Page 8 of 12 [ 184 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

riley
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2006
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 383

18 Sep 2014, 12:08 pm

adifferentname. You obviously have a problem with women in general.

..my "testimony"? This aint a bloody court room. I shared an experience that was on topic and the responses have been illuminating. Your defense of a guy who randomly sexually degrades women just proves that yes we do live in a rape apologist culture.



riley
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2006
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 383

18 Sep 2014, 12:17 pm

Janissy wrote:
riley wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
No one is telling you that you were wrong to be pissed or angry, people are telling you that escalation is not a good strategy in interpersonal confrontation, which if you'd actually payed any attention to what was being said instead of just getting defensive and straw manning people, you'd notice that we've gone out of our way to emphasize the fact that we give the exact same advice to men. I don't particularly care what the provocation is, a rude comment, someone intentionally bumping you as they pass, insults, etc, all I'm trying to get across is that there's no percentage in escalating unless you have to, and you didn't have to.


What about "I acted on instinct" do you not understand? There is no sitting back and thinking about strategical responses when someone is in your face and reaction is automatic.


Problem: Instinctual and automatic responses can be dangerous.

Solution: A self defense class that teaches a range of responses depending on the situation. With practice, the learned response can override the instinctual one, which is safer.

Here's an example:
(not specific class I took, just an example)
http://www.danecountyrcc.org/chimera/in ... ry_id=3920

Quote:
Real Skills for "Real Life" Situations
Since Chimera is taught by women, the course has been designed to deal with real situations that women encounter. From the harasser on the street ("hey baby!"), to unwanted "accidental" touching on public transportation, to the sexually and/or physically abusive partner or family member, the course emphasizes avoidance and trusting your "gut."

Chimera teaches self-defense as a range of skills on a continuum. When avoidance doesn't work, verbal skills become necessary. As a situation escalates, physical skills may be employed. The appropriateness of when to use these skills is covered in class.

Aggressive vs. Assertive Communication
In many cultures, women are socialized to be passive but in other cultures or segments of our society, women are socialized to be aggressive. Chimera offers something for everyone because we teach assertiveness: respecting yourself by standing up for yourself in a way that also respects others.

For example, yelling, "Leave me alone, you creep!" when you are touched in a bar is an aggressive response. Aggressive responses are not always the safest response because they can escalate the situation. However, assertively saying "I want you to leave me alone," sends the message without diminishing the other person and engaging in a verbal confrontation.


In their example, yelling "Leave me alone you creep!" is the instinctual, automatic response that is dangerous because it can cause escalation. They offer a solution that neither escalates nor meekly accepts. The scenario you described is pretty common and having a learned response is safer than relying on instinct. Of course for other scenarios they offer other responses, some physical.

Here's a guy writing about self defense for both men and women (and how it is different because the confrontation scenarios are different).
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... t-violence

Quote:
It may seem onerous to prepare yourself and your family to respond to violence, but not doing so is also a form of preparation. Failing to prepare is, generally speaking, preparing very well to do the wrong thing. Although most of us are good at recognizing danger, our instincts often lead us to behave in ways that increase our chances of being injured or killed once a threat emerges.


The point of his article is that learned responses to likely situations are best. Relying on instinct is unsafe. Although your escalation did not result in violence, it easily could have. Not escalating isn't the same thing as not responding and accepting verbal abuse. But it's best to have a canned response. For the record, I've had that exact same verbal abuse directed at me a few times back in my 20's. My response when people were all around was to say no while giving an obviously disgusted look. My response when no people were around was to run because in that situation it could be the prelude to a physical attack.


Thankyou for this information and posting it with respect. I do agree with it and typically I would have had a more neutral response to the situation. I have had some training however the problem was the unexpected.. going from very passive daydreaming out the bus window to a very hostile environment as soon as I stepped off it. If I had've just been walking around and then come across it I probably would have been in a more vigilant state of mind and perhaps responded differently but I was startled. I will probably be more conscious of new surroundings from now on however.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

18 Sep 2014, 2:10 pm

riley wrote:
adifferentname. You obviously have a problem with women in general.


Based on the fact that I criticised your actions as an individual and gave your words merit rather than dismissing you based on your genitalia?

Interesting conclusion.

Quote:
..my "testimony"? This aint a bloody court room. I shared an experience that was on topic and the responses have been illuminating.


FYI testimony can also mean "an assertion" or "an account presented as fact". Perhaps it was remiss of me to assume you would know that.

Quote:
Your defense of a guy who randomly sexually degrades women just proves that yes we do live in a rape apologist culture.


I referred to him as obnoxious and rude and stated implicitly that he was in the wrong. In what way does this constitute a defence? Are you basing this solely on the fact that I pointed out how you committed criminal acts against him? Is saying you were wrong the same as saying he was right? Should you be judged any differently to him simply because he's a man?

As for the bold text. This man did not rape you, nor did he attempt to rape you. If we're going to put obnoxiousness on the same level as rape, we're going to need a hell of a lot more prisons when feminist principles become law.

On a more serious note. I have never personally experienced sexual abuse, though I am intimately acquainted with the damage that predatory human beings can cause. One of my childhood friends was a victim of Robert Black. The perpetual misuse of the word rape (and worse) by feminists in pursuit of their goals is despicable. It s**ts all over people (both genders) who have been victims of rape (or indeed rape and murder). We do not live in a "rape culture", no matter how you define it.

No, I don't have a problem with women. What I have a problem with is irrational, illogical or inconsistent arguments that rely almost exclusively on fallacies or derogation. If you expect your views to be treated any differently just because you're a woman, well now that would be sexist.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

18 Sep 2014, 2:29 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Now you're conflating the feelings that an individual may have felt with the way that person chose to react.


How someone feels has a direct influence on instinct.

adifferentname wrote:
'You're teaching your sons bad examples of how to treat women' is straight out of the feminist handbook.


So when conservative Christians say the same thing they are really just feminists?

adifferentname wrote:
Disagreeing with, criticising or even mocking feminism =/= sexism.


I said that the way you phrased your statements comes across as sexist.

Just so you know for the future, an ad hominem attack would have been something along the lines of me trying to discredit you in a way that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, so you are using the term incorrectly. So if I had said you have no right to speak because you flunked a chemistry class in college or because your great grandfather was in the KKK, that would have been an ad hominem attack. The fallacy in ad hominem is due to the irrelevant nature of the appeal made. Now why don't you go ahead and improperly call this statement a straw man (another phrase frequently used incorrectly in these forums).

adifferentname wrote:
There's an incredibly hypocrisy that seems common to feminists, and you're demonstrating it here. When it suits your purpose, "feminism" is synonymous with "egalitarianism". It ceases to suit your purpose when you wish to derail legitimate criticism by pretending "feminism" is synonymous with "femaleness".


So only you are allowed to criticize? My entire point was the way you are coming across. It was a statement that you seem to be fairly condescending toward women. Although at this point I am close to accusing you of sexism, because every post you make is worded in a way that makes it appear so.

adifferentname wrote:
I'm not going to lecture you on the subject of intellectual dishonesty, but I most certainly will not tolerate it as an excuse for making false allegations against myself.


And again, I was stating my opinion about the way your posts are coming across.

adifferentname wrote:
For the record, I meant exactly what I posted. Explain how being critical of feminism "does not cast [me] in a favorable light".


Because of your dismissive manner of someone's upsetting experience and constantly demeaning attitude toward feminists and feminism as an entire segment of the population worhty of insult.

adifferentname wrote:
What you posted constitutes ad hominem reasoning. I criticised the feminist ideology demonstrated in Riley's anecdote whereas you attacked my character. It's cute that you tried to dismiss it as a failing on my part to understand either yourself or the relatively simple concept of logical fallacies. Cute, but not an especially strong argument.


And again, I was critical of your writing style, primarily, and posting to see if perhaps I was reading things wrong. But now I am beginning to be critical of your character (in regards to your attitude towards women, at least).

adifferentname wrote:
Quote:
I do apologize if I have offended you, as it was not my intent.


When one accuses someone of sexism, one cannot claim lack of intent.


Take it how you want it. You demanded an apology, and this was a sincere one. If you were looking for contrition, you won't get from me based on the exchanges so far.

adifferentname wrote:
At no point in any of my posts have I antagonised anyone based on their gender, your opinion is built on spurious foundations. I'm sure you're aware that you are entitled to express your opinion here whatever I wish. I do firmly suggest, however, that you refrain from making unsubstantiated allegations against myself.


You may want to re-read your posts, and the posts of others as well. What you have been responding to was a WOMAN who was talking about being treated in an abhorrent way about a MAN in terms of the way women can be mistreated by men and her immediate reaction. The way you have addressed this is to primarily attack the actions of the woman reacting to harrasment, as well as to accuse her of being the one who should be punished and throwing in some very insulting things about feminism in general and largely ignoring the actions of the person who initiated the event. Which is why I started off by saying that you are coming across as sexist, and gave you the opportunity to clarify, which you took as a reason to attack feminism and feminists.

You most definitely are allowed to express your opinions, as am I, including my opinions about your character on subjects which are being discussed. And allegations of sexism would not be entirely unsubstantiated at this point, considering the broad stereotyping brush you choose paint every feminist with.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

18 Sep 2014, 3:57 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
How someone feels has a direct influence on instinct.


But does not inform the language one chooses to adopt. Remember, we're discussing the fact that she elected to lecture him on the "example you are setting your son", not the difference between rational and irrational decision making. Let's try to stay on point here.

Quote:
So when conservative Christians say the same thing they are really just feminists?


False analogy. Conservative Christians do not preach a doctrine of rape culture.

Quote:
I said that the way you phrased your statements comes across as sexist.


No, you overtly stated that I had either phrased my statement poorly or was sexist.

"The statement "to harangue him in feminist dogma" is either poor phrasing or a bit sexist."
"All I am saying is that your particular phrase there does not cast you in a favorable light, and I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was simply poor phrasing on your part. "

Quote:
Just so you know for the future, an ad hominem attack would have been something along the lines of me trying to discredit you in a way that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, so you are using the term incorrectly.


Just so you know, calling someone sexist is an attempt to discredit me in a way that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. As I have already said, this conversation and my contribution to it have nothing to do with gender. Just so you know, the discrediting based on personal attributes need not be overt - an implication is sufficient. Just so you know, this focus on whether or not you have committed a logical fallacy will not serve to distract from the fact that you claimed I was being sexist. Just so you know.

Quote:
So if I had said you have no right to speak because you flunked a chemistry class in college or because your great grandfather was in the KKK, that would have been an ad hominem attack. The fallacy in ad hominem is due to the irrelevant nature of the appeal made. Now why don't you go ahead and improperly call this statement a straw man (another phrase frequently used incorrectly in these forums).


I believe we have addressed the irrelevant nature of the appeal in this case, no matter how much you wish to pretend it didn't happen.

Quote:
So only you are allowed to criticize?


I just found your strawman.

Quote:
My entire point was the way you are coming across. It was a statement that you seem to be fairly condescending toward women. Although at this point I am close to accusing you of sexism, because every post you make is worded in a way that makes it appear so.


You are still conflating "feminism" with "femaleness". You are also making unsubstantiated claims. I invite you to demonstrate where I have been "condescending toward women". I invite you to further demonstrate that I have treated the posts of any individual in a different or derogatory manner based on anything but the content of their posts. Or is it that you think I should treat the views of women differently because of their gender? Is your bone here the fact that I have the audacity to approach women's posts through the same critical lens as I do men's posts?

Quote:
And again, I was stating my opinion about the way your posts are coming across


Yes, it was quite clear that it is your opinion that I am sexist. There is nothing wrong with holding this opinion. The same cannot be said of expressing said opinion in the manner that you have.

Quote:
Because of your dismissive manner of someone's upsetting experience and constantly demeaning attitude toward feminists and feminism as an entire segment of the population worhty of insult.


Oh, you mean in a favourable light where feminists are concerned? You can be assured that I shall lose no sleep as a result of feminist ill-will. Fact: I am male and I do not identify as a feminist. The former is sufficient to damn me to the shit-coloured spotlight as far as feminists are concerned. The latter merely serves as a final nail.

Quote:
And again, I was critical of your writing style, primarily, and posting to see if perhaps I was reading things wrong. But now I am beginning to be critical of your character (in regards to your attitude towards women, at least).


You still don't seem to understand that feminist =/= woman. Despite being male. And a feminist. The irony astounds me, it truly does.

Quote:
Take it how you want it. You demanded an apology, and this was a sincere one. If you were looking for contrition, you won't get from me based on the exchanges so far.


Expected, not demanded. My expectations were found wanting, however. Your non-apology apology did not come across as sincere.

Quote:
You may want to re-read your posts, and the posts of others as well. What you have been responding to was a WOMAN who was talking about being treated in an abhorrent way about a MAN in terms of the way women can be mistreated by men and her immediate reaction.


Riley posted an anecdotal account of her interaction with another human being. Her account included the following:

Behaviours by individual A
An obnoxious request for sexual intercourse.

Behaviours by individual B
Pursuit of an individual for the purpose of confrontation.
Continued harassment of an individual despite that individual demonstrating a lack of desire to interact further.
A demand of subservience backed up with the threat of police involvement.

Were you to reverse the genders, my criticism of the actions of both individuals would remain the same. However, your preference is that the MAN be held fully accountable for his rude behaviour while the WOMAN be allowed a pass because it was hey, just instinct or whatever. Does the MAN get a pass if he posts on here and claims his response to a subjectively attractive member of the opposite sex was instinctive?

This does not constitute equality.

Quote:
The way you have addressed this is to primarily attack the actions of the woman reacting to harrasment, as well as to accuse her of being the one who should be punished and throwing in some very insulting things about feminism in general and largely ignoring the actions of the person who initiated the event. Which is why I started off by saying that you are coming across as sexist, and gave you the opportunity to clarify, which you took as a reason to attack feminism and feminists.


There were two separate events. "this middle aged man said "Can I f- you!" in a hostile voice and walked off"

According to her own anecdote, Riley initiated the second event. This was a mistake, no matter the cause.

Quote:
You most definitely are allowed to express your opinions, as am I, including my opinions about your character on subjects which are being discussed. And allegations of sexism would not be entirely unsubstantiated at this point, considering the broad stereotyping brush you choose paint every feminist with.


Repeat after me: feminist does not mean woman. Feminists do not represent all women. Criticism of feminism is criticism of an idea and not a gender.

Because the alternative is that feminism itself is a sexist movement, and that couldn't possibly be right, could it?



Nights_Like_These
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 722
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 Sep 2014, 6:07 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Again, you were lucky, it could just as easily have gone the other way, and for what? The satisfaction of browbeating a stranger? That's not "defending" yourself, that's retaliating because you're pissed off.


Browbeating?? It's considered "browbeating a stranger" now if you stand up for yourself to let someone know that it's not okay for them to disrespect you the way they did? I don't see this as "browbeating" or "retaliating", I call it teaching someone something that their bloody parents obviously failed to do when they were a child.

RILEY, don't let anyone here tell you that you were in the wrong. Seriously.... It doesn't matter what "could have gone wrong". It sounds like you were in a public place with other people around and not in any real danger. It's not like you followed the guy down a dark alley or something. If no one ever stands up to people like that and lets them know that it's not okay to treat others that way, then those people will probably just continue to do so. Maybe that guy will continue to do so anyway, but at least you stood up for yourself and that's something to be proud of, imo.

Browbeating......jeez. That's so laughable and ridiculous. How dare anyone not be okay with being treated like they aren't a human being...
:roll:


_________________
"There are things known, and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception."

--Aldous Huxley


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

19 Sep 2014, 2:44 am

I still think women should have a right to arm her self or find a way to defend herself while at the same time teaching people not to rape. The latter is probably not going to always work which is why women should be able to protect themselves so they don't always have to be too scared to go somewhere.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 838

20 Sep 2014, 1:02 am

Dox47 wrote:
escalation is not a good strategy in interpersonal confrontation


That's terrible advice. If someone threatens you, or tries to violate your personal space, you push back. A molester won't stop just because you ignore him. If a man acts like an animal, treat him like one.

Stay proud and strong, Riley, you did a good thing.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

20 Sep 2014, 3:52 am

Barchan wrote:
That's terrible advice. If someone threatens you, or tries to violate your personal space, you push back. A molester won't stop just because you ignore him. If a man acts like an animal, treat him like one.

Stay proud and strong, Riley, you did a good thing.


Terrible according to whom? The entire professional self defense community would agree with my suggestion, as in the people that teach this stuff for a living; what are your qualifications for judging it?

Also, no one was talking about threats or molesters, reading carefully and/or honesty will save you a lot of trouble here.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

20 Sep 2014, 4:34 am

riley wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
No one is telling you that you were wrong to be pissed or angry, people are telling you that escalation is not a good strategy in interpersonal confrontation, which if you'd actually payed any attention to what was being said instead of just getting defensive and straw manning people, you'd notice that we've gone out of our way to emphasize the fact that we give the exact same advice to men. I don't particularly care what the provocation is, a rude comment, someone intentionally bumping you as they pass, insults, etc, all I'm trying to get across is that there's no percentage in escalating unless you have to, and you didn't have to.


What about "I acted on instinct" do you not understand? There is no sitting back and thinking about strategical responses when someone is in your face and reaction is automatic.


I agree with Dox47 on self defense, from experience and years training but also agree you acted in some respect instinct and understand. the elbowing for example is purely instinctive.

I can personally relate, when I was in school somebody tried to fix my collar behind me in assembly, without telling me and I elbowed them. that kind of reaction is natrual.

It is important to differentiate that, from escalating a deescalated situation. In a crowded space call on people around you if you feel threatened.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

20 Sep 2014, 4:48 am

Dox47 wrote:
Terrible according to whom? The entire professional self defense community would agree with my suggestion, as in the people that teach this stuff for a living; what are your qualifications for judging it?

Also, no one was talking about threats or molesters, reading carefully and/or honesty will save you a lot of trouble here.


I would agree with you here, except temper that with it is take experience to gauge the sphere of danger, and this of course varies.

A classic example (although a little contrived), is the "walk-away" feign in boxing. There is difference between the law may say and there reality of self defense. People may turn, move away this doesn't mean threat is over.

Is someone does feel directly threatened and feel there is obvious immediate and realistic way out of this they should go with instincts.

Like I said people actually often get worse after starting self defense training becuase they loose the instinctive reactions to start with. In fact I find this a lot of the time. You have the people that freeze anyway, and then you have the instinctive people who hesitate once instructed.

It take a while to get instinctive but trained and condition reaction back in.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

20 Sep 2014, 5:49 am

Nights_Like_These wrote:
RILEY, don't let anyone here tell you that you were in the wrong. Seriously.... It doesn't matter what "could have gone wrong". It sounds like you were in a public place with other people around and not in any real danger. It's not like you followed the guy down a dark alley or something. If no one ever stands up to people like that and lets them know that it's not okay to treat others that way, then those people will probably just continue to do so. Maybe that guy will continue to do so anyway, but at least you stood up for yourself and that's something to be proud of, imo.


It isn't about saying they are "wrong".

It takes no time at all to be stabbed. It doesn't matter is after people beat the assailant, they are fed to the dogs, hung, drawn and quartered, and put through a meat grinder. One knife wound can be fatal.

I saw such a situation. There was an argument that very quickly escalated that came out from a side alley onto the path that I was walking. It turned out to be an argument over a price of an illegal DVD , but I didn't know this at the time.

I was following them as they moved but at safe distance. Many people were just standing there like statutes, or moving away. I think I have the clearest view all the way through.

I saw the black guy take something off a chinese guy. The chinese guy then picked up a PVC electrical conduit lying around, and hit the black guy over the head. it instantly shattered as you would expect. The chinese guy didn't use the sharp bits of the broken plastic in a stabbing action (and he had very little of it left after the first strike) , so the effect was fairly superficial (apart form risk to eyes). In the chaos, I saw the black guy stab the chinese guy in the neck with some scissors. I never saw him take them out, it was too fast and obscured.

The force was enough to buckle the the scissors by a considerable angle. it was lucky that the chinese guy was well conditioned on on his neck, and the type of scissors were such that it buckled. That could have been near instantly fatal due to proximity of major arteries an nerves. He would have bleed out in seconds. Note there scissors weren't child scissors, Ok there were not hardened steel but there was still a lot force applied to get hem to buckle, they were structurally rigid. In fact even with the same scissors it could have been fatal, had the location been off by a few cm.

They moved into the tube (subway) entrance, the black guy tried to make out the Chinese guy was crazy, I knew different.

Soon after plain clothes police officer came round form the near police station. Starting to interviewing people on writing down notes. I was able to telling him that it didn't start inside the tube entrance, and was able to take him back and re-intact events.

According to the police I was only person who realized that there has been stabbing rather then just assault (and I bet quite lot of people saw the chinese guy the only aggressor, and the direction of travel was the chinese guys forward movement), I also saw the black guy ditch the weapon on top of the bus stop, which was very discretely done, and they we able to find it. This is how fast event transpired literally over in a few second. This is becuase I focused on what was happening and it starting right in front of men and moved forward. I was able to track events.

In the end the Chinese guy didn't press charges, the black guy couldn't be interviewed straight away becuase he was a crack addict and crashing. They may have got him on other charges, but my involvement ended as a witness.

At no point did I approach them during. That's it not to say I would never contact. I train hand to knife regularly, realistic outcome, aren't glowing, you have to read the situation it is difficult. It is 100% based in the moment, every situation is different. In this situation safe distance was appropriate from my POV.

I have been assaulted previously, where I did certain thing wrong, and certain thing right. You learn from your experience. Thankfully this sort of thing doesn't actually happen that often. I have actually felt safer in London, than I have elsewhere. It does help to know the area.



Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 838

20 Sep 2014, 9:43 am

Dox47 wrote:
no one was talking about threats or molesters


She obviously felt threatened enough to go on the offensive, so who are you to say there was no threat involved? Why do you insist on downplaying the man's offense?

What are my credentials? What are your credentials to tell a woman how to handle her problems? I think Riley is heroic, and I don't care how many armchair "experts" say she isn't. Now how's that for an escalation?



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

20 Sep 2014, 9:50 am

Barchan calm down. He was trying to give reasoned advice, maybe he didn't word it well (browbeating was an fortunate phrasing), but actually the advice is still sound.

I don't think he is downplaying anything unless I missed something.



Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 838

20 Sep 2014, 10:13 am

0_equals_true wrote:
calm down


Ever notice how women who disagree with men always get told to "calm down"? Usually in those exact words? That's a very subtle form of sexism that I think you might not even be aware of. I'm not saying you did that on purpose, I'm just giving you something to think about. I'll calm down when I feel like it, not when I'm told to. 8)



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

20 Sep 2014, 10:59 am

I actually assumed you were a man, until I checked you profile, but whatever. I read you post (perhaps incorrectly), as belligerent.

I'm saying be calm, I'm not saying 'calm down dear' or anything to that effect.

If you want to type cast me be my guest, it is water off a duck's back. You know nothing about me.

My advice has been non-political, based on experience, in "liveness" and self defense and practical experience.

The best thing for males and females, is if they can get out of a situation without fighting then do so. I never brought gender into this, you made this assumption.



Last edited by 0_equals_true on 20 Sep 2014, 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.