iaibear, in some women's defense class I took, the instructor told of a case, where I man would go through grocery stores and knock his shopping cart into female shoppers' carts. The women who appologized to HIM, he would target as likely victims. Don't know if this one of those urban myth sort of stories. But I suppose one thing a person who "walks" like a victim does is appologize for things they didn't do.

Drat, it just hit me that the crux of the disagreement between Cord, and those who agree with him, and ZZ/Shusha and those who agree with them, could simply be a different frame on the initial question. While Cord and the likeminded are focused on the entire of the population, having not narrowed the field to those who intervene.

This is probably my fault for initiating my questions poorly.

So when I asked about how men and women may deal with confrontation differently, I was already biting off the perhaps small chunk of the population -- women or men -- who intervene. I agree that many folks of either sex just don't. Astoundingly, we keep even hearing stories about folks who don't even use their cellphones from a safe distance. So, I'm athinking that the folks who have come down on the side of ZZ are assuming this prerequisit -- that we are talking about the folks who do intervene.

It may well be true that just as many men as women are of the sort -- whether instictual or conditioned -- to intervene. It may be true that the initial fear response is equally strong in men and women and equally propells them to either fight or flee. While I may have some quibbles in this reguard, they are entirely based on the kind of men and women around whom I have spent most of my life, and, therefore, probably not hard-fact relevant. (Although I'm compelled to mention a few facts that are not soley based on the sorts I consort with. By and large, men are far more likely to participate in sports that will hurt them. Rock climbing, technical mountain biking, white water kayaking, boxing, deep-water SCUBA, the list goes on. This tells me that men are more attracted to activities with a higher danger quotient. Sure, of course, we know there are women who do these things. But check out the local climbing cliff and check out the local dance class. There is a gender difference here, and, I suspect, it's got something to do with our tolerances for, and appreciation for adreneline sports. Look at the typical moves men watch -- The 300, The Matrxi, whatever. What are chic flicks? Sure some Tomb Raider stuff, but by and large they are romantic comedies and shopping fantasies. Look at the ratio of men to women in the sort of blood-on-the-floor fighting gyms you described, Cord, versus the ratio at the mall-work-out dojos. These differences are not just some modern invention. In most past cultures that we know anything about, men tend toward the hunting/fighting side and women tend toward the foraging, egg collecting, baby raising, cooking. Birth control has radically changed this. It used to be that pretty much every adult woman was either pregnant or breastfeeding.
But even today, when we women can control this, it still has it's impact. I separated a rib while I was pregnant the first time because pregnant women's joints/bones soften. I probably did it either biking or in karate class. It didn't go away. I have a rib that's not well attached to my sternum and the muscles around there sometimes cramp up and bend me over even years later. So I guess, I'm trying to concede that you could be right that men and women experience a fear reaction equally and respond the same way, but also that there's a lot of info in your way and I'm not sure. My point is that, I think, for the discussion I initiated, or tried to, it is beside the point. I am trying to get a handle on what folks, who intervene despite, or because of, their intial fear response, can then do when sex/size/skill (however it turns your crank to think of it) is not on their side.

It seems like you're wishing to focus on the folks who don't intervene. That's an interesting topic, too. And, it seems to me that you're saying, if you're one of those people who gets frozen with fear, training in bloody gyms with lots of violence and yelling is a good way to work with your weakness. Agreed. Wholeheartedly. For me personally, and also for the characters I'm writing, this isn't the problem. I haven't had issues in the scenes I've done with fearful, non-combative characters.

I can see that in your line of work you probably see wall-flower sorts all the time, which explains your concern with this. But I'd be very interested if you were to skip past that part and get into what various skill/size/intention levels can and do do differently in confrontations.

So I'm not responding to novelgirl, and here's why. A couple weeks ago, my wife, novelgirl, was asking me about how the people on her writing forum, the degenerate lot, couldn't understand how any woman (even perhaps a man) would intervene in a domestic dispute. So I says to her, you should talk to the good folks at fightingarts (my forum). Okay, so I don't really post here much, but I used to lurk regular back in the days of Old Man vs. Razwell.

Anyway, I've been watching this thread, and thinking, cool, Cord's weighing in. But I find myself disagreeing with Cord. Not so much on the physical or even the emotional universal differences between men and women, but on that nurture, sociological male/female divide.

I believe that in human society women are women when they are of sexual maturity. But men have to become men -- by some rite of passage, or proving themselves to be providers or protectors or whatever a culture values men for at a given time. So that when my wife told me about this experience at the pool -- I wasn't there -- I can't help but wonder what I would have done if I were there. I'd like to think I would have shut it down a lot quicker before anyone got hit with a car door. But I don't know. I wonder how it would have went down if I'd done exactly the same things my wife did.

Would my rushing up to the incident play differently than my wife rushing up? Okay, we're both in bathing suits and dripping wet and yelling, but then, what? Is there a different vibe?

So it seems to me that women can often be more focused on results than on proving themselves. Which reminds me of much of the focus of Zen in Asian martial arts. Much of Zen is an attempt to remove ego from confrontation. So what if women just don't have that whole training-to-remove-Cobra-Kai bit to contend with? In fact, don't we find ourselves in the dojo, slowing down and shutting down the young men's egos, while with most of the women, we're all, "You are tough; you can do this." We're trying to get all the young men not to be tough guys, to embrace this Zen thing, while we're telling all the women, "You are Cobra-Kai. You go, girl."

Hey look, I don't purport to have the answers, if I did, I wouldn't have sent my wife here. But it seems like there are gender differences, even though, yes, there are little guys and spunky women that seem to break the mold.

I think the "gender differences" are subjective at best. Some people see men and woman as being totally different, whereas others see minimal differences between men and woman.

Personally I'm dubious of ANY attempt for people to assign themselves an identity based on some larger collective. People are individuals and have to be assessed on their individual merits and flaws.

In terms of the "right of passage" stuff for men, I don't buy in to that. People mature at different rates and again this is an individual thing. I matured slowly over time, I didn't kill a boar with my bare hands and think "Whoa, I'm a man now!" Ok I'm being facetious here but I don't think it is necessarily a bolt of lighitng moment that always makes a person mature. It can simply be dealing with everyday life and dealing with that over a long period of time that allows a person to mature.

I read a review of a great book by a psychologist. She wrote about the development of boys in Western society. For the life of me I can't remember the name of it but it was a detailed review and featured an interview with the author.

She said that generally little boys and girls from their time of birth until puberty have more or less equal ability to express their feelings and communicate. Little kids, regardless of gender, are by and large equally emotional.

When puberty hits, things start to change biologically of course. What also changes is the social pressure exerted on these youngsters to conform to gender sterotypes. At puberty, boys are suppose to play contact sports and not cry. They are not suppose to talk about their feelings. If they get hurt and complain, they are told to "Man up" or "strap on a pair". The author of the book argued that it is this social brutalization of young boys that often leads to them becoming more aggressive, emotionally crippled and generally less able to communicate their feelings.

So the idea that "men should be men" could be as much about social pressure and societies expectations of what a man should rather than biological factors. The author also said that if young girls were brutalized in a similar way in society (i.e. encouraged to be physically aggressive and not communicate or express themselves emotionally) then they could turn out the same way as an emotionally crippled, aggressive male.

In that sense it is social pressure to conform which shapes an individual, not necessarilty their gender. Hence we see gentle, communicative men who are good care givers, and we also see women who are aggressive and struggle to express their emotions. It seems to be the case, the author argues, that nurture dictates this as much (if not more so) than nature.

This agrees with a point Cord made in the sense that a persons gender doesn't necessarily determine what they will or will not do, it is more the experiences they've had (or haven't had) and how they have adapted to those experiences that will determine their reaction and ability to cope in a conflict situation.

But if a group of women get marooned on a deserted island, then the division of labour gets devided the same regardless, and survival continues based on that structure. The only limitation is the finite span of the group due to the lack of reproduction. The rest of it - the building, hunting and all that stuff would happen through human ability to adapt regardless of gender.



There are many paths to the same goal. My point is, that when it comes to dealing with confrontation, it is either learned (ie, its now in you to use instinctively), or its not (works great in a class with people not trying to hurt you, but not under real pressure in conflict). Thats not a gender thing, thats an individual thing.



I am not saying that everyone uses the same techniques or tactics, I am saying that any method used comes from the same core of ability to function under attack, and that is not limited or affected by gender.



Well, as I said, my example is a recent real world one. Also, I have worked along side women doorstaff, and 2 of my senior MA instructors are/were female. I also married a woman who has no qualms about engaging in physical violence to protect herself, and has done so on many occasions, so I have real world first hand experience of what a woman can accomplish in a physical encounter, including against the opposite sex




If the training doesnt go there, then there is no chance of adaption to the stressors. What you have said above, equates to any and every learning process in life, from learning to walk, through schoolwork, to job skills to fighting. Remember the first time you drove a car? How unnatural it was? losing track of where the indicators were, the shift, balancing looking in mirrors with seeing the road ahead?
How about now? How much conscious thought do you put into the mechanics of driving? Not a lot I would bet - its hardwired through familiarity.
Now what if you were taught to drive badly? If you were purposefully given wrong rules of the road and given a faulty car? Your driving would be terrible and dangerous. Outside of as a hobby, most MA classes are to fighting what bad lessons, wrong info, and a bad car would be to driving.



But thats not a gender thing. Plenty of guys (me included) would not chase a guy over a glass. Its alaska, so I presume a fairly small population, and a lot of regular faces. Let him have the glass, and the next time he came in, serve every drink he has in a disposable plastic glass. Problem solved. I worked in a bar where all drinks served in the last 40 mins before closing, were served in plastics and bottles were not allowed to be drunk out of. More than one way to skin a cat - but its nothing to do with gender.

I don't have much else to say here, I'll reiterate that I think trying to boil this question down into a simple evaluation of physical skillsets, or the MMA vs. TMA debate absolutely misses the mark.

Anyway it's been an interesting conversation and good points made by all.

Other than that, i'll post this link that most certainly touches on some stuff we are talking about:

http://www.foxsportswest.com/05/31/11/Th...2&gt1=39002

Zach Zinn, sad but fascinating article. I remember reading about Martin and watching one of her fights when I was researching for a book about Lalia Ali. Martin was the girl to beat back then. Will be interesting to see what she does now. The story has movie-deal written all over it.

Cord, I understand your point of view and your willingness to go into further detail has been helpful.

As far as what I've collected from everyone about how to make scenes with female characters who intervene in confrontations with men more believable, the discussion has been valuable. I'm eager to get to my next confrontation scene to see how these insights will play out.

So, thanks all.

To come full circle, the salient point I was trying to make to you in regards to your writing, is that, in the full range of human conflict, both women and men are capable of acting out of bravado, hubris, courage, anger, empathy and true humanitarianism. Indeed, no individual will act from a pure single emotion, and the mix will be individual and unique to them as a person, not their gender.

Whatever you write, it will never be as unbelievable, or far fetched, as some proven true accounts that you will find on record, so write what feels true to your character, not what pleases other writers in your coven

Excellent advice, Cord. It pleases me to move my readers, thus I have to get behind the few, but crucial, instances where I have a disconnect with my readers. This thread has given me what I need to understand the differences that trip me up; I hope. Fingers crossed.

After I tackle these few scenes, I'll perhaps post a little list of what I did differently because of these discussions.

Many thanks.

Sounds great. Looking forward to reading your results.