Women fighting & training - how do you feel, similarities and differences with men.

[threeoaks]

16 hours ago, Kaitlin Rose Young said:

...

Ah Kaitlyn I’m not sure what happened to your fantastic comment but I am glad I caught it.  It’s extremely interesting that you observe a lot of progress comes from opposite sex coaches.  I only know one female coach in a different style of fighting around here, and because she is a dragon (very rough), it takes a very particular person to train with her and at a high level yeah - it’s young men, not women (and I train with her son)!  I wonder why this is.  Thank you for all your thoughts, very much.  Congratulations on your great fight btw.  Can’t wait til you fight again. (Maybe my mobile is just not showing it or you wanted to reconsider something which is all fine; just happy to read it).

[threeoaks]

5 hours ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

a general tide, a fabric in the culture that reflects an experience of powerlessness for women, and powerfulness for men.

I particularly like the phrase “general tide”.  I’m always a huge fan of elegant ways to describe prevailing terms.   I sometimes use the word “patriarchy” cause it’s accurate.  But It’s painful to use, actually physically hurts, and many people (including myself as a teen) simply go blank.  So a tide -  beautiful.

 

 

5 hours ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

And honestly, Sylvie just couldn't access any of those ridiculously blown out visions the guys found so easy to dream up. As a woman - and probably for other reasons too - all these super-visioned, jacked up thoughts were like a different language. 

This is so interesting.  I do an annual “wild goals for the year” sheet and what you write about Sylvie is true for me too.  I write in the plainest terms, force myself to make elevated goals (and yes I meet them), but there is a feeling of looking around sort of furtively as I write.  Wtf.

[Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu]

14 minutes ago, threeoaks said:

I sometimes use the word “patriarchy” cause it’s accurate.

It's actually a pretty crappy term. It immediately positions the problem, and more importantly its solution as academic, the discourse (hahahaha, yeah, "discourse") on it and its reality at a very rarefied level of class. And it isn't even rule by the father. It's really rule by all the sons of the father...perhaps filiiarchy.

[threeoaks]

13 minutes ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

It's actually a pretty crappy term. It immediately positions the problem, and more importantly its solution as academic, the discourse (hahahaha, yeah, "discourse") on it and its reality at a very rarefied level of class. And it isn't even rule by the father. It's really rule by all the sons of the father...perhaps filiiarchy.

Yeah.  Plus not just ambiguous and ill-conceived (or conceived when inheritance was the defining factor), but practically speaking not the best political rhetoric because it’s so blamey-pants (which puts people on the defensive).