Slashdot Mirror
Scientists' Mouse Fight Club
An anonymous reader writes "To study how aggression, fighting, and winning change the brain, scientists set up a tournament of mice fights. They watched as the lab rodents took a break from their hum-drum existence and battled it out (however, the researchers broke the first rule of Fight Club by publishing a paper about their findings [abstract]). They found clear evidence of the 'winner effect,' in which a mouse that has just won a fight maintains elevated levels of testosterone and aggression, and is therefore more likely to win the next bout. Interestingly, the winner effect was strongest in mice that were fighting in their own cages — i.e., those that had home-field advantage."
"How a society channels male aggression is one of the greatest questions as to whether that society will survive. That's why I am not against violence in the media, I am against the glorification of immoral violence."
-- Dennis Prager
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I think so, Brain, but if you ask me that one more time I'm going to kick your ass! NARF!
The second rule of fight club is you DO NOT squeak about fight club. (Ugh...)
I mean, surely if cockfighting or dogfighting is illegal...
I think it would do society some good to take the blinders off and have a look at female aggression and it's consequences...
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
I could totally take a bunch of mice. Can't wait to get ripped from all the extra testosterone.
Similes are like metaphors
I wonder what the difference in this "winner effect" is when the defend-my-own-home motivation is absent?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
I wonder if Michael Vick is getting into this fight club or is Tyler Durden the only member.
Looks like the definition of the word "scientist" just got a little looser.
Is this the precursor to the rage virus?
Since they made a "comparison" between fighting at home and away from home you can read the paper and see the difference. Sciencey stuff is amazing like that.
I think it would do society some good to take the blinders off and have a look at female aggression and it's consequences...
Cat Fight!!!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I know I'm not supposed to talk about it, but I once saw Mickey take on Mighty. Now, I put my money on Mighty. But, the bout was at Disney World. Mickey won in less than a minute. Then, all hopped up on testosterone, he basically took Jerry's head off in the next match.
I have seen stuff man. I was there. I have memories. Bad, bad memories.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
The article states the the effect is MOST pronounced when a mouse is defending its home territory. This means that they also had to study the effect when that motivation was absent. If you read the full text paper, and it will tell you more. It's behind a sign in page.
Female aggression only happens when women are empowered. I guess we should disenfranchise them again. (That's a joke, son.)
But more seriously, when people are given the latitude to be aggressive, you'll see a spectrum of responses. Some people can handle power responsibly, others get drunk with it and start thumping people with little provocation or cause. Systems are supposed to be designed such that abusers are culled, but it seems that just as frequently a given system of authority closes ranks and defends 'it's own' against outside accusations however well-founded.
However there's no cause to single out genders/races/ages/etc. because such categories only go so far in explaining what are ultimately individual motivations. People may draw from various behavior archetypes, may respond to various experiences in ways that can be predicted or categorized, but there are always factors that introduce variances such that you can't view people as simple equations of A + B = C every time.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
the romans did this with prisoners / gladiators so why do we need to do this now with Mouses?
I fully support this. Especially if mud is involved.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The results of this seem a little confounded to me. They "paired favored mice with the weaker...". Didn't they just introduce a bias?
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
Albert Einstein
What conclusions can you draw from 2 mice fighting, that might affect humanity? Other than "2 males fight and castrate one another over territory" - except wait, humans don't do that. This is cruel, and merely an excuse to burn grant money.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Because the Romans weren't conducting a controlled scientific experiment? Because the Romans didn't write down their findings, nor were they attempting to answer a scientific question to begin with? Because what we know about gladiator fights is limited and uncertain?
I can't think of an analogy for how stupid this is; that's how stupid it is.
Since women appear to manifest aggression in very different ways than men (although increasingly exactly like men as an additional mode) it seems like a very worthwhile to single out the genders. For one thing female aggression largely goes unnoticed (or just plain denied) by society and consequently their victims are usually unnoticed as well.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
How did they get them to fight?
The tricky part was getting the little gloves and silk shorts on them.
Because Christianity castrated Western Civilization to the point where people are now afraid that losing might hurt somebody's self esteem. Used to be we could stomach where losing meant disembowelment (stomach! that's a pun!). There are gains to this attitude, such as the end of slavery and the enfranchisement of women, but the pendulum has swung so far we teach our kids to be afraid of their own shadows and every little pin-prick is treated like somebody just lost a limb.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
So, these mice basically got a false sense of confidence that might have gotten themselves a boost, and managed to avoid better fighters in the process.
But, if the fights hadn't been fixed, they would have lost handily to the, er, undermouse.
Definitely sounds like real boxing to me. :-P Wake me up when one mouse wins by tap-out.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
No kidding. In general when a man gets pissed at you, he lets you know, and maybe hits you or yells at you, but in the end you work it out. On the other hand when a typical woman gets pissed at you, you had better watch out. She probably won't tell you, and instead will use psychological methods to tear you apart from the inside in an attempt to completely ruin you and leave you a quivering shell of a man. Women are vicious. Men are so much easier to deal with because they bring problems out in the open. Most girls I have dated have said proudly that they think like guys, and don't act the way most women do (as I explained earlier). But guess what? They still do it, just not as often.
...and have a look at female aggression and it's[sic] consequences...
Consequences? Domain registrars with names like "Go Daddy", and urine-colored (to say nothing of the flavor...) beer.
Not sure if misuse of the apostrophe is a consequence of female aggression, though.
You are so right. The equating is more like A^2+B^2=C^2.
In all seriousness, why is this modded as funny? Twenty percent of reported domestic abusers are female, despite the fact that a man is less likely to turn in his wife and that the police are less likely to take the case seriously due to cultural effects. Some studies have even shown that female on male spousal abuse is the more common form, though it is less physically damaging. Mothers abuse children more frequently than fathers, physical confrontations in schools are becoming increasingly perpetrated by females, and all of that says nothing to the more traditional forms of psychological and emotional aggressiveness practiced by many women.
It depends on how one defines 'aggression'. Physically where women are effectively aggressive, there is no real difference. Primarily because as you allude it is a learned behavior from men. A lot of generations are going to pass before women have anything to teach men about physical aggression which has been the bread and butter province of men since prehistory.
If you're talking about some kind of emotional or social aggression, you're simply looking at the momentum from a social adaptation that was natural for women in a patriarchal society. Almost universally disenfranchised from any kind of real power in politics, religion, or society at large, women had to become manipulative, even deceitful, by nature because it was only through exerting as much social influence over their husbands/sons/brothers/fathers etc. as possible that they could have any real control over their own destinies, let alone control over any segment of society.
And it is just as I said before, ability is not the same as abuse, there is a spectrum of responses. Each woman is as ethical or unscrupulous as her background and experience has made her. There is nothing inherently good or bad about a gender.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I mean, it was the mice that were in the fight club, not the researchers... and since they weren't members of the fight club, they should not bound by its rules, right?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I think you'll find it's A*B = C. If C is greater than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Serious question:
How is this different from Michael Vick? Just because they wrote a paper instead of collecting paper?
Like this? http://www.kungzhu.com/index.php?/Vids-Comm/commercials-3.html
Or more like the Hamster Fighting Machine poster?
This seems unnecessarily cruel and unethical.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I would propose the theory that women have become more aggressive because they have to in order to protect themselves against not only an aggressive man, but other women. When no one will step in to help, the "weak" (physically less stronger, whether male, female, elderly, etc.) either have to fight or die. Very few people will step in to help someone. They tend to turn their back and say, "Not my problem."
It has within the past decades become OK for girls to not only protect themselves, but become bullies. Of course there have always been bullies of both sexes, but we see more and more young girls duking it out like sailors in a drunken brawl. Everyone just stands around and films it then posts it on YouTube. It's okay for people to get into a bitch slap on the daytime TV shows. (I've no doubt these people are actors and this is set up, but it simply enforces that it's acceptable to lay hands on someone just because you're pissed off or you're "disrespected.")
I've got to wonder about "scientists" who want to watch mice fighting. What scientific value does this have and how is it any different from cock-fighting or dog fights? Why don't they just go on the street and watch real humans in crowded urban areas or how people act watching a cage match fight? You can put two beta fish together and they'll always fight--why...because they come from a land where they live in small bodies of water, marsh areas (which is why they can also jump out of the bowl--they have to be able to hop to the next puddle.) It's for purely territorial survival reasons that they fight other fish. I expect it's the same for the mice too.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
No one said there was. Although you are just making an assertion - one which may or may not be true.
You know you seem to be making a big effort to excuse the violence women commit and perpetuate as not being worth examination. Unfortunately that is not surprising. Like I said society would benefit from taking the blinders off. Violence is only a concern if it is "effective"...? I don't think so. And of course it's men's fault... "learned behaviour from men"? "patriarchal society"? Again not very surprising - round up the usual suspects.
Ever see a woman lose it physically? That isn't something she learned from men. Ever see a female just haul off and slap a man (or kick or punch) while obviously expecting to be able to do it with complete impunity? That isn't something she learned from men either.
And even if you are right that it is a learned behaviour from "the patriarchy" (next meeting Thursday at 9 guys!) that doesn't mean it isn't worth studying and isn't a problem - but you can always try to sell that to the school kid who has been ostracised and emotionally brutalized by one of the girl cliques at their school.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Meh ... all of this mouse psychology stuff came out in the Pinky and The Brain cartoon series. So now we have a bunch of deranged scientists doing the whole series script, no doubt at taxpayer expense through some pork barrel grant. Pretty cush I must admit, sit around and watch cartoons and then turn them into exciting "scientific" experiments. Seem to remember may 7 or 8 years ago MIT students set up a web site showing a variety of cute mice. People who registered got to vote on which cute little mouse would be treated with catnip and given to a mean looking tom cat to play with the following Friday night. Think the school made them take it down. ... Maybe these are the same students ...
You're very right - the fact that it gets modded funny is tellingly symptomatic of the problem. Let's end the denial and take the blinders off for the sake of all. We could start by asking why the media (or the audience) considers it "funny" for a woman to kick a man in the genitals? Or just haul of and slap/punch him - with complete impunity. Even when it is clearly painful for the recipient it is somehow supposed to be funny. It's ok for women to lose control and hit - right? Because that is the message and very few people seem to see a problem with that.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Women have been bullying since the beginning of society [cite not needed to anyone with a clue] it's just that is hasn't usually been physical (or obviously so) until recently. Just ask any girl who ever went to public school, or worked in a primarily female job, was part of any organization comprised mostly of females, or... but yes you are right it has been getting more and more acceptable for females to be openly physically violent. Those who deny violence by females - physical or non-physical - are helping to perpetuate it.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Scientists should have simply walked to the nearest stadium.
you're simply looking at the momentum from a social adaptation that was natural for women in a patriarchal society.
Sometimes that bitch from down the street is just a bitch.
Being "against the glorification of immoral violence" is a straw-man, set up to demonize anyone who points out that his idea of "morality" is extremist.
I had just skimmed over the quote until you commented on it. I missed the immoral part, which is a shame, because that quote is about the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. I mean, really? You are against immoral violence? That is just brilliant.
I will go one step further than this Pragler twit:
"I, for one, am against immoral violence. However, I am completely for moral violence."
I would also like to add I am for moral boobies, penguins, and shoes. I am firmly against immoral sign posts, watches, and rhubarb patches.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
No ... This Is... Mouse Fight Club !!!!
I see in fight club the strongest and smartest mice who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squeaking. God damn it, an entire generation running mazes, growing ears on their backs; slaves with white fur. Advertising has us chasing cheese and water, working jobs we hate so we can live in cages too big for our needs. We're the middle children of history, mouse. No purpose or place. We have no Great Plague, No Great Famine. Our Great Plague's injected in labs... our Great Famine is our own thirst for the wild sewers. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be living in piles of garbage, and mating sporadically, and following along the bottoms of walls to bigger piles of garbage. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.
Pudding or Jello would be better
The primary reason that women have more latitude is because they are less effective. They lack the upper body strength, the hormonal response, the reflexes, and the combat cunning that a male possesses (being almost exclusively responsible for physical conflict in human society for thousands of years kind of helps to promote certain physiological conditions). The average man could beat the average woman literally senseless without too much effort. It is because of this that society has conditioned men to turn the other cheek, because responding in kind would escalate too quickly into a very unfair fight, as the history of the abuse of women demonstrates.
None of this of course has much bearing on women fighting women, which isn't new by half. There are literary accounts of domestic violence between women from the Greco-Roman period at the very least (such that I've read personally, they may be even older accounts).
You're deciding to read my opinions as excusing of female violence, which I said nothing of the kind. I said that it was learned from men because men are experts (would you expect a soldier to learn his trade from somebody exclusively a bookbinder? or vice versa?), no more. Perhaps you forgot the very source of this topic? Is all violence evil? Are all men evil? Ridiculous and absurd. It sounds like you have some sort complex, inclined to blame yourself while seeming to defend against the words of others.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Doesn't that simply show a superior intellect outwitting superior physical strength?
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
I was talking about effective physical aggression. A woman who fights 'like a girl' stereotypically (slapping, hair-pulling, etc.) is not going to be as effective as the masculine approach of attacking with powerful blows, blocking, feigning, etc. There's a reason why women take self-defense courses to learn how to handle themselves in a fight, it does not come naturally to most of them. Don't misread that, I'm not saying that fighting doesn't come naturally, I'm saying that fighting effectively does not come naturally, and men are the gatekeepers of that experience.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Wow, that's sexist.
Well first, you have to pour each of them over a half dozen tiny mouse beers ...
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
http://i.imgur.com/NNPWn.jpg Poor mousey never had a chance. :-(
Until recently? You know nothing of history. Go here and search for "the wool maid is done for" and read a few paragraphs. That's but an example.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
It's reality (though I suspect you may be making a joke). Virtually every soldier before the modern era was male. Combat is a masculine expertise. There is no implied morality to that. Men have used their skills of combat to defend as well as attack, to stop violence as well as initiate it. Violence is not inherently immoral. Anybody who believes otherwise is a fool.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Twenty percent of reported domestic abusers are female
You should have bolded "reported", because as you say, men aren't likely to call the cops when their wife beats the hell out of them; they're ashamed the cops will laugh and call them pussies. Women have no such problems calling the cops.
The "men more more violent than women" is a myth. Hell, there's a bartender at Felber's that put her first husband in the hospital.
Free Martian Whores!
We of course have no history of the abuse of men and children by women because people don't want to look at that. Even the suggestion that it be looked at brings on posts like yours attempting to discourage and - quite evidently -blame men. Oh that darn patriarchy! And by the way being less effective" (another assertion) is not an excuse.
Really? It isn't the patriarchy (men's) fault? You haven't been saying it isn't worth looking specifically at women's violence?
Ahhh the tell-tale clue. Almost like clock-work when I see any public forum get a post that paints women as anything other than angels who are just total victims in every situation there's always the little ad hominem attack against the poster... that's when you know there is no actual dialogue possible because the other person isn't looking for actual discussion, they instead want to silence it or raise the noise level to the point where it is ineffective. I've said nothing but that the violence of women should be studied and made public (just like the violence of men) and pointed out some of the ways in which women are violent and the ways in which society excuses or ignores it... and your response is to make a personal attack, whacky arm-chair psychiatry and so on. You're very transparent.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
I never denied that women haven't been bullies or that women haven't been physically violent. Because of society, however, most "bullying" occurred on a more intellectual level vs. physical. Until recently, it wasn't acceptable in society for women to turn to physical violence. I've even seen cases where the parent was egging a daughter on like he would have his son: to stand up and fight. My theory, although I digressed a bit, was that when a group doesn't feel protected or that there is no longer a social structure to things, they resort to violence or the threat thereof--sometimes in order to attempt to bluff out the other. Whether you like it or not it used to be if a woman was threatened she didn't always have to worry that no one would come to her aid and therefore didn't have to become aggressive. Now she can't always count on a boyfriend, husband or passerby to assist. I think, especially in our more crowded urban areas, that people are starting to de-evolve into animals battling over territory, mates, food, etc.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
They are animals, provoked enough and the Fight or Flight response will kick in. With no where to turn in a small box though, a fight is most likely to happen. Also, mice are territorial animals. To quote this link:
Mouse Behaviour In Captivity:... Mice in the wild are very territorial.... Although male mice will behave sociable towards female mice, they can be unsociable towards other male mice where territory is concerned. Like a majority of male animals, the male mouse will protect his territory and guard it well, chasing off any other male mouse intruders. ... Male mice show their natural territorial behaviour also in captivity. It is not wise to keep males together.
This might also explain why they used male mice.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Of course I said "or obviously so"
Thanks for the ad hominem. And ignoring the vast majority of my post to try and distract by fixing on something minor you can try to pick at. As I've said - you're very transparent.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
... the upper body strength, the hormonal response, the reflexes, and the combat cunning that a male possesses ...
On /. ??? Seriously? =]
I didn't say you had - I just wanted to point out something.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Because none of the scientists could understand the sloppy roman hand writing? Its like a doctors note, who really knows what they meant to say? The invention of the type writer was still to come after this happened.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
I've got to wonder about "scientists" who want to watch mice fighting. What scientific value does this have and how is it any different from cock-fighting or dog fights?
Michael Vicks files appeal - "I was only trying to get into Nature your Honor! Those reviewers are tougher than my cellmate bubba."
It must have been obvious enough to be part of the common social discourse in Roman literature. Transparent enough for you? (Ad hominem indeed, Mr. Kettle.)
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I will take exception to one of your conclusions. The "Feminist movement" actually does want equality. You forget that not all women are feminists. There are those (I met a few recently who openly admitted this in their own case) who despise feminism because it meant they couldn't be 'pretty little girls' all their lives and had to step up and fend for themselves. These are the women who actively opposed the feminist movement when it first gained steam.
In fact, many modern feminists would agree with your essential points (that feminism is being distorted and that the principle of gender equality has gone down the crapper). There two provocative books on the subject by Christina Hoff Sommers Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women and The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. I heard about the latter in a radio interview and the examples she raised then were about male portrayal in the media today. Essentially, her view is that revenge for past female oppression is not a worthy goal for feminists and it doesn't help the cause either.
Considering they will tear each other apart I really see nothing funny about it. You probably should seek mental help, many serial killers started out torturing animals for amusement.
and it totally ignores that humans are not restricted to using only their limbs for combat. A woman with a baseball bat could beat up most unarmed men rather easily.
"Let man fear woman when she hates: for man is at the bottom of his soul only wicked, but woman is base. " Friedrich Nietzsche
Fighting does not come naturally to men either, it is learned while growing up via altercations. Especially since our education system essentially treats this sort of assault as normal.
-lipstickcovered-rat
Shouldn't that be a pig?
I really don't understand what you're trying to do. I'm saying that existing behaviors and social norms (for both genders) evolved for explainable reasons. You keep beating this drum that this is 'justification' and an 'excuse' and such bullshit. You seem to be motivated by assigning blame, and consequently you are determined to project your own motivations onto others about assigning blame. I'm not blaming men and exculpating women, but that's what you want to see so you see it, otherwise you wouldn't have something to attack.
At this point I don't know why I'm bothering, you're only going to see what you want, but I'm going to try one. last. time. to explain this.
I am saying that where violence is taken for its negative effects alone, looking at 'female violence' as a product of gender is no more useful than looking at 'masculine violence' as a product of gender. By doing this you are as guilty of the sort of bias you're accusing others of having.
Violence exists. Both genders do it. Men are better at it because of natural selection. Women can generally only be as good at it if they learn from men. This is not fucking blame. This is not some kind of assignment of guilt. When you read it, that's what you see, which says more about you than me. I'm not saying that women aren't violent except that they learn it from men, I'm saying that women aren't effective/good/skillful/adept/etc. at violence generally except that they learn it from men. Violence is a tool, just a like a gun. It can be used for good or evil, and the way you seem to see only evil and the assignment of blame deserves the 'arm-chair psychiatry' I have served you with. You're messed up.
(Also, you seem to keep harping on my use of 'patriarchy' for some reason, regardless of the fact that it was in context of social, not physical aggression in the context of developed behavior over generations. Do you deny that a patriarchy existed? What do you call a society where women cannot own property, cannot vote, cannot hold office or titles, are barred by scripture from religious leadership, etc? Is that not patriarchy? Do you think that just because those things have changed in the last century that the social effects have just evaporated?)
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I don't tend to have the same view exactly, but, I have had a small amount of martial arts training (couple of years in a couple of styles, nothing too serious), and so, I have been exposed to women trained to fight, and they are every bit a mans equal when trained (making allowances for size and strength, but those advantages can be somewhat nullified with speed, training, and experience)
That said, I heard a very interesting talk by an old martial arts master (I forget which, one of the japanese schools) in a documentary. His insight on schoolyard violene was interesting... he said its good for boys to fight when they are young because they learn their own strength, they get hurt, and they learn how much damage they can do to others and themselves.
His claim was that the danger of trying to eliminate this sort of fighting was young adults growing up not knowing their own strength and not being as aware of how much they can hurt each other, and so fights between them, when they do arise, are more deadly.
Overall, I believe it. Look at someone whose been a martial artist for years. The control that they can exhibit is amazing. The ability to throw a "lightning fast" punch, yet connect with so little force that you might not know it, or how and where to give you a good solid hit to bruise your ego without damaging your bones or flesh. Hell, one of my instructors had so much control, that I didn't realize that he was demonstrating a sneaky groin kick until I felt his toes caressing my balls. Quite unsettling how fast it happened but... he still had enough control to not even cause pain.
Now schoolyard fights wont give you that sort of control but... try sparring with some new students who just recently learned how to throw a kick and its just all unfocused power with no control.... so I can definitely see it.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I'm still confused about what they used for tiny little ring girls...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I've not argued that women can't be trained (one of my closest female friends was a champion martial artist of several disciplines), rather that they usually need to be trained as opposed to having instincts for the craft.
However I agree with your assessment. There is no substitute for experience. I think society would be much improved by mandatory military service. It establishes a substrate of common discipline on which to build a self-ordering society. Civilizations that grow to state where most citizens are born, live, and die in the softness and insulation of their family home seem to fall into immoderate carelessness and lose the skills necessary to guard themselves. You see this pattern in European and Chinese history very clearly.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Two mice enter -- one mouse leaves.
Thought thinks itself.
I never stated or implied that violence was immoral, I merely stated that claiming violence was a primarily male domain was sexist.
Many proto-russian, pre-historic persian, and celtic women(all cultures who buried women with hand weapons) would disagree with you, if they weren't millennia dead. Not to mention examples of other species where females are more territorial, violent, or aggressive than the males. Insects especially.
Those must be some pretty dumb guys then. Most guys I know would have the bat out of her hands in seconds. But yes, weapons are an equalizer, especially when those weapons are not dependent on physical strength, such as firearms.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
> You should have bolded "reported", because as you say, men aren't likely to call the cops when their wife beats the hell out of them; they're
> ashamed the cops will laugh and call them pussies. Women have no such problems calling the cops.
I don't want to cast this aspersion on all, or even most, women but... I have even been witness to my friends live in girlfriend tell him "Fine if you want it that way I will just call the cops now and tell them you hit me" because they were having an argument. Same woman... no lie... I saw her tell him "I don't want us to both have keys to the same apartment" demanded his, then when he wouldn't give them up, handed him hers.
She then walked over to a police cruiser down the block, told them he reached in her pocket and took her keys. (of course, she lucked out, my friend was still made from the fight with her and the cop was one of those douchebags who was just itching for a fight and egged him on until I had to step in and pull my friend away and tell him to calm down)
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
If men are learning from each other, who taught them? I rest my case. If you trace any learned behavior back far enough, you come upon those for whom it was something that was just 'in' them. There's always somebody who had to act first without a model to follow. If that can happen once, it can happen many separate times where similar problems are solved by similar solutions, in biology it's called 'parallel evolution'.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
It's one of the issues like divorce where traditionalists and feminists don't disagree. Women of course don't mind doing whatever they want, and most men don't mind viewing women as children who are indulged when they do whatever they want.
Either/or, frankly.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
My position is somewhat anachronistic (given that most gladiators of Rome had no choice in the matter, and games were little more than glorified executions), but I nonetheless believe that a person should be able to choose to endanger themselves. This is purely hypothetical, but if I want to have a fight to the death, and another person does also, who are you to say we are not masters of our own lives and destinies? When a person attacks another unbidden, it is assault of course, but when boxers box or wrestlers wrestle, that is not assault because it is consenting (and sometimes they even die, and it is excused because they sign waivers and it's not an understood intent). Why should a gladiatorial fight to the death be treated differently?
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I am well aware of the foundations of Wing Chun, however do you think this abbey would have any martial arts at all without the development of previous styles by men? Do you seriously suggest that at no point in their lineage of teaching and learning there were no men? If so I would say you are in denial.
Wing Chun is an eminently effective style of martial art, and no small achievement, but to attribute it absolutely solely to its founder and her immediate predecessors would be as disingenuous as to say a brewer of a really good beer owes nothing to long lineage of brewers who formed and guided the technique of brewing over generations. The 'originator' deserves most of the credit for advancing the discipline in their specific way, but not all of it, for without the longer and larger picture to build upon there would be no specific advancement.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Doesn't that simply show a superior intellect outwitting superior physical strength?
If the situation truly warranted absolute annihilation of the opponent, sure. But even my wife admits that women can be cruel over petty squabbles. Women seem to have a harder time working out problems (even if men only work them out after a little fighting) and seem to hold grudges for longer. A superior intellect would probably know a little something about picking your battles and the good of social harmony.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
How convenient that no written record of daily life in those societies exist. That's a hell of an inference to make about the presence of an item! All Sikhs are supposed to carry a dagger called a kirpan at all times. Just because they possess this item does it make them all warriors? Does it make them all violent? In fact Sikh teaching specifies that the kirpan is for defending the defenseless from violence, it represents a capacity, not a day-to-day behavior or use. Anthropology is a more complex science than physical presence = behavior = social norms.
And, really, other species? Come on. Should we be afraid of women eating their babies just because some species do that? That's not even a serious argument.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Sneaky, underhanded, devious behavior is not necessarily a sign of superior intellect. It is a strategy, one of many, that might be used to counter superior physical strength.
Another strategy might be superior training, such as the use of a martial art. Or attempt to improve communication, so that the conflict can be resolved with a win/win.
Or simply avoid the conflict altogether, if possible.
Claiming that "I am devious in my dealings with you because I am more intelligent than you" merely demonstrates that you have poor ethical judgement. A devious strategy might be justified, or it might not be.
I highly doubt that. How are you going to grab it when she is swinging it? Even a small woman swinging a metal bat is going to break every bone in your hand/wrist if you try to grab it.
Goddamn accidental AC check... that was me.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Meh. It comes down to early childhood. Boys are encouraged to, or at least not dissuaded from, play fighting moreso than girls.
My sister was a tomboy, and she feints, blocks, strikes for maximum impact, etc, as well as most men. She didn't need to be taught those skills... she learned them as a child.
It's not that fighting effectively doesn't come naturally to women... it's that boys are more likely than girls to spend a lot of time in their childhood honing those skills. This is exacerbated by the difference between organized sports for the two genders.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Then that would imply that the feminist movement is as interested in those cases where men are "less equal" than woman as it is in those cases where women are "less equal" than men. Can you give a few examples showing that mainstream feminism actively concerns itself with the former? I mean more than just the occasional book by women like Sommers who, brave though she is for publishing, was then shunned by mainstream feminism?
And IIRC Sommers does quite a good job of showing that mainstream feminism is not about equality anymore, if it ever was.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
> However I agree with your assessment. There is no substitute for experience.
> I think society would be much improved by mandatory military service.
Funny you would say that. I actually mostly agree. This may surprise anyone who has heard how little I think of the military or soldiers in general. That said, I would argue that some form of mandatory or strongly encouraged, (I am not really into non-consensual except in the most extreme of cases... I think prison should be reserved for true serial rapists and murders, and political criminals) however.... as a requirement for voting rights and or citizenship? Sure, I could buy that.
Also, I would only really support it if the mandatory service were STRICTLY defensive forces service. Or at least, I wouldn't join up and get citizenship unless they were strictly defensive forces (and making it an option doesn't fly either, since every person who takes that option could be used in such a way to free up someone who would fight... manpower is fungible as they like to say)
Part of this is that, as a US Citizen, I realize how huge of a military that would create and no such military should ever exist to my mind. If we broke up into individual state militias, then I would be an even bigger supporter of such an idea, but a single centralized power of that magnitude would be something that I would fear.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You should seek mental health. Many people who lived to be miserable and grumpy started out by not having a sense of humor.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
It's also funny when a man kicks a man in the genitals, or when a monkey does it. Generally, comedy isn't harmed by danger, unless the audience perceives the dangers as being directed towards them. With the right (flat, serious) delivery, the following dialog can also be hilarious on stage:
"Well, Mr. Johnson, I have bad news. The cancer has returned, and you only have seven days left to live. I'd suggest going and having a good time for your last days, but you are of course expected in court next week to defend yourself against the claims of emotional distress filed by all the people who violently raped you."
That sort of thing shouldn't be funny, but it really is. We are a terrible species, and probably deserve to have a monkey kick us in the balls.
Sorry, but that's complete and utter bullshit. Men have to be taught to fight effectively just as much as women do. Almost nobody has an instinctive understanding of "how to fight". Pit two businessmen who've never raised a fist before against each other, and they'll slap and pull hair just as much as any untrained women (well not so much on the hair pulling, genetics and hairstyles being what they are); those are just the simplest ways of "fighting", and they're what basically everyone will do unless trained.
I know this is true because I was a karate instructor at one point. When they first start sparring, little boys resort to slapping just as much as little girls, and only a little bit less than untrained men and women. I can't tell you the number of sparring matches I've had to stop not because someone got a touch, but because both people were just slapping at each others' gloves.
The only difference is that it is far more acceptable for men to fight than it is for women, so you find more men who know how to fight then women. Little girls are told off for fighting, but when the punching starts - well, boys will be boys.
There is no "more masculine approach" - there's only experienced and inexperienced.
I think men are capable of it, they just don't resort to that option first.
Oh and also women who do that are typically very bad at conflict resolution. And I mean actual conflict resolution, not "let it fester under the surface for a while then let it explode out when I'm in attack mode".
Yes but it isn't considered funny for a man to deck a woman.A little bit of a double standard there... I guess feminists have it on their list of things to deal with. After all it portrays women as more violent than men.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Not to follow up to myself unnecessarily but I just wanted to say that yes I got your point and generally agree with it.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
A woman who fights 'like a girl' stereotypically (slapping, hair-pulling, etc.) is not going to be as effective as the masculine approach of attacking with powerful blows, blocking, feigning, etc.
I'm sorry, but why would that not be effective ? Just because it doesn't look powerful from our male perspective , doesn't mean it's not effective .Slapping someone in the face is certainly effective .
In martial arts , i recognize both :
- there are techniques based on speed and agility , with high positions and open hands , which you could see as female
- there are techniques which are heavier , full blocks , closed fists , which you could see as male
Well , the first techniques (female ) are considered a higher level form of defense than then second , because it is more effective ( you can avoid an attack , use the attacker's power against him , rather than taking a blow and punching back )
Slipping shoelaces ?
Can you give a few examples showing that mainstream feminism actively concerns itself with the former? I mean more than just the occasional book by women like Sommers who, brave though she is for publishing, was then shunned by mainstream feminism?
I can't. Because I misspoke in my first paragraph when I said "the feminist movement". That evidently gave the impression that I was talking about mainstream feminism (being all about equality), which (as my second paragraph clearly shows) is no longer on the right path (hence the "Who stole feminism" reference). My bad.
After I posted, I read up on Sommers some more and found exactly what you wrote (that she was then shunned for her views - many feminists going so far as to label her "anti-feminist". Damn shame. Guess modern feminism is truly bankrupt intellectually. Of course, I'm a guy so maybe that means I'm forbidden from expressing any negative opinion about feminism. Dunno what the rules are - I didn't get the memo ;)
Another interesting book is "Feminists say the darndest things" (I think - Mike Adams?). Though this one I don't take too seriously as it seems to be more about small (relatively low on the totem pole) university politics than feminism per se. The less there is, the more rabidly people fight over it. It is extremely entertaining though and reads more like something you'd find on FARK.
Yes but it isn't considered funny for a man to deck a woman.
Except in 'Family Guy'.
My mother wasn't afraid to smack me when I deserved it, and I don't begrudge her in the slightest for it, but slaps and spanks do not a competent fighter make. You can bet I didn't learn any CQC tactics from my mother, and she doesn't know the first thing about weapon retention. (Although with a shotgun she is a better shot than I am still, but her father was a lifelong practiced champion trap shooter.)
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I am talking about untrained fighting, not what some taijiquan or qigong grandmaster can do after decades of practice and learning. To somebody fighting without training, a slap is just a slap, and it is baldly inferior in effect to a punch or kick. Anything can be raised to a higher level with focus. Tchoung Ta-chen could make a simple shove feel like some unimaginable abstraction of irresistable force and respond to attacks like an immovable object. That's what a lifetime of effort can accomplish gender regardless, but its ridiculous to impute any similar level of capacity to the ex-cheerleader turned accountant who grew up having tea parties with her stuffed animals (to use a stereotype).
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
It depends on the woman and her fighting skills of course, but you can usually do that without much difficulty unless you're Stephen Hawking :)
Well, from my experience that's not an attribute of either sex, it's an attribute of a sleazy asshole. I've seen both men and women pull crap like that. Some people are just mean, evil, wicked, bad, and nasty (apologies to Tommie Smothers for stealing a line from the "Live at the Green Onion" album).
My friend Amy was once roughed up a little by her ex-boyfriend, who went inside, hit himself in the face with a pan and had her arrested for domestic battery. My girlfriend's ex, according to her, once broke into her apartment in the middle of the night, attacked her in her own bed, and had HER arrested (he has friends on the crooked little town's police force).
It goes both ways.
Free Martian Whores!