From: mcardle@prl.philips.nl (Owen McArdle)
Subject: Re: women, training, && violence
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:30:09 GMT

[ Apologies for the massive quotations - I couldn't see a way around it.
Plus, on re-reading this sounds very flame-ish, but I can't think of a
`cooler' reaction]

In article <1992Jul30.222534.18067@walter.cray.com> radner@cray.com (Lauren Radner) writes:
--In article <1992Jul30.235713.20247@nntp.uoregon.edu> toman@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Joseph Toman) writes:
-->... if you're going to do something
-->that falls outside the traditional definitions of your gender, you should
-->respect the way it's done by those who have been doing it for a while.
-->Traditionally, organised violence is a male job. It's not a good job, it's
-->not a bad job, it's just a job. But it's one we've been doing for a long, 
-->long time, and I think it would be foolish to ignore what men know, even
-->what "untrained" men know, because in these "civilized & peaceful" times,
-->boys are still taught their old jobs, just like girls are taught theirs.
--
--.... if the men "holding this job" were the same men who had been "doing (this)
--for a long, long time", then I think you might have a point. 

	I think Joseph does have a point, though from the reply you gave, I fear
you have missed it in his post, and then gone & repeated it in your own :-). As
you mainly quoted him, I assume your argument is with him rather than the 1st 
posters, but honestly I don't see what your problem with his stated views are.
--
--Everybody respects legitimate job experience. 
--
--However, I suspect the oldest man currently "holding this job" is probably not much 
--over a hundred years old. Most men legally required to "hold this job" (ie, in the 
--military) are probably closer to between 18 and 23, and they haven't been "holding 
--this job" for very long. 
--
--This means they were recently trained, not doing this for a long, long time.
--
--If all these men have learned their "organized violence male job" skills so recently,
--then it is not the case that men are so experienced that 1) a woman should just leave 
--it to the men, and, 2) a woman could never 'catch up'. 
	Did he say either of these ? I missed it.

-- If we start training women today
--at the same time as the men, then ten years from now, or a hundred, we can say that
--both sexes have been doing this for a long, long time, right? 

	So ?
--
--As you say, boys are still taught their old jobs, just like girls are taught theirs.
--Does this mean, therefore, that boys, when they first begin to learn any skill, shouldn't
--waste time learning brand-new-to-them "girl skills" versus brand-new-to-them "boy skills"?
--I don't understand what I think I am hearing as a "Women have never done it, so they shouldn't 
--start doing it" stance on doing "traditional men-type things".

	Sorry, but I cannot see how you ascribe this view to the post you quoted 
(mainly - if your argument was with the very 1st poster, rather than Joseph, why 
not quote & direct your reply at him ?) 
--
--Brand new skills are brand new skills. It doesn't matter how long anybody of any sex has
--been doing them in the past. 
--
--Why study martial arts? Why not just leave them to foreigners who have been doing them for 
--a long, long time? After all, they fall outside of American traditional definitions of our 
--culture. We should respect the way it's done by those who have been doing it for a while. 
--Traditionally, martial arts is a non-American job. But it's one foreigners have been doing 
--for a long, long time, and I think it would be foolish to ignore what foreigners know, even 
--what "untrained" foreigners know, because in these "civilized & peaceful" times, foreigners 
--are still taught their old jobs, just like Americans are taught theirs.

which doesn't sound much different from Joseph's point, to wit: 

-->... if you're going to do something
-->that falls outside the traditional definitions of your gender, you should
-->respect the way it's done by those who have been doing it for a while.

	Sorry if I'm reading too much into what you say above, or too little 
into what Joseph did, but I absolutely fail to see what your problem is. I 
didn't read anything in his article that said ONLY men should practise martial 
arts, simply that learn from others' experience: that historically this experience 
has been built up in an almost exclusively male environment doesn't exclude 
women from `benefitting' from it, and (again) I saw nothing in his post which 
suggested this.
--
--I guess my points are:
--
--1) No individual man has been doing this "job" for so long that what he knows can not be 
--   conveyed to somebody else (male or female). Granted probably not all of it. But we can't 
--   leave this expert male to be the only one to hold this job, because eventually, he'll die. 
--   This means we are constantly training "job replacements". Therefore, since we are doing 
--   "new-hire" training, we might as well train women too. 
--
--2) Just because it has been done or thought for a long, long time, doesn't make it right.
--   Or wrong. Stagnent, maybe... It is never a good idea to ignore new ideas.
--  
--So - fine - respect any knowledge that's been passed down, but teach it to anyone who wants
--to learn. Every new student is a blank slate with who-knows-what undeveloped potential. 

	That was more what I read from Joseph, relating to his comment about
starting from white when you enter a new dojo - the blank-slate. Take your cues
from those already practised in the art - "Everybody respects legitimate job 
experience" - say it how you will, but recognise it when someone says it.
--
--Or did I sorely misunderstand your position?

	I fear so - care to comment Joseph ?

Owen
-- 
Owen P.McArdle		|| e-mail : mcardle@prl.philips.nl
Philips Research Labs.	|| 'phone : +31-40-742824
Eindhoven, Nederland	|| vice	  : XJ600S	DOD#0335