[JimmyDimples]

Sorry that I didn't join in right away on this chat, cpbell and stmercy.  I was builidng up to my 900th post, and didn't want to disrupt the count right away.

I'm reading you guys loud and clear on that one.  And I believe in letting a woman be capable to protect herself or her loved ones.

I think one of the reasons that we continue to portray "soft and helpless" as feminine is that we like being around someone who is gentle, sweet, kind, and the type that won't ram a tent peg through our skulls. Someone who represents the moral of Aesop's fable of the Sun and the Wind:  warm persuasion is more powerful than bluster and force.  Women have the edge in personality there.

Regrettably, we've equated gentleness with weakness.  We think that a person who doesn't push and smack to get what he or she wants… can't.  And thus, society has pretty much told women, don't be mean, nasty, or violent.  It's wrong.

Of course it is in day-to-day life.  But in a mugging, being a nice person usually isn't enough. 🙁

I remember WAY, way way back when I was in grad school, and I'd just had my head clubbed at an attempted robbery for five stitches worth.  I remember cluing in a student mom that the Rush Limbaugh show was coming to TV, and she wanted to tune in.  And we were together for the first ep.  And we chatted about my mugging.  She griped about how student housing wouldn't permit us to have firearms in storage.

That took me back.  😮 A sweet, classic, church-going MOM, endorsing packing heat? 

She nodded, and said she considered it sinful not to do whatever it took to protect the family and home the good Lord gave her.

Hmm.  If I had a time machine, I would've probably suggested she take some exercise and self defense classes instead.  Pistols can be stolen or picked up by kids.  Your biceps or training can't.

[cpbell0033944]

Sorry that I didn't join in right away on this chat, cpbell and stmercy.  I was builidng up to my 900th post, and didn't want to disrupt the count right away.

I'm reading you guys loud and clear on that one.  And I believe in letting a woman be capable to protect herself or her loved ones.

I think one of the reasons that we continue to portray "soft and helpless" as feminine is that we like being around someone who is gentle, sweet, kind, and the type that won't ram a tent peg through our skulls. Someone who represents the moral of Aesop's fable of the Sun and the Wind:  warm persuasion is more powerful than bluster and force.  Women have the edge in personality there.

Regrettably, we've equated gentleness with weakness.  We think that a person who doesn't push and smack to get what he or she wants… can't.   And thus, society has pretty much told women, don't be mean, nasty, or violent.  It's wrong.

Of course it is in day-to-day life.  But in a mugging, being a nice person usually isn't enough. 🙁

I remember WAY, way way back when I was in grad school, and I'd just had my head clubbed at an attempted robbery for five stitches worth.  I remember cluing in a student mom that the Rush Limbaugh show was coming to TV, and she wanted to tune in.  And we were together for the first ep.  And we chatted about my mugging.  She griped about how student housing wouldn't permit us to have firearms in storage.

That took me back.  😮 A sweet, classic, church-going MOM, endorsing packing heat? 

She nodded, and said she considered it sinful not to do whatever it took to protect the family and home the good Lord gave her.

Hmm.  If I had a time machine, I would've probably suggested she take some exercise and self defense classes instead.  Pistols can be stolen or picked up by kids.  Your biceps or training can't.

Thanks Jimmy, that post was worth waiting for!   I appreciate the kind, gentle nature of many women as much as any guy, and I certainly wouldn't want an overly aggressive, nasty woman as a girlfriend any more than I'd want to be mates/buddies/whatever with a guy like that, either.  Where (for me) that stops, however, is in terms of mental toughness (one can be sweet and kind but have a "survivior" streak of mental strength, IMO) and when it comes to defending oneself or those that we love.  Look at nature:  a lioness carries her cubs in her mouth without barely ruffling their fur, but, if a potential predator of those cubs comes along, she defends them as only a big cat can.

[stmercy2020]

Hmm.  If I had a time machine, I would've probably suggested she take some exercise and self defense classes instead.  Pistols can be stolen or picked up by kids.  Your biceps or training can't.

My self-defense instructors would agree with you- according to them, when a victim draws a weapon in self-defense it is more likely that their attacker will take the weapon- be it a gun, a knife, or what-have-you- and turn it on them.  This is a statistic that I'm a bit uncomfortable with; I can't seem to find reference to it in any source that I would call reliable, but it seems plausible enough if you assume two things; 1) the defender is not especially well-trained in the use of their weapon and 2) the attacker is more aggressive by virtue of the situation, and thus more likely to act effectively when presented with a weapon.

In any case, training can make the difference between a decision or an action that could protect you and one that could result in your never being seen again.

I agree 100% about the idea that the caring, kind, nurturing ideal that we all like about the classical female personality got misinterpreted as meaning that she should not show aggression or violence, even in self-defence, because it's not feminine.

I think we all know how I feel about this one..

I appreciate the kind, gentle nature of many women as much as any guy, and I certainly wouldn't want an overly aggressive, nasty woman as a girlfriend any more than I'd want to be mates/buddies/whatever with a guy like that, either.  Where (for me) that stops, however, is in terms of mental toughness (one can be sweet and kind but have a "survivior" streak of mental strength, IMO) and when it comes to defending oneself or those that we love.  Look at nature:  a lioness carries her cubs in her mouth without barely ruffling their fur, but, if a potential predator of those cubs comes along, she defends them as only a big cat can.

I think it was Collette Dowland who asserted that the division of men and women into so-called traditional roles of hunter/fighter and nurturer/caregiver was a relatively recent phenomenon- i.e., only since the invention of agriculture or something like that. ;D  Anyway, what she was suggesting was that in pre-agricultural societies, women engaged in activities such as tribal battles, hunting, etc. just as much as the men and, conversely, men often were given duties of caregiving and nurturing.  The only times women were excluded from these activities were when they were heavily pregnant.  Food for thought.

[cpbell0033944]

I think it was Collette Dowland who asserted that the division of men and women into so-called traditional roles of hunter/fighter and nurturer/caregiver was a relatively recent phenomenon- i.e., only since the invention of agriculture or something like that.  Anyway, what she was suggesting was that in pre-agricultural societies, women engaged in activities such as tribal battles, hunting, etc. just as much as the men and, conversely, men often were given duties of caregiving and nurturing.  The only times women were excluded from these activities were when they were heavily pregnant.  Food for thought.

Might that be Colette Dowling in "The Frailty Myth", a book I keep meaning to order from the oh-so-appropriately-named amazon.co.uk, but have, as yet not got around to doing?  I know in the reviews I've read, it says that her central argument is that the whole concept of female frailty is an Industrial Revolution construction; before that, in farming and, as stmercy says, hunter-gatherer groups, women were expected to do physical work and not laze around being dainty as they were in polite Victorian society (brilliant engineers, the Victorians – Bazalgette with London sewers, Brunel with railways, ships and bridges etc., but bloody awful at gender politics). 

BTW, I sent stmercy a link to an article from which my Amaz0ns signature is taken, and he suggested I post it in this thread.  It's very good, and it's at [ftp=ftp://http://www.untaming.com/archive1.html]http://www.untaming.com/archive1.html[/ftp]

[stmercy2020]

Might that be Colette Dowling in "The Frailty Myth"

That's the one.  I'm terrible with names, sadly- one of my two failings, the other being that I'm not good at humility. ;D 😉

[cpbell0033944]

That's the one.  I'm terrible with names, sadly- one of my two failings, the other being that I'm not good at humility. ;D 😉

You don't seem to be too bad at humility when I compliment you on your Sylph stories.  So, have you got the book?  What's it like?

[stmercy2020]

You don't seem to be too bad at humility when I compliment you on your Sylph stories.  So, have you got the book?  What's it like?

Sadly, I don't have the book anymore- it moved to D.C. with my ex-  I could probably get ahold of it if I asked her, as we're still on good terms.  She got it as part of a project for a sociology class she was taking and I picked it up and read it because I read pretty much anything that isn't actively trying to escape me (nailing it down doesn't help- just means it can't run as far!)

It is an interesting read.  I recall not agreeing with everything she wrote, but she raised a number of good points, particularly in regards to the myths that we accept and perpetuate regarding the supposed genetic weakness of women.

[cpbell0033944]

Sadly, I don't have the book anymore- it moved to D.C. with my ex-  I could probably get ahold of it if I asked her, as we're still on good terms.  She got it as part of a project for a sociology class she was taking and I picked it up and read it because I read pretty much anything that isn't actively trying to escape me (nailing it down doesn't help- just means it can't run as far!)

It is an interesting read.  I recall not agreeing with everything she wrote, but she raised a number of good points, particularly in regards to the myths that we accept and perpetuate regarding the supposed genetic weakness of women.

Thanks for the review.  Sounds well worth buying. 8)

[1st_Tsurugi]

This member of the choir likes be preached-to.  I couldn't agree more with you.  Those who would have all women weak and passive say that, if women become strong and assertive, they lose their femininity.  As far as I'm concerned, other than (possibly) a stone-butch woman in a lesbian butch-femme relationship, or if an FBB overdoes the steroids, it's impossible for any woman to lose even some of her femininity.  To me, assertive, strong, confident "body-aware" women, as you put it, are MORE feminine than the timid, skinny, passive girls because they have enhanced themselves both physically in strength and shapeliness, and in mind.  They have imporoved themselves as women and have ceased to hate their body, to diet in order to shrink it, (which I loathe, urgh! >:() but instead are revelling in their female, muscular curves and the strength, power and sensuality of the bodies.  That's feminine.  That's sexy.  Actually, no, it's not sexy – it's mind-blowingly, trouser-tentingly supersexy. 😮 8) ;D
Yikes, I need a cold shower after that! 😮 ;D

I understand they said the same thing about suffragettes.  And many of the ones saying it were themselves women

[Author]

Posts