Ship of Fools: Hell hath no fury

Thread: Hell hath no fury Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028054

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

So last night I started a hell thread on "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. But I felt more incoherently angry than brilliantly angry, so I deleted it and posted in TITCH instead. And now we are ending up starting a tangent there, so moving here.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
TITCH: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Because men just love being scorned, dontcha know!

One of those delightful phrases chock full with sexist assumptions.
I know someone who was literally harrassed for years because every time she asked for help, the perp would simply evoke this phrase, and nobody would ask any further questions. Fucking ugliness.

And Twilight responded

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
They all think it breaks our hearts if they don't find us attractive -- thus we have been "scorned," by them. They didn't see us turn to our friends and stick our fingers down our throats

It's evolved to a simpler, "bitches be crazy," for the morons that don't know what scorned means.

Right. Women sometimes go crazy when you break up with them and key your car. Men sometimes go crazy when you break up with them and murder you and your kids.

It's become unbelievably dangerous out there for women, girls aren't even safe at college parties.

Besides all these, I love how the phrase is used to imply women are more emotional and more unbalanced. Another phrase used to gaslight people.

Fuck everyone who says this.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Preach it! All patriarchal horseshit for the spitroast.

[Mad]

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

I wonder if the saying gained currency because of power imbalance. A man who was "scorned" (whatever that means) could immediately respond in kind - physically, emotionally, financially - because he had the resources at hand to do so. A woman was denied those resources and hence had to plot and plan her comeback instead, which made it (a) probably considerably better planned (b) more effective and (c) more noticeable than an equivalent male response. This drew attention to her "fury" and the saying arose, with women effectively being blamed for reacting to a situation they hadn't created in the only way they could.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Could be, but I'd bet money that the saying gained currency because a man doing negative things to a woman was normal while a woman doing negative things to a man was striking and unusual, worthy of attention.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Could be, but I'd bet money that the saying gained currency because a man doing negative things to a woman was normal while a woman doing negative things to a man was striking and unusual, worthy of attention.

Minus his elaborated scenario, you and Lord J are essentially filing the same complaint.
The saying is rubbish, regardless.
To echo your last line: Fuck the micro-mind misogynists who use it. And their boiled pasta brained apologists.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Is the thread where I ask for help in exegeting Ecclesiastes 7:28?

quote:
One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found

Thank you.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is the thread where I ask for help in exegeting Ecclesiastes 7:28?

quote:
One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found
Thank you.

If I was required to preach on this verse, I would say:
This is what happens when you stop taking your meds!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

... And I'd point out that Solomon, being the ass he was, had probably "looked" in his harem (not having free access to many other women, given the culture and his status and reputation); and no intelligent woman stuck in his harem would be anything but very, very wary and careful not to reveal her true self.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

My IVP commentary says that line of argument is just so much hand-waving, and asserts that the meaning reflects patriarchism, plain and simple [Angel]

[ 20. November 2014, 18:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

If that's directed to me, I believe I said that. I simply seated the patriarchalism on the correct ass.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

As a side note, Oscar, that Oremus link is to 1 Corinthians. I somehow think that's not quite what you intended.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I did check it. Yes, it is Corinthians. I assumed it was some sort of Kerygmania in-joke and let it pass...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

The thing is, in the case I mentioned, it was the woman's female friends who openly embraced the perp. Who gathered round to offer a listening ear to the perp, who isolated her and lampooned her and further abused her, who began treating him like the captain of the football team and vying for his attention.

And God help the person who broke rank and stood by her.

I brought this up on a thread a while back, when someone or other wondered aloud why women stay in abusive marriages-- it's not just that she might be suffering from learned helplessness, it might be that if she breaks away, she might not just lose what meager life she had but also have to suffer through the spectacle of half her friends hitting on her ex.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I have a suspicion that the fury referred to was not originally anger, but the Hadean creature of that name - one of those whose task was to pursue wrongdoers until their hubris was met with nemesis.

So it would originally have been a more subtle remark - but as it is used now it has lost the element of the pursued having been in error, and is just getting at the women again.

Like the female of the species - whose deadliness is in defence of those under her protection. Half the meaning has been lost, strayed or stolen.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

I thought it was a mangling of "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." Which is said by a woman.

And I thought its current popularity was due to the Tyler Perry musical.

But what the hell do I know.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's become unbelievably dangerous out there for women, girls aren't even safe at college parties.

When was it ever safe?

(Where did the idea that the world was going to be a safe place for everyone all the time even come from?)

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
When was it ever safe?

See below.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have a suspicion that the fury referred to was not originally anger, but the Hadean creature of that name - one of those whose task was to pursue wrongdoers until their hubris was met with nemesis.

So it would originally have been a more subtle remark - but as it is used now it has lost the element of the pursued having been in error, and is just getting at the women again.

Like the female of the species - whose deadliness is in defence of those under her protection. Half the meaning has been lost, strayed or stolen.

This makes a lot of sense.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re the origin of the phrase:

Following various Wiki paths, I found that it's from "The Mourning Bride", a 17th cent. tragic play by William Congreve. The line is at the end of Act III, Scene ii--the very bottom of the linked page.

They're spoken by Zara, "a Captive Queen", to Osmyn, "a Noble Prisoner". They've been having an intense conversation about betrayal. It takes place in Grenada, Spain; and from the names, I think the Moorish/Christian situation is at least a thread of the story. I've only skimmed parts of the play, but it seems to be a Shakespeare-like (though shorter) "secrets and lies" sort of work. From what I read, it seems the situations and lines can be viewed in multiple ways.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
When was it ever safe?
See below.

Below says:

quote:
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.

So you agree we need better manners?

And you think we should have separate men's colleges and women's colleges?

(Also, according to the women I know, that wasn't true - alcohol was the original date rape drug that men tried to trick you into consuming).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re the origin of the phrase:

Following various Wiki paths, I found that it's from "The Mourning Bride", a 17th cent. tragic play by William Congreve.

So saying it was first spoken by a woman is a bit of a stretch, since it was put into her mouth by a man.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Well, yes.

If someone is, for completely batshit reasons, given no legal or legitimate recourse for their grievance, then yes, they will seem to overreact.

Injustice gets to you after a while, especially if you're the recipient of it. And to shit-for-brains types who don't understand this, the reaction may seem "crazy." As a dear friend of mine (male, it happens) once opined, being crazy is just a coping mechanism in a world that has completely lost its mind.

And yes, being a woman in a patriarchal society is rather crazy-making.

But people who are too busy pleasuring themselves by ramming their heads up their own asses...well, it's hard for the poor dears to read for context, so you get this particular piece of steaming chauvinistic crap.

Patriarchy is as patriarchy does.

[ 21. November 2014, 01:32: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

I once heard the phrase mondegreened as "hell has no fury like a woman's corns".

Not sure if that's better or worse.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I think quite a few acrimonious divorces could indeed bear witness that Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd - the sexism lies in implying that only women take it badly, unstable, hysterical creatures that we are.

No woman has ever been stalked or had acid thrown in her face by a rejected man. Nor ever been murdered by a jealous or controlling ex. Never happens.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is the thread where I ask for help in exegeting Ecclesiastes 7:28?

quote:
One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found
Thank you.

"Hi, Solly, Sheba here. How ya doing, mate? Great, great ... Solly, I just wanted to have a word about that little book you brought out..."

'Tis great nonsense, it's true. But having spent too many Friday nights clubbing in Newcastle in my well-spent youth, I do have some anecdotal evidence for the related maxim that "men fight to make a point; women fight to win."

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's become unbelievably dangerous out there for women, girls aren't even safe at college parties.
When was it ever safe?

(Where did the idea that the world was going to be a safe place for everyone all the time even come from?)

Who said anything about everyone all the time? It's a matter of degrees.

Yes, there have always been rapists, women have always faced danger, but the open acceptance of horrible treatment toward women has escalated quite a bit over my life time. I went to lots of parties when I was in college and I never saw even a hint of the sort of rough treatment that goes on in places like Ohio State University now. At least if a man did rape a woman he probably wouldn't have been bragging about it and expecting his friends to congratulate him about it the next day. It's partly because it was still rare and shocking that people found it hard to believe when someone, previously respected was accused.

Yes, some men used to try to get women drunk, but forcing a date to down six or seven mixed drinks is much harder than slipping a drug in her glass of wine. It's two very different things.

I get tired of people insisting that nothing has changed, soon someone will bring out the Aristotle (?) quote about young people getting worse all the time. Maybe they were worse. Some generations got better. I think the Victorians were better behaved than their grandparents, at least a little less likely to feel free to rape the servants, than the aristocrats of the eighteenth century.

I have friends my age who steadfastly refuse to take part in any "things have gotten worse," discussion because of a huge fear of sounding like old fogeys, but I have no such hang-up. I embrace my fogeyness. Things are more dangerous for young women today than they were in the 1950's and 1960's. I was all over the Ohio State area when I was nineteen. Walking High Street at two o'clock in the morning by myself, visiting friends in male dorms, going to parties till dawn and walking back to my rooming house. Something bad might have happened then. Something bad almost certainly would now.

Or have I watched too much "Dateline?"

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

The only thing that's gone up is our sensitivity.

Thank God.

Posted by Erik (# 11406) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is the thread where I ask for help in exegeting Ecclesiastes 7:28?

quote:
One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found
Thank you.

That just makes me think of Where's Wally.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The only thing that's gone up is our sensitivity.

When I was in college more than sixty years ago, I did not hear of students being raped. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I suspect it was not as common.

Nowadays students are openly expected to be sexually active and to have multiple partners. When I was in college there was the idea that you did not even engage in heavy petting unless you were committed to the other person.

I think the assumption that everyone should engage in casual sex has led to more frequent rapes, because the men can't believe that the women really don't want to have sex with them.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Moo,

The problem is that back then, many rapes, especially date rape, went unreported. The treatment of the victim was horrendous. Not that it is sunshine and lollies now.
And those rapes reported didn't get the exposure they do now.
This makes comparison nigh impossible, but I don't think your premise is completely accurate.
Think of the Penn State molestation case. It went as long as it did, in part, because many of the people involved were from the era of which you speak. The era in which such things were not spoken.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yes, some men used to try to get women drunk, but forcing a date to down six or seven mixed drinks is much harder than slipping a drug in her glass of wine. It's two very different things.

Definitely agree with this. Alcohol is not a "date rape drug." You can't say that seriously if you know what date rape drugs ARE.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

To add to what lilbuddha said that is more striking because of how under reported rape is now! Of the multiple people who have told me personally about being raped not one of them reported it. That's just an anecdote, of course, but it doesn't make me think that rape is very reliably reported now either! Virtually no one reported it back then. Now very few do!

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My mother was of the opinion that things were a lot safer while she was growing up in Sussex between the wars. (Though someone did turn up at the family home while her parents were out and seemed to have been told that she was available for casual sex. When my grandfather turned up the nasty piece of work found out very quickly that he was wrong.)

There was an obvious difference between the world of Britain then and now, in the absence of a generation of men and a superfluity of women.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

So, you're safe as long as your father/husband is strong and/or armed enough to scare off a would-be rapist. Or if you're one of those fortunate ones who is considered respectable.

I'm also kind of gobsmacked by how recently the decision was made public that a husband was not entitled to the right to rape his wife. Those laws are younger than I am, and I'm not very old.

[ 21. November 2014, 21:34: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yes, some men used to try to get women drunk, but forcing a date to down six or seven mixed drinks is much harder than slipping a drug in her glass of wine. It's two very different things.

That wasn't what I was thinking of. I was thinking of the frat parties I heard about where the men had a habit of spiking the punch and not telling the women about it. People who aren't used to drinking will be more vulnerable after a couple glasses of punch spiked with 151 proof grain alcohol.

quote:
Why myself, visiting friends in male dorms, going to parties till dawn and walking back to my rooming house. Something bad might have happened then. Something bad almost certainly would now.

Or have I watched too much "Dateline?"

You've watched too much "Dateline" (and possibly Law & Order). While it's true that some women make horrible choices when it comes to their partner, as long as you're not regularly getting shitfaced drunk in public and going home with random strangers and/or expecting random strangers to protect you on a regular basis, you'd probably be fine.

I read an article a couple years ago about cab drivers in DC giving drunk college girls rides home even when they didn't have the money to pay for it because they felt bad and wanted them to be safe (and the girls had spent all their money on alcohol).

I think it's that kind of double standard that's fueling some of the hostility you perceive. And the t-shirts that say things like 'so, do you want me to buy you a couple drinks or just give you the money directly?'

From what I can tell having worked on college campuses for years, things have gotten so much better than when I was a teen.

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm also kind of gobsmacked by how recently the decision was made public that a husband was not entitled to the right to rape his wife. Those laws are younger than I am, and I'm not very old.

And how many successful prosecutions of husbands raping their wives have there been?

What's the point of a law that it's almost impossible to enforce? Is it like that new law for university students in California, where it's all about the symbolic value?

Why as a society do we want to set the bar that low? What, you earn some sort of a prize and get to call yourself a good husband if you don't rape your wife?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Actually, I imagine the bar used to be lower. This is improvement.

And yes, having a law so you at least have a slim chance in our godforsaken so-called "justice" system, that's an improvement.

We've got a long way to go.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Oh, it has gotten tons better. Within my lifetime (and I am not old) it was illegal, in the state I am now living in, for me to be married to my husband. The miscegenation laws were repealed quite recently.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Actually, I imagine the bar used to be lower. This is improvement.

And yes, having a law so you at least have a slim chance in our godforsaken so-called "justice" system, that's an improvement.

Such an odd thing to post on a Christian website.

I might expect it from one of our resident secular humanists who regularly point out that this isn't a Christian nation and non-Christians can't be expected to adhere to the teachings of Christianity, but...Or are you trying to argue that secular humanism is inherently immoral or amoral and the blunt hand of the law is the only thing that can keep them in line?

Who knows.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Such an odd thing to post on a Christian website.

You do realise, you're now legally obliged to go and purchase one of these?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I was thinking of the frat parties I heard about where the men had a habit of spiking the punch and not telling the women about it. People who aren't used to drinking will be more vulnerable after a couple glasses of punch spiked with 151 proof grain alcohol.

True, that's the premise of the movie, "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek," set in 1944.

quote:

Or have I watched too much "Dateline?"

quote:
You've watched too much "Dateline" (and possibly Law & Order).

From what I can tell having worked on college campuses for years, things have gotten so much better than when I was a teen.

Okay then, I bow to your more recent experience.

[ 22. November 2014, 11:48: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Hell may well have no fury 'like a woman scorned' - but what it should have is fury as a woman bored to tears with being patronised and condescended to.

Got that off my chest on behalf of my god-daughter who's with me for the weekend [Biased]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I remember when I was in college in the 1950s, I went out on a blind date; it was a double date. I got bad vibes from the man almost immediately.

We went to a place and ordered beer. He pulled a bottle of vodka out and added some to his beer and mine. It tasted delicious, but he was much too eager to have me drink it, so I didn't.

Some years later I was with friends in a private home and I tried it. It still tasted delicious, but it packed a tremendous wallop.

To be fair, my date did not try to coerce me in any way. However, I was just as glad it was a double date.

Moo

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

How unexpected! Laced beer and variations will now be known as "The Moo" chez Sioni. [Big Grin]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The same thing was going on in ancient history, or when I was younger, whichever you prefer.

When I was XX* years old a friend advised me on a date to drink whisky and dry ginger on the first drink, then just the dry ginger on its own while continuing to supply the girl with alcohol.

I never did it.

---------

* age omitted so I do not incriminate myself on underage drinking.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Actually, I imagine the bar used to be lower. This is improvement.

And yes, having a law so you at least have a slim chance in our godforsaken so-called "justice" system, that's an improvement.
Such an odd thing to post on a Christian website.

I might expect it from one of our resident secular humanists who regularly point out that this isn't a Christian nation and non-Christians can't be expected to adhere to the teachings of Christianity, but...Or are you trying to argue that secular humanism is inherently immoral or amoral and the blunt hand of the law is the only thing that can keep them in line?

Who knows.

I'm not saying any of those things. Try again, if you care to.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Nah. Bitches be crazy.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The most important things in the world right now are education and empowerment of women to manage their own lives in any way they want. The second most important thing is to use their knees and left hook, both verbally and physically, whenever required.

Being a father of daughters, and a brother to sisters, and as a husband, I can't think of anything more important.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The second most important thing is to use their knees and left hook, both verbally and physically, whenever required.

Don't forget snorting and laughing. I always found it had a withering effect.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The most important things in the world right now are education and empowerment of women to manage their own lives in any way they want. The second most important thing is to use their knees and left hook, both verbally and physically, whenever required.

Being a father of daughters, and a brother to sisters, and as a husband, I can't think of anything more important.

I sometimes think that all the girls and women in Afghanistan and Pakistan and some other places should be taught self-defense--and the women given guns.

I'm not sure how you stop men who throw acid in the faces of school girls *before* they do it.

[Mad]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Statistics being as there are re. violence towards females, that it would be perfectly legitimate to arm females. Maybe not with an oozie, but pepper-spray, cattle prodder or something similar.

Or is this just me being patronising? In a perfect world there would be no violence towards females, or indeed anyone. Trouble is, I see no perfect world. Neither past, present or future.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
...it would be perfectly legitimate to arm females. Maybe not with an oozie...

Depends on what it oozes.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

How about we put physical restraints on men so that they can't engage in sex without the woman's permission? Like some kind of electro-shock device that only a woman could disarm?

I mean, yeah, it'd be more expensive, but...think of the potential? [Snigger]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Er, not every man wants to play hide the sausage with a woman. You might want to consider alternative configurations to Tab A into Slot B...

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
How about we put physical restraints on men so that they can't engage in sex without the woman's permission? Like some kind of electro-shock device that only a woman could disarm?

I mean, yeah, it'd be more expensive, but...think of the potential?

Don't they come with a biological one? I've never encountered a man who couldn't be dropped with a kick to the groin. Doesn't help too much if it's a group and dropping one of them will only make the others angry, but...

Trouble is, women who won't even leave a situation that's making them uncomfortable, much less enforce their physical boundaries physically, probably wouldn't use an electro-shock device either.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
How about we put physical restraints on men so that they can't engage in sex without the woman's permission? Like some kind of electro-shock device that only a woman could disarm?

Going further into sci-fi there were those things on Star Trek called 'obedience collars'.
If he's leering press button A for mild shock.
If he's making unwanted advances button B for medium.
Full on grappling press button C to knock him down.

Such a system would though rely on responsible usage.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

And yet with some of the spoiled brats running around who consider "mean-mugging" (ie I don't like the look on your face) threatening harassment, I don't think you'll ever get responsible usage.

Anyone else thinking about Pylea?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Don't they come with a biological one? I've never encountered a man who couldn't be dropped with a kick to the groin. Doesn't help too much if it's a group and dropping one of them will only make the others angry, but...

Size is a massive factor, as is training and practice. And the inconvenient little factor that men do not stand open legged waiting, like movies portray.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Size is a massive factor, as is training and practice. And the inconvenient little factor that men do not stand open legged waiting, like movies portray.

How the hell are size, training and practice major factors? You don't have to be trained to defend yourself when someone is physically attacking you, you have to be socialized out of it in order to be a member of civilized society.

And what movie portrays a man standing open legged and a woman kicking him in the balls? Of course if it's a physical struggle he's not standing their waiting - he's attacking you, likely on top of you. What on God's green Earth does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

saysay--

Um, training helps. It gives you options and techniques, and those can give you confidence.

A martial arts teacher once told my class that some guys don't collapse if you kick them in the crotch--they just get angry. So it helps to have options.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Saying "knee him in the groin" is not quite the defence your statement appears to claim.
And yes you do have to be trained, especially against an opponent who is substantially larger.
But anyway, it is fucked to the extreme that the onus is put on the victim.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

I can't even comprehend of a world where you don't receive a certain amount of "training" in your daily life in order to cope with the stuff that your relatives and public school classmates do.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I can't even comprehend of a world where you don't receive a certain amount of "training" in your daily life in order to cope with the stuff that your relatives and public school classmates do.

Incomprehensible world checking in: I have never had to defend myself against either members of my family or people I went to school with.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

They're not always trying to hurt you (although sometimes they are).

Didn't you ever wrestle with people because it was fun (until they started hurting you and you told them to stop and they stopped)?

What kinds of games did you play as a kid?

Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :

Another citizen of incomprehensible world checking in.
I played kickball, softball, baseball, and touch football; I ran races (always lost--I'm extremely unathletic); I climbed trees and dug foxholes and played pirates and cowboys.
Neither I nor anyone I knew ever had to defend themselves--I was shoved and tripped a couple of times by bullies in the last year of elementary school, when I had teachers who had the mistaken idea that kids should work out that kind of stuff themselves, but after that never again. (By the way, the bullies I had to deal with were pathetic losers (ugly, stupid, and lazy), many of whom did not even make it to high school graduation.) I never felt afraid for one minute in my big suburban Bay Area secondary schools. I never knew anyone who was afraid of getting "slammed." And this was in the seventies, when the idiots in mass media were constantly yammering about how "awful" high school and college students were.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

saysay--

FWIW: Being attacked, abused, bullied, etc. doesn't mean that you're able to do anything about it in the moment, that you know what to do, or can manage to do that.

Some people have very strong self-defense instincts that will kick in pretty automatically. Lots of people don't have that. Some enter "deer in headlights" mode, and freeze up. Some are afraid to escalate the situation. Some hope passers-by will help. I know, from personal experience, that sometimes even authority figures will walk right by and do nothing.

And yes, some of it gets socialized out of us. When I was a kid, it wasn't really ok for most girls to be at all athletic*, let alone defend themselves. Heck, we couldn't even wear pants/trousers to school, unless there was snow. (And I'm not as old as that might suggest.)

Training can help with that, though, whether it's a weekend self-defense course or ongoing martial arts class. (Which reminds me: I haven't had a brush-up self-defense course in a long time. I need to remedy that.) Having some really basic skills, physical and verbal, helped me in some situations as an adult. Fortunately, I was able to keep enough presence of mind that I only did as much as I had to do to end the situation, and that came from training.

I really wish I'd had that training as a kid, starting very early.

*Fortunately, female gymnasts and tennis players (e.g., Cathy Rigby and Chris Evert) became very popular. And it gradually became more acceptable to talk about bullying and sexual assault.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I can't even comprehend of a world where you don't receive a certain amount of "training" in your daily life in order to cope with the stuff that your relatives and public school classmates do.
Incomprehensible world checking in: I have never had to defend myself against either members of my family or people I went to school with.

You're very, very lucky--from my experience, that of people I've known, and from past Ship threads.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I also fall into the "never had to defend myself" category.

I've been flashed at twice, by strangers, but they were several feet away and I was more interested in putting more distance between us than in attacking them, and I've been groped once at work by someone senior to me - kneeing him in the balls would have been satisfying, but would also have resulted in instant dismissal.

But attacked and had to physically defend myself against my family or people I went to school with? I can't even imagine it.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Mayhap. I was an odd, clever, bookish child and certainly ought to have been an object of bullying - but I was also, as they say at home, a Fine Big Girl. Moreover, we moved around and I attended 6 different schools; I was used to being an outsider, and developed a persona to cope.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

When I was a young woman, I was working at a holiday camp. A group of fellow students were having a water fight on the lawn - which I decidedly did not want to join. But one lad spotted me walking by, and made a beeline for me. He tackled me to the ground and poured freezing water down my neck.

Now, I was fighting him absolutely as hard as I could. I did not freeze up. I would happily have kneed or clawed anything within reach. And I was sturdy enough in build, really quite strong. But the thing that gave me a horrible fright was that I was completely and utterly helpless. With him pinning me down, sitting astride me and holding my wrists, I could not move an inch to defend myself. It occurred to me even then that he could have done anything to me, and I could not have stopped him.

So self-defence, yeah, great if you can do it, better if you are trained. But the average man can overpower the average woman with shocking ease. I was confident and strong and capable, and thought that meant I could fight back. It didn't.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
How the hell are size, training and practice major factors? You don't have to be trained to defend yourself when someone is physically attacking you, you have to be socialized out of it in order to be a member of civilized society.

First, generally attackers attack because they are reasonably confident that they can "win". A victim quite generally has the odds stacked against them from the outset. Second, it is cold comfort to know that theoretically you would now turn into Conan the Barbarian, if this response to the present threat has been socialised out of you. Third, the best fight is one you don't end up fighting. There are three ways of achieving this, in order of preference: First, to be elsewhere in the first place. Second, to unstoppably go elsewhere. I recommend 400 m hurdling and rugby (not a joke). Third to know how to fight, and to have experienced the impact of fighting (adrenaline rush, pain, ...). Because one thing fighters are really good at is to spot the body language of other fighters readying. And that gets you back to the very first point.

My insider tip for women considering training martial arts (with contact) or self defence: buy MA/boxing chest protectors, wear them in contact training and let your partner know (e.g., by briefly hitting your own breast, just as men briefly knock on their cup). Unless and until you do, men at least are unlikely to behave "realistically" in training with you.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
So self-defence, yeah, great if you can do it, better if you are trained. But the average man can overpower the average woman with shocking ease. I was confident and strong and capable, and thought that meant I could fight back. It didn't.

I do not wish to contradict your general point, because frankly there are truckloads of bullshit merchants in MA / self defence who pretend that their oh so wonderful techniques will easily overcome size, power, speed and will. They won't.

However, two points.

First, from your description you either ended up "fully mounted" (sorry, technical term) or with your attacker "having your back", after the tackle. These are basically the two least favourable positions in one-on-one fighting. Martial arts training is to a large extent about not getting into this position in the first place. Basically, training wouldn't be only, or indeed primarily, about getting out of this position; but rather about spotting the incoming attacker in time, and stepping out of the attack or thwarting it, or in going down hurting the attacker and/or already moving to get out of it. Imagine if you could have managed to remain standing, it would have been a rather different game...

Second, while the upper body strength of men is way superior to that of women, on average, leg and hip strength is not. I used to train MA, for about 15 years. In that time in training many things in many places, I only met three women whose punches were scary to me. I met a lot more women whose kicks I considered dangerous (no high kicks please though, unless you are really good). And I also met more women who knew how to trip/throw me (which is largely leg and hip driven).

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

There are also "Model Mugging" classes, which involve women practicing defending themselves against a man who's in serious protective padding.

I've thought about taking it, but I'm ambivalent. I've found that defense/fighting classes can stir up old stuff (even though students control their hits and strikes), and being able to use my full force against an innocent man could get...complicated.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

QUOTE]Originally posted by IngoB:
First, generally attackers attack because they are reasonably confident that they can "win". A victim quite generally has the odds stacked against them from the outset. Second, it is cold comfort to know that theoretically you would now turn into Conan the Barbarian, if this response to the present threat has been socialised out of you.[/quote]

Oh, I know I'm basically going to lose any physical fight I'm in with a man (and that's with martial arts training - which was done mostly to deal with the fact that I was working in an environment that left me wanting to punch something at the end of the day a little too frequently). I've gotten my ass kicked a few too many times not to know that*. And, yes, I know that a man who is willing to physically attack you in order to have sex with you is likely to succeed. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. There just wasn't anywhere safe for me to go if I left so I didn't see the point in fighting back too hard.

The point being that more than 90% of men do not fall in this category and would in fact physically defend you if they were there. So a lot of women's fears that this guy who is displaying no signs of anger would resort to physical violence if she angers him are unfounded.

Ingo, I don't expect you to be overly familiar with the current American debate regarding consent. But I've sat on these types of kangaroo courts. And they are positively misogynistic in their denial of any kind of agency to women. Not only are women too weak and fragile to clearly say no, but they're also too stupid to leave when a man is doing something they don't want him to do and they've asked them to stop and he hasn't stopped. Yes, I understand that there are cases when people are drugged and are incapable of doing so. However, most of the cases involve voluntary alcohol consumption, an expectation that everyone enjoys casual sex, and mixed signals.

I think some of it has something to do with how the white middle class in this country socializes its girls. Because time and time again I've shown women how when I get too close for comfort to men and most minorities, they automatically back up to re-establish their comfort zone. Middle class white women don't - they tend to stand there feeling uncomfortable (and if I were a man and hadn't told them I was trying to demonstrate something to them, they likely would have reported me to an authority figure). But I've listened to assault allegations where as a woman I can't figure out how these girls thought their actions were going to be interpreted.

* I went to a high school that combined rich mostly white kids from the suburbs with poor mostly black kids from the city and, as the ESL center for the district, got all of the children of the Hispanic migrant workers. Kids from the suburbs would sometimes get a car as a present for their sixteenth birthday that was worth more than my family earned in a year. We were packed 1200 into a school built for 800, so some of our classes were so full that you had to sit on the floor because there wasn't even room for more desks. It was hard to get through the day without literally bumping into another student. One year there were so many bomb threats that we started calling them bomb-threat early dismissals. The physics teacher was stabbed breaking up a fight. Etc. Etc.

The only girls who didn't receive some survival self-defense training were the ones who had people willing to fight on their behalf.

(But I remain unconvinced that you need training in order to kick a man in the balls and run away - most kids I've known have had to be taught about Daddy's private zone and why we have to be careful not to kick him there).

[ 24. November 2014, 00:19: Message edited by: saysay ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Arguing about what makes for effective "street" self defense on the internet is like having fistfists to determine the literary merit of James Joyce's Ulysses.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

And then there is Cane-Fu. For real.
[Cool]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And then there is Cane-Fu. For real.

There is of course from France the gentlemanly Canne de Combat, which traditionally is taught alongside the somewhat less gentlemanly Savate . Here's a bout.

[ 24. November 2014, 09:06: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And, yes, I know that a man who is willing to physically attack you in order to have sex with you is likely to succeed. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. There just wasn't anywhere safe for me to go if I left so I didn't see the point in fighting back too hard.

I'm sorry to hear that this has happened to you. But while I accept that your strategy may well have been the best for you in that situation, I wouldn't like to see this generalised into the advice that women should not fight back (and need not learn how to do so). In fact, I think often women fighting back works. In part because the same socialisation that leaves many women like deer staring into headlights means that most men are not mentally prepared for anything more than subjugation by brief demonstration of aggression and power, as far as women are concerned. In that sense MA training is unrealistic, because in such a setting I as a man would "fight" a female partner with proper combat intent.

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Ingo, I don't expect you to be overly familiar with the current American debate regarding consent.

Well, I largely agree with the points that the article makes.

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The only girls who didn't receive some survival self-defense training were the ones who had people willing to fight on their behalf. (But I remain unconvinced that you need training in order to kick a man in the balls and run away - most kids I've known have had to be taught about Daddy's private zone and why we have to be careful not to kick him there).

I wouldn't call the experience of violence "self-defense training". The school of hard knocks may teach some how to knock hard. But it can also be discouraging and is rarely systematic. As for kicks to the groin, not all of those are equal. But more importantly, the reason why children quite regularly manage to land a good groin shot is that their daddy is not aiming to smash them into pulp. Otherwise quite frankly they would get nowhere near landing anything. Likewise, it is probably true that in a physical attack by a man on a woman the opportunity for a groin shot presents itself more often than not. But that's then because those men move in without expecting a serious fight. Problem is, once you try that groin shot (or anything else serious) their perspective will change. So counting on this really is a "Hail Mary" approach...

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

So self-defence, yeah, great if you can do it, better if you are trained. But the average man can overpower the average woman with shocking ease. I was confident and strong and capable, and thought that meant I could fight back. It didn't.

This. I'm always very surprised and a little frightened when I happen to feel a man's full strength, even in a playful situation. I've never been attacked, but I've been in situations where I sensed something might happen so I used surprise and speed to get away. I was a very thin, small boned young woman, I doubt I would have had any sort of chance once he had a grip on me.
----------------------------

Carol Burnett once said that she got a potential mugger to run off by turning and screaming, full volume, as only she could do, in his face. A police officer backed her up that, that can be very effective. Screaming seems like it would be instinctive but I'm sure I'm not the only one who might be struggling in silence through some sort of subconscious, societal training.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

For the unconvinced, some real examples.

I have always been smaller than average. As a child, a larger than average boy tried to hit me. I threw him to the ground and pinned him. I was lucky that other children fetched his mum before I tired and lost grip. But the only reason it worked was his being unprepared and being a child.
As an adult, and much smaller than average, I was attacked by a bigger than average man. I grabbed his tyre lever before he could use it, but he punched me in the face. When I retaliated by punching him in the groin, he just became more angry.
What saved me were three things, all lucky.
One, his shock when his punch did not end the fight.
Two, he would not let go the tyre lever, which limited his options.
Three, the police arrived within minutes.
I am not untrained and am strong for my size. He was obviously untrained. I still would have been in dire straits had help not arrived.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'd be neglecting in my hostly duties if I didn't point out that Advice On The Internet is of highly variable quality, and that nothing that is posted here is endorsed by Ship of Fools. If you require assistance and training in personal safety, your local government and/or women's support groups should be able to help.

Doc Tor, Hell host

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But while I accept that your strategy may well have been the best for you in that situation, I wouldn't like to see this generalised into the advice that women should not fight back (and need not learn how to do so). In fact, I think often women fighting back works. In part because the same socialisation that leaves many women like deer staring into headlights means that most men are not mentally prepared for anything more than subjugation by brief demonstration of aggression and power, as far as women are concerned. In that sense MA training is unrealistic, because in such a setting I as a man would "fight" a female partner with proper combat intent.

I'm not the one arguing that women shouldn't fight back. I'm the one despairing that Slutwalk was ever a thing that existed in the world.

quote:
Well, I largely agree with the points that the article makes.

As do I. But it is true that there are many in the US who see the passage of a useless law as a triumph and call the people who don't nasty names.

quote:
I wouldn't call the experience of violence "self-defense training". The school of hard knocks may teach some how to knock hard. But it can also be discouraging and is rarely systematic.

It wasn't the violence that taught them - it was the adults' attempts to deal with the violence, which included bringing in police officers and martial arts teachers and military people.

Not as good as training several times a week but better than nothing.

quote:
As for kicks to the groin, not all of those are equal. But more importantly, the reason why children quite regularly manage to land a good groin shot is that their daddy is not aiming to smash them into pulp. Otherwise quite frankly they would get nowhere near landing anything. Likewise, it is probably true that in a physical attack by a man on a woman the opportunity for a groin shot presents itself more often than not. But that's then because those men move in without expecting a serious fight. Problem is, once you try that groin shot (or anything else serious) their perspective will change. So counting on this really is a "Hail Mary" approach...

And yet the number of men who wish to attack you in order to do you physical harm is very, very small. Mostly they just want want they want, which is to grab certain body parts and/or ejaculate.

Most men in the US are not trained in fighting and most fights don't get past a couple of punches being thrown before they get broken up. Most men simply think you're an over-reacting bitch for kicking them in the balls because they grabbed your breast.

Although I agree that if you've managed to get yourself alone with someone who either wishes you physical harm or doesn't care if he has to physically harm you to get you to do what he wants, it's not necessarily the best strategy. Particularly since in the US such a person is also likely to have a weapon.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It wasn't the violence that taught them - it was the adults' attempts to deal with the violence, which included bringing in police officers and martial arts teachers and military people. Not as good as training several times a week but better than nothing.

Maybe such things are part of your world, they are not a part of mine. Or more importantly, best I know they are not a regular part of the world of women where I have lived (Germany, Australia, Netherlands, UK ... and for that matter a year in Mississippi, USA, when I was a teenager).

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And yet the number of men who wish to attack you in order to do you physical harm is very, very small. Mostly they just want want they want, which is to grab certain body parts and/or ejaculate.

How much of a deal it is for an individual woman to be sexually assaulted is not for me to say and everybody has to work out their own lesser evils. But as a general principle I do not accept that this is less injurious than say a bruise caused by a punch. The damage may be more psychological than physical (though certainly unwanted penetrative sex can cause significant "physical damage", from bleeding over STDs to an unwanted pregnancy), but having your mind hurt is no less debilitating than having your body hurt. Quite possibly more.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And then there is Cane-Fu. For real.

Good stuff. I've studied a cane form in Yang-style Taiji - quite useful, I think, as well as fun (from my perspective). The nice thing is that a cane is pretty much legal to carry anywhere, unlike other implements of self-defense.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Ingo [Overused]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Good stuff. I've studied a cane form in Yang-style Taiji - quite useful, I think, as well as fun (from my perspective). The nice thing is that a cane is pretty much legal to carry anywhere, unlike other implements of self-defense.

I've done a few years of Filipino Martial Arts (Kali, Escrima, Arnis), which are mostly stick-fighting. Lots of fun and sticks are powerful, of course, but like all weapons the problem with them is that you don't want your opponent to get hold of your weapon and use it against you. If you pull a weapon on someone, you escalate the fight and hence you need to be sure that it will go your way.

An untrained stick or cane attack will 1) typically neither drop nor sufficiently slow down a bigger and strong attacker, and 2) provide rather a lot of opportunity for the attacker to get control of the stick. I'm not talking sophisticated disarm moves here, but simply avoiding or even eating the shot (typically on an arm instinctively raised for protection) and then "wrestling" for control of the stick which was not withdrawn quickly enough. Rule of thumb, if I can hear the stick whistle through the air on strikes delivered while constantly moving about, then I would expect that person to do reasonably well... But for education, watch some Dog Brothers, in particular in that video the the "dumb disarm" at 2:20. Also note in the rest of the video just how many shots these people eat with very little protective gear.

In a place with highly restrictive weapon laws like the UK (which does not even allow pepper spray or the like), I would think of a "tactical flashlight" with easy access strobe function, like this one. Even during day if you get that strobe into your eyes it will slow you down significantly. In the evening or at night, it will effectively blind you for a while. And if you know how to use the torch as a palm stick, so stuff like this, then you can even use it to do serious damage without hurting you hand. And unlike for a stick, there is little sticking out for the attacker to grab and wrestle with (unless he manages to capture your hand). Finally, carrying a flashlight is legal (best I know, IANAL), typically seen as non-threatening by others and in particular in the evening will appear perfectly reasonable to police, security personnel, bouncers etc.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

With the Cane-Fu I mentioned, AIUI, it's meant to give self-defense techniques to people who *need* canes--seniors and disabled folks.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The chief demons would like to gently point out, again, that the internet is itself a somewhat dangerous place when it comes to making decisions about important life choices. Such as whether to carry a cane or torch around for the purpose of poking people at high speed rather than their original uses.

Watching Youtube videos does not make you an expert (well, apart from that one character in Heroes who could perfectly imitate anything she saw on screen, but the whole point was that she was unusual), and none of you have any guarantee that the Shipmates handing out advice actually have a clue.

With that in mind, enjoy your revenge fantasies.

orfeo
Hellhost and part-time macrame instructor

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I think I've seen some of that revenge macramé. I didn't realize you were an instructor. [Devil]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I can only tutor a few, and must choose them carefully. If this power fell into the wrong hands, it could be the death of us all.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

orfeo--

Should you wish to explore beyond malicious macrame, you might try Subversive Cross-Stitch. [Biased]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
With the Cane-Fu I mentioned, AIUI, it's meant to give self-defense techniques to people who *need* canes--seniors and disabled folks.

There will be ruffians that can be seen off by shaking a cane at them. There will be those that won't. The idea that one can teach the elderly who need a cane for walking to use it to instead to beat up the latter type of ruffian is, I'm afraid to say, highly unrealistic. Roger Federer with Cane-Fu would be deadly, I'm sure, but grandpa who has trouble moving isn't suddenly going to become a warrior just because he now considers his cane as a defensive weapon. The real deal with such courses is a psychological one. Basically, such training may convince people to shake a stick at ruffians when otherwise they wouldn't have dared to. Whether that is a good idea or not sort of depends on what fraction of the ruffians out there is of the type that will flee at signs of resistance. Generally speaking I would suggest that a good pair of lungs to make lots of noise with is the best tool for getting rid of opportunistic cowards.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I'd see cross stitching as more of a defensive strategy. Yarn Bombing on the other hand....

[ 26. November 2014, 08:36: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The chief demons would like to gently point out, again, that the internet is itself a somewhat dangerous place when it comes to making decisions about important life choices. Such as whether to carry a cane or torch around for the purpose of poking people at high speed rather than their original uses.

Watching Youtube videos does not make you an expert (well, apart from that one character in Heroes who could perfectly imitate anything she saw on screen, but the whole point was that she was unusual), and none of you have any guarantee that the Shipmates handing out advice actually have a clue.

With that in mind, enjoy your revenge fantasies.

orfeo
Hellhost and part-time macrame instructor

That's the first Hell host warning to make me laugh till I cried.

Yes. This, and what Ingo said. Many a time I've flippantly told my son and husband that I felt safe doing something because I had my cane, only to have them remind me that my limp wristed swing with my aluminum cane would only annoy my assailant. I actually think the big safety advantage to my cane use is that it's forced me to start carrying my money and cards in my pocket and give up that tempting purse.

I just read this morning that women over fifty lose muscle mass much faster than old men because we can't seem to store and use dietary protein very well so that helps explain some of our frailty and bone fractures.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In Brazil, attackers are usually armed. They may not point the gun at you right away, but they have it tucked in their trousers. Good luck wrestling it from there with a cane.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just read this morning that women over fifty lose muscle mass much faster than old men because we can't seem to store and use dietary protein very well so that helps explain some of our frailty and bone fractures.

I am willing to guess that women loose muscle mass faster than men over fifty because women do not eat the same amount of high quality protein. This would explain why women cannot store and use it!

Yes, meat eating differs by gender and while men tend to over indulge, women are at or below the recommended levels.

Jengie

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jengie jon: Yes, meat eating differs by gender and while men tend to over indulge, women are at or below the recommended levels.

LOL, I'm very much below the 'recommended' level of eating meat.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Mayhap. I was an odd, clever, bookish child and certainly ought to have been an object of bullying - but I was also, as they say at home, a Fine Big Girl.

Glad you were safely across the pond, Firenze. In my school in West Virginia our fine big girls would have come down from the holler to beat you up just for saying, "Mayhap."

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Jengie jon: Yes, meat eating differs by gender and while men tend to over indulge, women are at or below the recommended levels.
LOL, I'm very much below the 'recommended' level of eating meat.

You think I am making this up, then look at table 1 in this paper. There is Huffington Post article on how Veganism is overwhelming adopted by women. It is not difficult to demonstrate this.

Jengie

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
You think I am making this up

Actually, yes.

You manage to quote a paper that says the US meat consumption is 3x the global average to suggest that American women's consumption of 'high quality protein' is sub-par. You then use the notion that the majority of the USA's 1 million vegans (2.5% of the total population) are women, therefore women's health issues!

I call shenanigans.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

And of course it's all based on the foolish notion that only meat can provide you with adequate protein.

I'm not a vegetarian or vegan. But the people I know who are vegetarian or vegan are not wasting away to nothing on account of a lack of protein.

EDIT: Still, credit where credit's due. It takes a fair amount of effort to be stupidly wrong in 3 different ways simultaneously.

[ 27. November 2014, 08:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yes but where do you think the research Twilight is talking about comes from? Hint: It is not Nigeria.

That is just the first paper I found, do you want another, another study, and yet another study.

This is basic googling on "meat and gender." It is that easy to find.

Jengie

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
This is basic googling on "meat and gender." It is that easy to find.

Unlike whichever part of your brain would process that meat is not a synonym for protein. That seems remarkably difficult to find.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Oh, just for the fun of it I have checked with the latest executive summary of a report from National Dietary Survey

quote:
from page 11

mean consumption of red meat for adults aged 19 to 64 years was 71g per day (86g for men and 56g for women) and for adults aged 65 years or over was
63g per day (75g for men and 54g for women)

The UK government guideline is we should consume less than 70g per day.

It is harder to look at levels of deficits in women, but the general concern over the level of B12 and Iron deficiency in women suggests that it is having some effect. The question is not whether women can get enough from other sources but whether they are.

Jengie

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
That is just the first paper I found, do you want another, another study, and yet another study.

I have to read your links: it's part of the job description. So you can at least try to make them relevant to the thesis that "women absorb proteins differently to men, leading to statistically different health outcomes" rather than "men eat more meat than women".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
but the general concern over the level of B12 and Iron deficiency in women suggests that it is having some effect.

You know, it would really help if you actually knew what protein was. How many times do I have to say it? It's like I did that biochemistry degree for nothing.

Would it help if I gave you a list of amino acids? Or just a fucking definition of protein so you could understand that vitamins and minerals aren't included?

[ 27. November 2014, 11:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Yes, even I know that if you eat beans and rice together you get a complete protein. My article that started all this was a controlled study where men and women fasted for a few days, then all drank a protein shake, then waited a few hours, then had the protein levels in their muscles measured. The women hadn't been able to absorb as much protein from the shake.

I'm preparing a disgusting, bloody turkey for Hubs, mashed potatoes, broccoli, dressing, cheese sauce, pumpkin pie, baked beans for vegetarian son. I will eat all of it for my health's sake. [Smile]

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Jengie jon: Yes, meat eating differs by gender and while men tend to over indulge, women are at or below the recommended levels.
LOL, I'm very much below the 'recommended' level of eating meat.
You think I am making this up, then look at table 1 in this paper. There is Huffington Post article on how Veganism is overwhelming adopted by women. It is not difficult to demonstrate this.

Jengie

Some protein comes from meat
Some people who do not eat meat are female
Therefore, women need to eat more meat to keep muscle mass as they age.

QED. Obviously.

Now, a quick tour of Ariston's Funemploymentbudget Pantry would reveal a distinct lack of meat, red, white, or doesn't count for some liturgical purposes. That doesn't mean that Ye Olde Bachelor Padde is free of nut butters, pecans, cheese, black eyed peas, beans, dry roasted soybeans for snacking, and the occasional bit of cheese. I'd hardly call that lacking high quality protein. Many of my male friends who are amateur bike racers are vegetarian or vegan. A lack of meat doesn't seem to impair their results. Several pro racers, including those who race the monthlong grand tours, are vegetarian or vegan—and others will drop meat from their diets when riding in countries with less strict controls on tainted meat.

Frankly, equating a low-meat or meat free diet with weakness is balderdash. I don't see any way you can support this unstated and unexamined implicit premise.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And of course it's all based on the foolish notion that only meat can provide you with adequate protein.

Such a notion is not foolish per se. It is a reasonable hypothesis that should be tested by experiment and observation. And there is indeed some confirmation of this hypothesis.

quote:
Stephens FB, Marimuthu K, Cheng Y, Patel N, Constantin D, Simpson EJ, Greenhaff PL (2011) Vegetarians have a reduced skeletal muscle carnitine transport capacity. Am J Clin Nutr 94(3):938-44.
The aim of the current study was to test the hypothesis that vegetarians (lactoovovegetarians and vegans) have an increased capacity to retain supplemented L-carnitine to maintain normal skeletal muscle carnitine content and that this response is attributable to an enhanced muscle carnitine–transport capacity compared with that in omnivores. However, in contrast to this theory, we have shown, for the first time to our knowledge, that vegetarian skeletal muscle has a reduced capacity to uptake carnitine as evidenced by a lower muscle TC content, no change in the muscle carnitine content after an L-carnitine infusion during fasting or hyperinsulinemic conditions, and a lower OCTN2 mRNA and protein expression than in non vegetarians. ... With this in mind, one of the participants in the current study returned to an omnivorous diet after 11 y as a vegetarian and his plasma and muscle TC values had returned to normal after 6 mo. However, whether reduced muscle carnitine content in vegetarian volunteers has an effect on physiologic functions requires additional investigation, particularly because the muscle carnitine availability is rate limiting for fat oxidation and carbohydrate flux during exercise (5).

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not a vegetarian or vegan. But the people I know who are vegetarian or vegan are not wasting away to nothing on account of a lack of protein.

Data is not the plural of anecdote.

quote:
Aubertin-Leheudre M, Adlercreutz H (2009) Relationship between animal protein intake and muscle mass index in healthy women. Br J Nutr 102(12):1803-10.
The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between the type of dietary protein and muscle mass index in healthy Caucasian women. Even after correcting for total protein intake and SHBG concentration, which are known to be confounding variables (9,29), we observed a significant difference in the muscle mass index and animal protein intake between omnivorous and vegetarian women. We showed that the muscle mass index is strongly associated with animal protein intake, but not with plant protein intake or total protein intake. These results are interesting because the loss of muscle mass is known to be associated with functional limitations (30). In addition, this result is in accordance with the study by Lord et al. (7), who found a positive correlation between animal protein intake and the fat-free mass index in postmenopausal women. Even though vegetarian groups consumed the same amount of protein, the amount of plant protein intake seems insufficient to counteract the difference in muscle mass between groups. ... To our knowledge, the present study is the first to compare the effect of regular omnivorous and vegetarian diets on the muscle mass index in healthy Caucasian women. A great advantage of the present study is the collection of many samples across all four seasons and the total of 20 d dietary records. We conclude that a vegetarian diet seems to be associated with a lower muscle mass index in Caucasian women than is an omnivorous diet at the same protein intake. Furthermore, we report that a good indicator of muscle mass index in women seems to be the animal protein intake and not the total protein intake.

PubMed is your friend...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Many of my male friends who are amateur bike racers are vegetarian or vegan. A lack of meat doesn't seem to impair their results. Several pro racers, including those who race the monthlong grand tours, are vegetarian or vegan—and others will drop meat from their diets when riding in countries with less strict controls on tainted meat. Frankly, equating a low-meat or meat free diet with weakness is balderdash. I don't see any way you can support this unstated and unexamined implicit premise.

This tells us merely that a lack of meat consumption is not so detrimental to certain performances as to make them impossible (or at least noticeably harder). It does not tell us whether the same subjects on a different diet that includes meat would be able to perform significantly better. And furthermore, your specific examples are from sports with emphasis on endurance, i.e., the delivery of relatively low power over a long time. It is not a priori clear that there is no differentiation here according to the kind of performance, e.g., is it also the case that top weight lifting performance (high power over short time) can be achieved on a vegan diet? Since there are slow and fast twitch muscle fibres, it could be that diets affect these fibre systems differently. Or even more complicatedly, it could be that the difference is not in the muscular system, but in the trade-offs inherent in the performance. (There is a reason why sprinters are very muscular, and marathon runners are very wiry, even though both "run". A reduction of muscular capacity may be less noticeable in a sport where there are better trade-offs to be had between bulk and power.)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

[Snore]

Adds IngoB to list...

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Just when I was thinking, "How interesting! Ingo sometimes reminds me of Alan C."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
PubMed is your friend...

If that's your idea of what a friend looks like, it explains a hell of a lot about your social skills.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0