Mother Culture - and all a woman must/should/can be

CJG · Post by **CJG** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 2:50 am

This is one of the most interesting threads I've read on these forums. Dana, you address an important issue that I think should be on the other forums as well. Bill thanks for the research data, the question remaining in my mind about the studies is their relevancy to women in fight or flight situations as Dana mentioned. When I was very young a neighborhood problem child threatened me in my back yard when it was just he and I. I swung first, and didn't miss. My parents saw him run home crying and demanded an explanation, which of course I gave. Their abhorrence led to an apology to his parents that rivaled one expected if our cat ate their Shetland pony. It wasn't just scolding, it was complete shock as though the world had rotated in the wrong direction. Now I ask you, does this teach a young girl it's right to protect herself? Not in my case, maybe others have different stories. However, I suspect many of us teach girls to immediately seek help if in trouble which implies they are not capable of protecting themselves. Some parents are afraid their daughters will fail to become feminine women desirable to men if they learn to kick ass. Personally I think the single biggest reason women do not attend many martial arts/weapons training sessions is because they don't know what to 'do' with it. That is to say, many men promise to protect women and question their perceived threats. Women may fear they'll intimidate/turn off men and female friends by the level of aggression required to perform. Maybe instead of constantly teaching girls ways to act like x, y or z school of etiquette deemed acceptable by society, we should encourage them to pursue all natural interests. Acknowledging that in heels and lace or gloves and head gear, they are always a woman.

2Green · Post by **2Green** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:15 am

Time for Desmond Morris to jump in here...what, he's not available?...ok, I'll throw in an opinion.

Females protect the young, no question. They had to, while man was out slaying dinner or his competition.

The difference is, somewhere along the way (tribal celebrations?) it was man who codified and ritualized the triumph in combat.
So now, largely it is men who teach self defense, only because they "know the code" and by nature, have more muscle.
But what about all those females defending the nest?
Equal effectiveness was required to ensure the propagation of the species.
Historically, few women have codified combat for the benefit of their successors; many men have.
Wing Chun is a notable exception.

NM

Le Haggard · Post by **Le Haggard** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:27 am

Much has been said about how women protect the young. I would like to point out that there is a significant difference, at least to women, between protecting their young/loved ones, and protecting themselves against men in particular. I can't really explain it...perhaps someone else can help me out here?

Le'

Dana Sheets · Post by **Dana Sheets** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:01 pm

I was recently chatting with a fellow who has written a text on evolutionary psychology. He does seminars in corporate culture change based around the concepts that the instincts we've developed for centuries may now actually cause stress and difficulties in "modern" life and the modern workplace.

If I imagine a NOVA special on "The Evolution of Woman" I would see that for a long time women spent most of their adult lives with child or children to take care of. Blended with Darwin's theories on natural selection - women would be attracted to the strongest (read as: most aggressive) male.

Now fast forward to modern life. Girls, due to better nutrition, are reach puberty at unheard of ages - yet due to societal pressures are expected to stay in school and not be pregnant until they're 18, 21, or older. They're expected to not seek out a strong, dominant male partner as soon as possible. Instead they're asked to study, learn, work and ignore or "sensibly" satisfy many of their body's natural desires.

At the same time we're telling them to "be their own woman" their bodies are telling them to "get the most viable mate". Do we talk to girls and women about this strange mix of messages?

Nope. Instead we use sexually available women to sell everything from deodorant to cell phones.

No wonder women don't sign up for martial arts classes! Why add another stressful dynamic to the mix - a place where you might not be welcome, where you might become an untouchable "aggressive" woman, and where you're asked to participate in ritualistic combat scenarios that have nothing to do with your personal self-defense.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:45 pm

Well stated, Dana. Now you are really thinking!

We can conjecture a lot about what women would or would not do based on whatever. The truth is that a strong species is defined by genetic diversity. So any time there is rapid change (like NOW), there are going to be some that fit fine and others that will be really "confused" at best (and unlikely to reproduce at worst).

We can also talk a lot about whether or not women seek out aggressive males. It's an interesting topic. I read a rather amusing piece (written by a woman) in an "advice" column the other day (in a Joe Weider publication) that suggested this pattern of behavior is alive and well. Allegedly it's why some women shun "nice guys" and continue to go out with men that treat them badly. Hmm... Maybe.

But we see the phenomenon take shape in different ways today. What else explains the phenomenon of "bimbo eruptions"?

It would be useful to see people repeat lethal force research on women to understand both the differences between women and men, and the range of responses and behaviors.

Something else struck me in a previous post from CJG.

Some parents are afraid their daughters will fail to become feminine women desirable to men if they learn to kick ass.

Yes... Reminds me of the day I saw a look of horror on my dad's face when I called #1 son (and his namesake) "sweetie." Meanwhile, grandpa likes to beat on his favorite grandson, thinking this amusing. I since found it to be a common trait of blue collar southern Irish men. (Source: Some real garbage-mouthed lassies I have come to know here that hail from County Cork, home of my own ancestors on papa's side).

They like their boys rough and ready, and get a kick out of a boy that gets into fights. Is homophobia the right label here? (As if any of this is going to make a difference at the end of the day...) Sigh... Boys will be boys, right?

Confusing indeed!

- Bill

Dana Sheets · Post by **Dana Sheets** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 5:59 pm

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html

FAQ on evolutionary psychology.

In particular - the idea that social roles, when being observed for discussion do not have a level of privilage assigned to them.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human ... exism.html

Le had raised an important question - how does this play out for women needed to protect themselves from men today?

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/rape.html

The above link looks at the question of whether or not rape is an adaptation for species survival.

In humans, the benefits of rape for males may have outweighed the costs during the EEA in the following circumstances:

High status males may be have been able to coerce matings with little fear of reprisal.
Low status women (e.g., orphans) may have been particularly vulnerable to being raped because males need not have feared reprisals from the woman's family.

During war, raping enemy women may have had few negative repercussions.

Men who were low status, who were likely to remain low status, and who had few opportunities to invest in kin may have realized reproductive benefits that outweighed the considerable costs (e.g., reprisal by the woman's family).

Now this sort of flies in the face of "rape is an act of violence" argument. So I would hypothesize that similar outcomes (rape, beating, shooting, stabbing) can have very different motivators.

So at one point when you took over the village you raped the women to insure the continuation of your branch of the tree. Today - very few warriors in the US are taking over any villages. And for the most part rape shows up as a male acting in such a way that he feels he is exerting control (dominance) in his environment.

So what is a dominant male, what is a dominant female what social contracts do they form in order to procreate and maintain their place in society? What does it look like when those social contract are broken? What does it look like when an individual isn't interested in functioning within social norms. What does it look like when a social contract that's been carefully crafted for hundreds of generations is suddenly thrown out the window in a space of only 60-80 years because of incredibly accelerated social change?

Are high dominant females more likely to join a martial arts class because they already have a strong sense of role and place? Are low dominant females more like to join a martial arts class because they wish to improve their sense of role and place? Can both be true at the same time?

Again - no easy answers. But I think evolutionary psychology provides a framework that can be used to discuss these concepts further.

Now I need to go learn more about evolutionary psychology.
Dana

Akil Todd Harvey · Post by **Akil Todd Harvey** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 1:10 am

Howdy Folks,

I came to this thread late and many folks are off enjoying camp, so it may be a while for the responses to come rolling in. At first I did not think I had much to add, besides saying what Rich had said, but I kept thiunking of what Sensei Bill G and its connnection to what CJG said....

From my work in hypnotherapy, I have noticed in many cases that women have issues with owning their own power as well, reluctance seemed to be present in a majority of cases.

I suspect many of us teach girls to immediately seek help if in trouble which implies they are not capable of protecting themselves. Some parents are afraid their daughters will fail to become feminine women desirable to men if they learn to kick ass.

The above is a specific statement attempting to explain women's reluctance in defending oneself, but I think it could be aabstracted a bit more to look like the folllowing.......

I suspect many of us teach girls to immediately seek help if in trouble which implies they are not capable of protecting themselves. Some parents are afraid their daughters will fail to become feminine women desirable to men if ....they are too successful in their career.......if they are too intelligent in their demanor.........etc.

I believe in both healthy influences of nurture and nature, but nurture being more able to be altered toward equity & fairness, tend to focus on the nurture, but would rather go with nature to the extent that it cannot be ignored.

Individually, I dont think we can change societal and familial expectations of women entirely, but we may be able to learn to override many of the conscious and subconscious programming that may lead women to be reluctant to act in their own self interest and defense, rather than waiting for someone to come along and save them......

With some people, role playing in the dojo helped. Using the Actor's concept of "what if" as a jumping off point, the students are asked "What if you were Xena, Wonder Woman, etc. in this situation. What would THEY do?"

Then have them demonstrate.

The differences were marked and dramatic. In more than one instance, an assistant instructor or myself would wind up in a heap against the wall, wondering what had hit us, only to figure it out later. I count those instances as successful teaching experiences, BTW.

That role playing stuff seems like it could be pretty empowering......

Be Well,

ATH

Dana Sheets · Post by **Dana Sheets** » Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:24 pm

Individually, I dont think we can change societal and familial expectations of women entirely, but we may be able to learn to override many of the conscious and subconscious programming that may lead women to be reluctant to act in their own self interest and defense, rather than waiting for someone to come along and save them......

Why would a woman be reluctant to act in her own self interest? She put the interest of her children above her own. She watched her mother put the interests of her father and her siblings and herself above her mother's interests. We put people who put everyone else's interests above their own up on pedastals and call them saints.

Women who act in their own self-interest are portrayed as selfish, cruel, mannish, "social climbers", bitches, queens, you know...like the singer Madonna. And she is some of those things. She's the archetype.

How do you override thousands and thousands of messages from several generations?

Dana

Deep Sea · Post by **Deep Sea** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:33 pm

Women who act in their own self-interest are portrayed as selfish, cruel, mannish, "social climbers", bitches, queens, you know...

Help me out here, Dana. I have something to say but what I quoted is simply too vague for me. Please elaborate...

My opinions were developed throught the years when I have worked on many hard-core aggressive software assignments where women have been both team members and leaders.

like the singer Madonna. And she is some of those things. She's the archetype.

M. is an entirely different subject, a completely seperate category, and not "some of those things." She's on a lot of red-blooded American men's sh!t list because of her stance in the gulf war and is considered a traitor by many. She and Hanoi Jane seem to have so much in common. She loves France, turned her back on America, therefore France can have her and her anf the attached plastic.

Her (M's) climb to the top of crudeness was by the twisted usage of her sex. Nothing about the attributes you mentioned above. Don't you think she and Michael Jacksone would make an ideal pair as a match in the institution of eternal married bliss.

Do you want to discuss M. or women's plight in life? Tonight I can really write because I'm hot on bitches right now. Maybe tomorrow I'll mellow out somewhat and the keyboard of fire will have extinguished itself.

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 7:20 am

Quote

How do you override thousands and thousands of messages from several generations?

** by concentrating on the thousands and thousands of positive messages from several generations , the examples and the triumph over adversity of many great women , by being positive and proactive*like this great forum Dana * , and most of all by not taking a victim mindset .

I am here today for better or worse because I stand on the shoulders of my forefathers *and mothers

* and everything they did was to let me be in this place and time , history for better or worse is a strentgh to the living no matter good or bad .

I know Im of topic a bit but how you perceive things I beleive is a key in overcoming these obstacles , I as a young white male could cry of being the most persecuted species on the planet , after all where reasponsible for a majority of historys evils yes ? .

Its a mindset issue , women and men today are dissillusioned , hi rates of suicide , drug abuse , violence , all disenfranchisement , everyones a victim , the only thing we can do is be role models and not live the past but learn from it .

it`s not easy , how do we change I cant to I can , how do we change a owed and victimised mindset into one of self responsibility ? , martial arts to me is a tool that can do this a little , because its all you once your in that ring or dojo , no one can do it for you , it`s the same for life , women or man , others can only help by taking the same path ad helping you along .
There will always be problems regardless of race , sex , religon , etc , but the good thing is there will always be solutions , kindred spirits , the trick is to not dwell on the problem but strive for the solutions .

that way you have nothing to loose and everything to gain .

Akil Todd Harvey · Post by **Akil Todd Harvey** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 4:45 pm

How's everybody doing?

Says Deep Sea

My opinions were developed throught the years when I have worked on many hard-core aggressive software assignments where women have been both team members and leaders.

Not sure where this is leading or what it means, so I am anxiously waiting any possible tie ins to the topic at hand......What, by the way, is a hard core aggressive software assignment? Sounds like it might be on a need to know basis (is there a hint here I am not getting)

** by concentrating on the thousands and thousands of positive messages from several generations , the examples and the triumph over adversity of many great women , by being positive and proactive*like this great forum Dana * , and most of all by not taking a victim mindset .

Here is a piece of advice and guidance that really resonates........Many thanks Stryke........

Its a mindset issue , women and men today are dissillusioned , hi rates of suicide , drug abuse , violence , all disenfranchisement , everyones a victim , the only thing we can do is be role models and not live the past but learn from it .

It seems that, "If it bleeds it leads" has a lot to do with our perceptions of how dangerous our world is and what we can actually do to protect ourselves versus reality.

Women who act in their own self-interest are portrayed as selfish, cruel, mannish, "social climbers", bitches, queens, you know...

Women who dare speak their own mind not only are villified at the time of their speaking out, but are villified almost indefinitely thereafter. Does that encourage the rest of women to think twice about speaking their minds. What I bring away from some of the above comments (that did not seem to merit mention) is, if a woman says something we dont like or if she dares take a stance we despise, shout those bitches down whenever and wherever we see them becoming powerful in their own right. We men will decide who has the right to do what or say whatever.........

ATH

Deep Sea · Post by **Deep Sea** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 10:37 pm

so I am anxiously waiting

You say you are anxiously waiting, ATH.

First of all I wish to thank you for taking the time, effort, and consideration to compose and then send a private PM that both illicits my response as well suggests and provides constraints as to how and what I write.

Secondly and however, the fact of the matter is that my question was not formulated for you. Rather and additionally, I suspect that only the person who wrote what I quoted before your post has the capacity to answer properly and in a thoughtful fashion.

If Dana has not responded to me that is 100% ok by me and I am quite comfortable with that.

[edited only for spelling and grammar as English is my second language]

Dana Sheets · Post by **Dana Sheets** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:12 am

Women who act in their own self-interest are portrayed as selfish, cruel, mannish, "social climbers", bitches, queens, you know...like the singer Madonna. And she is some of those things. She's the archetype.

Help me out here, Dana. I have something to say but what I quoted is simply too vague for me. Please elaborate...

I am not talking about specific experiences I'm talking about gross stereotypes. Whether or not she did, most people assume that Madonna used sex, money, lies, whatever to get what she wanted -- that is why I'm holding her up as the extreme example. Madonna did act in her own self-interest and no one else's. She's famous for that. And many people do not like or respect her. She probably doesn't care.

I'm talking about general trends. The general trend in this society, IMHO, is that when women aggressively seek out what they want it puts people on edge. Hillary Clinton, Jewel, Ann Richards, Nicole Kidman and the like - prominent women of power generate a lot of dialogue and a lot of that dialogue is pejorative. Why? I'm not saying that some of the same thing doesn’t happen to men. But for this discussion I want to focus on why women get "vilified", as ATH aptly put it, when they go about getting what they want.

For years and years and years the phrase "putting a woman in her place" or something just like it has been bandied about in common conversation, media, literature, and religious texts. Well who decided what that place was? How was/is "place" defined, and the verb "to put" implies control over an object. In this case it is control over a woman.

Now I'm not a linguist and I don't care to get into a deep deconstruction of all the clichés of the English language - but I want folks to be aware of and acknowledge that there is a long history of women being viewed as property that needs to be managed and that history runs right up to tonight and will continue into tomorrow.

Women do not need to be put anywhere. Many women know this. But all women have heard this phrase, or one like it, enough times to make them second-guess their actions.

I think Stryke has identified that many women enter the martial arts to try and shrug off some feelings of inferiority. Not all women. Maybe not even most - but I'd bet good odds that a well phrased survey would show that many have some central self-esteem issues when they walk in the door of a dojo.

And I agree with Stryke that everyone can benefit from more positive portrayals of everyone. That’s part of why PAX TV came into existence. A whole bunch of people realized that there’s a whole bunch of people tired of most of the negativity that’s on television and they wanted a little more feel-good, positive role model stuff for their families to watch.

I lament the fact that women have darn few role models that are positive, well received, and well-rounded. I also try to raise my own awareness of when I might be taking in Mother Culture messages out of habit. That I might be formulating a self-image based on misogynistic language, outdated preconceptions, and unfounded biases. That’s when I have to put up my shield against these messages, hold my center, and remember that I am no one’s property and there is no place I need to be put.

Dana

Deep Sea · Post by **Deep Sea** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:45 pm

Dana, thank you so much for returning to explain the thoughts behind the words which I questioned. For that I am grateful. I just finished composing a document for this forum, and for you, Dana, writing which required many hours of the wee morning, and I addressed most, if not all of what you wrote.

However, to me, your posts, such as the above, often carry a number of separate messages that should be responded to seperately if responded to properly. I often read in your writings something like issues A, B, C, and D in the same post, paragraph, and even in the same sentence. They often receive a single E as a response. Sometimes there are multiple messages -- Remember I'm not saying "mixed messages" in even the same sentence. This may not be your intention, but this is what I read.

The perplexing difficulty for me in responding is that frequently and often I both agree and disagree with you on the same issues you present as well as want you to understand that it is not women alone who share the same trials and tribulations as you write about. I've often found it difficult to not argue or contrast your points of view at times in order to provide go-forward writings to help you in your crusade. What I wrote this morning had nothing to do with my personal experiences with women because most all of them have been positive an pleasant [the specific], rather I wrote by reasoning garnered from observations and careful reading and filtering of whatever I read through the years because much is subjective and loaded to sway opinions [the general and stereotype].

Believe me, Dana. I just wrote a lot of positives of the women figures you mentioned, my opinions on where I consider grey areas, and where I consider you both right and/or wrong in your assesments of the perceptions of why those two main categories of people [stars and politicians] were amous or infamous, liked or disliked, etc. Most of it was with you.

But as I was completing the document I realized what I wrote, although true, honest, and unbiased, could be perceived as being supercharged and begging to invite all sorts of responses, not from you of course, as well as would help only in further polarizing those who are already there, those who are already twisted, and those who have a genuine interest in the war of the sexes. Because of that I deleted all nine pages and instead decided to issue only the following simple statements:

1) I can identify with women because I know situations described in your post exist and have helped youse guys -- er gals -- out of them, as well as to move forward in your careers, etc.; yes, I have been coach. In my younger days I have been close to women.

2) But I also know the other side of the coin where women will use anything and everything within their means to get what they want. The negatives are the things in which they are looked down upon, vilified, if you wish. It's not just the stars and the politicians as you highlighted.

3) My final thoughts on these woman/man issues are that it's kind of like driving a new car. If you buy a silver car it seems as if so many cars are silver. If you buy a ford, you see all the Fords. And often everything else is either not visible or is in the far background.

But then, I must ask, how do you plan on bettering things for yourself and womankind? What are some good concrete solutions to help your sex out? Your forum descriptions of those may go far and provide benefits and plant seeds If you think about 1) and 2) above, one team needs to extend the hand to reach the middle first to begging to resolve difficulties, problems, issues, etc. If not one goes in a forward direction first nothing positive will result. What I understand is that each "team" continues to pull the opposite way as if in a tug-of-war to see who wins. Win what?

Notes:

1) Please excusae the spelling and grammar because there is not so much as a spell checker or word processor on this machine.

2) I used the word "team" for lack of a more descriptive word. MOST people are on neither of those two teams.

3) Re: takes the place of 3.

4) Just remember, Dana, that you do not need place your shield against me as I am not against you.

RE: I can no longer hold my tongue on a certain issue. First, I and most males hold the majority of women in utmost respect, often raising them [the women] on a pedestal far above themselves [the males]. This is how much your men cherish you gals!!!

I do not believe in the substance of your theme "putting a woman in her place" as a major issue in general. I know it exists in small isolated pockets of groups and individuals in society, and where it does it must be terrible.

But in virtually NO places where I’ve been in my extensive travels nor in the rather large clans on both my mom’s and dad’s families have I deen this in other than a few isolated incidents. Maybe I don’t see it as a mainstream item because I am not of that stock, or maybe because I am not of that stock I would have noticed it’s prevalence if existed. I understand that women’s feelings of inferiority are NOT caused by man, rather than by something else, of which my thoughts are not defined sharply enough yet to expound upon. TRUE that some of it is, but I see it as an infinitely small percentage. If I am wrong then let this forum show me where.

Mother Culture - and all a woman must/should/can be

Always a Woman

And you wonder why we're confused?