Men and Women Training Together

For myself, I am most interested in finding ways everyone can work together.
The rest of it is neither helpful nor interesting.

Um.. now I have to go find out why hubby is laughing so hard..

ED Gordon

Emily Dolan Gordon wrote: For myself, I am most interested in finding ways everyone can work together. The rest of it is neither helpful nor interesting.

I can appreciate that viewpoint. Each to his own, as I've stated before. Personally, I am most interested in learning martial arts and all the subtleties, strengths, etc., that I can. That's why I do martial arts.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

I've trained w/some very tough gal's,one of whom f...ked up a very big friend of mine w/a wicked IrimiNage...Damn near took his head off....and the Japanese Yudansha women kicked some serious ass...Women in the Dojo are just another training situation...

Ricky Wood wrote: Too much testosterone is bad for you.

You don't say... This just in: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060927/...tosterone_dc_3

Mike Sigman wrote: Brion, "politically correct" certainly has negative connotations, but the many people who have attempted to force societal changes through various means have done too many things bordering on the absurd in the name of "compassion" and "doing what's right". Some things have been good changes.... but then it got into micro-managing and telling people what they should do that was "correct"

Fine. But do you think that such things are happenning here?

So yes, you can find "politically correct" being used in a way that has an implied negative connotation. But then again, if you want to go back and read ALL the posts, you will find that there are a number of other terms that were used with a negative connotation.

Your point being? I was speaking not about negative connotations per se, but the tactical application of a particular phrase.

My position is simply that if someone isn't comfortable or doesn't want to work out with women, fine, go somewhere and work out with men. Or if some women don't want to work out with men, fine, go to an all-female dojo. Each to his own. I'm not going to lecture some woman on how she should view and get along with men (think of the outrage that would provoke from the people who like to view women as "downtrodden"!!) and on the other hand, someone lecturing men about how they should or should not view women should raise a similar warning flag.

Again, do you think that this is happening here?

The stronger worry is really in relation to the idea that a certain attitude should indirectly be forced on anyone "because that's the correct Aikido view". Once someone begins to represent that they are an authority on Aikido's dicta for trans-gender relationships, we're getting out of simple opinions and beginning to get into that ever-bothersome idea of deliberate misrepresentation of Ueshiba's art. It's a misrepresentation that borders on fraud. Ueshiba said nothing about gender relationships in the martial arts. His ideas about "harmony with the universe", which are very standard comments on cosmology in a number of Asian martial arts (the idea that his "harmony" stuff is unique to Aikido shows the level of ignorance within the Aikido community), were never meant to be applied to behavioural situations of the trendy sort.

Mike, this seems like a disproportionate response. No one forcing anything on anybody. At least here. All I can see is an interesting collection of diverse, mostly civil opinions. From these and from past statements, might I conclude that you have been on the receiving end of agenda-pushers? If so, I can certainly understand your being sensitive to such things. I just don't see it happening here.
Yours,
Brion

Isaac Bettis wrote: First of all, to reduce my experience in Korea to "motorcycling around Korea" is offensive.

Ouch. Sorry. My reference to motorcycle riding was an attempt at lightness, a shorthand alternative to: "Given the miniscule size of the statistical sampling base, and bearing in mind the likely constraints of interpreting data derived from an alien culture..." I meant no offense, and apologize for the reference.

Also, I dont give a damn about the question of when and where women and men should and should not be segragated if you are suggesting it as some sort of philosophical exercise. If you are suggesting it as an exercise in personal choice, then I would say I dont need to do anymore research, nor do I need to contemplate on it. I have done all the research and contemplation that I am prepared to do, I have made my choice and I stick by it. As a matter of course (and there have been exceptions) I do not enjoy training with women. I am not trying to say men and women should not train together, and I am not saying that I will not train with women, people ought to be able to train in the manner they want and in a manner in which they are comfortable. I am sure that there will be situations the future where I will have to choose either: (1) train with women or (2) not train at all. I will most likely choose to train with women.

Dear heart, you were the one who asked the question; I was replying to it, and I was careful to include words like "might want to," and "perhaps." I was also, of course, not replying directly to you (unlike this message), but taking part in a conversation with many other people. It is useful for me to know that you do not feel the need for more research and contemplation, and that as a rule you do not enjoy training with women. But the question you raised, as it happens, is bigger than you.
Yours,
Brion Toss

Brion Toss wrote: Mike, this seems like a disproportionate response. No one forcing anything on anybody. At least here. All I can see is an interesting collection of diverse, mostly civil opinions. From these and from past statements, might I conclude that you have been on the receiving end of agenda-pushers? If so, I can certainly understand your being sensitive to such things. I just don't see it happening here.

I would make an easy and substantial bet that I'm not the only one who has encountered people in some dojos that discourage certain civil and political agendas and encourage others, Brian. In fact, western Aikido as a whole has that sort of reputation. Are you saying it's not there and that a lot of people are simply mistaken with the idea that there are a lot of politically correct and even "New Age" type people in Aikido? Let's be civil, but let's be realistic also.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: I would make an easy and substantial bet that I'm not the only one who has encountered people in some dojos that discourage certain civil and political agendas and encourage others, Brian. In fact, western Aikido as a whole has that sort of reputation. Are you saying it's not there and that a lot of people are simply mistaken with the idea that there are a lot of politically correct and even "New Age" type people in Aikido? Let's be civil, but let's be realistic also. Regards, Mike Sigman

Hi again,
I absolutely know that such behavior exists in some Aikido dojos. I was only wondering why you felt the need to go to such lengths about it here. Granted, the question is one that is likely to be a concern for people with woo-woo agendas, but so are a lot of other things. And on the other hand, the question — Men and Women Training Together — bears no intrinsic relation to such agendas, and I don't think that it has been promoted or referred to as such in this thread. I'm just trying to stay with the question, and seeking to avoid potentially inflammatory distractions. You know, like the motorcycle crack I made yesterday.
As for the fact that some dojo's can be found to "...discourage certain civil and political agendas and encourage others..." that is a broad stroke there. Any group social interaction tends to do just that. Must, in fact, or it ceases to be social; in order to be with each other, we must make some agreements on behavior, including expressions of thought. The question, it seems to me, is, when does such discouragement and encouragement become oppressive and counterproductive?
For myself, I practice Aikido in part for the stated and implied (as I understand them) enjoinders to behave in a some ways, and not in other ways. Regarding the current question, training with either gender is an opportunity to examine and develop my attitudes and beliefs on the roles of women and men. When I was starting Aikido, I am sure I would have progressed faster martially if no women had been present, but I'm pretty sure it would have retarded my emotional — and, long-term, martial — development.
If I understand your viewpoint correctly, the dojo is there as a place to accquire martial skills, and any civil and political flavors only distract from that. I can understand that, it's just not my, um, agenda.

Yours,
Brion

I find all the talk about political correctness a bit ironic. The first time I got into a bruhaha with people over sex-discrimination and sex-exclusive clubs it was with feminists when I first went to college, and the "women's studies" program, which I think is an illegitimate academic discipline. I won't even get into what happened when they convinced the faculty to let them run an 'anti-homophobia' education day. Discrimination and prejudice are not limited to one end of the political spectrum, and neither is demagoguery.

Aside from a couple of tangential comments here, I see nothing to compare to 'political correctness' I've seen. We have one person who proclaimed his prejudice as a personal matter, and lots of people criticized him for it. Another came out in favor of prejudice and sex-discrimination in priniciple, and people have argued against it. If you really want to imagine a firestorm, mentally drop a racial or religious "preference" in the slots in their posts where "women" have been... "I don't like to train with Jews" or "People should be able to choose whether or not they train with blacks". The fact that these sound much more inflammatory on it face should tell you something.

Brion Toss wrote: If I understand your viewpoint correctly, the dojo is there as a place to accquire martial skills, and any civil and political flavors only distract from that.

If this were the case, then judging training partners based upon their sex rather than their exhibited martial skills would be precisely such a distraction.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: We have one person who proclaimed his prejudice as a personal matter, and lots of people criticized him for it.

I would have said that he proclaimed his "preference", but you seem not to understand the "negative connotation", as Brian notes, to using certain terms. I have a "preference" for cinnamon buns.... does that really indicate a "prejudice" against non-sweet buns? I don't approve of polygamy... does that mean that I have a "phobia" about polygamy or a "prejudice"? Emotionally-indexed terms shouldn't be needed as a way to score rhetorical points.

Another came out in favor of prejudice and sex-discrimination in priniciple, and people have argued against it.

I wonder if you mean my comment about the women's soccer teams being prejudiced against men? No, wait... that wouldn't be PC. I actually came out in favor of people doing what they want without having to get piled on by the PC amongst us, so "in favor of prejudice and sex-discrimination", as you put it, I'll let stand as your own demonstration of your "logic and reasoning".

If you really want to imagine a firestorm, mentally drop a racial or religious "preference" in the slots in their posts where "women" have been... "I don't like to train with Jews" or "People should be able to choose whether or not they train with blacks". The fact that these sound much more inflammatory on it face should tell you something.

Now why would we build a strawman like that and then demolish it? Since neither race nor religion nor hair-color nor foot-size was mentioned, why would you attempt to score such silly points by introducing a comparison to something so off-topic?

Mike Sigman

Brion Toss wrote: If I understand your viewpoint correctly, the dojo is there as a place to accquire martial skills, and any civil and political flavors only distract from that. I can understand that, it's just not my, um, agenda.

First of all, I never said that, so your "understanding" is simply a mischaracterization of what I said. I said to each his own, without having to have people pile on him because they don't agree with his viewpoint. But you know that's what I've said several times, don't you? So does Kevin, but he's suddenly equating that Isaac's preference to work out with men to religious and racial discrimination. But we all knew that was behind the PC pressure and just waiting to pop out, didn't we? My comments to Kevin about just saying "racist" and "bigot" were spot on, as was pretty obvious.

It's against the rules for a man to be on the USA women's soccer team.... isn't that officially sanctioned "discrimination", as a lot of people loosely apply the term? Yet women are free to try out for the NFL if they want. If we want to play silly subjective games, let's apply them all the way around. Frankly, regardless of the attempts to pressure someone into saying that "fighting gender discrimination is a valid goal in an Aikido dojo", I still say each to his own.

Just out of curiosity, let me ask you this: Given that there are some women who are good fighters (and some men are poor fighters), would you say that statistically women are as good at fighting as men and therefore there is no reason for anyone to conclude that martial arts would be arguable different between any given group of 100 men and 100 women? What's your honest opinion?

Regards,

Mike

It's sad Mike. You appear to be incapable of simple reasoning, and you still don't know the definition of the word 'prejudice' despite the fact that I have explained it and you could have looked it up at my suggestion in a matter of seconds. The emotional charge in these terms is yours. Let me help you:

PREJUDICE: " a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge". One can be prejudiced against nearly anything, it simply has to do with approaching an individual or thing with a preconceived opinion or judgement not based on experiece with that particular individual.

DISCRIMINATION: "a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating (to make a distinction) categorically rather than individually" Discrimination is not necessarily bad either, so long as the category is valid and relevant to whatever people are being selected for or against. This is why I used the term "sex-discrimination" to indicate what you were talking about.

Application of concepts: If Isaac had trained with every woman in the world, his statement of not wanting to train with women would be a preference. Since he hasn't, and in fact has only trained with an infinitessimally small portion of them, it's a prejudice.

I don't like to train with a guy named Fred. I've trained with him before, so it's preference - informed by experience.

Now let's say a guy named Pete shows up. I've trained with three guys named Pete before, and they were all jerks. My experience is that guys named Pete act like jerks. If I say that I don't like to train with Petes, it's a prejudice. If I refuse to train with this Pete, it's discrimination, name-discrimination, to be more precise.

See, this is how analogies work. By substituting simple names here for the complex categories we were using before, I can illustrate the concepts more clearly. So, we move on to the point of suggesting race and religion. By a similar act of substitution, we could put a particular race or religion in many of your and Isaac's statements and they would seem offensive to most people. Why? Because prejudice and discrimination on racial and religious grounds is less acceptable in our society. I think that's interesting. You wouldn't have dared to say what you have said in favor of indulging one's prejudices and practicing discrimination regarding race or religion, yet you have no problem going off thusly about women.

The form is the same. We are still talking about prejudice and discrimination. If you want to argue that prejudice against women is valid, that's fine - it appears you've made a few foundering attempts. But try to have the honesty to admit what you are really talking about.

As far as all the sports analogies go, these are all hoplessly convoluted, largely because you still don't understand what prejudice is. Averages are averages, the limits of the elite are the limits of the elite. Averages are not individuals, and averages do not get turned away from establishments unfairly.

The reason professional and Olympic level sports are segregated probably has to do with performance differences at top levels, though I'm not even sure that it is legitimate in all cases. Nonetheless, elite performance on this level is extremely rare. Most people of both sexes are scattered throughout the middle. The vast majority of men are less capable than elite level women, for instance, in most sports - the existence of these few alone is a conclusive argument against the legitimacy of prejudice and sex-discrimination everywhere other than professional and Olympic level training establishments. Furthermore, as I've said earlier, such establishments have no need to practice sex-discrimination, as the women will be excluded automatically if they discriminate based on performance criteria.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: Application of concepts: If Isaac had trained with every woman in the world, his statement of not wanting to train with women would be a preference. Since he hasn't, and in fact has only trained with an infinitessimally small portion of them, it's a prejudice.

I guess technically that may be correct, but I always thought and was told that those women who join female-only gyms or participate in the women aikido classes at honbu for that matter did so just because they had a preference to work out or practice with those exclusively of their own gender. I've never heard them being referred to as prejudiced against men just because they've arrived at their decision to do so without first working out with every man in the world.

For the record my aikido practice has always been co-ed and I've enjoyed it and never had a problem with it.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: ...If Isaac had trained with every woman in the world, his statement of not wanting to train with women would be a preference. Since he hasn't, and in fact has only trained with an infinitessimally small portion of them, it's a prejudice.

But what is important is HIS world. If he has trained with all the women in HIS world, is it a preference, then?

... Because prejudice and discrimination on racial and religious grounds is less acceptable in our society.

Make that some prejudice & discrimination IS acceptable.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: It's sad Mike. You appear to be incapable of simple reasoning, and you still don't know the definition of the word 'prejudice' despite the fact that I have explained it and you could have looked it up at my suggestion in a matter of seconds. The emotional charge in these terms is yours. Let me help you: PREJUDICE: " a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge". One can be prejudiced against nearly anything, it simply has to do with approaching an individual or thing with a preconceived opinion or judgement not based on experiece with that particular individual. DISCRIMINATION: "a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating (to make a distinction) categorically rather than individually" Discrimination is not necessarily bad either, so long as the category is valid and relevant to whatever people are being selected for or against. This is why I used the term "sex-discrimination" to indicate what you were talking about. Application of concepts: If Isaac had trained with every woman in the world, his statement of not wanting to train with women would be a preference. Since he hasn't, and in fact has only trained with an infinitessimally small portion of them, it's a prejudice.

First, if you are going to quote things cite your sources. Second. I take issue with the idea that I would have to have trained with every woman on the planet to have a 'preference' vs a 'prejudice'. I have not listened to the complete recordings of all country music, nor have I listened to the complete recordings of all jazz music, but given the choice I am probably going to choose jazz. I have (A) listened to both of kinds music (at least in a limited scope), (B) have formed an opinion on that music, due to my personal tastes, and (C) determined that I would rather listen to jazz, for the most part. Don't get me wrong, I am diggin on some Hank Sr., but most of the time I will opt for some Django, or maybe Ella Fitzgerald. I don't think that anybody would ever say that I am prejudiced against country music. They would merely say "That guy likes jazz more than country". The same holds true with how I feel about training with women. I just don't like it as much, usually. I don't like onions either, nor have I sampled every type of onion. But you have got to be kidding me if you are suggesting that anybody is going to tell me I am prejudiced against onions because of this.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: See, this is how analogies work. By substituting simple names here for the complex categories we were using before, I can illustrate the concepts more clearly. So, we move on to the point of suggesting race and religion. By a similar act of substitution, we could put a particular race or religion in many of your and Isaac's statements and they would seem offensive to most people. Why? Because prejudice and discrimination on racial and religious grounds is less acceptable in our society. I think that's interesting. You wouldn't have dared to say what you have said in favor of indulging one's prejudices and practicing discrimination regarding race or religion, yet you have no problem going off thusly about women.

The problem with this argument is that "women" and "black folks" or "Muslims" or whoever are not logically equivalent terms. Also, I didn't say anything about people of other races or religions, why bring it up. It merely distracts from the issue at hand. You have indeed in some ways set up a straw man here. The issue is not race, or religion, or even gender. The issue at hand is that some people think that I am 'wrong' in feeling more comfortable and enjoying myself more in an all male training environment.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: The form is the same. We are still talking about prejudice and discrimination. If you want to argue that prejudice against women is valid, that's fine - it appears you've made a few foundering attempts. But try to have the honesty to admit what you are really talking about.

You are right. It is discrimination. But sex discrimination is not all bad. Should men be allowed entrance into women's shelters, or women be allowed access to men's restrooms? No.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: As far as all the sports analogies go, these are all hoplessly convoluted, largely because you still don't understand what prejudice is. Averages are averages, the limits of the elite are the limits of the elite. Averages are not individuals, and averages do not get turned away from establishments unfairly.

To say that Mr. Mike "still don't understand what prejudice is" is not a fair statement, to the degree that definitions are merely conventions. You may have a disagreement with him (as well as others) on the necessary and sufficient conditions that are required for something or someone to exibit prejuidice, but that is what it is, a disagreement. If everyone on this forum agrees that from now on "window" will refer to the board with keys on it that is used to imput text into a computer, that is fine. There is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" about it.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: It's sad Mike. You appear to be incapable of simple reasoning, ((snip complete BS of the supercilious variety)) The reason professional and Olympic level sports are segregated probably has to do with performance differences at top levels, though I'm not even sure that it is legitimate in all cases. Nonetheless, elite performance on this level is extremely rare. Most people of both sexes are scattered throughout the middle. The vast majority of men are less capable than elite level women, for instance, in most sports - the existence of these few alone is a conclusive argument against the legitimacy of prejudice and sex-discrimination everywhere other than professional and Olympic level training establishments. Furthermore, as I've said earlier, such establishments have no need to practice sex-discrimination, as the women will be excluded automatically if they discriminate based on performance criteria.

So there are no statistical performance variations at any other than the "top levels"? Really? The high-school men's volleyball team players are no different than the high-school women's volleyball team in terms of performance? We must live on different planets. Sell it to someone else. One of us has got some very drastic problems in perception.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Isaac Bettis wrote: First, if you are going to quote things cite your sources. Second. I take issue with the idea that I would have to have trained with every woman on the planet to have a 'preference' vs a 'prejudice'. I have not listened to the complete recordings of all country music, nor have I listened to the complete recordings of all jazz music, but given the choice I am probably going to choose jazz. I have (A) listened to both of kinds music (at least in a limited scope), (B) have formed an opinion on that music, due to my personal tastes, and (C) determined that I would rather listen to jazz, for the most part. Don't get me wrong, I am diggin on some Hank Sr., but most of the time I will opt for some Django, or maybe Ella Fitzgerald. I don't think that anybody would ever say that I am prejudiced against country music. They would merely say "That guy likes jazz more than country". The same holds true with how I feel about training with women. I just don't like it as much, usually. I don't like onions either, nor have I sampled every type of onion. But you have got to be kidding me if you are suggesting that anybody is going to tell me I am prejudiced against onions because of this.

The definitions were just out of some online dictionary. I pulled them to save the trouble of formulating the exact phrasing myself. And yes, I say it would be technically correct to say you are prejudiced against country music and onions. Although moreso the music, as you've probably tried a smaller, less representative sample. It's true people don't often speak that way - mostly because prejudice against a type of music or food doesn't really have the potential to harm or exclude anyone. CDs and vegetables don't seem to care how they are treated.

Isaac Bettis wrote: The problem with this argument is that "women" and "black folks" or "Muslims" or whoever are not logically equivalent terms. Also, I didn't say anything about people of other races or religions, why bring it up. It merely distracts from the issue at hand. You have indeed in some ways set up a straw man here. The issue is not race, or religion, or even gender. The issue at hand is that some people think that I am 'wrong' in feeling more comfortable and enjoying myself more in an all male training environment.

Why are these terms not logically equivalent? All three are categories of people. And, I might add, all three represent categories that are legally protected against discrimination in the US. There is no straw man fallacy here. Why is a prejudice or an act of discrimination on the basis of sex "logically" different than when based on race or religion?

At first, the issue was just about your prejudice/preference, but since then, arguments in favor of discrimination and prejudice have been put forward.

Isaac Bettis wrote: You are right. It is discrimination. But sex discrimination is not all bad. Should men be allowed entrance into women's shelters, or women be allowed access to men's restrooms? No.

Actually, men are also beaten and threatened by their wives. They often don't get help, largely due to the embarassment associated with sex-stereotypes. Maybe it also has to do with not going to shelters because they aren't allowed. I don't see why they shouldn't be - why they can't be domestic abuse shelters instead of sex-discriminating domestic abuse shelters. And, unisex bathrooms are becoming more common in the US. I have yet to hear of the sky ripping open or the streets flooding with blood because of it.

Isaac Bettis wrote: To say that Mr. Mike "still don't understand what prejudice is" is not a fair statement, to the degree that definitions are merely conventions. You may have a disagreement with him (as well as others) on the necessary and sufficient conditions that are required for something or someone to exibit prejuidice, but that is what it is, a disagreement. If everyone on this forum agrees that from now on "window" will refer to the board with keys on it that is used to imput text into a computer, that is fine. There is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" about it.

It's true that definitions are merely conventions, but Mike has shown by his arguments that he does not understand what prejudice is in principle - the part about preconceived judgement in particular. It was not a matter of disagreement about what met the conditions.

John Hogan wrote: But what is important is HIS world. If he has trained with all the women in HIS world, is it a preference, then?

His statements about women made no such qualification. If he had limited his statement to no liking training with any of the women he had already trained with, there may not have been as much complaint.

Mike Sigman wrote: So there are no statistical performance variations at any other than the "top levels"? Really? The high-school men's volleyball team players are no different than the high-school women's volleyball team in terms of performance? We must live on different planets. Sell it to someone else. One of us has got some very drastic problems in perception. Regards, Mike Sigman

The problem is not perception, it's cognition. I do question sex-segregation in school sports. I would be very surprised if the best player on the girl's team was always worse than the worst player on the boy's team. Unless this is always the case, some girls are missing out on the opportunity for competition at their level. You still don't seem to understand the problem with discrimination. It's about giving each individual a fair opportunity. Discrimination exclusively on the basis of relevant abilities ensures this, and does nothing to prevent certain teams or clubs from ending up being composed of all one sex, race, or whatever. Sex-discrimination, on the other hand, prevents individual opportunity for no good reason.

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.

In sports it is about competition, but what I love about aikido is that there is no competition in that sense. I also love that when I walk into the dojo to train I am respected for where I'm at and challenged to push myself further. If I had the opportunity to train with only women I might try it, especially if I felt the men resented my presence...but then maybe I would have just not bothered with aikido if I really wasn't welcomed.

Krista

(I have been avoiding this thread because I don't want to get involved in the snarling, but I couldn't resist

Have the men who favor all-male training environments been traumatized by women, perhaps?

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: The problem is not perception, it's cognition. I do question sex-segregation in school sports. I would be very surprised if the best player on the girl's team was always worse than the worst player on the boy's team. Unless this is always the case, some girls are missing out on the opportunity for competition at their level. You still don't seem to understand the problem with discrimination.

There is "discrimination" in everything we do in life. However, the subject was not everything to do in life, it was whether Isaac prefers, in his own voluntary workouts, to work with women and to accomodate factors other than a simple workout. He apparently just wants to workout. It's his choice. He doesn't need to be artificially saddled with some trendy guilt because he doesn't conform with yours or anyone else's guilts. He stated his preference. I understand it without having to label him or to worry out load about any perceived responsibilities he has to women and society.

Mike Sigman

Amelia Smith wrote: (I have been avoiding this thread because I don't want to get involved in the snarling, but I couldn't resist Have the men who favor all-male training environments been traumatized by women, perhaps?

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

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: His statements about women made no such qualification. If he had limited his statement to no[t] liking training with any of the women he had already trained with, there may not have been as much complaint.

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.