The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The forgotten secret of the ancient Greeks > Comments

The forgotten secret of the ancient Greeks : Comments

By Dave Smith, published 8/11/2005

Dave Smith argues the pugilistic arts teaches boys to be better partners, fathers, citizens and men.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Dave, there is thermos galore to be found in compulsory two years community service for those 17 to 19 years, or after completion of University or other tertiary study. Community Service in SES, Ambulance, Fire Brigade and allied services. Defence Service as an option but not mandatory. Men and Women learning to care for themselves, their families and their country though team work and discipline. Lets have a bipartisan approach to this long term goal. Better to spend $80k p.a. per person in this nation building program than the same amount caring for someone for an average of 5 years at a later date at Her Majesty's pleasure, caused through family breakdown and personal crises brought on through unemployment and personal social dislocation through an inability to communicate and relate their Thermos, in an appropriate manner.
Posted by Mal, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 10:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave,

You are a brilliant man.

Speaking personally, being from the wrong side of the tracks and not having parents i was a confused and lost kid. I did know right from wrong, but i had no role model and no where to release the energy i had inside me.

You are so correct, Boxing during my teenage years was a key ingredient to me for these reasons:

A: it provided male role models i did not have, which i respected, trusted and sought advice from

B: It gave me an avenue apart from the street to channel your frustrations, agressions and hurt

C:Unquestionable personal discipline

D: It gave me a group of good friends across varying ages, which was very important

E: It taught me i could achieve anything, inside the ring, but also (and more importantly) outside the ring.

I am so grateful to people like yourself, i hope you know how integral you are to changing peoples lives and outlooks.

You understand that essentailly we are a species and have traits we cannot ignore. By channeling this, especially for the confused or frustrated like myself, it changes your whole demeaner, outlook and lowers your overall agression. Especially when during teenage years your hormone levels vary, without an avenue you end up releasing this agression regretfully elsewhere.

If every Boy found the benefit of Boxing it would greatly reduce the testosterone levels on the street. If men continue to bury this 'energy' it will effect our inner psyche. I hope your article extends to the far reaches of society and is taken on board.

FYI, I was never a good boxer or a successful one, but my goals in life were not concerning boxing. The guidance i recieved has springboarded me to much success though, as i was taught that life is the ultimate opponent.
Posted by Realist, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 1:10:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice read and some good post I too enjoy boxing as a lad. Dave I would love to see a hindu as PM.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 1:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure exactly what Mal is getting at here. There are no doubt other important ways of directing 'themos'. My theory is simply that fight training helps us learn to harness and control 'themos' so that it can then be directed into more significant battles.

My experience is that there is nothing like the fight game to put a man in touch with his own aggressive drives, and done in the right way, fight training offers unparalelled benefits for young men, as some of my other brothers here seem to appreciate.
Posted by Father Dave, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 2:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boxing would be a form of body contact sport, and I tend to think that anyone who participates in a body contact sport has to be physically fit, disciplined, and be prepared to play by the rules, otherwise they will more likely get injured, or be more likely to injure someone else.

However the necessity for good role models is essential for young boys, and it appears that these role models are best adult males, and one of the most important role models becomes the father.

Eg from “The Fatherless Generation”

Chief Youth Court Judge, Andrew Beecroft, in a speech at Parliament a
few years ago identified six characteristics of serious youth offenders: "85 percent are male, the majority have no contact with their father, 80 percent do not go to school and have chronic drug or alcohol addictions, most have psychological or psychiatric issues, and 50 percent - up to 90 percent in some courts - are Maori".

He explained that many of these boys have no adult male role model: "14, 15, and 16 year-old boys seek out role models like 'heat seeking
missiles'. It's either the leader of the Mongrel Mob or it's a sports
coach or it's Dad. But an overwhelming majority of boys who I see in the Youth Court have lost contact with their father. …What I'm saying is that I'm dealing in the Youth Court with boys for whom their Dad is
simply not there, never has been, gone, vanished and disappeared".
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0510/S00236.htm

The wide scale removal of fathers from families in so many societies in recent decades, has been more than just a failed social experiment, but a crime against humanity.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 5:52:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOW !

I expected every lefty and greeny and female to absolutely ridddddicule this topic.

I just cannot believe this.... not ONE "anti" post.. (or Kenny....did I miss something ? :)

I also found boxing very beneficial. The time when I saw a small bloke take high swings at a tall bloke at a hamburger place on Paramatta road one night (the small guy was 'bait' he had a gang behind him) I was so infuriated about 'injustice' I joined the police boys club and went for it.

Sadly, while all the things each has mentioned so far was there, there was also a negative. One chap of 19 yrs, had experienced over 95 fights, and was punch drunk :(

Then, on my one and only venture into the golden gloves, the cries for 'blood' from the crowd and the looks on the faces was sickening.

But on the brighter side, I have never seen such an instant solution to 'bullying' as this. The P.E. teacher arranged 'Room 19' for 'boxing' during lunch when it was raining. We packed that room like you would not believe. The P.E. teacher matched up some of the 'tough' crowd with others, and they generally had such a dose of humiliation they slunk of in tears. Oh the joy :)

The other thing I didn't like about the Police Boys coach, was his insistence on developing the 'killer instinct' which I did not have.
If you knocked a guy down with a good combo, he would whisper.. "can you do that AGAIN"......never mind the poor bugger on the mat.

But all in all, if practiced safely with head gear and big gloves, and not too many bouts, its a great sport.

I'm looking around for our buddy 'Scout' to leap out and put a post in huge caps about us being Neanderthal or Barbaric :)

I think we should declare this thread 'MEN ONLY' :)

and..yes, its what being 'male' is partly about.. Dare I say 'protector, provider, etc :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 6:45:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an absolutely excellent article. It is a breath of fresh air in the usual smothering stench of feminist/left moanings about men, boys, their troubles and evils. The author truly deserves a standing ovation.

And it is indeed noteworthy, Boaz, that there has been no opposition put forward, yet, to this opinion. But then, I have observed over time that when men of reason put forward positive statements of masculinity, they find little argument. Any argument against men is usually confined to the conduits of traditional feminism and is trumped up to support some artificial claim of women's victimhood. There, they seem to argue viciously.

But we wait and see.

To Mr Dave Smith, my deepest thanks for writing this opinion of yours. Please do write more - the world is in serious need to hear more messages like this from men like you. Many thanks.
Posted by Maximus, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 1:23:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your affirming words, brothers. :-)

I am deeply touched. I've written plenty more on this subject (indeed, I've published a book on it) all of which can be reached through www.fatherdave.org, but I'll try to see if the good people of 'online opinion' will publsh some of my similar articles.

Dave
Posted by Father Dave, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 1:58:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that most young men require some form of heavy physical aggressive activity, that also requires discipline, and mentoring and coaching. I don't think that boxing is necessarily the best or the only activity in this regard. Boxing is primarily an individual activity, one on one. I think that a mesure of teamwork is also required, such as that provided by some of the football codes.

I was raised playing rugby league, and rugby in high school, then some rugby after leaving school followed by American football. These all provided a major level of hard physical contact, required skill and a good a sporting attitude and physical fitness.

I was also fortunate to be coached by men of integrity and discipline. This integrity and discipline from the coaches at is absolutely necessary to character building.

The aim of boxing is to cause pain to your opponent, preferably with a measure of physical damage. In the football codes the aim is to score points, and any damage done to your opponents is incidental. Sorry, but I don't consider a 'sport' with the aim of harming your opponent to be one to be encouraged.

There are other fields of activity that can also instill character and self reliance. For instance I think that it is unfortunate that so few schools have cadet units any more. There are also a considerable number of boys and young men not physically suited to physical sports.

It should be remember that another secret of the Greeks was to 'expose' to nature - ie kill - any who were not good physical specimens, and Greek culture was often barbaric in comparison with the standards we set for ourselves.

So yes, boys and young men need physical activities that test and challenge them, many boys and young men have the physical capacity for contact sports, but to me boxing is not the best activity for it.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 3:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not think that boxing should be the way for young men to find their role models- it is very violent and the aim, as Hamlet pointed out above, is to physically harm your opponent.

That said, I do agree that sports are generally good at helping people, all people, not just young men have fun/work as a team/achieve goals/yada yada. (Heh. Although I was never any good at sports. I much preferred a book!)

Timkins- remember when talking about family breakdown that men leave their families as often as women do. It is a tragedy, yes. But it is not one you should be blaming on either men or women.

Boaz- 'protector, provider'. Ugh. Get off your high horse. If men need to bash each other to prove they can 'provide', then they are significantly less evolved than I had thought.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 4:25:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh! Here they are at last.

Anyway, it was bound to happen eventually, the detractors would get to this with their touchy-feely feminine group-huggy rubbish, all about teamwork and subjugation of the individual for the betterment of the group. These writers just don't understand natural masculinity. Not a skerrick, not an iota, not the slightest bit. They just don't get it. About how a man must find his own self, alone, and face his own demons, alone, to become a man. Without that, he maintains nagging doubts about his masculinity. It's a journey each man must take and alone. That's why boxing is so good. It's one boy/man against himself and his own fears.

Teamwork is useful in society, but it's not at all useful in a boy/man finding his own self respect.

Of interest though, is to read how harmonious the discussion was before the late arrivals. Men, just getting along, being peaceful and polite to each other. Reasoning and considering. No discord. This very observation and truth is well worth considering and remembering.
Posted by Maximus, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 5:07:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yeah right on maximus, in fact you shouldnt be allowed to call yourself a man until you have killed a lion. with your bare hands.

and laurie, you are less of a man for passing the ball, you should have taken on the whole team and ended up standing on a pile of your enemies, or died trying. yeah.

anyway, i tend to agree with the article. i was the beneficiary of boxing classes at school, a great help for a kid a bit on the skinny side who played dungeons&dragons, with the occaisonal self esteem problem. and i must admit to a certain pleasure when my boxing coincided with a growth spurt and lets just say certain kids dint pick on me no more.

as an added bonus i now have an image in my mind of martin luther king boxing with mother teresa, damm funny.
Posted by its not easy being, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 8:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Father Dave, congratulations on the great work you are doing with the boys. I'm really impressed with your words: "The only constructive alternative is for us to reharness themos and channel it creatively ... recognise it, affirm it, and then learn to bring it under control so that it can be put to good use". You obviously are really able to help young men and are a great male role model.

Boxing isn't 'Neanderthal' or 'barbaric' it's fun and great for the health. And one of the important things fighting training teaches is to avoid conflict in the first place. Seeing women achieve in boxing is great too. I don't approve of men beating up their wives and I don't approve of women beating up their husbands. But this has nothing to do with being trained as a boxer, it is to do with the person themselves doing something which is wrong.

I'm surprised however by your assertion that men were made to fight physically is part of the fabric of the Bible and I see that BOAZ_David was so busy rating men ;-) that he didn't consider it either. What about King David who was not allowed to build a temple to God because he had fought too many wars? What about Jesus, who is not recorded as going around fighting people? In fact He told His disciples off for fighting. Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the Temple but I can't recall any other physical violence (although could be wrong). I'm interested to hear your response.

Maximus, a little pedantic I know, but how is a men's boxing match 'one boy/man against himself' surely it is one boy/man against another boy/man? It's only possible in a figurative sense (or by 'shadow boxing') to be 'one boy/man against himself'.

Mal I love your 'thermos' misspelling I had this funny picture in my head of boys going around carrying coffee flasks and it made me smile....
Posted by Pedant, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 9:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Laurie (<=INEB female)
I suggest the 'high horse' is under you.

I maintain men are protectors of women in the natural world. The police general protectors in society, still, if a woman walks down some dark street and there is a mugger lurking- I'm afraid you might be in for a reality check if he decides to mug you.

Much as the thought might be distasteful to the 'independant feminist' in you, it might just be helpful if one of us here, who have benefited from the 'macho/barbaric/egotripping/Neanderthal art of 'pugalism' is not too far away then the guy mercilessly whacks you with a solid punch to your face. (while you fumble for your mace can)

In fact.. lets just say, our experience in this field of sporting endeavor might just tip the scales and enable us to save your life !

You can deny this till the cows come home and moo their way out into the paddock next morning, and it will still be true.

HAMLET
I partly agree with what you said. Teamwork is also important for young males in sport. We need both. Footy is nothing less than a social substitute for the 'warriors on the warpath' against the next village, and fortunately, we don't kill anyone and take their wife and children in the process.

But Boxing does not need to be a 'harm' sport, head gear, and sparring gloves (bigger/softer) reduce the risk. You score points on the number of blows landed. Yes it is possible to knock your opponent out, but it takes quite a thump.

INEB.. my "Lion" was a bully. I was so lonely and isolated and friendless in grade 5, I used to sit in the fork of a tree most recesses, finally tried to join Kick2Kick, and this moron tried to push me around, he ran past shoving me, I flipped his back foot :) naughty me.. ce-rash... down he went.. and came back to 'hurt' me, Jab jab... game over.. me instantly from zero to hero. It does make a difference to get that 'Lion'... by ourselves.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 9:30:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Laurie,
“remember when talking about family breakdown that men leave their families as often as women do”

Could you please reference the studies that show this. I have searched quite extensively, but I have not found any studies to date that show this, and I believe that what you have said is just another feminist myth.

Father Dave,
You may find interesting the recent article “The Metaphysics of Masculinity” by Paul C. Robbins at http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/robbins/2005/robbins110805.htm
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 9:43:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, despite my personal view that boxing is probably the ugliest of the martial arts, I recognise that Father Dave is actually doing something useful, rather than (for example) blathering on about Muslim bogeymen - as others of his religious persuasion are wont to do in these forums.

I was perhaps a little concerned by Dave's perception that men either beat their women or get walked over by them, but overall I thought his clearly good works outweighed any jollies I might get personally by having a go at him.

Good onya Dave - I wish there were more men around like you. Keep up the good work. You set a great example for other nominally Christian correspondents to these forums, who seem to prefer rabble rousing to following in the footsteps of their Lord.

For the record, I have training in Judo, Karate (and Tai Chi). I encouraged my adult daughter and teenage son to take up Ju-Jitsu, which they did enthusiastically (my daughter is now a lawyer).

There is nothing incompatible with manliness and feminism - which is where I think Father Dave is exceptionally wise in his ideas about how the essence of manliness is the harnessing of 'themos'. Indeed, IMHO it is in the way we exercise our masculine propensities that defines the men we are.
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 10:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, re headgear and gloves.

I used to play American Football, yes, all that protective gear, thermo plastic shoulderpads and a helmet much stronger than anything you would wear on a motorcycle. Guess what? All that 'protective' gear was mainly there to enable a player to hit harder, without hurting himself, it had nothing to do with protecting the other player.

Boxing gloves are intended not to protect the fighter who is being hit, they are there to protect the hands of the person doing the hitting, to enable them to hit harder. Old time bare knuckle bouts were brutal, with cut hands and faces, and broken bones in the hands and face, however there was less brain damage, and fewer deaths.

The modern boxing glove and helmet are cosmetic, when the head is hit the brain squishes around in the cranial cavity like a blob of jelly inside a shaken jar no matter how much padding is on the outside of the skull. That is what is intended, it is that damage that causes 'knockouts' and the daze resulting from a boxing match.

You may like to look at:

http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/38/1/78

A total of 659 deaths from boxing between 1918 and 1997 have been recorded, with an average of nine a year. (snip)

CASE REPORT
An 18 year old man suffered multiple blows to the head during an amateur boxing match, and became progressively lethargic and finally comatose. He was transferred to the trauma centre after 25–40 minutes. He was haemodynamically stable, with a Glasgow coma scale of 7 and pupils that were bilaterally reactive. He arrived in the computed tomography department 25 minutes after his admission. The scans of his head showed a small left subdural haematoma, hemispheric oedema with midline shift to the right, and subarachnoid haemorrhage (snip). etc:

Being beaten to death in a boxing ring is not particularly 'masculine'.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 10:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You'll have to forgive me for barging back in again, but after the last post about deaths in boxing, I feel I need to say something.

I hate the fact that people get injured and die in boxing, but I think the dangers are regularly exaggerated.

The overall figures are notoriously difficult to pin down, but it's generally thought to be 500 deaths in 150 years of boxing. That's sounds like a lot, but I'm told that it's far less than in yachting, let alone the rugby codes.

I have on my desk a 21-page report by Dr Ed Eridelander, outlining why he supports amateur boxing, and a 14-page analysis of the famous 'Velazquez Collection' - generally thought to be the most complete collection of data on boxing injuries and fatalities. This analysis concludes that while professional boxers stand a greater risk of injury or death through their profession, they are at much lower risk than industrial workers or farm laborers!

I don't want to deny the risks inherent in the sport, but keep in mind that the fight game works best with high-risk kids, and when anybody says to me 'you might be taking three or four years off the end of this young man's life by teaching him boxing' I always say, 'well, even if that were true, I don't mind taking three or four years of the end if I can add thirty or forty to the front'.
Posted by Father Dave, Thursday, 10 November 2005 1:31:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boxing training should possibly be the included in School curriculums. This would provide adolescent males with respectr for authority (sadly lacking), get them off the couch or computer games, instill discipline, and also invariably teach them basic lessons about life - ie. do the wrong thing there are consequences.

All of these salient points are sadly missing from the Australian adolescent male on the whole. Personally I blame it upon the new version of the nuclear family (mum and kids). The role of coaching adolescent males through the startling, untoward effects (caused by surging testoserone) of puberty, has traditionally been the father / uncles / etc. I do not blame single mothers for their difficulties in doing this, however lacking the equipment, that causes particularly young males to recourse to violence means that they are ill-equipped to understand the problem.

Therefore people get hurt, and without male role models, they invariably seek redress for trifling insults / injuries, most of which were in fact deserved (in the past this was explained as 'taking it on the chin / or being a man, and deserved hidings were forgiven). Failure to understand this leads to an increase in violence and thuggery, the young males of today think that they can act however they please, and suffer no repercussions - historically this is unwise.
Posted by Aaron, Thursday, 10 November 2005 5:52:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martial arts such as Tae Kwon Do, Karate have more to teach about disclipine than the rather more basic boxing. Also these arts should be available to both boys and girls for the same reasons as Dave Smith argues.

I started late in life learning Tae Kwon Do - wish I'd had the opportunity to learn as a young child - perhaps I wouldn't have wound up married to an abusive man if I'd had a black belt back then. I'm sure I would've had more self-confidence as well.

I'm all for the defensive arts to be taught - to everyone.
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:16:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not agree regarding martial arts.

I have done both, boxing early, martial arts later and you get no encouragement or themos release form standing in a line doing glorified aerobics. Some are different of course and their are different forms/learning structures with each, but generally many of the defensive arts are like this. Muay Thai is a different kettle of fish, but it is brutal rather than noble in my opinion, and turns vulnerable youths into capable killers, with instucutors generally having a different, more aggressive mindset to boxing trainers.

Nothing gets rid of themos like half an hour of solid bag work. In my experience by the end of the martial arts classes i did, all i saw was 6 year old kids very excited to try their new capabilities out, as they were underdone on the sparring side and did not feel the physical fatique at the end of the night due to this. the schoolyard or siblings are usually who cops the brunt.

For self defence great. For women and those who do not have the need to release aggression, great.

No kid is agressive when they are completely exhausted, and there is no substitution for the sweet science in this regard.
Posted by Realist, Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:29:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is an article - a brilliant article - written by a man, a good man, about boys. About boys in general and about some boys in his care and in trouble too. It should be respected as just that, I believe.

But, no, we have Scout chirping in about "these arts should be available to both boys and girls for the same reasons as Dave Smith argues."

Well, with all due respect Scout, and I do really mean that, this article is not about girls getting in touch with their themos, even if they do have one, it's about, let me say that again, loudly, IT'S ABOUT, boys.

That's one of the biggest problems with masculinity today - women pushing, yes pushing, themselves and their noses into masculine places and affairs where they aren't welcome and then they turn all debate and conversion into talk about themselves. Give us a break!

This is the ugly, narcissistic face of feminism and the "me-too-ism" of many modern women. It's selfish, it's adolescent, it's rude and it's what is getting women and feminism a very bad name.

For Heaven's sake Scout, there's enough proactive womenism in the world today to help girls, but boys have been neglected and are seriously suffering. The world is feeling the disastrous effects of this right now in Paris and other places.

But, you may not care about boys and their future manhood, but the good Father Dave here does. Surely you can have enough respect and grace to sit back and let the discussion for once, revolve around boys, men and masculinity.

If you want girls to get in touch with their masculinity, great. There's nothing wrong with that, I guess, it's a free country, but please back out and give us men a bit of space to be ourselves with our boys and our masculinity just for once.

And to Pedant, I do like your point - but I'm going to have to wait until later to answer you, so I don't blow out my 350 words here.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 10 November 2005 5:06:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David you maintain that men are the protectors of women in the natural world and certainly in your "mugging" scenario the victim is female and the protector is male, but the mugger (aggressor) is also male. Does this mean that men are the aggressors of women in the natural world also? Does it mean that women are the victims of men in the natural world? Rhetorical questions, to which I say the answer is "no". If you are about to become the victim of a violent mugging, you should welcome protection from a protector (male or female). You won't say to a female protector, "Sorry, you're not a natural protector so don't protect me thanks, I'd rather let this mugger smash me in the face"! I've been rescued from male and female aggressors by male and female protectors and I've also as a protector rescued male and female victims from male and female aggressors. I don't believe that there is a natural 'protector' sex, same as I don't believe there is a natural 'aggressor' sex or a natural 'victim' sex. Persons (and animals) of both sexes play out these roles in the natural world. Mahatma Duck has it better when he says, "There is nothing incompatible with manliness and feminism".

Father Dave I think you're right regarding the dangers of boxing as compared to other sports (I'm sure I've seen it somewhere that there are more deaths in fishing than boxing). Plus the tremendous physical exercise involved in boxing keeps people fit and healthy, which helps prevent heart disease etc. Realist is right when he says half an hour of bag work is completely exhausting! I'd still be interested in a response to my comments about King David and Jesus Christ given your assertion that men were made to fight physically and it's part of the fabric of the Bible.
Posted by Pedant, Thursday, 10 November 2005 6:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi guys. I want to jump in to comment on the Martial Arts issue, as someone brought up Taekwondo as a good alternative to boxing.

I started in the Martial Arts and have two black belts in Hapkido (the sister art of Taekwondo) and eight black belts in all. I am also president of a national Martial Arts organisation.

I have moved away from teaching traditional Martial Arts to young men for two reasons - firstly because I've found it to be too physically dangerous, and secondly because I think that most martial arts introduce a dangerous mentality in students.

The Martial Arts I mean are those that train youngsters to punch the air, punch bags and break wood, but never let them punch anybody else. These arts are generally associated with a macho belief that, "If I had followed through with that shot I would have killed you" or some rubbish like that.

The real problem with this is not just that it breeds arrogance and false confidence, but that it leaves young men hungering for a street fight!

Imagine teaching swimming by having someone stand at the side of the pool and wave their arms around in circles, while telling them, "You're a great swimmer. Just don't ever get in the water!"

This would be crazy, yet young guys train in 'self-defence' for years and years, practicising their techniques over and over again, while swearing that they'll never use them!

Is it any suprise then that martial artists have a terrible record of getting into street fights that they should run from, as well as getting themselves killed, as they've never actually experienced a real fight!

No! I throw the boys straight into a good rumble on the first night. Let them experience their humanity straight up, get the agro out of their systems in a controlled environment, and discover just how hard it is to hurt someone who knows how to move well and use their brain and not just their fists. Then we've got a basis of reality that we can build on.
Posted by Father Dave, Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:19:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are right again Dave.

Dave for PM!
Posted by Realist, Friday, 11 November 2005 9:39:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that the pugilistic arts may be helpful to boys, I am not disputing that. I am merely offering alternatives. I have experienced, personally, the confidence that arises from studying martial arts. I merely wish to make the point that self defence is a vital skill and discipline for all - male and female.

Tenets of Tae Kwon Do (similar to tenents in other martial arts)

Courtesy
Students must always show respect to their instructors, to senior students and to all others. Students must be polite and encourage a sense of justice. Students must constantly look within themselves and not be quick to judge others.

Integrity
One must be able to define right from wrong, and if wrong, then to feel remorse. Inside the training room, a student should honestly attempt to do what the instructor asks. Outside, students must not misrepresent or rationalise their behaviour.

Perseverance
Things of value are not easy to attain. Peseverance and patience are required to excel at anything. Perseverance means, sticking to it. If you fail the first time, then try again and again, confident that if your endeavour is worthy, then you will succeed.

Self Control
This tenet is extremely import both inside and outside the training room. Whether you are sparring or conducting a business meeting, it is important that you have self control in your dealings with other people. When you can control yourself, you will be able to work comfortably and confidently with others.

Indomitable Spirit
Never be afraid of yourself or your own judgement. Indomitable spirit is what enables you to keep your ideals and your identity against overwhelming pressures. It is the strength to reject the things that everyone else is doing, if you believe them to be wrong.

The martial arts skills learned in Tae Kwon Do are to be used to prevent conflict and violence. Never should a Tae Kwon Do student initiate physical conflict, and the techniques of Tae Kwon Do should only be used as a last resort in self defence or in the defence of another person.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 11 November 2005 9:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must respond to Pedant's question about the Biblical perspective on fighting.

I don't want to pretend to have all the answers on this front, but let me say that I don't see Jesus as being nearly as wimpy as most movie-makers have depicted Him (Mel Gibson excepted). Indeed, my reading of the Garden of Gethsemene scene in the Bible that you refer to is that Jesus was prepared for a fight until He realised that it just wasn't God's will to resist the inevitable, as indicated by the fact that His disciples couldn't even stay awake to stand guard (presumably having downed one too many at the last supper).

You make an important point about King David though too, and it's a good indicator that the Bible does not glorify violence, but it certainly does affirm that there's 'a time to fight'.

While I'm here, let me make on final comment on Taekwondo. I don't want to knock taekwondo, and see it as one of the better arts, particularly as it is a sport and not simply a form of 'self-defence', but I think that it is highly over-rated as a form of self-defence, particularly for women.

I've trained women and girls for 15 years now, including having one of my girls win the Australain lightweight title (kickboxing) and in fighting, weight is everything. The sorts of guys who attack women are big nasty bastards, and the best kicks in the world from a small women are not likely to have a big effect. I say this only because I worry that so many of these arts instill a false degree of over-confidence in practitioners.

I teach self-defence too on occasions (I use a variation on the 'panic attack' system). I've taught it to police, to prison-wardens, to church security groups and to women's groups, but the strategy I teach women especially has nothing to do with teaching them how to win a stand-up fight. It's all about distracting the attacker with one quick hit and then taking off as quickly as possible.
Posted by Father Dave, Friday, 11 November 2005 10:40:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Father Dave I think you missed the point of my post. As stated I am not disputing that boxing may well be a good discipline for young boys. Nor am I interested in your opinions on women learning martial arts. I have personally benefitted from them and know many other women who have also. But this is not my point.

I posted the 5 Tenents of Tae Kwon Do (and it could be any other martial art) to impart the type of discipline that it and other martial arts can offer young children. Thats all. Defensive skills are wonderful exercise and confidence building. However, these skills alone do not create a man who is a better partner, father, citizen or man - if only it was that simple. However it is a good place to start.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 11 November 2005 2:00:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,

I appreciate your perspective and it is good to see you are pasionate about it.

This was to do with boxing, and whilst we appreciate your insight, you are kidding by trying to illustrate that you get the same out of it.

my questions are:

A: Are you male?
B: Have you done both sports, or just one?

if your answer is no to one or both, you are not poised to accurately comment
Posted by Realist, Saturday, 12 November 2005 12:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great answer Father Dave. I agree that "the Bible does not glorify violence, but it certainly does affirm that there's 'a time to fight'". I don't see Jesus as wimpy (haven't seen Passion of the Christ so not sure how Mel's actor does it), and certainly being crucified is one of the least 'wimpy' ways to die. Jesus just didn't need to fight physically and it can be seen throughout the Gospels (I've tended to skip the movies and go straight to the Book) that He had the authority and confidence for fighting to be unnecessary.

Realist, it's a bit silly to ask Scout if she is male, when from her posts above she is clearly female. She doesn't have to be male to comment but your question 'B:' is a good point and I see that you have done both sports so you are able to comment. Scout did bag (dodgy pun, sorry) boxing when she said 'Martial arts such as Tae Kwon Do, Karate have more to teach about disclipine than the rather more basic boxing'. I think Scout is wrong, which can be partly evidenced by Father Dave's work. Boxing has much to offer boys and men, and also (sorry Maximus, I'm going to have to say it) girls and women. Lauren Burns did a great job winning her Tae-Kwon-Do gold medal at the Sydney Olympics. But in a fight against Sharon Anyos (current junior featherweight world champion trained by boxing legend Jeff Fenech, who once declared "women don't belong in the ring" until Sharon changed his mind), I'd have to put my money on Sharon. Maybe someday we will see women's boxing at the Olympics also.
Posted by Pedant, Saturday, 12 November 2005 3:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about teaching restraint, resolving issues non-violently, being courageous, learning how to love not hate, learn to rid yourself of fear and anger, learning priciples and that being a man means being courageous and caring not aggressive and controlling.?

And not trying to injure other people?
Posted by Atman, Saturday, 12 November 2005 8:49:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Pedant - appreciate your POV, however I have done both Tae Kwon Do and straight out kick boxing. Must admit I'm not so good with a punch but deadly with a kick.

Anyway Atman has raised the point I was trying to get to with the posting of my 5 tenents.

I have no doubt that boxing may well be the saving of some of our children - but different strokes OK?

The foundation of eastern martial art is in self-control and striving towards peaceful resolution, force is used only in defence and only as a last resort. These are good values to be teaching our children, especially in today's violent times when might is considered 'right'.

BTW - my fave male athlete continues to be Mohamed Ali.

Peace brothers.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 13 November 2005 6:42:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman said (unfortunately he neglected to give his source, Jesus Christ)

<<How about teaching restraint, resolving issues non-violently, >>

There are two levels on which society works.

1/ The personal.
2/ The State.

On the personal level, Christs teaching/Advice (I cannot call it Atmans) is ground breaking, and most difficult to achieve, going totally against our natural inclination for revenge and defense of our rights.

I'm thinking that in terms of other scriptural references such as:

"As far as it depends on you, live peacefully with all men" (Romans 12:18)

...there comes a point where the individual role needs to be taken over by the State.

Christs teaching on 'Enemies' is in my opinion on the 'Individual' level. We are to show Gods universal love in our lives, and by our behavior, attract mankind to His kingdom and rule in our lives.

The State has the responsibility to protect the freedoms of the Individual and maintain law and order. In a democracy, it is the responsibility of the individuals to elect just such a government.

This might include some measures which are unpalatable to those who would seek a different kind of government such as an Islamic or Socialist State.

When I read Christs teaching on 'If your enemy forces you to go one mile, go with him two' I find it easier to relate it to a totalitarian state like that of Rome, where a Soldier was legally allowed to compel a Jew to carry his Armor for one mile,than to some thugs in the street. In the case of the Soldier, do go the 2nd mile was a symbol of personal liberty in Christ and of Gods love for the Soldier.

I'd like to think that in our efforts to defend ourselves, we limit what we do to 'reasonable restraint' rather than vindictive revenge
as per Scouts post.

Christs teaching recognizes that violence is a terrible distortion of Gods image in us, and that to restrain gives more opportunity for the perpetrator to re-capture that image.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 13 November 2005 1:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD - I thought you believed that this thread should be "men only" and to judge from your first post to this thread that you believed a good stoush as the way to settle differences. Thanks to your comments I received some abuse from our ...er... more 'neanderthal' posters.

And now you're quoting the bible - does this mean you have turned the other cheek?

Why can't you discover self-restraint without reference to Christ?

Commonsense tells us that peaceful settlement is a lot more advantageous than beating the pulp out of one another.

So did you teach your children how to defend themselves or how to attack?

I teach both my nephew and my niece some basic self defense moves - its been great to watch their confidence soar and their fitness improve.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 13 November 2005 1:50:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And here is a problem:

This has been edited, but the original can be found at:

http://smh.com.au/news/national/rioters-in-jail-after-pressure-from-police/2005/11/13/1131816809109.html

Rioters in jail after pressure from police
By Andrew Clennell
November 14, 2005

A magistrate has sentenced two men to a years' jail for their part in the Macquarie Fields riots after howls of protest forced a rethink on his decision to order a "conference" with police.

Luke Standing, 20, and Daniel Dunn, 21, are now appealing against the severity of their punishment, but police have applauded the jail terms.

According to a police summary tendered to the court, Standing had thrown about 50 rocks at police during the riot on the evening of Saturday, February 26.

Dunn, a demolition worker, had verbally threatened police and flung a metal paling at them.

Mr Shepherd acknowledged the men's "contrition" when he sentenced them but said jail was appropriate.

He said Standing had lost his place in the Commonwealth Games boxing team as a result of his offence, but a message had to be sent to the community that such behaviour would not be tolerated.

Mr Scipione has welcomed the sentences. "I'd like to thank the magistrate," he said. "It's a fair outcome, and I'm very grateful that common sense has prevailed. The magistrate has been very balanced in terms of the final decision. It shows support for the police … There needs to be a deterrent effect."

Mr Debus refused to comment. A spokesman said: "We have no comment to make about it. It's a court matter."

The fate of five others who were diverted to conferencing for their role in the riots is not known but Mr Debus has said most are in full-time employment and one is completing the Higher School Certificate.

=+=+=+=+

So here we have a young man who has demonstrated all the ability and discipline through boxing to make it to the Commonwealth Games Team, and he still takes part in a riot against authority.

Any comments?
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 14 November 2005 9:12:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout it's terrible if posters are abusing you because you are female. In my opinion you're not wrong because you're a female, you're wrong because you're wrong. I've done judo, tae-kwon do, boxing and kickboxing. Different strokes are great. Martial arts are great. The tenets you post are an excellent guide. Martial arts have much to teach about discipline. However, martial arts do NOT have MORE to teach about discipline than boxing. The key word there is "more" and that is where you are, in my opinion, WRONG. But peace all around, definitely, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BOAZ_David I don't see where Scout's posts suggest violence be used for vindictive revenge. That's a huge call, and sounds like you're being a bit vindictive yourself. All Scout said was that if she had studied Tae-kwon-do earlier she would perhaps have had more confidence and would not have married an abusive man. It's like your post that the thread should be men only. Some men like the idea that they can have men-only things.... historically like voting or wearing trousers to work and, more recently, boxing or Online Opinion forum posting threads. However the Online-Opinion forum isn't a 'men-only' space and neither is the boxing ring. There are 'men-only' spaces, and masculinity is important, as is teaching boys pride in themselves and their achievements (nod to Realist and Father Dave here) and you should be encouraging that rather than trying to take a public space and make it men only.

I think it's important to teach both defence and attack and I think a combination would seem logical. There is also a big difference of course between learning self-defence techniques in case you get attacked in the street (Father Dave's "run away" suggestion is probably the best, as long as you're running to a safer place) and what you will need for a bout in the ring. So whether you are teaching defence, or attack, or both, would depend on the situation (for you Scout, tae-kwon-do does teach how to attack, otherwise how could it be an Olympic sport?).
Posted by Pedant, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 8:04:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting post Hamlet. I note that Standing (the boxer) turned himself into police while Dunn (the other guy) was apprehended [time out for silly mind picture - Dunn Standing]. So maybe boxing is having some discipinary effect.... marginally. Clearly more time in the gym with Father Dave required here. Interesting to see that he was throwing rocks at police (very cowardly and unacceptable behaviour) if he was a Commonwealth Games standard boxer and hit police he could have caused some very nasty injuries.

I note that you recommend football (rugby league, rugby union & grid-iron) as a better alternative to boxing. Football is great, and great for boys. So's boxing. However, if we got into what irresponsible footballers do off the field with their ‘teamwork’ we could be posting for a very long time...
Posted by Pedant, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 8:14:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pedant - really into what you are saying. I don't claim to know all there is about boxing - it just appears to me that there is less of the spiritual/values type thing attached to it than with eastern style martial arts - we can agree to disagree.

I also agree about the balance between defence and offense - I was simply having a go at BD - he is always on the attack and revealed his prejudice and ignorance by calling this a male-only thread. I wish there were some more female posters to this thread.

You were spot on with your observation with regard to wishing I had learned Tae Kwon Do earlier in life.

Look forward to meeting with you on other threads.
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 8:00:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I decided not to post on OLO after realising most discussions would be hijacked by those blinded by single obsessions and penchants for abuse and red herrings (BD, I don't include you – you often make valiant attempts to engage with the topic. You have an idée fixe, but you also have manners). But they're not here, for which I give thanks, so I am.

Father Dave, this feminist agnostic superannuated hippie mum thinks you're a gem. Being a good pacifist, bookish, left-ish stereotype, I was horrified by the thought of my son (brought up in an effectively all-female household with his mother, his grandmother, and a very effeminate male), playing violent games – and got something of a nasty shock to discover refusing to buy war toys meant he'd make guns out of Lego. Not as big a shock as I got when he decided to take up (cue aghast drum roll) ice hockey.

Well, I couldn't have been more wrong. After a game in which he got to hit someone (or two, or three), who was willing to be hit, expecting to be hit, padded up to be hit, he was a different kid. He was so much calmer. He could concentrate in school, at least until Thursday afternoon, by which time he was thinking about the next game. The coach instilled a good deal of discipline, and an understanding, both of actions having consequences when you hurt someone, and of playing fair (out of self-interest as much as much as principle, but how different is this from the Golden Rule?). He's a much more balanced kid as the result of something I was ideologically opposed to, and I think it's probably been the making of him. I now believe it's important to allow outlets for maleness and male drives. My strong suspicion is much like yours – boys are gentler and more self-controlled if they have an outlet for the stone-age hunter in the space-age society. Are donations to you tax-deductible? Sorry to ask, but being broke, I need to make my charity relatively inexpensive.
Posted by anomie, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 3:11:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SCOUT / PEDANT.... ERRATA

My comment:

<<I'd like to think that in our efforts to defend ourselves, we limit what we do to 'reasonable restraint' rather than vindictive revenge
as per Scouts post.>>

This was 'intended' to mean that Scout was advocating 'reasonable restraint' and NOT vindictive revenge.. looking at it and thanx to feedback from Pedant...it seemed to suggest the opposite. Sorry about that team.

Anomie,
are you trying to make me CRY ? :) it almost worked... nice words... appreciated, your sons experience.. "exactly" :)

Scout and all females.....

I think I have it figured out now. I was sharing with a long term gym buddy, a professional and very fit lady, about 'self defence' with this thread in mind. I asked "What would you 'do' if a man swung a big right hand at your face in an attempt to disable you" ?

To my shock, she said "probably freeze".... We talked more, and without ANY coaching from me, she volunteered that 'aggression and kicking butt is very much not a 'female' thing.

After I picked myself up off the floor.. from the shock of such honesty, I thought more about this and here is my 'Hypothesis'.

In any population of females, there will be 'some' at one end of the spectrum who have more testosterone than the rest. These ones, are those who claim 'We don't need men to protect us' etc...But the majority, will have an even balance of the hormones, and some at the other end, will be particularly feminine.

Vice Versa with Males. At one end, less testosterone, and they will be the passive types possibly more in touch with their feminine side (no offense to anyone).

But on the whole, I think its statistically sound that:

-most males are the more aggressive and protective 'by nature'
-most females are less aggressive and have less motivation to 'attack' to defend themselves.

Some females responses on their reaction to a man 'swinging' at them.

Security Guard "Kick him in the nuts"
Checkout chick "Hit him back"
Video Ezy consultant "don't know"
Gym friend "freeze"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 7:18:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Laurie fyi - Australian Bureau of Statistics annual report on divorce reveals that for divorces in 2004, 41% were instigated by the woman, 31% by the man and 28% jointly.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/divorce-the-way-of-the-future/2005/11/15/1132016796638.html

It seems that, at least in 2004, 10% more women than men instigated divorce proceedings. Whether 31% men vs 41% women is a great deal or even proves anything at all will no doubt be interpreted from personal perspective ;-) and of course the person that instigates divorce proceedings in court may not be the person perceived to have "left"/"deserted" the family as such.

BOAZ_David thanks for the clarification regarding vindictive revenge. In regard to your hypotheses while I agree that people can be placed on a "scale" of aggressiveness and passivity, I also say that it depends on the circumstances. If someone (male or female) swung a big right hand at my face to disable me, I'd duck and run away, except if I was boxing in which case I'd block their right and follow up with a nice right left combination myself (or attempt to anyway!). Also in your example you AGAIN use a male as an aggressor to a female. I say that sometimes males are aggressive to males, sometimes males are aggressive to females, sometimes females are aggressive to males and sometimes females are aggressive to females. Again, even if only subconsciously, you're tyring to take the aggressor role and make it men-only.

Scout I don't think BOAZ_David is ignorant and on an open forum BOAZ_David is entitled to his views and I like to read them (even if I disagree). However BOAZ_David certainly has displayed prejudices especially towards you and towards women. For example when he posted earlier, "I'm looking around for our buddy 'Scout' to leap out and put a post in huge caps about us being Neanderthal or Barbaric :) .... I think we should declare this thread 'MEN ONLY' :)". Bit of a logical fallacy there - he says he's looking for you, but then he wants to exclude you.

And yes, Father Dave, how can we donate to your program?
Posted by Pedant, Thursday, 17 November 2005 11:17:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi guys :-)

I thought it wouldn't hurt to chip in with some final thoughts and comments.

Pedant, I like your style :-)

Anomie, I'm greatly encouraged to see that you've 'seen the light' (for want of a better phrase) and appreciate your desire to give support.

As we're both broke, probaby we're best off just praying for eachother, but if you ever want to buy me a drink, you can do so at http://www.fightshop.biz/bmad

BD, I was sympathetic to your original idea of the men-only thread, as it reflected a recognition of the fact that men and women do tend to feel very differently about fighting. This is not the place for such exclusiveness of course, but I do think it's high time that men got together and discussed what it means to be men in this day and age. The girls have been way ahead of us in this department.

Personally I think maleness comes down to three 'loves' at a genetic level: we love women, working and fighting.

Now, I know that not all men love to fight. OK, not all men love women either, but in terms of a broad genetic archetype, I personally think that this pretty well sums it up.
Posted by Father Dave, Thursday, 17 November 2005 11:41:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now I know that Sout is not interested in my opinions on women in the fighting arts, but let me offer some concluding thoughts on this anyway, as the discussion has progressed.

I have been a great advocate of women in the fighting arts. I've been teaching women to fight all my life, have fought with the state govt. over the ban on women in boxing/kickboxing, have been threatened with legal action on numerous occasions for sanctioning female fights, etc. Having said that, I personally believe that most 'self defense' training for women is counter-productive. Why? Because it tends to give women a false over-confidence in their fighting ability.

I've sparred with my mate Holly Fernley - women's world kickboxing champ - on a number of occasions, and she is the only women I've ever encountered who I believe could truly knock me down with a kick. She's a great lady and a great fighter, but most women are never going to get near that level of power. It's all about weight and muscle to weigh ratio, and from a self-defense point of view, if you are a light weight, you need more than flexibility and high kicks to stop a large male assailant.

I don't think this is meant to reflect a negative attitude towards women. I have two daughters, and a wife (who also has a black belt) and I think it's because I care about women that I want to help them be realistic about their chances in a street fight. I teach the 'panic attack' system for women (developed by Tony Blaur in Canada) and recommend Win Chun to women looking specifically for a self-defense system, as this was designed for women.

I don't think this issue is a side-track, as I personally believe that the very reason men are genetically programmed to fight is so that they can defend people who are not able to defend themselves. Frankly the only time I've ever been in a street-fight was to prevent an attempted rape situation.

I've said enough. Catch you guys at www.fatherdave.org some time :-)
Posted by Father Dave, Thursday, 17 November 2005 11:43:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pedant(andSCOUT)

my quip about 'men only' was as much tongue in cheek as anything. Females are welcome here, but the chances of them understanding what goes on in the 'male' mind on this issue are pretty remote. If you don't 'feel' it (due to gender) how can you understand it ? :)

Women have the 'nesting' urge... right or wrong ? I don't really 'understand' it so much as acknowledge it. I mean.. I participate in the 'nesting' because I know it has to be done for the sake of the family, but I don't have the real 'hormonal/genetic' drive to nest like a female does. MY hormonal/genetic response to the female nesting drive is that of protector and provider.

I don't see 'prejudice' in this, I just see nature.

Don't look to me for 'pc attitudes on gender' :) In me you will only find the Biblical approach. Which, if I might add, is very equitable and just. I've often said that I don't object to women working etc, but I DO emphasise that due to the nesting/babies issues, a career is most difficult to persue 'as' a man might. So, in this I see flexibility and creativity as the appropriate direction for females.

Males have to be vigilant and protective. It's not a new thing.
Way back in the time of Ruth (Old testament) BOAZ (my namesake) ordered "Tell the young men not to molest Ruth" (she was a foreigner) so we are also 'predatory' to a degree, (the reproductive urge).

At Bible study I asked the hostess how she would handle a male attacker. "My blood would boil and I'd attack him". I said "lets look at the mechanics of that.. like say a 'big right hand at your face' so.. I said "slow motion, show me how you would deal with it"... I slowly made a right towards her, and she KICKED me :) very well done too.. but my left hand was by my side and my fingies got caught under the impact. Still in pain :) Next time I say SLOWWWWW motion !
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 18 November 2005 7:39:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD (eyes rolling to back of head) "my quip about 'men only' was as much tongue in cheek as anything".

Really?

You made your comments regarding me BEFORE I had even made a post to this thread.

You have been found out and now you are trying to claw you way around the fact that you have a narrow, stereotypical view of women. You also paved the way for some mean little remarks put to me by other male posters. A hair shirt is order for you BD. JC must be shaking his head in sadness at you right now.

As for your little straw poll

"Security Guard "Kick him in the nuts"
Checkout chick "Hit him back"
Video Ezy consultant "don't know"
Gym friend "freeze" "

What the F**k does that prove? If you asked the same question of men you would receive similar answers.

The topic is about the advantages of teaching the pugilistic arts to boys. I have merely pointed out, as have many others to this thread, that the advantages apply equally to girls.

BTW Father Dave - I am under no illusions about my abilities and strengths - however my skills in martial arts DO give me an advantage over those who do not possess any abilities in this area. I have been in situations where I have had to defend myself and can state that the average male will back off if he finds that he has underestimated his intended victim - surprise and speed works. Also I have a longer reach with my foot than the average male has with his fist.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Friday, 18 November 2005 9:33:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1

BOAZ_David, females can understand what goes on in a male mind, the same as males can understand what goes on in a female mind. Otherwise male psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors could only treat male patients and vice-versa. Gynaecologists and andrologists can be male or female even if they don't have the same genitalia as their patients. God even created male and female in His image. So a female is the made in the image of God (as is a male). Also in the natural world, male and female animals are not restricted to particular roles. In various species, male animals do the 'nesting'. In others, female animals are 'vigilant and protective'.

However I do give you credit for following an assertion that females cannot understand the male mind with a question about the female mind (obviously on your logic you as a male couldn't make an assertion about the female mind). I don't agree with your assertion, but I respect that you are finally making some logical points. But then you go to Bible study and ask the hostess how she would handle a male attacker. Why not just ask her how she would handle an attacker? Please stop trying to make the 'aggressor' role men only.

You do have a narrow, stereotypical view of women. I urge you to broaden your view, and I disagree that your approach is Biblical ( look at Proverbs 31:10-31). I don't look for 'PC' attitudes to gender from you, I look for you to treat people as people, as Jesus did. If people treated each other properly there would be no need for 'PC' attitudes and we could all get along (and even enjoy the odd tongue in cheek joke!). Political correctness stems from actual incorrectness, I will never be sorry for wanting women to be treated as people.
Posted by Pedant, Friday, 18 November 2005 1:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

At the same time, I can enjoy a joke. However the joke you made was at Scout's expense, before she even posted to the thread and wasn't very funny. Stick to making jokes about your "fingies" or you can feel free to make jokes about me, I won't be upset. I even like to make self depreciating jokes about myself although I'm not very good at it. Tee hee.

I am sympathetic to the idea of men getting together in an appropriate place and discussing what it means to be men in this day and age and expressing themos (I guess as long as the subject of these discussions isn't how to be men by keeping down women!).

I thought we were doing much better earlier, approaching the "people are on a scale" idea. All people (male or female) have the 'nesting urge' or the 'vigilant and protective urge' or the 'predator urge' or the 'reproductive urge' on a scale. So, to answer your question, some women don't have a nesting urge and some do, and for those that do, some have it more than others. Conversely some men don't have a nesting urge and some do, and for those that do, some have it more than others. If you can agree that people are on a scale, we might be getting closer to agreement. I'm even quite happy to agree that there are more women than men on certain ends of certain scales. I'm quite happy to agree with Father Dave that most women won't beat most men in a fight because of power-to-weight ratio. But he's not denying training to girls on this basis, which is good.

Scout if someone (male or female) is harassing you, then you challenge them and they back down, that's great. If they don't stop and especially they are bigger and stronger than you I'm still with Father Dave and Monty Python on the "run away" thing (as long as you're running to a safer place) or even look around for someone (male or female of course) to help you.
Posted by Pedant, Friday, 18 November 2005 1:28:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pedant

I am intelligent enough to know when to fight and when to flee. And have done both.

Apart from that comment - I appreciate the points you raised in your posts.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 19 November 2005 11:06:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pedant..and Scout
You 2 need to chill a bit, lay down and relax. You are ascribing farrrr to much 'intent' to my rather naked words (i.e. unclothed with body language or intonation) and you seem to have missed the odd 'smiley'...

Pedant..
I'm detecting a considerable knowledge of scripture coming from you, and this is encouraging. Lets just hope that you are not of the 'Pharisaical' mould :)

Just on the issue of 'male aggression' I don't know why this is even a bone of contention, it is 'nature' for goodness sake. Males BIG, Females 'small' etc... Testosterone is a male hormone..and it has medically describable characteristics.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s394779.htm

<<The Y chromosome governs serotonin levels. The researchers conclude that when the Y chromosome is stimulated, serotonin levels decrease and testosterone increases. The result is aggressive behaviour.>>

So, all I am doing is merely echoing good science. The biblical position is this: "a Man must look after his own household above all else."

In terms of his relationship to his wife, it is one of sacrificial self giving in the context of leadership. Such a structure has nothing at all to do with inequality or lack of respect and I'm getting a bit weary of the constant attacks on this matter.

But re this topic, sure.. females are welcome to engage in energetic persuits of self defence, why should they not ?

So, my position on the nature of the 'male' is born out by natural observation, scientific fact and Biblical revelation. Why are we arguing ? or it just 'get Boaz day' :) ?
blessings.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 20 November 2005 3:35:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1

Get Boaz day! Yeah! Yeah! I smell blood! No, just kidding ;-) if it was really get Boaz day, and I was in one of my particularly pedantic and (shock, horror) aggressive moods I'd point out that the correct word is "borne", not "born" ;-)

Sorry we're going to have to agree to disagree here as I don't agree with your views on a fixed nature of the male, observational, Biblical or scientific and :-P for good measure if we're going smileys ;-) BUT I will agree that on a scale most men are more aggressive than most women.

Observationally, I detect that some women can be very aggressive and some men can be very passive. Conversely some men can be very agressive and some women can be very passive. Regarding, "Males big, females small", I have to point out that I've seen some big females and some small males. My position is that it's all about being on a scale.... much easier to prove than your assertion, "Males big, females small".... AND I'm even happy to agree that on a scale most males are bigger than most females.

Yes testosterone is the principal sex male hormone but it is secreted in the testes of men and the ovaries of women check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone and in both males and females, testosterone plays key roles in health and well-being. So, testosterone makes the average male "fingies" generally bigger and hairier than the average female "fingies". It doesn't mean that females can't box (which you seem to acknowledge so full marks there). Scientific studies of testosterone are complex, check out http://abc.net.au/science/slab/testost/story.htm
Posted by Pedant, Monday, 21 November 2005 6:12:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

The most important teaching of Jesus is to: love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and love your neighbour as yourself. This is much, much more important Biblically that a man looking after his household.... of course you're weary of constant attacks, if you constantly make these vague statements or give weighted examples about men being the only 'protector' or 'agressor' with women always assigned the 'victim' or 'nurturer' role I will constantly question them. As I say above, I will never be sorry for wanting women to be treated as people.

From my understanding the Pharisees were teachers of the Law (all men, incidentally) who followed the letter of the Law but not the spirit. Pedantry must be tempered with compassion (see Micah re justice and mercy) and I wouldn't classify myself as a Pharisee in that sense, because I'm pedantic about the spirit as well as the letter.... but perhaps you should be doing a check there yourself?

I'm off to chill out, lay down and relax, wishing you a great day too :-)
Posted by Pedant, Monday, 21 November 2005 6:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a bit surprised the comment about Macquarie fields by Hamlet on 14 Nov has generated no further comment.

I feel it is simplistic to condemn Standing for "rioting against authority ", and thus class his boxing as a moral failure.

I live in Queensland and coverage of the MF affray was rather sparse, but I saw film of people rioting. The police were well armoured against damage by rocks thrown at them. That does not make it okay to riot. I do not know how Standing himself was motivated to take part. Perhaps he felt his obligation to his friends outweighed his obligation to an authority many might see as oppressive. It could be said that Standing had enough maturity to realize he had been wrong. The SMH report says he turned himself in to police. That didn't do him much good.

I do remember one newspaper report stated "the rioting ceased AFTER POLICE DEPARTED (my capitals)". I interpret this to mean, the police did not quell the riot, it stopped when there were not police there to fight. I was left wondering why they went there in riot mode in the first place.

It would be asking a lot to expect boxing to result in universal respect and obedience to police.

cheers
Posted by Whistle, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 10:40:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Whistle,

I did make a comment on Hamlet's comment.... check out above "Posted by Pedant, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 8:14:05 PM". No-one else has commented though. Of course boxing isn't going to fix everything, and neither is football. But it's a start.

Cheerio :-)
Posted by Pedant, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 6:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a mother (who apparently shouldn't have an opinion on this)I will not be encouraging my son to take up boxing. Apart from the fact I couldn't bear to watch I don't believe it is in his best interests to turn up at his first job interview with a broken nose and cauliflower ears. However I take the point that fighting has its benefits in directing aggression, relieving stress and basically allowing boys to be boys for a change. I might just think about judo or Tae Kwon Do.
Posted by sajo, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 8:15:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SAJO... of course you should have an opinion..

I don't know what your 'shouldn't have an opinion' came from but maybe it was my '"maybe we should keep this thread 'men only'" ?
I wasn't serious there, I was alluding to the idea that maybe females would not 'get' the mental processes that go on in males on this issue, unless they do so in a clinical manner with reference to some psychology theory. I personally honestly do not understand some female mental processes, but would be totally lost without them.

I would not recommend boxing unless it was very well supervised, used the correct sparring equipment, and limited the number of actual bouts to a bare minimum. The techniques are more important than a ring track record. Other forms of self defence usually involve some offensive moves 'should they be neccessary'. Boxing, when viewed as 'self defense' is basically about disabling your opponent quickly to prevent attack. A person intent on harming you will not cease such an attack just because you get him in a headlock or something, he needed to be disabled temporarily. Boxing is very useful for this and with the right technique, 2 well place punches are sufficient.

PEDANT. picky picky picky :) what a nagger.. ok.. I CONFESS.. when others were enoying the delights of 'Shelly and Tennyson' I was in the machine shop :)

Point of order though. (my turn to be pedantic) We cannot 'separate' "love the Lord your God etc" from "Looking after ones family" because the second is a consequence/result of the first.
Or.. perhaps more accurately, they are inseparable-and-gotogether, (like that word) A bit like James 'faith without works is dead' teaching.

Umm Pedant, may I ask, do you have a personal faith in Christ ? and if so, which tradition are u involved in ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 25 November 2005 5:40:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David,

Guilty as charged re pickiness ;-)

And I STILL don't agree that a man has some "special" Biblical job to look after his household and that it's the most important thing in the Bible. In fact, every person has a "special" Biblical job to look after every other person, it's called "love your neighbour" [and neighbour includes enemies] and this is considered the second most important thing after loving God. It's got nothing to do with whether one is male or female. So yes, "love your family", is important, but it CAN be separated because it is not as important as loving God and loving everybody. And I WON'T stop telling you that you're wrong regarding this fixed nature of the male idea.... you can keep calling me a nagger it doesn't bother me cause I have a warm smug pedantic glow tee hee ;-)

For an example look at Matthew 12:46-50: "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.". He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?". Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.". Regarding your question, I'm a Christian.
Posted by Pedant, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 9:08:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding the Macquarie Fields riots:

Of course the rioting stopped when the police left, that is because in the absence of the police all the anti-social types who had been attacking the police could resume their normal criminal and anti-social activities, like car theft, burglary and vandalism, which is what triggered the riot in the first place.

Whistle, by your reference to "The police were well armoured against damage by rocks thrown at them" you implying that the people throwing the rocks were just playing and that the police had nothing to fear.

May I challenge you to put standard police riot gear on and then let some fit young thugs throw half bricks at you? I daresay that you would not enjoy the experience.

Maybe you would like having a molotov cocktail explode at your feet spraying burning petrol in the spaces between the armour, or just under your face mask?

Or maybe you would consider it okay for your car to be stolen by someone who is a serial offender?

Or have you also forgotten that a police vehicle was attacked by 'young offenders' with chlorine bombs right outsode the Macquarie Fields police station?

The Police were not responsible for the riot, they were doing what the rest of the law abiding community were expecting them to do.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 4 December 2005 10:49:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Karate is one of the greatest forms of disapline and exersize. I have found a great site that I wanted to share with you all. http://members.optusnet.com.au/~rickqld/
If you have any interest in starting karate, this is a excellent place to get all the infomation you need.
Posted by rickqld, Saturday, 1 April 2006 11:49:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy