# Alarm bells



## theletch1 (Mar 9, 2004)

A friend of mine (female and SMALL) recently called me to see what I thought of a new ninjutsu school in the area.  I told her I hadn't heard of the guy and that she should meet with him and watch a class if she were truly interested.  Here's her report.  She entered the dojo and all movement stopped.  It was almost like the old west movies where the guy walks into the bar and everyone freezes and the piano stops playing.  There were no other females present.  After talking with the instructor and getting a class schedule and fee schedule (I'll get to that) she was told by the instructor the he "couldn't allow her to train in the dojo" since she, being a woman, was sure to get hurt training at his school.  So much for teaching control to your students I guess.  Now, the schedule was 2 30 min classes per week.  The fee was $70.00 per month, 1 yr contract and the kicker.... you don't pay the instructor directly, you give him your banking info and he pulls it directly from your account.  So, anyone else have alarm bells going off?


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 9, 2004)

Fire Departments don't have that many bells....

Wow.  That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.  If nothing else, a friendly note to the better business bureau in the vicinity.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 9, 2004)

Definate warning signs here....

My instructors one of my best friends...and I wouldn't give him my banking info.
Definately wouldn't give a stranger.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 9, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Definate warning signs here....
> 
> My instructors one of my best friends...and I wouldn't give him my banking info.
> Definately wouldn't give a stranger.


I agree with this.


----------



## Zepp (Mar 9, 2004)

The amazing thing is that he actually has students already!  I really need to open my own McDojo sometime for the extra cash.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 9, 2004)

Have it your way at McDojo's...Would you like a punch with that?


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 9, 2004)

I sometimes give certain banking information to ppl to facilitate preauthorized payments and stuff. Say, a voided cheque will often do the trick. But not to a MA school that obviously sucks mud.


----------



## Dale Seago (Mar 10, 2004)

Tell her to run.

Very fast, very far from that dojo.

Apart from the control issues and the funky bank debiting process, the cost is absurd. I live in a very high cost-of-living city, with correspondingly high rent to pay on space, etc. I've trained in the Bujinkan for twenty years and am at "nosebleed" rank level, up where the air is thin.  :wink2: My classes run an hour and a half to two hours twice a week, and I charge $65 a month for beginners. On one's first promotion from white belt it drops to $55 until first-degree black belt, when it drops to $35.

I hope this is not a Bujinkan dojo your friend checked out; but if it is I'd like to know about it, as I'll be in Japan again in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Tony (Mar 10, 2004)

Good god! that sounds risky!


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 10, 2004)

Oh, I'm pretty sure theletch was asking "tongue in cheek" and knows perfectly well that that place is ridiculous.


----------



## TonyM. (Mar 10, 2004)

Ninjas and bank drafts. Sounds like beatdown time to me.


----------



## Seig (Mar 11, 2004)

It also sounds like sexual discrimination, a complaint could shut them down.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 11, 2004)

theletch1 said:
			
		

> A friend of mine (female and SMALL) recently called me to see what I thought of a new ninjutsu school in the area.  I told her I hadn't heard of the guy and that she should meet with him and watch a class if she were truly interested.  Here's her report.  She entered the dojo and all movement stopped.  It was almost like the old west movies where the guy walks into the bar and everyone freezes and the piano stops playing.  There were no other females present.  After talking with the instructor and getting a class schedule and fee schedule (I'll get to that) she was told by the instructor the he "couldn't allow her to train in the dojo" since she, being a woman, was sure to get hurt training at his school.  So much for teaching control to your students I guess.  Now, the schedule was 2 30 min classes per week.  The fee was $70.00 per month, 1 yr contract and the kicker.... you don't pay the instructor directly, you give him your banking info and he pulls it directly from your account.  So, anyone else have alarm bells going off?


I used to work at a school that followed that exact game plan save for the "no females" thing. I have no alarm bells going off however. The idea of not letting females train sounds like a great reason to file a descrimination lawsuit. I think the benefit would be to make the males that join really feel like they are learning something special. It reminds me a lot of people who refuse to teach children. All it says to me is that they haven't prioritized basics from specialized moves. As for the billing situation, I feel it will help that school survive where others fall to the wayside. However, it can backfire on them if they get too greedy. Look at it like this 70 dollars per month for a year is less than $1000 dollars. You have the option of paying up front or taking it out of your account. The beauty of it all is that the Ninja dude is in charge of teaching people to kill, and a seperate entity is the guy taking your money. Mr. Ninja never looks like the bad guy. Billing issues and lawsuits are handled by some faceless beurocrats in florida or someplace. It seperates the dabblers from those whom are willing to buy a year of karate in one lump sum(with the option of twelve separate and easy payments of course). Selling lessons in blocks isn't the end of the world you know.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 11, 2004)

Dale Seago said:
			
		

> Tell her to run.
> 
> Very fast, very far from that dojo.
> 
> ...


I'm going to give you some free advice. The schools that charge the most for some reason or another are the most sucsessfull. I don't know why but wealthy people don't want budget lessons. They want to feel like they are getting the best. Charge $75 to start and see if enrolment drops. I think you will be suprised.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 11, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> It also sounds like sexual discrimination, a complaint could shut them down.


You know Seig, its kind of ironic that this puts a woman in a position to fight to be on a one year contract. I'm sure if she pushes hard enough, they will take her money. %-} 
Sean


----------



## deadhand31 (Mar 11, 2004)

2 30 minute classes a week? DING DING DING!!!

Banking info? Well, that depends. Is it where you give them a check, and they do an automatic withdrawal? That's primarily how my school does it, but if you object to the automatic withdrawal, you can either: A. Have them print up a book of checks that they give to you, similar to car loans, or B. pay for a year in advance at a 20% discounted rate. 
Now, if the other school wants your whole account info, then there's a problem.


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 11, 2004)

> It reminds me a lot of people who refuse to teach children. All it says to me is that they haven't prioritized basics from specialized moves.



I disagree with this statement.  Not teaching children isn't a matter of prioritization.  IMO, a child doesn't have the fine motor control of an adult to do some of the advanced techniques (which is why I also disagree with an 8yr old Black Belt/Sash in anything).  Also, Children do not have the mental reasoning yet to distinguish the level of force needed in an encounter.  

You can't lump all instructors into one statement like that.  I'm sure there are some that would qualify under that, but not all...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 11, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I disagree with this statement.  Not teaching children isn't a matter of prioritization.  IMO, a child doesn't have the fine motor control of an adult to do some of the advanced techniques (which is why I also disagree with an 8yr old Black Belt/Sash in anything).  Also, Children do not have the mental reasoning yet to distinguish the level of force needed in an encounter.
> 
> You can't lump all instructors into one statement like that.  I'm sure there are some that would qualify under that, but not all...


Isn't that like saying we shouldn't have childrens basketball because they aren't big enough to slamdunk the ball. Martial arts can be broken down into four things:Attitude, logic, basics, and fitness. You don't need these fine motor skills, you speak of, to work these concepts. We don't seem to have a problem sending kids off to gradeschool just because they aren't ready to perform advanced calculus. My comments have little to do with eight year old blackbelts by the way.
Sean


----------



## OULobo (Mar 11, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Isn't that like saying we shouldn't have childrens basketball because they aren't big enough to slamdunk the ball. Martial arts can be broken down into four things:Attitude, logic, basics, and fitness. You don't need these fine motor skills, you speak of, to work these concepts. We don't seem to have a problem sending kids off to gradeschool just because they aren't ready to perform advanced calculus. My comments have little to do with eight year old blackbelts by the way.
> Sean



I have to side with Moose on this one. Just looking at the four things you mentioned, which I don't wholeheartedly agree are what martial arts are necessarily about, I already see problems with children. Most children lack three of the things you mentioned, not that there aren't adults that lack the same traits, but children lack them on a more consistant level. Their attitude rarely has the level of maturity needed to learn even the basics of some arts, there logic is usually not developed enough to understand the reasons behind certain actions and motivations behind concepts, and their bodies are not developed enough to perform certain tasks that are required in certain arts. The basics I think many students can learn, but I could probly teach most basic techniques to a monkey. I don't think basketball involves the moral decisions that the arts require. I practice arts that teach very damaging and dangerous moves right from the start and I wouldn't want a child to know these concepts because most childten can't be trusted with a match. There are techniques in the arts I train that inflict damage during practice, damage that could stunt the growth of or damage the development of a child's body. I think there are certain arts and levels of arts that shouldn't be taught until the four things you mentioned are already firmly inbedded in the lifestyle of a youth. 

I do understand the idea of using the arts to educate children about things like fitness, attitude, ect. but I also believe in teaching certain arts in very traditional ways that can't be diluted to the mentality and abilities of a child.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 11, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> I sometimes give certain banking information to ppl to facilitate preauthorized payments and stuff. Say, a voided cheque will often do the trick. But not to a MA school that obviously sucks mud.


You are perfectly welcome to open up a seperate account for the billing agency and these billing agencies provide insurance for both students and instructors. The guy only looks at your info long enough to stuff it in an envelope and if you will notice your routing numbers and bank info are on every check you write; think of that next time you pay for gas at a Seven Eleven and hand it off to some drug addicted cashier. :uhyeah: 
Sean :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 11, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I have to side with Moose on this one. Just looking at the four things you mentioned, which I don't wholeheartedly agree are what martial arts are necessarily about, I already see problems with children. Most children lack three of the things you mentioned, not that there aren't adults that lack the same traits, but children lack them on a more consistant level. Their attitude rarely has the level of maturity needed to learn even the basics of some arts, there logic is usually not developed enough to understand the reasons behind certain actions and motivations behind concepts, and their bodies are not developed enough to perform certain tasks that are required in certain arts. The basics I think many students can learn, but I could probly teach most basic techniques to a monkey. I don't think basketball involves the moral decisions that the arts require. I practice arts that teach very damaging and dangerous moves right from the start and I wouldn't want a child to know these concepts because most childten can't be trusted with a match. There are techniques in the arts I train that inflict damage during practice, damage that could stunt the growth of or damage the development of a child's body. I think there are certain arts and levels of arts that shouldn't be taught until the four things you mentioned are already firmly inbedded in the lifestyle of a youth.
> 
> I do understand the idea of using the arts to educate children about things like fitness, attitude, ect. but I also believe in teaching certain arts in very traditional ways that can't be diluted to the mentality and abilities of a child.


No, you are proving my point. You haven't extracted basic motion from specialized moves. That is why you are fretting about morals. Secondly what other things do you think the MAs are about? I'd love to hear it. And thirdly, children to me a are people under, say, sixteen years old, and you two seem to be talking about four year olds or something. Before we argue further on the issue Id like to hear what age group you are refering to. :asian:
Sean
PS who said anything about teaching chidren in traditional ways?


----------



## OULobo (Mar 12, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> No, you are proving my point. You haven't extracted basic motion from specialized moves. That is why you are fretting about morals. Secondly what other things do you think the MAs are about? I'd love to hear it. And thirdly, children to me a are people under, say, sixteen years old, and you two seem to be talking about four year olds or something. Before we argue further on the issue Id like to hear what age group you are refering to. :asian:
> Sean
> PS who said anything about teaching chidren in traditional ways?



Well, I said something about teaching children in traditional ways. I believe that certain arts should be taught in traditional ways that children couldn't handle and those teachers have the right to decline teaching children without being accused of lacking a prioritization of techniques. Some arts are inseparable from and based in concepts that are not appropriate for children. I don't think that children have the maturity for say, systems based on knife and that require knife usage as a "basic" training tool. Many adults feel it is irresponsible and dangerous to give a child a fighting knife, and much more so to train him in how to grievously injure someone with it. In my opinion this is applicable all the way to the age of 13 or so. Some modern arts require training in firearms and without examining the moral issues of children and guns, the legal issues alone restrict the participation of children. 

As for what martial arts is about, I don't have more to offer, instead I have to offer that the things listed are not necessarily "what martial arts are about". Many arts differ in the what attitude is desirable and some directly oppose the requirments or recommendations of the law. Logic is also not a necessary, albeit, desirable trait of the MAs. I have seen many practitioners and instructors that have trouble figuring out how to vote, but they can block most of what you throw at them. 

Finally, I think morals are more than something to "fret" about when deciding anything to teach children. They are a deciding factor in chosen action and a major influence in responsibility. Entrusting the knowledge of the arts is something that requires resposibility from the practitioner in their actions and from the teacher in who is ready for the art not necessarily just the technique.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 12, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> You are perfectly welcome to open up a seperate account for the billing agency and these billing agencies provide insurance for both students and instructors. The guy only looks at your info long enough to stuff it in an envelope and if you will notice your routing numbers and bank info are on every check you write; think of that next time you pay for gas at a Seven Eleven and hand it off to some drug addicted cashier. :uhyeah:
> Sean :asian:


 
T'o'D,

As I Agree that the information is there. Yet there is no authorization implicit or explicit other than the amount on that chack. If you sign for electronic payment, usually there is some form of authorization either signature or online confirmation.

And just because alarm bells ring does nto mean the person is the most evil i the world. It jsut means buyer beware.
:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Well, I said something about teaching children in traditional ways. I believe that certain arts should be taught in traditional ways that children couldn't handle and those teachers have the right to decline teaching children without being accused of lacking a prioritization of techniques. Some arts are inseparable from and based in concepts that are not appropriate for children. I don't think that children have the maturity for say, systems based on knife and that require knife usage as a "basic" training tool. Many adults feel it is irresponsible and dangerous to give a child a fighting knife, and much more so to train him in how to grievously injure someone with it. In my opinion this is applicable all the way to the age of 13 or so. Some modern arts require training in firearms and without examining the moral issues of children and guns, the legal issues alone restrict the participation of children.
> 
> As for what martial arts is about, I don't have more to offer, instead I have to offer that the things listed are not necessarily "what martial arts are about". Many arts differ in the what attitude is desirable and some directly oppose the requirments or recommendations of the law. Logic is also not a necessary, albeit, desirable trait of the MAs. I have seen many practitioners and instructors that have trouble figuring out how to vote, but they can block most of what you throw at them.
> 
> Finally, I think morals are more than something to "fret" about when deciding anything to teach children. They are a deciding factor in chosen action and a major influence in responsibility. Entrusting the knowledge of the arts is something that requires resposibility from the practitioner in their actions and from the teacher in who is ready for the art not necessarily just the technique.


Its obvious your defenitions for attitude, logic, basics, and fitness differ from mine. For instance attitude is the arrangement of your body or your opponents body. It is your/ and your opponent's mental position or feeling as reguards to enviornment, situation, predicament, or each other. My point is that not only does attitude not nessessarily mean your desire to kill or what ever some art proposes it is, but transends any given  Martial philosophy to the point point of being a basic life lesson. That means even a knife art could spend years honing these children before ever handing them a live blade or face off in any sort of combat senerio. Sports, in general, sprang combat training. I say again your specialization is just that, a specialization. Your desire to shut people out, is such that you want other organizations to instill life lessons before you ever meet the student. That is fine, but if the instructor took the time to develop a childrens program, he would have a childrens program, pure and simple. So I ask you, why "should" an art be introduced at a hypercomplex-aboveyourhead level?
Sean


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 12, 2004)

Teaching children requires different kinds of skills, because they're developmentally at a different level. Cognitively, socio-emotionally, physically, morally. 

I do child psych assessments, so people think I'll be good at teaching children. How NOT the truth! I suck! I can handle them one-on-one, not in a classroom setting. My expertise on children is mainly on inter- and intraindividual differences, and special ed adaptation. When the parents, teacher, and I put our heads together, they come away with some useful stuff that helps them teach the kid better, but that's synergy (of all of us solving a problem), not osmosis (from me to them)! 

When it comes to teaching, I'd way rather teach adults (or at least adolescents) than children. It's just not me. Partly ability, partly interest and personality. 

I have a question for y'all: when you teach children MA, what do you think is the purpose or goal? And why does MA serve at least some of those goals better than, say, little league soccer, puppet therapy, or boy scouts?


----------



## OULobo (Mar 12, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Its obvious your defenitions for attitude, logic, basics, and fitness differ from mine. For instance attitude is the arrangement of your body or your opponents body. It is your/ and your opponent's mental position or feeling as reguards to enviornment, situation, predicament, or each other. My point is that not only does attitude not nessessarily mean your desire to kill or what ever some art proposes it is, but transends any given  Martial philosophy to the point point of being a basic life lesson. That means even a knife art could spend years honing these children before ever handing them a live blade or face off in any sort of combat senerio. Sports, in general, sprang combat training. I say again your specialization is just that, a specialization. Your desire to shut people out, is such that you want other organizations to instill life lessons before you ever meet the student. That is fine, but if the instructor took the time to develop a childrens program, he would have a childrens program, pure and simple. So I ask you, why "should" an art be introduced at a hypercomplex-aboveyourhead level?
> Sean



Some arts are traditionally taught in ways and in an order that is inappropriate for children right off the bat. If the instructor chooses to alter the art to accomodate children, that is fine and great for those kids. If the instructor, however wishes to continue to teach in a traditional way, perhaps in order to maintain the historical integrity of the art, that is his choice, and again he should not be attacked for teaching the way he was taught. Not all arts are about growing "good" people, attracting more students or teaching modern defense tactics. The fact that these arts don't choose these pathes doesn't negate their merits. It seems that you are sending the message that teaching children is your way and your way is the only way worth a nugget. Knife training, fyi, is not a specialization in some arts, it is a step that must be taken to reach the other areas of the art; a gateway, if you will, to other arenas of the art. As for the hyper complex question, the answer could be "why should it not be", or it could be "because that's how some people like it", or how bout "because that's how the instructor was taught", how bout " because that's how the instructor likes to teach". Pick any of the above, either way it doesn't nessessarily negate the effectiveness or merit of the system.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Some arts are traditionally taught in ways and in an order that is inappropriate for children right off the bat. If the instructor chooses to alter the art to accomodate children, that is fine and great for those kids. If the instructor, however wishes to continue to teach in a traditional way, perhaps in order to maintain the historical integrity of the art, that is his choice, and again he should not be attacked for teaching the way he was taught. Not all arts are about growing "good" people, attracting more students or teaching modern defense tactics. The fact that these arts don't choose these pathes doesn't negate their merits. It seems that you are sending the message that teaching children is your way and your way is the only way worth a nugget. Knife training, fyi, is not a specialization in some arts, it is a step that must be taken to reach the other areas of the art; a gateway, if you will, to other arenas of the art. As for the hyper complex question, the answer could be "why should it not be", or it could be "because that's how some people like it", or how bout "because that's how the instructor was taught", how bout " because that's how the instructor likes to teach". Pick any of the above, either way it doesn't nessessarily negate the effectiveness or merit of the system.


I never said the art didn't have worth if it didn't have a children or women's program. I'm saying they haven't taken the time to develop a childrens or womens program. Sheesh, don't get so defensive. By the way, Logic has nothing to do with writting a check or doing your finances. It is, once again, a way of thinking.
Sean


----------



## OULobo (Mar 12, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I never said the art didn't have worth if it didn't have a children or women's program. I'm saying they haven't taken the time to develop a childrens or womens program. Sheesh, don't get so defensive. By the way, Logic has nothing to do with writting a check or doing your finances. It is, once again, a way of thinking.
> Sean



Right, sorry, I get a little jumpy sometimes. I think you are probly right about the reason many schools don't allow children being about the time, patients and organization it takes to cater a program to their needs and abilities.


----------

