From: radner@cray.com (Lauren Radner)
Subject: Re: women, training, && violence
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:25:33 CDT

In article <1992Jul30.235713.20247@nntp.uoregon.edu> toman@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Joseph Toman) writes:
>In article <keS126e00WCp03hYgF@andrew.cmu.edu> sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes:
>>	There's a masculine normative bias to the MA culture. The implication
>>in this thread is that "masculine" attitudes to violence are correct,
>>while "feminine" attitudes to violence are incorrect.
>
>... 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. 

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'. 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? 

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".

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.

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. 

And periodically re-evaluate what you're teaching to make sure it fits the current
situation. (We didn't send our organized violence against Hussein armed with rocks and 
sticks, even though that was how things were done for a long, long time). 

Or did I sorely misunderstand your position?

Sorry this was so long,
-Lauren



>>	There's a masculine normative bias to the MA culture. The implication
>>in this thread is that "masculine" attitudes to violence are correct,
>>while "feminine" attitudes to violence are incorrect.