Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Threedifferentones

(1,070 posts)
55. Okay, that all makes sense, we don't disagree at all, we're just making different points.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 03:15 PM
Mar 2014

But remember my first point was that men are not only stronger, they went through all that as boys. For the man attacking a woman, striking is second nature, not almost.

The man attacking a woman will have struck and been struck many times, and so his advantage comes not only from the biological facts of height and muscle, but also from the psychological impact of having been raised male.

From my perspective, finding your focus and learning to be aggressive is a baby step, in almost a literal sense. That is what was forced on me before the age of 10, before I knew what rape was, before I could fully grasp just how nasty the world really is, because I was a boy and not a girl.

Still, even that first step in defending yourself is huge, it gives you a fighting chance because it will prevent you from simply seizing up and giving in.

But in order to progress beyond that a person needs to practice fighting men. Now there is no need, and perhaps no good reason, to do that. I'm sure most women don't find it interesting or enjoyable to train to hurt another person, but when I read "self-defense" I assumed that is what they meant, which just means that I did not understand.

They might have a valid legal point Nevernose Mar 2014 #1
You may have a point, from a legal standing. But still, dear lord, Katashi_itto Mar 2014 #2
As a supporter of a woman's right to armed self-defense, I agree. Jgarrick Mar 2014 #3
Why "morally and ethically" a stupid point? (n/t) Seeking Serenity Mar 2014 #5
I'm actually rethinking my position now Nevernose Mar 2014 #6
I agree, have to look at it differently. Oh the surface it seems horrendous. Katashi_itto Mar 2014 #30
They are right here though treestar Mar 2014 #4
Or sexually assaulted newdemocrat999 Mar 2014 #10
Usually attacked by other men mainer Mar 2014 #42
Pap smears only for women are sexist too! FSogol Mar 2014 #7
Men can't get cervical cancer. So they have no use for a pap smear. Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #14
To you as well Lancero Mar 2014 #17
Actually... Lancero Mar 2014 #16
I was going to say mammogram, but then figured that men could have that test. FSogol Mar 2014 #29
Why not have it free for men and women? newdemocrat999 Mar 2014 #8
Sounds like benevolent sexism to me (nt) The Straight Story Mar 2014 #9
I know you probably mean that in a snarky way, but I agree with you this time. dawg Mar 2014 #18
Rut, roh BainsBane Mar 2014 #46
really? the hypocrisy... oh, and da doors seabeyond Mar 2014 #48
As much as I hate to agree - Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #11
Men and women both should know how to protect themselves. Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #12
Why should a small, weak, 70 year old guy who is living in a bad neighborhood be denied free classes Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #13
When you phrase it that way I agree Katashi_itto Mar 2014 #25
A stopped clock is right twice a day etherealtruth Mar 2014 #15
They used to call them "battered womens' shelters"... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #19
Seperate but equal then? Lancero Mar 2014 #20
Why is that a problem? kcr Mar 2014 #22
Cute. You need to ask women that question... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #24
When you have total beginners learning martial arts it's often good to separate Katashi_itto Mar 2014 #27
I agree. On the range, guys don't want to be shown up! Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #35
Umm, thats not what I'm talking about. I spar with women who are brilliant and Katashi_itto Mar 2014 #36
Two points Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #21
The problem is its government-sponsored davidn3600 Mar 2014 #23
At first glance the classes sound unfair. rrneck Mar 2014 #26
^^^This^^^ Gormy Cuss Mar 2014 #28
I have no problem with the classes being sex-segregated. Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #32
I thought of that. rrneck Mar 2014 #33
The self defense teaching should be appropriate to the students. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2014 #43
It looks like it's funded by private donations rrneck Mar 2014 #47
Right, private donations. The city's only giving them space. mainer Mar 2014 #51
Well, to be fair rrneck Mar 2014 #54
There's a bit of a contradiction with what we usually hear gollygee Mar 2014 #31
You have this wrong, imo... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #34
Oh please. As far as I can see everyone here supports free defense classes for both women and men. Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #37
The only reason it's free for women is private fundraising mainer Mar 2014 #53
Paragraph 2 displacedtexan Mar 2014 #38
A self defense class without men cannot hope to live up to its name. Threedifferentones Mar 2014 #39
Maybe they're taught by a guy? mainer Mar 2014 #41
Now that you mention it mainer I was overlooking that psychological aspect of it. Threedifferentones Mar 2014 #45
Our class didn't involve sparring, but learning to feel comfortable throwing punches mainer Mar 2014 #49
Okay, that all makes sense, we don't disagree at all, we're just making different points. Threedifferentones Mar 2014 #55
The classes are paid for through fundraising mainer Mar 2014 #40
OT, but Jamaal510 Mar 2014 #44
Likely the complaint is valid... sarisataka Mar 2014 #50
harry crouch sounds like god's gift to women... mainer Mar 2014 #52
Maybe he didn't get breast fed, I dunno. He seems pretty hostile. Katashi_itto Mar 2014 #57
Plaintiffs are right on this one. CFLDem Mar 2014 #56
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»‘Men’s rights’ group clai...»Reply #55