The Truth about Violence

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

Kevin Leavitt wrote: 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.

Roger Flatley wrote: 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

Roger Flatley wrote: 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.

Lorien Lowe wrote: 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.

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?"

Kevin Leavitt wrote: 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.

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!

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.

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.

Cady Goldfield wrote: 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 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.

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.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: 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).

Kevin Leavitt 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.

You may have seen this when it came out a couple of weeks ago:
http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-woman-j...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."

Cady Goldfield wrote: You may have seen this when it came out a couple of weeks ago: http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-woman-j...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.

Roger Flatley wrote: 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.

Janet Rosen wrote: 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.

Roger Flatley wrote: 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.

Roger Flatley wrote: 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.

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl...hus24Bw&zoom=1

genderless?

Mary Eastland wrote: http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl...hus24Bw&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.

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

Marc Abrams wrote: 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).

Matthew Gano wrote: 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?

Marc

Marc Abrams wrote: 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? 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.