Training: Separate the Sexes?

yeah mark... it is a technicality that allows such groups to use the claims of freedom to exists... by that argument then al qaeda should be able to freely meet and associate anywhere anytime in the united states... there is a distinction between private/public that i truly do not have the expertise to really claim any authority to discuss... i am not a lawyer... but if he is associated with ASU and they have a stated policy that is contrary??? why is there any need for such a statement??? if they can legally discriminate (which i do not believe) then why state that they don't when in fact they do? this really gets my ara mitama stoked (on the verge of raging)... my feelings are that it is easy for some to practice aiki-ostrich-do, bury their heads in the sand and ignore it, but that is not what i feel aikido is about... we should "fight" against injustice and wrong wherever we find it...

Hi Edwin

Maybe Al Quaeda freely meets in the US anyway, how would you know if they are non explicit.

As for the ASU I'm not even sure what that TLA ( 3 letter abbreviation ) is. I cant comment on them specifically as I have no idea what their policy states. However any organisation that has a policy that is not being upheld by one of it's associated units is in my opinion duty bound to do something about it. Namely get them to change to conform to the policy or eject them from the organisation. Ejecting them will not stop the unit acting the way that they do, at least the larger organisation have taken care of the situation as far as their own integrity goes.

I feel the best way to 'fight' the emergance of 'dark' thinking is to shine the bright light of scrutiny, knowledge and co-operation onto these areas.
Aikido is for all, I think we can all agree on that, however we have to accept that there will be dissenters even in the most agreeable of situations. Maybe they are there to keep the rest of us on our toes!

Cheers
Mark

Mark Freeman wrote: As for the ASU I'm not even sure what that TLA ( 3 letter abbreviation ) is. I cant comment on them specifically as I have no idea what their policy states. However any organisation that has a policy that is not being upheld by one of it's associated units is in my opinion duty bound to do something about it. Namely get them to change to conform to the policy or eject them from the organisation. Ejecting them will not stop the unit acting the way that they do, at least the larger organisation have taken care of the situation as far as their own integrity goes.

I posted this earlier in the thread from the ASU student handbook:

The Aikido Schools of Ueshiba is an equal opportunity organization, and does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, ethnic group, religion, age, or sexual orientation.

That being said, I believe the kind of policy that was under discussion earlier in the thread to be mistaken (as I also stated earlier in the thread), but that doesn't mean that Dan ought to be demonized, or that he's somehow an evil person (as is sometimes being implied). There are plenty of single-sex groups throughout the US that nobody gives a second thought - a lot of them are Catholic schools, for example.

Best,

Chris

For a long time and maybe even now, I am having trouble finding out by reading, the Kodokan had not only seporate classes for men and women but also seporate dojos. It used to be that woman could not advance past fifth dan in judo, and the fifth dan for a woman was the equal of a ninth or tenth dan for the men. The first woman was promoted to sixth dan in like the 40s or 50s if my mimory serves me right. Also women were not allowed to wear a solid colored belt, every woman't belt had a white stripe down the center. When judo compitition first started women had there own compititions and kata was the only form of compitition allowed. Infact women's judo has just resently been added to the olimpics games.

Professor Kano and O sensei lived around the same time and in the same country, but there approaches to training was totally different.

Personally i wish that I had access to womens only dojo. I have learned from years in judo jujitsu and aikido, that some throws I can do on a man I can not apply on a woman. Our bodies move and are shaped differently then a mans body.

I also injoy training with men only, in most of the dojos I have trained I was the only female.
It is just recently that I have seen the dojos I train or have trained in have more then three girls in dojos that have 40-60 members, Infact i think at least attending students all three dojos I have trained in are now equal, and in one us girls are trying to run the guys out of the bigger dressing room because there are times we out number them.

Any thats my two cence worth take it or leave it, and feel to correct my history if my dates or something are incorrect.

Please, if I may ask, why do you bother looking for distinctions long past and gone?

I am just using history to show that seporating the sexs was common in Japan, I'm sure that there still are schools in the countryside that may still be one gender.
I personally don't think that same gender dojos are bad, as long as the oppertunity for cross training with the other gender are presented and incouraged.

However i do disagree with soporate ranking systems, and double standerds. I think that fifth dan should mean fifth dan no matter race, sex, sexual oriantation, religion, or disability.

Ok, I just hopped onto this thread and tried to get up to speed, but apologize if I am repeating what someone has already said.

Ann Northcutt wrote: . I'm sorry Mr. Linden is bitter about women encroaching on historically male activities,

It strikes to me, Ms. Northcutt, that you seem far more bitter than Dan Linden. You claim that you really have no problems with single sex activities but your crude characterizations of Mr. Linden truly undermine such assertions. I am not trying simply to make personal attacks here but to make a larger point. It is simply a bit tiring that women who want their own space are viewed as liberated and free thinking but men who want their own space are characterized as wanting to put women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

I agree that Mr. Linden's initial post on this matter seemed a tad harsh. Clearly he has a brusque style. But his points regarding male bonding are valid. I also cannot help but speculate that some of Mr. Linden's curtness is due to encountering the double standard to which I have referred. Having encountered it myself, I can attest that one quickly adopts an oppositional attitude when one knows the types of characterizations that will be forthcoming.

On another matter, if it has not already been addressed, so long as Mr. Linden's dojo does not accept governmental money (which seems unlikely) there is nothing illegal about a single sex dojo.

Christopher Li wrote: There are plenty of single-sex groups throughout the US that nobody gives a second thought - a lot of them are Catholic schools, for example. Best, Chris

Hi Chris,

Unlike the ASU, the Catholic church is not an equal opportunity organisation.

regards

Mark

Deb Fisher wrote: I want first to thank Mr. Linden for outing himself as a bigot in a public forum... I would argue that women face a holocaust as well, a holocaust in which at least as many women have suffered and died as in Europe, over the course of many more years. Violence against women affects hundreds of American women every day - we are raped by strangers, beaten and killed by our lovers and husbands. In the eyes of these rapists, batterers and murderers, it is culturally appropriate to violate and kill women because women are less human than men, because they have a social place, because they're always whining. Men who hurt women are act because they think they are right to hate women, because they see their own bigotry reflected all around them,

I have read some truly over the top posts in my day but this one has got to take the cake.

This position is untenable. Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be on the receiving end of vioent crime than are women. Further, the response from some women (and allow me to be blunt - feminists) is quite revealing. When I point this out, their response is to twist their faces in disgust and spew out something along the lines that, maybe so, but they are being attacked - BY OTHER MEN!!! Factually true but morally disgusting. What kind of person is not willing to make a moral distinction between violent criminals and their victims? Certianly no one in a position to lecture the rest of us about anything.

Tying this in to your hit statement, how can women be the victims of a holocaust of violence when they are less likely to be violently attacked? The only way around this is to sink into the moral degeneracy that I have described. Let me add that I can understand that a man would downplay violence against men and focus on that against women for reasons of chivalry, but that does not resolve the issue which I am addressing.

i still hold to the belief that while it may not be in a technocal sense illegal... it is questionable... any lawyers out there???... recieving government money is i think a red herring most business don't get federal money, but try to go to a restaurant that says we only serve men!!! lets not get off track here it is a form of discrimination(good or bad) that could be likened to violence or disenfranchisment of women... I think his position is wrong... there are of course proper circumstances for same sex practices, but to discrimanate against all women is wrong... if any one seems more bitter than the original poster they probably feel like i that my art has be hijacked and comprimised by a practice that clearly is contrary to the basic principles of aikido...

Edwin Neal wrote: ... any lawyers out there???...

Yes. Me. An aikido club would not provide public accomodations the way a restaurant would nor would it affect interstate commerce. It is akin to the Augusta National Golf Course that hosts the Masters. Couple years back some people did decide to shove their noses into its private affairs trying to get it to admit women. As a private club, however, it could dictate its own membership and stood its ground.

Personally I find nothing wrong with this. In fact, I am much, much more disturbed by the low regard demonstrated on this board for freedom of association, which, I might add, is right in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Mark Freeman wrote: Unlike the ASU, the Catholic church is not an equal opportunity organisation.

No but ASU is a private organization. End of issue whether one likes it or not.

Mark Freeman wrote: Hi Chris, Unlike the ASU, the Catholic church is not an equal opportunity organisation. regards Mark

Well, it was just an example - but I'd note that many (most?) Catholic schools these days are actually run secularly, not by the church, and that many (most?) publish non-discrimination statements similar to the one in the ASU handbook.

Best,

Chris

i have no problem with free association nor the first amendment, however i am confused on the issue of the stated policy of the ASU being in fact contradictory to this dojo's policy... i suppose you would know better than i the difference between a club and a business... i would consider any dojo a business unless it specifically states it is non profit... we pay for the sensei's instruction... could you give some more info... i just think it is clearly discriminatory, and counter to the ASU policy, and IMHO counter to the fundamental ideals of aikido... however the law is a tricky business... which is why most of us don't try to represent ourselves...

Dan Herak wrote: No but ASU is a private organization. End of issue whether one likes it or not.

Martial arts dojos have been sued in the past in the US under the ADA, and were recognized as public conveyances, and therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws and regulations. Legal issues rarely end so clearly . Also some private organizations (private schools, for example) are required to publish anti-discrimination statements in order to qualify for non-profit status.

Best,

Chris

yeah the legality of it is obviously "fuzzy"...

Dan Herak wrote: Yes. Me. An aikido club would not provide public accomodations the way a restaurant would nor would it affect interstate commerce. It is akin to the Augusta National Golf Course that hosts the Masters. Couple years back some people did decide to shove their noses into its private affairs trying to get it to admit women. As a private club, however, it could dictate its own membership and stood its ground. Personally I find nothing wrong with this. In fact, I am much, much more disturbed by the low regard demonstrated on this board for freedom of association, which, I might add, is right in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Just because people have the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to engage in that activity.

As I said before, legal issues can be unpredictable, but my guess is thet he'd probably be OK. OTOH, I still think that such a policy is a bad idea.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: Martial arts dojos have been sued in the past in the US under the ADA, and were recognized as public conveyances, and therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws and regulations.

The case to which you refer is a karate dojo sued under the ADA. It is important first to note that the school actually won the case and was able to exclude a student who was HIV positive. More important is your extrapolation to single sex clubs. The ADA ruling would have no precedent whatsoever on such an analysis and, in this matter, even less so given the singularity of the case and the ultimate outcome.

If things are in any way hazy, and I do not think that they are, it is because so many people have no respect for other people's rights to associate privately with whom they want. Several people have claimed that they, of course, have utmost respect for freedom of association but then continue posting to this forum statements that show the opposite. I find statements along the lines of "I respect freedom of association and think that Mr. Linden has every right to have a single sex dojo, but I just do not think that he should..." to be rather disingenuous. If they really had the respect for personal freedom they claim, they would realize that their personal feelings are irrelevant to Mr. Linden and leave it at that. Such statements have the effect of softening the intellectual climate to chip away at such freedoms bit by bit and people should recognize that for what it is.

i believe in the KKK's freedom to associate however i do not agree with their beliefs... i believe in a womans right to choose, but do not think abortion is usually the proper choice... i believe homosexuals should have the same rights as all other adults including the freedom to marry whoever they choose, but i am not gay... there are plenty of 'laws' that are not enforced or are anachronistic...the world is not black and white... legality sometimes has little to do with real life... i do not believe that Mr. Linden should practice such a policy if he claims to follow the teachings of aikido... why would the ASU have such a stated policy if they did not need or believe in following it... just to cover their ass, if challenged?...if you read this thread in it's entirety, quite a herculean task ... Mr. Linden "seems" to have some basically prejudiced ideas of women and homosexual... this is my problem people who use the law as a shield for immoral purposes...

Dan Herak wrote: The case to which you refer is a karate dojo sued under the ADA. It is important first to note that the school actually won the case and was able to exclude a student who was HIV positive. More important is your extrapolation to single sex clubs. The ADA ruling would have no precedent whatsoever on such an analysis and, in this matter, even less so given the singularity of the case and the ultimate outcome.

They did win the case, but not because the court didn't have jurisdiction. It was implicit in the ruling that the dojo was being treated as a public conveyance, or else the whole thing would not have been an issue.

Dan Herak wrote: If things are in any way hazy, and I do not think that they are, it is because so many people have no respect for other people's rights to associate privately with whom they want. Several people have claimed that they, of course, have utmost respect for freedom of association but then continue posting to this forum statements that show the opposite. I find statements along the lines of "I respect freedom of association and think that Mr. Linden has every right to have a single sex dojo, but I just do not think that he should..." to be rather disingenuous. If they really had the respect for personal freedom they claim, they would realize that their personal feelings are irrelevant to Mr. Linden and leave it at that. Such statements have the effect of softening the intellectual climate to chip away at such freedoms bit by bit and people should recognize that for what it is.

So any behavior that's legally permissable should not be commented on or criticized, is that what you're saying?

What about your criticisms of people exercising their right to free speech?

Best,

Chris

Dan Herak wrote: I have read some truly over the top posts in my day but this one has got to take the cake. This position is untenable. Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be on the receiving end of violent crime than are women. Further, the response from some women (and allow me to be blunt - feminists) is quite revealing. When I point this out, their response is to twist their faces in disgust and spew out something along the lines that, maybe so, but they are being attacked - BY OTHER MEN!!! Factually true but morally disgusting. What kind of person is not willing to make a moral distinction between violent criminals and their victims? Certianly no one in a position to lecture the rest of us about anything. Tying this in to your hit statement, how can women be the victims of a holocaust of violence when they are less likely to be violently attacked? The only way around this is to sink into the moral degeneracy that I have described. Let me add that I can understand that a man would downplay violence against men and focus on that against women for reasons of chivalry, but that does not resolve the issue which I am addressing.

This represents a serious misunderstanding of the meaning of the statistics on violence... The larger numbers of violent incidents involving males is due to the extremely large number of violent incidents which take place between the members of organized gangs in the nations urban areas. In other words, these statistics are about violence between groups of professional criminals. If one removes those statistics from the sample, and then perhaps further removes those encounters which take place between drunken males at establishments in which alocohol is served, and simply focusues on the liklihood of an average citizen experiencing a violent attack. women are FAR more likely to be the victims of violence. There are only a small number of domestic violence cases in when women have been beating their male partenrs, whereas the number of these cases involving violence against women is in the millions. There are relatively few cases of rape in which men are raped, either by other men or by women (at least oustide of prison) whwreas the number of sexual assaualts against women is astronomical. Why aren't there homes for battered husbands in virtually every city in America as there are for women? Pretty simple, there aren't that many battered husbands.

Violence against women has been an issue in our culture for hundreds of years. It wasn't that long ago when hundreds of thousands of women all over Europe and America as well, were being murdered as witches. Ever hear the phrase "rule of thumb"? It had to do with the law which allowed men to beat their wives as long as the stick as smaller than the diameter of their thumb... This law was in effect when our country was founded and our Consititution written...

To deny that men are the perpretrators of violence against women on a far greater scale than against each other is simply a misrepresentation of the facts if one is talking about the average citizen who is not involved in drug related criminal activity or frequenting drinking estbalishments.

To the origanal post, and I have to be honest I did not read the whole thread cause its to darn long, but I shall when I have time.

But here in Japan I am often paired off with a female, because of her quality or rank for some kata, we also train in taking "urami" so any jealousy in the dojo should be eliminated and if it is present it does not go unoticed and will be addressed even if not verbal. From my experience most violence against women stems from jealousy or prevoked from an involvement in drug or crime circles as goerge stated. But as far as being a regular at the local waterhole, thats me and I have never allowed drinking get to that point, IMO there is happy drunks and violent drunks and violece is deep seated, drinking brings it out of those who are violently inclined, but to directly associate frequent drinking to domestic violence is, IMO not cricket. The violently inclined get most unstable after drinking. But thats just my opinion and I am a boozer!

George S. Ledyard wrote: This represents a serious misunderstanding of the meaning of the statistics on violence... There are only a small number of domestic violence cases in when women have been beating their male partenrs, whereas the number of these cases involving violence against women is in the millions. There are relatively few cases of rape in which men are raped, either by other men or by women (at least oustide of prison) whwreas the number of sexual assaualts against women is astronomical. Why aren't there homes for battered husbands in virtually every city in America as there are for women? Pretty simple, there aren't that many battered husbands.

With due respect Ledyard Sensei, it is you who misunderstand the statistics on violence and egregiously so. Even accounting for men who are the victims of violence in a situation in which violence is likely to occur, the numbers cannot be equalized. I apologize in advance for those that will take offense at this but some facts need to be better understood. The numbers bantered about publicly with respect to the number of rapes and domestic violence against women have been, to put it mildly, inflated through the roof (See WHO STOLE FEMINISM?, Christina Hoff Sommers for an explanation of exactly how exceptionally broad definitions have been misused to accomplish this.) For example, feminist activists lump together everything from raising your voice towards your wife to beating her senseless under the heading of domestic violence and then present those numbers to the public. Conveniently, they never seem to ask how often women raise their voices towards the men or other mirroring behavior questions. That you have placed the numbers "in the millions" demonstrates your willingness to buy into such tactics rather than obtain accurate information. Similar tactics have been used with rape and sexual harassment.

Your statement regarding male victims of domestic violence is particularly misguided. Every single study on the prevalence of domestic violence shows roughly equal parity between men and women both in terms of frequency and in terms of initiation of violence. Although women are smaller than men, they compensate by being more likely to use a weapon. See CEASEFIRE by Cathy Young or peruse ifeminist.com as they discuss the issue on a regular basis. You ask why there are not shelters for battered husbands. The answer is simple. Because certain domestic violence activists have more concern with perpetuating a vision of women as the perpetual victims of men than they are with the facts and have unfortunately been successful in getting their misguided message out and accepted. Combine this with the natural tendency of men to be reluctant to discuss vulnerability on the subject of violence, even more so when it is from a woman, and you have the situation in which women's needs in this area are addressed but men's are not.

I realize I am inviting a firestorm here. So be it. I think these issues are important enough that we need to get our facts straight. And the first step is addressing head on those assertions that do not stand up under scrutiny.

IMO, the are ways to minupulate and destroy a human being, physical is one, but look at a female that is physically weak and wants to harm she has, mental, spiritual and emotional to play with as attacks. They do it. But I never would support physical against a women. Its a combative world and it aint always physical.If someone wants to really destroy you they will adapt all methods, but If you strong in all aspects they are nothing but being disruptive in your path. Just my Take!