# Tell Me/MT About Instances Youve Personally Seen Of A Female Being Harmed By A Male



## Cyriacus (Jun 5, 2013)

Im gonna continue my trend of asking weird, mundane questions when i ask them in the form of making my own thread.

This is my pursuit of seeing if this is seriously just me.
This is a breakoff of the thread:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...he-public-perception-of-Martial-Artists/page3
Regarding posts 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, and possibly a few others before that.



Cyriacus said:


> Huh. Every time ive seen a woman get hit (three and counting!) people look, but no touchie. Guess they may be flukes.
> 
> Also, witnesses are in favor of the victim. Remember: The court has to prove youre guilty, more than you have to prove your innocence. Gender isnt a factor in that.





Cyriacus said:


> Yes, actually. In Melbourne. Incidentally, if we include domestic disputes and not just bars, ive seen at least a dozen women get hit. One time, someone yelled "Hey!", then kept walking. Other than that, folks dont get involved. Plenty of wide smiles and laughter can spontaneously occur though. One time an ambulance and the police ended up being needed, to give you an idea of the severity im talking about here. Ive also seen around three (maybe four, depending on your ethics) cases of a father hitting his kid, which in one instance was female.
> 
> Im sorry the world isnt as heroic as it is on television.
> 
> ...



Theres my replies, so that i dont have to repeat anything. Note that this is at least fifteen years worth. Its not like its a frequent thing that happens.

Now, this is subjective. Obviously a girl being mugged or raped is different to whats being discussed here. Id like to (but i doubt i or anyone else would be peeved if this branched off anyway) keep this limited to a male publically hitting, throwing, shoving (etc) a female.
So, tell me and MT stories. For me personally, id like to know if my experiences have somehow been limited to exceptions rather than rules so many consecutive times, and id also like to pursue stereotypes of violence against women a little bit.

Because...



nocturnal_ said:


> When a male tries to act violently towards a female inside a bar, you can bet your life savings that a few (or a bunch, if the bar is crowded) other males will try to interfere. Many desperate alcohol-fueled young men would be more than willing to be the heroes to save the 'damsel in distress', even if the 'damsel in distress' acts violently (towards another male that's not their friends) first.
> 
> A male physically attacking a female inside a bar, no matter what, will have serious problem with the law. Many witnesses will be in favor of the female.



I wouldnt bet the five bucks in my wallet on it.

Have fun. (I couldnt think of a better way to end the post. I did try though.)

*My spellcheck (which just spelled spellcheck as speelcheck) has been playing up today. Apologies in advance. Its what i get for trying to tweak it.


----------



## DennisBreene (Jun 5, 2013)

I honestly can't recall more that one episode of  a male assaulting a woman. In this case the man was beating on the woman's car window. (She and presumably her children where inside). It was in a strip mall parking lot that was practically deserted. I drove up, told him I was calling the police, which I did, and then waited around in my car until police arrived.  The couple in question had already left. Strangely in the same car.  I guess their dispute was less threatening than the thought of police involvement. I don't know what happened after the police took over. Not very dramatic, but I lead a quiet life.


----------



## Zero (Jun 5, 2013)

In my many years of mispent time frequenting bars and dens of inequity I have never seen good ol Nocturnal's scenario where: "Guy X sees Guy Q slap Girl P who is going out with Guy Q but smashed a bottle over his head (or his mate's (Guy L) head) or got lippy and Guy X driven by his sudden found fancy for drunken beligerent and generally obnoxious Girl P (with beer stains down her shirt), steps in to display his prowess to Girl P or perhaps actually to impress Girl K sitting across the bar who he has a secret crush on (but she is actually going out with Girl Z!)". 

From my v limited experience of witnessing drunken tussles between a guy and a broad, most don't want to step in on a couple fighting, unless it is getting really serious and that has nothing to do with showboating at all, it is simply to stop the woman getting killed/beaten.  The above scenario from Notcurnal does not sit quite right with my own experience and take on young guys in bars out to impress or otherwise.  But maybe the Melbourne Nocturnal lives in has changed markedly from last time I was there taking in the musicals...


----------



## lklawson (Jun 5, 2013)

Zero said:


> In my many years of mispent time frequenting bars and dens of inequity I have never seen good ol Nocturnal's scenario where: "Guy X sees Guy Q slap Girl P who is going out with Guy Q but smashed a bottle over his head (or his mate's (Guy L) head) or got lippy and Guy X driven by his sudden found fancy for drunken beligerent and generally obnoxious Girl P (with beer stains down her shirt), steps in to display his prowess to Girl P or perhaps actually to impress Girl K sitting across the bar who he has a secret crush on (but she is actually going out with Girl Z!)".
> 
> From my v limited experience of witnessing drunken tussles between a guy and a broad, most don't want to step in on a couple fighting, unless it is getting really serious and that has nothing to do with showboating at all, it is simply to stop the woman getting killed/beaten.  The above scenario from Notcurnal does not sit quite right with my own experience and take on young guys in bars out to impress or otherwise.  But maybe the Melbourne Nocturnal lives in has changed markedly from last time I was there taking in the musicals...


Pretty much the same experience.  No one wants to get involved.  At bars they expect the bouncers to break it up.  Out in public, they look around and wonder if anyone else will "do something."  Often called "Dilution of Responsibility" or "Diffusion of Responsibility."

Most of the time, they're not strangers at all.  It's usually some sort of Domestic incident.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Carol (Jun 5, 2013)

Or the bouncers in Melbourne are the one smacking women around.

http://www.reddit.com/r/JusticePorn/comments/1d29ek/bouncer_at_a_night_club_in_melbourne_punches_a/


----------



## K-man (Jun 5, 2013)

As far as I recall I have never seen a female being _assaulted_ by a male. Possibly the closest was a woman about twenty being detained for shoplifting who while being physically held awaiting the arrival of police, lashed out with her feet and promptly sat on the floor following a neat foot sweep. :asian:


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 5, 2013)

Do my own experiences count?


----------



## K-man (Jun 5, 2013)

shesulsa said:


> Do my own experiences count?


Yep! Go for it.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 5, 2013)

shesulsa said:


> Do my own experiences count?



Sure, why not. Cant hurt.


----------



## chinto (Jun 7, 2013)

I was there when a threat of attack to my best friend, a LADY, happened. lucky for the wannabe attacker her car door was locked and she got it started and moving. I was with in about 6 ft when she drove away.  I doubt the attacker, a male would have survived my arrival had that door come open!  some things are Deadly Serious, others not.  I have to say that I would judge any such situation on its own merits as to who was involved and things. but they do happen.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Jun 8, 2013)

In my experience it's usually relatively harmless men who have had too much to drink and cannot be convinced that their overpowering sex appeal is only perceptible to them.

Because I live in a small town, the bartenders at my favorite bar are relatively well known to me, I know them by name, etc. Being all relatively pretty young girls, they occasionally get a gentleman like I mentioned above who has lost sight of the fact that he's being a knob and needs to be escorted out. Four or five guys will just about always help with that.


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 8, 2013)

Zero said:


> From my v limited experience of witnessing drunken tussles between a guy and a broad, most don't want to step in on a couple fighting, unless it is getting really serious and that has nothing to do with showboating at all, it is simply to stop the woman getting killed/beaten.  The above scenario from Notcurnal does not sit quite right with my own experience and take on young guys in bars out to impress or otherwise.  But maybe the Melbourne Nocturnal lives in has changed markedly from last time I was there taking in the musicals...



I don't live in Melbourne. I live in Sydney.

When it's a couple having an argument, sure nobody will get involved. What I wrote was: a male *physically attacks* a female. People will interfere and this does not necessarily end up in a fight, but the act of interfering (could be just yelling, anything to prevent him to do more damage) is there. And I did write "interfere" in my post. 

By the way, here's an example of people interfering:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-an...e-king-hit-me-in-the-face-20130606-2nsfe.html


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 8, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> I don't live in Melbourne. I live in Sydney.
> 
> When it's a couple having an argument, sure nobody will get involved. What I wrote was: a male *physically attacks* a female. People will interfere and this does not necessarily end up in a fight, but the act of interfering (could be just yelling, anything to prevent him to do more damage) is there. And I did write "interfere" in my post.
> 
> ...



People interfering always makes news. 
But so far, its looking like the exception and not the rule. Which reflects my experience just fine. Im still waiting to see stacked experience to the contrary, because im perfectly willing to change my standpoint if that happens.

So far, that hasnt happened.


----------



## WingChunIan (Jun 10, 2013)

I've seen women hit by men numerous times while I was working doors. Outside of that environment I've seen three personal assaults, the first was whilst I was at university. I was walking across a carpark in the red light district of Manchester (I lived nearby and the area lay between by digs and the town centre) and saw a woman wrestling with a man, the man hit the woman with a punch to back of the head and went to hit her again. I was young and dumb so ran over and chinned the guy. As he hit the floor the woman hit me in the side of the head and kept trying to hit me until I moved back far enough for her to stop, she spat at me and gave me a right mouthful of abuse and her noise caused a police car to pull over at which point the guy grabbed her and dragged her away. The police officer gave me a knowing look and told me to find a different route home. The second occasion was when I saw a guy first slap what I assume was his wife or girlfriend and then punch her full in the face knocking her to the ground. I was on the other side of busy dual carriage way and couldn't physically cross the road to intervene. The third time as I walked through Birmingham city centre a man punched his female companion just across the street. My wife was outraged but dragged me away to prevent me from getting involved as the woman was on her feet and appeared to be okay. Those incidents aside I've seen women get smacked plenty of times during my younger days when it used to kick off at the footie, the woman in question would normally either be gobbing off or attempting to protect a male companion who was getting a beating. Hitting women is far more common than the above posts would make it appear especially in certain social demographics.


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 10, 2013)

Perhaps things are different in Texas. I have personally seen three instances of a man striking a woman, and the outcome was the same in all three instances. One was on the train, and a fellow and his wife were arguing (I could hear the argument, but not what was being said). Next thing I saw, was the wife falling to the ground (she had a cut lip) and the fellow was under a couple of guys that were busily beating him for it. One was in a bar. A couple is standing next to the dance floor (I don't know if they were together or not). Guy slaps woman who falls over a chair. Guy at the table that the woman fell onto helped her up, asked if she was OK, then proceeded to beat the fellow that hit her. Bouncers came and broke it up but, when they found out what happened, threw the one guy out and left the other to rejoin his table, even though he started the fight by jumping on the guy that hit the woman. The third instance was at a party at a friend's house. A guy that I didn't know was arguing with his girlfriend in the kitchen. He slapped her hard enough to knock her down. Another friend of mine that I was talking with at the time saw this with me, took three steps forward, grabbed the guy, and stuck his head through the wall. His girlfriend refused to help him, so someone else took him to the hospital to have him checked out (he wasn't very coherent at that point). My friend apologized for breaking the wall, and patched it up the next day.


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 11, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> People interfering always makes news.
> But so far, its looking like the exception and not the rule. Which reflects my experience just fine. Im still waiting to see stacked experience to the contrary, because im perfectly willing to change my standpoint if that happens.



It depends the type of bars you've seen the incident. If it's a bar is frequented by people in their 20s (where most go to the bars to pick up), it's almost guaranteed that people will interfere. If it's a bar that's frequented by older people (30s, 40s and older), maybe the third parties aren't too eager to interfere. 



pgsmith said:


> Perhaps things are different in Texas. I have personally seen three instances of a man striking a woman, and the outcome was the same in all three instances. One was on the train, and a fellow and his wife were arguing (I could hear the argument, but not what was being said). Next thing I saw, was the wife falling to the ground (she had a cut lip) and the fellow was under a couple of guys that were busily beating him for it. One was in a bar. A couple is standing next to the dance floor (I don't know if they were together or not). Guy slaps woman who falls over a chair. Guy at the table that the woman fell onto helped her up, asked if she was OK, then proceeded to beat the fellow that hit her. Bouncers came and broke it up but, when they found out what happened, threw the one guy out and left the other to rejoin his table, even though he started the fight by jumping on the guy that hit the woman. The third instance was at a party at a friend's house. A guy that I didn't know was arguing with his girlfriend in the kitchen. He slapped her hard enough to knock her down. Another friend of mine that I was talking with at the time saw this with me, took three steps forward, grabbed the guy, and stuck his head through the wall. His girlfriend refused to help him, so someone else took him to the hospital to have him checked out (he wasn't very coherent at that point). My friend apologized for breaking the wall, and patched it up the next day.



My experience in Sydney is pretty much the same as pgsmith's experiences in Texas. The only difference is: in Sydney, people only interfere (that may or may not end up in fights) when it's in a place frequented by young male in their 20s (bars, clubs, parties). People don't interfere in public transport or sidewalk or shopping malls, as those are not pick-up places. 

I'm actually surprised that Cyriacus, lklawson, and Zero don't experience the same thing, but it could be because they attend bars where most of the patrons are in their 30s, 40s or older.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 11, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> It depends the type of bars you've seen the incident. If it's a bar is frequented by people in their 20s (where most go to the bars to pick up), it's almost guaranteed that people will interfere. If it's a bar that's frequented by older people (30s, 40s and older), maybe the third parties aren't too eager to interfere.



I love how youre assuming that the bars ive seen this stuff happen in have been older folks.
Mate, im not even thirty myself. I dont hang out with those kinds of people. This isnt going to be brushed off by age groups, i hang out with other young men in places young men go. These things happened in bars full of young men. I dont know how to make this any clearer.




> My experience in Sydney is pretty much the same as pgsmith's experiences in Texas. The only difference is: in Sydney, people only interfere (that may or may not end up in fights) when it's in a place frequented by young male in their 20s (bars, clubs, parties). People don't interfere in public transport or sidewalk or shopping malls, as those are not pick-up places.
> 
> I'm actually surprised that Cyriacus, lklawson, and Zero don't experience the same thing, but it could be because they attend bars where most of the patrons are in their 30s, 40s or older.



Im suprised that so far you and one other person here are the only people who regularly see any interference.

Now, lemme be clear. Im not trying to invalidate you. I dont think youre lieing. But youre making out that people interfering IS WHAT HAPPENS. When it clearly ISNT. Its a thing that happens sometimes, in some places more than others. I can already hear you autopiloting to repeating yourself about age groups, to which i urge you to re-read the first part of this reply. 

If you can get over the fact that your experience is not 'the rule', we can agree. Stuff will be different from place to place with different types of people (irrelevant of age). Whether or not someone knows the other person (chinto wanting to help a friend, i.e. someone he personally knew) will play a part. But to just make the sweeping statement that young men WILL intervene is trash. Also notice how ive at no point declared that they wont, because this isnt about proving myself right.


----------



## Zero (Jun 11, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> I'm actually surprised that Cyriacus, lklawson, and Zero don't experience the same thing, but it could be because they attend bars where most of the patrons are in their 30s, 40s or older.


 Ouch, thanks, I only go to the 40+ clubs when I'm trying to revive my toy-boy image.
Seriously though, I hang mainly in clubs and bars I guess demographically are 20 - 35/40, quite a range. But even when I was a clubhead back in the day in much younger crowds (late teens/20s my experience did not match up with yours or pgsmith. So I don't know whether it is a geographical thing - which would be odd and is hard to rationalise, as why would Sydney and Texas be specifically the same for this type of behaviour and at the same time opposed to where Cyriacus, Iklawson and myself are and have previously lived?

I am inclined to agree with Cyriacus that what you have witnessed is legit but not the norm - but then I guess it is only the perspective of three against two so stats wise nothing can come from that...


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 11, 2013)

Zero said:


> So I don't know whether it is a geographical thing - which would be odd and is hard to rationalise, as why would Sydney and Texas be specifically the same for this type of behaviour and at the same time opposed to where Cyriacus, Iklawson and myself are and have previously lived?
> 
> I am inclined to agree with Cyriacus that what you have witnessed is legit but not the norm - but then I guess it is only the perspective of three against two so stats wise nothing can come from that...



To the first paragraph, it is a stretch. The only reason i suggested it was to try to offer a neutral ground, even if it is a bit unusual. 
I can theorize that since Sydney does have some pretty rough nightlife after the bars close, it might just be an 'oh look, people making a scene. lets go hit stuff' situation, but thats delving into baseless speculation.

To the second, stats is exactly why i made this thread. Its going pretty well so far.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 11, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> I love how youre assuming that the bars ive seen this stuff happen in have been older folks.
> Mate, im not even thirty myself. I dont hang out with those kinds of people. This isnt going to be brushed off by age groups, i hang out with other young men in places young men go. These things happened in bars full of young men. I dont know how to make this any clearer.


It's been my consistent experience that people who are 40 now were once 30 and that people who are 30 now were, likewise, once 20.  This used to be the only way but perhaps advances in technology have changed things.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Zero (Jun 11, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> To the first paragraph, it is a stretch. The only reason i suggested it was to try to offer a neutral ground, even if it is a bit unusual.
> I can theorize that since Sydney does have some pretty rough nightlife after the bars close, it might just be an 'oh look, people making a scene. lets go hit stuff' situation, but thats delving into baseless speculation.
> 
> To the second, stats is exactly why i made this thread. Its going pretty well so far.



Oh so not even artsy Melbourne but "rough" Sydney is where this is all going on, I get it now. Should not Nocturnal's scenario then read: "Guy X sees Guy Q hit his boyfriend Guy Z and then Guy X..."


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 11, 2013)

lklawson said:


> It's been my consistent experience that people  who are 40 now were once 30 and that people who are 30 now were,  likewise, once 20.  This used to be the only way but perhaps advances in  technology have changed things.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Not sure what youre getting at, but yes 
Incidentally, from what ive seen older guys tend to be the ones out in the early hours of the morning daring people to make eye contact from a distance. But thats off topic...



Zero said:


> Oh so not even artsy Melbourne but "rough" Sydney is where this is all going on, I get it now. Should not Nocturnal's scenario then read: "Guy X sees Guy Q hit his boyfriend Guy Z and then Guy X..."



Yes. Sure, why not :drink2tha


----------



## lklawson (Jun 11, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Not sure what youre getting at, but yes


I was just amused by his implication that old guys don't have the same experience because they're old; as if old guys were born old and had never been young guys strutting around trying to impress the chicks. 

No one gets to be old without being young first, and, by then, they've got a lot more years of life full of "stuff happened" in their heads.



> Incidentally, from what ive seen older guys tend to be the ones out in the early hours of the morning daring people to make eye contact from a distance. But thats off topic...


Say that to my face, I dare you.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 11, 2013)

> My experience in Sydney is pretty much the same as pgsmith's experiences in Texas. The only difference is: in Sydney, people only interfere (that may or may not end up in fights) when it's in a place frequented by young male in their 20s (bars, clubs, parties). People don't interfere in public transport or sidewalk or shopping malls, as those are not pick-up places.


That's interesting. In Texas, we are taught from a young age that women are not to be hit.  That's the way my kids were taught also. I don't know so much how things are taught now since there's been a large influx of northerners over the last 10 years or so, but most Texans that I know won't hesitate to get involved, and it has nothing to do with picking up women.



> I was just amused by his implication that old guys don't have the same experience because they're old; as if old guys were born old and had never been young guys strutting around trying to impress the chicks.


  Hey! You say that as if us old guys no longer strut around trying to impress the ladies!


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 11, 2013)

lklawson said:


> I was just amused by his implication that old guys don't have the same experience because they're old; as if old guys were born old and had never been young guys strutting around trying to impress the chicks.
> 
> No one gets to be old without being young first, and, by then, they've  got a lot more years of life full of "stuff happened" in their heads.



Gotcha!



> Say that to my face, I dare you.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



*hides*


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 11, 2013)

> Tell Me/MT About Instances Youve Personally Seen Of A Female Being Harmed By A Male


 
On the NYS Thruway about 18 years ago, a car goes past me at about 90mph and then about a half-mile ahead of me abruptly pulls into the emergency lane. Female jumps out of the passenger side a male jumps out of the drivers side and goes over the hood, grabs her by the hair and starts bouncing her head off the guard rail. I see a State trooper about a ¼ mile past them I go and pull over to let him know and he has already seen it and is off with lights and sirens and gets to the car. 

I have no idea what happened after that


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 12, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Now, lemme be clear. Im not trying to invalidate you. I dont think youre lieing. But youre making out that people interfering IS WHAT HAPPENS. When it clearly ISNT. Its a thing that happens sometimes, in some places more than others. I can already hear you autopiloting to repeating yourself about age groups, to which i urge you to re-read the first part of this reply.
> 
> If you can get over the fact that your experience is not 'the rule', we can agree. Stuff will be different from place to place with different types of people (irrelevant of age). Whether or not someone knows the other person (chinto wanting to help a friend, i.e. someone he personally knew) will play a part. But to just make the sweeping statement that young men WILL intervene is trash. Also notice how ive at no point declared that they wont, because this isnt about proving myself right.



My experience is not the rule, but certainly not the exception either. I do agree stuff will be different from place to place. In most bars that I've frequented, the chances of third party interference when a man physically attacks a woman is very high. 



Zero said:


> Seriously though, I hang mainly in clubs and bars I guess demographically are 20 - 35/40, quite a range. But even when I was a clubhead back in the day in much younger crowds (late teens/20s my experience did not match up with yours or pgsmith. So I don't know whether it is a geographical thing - which would be odd and is hard to rationalise, as why would Sydney and Texas be specifically the same for this type of behaviour and at the same time opposed to where Cyriacus, Iklawson and myself are and have previously lived?
> 
> I am inclined to agree with Cyriacus that what you have witnessed is legit but not the norm - but then I guess it is only the perspective of three against two so stats wise nothing can come from that...



In Sydney, most (not all) bars unofficially cater for or attract certain demographics. Very rarely you come to a bar where the proportion of the early 20s and the 40s are about the same. Most bars/pubs/hotels cater or attract certain age groups or type of people, rather than being a bar where all age groups or type of people hang out  together. I think this is the norm for most big cities. While in smaller towns, there are limited number of bars so most people from different age group and background congregate at the same bars.

In Sydney bars frequented by late teens and early 20s, there's a strong "trying (sometimes too hard) to impress" culture. I have two friends who work as bouncers at Sydney bars (different bars). They experience many incidents on most weekends. Many intoxicated young men sometimes looking for excuses to start trouble. Things don't always end up in physical fights, but very rarely these friends of mine experience a peaceful weekend at work.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 12, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> *My experience is not the rule, but certainly not the exception either. I do agree stuff will be different from place to place.*



Oh really?



nocturnal_ said:


> If it's a bar is frequented by people in their 20s (where most go to the bars to pick up), _*it's almost guaranteed that people will interfere.*_





nocturnal_ said:


> What I wrote was: a male physically attacks a female.*People will interfere and this does not necessarily end up in a fight*,  but the act of interfering (could be just yelling, anything to prevent  him to do more damage) is there. And I did write "interfere" in my post.





nocturnal_ said:


> When a male tries to act violently towards a female inside a bar, _*you  can bet your life savings that a few (or a bunch, if the bar is crowded)  other males will try to interfere.*_



You dont seem to feel that way at all, mate.


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 12, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Oh really? You dont seem to feel that way at all, mate.



Next time you're in Sydney, we can go to 5 different bars and put in $200 wager each time. You can try physically attack a woman in each bar, and if nobody interferes, you can take my $200. But if somebody other than myself interferes, I'll take your $200. We do this 5 times in 5 different bars. You can potentially win/lose $1000. How does that sound?


----------



## Zero (Jun 12, 2013)

So even if poor ol' Cyriacus "wins" and gets your grand, most likely he still gets locked up for a couple years and goes through the shower room ringer for being a woman hating maniac? Not sure I'd fancy those odds.


----------



## Zero (Jun 12, 2013)

I like IkLawson's comment that more often than not, guys who are now 50 were once. 40/30/20. I don't think that when it comes to bars, guys, girls and boozing, things will have really changed that much over the short term (if even ever - human's don't seem to be all too quick at evolving when it comes to emotional behaviour)


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 12, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Next time you're in Sydney, we can go to 5 different bars and put in $200 wager each time. You can try physically attack a woman in each bar, and if nobody interferes, you can take my $200. But if somebody other than myself interferes, I'll take your $200. We do this 5 times in 5 different bars. You can potentially win/lose $1000. How does that sound?



Sadly, i dont have that much money. Im but a lowly TAFE student 
Id say its a pretty safe gamble, though. Just take them out quickly and wait to be asked to leave. Easy as pie.

PS: I love how youve resorted to asking me to make a bet which is not only illegal, but which youre probably thinking of as a trump card because you know its never gonna happen. You know how much id have to blow on air fares?



Zero said:


> So even if poor ol' Cyriacus "wins" and gets your  grand, most likely he still gets locked up for a couple years and goes  through the shower room ringer for being a woman hating maniac? Not sure  I'd fancy those odds.



And yeah, all my winnings would get dumped on court costs. I save money by not participating.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 12, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Next time you're in Sydney, we can go to 5 different bars and put in $200 wager each time. You can try physically attack a woman in each bar, and if nobody interferes, you can take my $200. But if somebody other than myself interferes, I'll take your $200. We do this 5 times in 5 different bars. You can potentially win/lose $1000. How does that sound?



Like a crime.  And a bad idea.  Maybe even a violation of the Rules.  So I rather presume that you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole.


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 14, 2013)

lklawson said:


> It's been my consistent experience that people who are 40 now were once 30 and that people who are 30 now were, likewise, once 20. This used to be the only way but perhaps advances in technology have changed things.



Being a 20 year old in the 1970s is different to being a 20 year old in the 1980s.
Being a 20 year old in the 1980s is different to being a 20 year old in the 1990s.
And so on.

Living in a town populated less by 50,000 people is different to living in a city populated by 5,000,000 people. 



Cyriacus said:


> Id say its a pretty safe gamble, though. Just take them out quickly and wait to be asked to leave. Easy as pie.



Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.  Talk is cheap. 



Cyriacus said:


> I love how youve resorted to asking me to make a bet which is not only illegal, but which youre probably thinking of as a trump card because you know its never gonna happen. You know how much id have to blow on air fares?



I suggested an amount that's probably can be afforded by both of us. If I was bluffing, I would've suggested a crazy amount. I don't know where exactly you live, but airfares aren't too expensive these days. 



Zero said:


> So even if poor ol' Cyriacus "wins" and gets your grand, most likely he still gets locked up for a couple years and goes through the shower room ringer for being a woman hating maniac? Not sure I'd fancy those odds.





Cyriacus said:


> And yeah, all my winnings would get dumped on court costs. I save money by not participating.



You'll go to court only if there's interference, which proves my point. How would you go to court if there's no interferences?


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 14, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.  Talk is cheap.



It sure is! Think of all the money im saving, mate.



> I suggested an amount that's probably can be afforded by both of us. If I was bluffing, I would've suggested a crazy amount. I don't know where exactly you live, but airfares aren't too expensive these days.



Mate, even if i could afford it, which i cant, A: Its illegal, and B: I dont know you, and nor do i care to know you. If the level of maturity youre showing here is any indication, i aint flying to Sydney for a visit.



> You'll go to court only if there's interference, which proves my point. How would you go to court if there's no interferences?



Easy. For committing a crime known as 'assault' or 'attempted murder' in front of a building full of witnesses.
Interference isnt required. Im surprised you never thought of that.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 14, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Being a 20 year old in the 1970s is different to being a 20 year old in the 1980s.
> Being a 20 year old in the 1980s is different to being a 20 year old in the 1990s.
> And so on.


No, they're really not.  Humans don't really change.



> Living in a town populated less by 50,000 people is different to living in a city populated by 5,000,000 people.


And still populated by humans.



> Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.  Talk is cheap.


Yeah, I've noticed that about you.



> I suggested an amount that's probably can be afforded by both of us. If I was bluffing, I would've suggested a crazy amount. I don't know where exactly you live, but airfares aren't too expensive these days.


Then *YOU *spend *YOUR *money and fly out to *HIM *to prove your point.

But we all know that you won't.


----------



## Zero (Jun 14, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> You'll go to court only if there's interference, which proves my point. How would you go to court if there's no interferences?


 Hmmm, as Cyriacus notes, that comment really makes one wonder. I am not sure if you are so worldly experienced as you let on dropping comments like that. Which is fine in itself but you seem to be trying to come across as someone who knows their stuff or has a valid angle on this particular discussion and comments like that ain't helping too much.

You also, with your ongoing references to small towns or cities under the magic 5,000,000 population mark, seem to have assumed that those with opinions, views or experience oppossed to yours must be coming from small towns or localities vastly different in size to the likes of Sydney (which may or may not be the case).


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 14, 2013)

nocturnal said:
			
		

> Living in a town populated less by 50,000 people is different to living in a city populated by 5,000,000 people.


Of the three events that I described, two occured in the DFW metroplex area (population 7,000,000) and one occured in a small club that is closest to the town of Blue Ridge (population 857). 

Excuse me for saying it, but you don't really seem to have much in the way of facts to back up your hypotheses.


----------



## geezer (Jun 14, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Excuse me for saying it, but you don't really seem to have much in the way of facts to back up your hypotheses.



Well then, let me jump in with a few random observations that are similarly without any statistical backing. I'm not sure what role the size of the community would play here, except that it's a good deal _easier to remain anonymous in a large city_. So in a small town you are not so likely to get away with beating women without everybody knowing. 

Still that's no guarantee that people will do anything. When I was a teen a learned about a guy named "Dub" who lived near Hackberry, AZ, a dwindling "wide-spot-in-the-road" on old route 66 southeast of Kingman. Word was that he was real mean especially when drunk, and he beat his wife hard and often. One day somebody came across her week-old rotting corpse in Dub's back yard ...apparently beat to death, but the coroner wasn't sure. There was a brief investigation then the case was closed. Insufficient evidence to charge anybody I guess. And of course most everybody around there was related to Dub. Besides, like folks said, the woman "was just an Indian".  

Sometimes interference doesn't do much good anyway. One time my brother was playing pool at the Hackberry gas station and store when Dub drove up in his beat up pick-up, drunk, with his blue-tick hound still tied to the trailer hitch. He'd unknowingly dragged the poor animal nearly a mile up the gravel road. The guy that ran the store lit into Dub, telling him what a freakin' idiot he was to treat a dog like that. Dub was embarrassed and got so mad that he yelled that _it was his own damned dog and he could do with it whatever the hell he wanted_. Then he took off down Route 66 at about 70 miles an hour ...with the dog still dragging behind. Nobody was willing to go after him. As my brother put it, "What was I supposed to do going to do, chase down a armed and violent drunk who had already gotten away with murder, and all over a dog that was probably dead already?"

PG, stuff like this happens in _Texas_ too. Dub's family originally came from the Texas panhandle if I'm not mistaken. Or were they Okies? I'm not sure. Anyway my dad's family all comes from Texas. My mom is a Yankee. There is a difference in my experience. The Texans in my family would be more likely to physically jump in to stop something like an assault on a woman whereas my mom's family were the type to stand back and try to contact the authorities. Still, I'm not sure if it is just a matter of geography. My dad's father was not just a Texan, but a _rancher_. My mom's father, wasn't just a Yankee, but an Ivy-educated _lawyer_. Dang, when you look at it like that, no wonder they eventually got divorced!


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 14, 2013)

lklawson said:


> No, they're really not.  Humans don't really change.



Your grandfather's youth life is the same as your father's youth life and the same as your youth life?  In a small town like Huber Heights, Ohio, maybe. But in cities with population of over 1,000,000 not really. 



lklawson said:


> Then *YOU *spend *YOUR *money and fly out to *HIM *to prove your point.



Hahaha.... And then what? He's not making me a bet offer. If he made me an offer that I could potentially get money from, then bring it on. I was the one making an offer that he put his money where his mouth is (and he could potentially win money if he's proven right), and he refused. 



Cyriacus said:


> Mate, even if i could afford it, which i cant, A: Its illegal, and B: I  dont know you, and nor do i care to know you. If the level of maturity  youre showing here is any indication, i aint flying to Sydney for a  visit.



Translation: You worry that you'd lose the bet. 



Cyriacus said:


> Easy. For committing a crime known as 'assault' or 'attempted murder' in front of a building full of witnesses.
> Interference isnt required. Im surprised you never thought of that.





Zero said:


> Hmmm, as Cyriacus notes, that comment really makes  one wonder. I am not sure if you are so worldly experienced as you let  on dropping comments like that.



Interference is required to identify the suspect. In a bar full of witness that's unable to identify the suspect (that runs away after 3 minutes), the only way to identify the suspect is if there is interference from a third party. How could the police do anything to an unidentified suspect?



Zero said:


> You also, with your ongoing references to small towns or cities under  the magic 5,000,000 population mark, seem to have assumed that those  with opinions, views or experience oppossed to yours must be coming from  small towns or localities vastly different in size to the likes of  Sydney (which may or may not be the case).



lklawson lives in Huber Heights, Ohio (population less than 50,000), and from his previous response to me, he thinks life in the 1960s is the same as life in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc. From his posts, I actually wonder whether he ever has lived in big cities at all.

Cyriacus said that the airfare from where he currently lives to Sydney is expensive. I fly to Melbourne and Brisbane often, and the airfare can be as low as $150. If he lives somewhere that airfare to Sydney is expensive, that means he lives in a city with small population. Cyriacus also saying things about going to court without 3rd party interferences, which can only happen if the suspect can be identified. In a small town, it's quite easy to identify people. In a big city, it requires some interference to identify the suspect. 

Zero, I'm actually disappointed that you're unable to deduce these facts, especially since you've made clever posts in other threads before. And where do you live, by the way?



geezer said:


> I'm not sure what role the size of the community would play here, except that it's a good deal _easier to remain anonymous in a large city_. So in a small town you are not so likely to get away with beating women without everybody knowing.



This is common sense. I'm not sure why Cyriacus, Zero and lklawson don't understand this fact.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 14, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Hahaha.... And then what? He's not making me a bet offer. If he made me an offer that I could potentially get money from, then bring it on. I was the one making an offer that he put his money where his mouth is (and he could potentially win money if he's proven right), and he refused.



Yeah. Because its illegal, mate.



> Translation: You worry that you'd lose the bet.



I love how you think i have an ego to defend. I have nothing to prove to you.



> Interference is required to identify the suspect. In a bar full of witness that's unable to identify the suspect (that runs away after 3 minutes), the only way to identify the suspect is if there is interference from a third party. How could the police do anything to an unidentified suspect?



Wrong. All they need is a description. Its still assault or attempted murder, and alot of bars have CCTV running. The police can do plenty to find an unidentified suspect. Thats kinda what the police do.



> lklawson lives in Huber Heights, Ohio (population less than 50,000), and from his previous response to me, he thinks life in the 1960s is the same as life in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc. From his posts, I actually wonder whether he ever has lived in big cities at all.
> 
> Cyriacus said that the airfare from where he currently lives to Sydney is expensive. I fly to Melbourne and Brisbane often, and the airfare can be as low as $150. If he lives somewhere that airfare to Sydney is expensive, that means he lives in a city with small population. Cyriacus also saying things about going to court without 3rd party interferences, which can only happen if the suspect can be identified. In a small town, it's quite easy to identify people. In a big city, it requires some interference to identify the suspect.



Mate, i live in a city. I grew up in a major city. I was born in a major city. Only time ive ever been to small towns is on holidays. Ive gotta admit, i love that youve deluded yourself into thinking you know what kinda place i live in. Did it never occur to you that $150 is a considerable amount of money to me, and that im not gonna spend it on airfares because some guy on the internet wants to reinforce his ego?

EDIT: Go read the news, actually. This year alone theres been a few people killed in assorted ways who end up being caught by witness accounts and CCTV. With not a single person jumping in to help. Oh yeah, and theyre in major cities.



> Zero, I'm actually disappointed that you're unable to deduce these facts, especially since you've made clever posts in other threads before. And where do you live, by the way?



Facts according to your standards, apparently.



> This is common sense. I'm not sure why Cyriacus, Zero and lklawson don't understand this fact.



I do know that. Go back and read the part where i talk about witnesses. You know, all the people in these bars. Cameras. Bouncers in some cases.

By the way, id still like it if youd go back a page and actually reply to post #28 with something other than an attempt at posturing.


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 14, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Mate, i live in a city. I grew up in a major city. I was born in a major city. Only time ive ever been to small towns is on holidays. Ive gotta admit, i love that youve deluded yourself into thinking you know what kinda place i live in. Did it never occur to you that $150 is a considerable amount of money to me, and that im not gonna spend it on airfares because some guy on the internet wants to reinforce his ego?



There's potentially $1000 if your theory proven right. It's still a surplus for you if you are proven right. The only reason you refuse is because you worry that you may lose $1000 on top of the airfare. 



Cyriacus said:


> EDIT: Go read the news, actually. This year alone theres been a few people killed in assorted ways who end up being caught by witness accounts and CCTV. With not a single person jumping in to help. Oh yeah, and theyre in major cities.



Show me a URL link of this happening* inside a bar in a major city in Australia*. Remember, we're talking about incident inside a bar. 

On Post #12, I showed you a URL link of an assault happened in a bar in a major city in Australia, where *there was an interference*. 



Cyriacus said:


> By the way, id still like it if youd go back a page and actually reply to post #28 with something other than an attempt at posturing.



I offered you the chance to prove your theory right AND winning money (that's significantly more than the airfare) in the process, but you refused.


----------



## chinto (Jun 14, 2013)

I have to say, if the lady is a friend, I will step in, if she is unknown to me, perhaps not.  I will judge it on a case by case basis!  Women are cleared for combat jobs in the US Military, so to My way of thinking, if she has not shown me she is a LADY then I will provably not step in.  since I was 5 years old I have been told to treat the women like men.... so some of the privileges and things that went with being a LADY, now must be earned! ( and yes I have had women become angry when I told them this. my answer was and is, you wished to be "liberated" now you pay for that liberty. The Privileges that were traditionally GIVEN every woman, are now extended by me only to those who have shown themselves to be Ladies. {or close friends, as Male or Female, I will step in to protect friends } )


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 14, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> There's potentially $1000 if your theory proven right. It's still a surplus for you if you are proven right. The only reason you refuse is because you worry that you may lose $1000 on top of the airfare.



Youre mistaken. Im mostly concerned about the fact that you want me to do something illegal over ego.



> Show me a URL link of this happening* inside a bar in a major city in Australia*. Remember, we're talking about incident inside a bar.



*sigh*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-07/man-charged-with-murder-over-pub-stabbing/4614150
Took less than 10 seconds to google it.
Oh, and since you said 'major city', 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-31/accused-refused-bail-over-brisbane-pub-murder/1374086
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/murder-charge-over-pub-death-20090507-avih.html

EDIT: If we extend our definitions to the side streets around bars and such, i can add a few more to that list just off the top of my head. So far i havent gone past page 1 of a google search.

There ya go, mate.



> On Post #12, I showed you a URL link of an assault happened in a bar in a major city in Australia, where *there was an interference*.



Yes. Because that makes good headlines. People not helping doesnt.



> I offered you the chance to prove your theory right AND winning money (that's significantly more than the airfare) in the process, but you refused.



You did. You also asked me to risk years of my life over your ego.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 16, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Your grandfather's youth life is the same as your father's youth life and the same as your youth life?  In a small town like Huber Heights, Ohio, maybe. But in cities with population of over 1,000,000 not really.
> [snip]
> lklawson lives in Huber Heights, Ohio (population less than 50,000), and from his previous response to me, he thinks life in the 1960s is the same as life in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc. From his posts, I actually wonder whether he ever has lived in big cities at all.


Huber is a suburb of Dayton, you posser. Site of one of the U.S. Air Force's most important Bases. Yeah no bars, fighting tradition, militaria, or violence here.  [eye roll]

I teach WMA in Dayton.

I'm also amused that you seem to think that no one ever travels or moves from one city to another. In your world there are no 'burbs and no one travels more than 5 mile from where they were born. I lived in Flint, MI for 5 years and graduated HS on the north side of Dort. Look it up to find out why that might be significant.

Fick'n posser.


----------



## Zero (Jun 17, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Zero, I'm actually disappointed that you're unable to deduce these facts, especially since you've made clever posts in other threads before. And where do you live, by the way?


Nocturnal, life is full of disappointment.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 17, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> nocturnal_ said:
> 
> 
> > Next time you're in Sydney, we can go to 5  different bars and put in $200 wager each time. You can try physically  attack a woman in each bar, and if nobody interferes, you can take my  $200. But if somebody other than myself interferes, I'll take your $200.  We do this 5 times in 5 different bars. You can potentially win/lose  $1000. How does that sound?
> ...


Here this will help you out nocturnal_.  It's 10 years old, but it *nails *it perfectly.  Pay *particular *attention to 3a, but also 2a :

The Challenge FAQ 4.0 - Suitable for Calorie-Reduced and Low-Sodium
Diets

"Sometimes he deserves a killin' and sometimes he doesn't deserve a
killin' so if you're going to kill someone, make sure he deserves a
killin' " - W. Hock Hochheim

Whaddya say, people?  Isn't it time we stopped giving our money to the
lawyers and started giving it to the undertakers?  Sure it is.  It was
good enough for our ancestors, and it should be good enough for us.
And it never did them any harm - why, they lived in a halcyon age
where teenagers were respectful and didn't dress oddly, and the sun
was always shining except on the way to school when, inexplicably,
three feet of snow fell overnight, and hills slanted against you both
there and back.  But I digress...

1) Getting Started - the Challenge
Of course, there are so many ways that this can happen.  Rarely does
it occur because of personal insults.  Typically it is a response to
someone refusing to see that the Sweet & Holy Light of the Universe
shines out your ***.

1a) Are You Talking to Me?  ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?
Characterized by belligerence, posturing and a thin skin.  The most
common form of challenging, often engendered by the incorrect belief
that everybody will agree with you and rally to your cause.  Things
escalate because nobody rallies to your side, and you look like an
idiot with your *** dangling in the wind.  Lots of smoke, but not much
fire.  Often, but not exclusively, the parvenu of someone who hasn't
been posting long.

1b) You Are So Full of ****, I Mistook You for a Porta-Potty at
Woodstock
Characterized by utter disbelief at another's assertions.  Utterly
common point of view, but usually stays at the flame war level.

1c) But Sokitumi Sensei Told Me Our Style Can Defeat any Outrageous
Number of Armed Attackers
People resent having their illusions shattered, or even questioned -
more so when that belief has been propped up by an old man with a
thick accent.  It probably tugs at some psychological level untapped
since childhood, when Santa's sleigh disappeared over the Atlantic,
the Sandman was arrested for throwing grit in children's eyes, and ice
cream cones weren't filled to the bottom.

2) Various Levels of Understanding the Niceties of Challenges
Okay, so most universities don't offer credit in Code Duello anymore
(even as an elective!  Why, it makes me furious I can tell you... but
I digress), and can therefore be excused for not having all the
details down.  We'll just hit the high points.

2a) If You Accept my Challenge, Can I Sleep on Your Couch?
All onuses are on the challenger to cover travel costs, find
accommodations, propose acceptable limitations, etc.  All the
challenged has to do is either accept or refuse the challenge,
although historically choice of weapons, time and location were
usually up to the challenged.  It is somewhat unsporting to deny a
challenge out of hand, but the challenged is not obligated to accept
the offer.

The Trav Clause: Trav may elect to pay for one of the challengers to
come to a venue of his choice and sleep with the fishes - er, on his
couch.  Don't say you weren't warned.

2b) Retreat, Regroup, Repeat
There are many things in your life done in the heat of the moment that
you will regret later.  Here's three: getting drunk in Las Vegas,
visiting a tattoo parlour while drunk in Las Vegas, or challenging
someone.  Offering a challenge, and then adding/changing conditions is
a common way of trying to back out while attempting to maintain some
dignity.  The problem is it doesn't work - your dignity was shot to
shreds a while ago and all this does is reinforce the widespread
belief that you are a poseur.  Popular variations include "my
technique is too deadly," "a true martial artist doesn't lower himself
to fighting," and "my mom won't let me."

Emin Boztepe & Royce Gracie is a good example.  (Although not RMA
participants, this non-event was precipitated by RMA discussion - way
to go, and better luck next time)

2c) Gentlemen, Take 10 Paces, Turn and Fire
Both sides up to it, understand how these things work, set it up.
About as common as a pair of brown shoes at a tux rental shop.
 (Carl and Gi, Mike and Chas)

3) What Constitutes a Challenge?
With the modern standards of incivility, it can be difficult to decide
whether somebody is actually trying to fight you, or merely
communicating using Standard God-Damn North-****ing-American English.

3a) Oh yeah?  You Talk Tough for Somebody on the Other Side of the
Atlantic!
A challenge does not consist of offering to fight somebody, telling
him or her to come visit, and boasting of victory when the opponent
does not immediately run out to catch the next flight into town.  This
is sort of like tapping somebody on the arm, and then running away
claiming that you used 'dim mak' and are therefore the victor.

3b) Come to the Clambake - If You Dare!
The word "challenge" does not necessarily need to appear in
discussions to make it a challenge.  Choose whichever euphemism you'd
like, call it an "invitation" if that makes you feel better -
certainly nobody else expects tea and cucumber sandwiches to be
served.  Hell, call it the Death-Jamboree if you need to, just don't
let semantics get in the way of a good fight.
(Chaplain-X "inviting" Chas)

3c) Whaddya Mean You Didn't Hear About My Challenge?
Grumbling to yourself in the car, writing a letter and losing it
behind the couch, or taking out a classified ad in the local paper do
not constitute issuing a challenge, and certainly don't give you
bragging rights.  C'mon now, you're trying to get somebody to fight
you and it does require *some* effort.

3d) Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain
Ah, the joys of newsgroups, where nobody knows you're a dog (well,
except for your habit of occasionally lapsing into "grrrowf! Rowf!" in
your messages).  Unfortunately, it is impossible to issue credible
challenges *and* remain an anonymous, gutless troll.  If you are going
to challenge, you will need to leave your bomb shelter or mom's
basement long enough to stand up and be identified.  Of course, if you
were able to do this, you wouldn't be a *real* troll in the first
place, so this section perhaps applies only to the several species of
lesser troll: the spotted troll, whooping troll, wide mouth troll,
prepubescent troll, etc..

When both parties have agreed to a particular date for the challenge,
Gichoke will grab anybody showing up at his door on that day and toss
them into his basement.  If only one person shows up, he wins by
default.  If a person self-identifies as one of the trolls in
question, he will be considered to be that troll.  If more than one
person claims to be a particular troll, a voir dire challenge match
will settle identity issues before the main event.

3e) Challenges are Personal Property - Just Like Toothbrushes
Occasionally someone will get a little steamed about another poster's
comments, and would dearly love to challenge him if it weren't for
troubling thoughts about spending a week in a hospital as a result.
The temptation is then to act as an instigator and have the object of
your disaffection fight someone else.

Sorry, but any challenge you make must involve yourself.
Gichoke & Wang Hai Jun and numerous hangers-on

3f) All Students Who Are Absent, Please Raise Your Hand
Okay, a challenge must involve more than one person, whether or not
they are trolls, post under pseudonyms or any other affectation of
Usegroups.  Imaginary people are not allowed to issue challenges.
Walt Hanlon and Gichoke

3g) And Sometimes It *Doesn't* Quack Like a Duck
The following will not be considered valid forms of challenge matches:
Musical deathmatch
Ping pong deathmatch
Poetry deathmatch

4) Challenges - the Denouement
There are few ways that challenges finish, and typically they are (as
Chas might say) like being pecked to death by ducks.  Slow, painful,
humiliating, and kinda annoying, frankly.

4a) Reality Bites
The combatants meet, fight.  Can anybody remember where this has
actually happened with RMA participants?  Anybody?  All I can hear is
the sound of crickets...  Hello?  Is this thing on?  I know, I know,
I'm asking somebody to admit to possibly committing a felony, but help
me out here.

4b) Tune in, Turn On, Weasel Out
Emin Boztepe & Royce Gracie
Tim & Gi
Fu/Ollie & Gi
Disappear, wait for the heat to die down, hope nobody remembers it
when you start posting again.  An alternate version is to try and exit
the mess by saying you will never, ever, ever post to RMA again, at
least until next week.  Common.

4c) Gee, You Looked Smaller on the Internet
Fight or flight, what a dilemma.  So he opens the door in response to
your knock and looks waaaay down at you.  You note that his smile is
composed entirely of steel teeth and that his eyebrow piercing is
actually a large fishhook.  Do the only sensible thing possible and
refrain from making a threatening move.  Although you have been told
that it is a myth that animals can smell fear, perhaps now is not the
time to find out.

Don Miller meeting Mike Sigman

4d) I Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us
Carl & Gi - everything going swimmingly, neither side being a baby,
logistical problems nix it.  Both sides agree that neither was being
duplicitous or evasive.  Rare but not unheard of.

Mike & Chas - Mike visits Chas, demonstrates (amicably) what the hell
he is talking about, Chas is man enough to say he was mistaken and
gives an in-depth account of Mike's internal skills on RMA.

5) Instructions to Spectators
There are two distinct phases here: before the challenge, and at the
challenge.

Before the challenge, when things are being openly debated in this
grand forum, input from spectators is necessary to remind the
participants that somebody cares.  As Oscar Wilde said, "the only
thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."  Show
them you care with a steady stream of comments - actual content is not
obligatory.  In fact, it could be a distraction to the fighters.
They're busy working themselves into a frenzy, and you're asking
logical, thoughtful questions.  Well, knock it off!

At the challenge is a different matter all together.  Seeing how
challenge fights are, well, illegal, perhaps you shouldn't make a
scene in case it is being videotaped.  Wear clothing you don't mind
burning when it is all over.  Do not hold up signs that say "John
3:14" and avoid bringing large foam-rubber hands inscribed with "Kick
Him in the Groin" or "Choke Him Unconscious".

Don't distract the participants.  They have enough on their minds
without a schmoe like you yelling, "your shoelace is undone."  Polite
golf-tournament clapping perhaps would be most appropriate.  For a
particularly spectacular technique or graphic injury a demure "My
Goodness!" or "Here, here!  Good show!" is the sign of a considerate
spectator.

6) Location, Location, Location
Where to have your challenge match is as important as who to
challenge, and what to challenge them about.  In fact, the location of
the intended match has managed to spike several RMA challenges before
they ever made it to the starting line (Tim & Gi, Carl & Gi, Emin &
Royce).

Therefore, in the interest of speeding these things along, the
official RMA challenge facility is declared to be Gichoke's basement.
He's promised to sweep up a bit before you get there, honest.
Alternate location is Trav's backyard.

A third alternative is the random urban setting, in case neither of
the previously listed venues is available.  A two square block area is
marked out on a map.  The challenger attacks from surprise, giving the
defender an affirmative defense with the authorities if he prevails.

7) Deathmatches
So many of us are realizing what the poets have known for a long time:
namely, chicks dig guys they think are "sensitive."  This, of course,
explains the popularity of Tai Chi. The other thing that the poets had
right is that a tragic death earns the memory of you a certain
immortality.  In recognition of that, the death match has a certain
appeal in the minds of some.

Really, the rules for a death match aren't all that different from
your regular challenge.  Okay, so you are trying to kill your opponent
- that's a pretty big difference - but otherwise the above information
applies.  As for etiquette, it is the hallmark of a courteous fighter
that before offering or accepting a fight to the death, you really
should let everybody know what your win/loss record is in death
matches.

The only other point is just a suggestion: be kind to the viewing
audience and agree to the use of weapons in your death match.  People
are busy these days and won't be able to devote the time necessary to
watch you and your opponent bludgeon each other to death with your
fists.  When choosing a weapon note that bigger is better, with one
exception - "serrations."  A fight to the death between two men armed
with grapefruit spoons will grant you a legacy that will last a
lunchtime.

If you can't think of anything, Jeff/Batman has suggested bowling
balls.  No, I don't understand either - must be a Texas thing.

And the thought occurs to me that any deathmatch that arises between
the pro-gun and anti-gun factions will be entertaining, definitive,
one-sided and mercifully brief.

8) The Dress Code
But what is considered the "must-have" outfit for Challenge Matches?
A matter of some debate, I admit.  Speedos! say some.  Street clothes!
say others.  Flowing sequined robes with a big Carmen Miranda fruit
hat! say a merciful few.  Perhaps the less said the better, other than
it should be appropriate to the challenge (no cheating and wearing a
suit of armour unless that was part of the thread that provoked the
challenge).  The only definite rule is for shrouds: white sheets only,
please, and do not steal Mom's best sheets.

9) Prizes, Prizes, Prizes
Amazingly, there's more awaiting the successful duellist other than
bragging rights and possible legal action.  Tell 'em what he's won,
Johnny!

You will receive a hand-made shillelagh from Kirk Lawson, cookies
lovingly baked by Karen Nagai, and the much-coveted Brilliant Martial
Sage Unrivalled Under Heaven certificate.  How could anyone resist
such wondrous encouragements?  Now get out there and Fight!  Fight!
Fight!

10) The RMA Code Duello

Now, as to the actual rules of the challenge.

i) All challenges shall involve only the two principal members of the
discussion that precipitated the challenge.  In the event that a
thread on surviving multiple attackers sparked the challenge, all will
convene in a small town bar, where the patrons will be encouraged to
provide complementary boxing lessons.

ii) All challengers will be accompanied by a second.  However, since
most of you people don't have any friends, scratch that.

iii) In the unlikely event that a challenge arises from a "How to
defend against a dog" thread, suitable dogs will be acquired from the
local pound, and outfitted with the usual lasers, knives and other
digressions that abound in such threads.

iv) The match will not be considered to be in progress until one or
both participants have lost an eye.  Until that point, the challenge
will be considered to be "all fun and games."

v) A winner will be automatically declared if one of the participants
is unconscious, incapacitated, dead (see section 6), is missing one or
more limbs, says 'Uncle', or is otherwise unable to continue.  At no
point may a fighter declare that the other fighter was correct in his
or her RMA assertions, as the opportunity for adult behaviour is long
since past (if it ever really existed in the first place).

vi) All challengers are to refrain from eating the corpse of their
opponent, unless the thread that provoked the challenge had to deal
with the martial capabilities of biting, or the winner is a silat
practitioner.  If the latter, bring a barbeque and peanut sauce.

vii) If a referee is to officiate at the match, the position must be
filled by a Catholic priest, Irish, preferably named Father
O'Flanagan.  This is doubly important if the challenge arose from the
ubiquitous "Christianity in the MA" thread.

viii) Nobody's mom is allowed in.

ix) Please note that the judicial system does not recognize Trial by
Combat anymore.  ...Frickin' lawyers gone and spoiled everything.

x) Challenges involving tai chi practitioners will take place at full
speed.

xi) All participants are to govern their actions with strict attention
to courtesy and decorum as...  Cough, cough...  Okay, I know I'm not
fooling anybody with this one.

xii) If the "Delayed Death Touch" is used, the impending time of death
must be announced in advance - much like calling your shot in pool.
Both participants must then sit in chairs until the appointed time.  A
death occurring within 10 minutes of the agreed-upon time will
constitute a victory.

xiii) In the event that somebody is challenged to enter a tournament
of a style different from their own, they will be governed by the
rules common to the tournaments they are used to.  Eskrimadors, leave
your knives at the door when you enter the TKD tournament.  TKDers,
just stay away from the Vale Tudo tournament.

xiv) Video and merchandising rights must be claimed by
non-participants only.  The only permissible forms of merchandise
include: t-shirts, posters, and commemorative drinking glasses.  Those
figurines with the big, bobbling heads are strictly forbidden.

xv)  Any challenger wishing his corpse shipped to his preferred place
of burial must provide sufficient funds for shipment by bus before the
challenge begins.

xvi) Any casualties not claimed by relatives 5 business days after the
challenge will be fed to the creatures that dwell in the dank pit in
Gi's basement.

xvii) Any bets must be paid up within 30 days of the RMA announcement
of the completion of the challenge.


11) The Official RMA Deathmatch Challenge Application Form
Okay folks, print it out, photocopy it a zillion times and send it out
to everyone you know.

Dear...
__ Sir
__ Ma'am
__ Troll
__ **** for Brains
__ Esteemed Colleague
__ Randomly Chosen Opponent

Due to your recent rec.martial-arts postings regarding...
__ knives
__ my mother
__ traditional arts
__ dogs (please indicate here __ if lasers are involved)
__ left/right wing politics
__ sport vs. street
__ grappling vs. striking
__ length vs. width
__ crotchless leather mini-hakamas

And in the tradition of fighting arts since the dawn of time, except
for certain masters trotted out by people insisting that martial arts
were never intended for anything but self-discipline, I demand you
meet me in Gichoke's dank basement for...
__ a challenge match
__ a deathmatch
__ hot man/man action

Please note that as I train in...
__ Ninjitsu
__ Greenoch
__ An art inferior to the two mentioned above
...My victory is assured.

Signed...
__ Sensei
__ Sifu
__ Master
__ Vogon Diplomatic Corp Commander
(insert last name)


In conclusion, in the hustle and bustle of everyday life it can often
slip our minds that threats of violence over the Internet do not
solely belong to creepy guys who drive white vans slowly and
erratically in school districts.  We *all* have a responsibility to be
as belligerent and fractious as possible to those around us.  Let us
not slough off our duties onto the poorly-socialized among us but
instead take comfort in knowing that violence is truly the world's
only universal language.

Badger Jones
http://members.rogers.com/badger
www.geocities.com/marxistdetective/taunting.htm
​
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


​​


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 17, 2013)

chinto said:


> I have to say, if the lady is a friend, I will step in, if she is unknown to me, perhaps not. I will judge it on a case by case basis! Women are cleared for combat jobs in the US Military, so to My way of thinking, if she has not shown me she is a LADY then I will provably not step in. since I was 5 years old I have been told to treat the women like men.... so some of the privileges and things that went with being a LADY, now must be earned! ( and yes I have had women become angry when I told them this. my answer was and is, you wished to be "liberated" now you pay for that liberty. The Privileges that were traditionally GIVEN every woman, are now extended by me only to those who have shown themselves to be Ladies. {or close friends, as Male or Female, I will step in to protect friends } )


  You are one of those people that misunderstood the women's liberation movement. To be fair, many women misunderstood it also.  The women's liberation movement never meant to insist that women were _the same as men_, it meant to insist that women were _equal_ to men. Their opinions and the work they did should not get tossed off as being inferior since it was done by a woman. Now I've met women that I wouldn't attempt to interfere with. I've met several that would have no problem holding their own in any combat situation. However, they are the exception, and I firmly believe in taking every individual as their own person, rather than lumping a bunch of people together.  Of course, that's just me and my upbringing. I'm sure others have different opinions. 

  Kirk,
  I can't believe you posted the WHOLE thing!


----------



## lklawson (Jun 17, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Kirk,
> I can't believe you posted the WHOLE thing!


It's too funny not to.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> *sigh*
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-07/man-charged-with-murder-over-pub-stabbing/4614150
> Took less than 10 seconds to google it.
> Oh, and since you said 'major city',
> ...



All those ones are male assaulting male. And one of them is in Newcastle, which is a small city. Aren't you talking about a female being assaulted by a male? 



lklawson said:


> Huber is a suburb of Dayton, you posser. Site of  one of the U.S. Air Force's most important Bases. Yeah no bars,  fighting tradition, militaria, or violence here.  [eye roll]
> 
> I teach WMA in Dayton.
> 
> I'm also amused that you seem to think that no one ever travels or moves  from one city to another. In your world there are no 'burbs and no one  travels more than 5 mile from where they were born. I lived in Flint, MI  for 5 years and graduated HS on the north side of Dort. Look it up to  find out why that might be significant.



I looked it up. The population in Dayton is less than 150,000. The population in Flint is less than 150,000. Hardly places someone would call a big city. 

You're the one that made a sweeping statement the first time. I've traveled to several different places, but my experience in, say NYC bars would be limited as a traveller's experience. I visited a few bars when I was there but I wouldn't make a sweeping statement based on my experience there because I was only there for less than a month. I can, however, make statements about bars in the city I've been living for quite some time, as a citizen's experience . Your previous comments made it sound like you've been to the cities I've lived and you assume (assumptions must be your speciality) that life in the cities you've lived and the cities that I've lived are the same.



lklawson said:


> Fick'n posser.



And you called me immature? I don't recall myself swearing or name calling at anyone here. Aren't you supposed to be the older and wiser one? Seems like you resorted to swearing and name calling after losing a debate to someone younger. 

By the way, I'm not sure what's the point of the Post #47. Not relevant to me. What I wrote and what someone else's wrote in the past are different, but you're the one that loves make assumptions that all human are the same, etc.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 18, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> all those ones are male assaulting male. And one of them is in newcastle, which is a small city. Aren't you talking about a female being assaulted by a male?



Hey, mate.
Go back and read.

I said:
"EDIT: Go read the news, actually. This year alone theres been a few  people killed in assorted ways who end up being caught by witness  accounts and CCTV. With not a single person jumping in to help. Oh yeah,  and theyre in major cities."

Thats in reference to people being caught by CCTV and/or witnesses with nobody helping them.

Then you replied,
"Show me a URL link of this happening* inside a bar in a major city in Australia*. Remember, we're talking about incident inside a bar. 

On Post #12, I showed you a URL link of an assault happened in a bar in a major city in Australia, where *there was an interference*."

So i did.

You really need to actually read what people say to you, bud.


----------



## Zero (Jun 18, 2013)

lklawson said:


> Here this will help you out nocturnal_.  It's 10 years old, but it *nails *it perfectly.  Pay *particular *attention to 3a, but also 2a :


I think you meant to include attention to 3(d) and the references to "prepubescent spotted trolls"; I think we found the answer there.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 18, 2013)

Zero said:


> I think you meant to include attention to 3(d) and the references to "prepubescent spotted trolls"; I think we found the answer there.


Well, let's be honest, most of it is pretty well applicable.  But we all have our favorites.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 18, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> I looked it up. The population in Dayton is less than 150,000. The population in Flint is less than 150,000. Hardly places someone would call a big city.


Your google-fu is weak.  You still insist that there are no such things as metro-areas or suburbs.  It's, frankly, silly.



> And you called me immature?


No.  I called you a "poser."  There's a difference.  And then I mocked your "I challenge you to come randomly assault someone" silliness.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 18, 2013)

lklawson said:


> And then I mocked your "I challenge you to come randomly assault someone" silliness.



Correction: He wants me to assault _multiple_ people. And he wants to pay me to do it. 

_"Next time you're in Sydney, we can go to 5 different bars and put in  $200 wager each time. You can try physically attack a woman in each bar,  and if nobody interferes, you can take my $200. But if somebody other  than myself interferes, I'll take your $200. We do this 5 times in 5  different bars. You can potentially win/lose $1000. How does that sound?"_


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 18, 2013)

lklawson said:


> Your google-fu is weak.  You still insist that  there are no such things as metro-areas or suburbs.  It's, frankly,  silly.



Still less than 3 million population. Just barely over 1 million. Small towns.



lklawson said:


> No.  I called you a "poser."  There's a difference.



You don't understand sarcasm. I was referring to you resorting to name calling after losing a debate, while I (the supposedly immature one) never call you names.



lklawson said:


> And then I mocked  your "I challenge you to come randomly assault someone"  silliness.



I asked him to prove his point. And he lives within $150 worth of airfare distance to my city. And the bet is significantly more than $1000, but he kept declining and making excuses after excuses. Too scared to be proven wrong and too scared to lose the bet.



Cyriacus said:


> Correction: He wants me to assault _multiple_ people. And he wants to pay me to do it.
> 
> _"Next time you're in Sydney, we can go to 5 different bars and put in  $200 wager each time. You can try physically attack a woman in each bar,  and if nobody interferes, you can take my $200. But if somebody other  than myself interferes, I'll take your $200. We do this 5 times in 5  different bars. You can potentially win/lose $1000. How does that sound?"_



I asked you to prove your point. Would only pay if you're proven right. And frankly I don't think you'd ever go to the second bar. The interference in the first bar would be enough to stop you coming to the second bar. Anyway if you're so sure of winning, why are you so scared to take the bet? Excuses after excuses. Yawn.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 18, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> I asked you to prove your point. Would only pay if you're proven right. And frankly I don't think you'd ever go to the second bar. The interference in the first bar would be enough to stop you coming to the second bar. Anyway if you're so sure of winning, why are you so scared to take the bet? Excuses after excuses. Yawn.



And there goes your ego again 
Mate, not only do i have nothing to prove to you, but im not going to go do something illegal just because you wont stop crying about it. Ive already explained, several times, why everything you just said is inherently flawed.

Take it on the chin.


----------



## chinto (Jun 19, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> You are one of those people that misunderstood the women's liberation movement. To be fair, many women misunderstood it also.  The women's liberation movement never meant to insist that women were _the same as men_, it meant to insist that women were _equal_ to men. Their opinions and the work they did should not get tossed off as being inferior since it was done by a woman. Now I've met women that I wouldn't attempt to interfere with. I've met several that would have no problem holding their own in any combat situation. However, they are the exception, and I firmly believe in taking every individual as their own person, rather than lumping a bunch of people together.  Of course, that's just me and my upbringing. I'm sure others have different opinions.
> 
> Kirk,
> I can't believe you posted the WHOLE thing!




My interpitation is  based of direct observation and experiencing all the BS involved.  I have gotten very tired of being told to treat women as I would a man.. except where it is adventages to be treated as a 'Lady'.  so my answer is very simple.  
1: you want to run with the big dogs, fine I will hold you to a mans expectations and performance.  In the Military that means that  there should be NO separate barracks, Showers, or Bathrooms. NO diference in the Basic Training Haircut, and NO difference at all in the PT TEST!!

In the Job place, you want to do that job that man has, fine, do it as well or better! and no quotas of women or men employed. you can NOT do the JOB as Well as a man they would keep, You GO DOWN THE ROAD..   that is equal Treatment.  I got no problem with that.  By the same token if you can do the job as well and are qualifed then you should be treated the same in hiring and the same about all OTHER BENEFITS, Just as you would be fore FIRING!.

you gained things you say. perhaps so, but you now must EARN the TITLE AND PRIVILEGES of A LADY!  if you have not earned them and you slap me I will Punch you just as I would a man in the same situation. you want help with something heavy, ask nicely and politely and perhaps if I am not needed some where else I will help, but if you have Earned that Title of LADY from me, I will Help with out asking and will put off what ever I may have been doing.  simple.  the old privileges have been EARNED and will be extended.

It was the DUTY of a man to Protect a Woman, and so it was "Women and Children First" if a ship was to be abandoned at sea.  NOW, Children First and the women can take their chances with the men.   If a woman was being bothered it was a Gentlemen's Duty to assist her, now  she is on her own.... he does not have that DUTY, he has the Choice to be involved or not as he judges the situation and chooses.  


Actually Women or Rather Ladies were valued much more Highly then Men! that is why it was WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!! very very very few women went down for instance on the Titanic. the life boats were full of women and children and had very very few men, mostly to either row or to con the life boats and were officers skilled in seamanship to preserve the women and children's lives!  the men were left on the vessel to go down with it. So It is a matter of judgement. 

I have never demanded a Lady do nothing, just felt that a few things were not for them, just as a few things are not for men... Combat on a battlefield is not for women I do not think... but they say they can.. fine then they better be able to go the full way, other wise men will die trying to keep them alive where they would more likely let a man deal with the situation himself. 
physiology has less upper body strength to women then men. Women often do well in some things that most men do not. 

Nothing is Free. sorry but that is the way it is.


----------



## chinto (Jun 19, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Next time you're in Sydney, we can go to 5 different bars and put in $200 wager each time. You can try physically attack a woman in each bar, and if nobody interferes, you can take my $200. But if somebody other than myself interferes, I'll take your $200. We do this 5 times in 5 different bars. You can potentially win/lose $1000. How does that sound?




I do not think you understand the legality's. Under the COMMON LAW and I am SURE Australian law, what you suggest here is and would be considered to be conspiracy to commit aggravated assault or even attempted murder if any serious injury happen! In the USA where I live that would be a serous set of offenses and as I understand the Commonwealths legal traditions as a NON ATTORNEY, it would if anything be even worse there!  SO, I would say that even the offer may be something you could get in legal trouble for.  I am going to assume you are about 14 or 15 by the nature of this kind of offer.

If you are of Legal age, I would suggest  consulting an Attorney ( Criminal practice )  about what kind of legal trouble you could be in if anything ever happened because of this.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 19, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Still less than 3 million population. Just barely over 1 million. Small towns.


So we can add "suburbs" and "metro-area" to the ever growing list of things you either don't understand or wish to misrepresent in order to support your thesis.  Got it.



> You don't understand sarcasm. I was referring to you resorting to name calling after losing a debate, while I (the supposedly immature one) never call you names.


I understand that you're acting like a poseur and that teenage girl-like distractions about "that's reeeal mature!" don't change how you've been acting and the weak arguments you've been making.  Until you do something that changes my opinion, I'm still going to conclude you're a poseur engaged in atavistic "monkey dance" male dominance rituals due most likely to youth and inexperience.

Change my opinion, please.  I'm begging you.



> I asked him to prove his point. And he lives within $150 worth of airfare distance to my city. And the bet is significantly more than $1000, but he kept declining and making excuses after excuses. Too scared to be proven wrong and too scared to lose the bet.


No.  You did what poseurs do.  I've seen it a thousand times on various martial arts forums starting waaaay back on usenet.  Because the person you're arguing with won't agree with whatever thesis you're pushing, you issue a challenge that you know will never be accepted because it is illegal, prohibitively expensive, requires resources or time from the challenged that he does not have available, or all of the above.  Essentially you just repackaged the Ashida Kim Challenge.  And now you want to claim victory.



> I asked you to prove your point. Would only pay if you're proven right. And frankly I don't think you'd ever go to the second bar. The interference in the first bar would be enough to stop you coming to the second bar. Anyway if you're so sure of winning, why are you so scared to take the bet? Excuses after excuses. Yawn.


I challenge you to fly to Dayton and randomly assault some young female in a bar.  In return, I offer to help broker your bail bond (or at least find a Bondsman) and to make statements to the arresting Officer.  C'mon, what have you got to lose?


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 19, 2013)

"but he kept declining and making excuses after excuses."

Missed that until Lawson quoted it.
Actually, i gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation, then explained it to you when you couldnt fathom it.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 19, 2013)

lklawson said:


> I challenge you to fly to Dayton and randomly assault some young female in a bar.  In return, I offer to help broker your bail bond (or at least find a Bondsman) and to make statements to the arresting Officer.  C'mon, what have you got to lose?



The argument he seems to think is taking place in this thread?

EDIT: Eh, double post. My bad.


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 19, 2013)

chinto said:


> My interpitation is based of direct observation and experiencing all the BS involved. I have gotten very tired of being told to treat women as I would a man.. except where it is adventages to be treated as a 'Lady'. so my answer is very simple.
> 1: you want to run with the big dogs, fine I will hold you to a mans expectations and performance. In the Military that means that there should be NO separate barracks, Showers, or Bathrooms. NO diference in the Basic Training Haircut, and NO difference at all in the PT TEST!!




Wow! Don't know where you live, but you've got a lot of unresolved anger that you should sort through for your own peace of mind there! No separate barracks or showers for women is assinine. Women have been in the military for longer than either of us has been alive, just get used to it already! 



chinto said:


> In the Job place, you want to do that job that man has, fine, do it as well or better! and no quotas of women or men employed. you can NOT do the JOB as Well as a man they would keep, You GO DOWN THE ROAD.. that is equal Treatment. I got no problem with that. By the same token if you can do the job as well and are qualifed then you should be treated the same in hiring and the same about all OTHER BENEFITS, Just as you would be fore FIRING!.



That's almost how it is today, now that we're gettting away from affirmative action and enforced quotas for minorities. Of course, the quotas had to be forced at the time because there were too many macho men that didn't want to have to compete equally with women or minorities.



chinto said:


> Actually Women or Rather Ladies were valued much more Highly then Men! that is why it was WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!! very very very few women went down for instance on the Titanic. the life boats were full of women and children and had very very few men, mostly to either row or to con the life boats and were officers skilled in seamanship to preserve the women and children's lives! the men were left on the vessel to go down with it. So It is a matter of judgement.



In 1912, women had to be first because they weren't allowed to make any decisions for themselves. They couldn't work, couldn't vote, and couldn't own property. You can wish for that state of affairs all you want, but I greatly prefer my wife to be my partner in life, not my servant.



chinto said:


> I have never demanded a Lady do nothing, just felt that a few things were not for them, just as a few things are not for men... Combat on a battlefield is not for women I do not think... but they say they can.. fine then they better be able to go the full way, other wise men will die trying to keep them alive where they would more likely let a man deal with the situation himself.
> physiology has less upper body strength to women then men. Women often do well in some things that most men do not.
> 
> Nothing is Free. sorry but that is the way it is.



I actually agree with you somewhat here in that women have decidedly less upper body strength than men. If women wish to join the infantry, be it Army or Marines, they need to be held to the same physical standards as men. If they can handle it physically, I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do the job. I don't see most of the soldiers I served with objecting either, but maybe your outfit was different? Also, a person almost never has to deal with a situation by themselves in combat. Situations are always dealt with as a unit.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 19, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Wow! Don't know where you live, but you've got a lot of unresolved anger that you should sort through for your own peace of mind there! No separate barracks or showers for women is assinine. Women have been in the military for longer than either of us has been alive, just get used to it already!


I don't see any "anger issues" here but just an insistence that if some group wants equal treatment then that group should have to give up special privileges.  That doesn't seem so odd to most folks.



> That's almost how it is today, now that we're gettting away from affirmative action and enforced quotas for minorities. Of course, the quotas had to be forced at the time because there were too many macho men that didn't want to have to compete equally with women or minorities.


I remember Affirmative Action.  It was never what it was billed as.  To call it a huge Cluster would be overly generous.  Further, if you look at the actual movements at the time, the "good ol' white boys" that you seem to think didn't want to support "equal pay for equal work" were among the leading proponents of the measures, mostly for political purposes.



> In 1912, women had to be first because they weren't allowed to make any decisions for themselves. They couldn't work, couldn't vote, and couldn't own property.


That's not true at all.  Women could, in fact, work outside the home.  It was quite common.  Heck, women got factory jobs all the time and were pretty freaking important in those factory jobs during the U.S. Civil War (at least on the Union side).  Women could, in fact, vote.  Just not in Federal Elections.  The Suffrage Movement started gaining voting rights for women in State Elections in the mid-1800's.  The earliest was, ims, actually before the Civil War (have to double check that, though).  Finally, women could, in fact own property pretty much everywhere.

Not sure where you got your Women's Rights info but it's not right.  Now, I'm not saying that life was all Peaches and Cream for Gender Equality, merely that it wasn't as bad as you seem to believe.



> You can wish for that state of affairs all you want, but I greatly prefer my wife to be my partner in life, not my servant.


I don't recall Chinto making that statement.



> I actually agree with you somewhat here in that women have decidedly less upper body strength than men. If women wish to join the infantry, be it Army or Marines, they need to be held to the same physical standards as men. If they can handle it physically, I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do the job. I don't see most of the soldiers I served with objecting either, but maybe your outfit was different?


Most rank and file agree with that sentiment.  However, the fact is that the U.S. military is clearing women for Combat roles but have still implemented different physical standards.  Men are held to a higher physical standard (strength and endurance) than women.  If the goal were really to be "fair" then that wouldn't be the case.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 20, 2013)

lklawson said:


> I don't see any "anger issues" here but just an insistence that if some group wants equal treatment then that group should have to give up special privileges. That doesn't seem so odd to most folks.



If you cannot see wanting men and women to share barracks and showers as odd, then you've either never been in the military or I'm just missing something in this discussion. I see it as totally irrational myself.



lklawson said:


> I remember Affirmative Action. It was never what it was billed as. To call it a huge Cluster would be overly generous. Further, if you look at the actual movements at the time, the "good ol' white boys" that you seem to think didn't want to support "equal pay for equal work" were among the leading proponents of the measures, mostly for political purposes.


I agree that it was a total CF. However, it did achieve it's purpose, albeit not necessarily the purpose that it's original political proponents desired. What it achieved was to integrate schools and workplaces so that it is no longer an unusual thing to see a multi-racial non-gender-specific workplace. Every place I've worked for has stated that they do not discriminate, and I see that as a truly positive outcome.



lklawson said:


> That's not true at all. Women could, in fact, work outside the home. It was quite common. Heck, women got factory jobs all the time and were pretty freaking important in those factory jobs during the U.S. Civil War (at least on the Union side). Women could, in fact, vote. Just not in Federal Elections. The Suffrage Movement started gaining voting rights for women in State Elections in the mid-1800's. The earliest was, ims, actually before the Civil War (have to double check that, though). Finally, women could, in fact own property pretty much everywhere.
> 
> Not sure where you got your Women's Rights info but it's not right. Now, I'm not saying that life was all Peaches and Cream for Gender Equality, merely that it wasn't as bad as you seem to believe.



I agree that I was exaggerating a bit when I made my statement about women in 1912, but I wasn't exaggerating by much. Only a bare handful of states allowed women to vote in 1912, and most of those were new western states. Likewise, not all of the states had yet passed women's property laws wherein property owned by women did not become their husband's property upon marriage. Before WWI, the number of jobs that women were _allowed_ to hold was fairly small. It wasn't until so many men left to fight the war that women were allowed to actually work at anything other than menial labor. That's the way I remember it from my reading, but I don't have time to hunt down references at the moment.

My point was that women were thought of differently back then in all ways, and it wasn't necessarily good. I do think that chinto's reaction to my original statement was a little extreme, and his repeated use of caps indicates some unresolved anger issues. No skin off my nose either way, I've thrown in my two cent's worth already.


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 20, 2013)

lklawson said:
			
		

> Most rank and file agree with that sentiment. However, the fact is that the U.S. military is clearing women for Combat roles but have still implemented different physical standards. Men are held to a higher physical standard (strength and endurance) than women. If the goal were really to be "fair" then that wouldn't be the case.


 
  Just wanted to pass on something that I ran across by the Associated Press that is relevant to our conversation ...



> Women may be able to start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later under plans set to be announced by the Pentagon that would slowly bring women into thousands of combat jobs, including those in elite special operations forces.
> 
> Details of the plans were obtained by The Associated Press. They call for requiring women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 20, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> If you cannot see wanting men and women to share barracks and showers as odd, then you've either never been in the military or I'm just missing something in this discussion. I see it as totally irrational myself.



This is pure opinion on my part, but gender equality cant come with caveats or exceptions if you want it. You give up privileges when you give up privilege. 
Equal opportunities can though, gender equality cannot.


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 21, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> This is pure opinion on my part, but gender equality cant come with caveats or exceptions if you want it. You give up privileges when you give up privilege.
> Equal opportunities can though, gender equality cannot.



  It seems to me that you are equating gender equality, which *is* equal opportunity, with gender _sameness_, which is an impossibility as men and women are not and can never be the same, no matter that some people wish them to be.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 21, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> It seems to me that you are equating gender equality, which *is* equal opportunity, with gender _sameness_, which is an impossibility as men and women are not and can never be the same, no matter that some people wish them to be.



Not exactly - Im just a bit biased by the fact that most of the feminists ive met are more like supremacists. Be glad i dont judge the whole thing by those people, and that im smart enough to see that thats not the point.


----------



## DavidMoreland (Jul 6, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Not exactly - Im just a bit biased by the fact that most of the feminists ive met are more like supremacists. Be glad i dont judge the whole thing by those people, and that im smart enough to see that thats not the point.


Its thread for "women harassed by men " or _ equating gender equality?I have never seen __ equating gender equality till now and we need to flow this kinda narrow mentality._


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 6, 2013)

DavidMoreland said:


> Its thread for "women harassed by men " or _ equating gender equality?I have never seen __ equating gender equality till now and we need to flow this kinda narrow mentality._



Mate, you may want to take note of the fact that i started this thread, so i sort of know what it was originally about.
However, ill give you the benfit of the doubt. On a discussion board, much like a real conversation, topics branch off into sub-topics. Thats just how these things go. Gender equality was mentioned, and a brief discussion ensued.


----------



## DavidMoreland (Jul 23, 2013)

Yes,I believe in gender equality gives respect to women in all the respect and this we have to start from our home then society to make gender level equal and also decreases the harassment made by men on women. For that we have to spread social awareness in the society with the help of education.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 23, 2013)

DavidMoreland said:


> Yes,I believe in gender equality gives respect to women in all the respect and this we have to start from our home then society to make gender level equal and also decreases the harassment made by men on women. For that we have to spread social awareness in the society with the help of education.



And as we do so, we have to ensure were promoting equality and not supremacy. Fine line, and one that people can and do exploit.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 2, 2013)

I saw a situation in a food court in a local mall.  Apparently, the couple was divorcing and met there on supposedly neutral ground to discuss something.  The guy blew up, called the woman a stupid ***** (and a lot worse), then stood up and kicked the legs of her chair so that she fell to the floor.  He was immediately swarmed by me and four other strangers and we sat on him till the cops arrived.


----------



## DavidMoreland (Aug 19, 2013)

Balrog said:


> I saw a situation in a food court in a local mall.  Apparently, the couple was divorcing and met there on supposedly neutral ground to discuss something.  The guy blew up, called the woman a stupid ***** (and a lot worse), then stood up and kicked the legs of her chair so that she fell to the floor.  He was immediately swarmed by me and four other strangers and we sat on him till the cops arrived.



Hey dude you have done a very great job congrats for taking the first step against women harassment and by giving the stupid guy to the cops. I salute to you and your friend's courage.


----------

