he generalized about their entire sex. Therein lies the formation of preconceived judgements about people based on the category they belong to, not experience of them as individuals. Note that the portion you quoted also contains arguments in favor of sex-segregation.

I don't see how so many adults that presumably have at least a high-school education are having so much trouble understanding this. Perhaps understanding isn't the problem... it seems suspicious to me that people will argue so virulently in favor of something yet be so evasive about admitting what it is.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: Give it up John. He expressly said that he did not like to train with women, and would prefer not to in the future - not just those whom he had already trained with, but 'women'. He formed his opinion based on his experience - a limited sample - but then he generalized about their entire sex. Therein lies the formation of preconceived judgements about people based on the category they belong to, not experience of them as individuals. Note that the portion you quoted also contains arguments in favor of sex-segregation.

Kevin, just so I understand, would you say that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are 'prejudiced' positions because they base a general preference on a limited set of prior experiences, initially *zero*? Should a straight man have to say, "I prefer romantic relationships with women with the following social security numbers: xxxx, xxxx, ... ; but I'm otherwise open to, well . . . anything?"

Yes, I know, that would be a strange and silly. How is it, exactly, that your position differs? What would a heterosexual or homosexual man or woman need to do - in your opinion, to not be considered 'prejudiced' with regard to sex? Could this be accomplished if the individual wanted also to avoid universal promiscuity? Do you have a sexual preference, or just a prejudice? No need to answer: it's a rhetorical question.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: I don't see how so many adults that presumably have at least a high-school education are having so much trouble understanding this. Perhaps understanding isn't the problem... it seems suspicious to me that people will argue so virulently in favor of something yet be so evasive about admitting what it is.

It's not clear to me how presuming that readers of this forum have or do not have any particular level of education is at all relevant to the discussion. What if someone reading this *hadn't* yet graduated from high school? What difference could that possibly make? It seems to me that remarks like that serve no purpose other than to belittle those with whom you argue - by implying that their responses are somehow childish when compared with your informed and adult remarks.

-ck

-ck

Chhi'mèd Künzang wrote: It seems to me that remarks like that serve no purpose other than to belittle those with whom you argue - by implying that their responses are somehow childish when compared with your informed and adult remarks.

A pretty good encapsulation. Now imagine someone like this being a dojo cho.....

Guys, it is the case that the only one making any sort of universal claim about the sexes is Mr. Willbanks in his signature
"All men are frauds.
The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
- H. L. Mencken

If I ever made a universal affirmative or universal negative statement about women OR men please point it out to me, because I cannot find it.

Isaac Bettis wrote: Guys, it is the case that the only one making any sort of universal claim about the sexes is Mr. Willbanks in his signature "All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it." - H. L. Mencken If I ever made a universal affirmative or universal negative statement about women OR men please point it out to me, because I cannot find it.

Isaac, you forget that in literary, expository and most forms of writing in the English language that the terms "Men", "he", "him" are used as universal terms to include both men and women such as the quote "All men are created equal" includes women not just men. Thus, Kevin's quote of "All men are frauds..." Includes women as well. Now, can we keep these kinds of red herring arguments out of the debate, or is this your best argument?

Like I said Isaac. Your words are fighting words. If someone doesn't want to train with me because my ukemi is not that great especially if they want to train really intense, then that's fine. If someone doesn't want to train with me because I have an attitude with them, then that's fine. But if someone doesn't want to train with me JUST BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN. No, that is NOT fine. Few people are able to admit when they actually harbor prejudice towards a class of people. In this case, you're specific prejudice against women. I do applaud you for having the courage to admit your prejudice against women. Very few people who do are willing to admit that. I know of a dojo in Florida where you would be welcomed at (or did he change his policy?) But just don't come to where I train. Because you will have to train with women.

Now, we all have prejudices and we all do discriminate. It's our (really, my Western American) society that determines whether these prejudices and discrimination is bad. It's our society (Western American specifically) that has determined that gender, race, ethnic and religious discrimination is bad. As a result our law makers have written laws to protect people of the above mentioned groups and our judges have interpreted these laws to say that in most cases you can not discriminate along those lines. However, lawmakers could care less that some people discriminate against other people for wearing white tops and blue skirts with white long pants underneath them. However, society still says that gender discrimination is bad, that race discrimination is bad, that religious discrimination is bad, and that ethnic discrimination is bad. I'm not a PC police type person, but when you express controversial opinions please expect the obligatory debate that will go along with it. You opened a can of worms, buster. Now, are you willing to eat them?

So, Anne Marie.... as part of your signature, there's this phrase:

Women in Aikido: a place where us gals can come together and chat about aikido.

What's wrong with a guy preferring to work out with just other guys? You prefer to chat with "gals" on "Women in Aikido" and no one is preaching to you about "discrimination", the "laws of western society", or "eating worms" when you do exactly the same thing and publicly broadcast it as part of your sig. Why are you laying all this heavy stuff on Isaac?

Mike Sigman

Giri:
Never did I say that I WOULD NOT train with women as a personal policy, nor that I WOULD NOT train with women due to a philosophical aversion. I merely stated that I preferred to train with men. I have never REFUSED to train with anybody, unless I thought the person was a danger to my physical well being, due to lack of personal control or actively being reckless. My point was that, all things being equal, I would choose to train in a sex segregated environment. We all make personal decisions of this type, they are merely personal preferences. I do not take issue with women who want to attend female only gyms or MA classes, and many women do. That is a legit decision and some women make that choice, I do not see how my decision to prefer training in an all male environment is a philosophically different position, nor any different that you deciding to advertise an exclusive form for women dealing with aikido and related issues in your signature.

It may be the case that "men" in the sense it is being used by Mr. Willbanks is in reference to both sexes, I don't know, nor can I say that I am really that interested. What I was trying to point out was that I never made a universal claim about women, or men for that matter. It was also meant to bring a bit of humor to a topic that has angered so many, and angered them without good reason as far as I can tell.

About me being prejudiced against women: I never said that they could not train as hard. I never said they were no good at aikido. I merely said that I had a better experience, enjoyed class more, and learned more in a class consisting only of men. I never made any claims about the nature of women, merely claims about myself. It is most likely the case that we will never meet, but if we did meet inside of a training environment I would never refuse to train with you or any other woman, except for the aforementioned reasons (recklessness, carelessness, etc.). The fact of the matter is that there happen to be no women who train at the dojo where I train. It is not a matter of design, nor would anybody be turned away due to their gender, nor would anybody refuse to train if a woman did show up. I really feel like people have misunderstood the facts. The facts are: (A) I have trained in male only environments and co-ed enviroments (B) I am more comfortable in a male only training environment (C) that being said I do not have a philosophical aversion to training with women, and would more than likely never refuse the opportunity (unless I felt they were reckless or careless), given that I am more interested in training than being comfortable all the time. So don't think that I am against something that I am not. I am not against training with women, I merely prefer it with men. I prefer to listen to the Pixies or Coltrane than to listen to Patsy Cline or Willie Nelson. Does that mean I am against Patsy Cline and Willie? Of course not, I think they were/are both great musicians, I merely have a preference for one over the other.

I am sure there are activities in your life where you exclude men (all of the women and men I know on a personal level do this, although they may not think of it in these terms they do actively exclude the other sex, and you necessarily do given your participation in a female only message board about aikido). How is my assertion that I prefer to train only with men any different?

One more thing, I have no desire to fight you, that is a fact. The idea that you want to fight me over this I find absurd. But if you still feel the need, given that you have challenged me, I get choice of weapons, and we can meet in Dodge City at high noon. Just don't forget your .45 Long Colt. HA!!! (that was a joke by the way)

Oh yeah and Mr. Willbanks:
About me not being exposed to country music:
I grew up in a town famous for it, and was exposed to it from a very young age and still listen to a great deal of it. Don't make claims about a person which you have no knowledge of. It makes you look arrogant and stupid, epically when it turns out to be incorrect.

Giri wrote: Isaac, you forget that in literary, expository and most forms of writing in the English language that the terms "Men", "he", "him" are used as universal terms to include both men and women such as the quote "All men are created equal" includes women not just men. Thus, Kevin's quote of "All men are frauds..." Includes women as well. Now, can we keep these kinds of red herring arguments out of the debate, or is this your best argument?

One more thing, if you are refering to the passage in the Declaration of Independance of the United States, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (1) then neither women nor all men were seen as being included. Also given that acedemics and the like are expected to use "gender inclusive" language, and that there is a faily large push for this type of language in everyday usage, I would say that determining in what sense a given author is using the term 'men' out of context is impossible. Given that I know very little about his work and his life I really don't know if he meant it to be gender inclusive or not. I was only trying to point out that I have not made any universal claims about the nature of either sex, as I have been accused by Mr. Willbanks.

1. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Women in Aikido: a place where us gals can come together and chat about aikido.
She who lives in glass house, should not throw stones.

Men sometimes like to hang out with other men. Ok. Women sometimes like to hang out with other women. Ok.

The problem - the reason that so many women are speaking up so vocally against the idea of all-male training - is that men have the power in to enforce their 'likes' to the point that it limits women's training resources. Even in aikido, and more so in other ma's, most senseis are male; if an equal percentage of male and female senseis limit their classes only to their own gender, women are going to lose out significantly more than men. Aikido dojos are a limited resource (the one I train in is the only one in my entire county).

Many of us on this board remember a very controvertial sensei in Florida who proudly talked about how his he limited his dojo to men because he wanted to have a male-only retreat - kind of an aikido boy's club. He was quiet open about it, but I'd bet money that there are more dojos out there which are all-male by their sensei's design but are less vocal about it.

To criticize Ann Marie for running an all-female chat site is to compare apples to oranges in this case. All-male ma websites, and all-male dojos, are *not* as limited a resource as ma websites or dojos where women are even welcome, much less the majority, much less the only gender.

-LK

I really feel like you guys have misinterpreted what I have said. The dojo I attend is not limited to males by design. There was a woman who trained there for a few weeks, but she (for reasons unknown to me) quit after a month or so. Aikido is not very popular in Korea, for obvious reasons (Japan/Korea political relations have always been bad). I happen to like the fact that I train in a male only environment. I would never expect that anyone would be turned away based on their gender, and realistically would not want them to. All I mean is that given the option, and all things being equal, I would MOST LIKELY choose to train in an all male environment. That is all, and I don't see why such an opinion is objectionable.

Secondly, Lorien Lowe, as to your position:

Lorien Lowe wrote: The problem - the reason that so many women are speaking up so vocally against the idea of all-male training - is that men have the power in to enforce their 'likes' to the point that it limits women's training resources. Even in aikido, and more so in other ma's, most senseis are male; if an equal percentage of male and female senseis limit their classes only to their own gender, women are going to lose out significantly more than men. Aikido dojos are a limited resource (the one I train in is the only one in my entire county).

This position assumes that people have a fundamental right to train whatever art they want with whomever they want. Although I may agree that maybe this ought to be the case, to make the claim that it is some sort of right is difficult to maintain. If someone does not want to transfer information they have worked hard to get, for whatever reason, I do not see how they are obligated to. I really dont believe that anybody should be turned away from a training experience, but that sword cuts both ways. If a woman wants to train in an all female environment, and such an enviornment is available, they ought to be allowed to train, and vice versa. If such an resource is unavailable, then you either suck it up, or you don't train. It will most likely be the case that I will be in a situation where I am required to train with women, and (unless I think they are careless/reckless) probably suck it up, which really wont be that hard for me. given that it is merely a preference, much like my preference to scotch over white wine, or BMW motorcycles to Hondas.

Lorien Lowe wrote: The problem - the reason that so many women are speaking up so vocally against the idea of all-male training - is that men have the power in to enforce their 'likes' to the point that it limits women's training resources. Even in aikido, and more so in other ma's, most senseis are male; if an equal percentage of male and female senseis limit their classes only to their own gender, women are going to lose out significantly more than men. Aikido dojos are a limited resource (the one I train in is the only one in my entire county).

What is the reason that there are more male sensei's than female?
Why are there more males in martial arts period?
I don't know.
Personally, I have always enjoyed training with both genders and cannot see the advantage of limiting my training to one gender.

Lorien Lowe wrote: To criticize Ann Marie for running an all-female chat site is to compare apples to oranges in this case. All-male ma websites, and all-male dojos, are *not* as limited a resource as ma websites or dojos where women are even welcome, much less the majority, much less the only gender.

Ann Marie has every right to run her forum as she pleases. But to me it seems contrary to her philosophy. Like I said, I don't see the advantage in excluding 50% of the population.

Lorien Lowe wrote: Men sometimes like to hang out with other men. Ok. Women sometimes like to hang out with other women. Ok.

Voila'! There is indeed a human element to be considered.

The problem - the reason that so many women are speaking up so vocally against the idea of all-male training - is that men have the power in to enforce their 'likes' to the point that it limits women's training resources. Even in aikido, and more so in other ma's, most senseis are male; if an equal percentage of male and female senseis limit their classes only to their own gender, women are going to lose out significantly more than men. Aikido dojos are a limited resource (the one I train in is the only one in my entire county).

On a realistic level, women cannot physically compete as well as most men in many (not all) sports. That's why worldwide there are male and female teams, to a large degree.

A male trying to compete toward the highest level he can is going to work with the strongest competitors that he can. Ergo, there will always be a natural inclination to workout with mainly men. A male trying to gain a number of other benefits (or goals that are not necessarily benefits) may find that mixing with females is productive and desireable. Those two males should be able to choose what they want to do with their lives without someone loading them with some artificial (and questionable) responsibility like "diversity" as a factor in martial training. For the same reason, AMG should be able to have a chat group that excludes males, if she wants. (I think my widdle psyche may have been wounded because I wasn't allowed to participate... I may have to sue. ).

Many of us on this board remember a very controvertial sensei in Florida who proudly talked about how his he limited his dojo to men because he wanted to have a male-only retreat - kind of an aikido boy's club. He was quiet open about it, but I'd bet money that there are more dojos out there which are all-male by their sensei's design but are less vocal about it.

I can add to your observations.... I know of a lot of males who simply get together and workout because they are interested in hard-core martial-arts studies without the encumbrances of dojo rituals, having to be careful not to be too "rough" with women, etc. I know a couple of pretty tough women and I work out with them occasionally... but they're still not as tough as some of the guys I work out with. If my interest is *purely* in improving my own martial skills, isn't it logical that I'm going to work out with strong men (not weak, non-athletic men) rather than women? That's just life. If the only strong martial-arts partners I could find were women, I assure you I'd only work out with women and I'd exclude men.

To criticize Ann Marie for running an all-female chat site is to compare apples to oranges in this case. All-male ma websites, and all-male dojos, are *not* as limited a resource as ma websites or dojos where women are even welcome, much less the majority, much less the only gender.

Oh, pooh... she has egg on her face and we all know it. Let's be realistic, please.

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: On a realistic level, women cannot physically compete as well as most men in many (not all) sports. That's why worldwide there are male and female teams, to a large degree. A male trying to compete toward the highest level he can is going to work with the strongest competitors that he can. Ergo, there will always be a natural inclination to workout with mainly men.

The above statement shows us partly where the difference of opinion originates. Some look at their training and desire competition, and some train in a different way. "Training" means different things to different people.

Mike Sigman wrote: A male trying to gain a number of other benefits (or goals that are not necessarily benefits) may find that mixing with females is productive and desireable.

Due to my training, I am confident that I can bring an angry woman to the floor and immobilize her, injury free, after I say something stupid.

Mike Sigman wrote: Those two males should be able to choose what they want to do with their lives without someone loading them with some artificial (and questionable) responsibility like "diversity" as a factor in martial training. For the same reason, AMG should be able to have a chat group that excludes males, if she wants. (I think my widdle psyche may have been wounded because I wasn't allowed to participate... I may have to sue. ).

In my experience, female aikidoka are rare. There was never more than a couple in our dojo at a time. For us men, having a place to talk is pretty easy, AMG is providing a place for women to talk. I don't think we're missing out on anything; after all, she comes here to talk to us.

Mike Sigman wrote: If my interest is *purely* in improving my own martial skills, isn't it logical that I'm going to work out with strong men (not weak, non-athletic men) rather than women?

If a woman wants to know how to take care of herself, and she thinks that you have some skills to offer her, is it right for you to turn her away? In her mind, it might not be about competition.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: Give it up John. He expressly said that he did not like to train with women, and would prefer not to in the future - not just those whom he had already trained with, but 'women'. He formed his opinion based on his experience - a limited sample - but then he generalized about their entire sex. Therein lies the formation of preconceived judgements about people based on the category they belong to, not experience of them as individuals. Note that the portion you quoted also contains arguments in favor of sex-segregation. I don't see how so many adults that presumably have at least a high-school education are having so much trouble understanding this. Perhaps understanding isn't the problem... it seems suspicious to me that people will argue so virulently in favor of something yet be so evasive about admitting what it is.

"Sigh". Talk about not understanding. I said he formed his opinion based on the women he has trained with. Understand? He prefers not to train with women based on the women he has trained with. I did not say that he prefers not to train with just the women he has trained with.

Again:
"Sounds like he meant he formed his opinion based on those he has trained / tought with and not the whole world."

And you know what? So what if he prefers to train with certain types of people - I prefer to not work with people 6'5" and 300 pounds - so??. That's what makes this country great - freedom to prefer what you want.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: In my experience, female aikidoka are rare. There was never more than a couple in our dojo at a time. For us men, having a place to talk is pretty easy, AMG is providing a place for women to talk. I don't think we're missing out on anything; after all, she comes here to talk to us.

I could just as easily "for us men, having a dedicated, real martial Aikido dojo is hard to find", etc. I.e., these things are all judgement calls and what I'm trying to say is that no one should *force* their personal judgement on someone else in the name of "here is my view of what moral standards in the martial arts *should* be". You see how hypocrisy encroaches when you do that. Anne Marie is willing to talk about the law and eating worms in regard to something she doesn't like, but she's totally oblivious to her own actions when it relates to men. You may make a judgement call and decide for yourself that it's perfectly OK for Anne Marie to do that (which I agree), but if you arbitrarily decide there's a reason why standards apply sometimes and not others, that's simply the typical hypocrisy that insidiously crops up so often.

If a woman wants to know how to take care of herself, and she thinks that you have some skills to offer her, is it right for you to turn her away? In her mind, it might not be about competition.

Bullshit. Let me phrase it another way. If a male Japanese teacher decides he won't accept a male student and show the skills he has earned over many years, is that a form of "discrimination" or is that a valid choice? If the NFL has no female players and the US Women's Soccer team has no male players, are we looking at some form of "discrimination" or are we looking at real life? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as Freud said.

If the college men's team will let females try out for the team (and they will), but the college women's team won't let males try out, is that "discrimination"? No. Even in P.C. colleges there's a point where reality has to be acknowledged, doesn't it? I never got everything I wanted in life (not even my main goal in life, to be on Anne Marie's "Women in Aikido" mailing list!!!), but sometimes you just have to work with life if it doesn't work with you.

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: I know of a lot of males who simply get together and workout because they are interested in hard-core martial-arts studies without the encumbrances of dojo rituals, having to be careful not to be too "rough" with women, etc. I know a couple of pretty tough women and I work out with them occasionally... but they're still not as tough as some of the guys I work out with. If my interest is *purely* in improving my own martial skills, isn't it logical that I'm going to work out with strong men (not weak, non-athletic men) rather than women?

It means that you're probably going to end up working out almost exclusively with strong men. But presumably if you did meet a woman who could kick your arse with one hand tied behind her back, you wouldn't say 'yes, but you're a woman and therefore statistically likely to be weaker than a man and therefore I don't want to train with you.'

It might not make much difference practically, but I think there's an important difference between saying 'I don't want to train with women' and saying 'I want to train in such a way and at such a standard that most women aren't suitable training partners.'

David Sim wrote: It means that you're probably going to end up working out almost exclusively with strong men. But presumably if you did meet a woman who could kick your arse with one hand tied behind her back, you wouldn't say 'yes, but you're a woman and therefore statistically likely to be weaker than a man and therefore I don't want to train with you.' It might not make much difference practically, but I think there's an important difference between saying 'I don't want to train with women' and saying 'I want to train in such a way and at such a standard that most women aren't suitable training partners.'

That last statement is pretty accurate. And I think that's probably what the original poster meant, not that he had uncontrollable misogynistic tendencies.

I don't really know enough women who could kick my arse (not saying there are none) in a good fight, so you're right... statistically I'll seek men for training partners. I know a LOT of women that can kick my butt in bridge tournaments and I look to them frequently as training partners... gender has nothing to do with it; I simply look to make myself better in both cases.

FWIW

Mike

I've heard it said (in a Tai Chi book or two and from one or more practitioners) that it is easier for women to learn Tai Chi, because men are more likely to use their muscles.

Eric