Women Self Defence!

[Urban Trekker]

Dear me, I wasn't 'trying to defend it', I was just pointing out you were wrong. I took what you said as you disagreeing not a criticism. You are somewhat combatative.

Semantics. Either way, you were initially sticking to that original statement, then suddenly said you didn't mean it as a fact. I told you, I'm letting that slide, but it looks like you don't want me to. Combative?

 

[Tez3]

Doesn't matter. That's how the current population understands it.

Yep, and it's also lack of attempt to refute anything I said.

So, that's it, you want an argument, that's why you're here not for friendly discussion but argument.

You jumped to a massive conclusion about jobo, presumably to provoke an argument.

Sorry but that's it for me, deliberate provocation and needling is hardly honest discussion, I did suspect before with other posts you've made but you've confirmed that you're for reasons of your own. I'm off, its bedtime anyway.

 

[Urban Trekker]

So, that's it, you want an argument, that's why you're here not for friendly discussion but argument.

You jumped to a massive conclusion about jobo, presumably to provoke an argument.

Sorry but that's it for me, deliberate provocation and needling is hardly honest discussion, I did suspect before with other posts you've made but you've confirmed that you're for reasons of your own. I'm off, its bedtime anyway.

Nope. Do you see what you said in that last sentence? If you didn't want to discuss a particular topic anymore, then all you had to do was say something like that. I wouldn't have taken a cheap shot at you, I promise.

The only reason I called you on a lack of a rebuttal is because your response appeared to be either dismissive or indicative of an attempt to just say any random thing to have the last word. Maybe I misinterpreted that, but that's how I took it.

 

[jobo]

I just thought of something I've done several times when I was young (19, 20 years old). I had a few lady friends and acquaintences who'd hit me up, and invite me over for a quickie. Some of them were single mothers.

I can't even count the number of times I walked into the front door, and the chick who invited me over popped in a VHS tape for her kids, as they watched me follow her into the bedroom, and then 20 minutes later they see me come out of the room and head for the front door.

That was over 20 years ago, and I would never have been doing this if I thought the same way back then as I do now.

The thing is this: I'm fairly certain that in none of these cases was I the first guy that these kids had seen doing this, nor was I the last.

Now I can look at it from the perspective that, regardless of a woman's marital or parental status, she has sexual needs to meet. And then I don't have to feel bad.

The other way to look at it: does this negatively affect the way they view their mother? Because that's something I think about when I look back on this.

With a two parent household; children seeing mother bringing in random strange men to have sex with isn't a thing. I mean, it could be in theory, but I doubt that's the case in practice much.

^^^This.

The Bible (and other religions' equivalents) and the laws of the governments that we fall under already tell people not to do these things. One threatens you with eternal damnation and the other threatens you with years in prison.

If sacred religious texts and laws telling people not to do certain things won't deter someone from doing them, then a random dude telling someone not to do them is wasting his breath.

the old testiment is quite big on rape, so not a good argument

 

[Urban Trekker]

the old testiment is quite big on rape, so not a good argument

the old testiment is quite big on rape, so not a good argument

There were other things listed besides rape. I know you always try to find that one little thing, but try not to do that this time.

 

[jobo]

There were other things listed besides rape. I know you always try to find that one little thing, but try not to do that this time.

well it's the big one isnt it, if the religion isnt down on rape, it seems unlikely that youl get eternal damination for anything less

 

[Urban Trekker]

well it's the big one isnt it, if the religion isnt down on rape, it seems unlikely that youl get eternal damination for anything less

The point is that your voice isn't going to stop anyone from doing anything when voices that carry far more weight than yours have already tried and failed.

 

[Tez3]

The point is that your voice isn't going to stop anyone from doing anything when voices that carry far more weight than yours have already tried and failed.

For a start parents could teach their sons to not rape, that when women say no they mean no, that 'boys will be boy' isn't an excuse for bad behaviour of any type, that 'locker room talk' isn't a way to respect others. As I pointed out and there's plenty of statistics including crime numbers that show 90% of assaults on women are committed by someone known to them.

 

[Tez3]

Nope. Do you see what you said in that last sentence? If you didn't want to discuss a particular topic anymore, then all you had to do was say something like that. I wouldn't have taken a cheap shot at you, I promise.

The only reason I called you on a lack of a rebuttal is because your response appeared to be either dismissive or indicative of an attempt to just say any random thing to have the last word. Maybe I misinterpreted that, but that's how I took it.

My dear, I get up at sparrow's fart in the mornings and go to bed between 2130 and 2200, I wasn't going to stay up just to continue a pointless so called discussion so I was done.

 

[Tez3]

I've got no real desire to be involved in the actual discussion here, but I think there's some confusion stemming specifically from word phrasing and academia vs. common usage. Your statement was "This isn't down to single parent families, if boys are brought up by a single mother they are more likely to respect women!"

I see where he assumes that meant you were claiming a fact, while you didn't mean it that way. If I'm understanding you correctly, you simply meant that you think it's likely that the kid of a single mother would respect women. But the way that you wrote it initially suggests that you were stating, statistically, boys brought up by single mothers are more likely to respect women then boys not brought up by single mothers. Meaning, if you found a way to tally how much each person respected, it would be a (for argument's sake) 5/7 for men brought up by single mothers, and 3.5/7 for those not. So each individual boy would be more likely to respect women. Not the best at explaining things, but hope that helped.

Well yes and no, on here, a non academic site, I write as I'd talk in the pub or at a dinner party, conversationally.

If I were to make a statement of fact I'd back it up with citations, however in my two not disparate careers as well as my martial arts 'journey' I've met a great many sons of single mothers, not unusual when one is nearly in one's seventies and I've not found any lack of respect for my gender based on the fact they were brought up by a single woman, for other reasons yes. Most admired their mothers for doing a very hard job well.

When one writes something on here and someone tells you 'no you didn't mean that and you are wrong' it's laughable. Yes, I could be wrong but yes I did mean exactly what I said. It's paternalism to tell someone they didn't write what they meant. To tell me no one catcalls girls and women these days is pure nonsense of course.


Women's self defence is one of those areas where many well meaning men tell women what they want and need. Women know how they are treated in public and in the workplace, yet so many ignore that so many small incidences wear you down, that the lack of thought and respect plus an upbringing which allows this is an entitlement that needs to be stopped.


I recently read an article written in the UK by a young black solicitor about the small bits of racism she faced everyday, from being thought the defendant or a cleaner when she entered a court building to ignorant comments about her hair or skin. I had no idea, it was an eye opener and caused me much thought and something I'm taking to heart. I had no idea because I am not a young black woman experiencing her life, the same is true of men when it comes to the embarrassments women face everyday which seem trivial but really aren't. Women's self defence is based around defending yourself against a stranger who is trying to rape, it doesn't take into account the gropes, the pinches the pats, that women are told are just boys being boys, or the boss who corners them, the friendly guy just giving you a lift home but wants a kiss and grope as payment or the gang of young students who think touching up a girl is acceptable.

Anyway, I have to stop and have breakfast, then out for walk with Enzo (see profile pic ) thank you for trying to explain I do appreciate it.

 

[Urban Trekker]

For a start parents could teach their sons to not rape, that when women say no they mean no, that 'boys will be boy' isn't an excuse for bad behaviour of any type, that 'locker room talk' isn't a way to respect others.

Here's the deal: rapists are bad people, and bad people do bad things.

Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of don'ts in the world; and never once have I ever felt free to commit any of the ones that my parents didn't cover.

I'll also admit that I've committed ones that my parents did cover, such as stealing and throwing the first punch.

The point is this is: we all have free will. We're all going to do whatever we're determined to do, even if we know it's wrong.

And let's address the underlying motive behind telling men to tell other men not to rape: it's a way to hold the general male population responsible for the actions of a few.

For this, if I could stop a man from going on social media or message boards such as this one, and saying things like "But I don't do that," I'd love to. Why? Because I know how it's going to turn out: rather than accepting that he's not part of the problem, the goal post will be moved to make him part of the problem.

And that's what telling men to tell other men not to rape is: a moving of the goal post.

As I pointed out and there's plenty of statistics including crime numbers that show 90% of assaults on women are committed by someone known to them.

And things like this are what prompt me to say what frustrated you last time. I need to know what statement I made that this is supposed to be a counterpoint to. Because when you say things like this, the implication is that I said something contrary to it, when I never did.

 

[Steve]

So, does anyone have any constructive recommendations for high school and college aged women defending yhems

Here's the deal: rapists are bad people, and bad people do bad things.

Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of don'ts in the world; and never once have I ever felt free to commit any of the ones that my parents didn't cover.

I'll also admit that I've committed ones that my parents did cover, such as stealing and throwing the first punch.

The point is this is: we all have free will. We're all going to do whatever we're determined to do, even if we know it's wrong.

And let's address the underlying motive behind telling men to tell other men not to rape: it's a way to hold the general male population responsible for the actions of a few.

For this, if I could stop a man from going on social media or message boards such as this one, and saying things like "But I don't do that," I'd love to. Why? Because I know how it's going to turn out: rather than accepting that he's not part of the problem, the goal post will be moved to make him part of the problem.

And that's what telling men to tell other men not to rape is: a moving of the goal post.



And things like this are what prompt me to say what frustrated you last time. I need to know what statement I made that this is supposed to be a counterpoint to. Because when you say things like this, the implication is that I said something contrary to it, when I never did.

There are a lot of "good dudes" who have pressured women into having sex or worse. We have one on the supreme court.

Edit: To elaborate a little more, I think that this idea of "bad people do bad things" is pretty naïve, particularly where it comes to sexual misconduct. Women are sexually assaulted all the time on college campuses, and in the greek system in particular, and while some of these guys may get caught, most are 'good guys' who will go on to live their live. Women are harrassed at work all the time by "good guys". I've been in senior management for a long time and have had to deal with misconduct more than once, sadly. My wife is a senior HR investigator for an international company. She sees it every day, on the job. You would be shocked how often it occurs.

But make no mistake, not being punished is not the same as being innocent. particularly where sexual misconduct is involved, there is often a lack of will to enforce, because the women are often in a position of weakness, they often have their own baggage, or many other factors come into play which makes it difficult to hold these guys accountable. And so, they walk among us. They work with our wives and daughters.

The point is, there are a lot of things that "good guys" do that are not good things. So, my advice to the guys who are getting defensive about this is to consider whether you want to be the guys who are helping to protect these people you allege are bad guys.

 

[Urban Trekker]

So, does anyone have any constructive recommendations for high school and college aged women defending yhems

Not sure what this means.

There are a lot of "good dudes" who have pressured women into having sex or worse. We have one on the supreme court.

Do you consider him to be a "good dude?" Because I never did.

 

[Steve]

So, does anyone have any constructive recommendations for high school and college aged women defending yhems

Autocorrect. "defending themselves.

Do you consider him to be a "good dude?" Because I never did.

He's on the supreme court. He's a "good guy." And the point is, he's really pretty typical. He was confirmed in part as a clear example of toxic partisanship. But he was also confirmed, I believe, because a lot of the guys related deeply to his experiences. Matt Gaetz is a predator. Jim Jones... jeez, do some research on that guy.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't believe that it's as simple as 'bad guys doing bad things' because the behaviors and attitudes toward women are so baked in. You yourself threw out a perfect example of how we judge women differently than men just a bit ago in this thread. That's a relatively benign example, to be sure, but it's part of the same issue.

And maybe the other point is that a lot of men who are bad guys don't even realize it themselves.

Edit: Earlier I mentioned Animal House. Another example that comes to mind is Revenge of the Nerds, in which the hero of the show literally raped a women at the conclusion of the movie. I thought that was hilarious when I was 13 years old. That was pop culture, and there was no indication at all that it was "bad guy behavior." I certainly didn't think it was wrong at the time. I thought it was funny, just like every single other kid my age that I knew.

And, I can tell you that in high school in the 80s, a lot of guys were doing a lot of things that I think we would all consider really bad by today's standards. Like kavenaugh. So, the question is, are these guys born broken? I personally think they didn't get told how to behave by their parents. In other words, "Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it." Yes. I think that's right. And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger.

 

[jobo]

Autocorrect. "defending themselves.



He's on the supreme court. He's a "good guy." And the point is, he's really pretty typical. He was confirmed in part as a clear example of toxic partisanship. But he was also confirmed, I believe, because a lot of the guys related deeply to his experiences. Matt Gaetz is a predator. Jim Jones... jeez, do some research on that guy.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't believe that it's as simple as 'bad guys doing bad things' because the behaviors and attitudes toward women are so baked in. You yourself threw out a perfect example of how we judge women differently than men just a bit ago in this thread. That's a relatively benign example, to be sure, but it's part of the same issue.

And maybe the other point is that a lot of men who are bad guys don't even realize it themselves.

Edit: Earlier I mentioned Animal House. Another example that comes to mind is Revenge of the Nerds, in which the hero of the show literally raped a women at the conclusion of the movie. I thought that was hilarious when I was 13 years old. That was pop culture, and there was no indication at all that it was "bad guy behavior." I certainly didn't think it was wrong at the time. I thought it was funny, just like every single other kid my age that I knew.

And, I can tell you that in high school in the 80s, a lot of guys were doing a lot of things that I think we would all consider really bad by today's standards. Like kavenaugh. So, the question is, are these guys born broken? I personally think they didn't get told how to behave by their parents. In other words, "Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it." Yes. I think that's right. And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger.

surely, 5he point here is that anyone who watched beyond the first 10 mins of animal house was already broken

so it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, that they go on to abuse women, that is what your suggesting isn't it?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Well yes and no, on here, a non academic site, I write as I'd talk in the pub or at a dinner party, conversationally.

Which makes sense. So do I. Just seemed to be the cause of the confusion. As to how/why others were saying "you didn't mean that and you are wrong", well that I don't have an answer for.

Women's self defence is one of those areas where many well meaning men tell women what they want and need. Women know how they are treated in public and in the workplace, yet so many ignore that so many small incidences wear you down, that the lack of thought and respect plus an upbringing which allows this is an entitlement that needs to be stopped.

Which is why I've been reading the thread but not engaging (except for that post). It's definitely useful to read but not necessarily a conversation I should be having a part in.

Anyway, I have to stop and have breakfast, then out for walk with Enzo (see profile pic ) thank you for trying to explain I do appreciate it.

Enjoy your walk!

 

[Steve]

Anyway, I have to stop and have breakfast, then out for walk with Enzo (see profile pic ) thank you for trying to explain I do appreciate it.

I suspect that Enzo likes a longer walk than Sadie. St. Bernards are good for about 20 minutes.

 

[Urban Trekker]

He's on the supreme court. He's a "good guy."

Okay, this is a non-sequitur. He's on the Supreme Court, therefore, he is a "good guy."

I'm going to say this without getting political, because I know it's against the rules here, but I can promise you that those who opposed the previous POTUS - who held not only a higher office than Supreme Court Justice, but the highest country in the nation - did not believe him to be a "good guy" on the basis of the office that he held.

So if a guy who flipped burgers at McDonald's did the same things as Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas, he wouldn't be a "good guy" because he doesn't have a prestigious job?

Note: I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I just need some clarification if this isn't what you meant, and how you truly gauge whether or not someone is a "good guy."

In other words, "Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it." Yes. I think that's right. And that you're naive to believe otherwise, unless you have a very severe and limited personal definition of sexual misconduct that involves violent acts by a stranger.

*Sigh* now, another accusation claiming that I said sexual assaults are more likely to be committed by strangers, when this isn't even something that I've mention on this thread.

My parents never told me not to mug anyone, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to snatch purses, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to carjack anyone, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to make fun of people with disabilities, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to commit a mass shooting, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to make home-made bombs for use in terrorist activity, and I've never done it.

As you can see, I could go on forever. My parents don't have to tell me that a specific act is wrong in order for me to know that it is. Hell, when it comes to rape - as in forced intercourse with an unwilling partner - I knew what that was by the age of 8, and I knew it was wrong as soon as I had heard of it.

Again, this is all about moving the goal post to make men part of the problem who really aren't.

 

[Steve]

Okay, this is a non-sequitur. He's on the Supreme Court, therefore, he is a "good guy."

I disagree. He's literally on the judicial body with a lifelong appointment as one of only 9 arbiters of what is lawful and constitutional. He was vetted, and determined to be a "good guy". The real point here is that there are a lot of people, millions of people, who don't see what the big deal is.

I'm going to say this without getting political, because I know it's against the rules here, but I can promise you that those who opposed the previous POTUS - who held not only a higher office than Supreme Court Justice, but the highest country in the nation - did not believe him to be a "good guy" on the basis of the office that he held.

So if a guy who flipped burgers at McDonald's did the same things as Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas, he wouldn't be a "good guy" because he doesn't have a prestigious job?

People who flip burgers do those things. People who are generally considered good people have done those things in every walk of life. I guarantee you that some folks on this forum have done some things that others would consider sexual misconduct. 100% no doubt in my mind. You probably work with guys who have done some things. If they were in a fraternity, there is no doubt that they either acted or enabled behavior that required a female to defend herself at some point. 100%.

Note: I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I just need some clarification if this isn't what you meant, and how you truly gauge whether or not someone is a "good guy."

Good guy meaning someone who isn't a bad guy by your definition. In other words, if the measure of "bad guy" is violent rape, then there are a lot of good guys out there who don't meet that threshold, but who act in a way that requires women to defend themselves in some way. And it's so pervasive that guys like you, who I presume to be a good guy, casually share examples such as the one in this thread where you saw nothing at all wrong with sharing an implied judgment about a single mom dating and having sex.

*Sigh* now, another accusation claiming that I said sexual assaults are more likely to be committed by strangers, when this isn't even something that I've mention on this thread.

My parents never told me not to mug anyone, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to snatch purses, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to carjack anyone, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to make fun of people with disabilities, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to commit a mass shooting, and I've never done it.
My parents never told me not to make home-made bombs for use in terrorist activity, and I've never done it.

As you can see, I could go on forever. My parents don't have to tell me that a specific act is wrong in order for me to know that it is. Hell, when it comes to rape - as in forced intercourse with an unwilling partner - I knew what that was by the age of 8, and I knew it was wrong as soon as I had heard of it.

Again, this is all about moving the goal post to make men part of the problem who really aren't.

You say your parents never taught you how to behave? I think you're giving your parents too little credit. How do racists become racists? Do you think some white babies are just born prejudiced against black babies? Do you think you intuitively just know that making fun of people with disabilities is wrong? I've worked with people who are disabled for decades and I hate to break it to you, but that's just not so. Discrimination against people with disabilities is rampant... often casual and cruel.

personally, I think my mom and dad, both veterans and both very liberal, for a lot of my world views. They planted the seeds, to be sure, for what I think is a thoughtful combination of patriotism and love of country with critical thought, respect for others, and an inclination to serve others.

I envy you, because you clearly have not seen beneath the veil. We call HR and labor relations the 'dark arts' of management because you learn quickly how "good people" can do some really atrocious things... and how other good people enable them.

 

[Tez3]

Here's the deal: rapists are bad people, and bad people do bad things.

Your statement assumes that rapist don't know that they're doing anything wrong because a parent didn't tell them not to do it.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of don'ts in the world; and never once have I ever felt free to commit any of the ones that my parents didn't cover.

I'll also admit that I've committed ones that my parents did cover, such as stealing and throwing the first punch.

The point is this is: we all have free will. We're all going to do whatever we're determined to do, even if we know it's wrong.

And let's address the underlying motive behind telling men to tell other men not to rape: it's a way to hold the general male population responsible for the actions of a few.

For this, if I could stop a man from going on social media or message boards such as this one, and saying things like "But I don't do that," I'd love to. Why? Because I know how it's going to turn out: rather than accepting that he's not part of the problem, the goal post will be moved to make him part of the problem.

And that's what telling men to tell other men not to rape is: a moving of the goal post.



And things like this are what prompt me to say what frustrated you last time. I need to know what statement I made that this is supposed to be a counterpoint to. Because when you say things like this, the implication is that I said something contrary to it, when I never did.

That's how you read it, it's not what I actually wrote. That's the problem, you read it and put your own interpretation on it. You are also seeing things that aren't there. I write what I think, nothing more, nothing less, it's what we do in Yorkshire, we speak as we find, plain speaking.

I am not telling men not to rape, what I am saying, again, is to teach your children that NO means NO. Don't tell your sons that girls play hard to get, or they like to be pushed to have sex, don't tell them women like it rough or that girls who dress in short skirts are asking for it.

Another thing that needs to stop is schools picking up the girls for what they wear and not the boys. It should be school policy that boys are responsible for their behaviour not the girls. Boys should not feel they can abuse or assault girls because of the girls clothing and adults should not excuse them.

Just how many times do I have to explain this? Children learn their behaviour from adults, if those adults say things like 'look what she's wearing, she's asking for it' then they are enabling abuse of women. If the adult thinks it's fine to assault a women because she's had a few boyfriends/wears short skirts/is drunk because she's asking for it what do you think will happen?

I've explained this a few times but you don't get it, others do and they did long before I posted anything.