Monthly Article Index

Youtube Video of the Week – Trans Gender Wars

I guess this falls into the category of micro identity politics where violence is now the new tool of choice. This kind of behaviour will be discussed in Political Violence and the Hive Mentality.

Every Sunday since 1866 a range of different speakers gather at Speaker’s Corner to air their views and the tradition continues today. Many famous figures have spoken at Speaker’s Corner including Karl Marx, Lenin, William Morris, George Orwell and Lord Soper.

Tolerance of the views of others and a respect for freedom of speech are the cornerstones of British democracy or not if you are a gender fascist full of ate and intolerance.
The transgender issue is sensitive in Britain today especially for these narrowly focused virtue signalling groups, sparking passionate debate that passion has erupted into the sort of outright violence normally associated with football hooligans.

Two factions – the Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (or so-called TERFs) and their bitter enemies Trans Activists – clashed in an unseemly bust-up that ended with a 60-year-old woman being bundled to the ground and punched in the face. The incident was caught on video and is now being investigated by the police.Mother-of-two Maria MacLachlan, who describes herself as a ‘gender critical feminist’, was attacked at Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park at about 7pm on Wednesday.

She had joined around 50 fellow TERFs who were to be given details of the secret location for a talk entitled What Is Gender? The Gender Recognition Act And Beyond.TERFs are feminists who are opposed to some campaigning by transgender women.The event was originally scheduled to be held at a community centre in New Cross, South-East London, but was switched following online warnings of a protest from Trans Activists.Among the groups threatening to protest were the LGBTQ+ Society from Goldsmiths University, an organisation called Sisters Uncut, and Action For Trans Health London. Ms MacLachlan told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I was chatting to one of the speakers, Miranda Yardley, and people started to come who looked different to the rest of us. There was quite a generation thing.‘These studenty-looking types were turning up and some arguments started to take place but I kept well out of it.’

Ms Yardley is a prominent transgender writer and was guest speaker at the event along with Dr Julia Long, who describes herself as a ‘lesbian feminist and defender of women-only spaces’. Ms MacLachlan said: ‘Julia said she was going to sing a song she had written. She took a megaphone and as soon as she put it to her lips, these kids started shouting, “When the TERFs attack, we fight back.”‘I thought, “I can film this, it will be interesting.”

They were getting louder and louder. Then suddenly someone tried to grab my camera. It was scary. Someone kept trying to get my camera. I think it was a girl, but I couldn’t tell because they had a hoodie over their eyes.’Footage of the incident was uploaded to YouTube the day after the alleged attack, and it has since been viewed tens of thousands of times.In a statement to police, Ms MacLachlan later identified a trans-woman who is currently trying to raise £5,000 for vocal-cord surgery to make her voice higher, as one of her attackers.

Her Lumix camera was smashed and the memory card stolen. She also sustained a nasty bruise on her face, red marks on her neck and grazed knees. She added: ‘I didn’t go to hospital but it has really shaken me up.’Several feminists called 999 and three cars containing six officers arrived on the scene, but no arrests were made.Notes were passed among the feminists letting them know the secret venue was the University Women’s Club in Mayfair.

They left in small groups hoping not to be followed but were tracked down by the activists. Another feminist, Jen Izaakson, said tension remained high at the venue. She added: ‘The staff had to form a human chain to let our people in and keep protesters out.’Because students from Goldsmiths had been so vocal in opposing the original meeting, the feminists believe they formed a section of the protesters.

A spokesman for the university said: ‘Goldsmiths prides itself on its diverse and inclusive community. We uphold the right to peaceful protest but cannot condone violence.’Action for Trans Health London issued a statement saying: ‘We condemn violence against women in all forms. We’re proud that many self-organising activists, allies and supporters stood against hatred, misogyny and intimidation.’A Scotland Yard spokesman confirmed an investigation was ongoing and video evidence would form part of their inquiries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UDmJsbRmqU

Alpha Revisited – Marc MacYoung

Let me start that if there is one thing I am embarrassed about in my past works it is bringing the concept of alpha/beta into the self-defense world. At the time it was widely accepted science. But theory, like fame is fickle and fleeting. So let’s update this circle jerk.

I liken it to that because every wanna be tough guy is now claiming to be an alpha. Fact is, they’re behaving like the betas… and doing a bad job of that too. Mostly though they’re jerking off to fantasy.

Yes the original study was wrong. Way, way wrong. More modern research has proven wolfpack dynamics are far more complex and multi-roled for functionality and long term sustainability than people realize. It turns out participation is a much, much bigger and constant factor than hierarchy. But having said that, there is a great deal still to be understood by pack behavior– especially by looking at the actual role of the beta.

See what wannabe don’t realize is they aren’t aping alpha behavior, they’re aping beta behavior. There are several problems with this. First is they’re doing hash job of it. Second is not having what it takes even to be a beta. Third having absolutely NO idea about what leadership, power or even dominance is. Fourth, basically taking a sociopathic approach based on their complete misunderstanding of the third point and how things work in groups.

But let’s look at what they’re aping.

In a negative context, the beta is the thug. In a more positive context, the beta is the Sgt of arms for the group. In a positive spin, the beta protects the pack. In a more neutral perspective, the beta is both the muscle OF THE group and expendable. (While the role is not expendable, the individual is.)

I liken the beta to a spear. Something that is thrown at a target, but you don’t mind losing. Yes the beta is the biggest, strongest and most aggressive. It’s also the enforcer of the rules (but not the maker of the rules). The beta is out in front when taking down large prey and it is also running at danger to the pack. As such, the beta is the first to get injured or killed. When that happens (or the beta gets old), the role is taken over by another, often younger wolf.

In human terms, the beta is who I call Thongor the Learning Impaired. For the group’s survival he doesn’t do the ‘smart thing’ like everyone else — instead of running from danger, he runs towards it. Thing is if everyone did the smart thing we’d have died out as a species. Face it, men are bigger, stronger and faster than women. Women are bigger, stronger and faster than children. So if we all did the smart thing and ran from a predator the kids and women would die first. Yeah, that’s not a good species survival strategy.

The key point of this is that as the alpha leads the pack (because it has resources and abilities others don’t) that’s a different set of skill sets. The beta protects the pack and keeps other wolves in line. That’s where the misunderstanding of power and dominance really comes home to roost.

Many I’m-such-an-alpha-stud-look-at-how-big-of-a-dick-I-can-be -uhh-how -big-of-a-dick-I-have don’t get ‘it’s not about them.’ It’s about the group surviving and… if not thriving…then at least functioning on a day to day manner. In other words, it’s not about what they want or for their selfish benefit, it’s taking care of others. Yeah, there’s a selfish spin to it, but it’s one step removed. While it is true you get those bennies, it’s because of the services you provide to others. The role isn’t about the bennies, it’s about the work. The bennies are what you get for doing it. But far more important is the group and its shared resources keep your ass alive.

Now there is an interesting thing that tracks back to the difference between studying wolves in the zoo (which is where I heard Mech did the study) and wolves in the wild — it also tracks to dogs And in a round about way, humans. In the wild, if you have an out of control member of a pack, the pack will either abandon it or collectively drive it away. This seriously increases the chances of the ‘lone wolf’ dying. You can think of this as the pack voting with its feet. Or chasing you out with fang.

Consider this from the aggressive one’s perspective. First you’re screwing up by being too aggressive to your own pack. Screw up too much and you get abandoned and die. (Also, there’s always a danger to the bully of triggering a survival response while trying to chase an individual away and that individual injuring or crippling the bully.)

The option of leaving does not exist in captivity. That TOTALLY changes the dynamics and increases stress among the animals. This especially if the beta decides it’s alpha. Look at Caesar Millan’s ‘insecure alpha’ That’s what happens when you have a beta trying to be alpha in captivity. You end up with thuggish, aggressive behavior.

Oh and as an aside, in the wild the pack’s survival depends on the savvy and knowledge of the leaders. It’s not just wolf packs, it’s pretty much all animals that live in packs, herds and social groups. Leadership is about knowing where to find food, water, shelter, etc. This is a missing component in captivity where needs are provided. Simple concept, profound implications on behavior.

NOW, let’s add in some other stuff –starting with people. If people can’t ‘leave’ or vote the aggressor out you have some screwed up dynamics. This especially when you have a bigger stronger ‘overlord’ that isn’t looking out for them, but the overlords interest’s. An example of what I’m talking about bullying in schools. (Conversely, you end up with a different set of problems when leaving [and finding another group] is too easy. But that’s not the point of this.) But being trapped with a bully is a significant issue to this subject.

Oh and another issue with schools. In ye olde days, you had mixed age groups. (One room school house.) Not only did this allow for modeling of behaviors (this is how older kids act) but you also had the protection/limiting of abuse BY the older kids. Yeah, Joey may be the biggest baddest and terror of the ten year olds but the 17 year old who just leaned over and smacked him on the back of the head for being an asshole is bigger, stronger and not scared of Joey. Think of that as checks and balances to Joey’s ‘power.’ Now take those away — by age segregating and forcing the kids to be in the classroom.

As someone recently pointed out, it’s going to be the most aggressive and misbehaving kids who will become ‘dominant’ (at least in the way that people typically misuse the term) in those kinds of situations. This has significant influence on people mistaking beta ‘behavior’ for being alpha. Now here’s where you need to start being concerned. In the same way the abused typically grow up to become abusers, that’s what they think power and being an alpha is.

They’ve literally not seen true alpha behavior and are aping selfish and abusive behavior and calling it alpha. They are, in fact, serving neither the role or purpose of either an alpha or a beta. You basically end up with a pushy, selfish asshole who thinks being selfish is characteristic of being an alpha.

Now having said all this, like it or not the term ‘alpha’ is here to stay.

So as instructors we’re going to have to suck it up and deal with the fact that this is what people think they know. Yes, it’s a lie to children. No it’s not accurate. But it’s both a starting point and what people know. Now we have to guide them to a more fuller understanding of why what they think they know is a little more complicated than that.

 

The Violence Triangle – Clint Overland

Fire needs three things to burn:

  1. Fuel
  2. Heat
  3. Oxygen

Without one of these components, you will never achieve flame.  Remove one of these components and you will stop the combustion.

Violence is a fire. If left unchecked it will consume everything in its path.  One of the main things I teach young Violence Professionals is to be able to spot the sources of the fire.

Whether it is a person or a reaction to a person.

You must be able to remove at least one source of the violence.

I am going to use a situation where you have all three elements of a possible confrontation and try to show you that by thinking before you act you will be able to stop what can destroy everything.

Situation 1

Cell block B

Inmates are beginning to yell and beat on walls. Officer responds

Sees two inmates arguing.  Steps in to further assess the situation.

Confirms that it’s not a set up to harm him.  Has one of the inmates step out of the cell to tell him what is going on. Inmate confirms that he has a problem with several people in the cell do to situations from the street. Officer removes the inmate and places him in another cell.

Situation calms, violence averted.

Simple right. Removed one source and the situation calms.

But what if you are no longer in a controlled environment?

Now let’s look at a much more dynamic situation.

Situation 2.

Barroom full of drunk happy people.  Everyone is having a good time.

Music’s loud people are laughing and enjoying life.

Bouncers on edge. His gut tells him it’s one of those nights.  There is going to be trouble and if he doesn’t watch close the whole damn place will erupt. He watches as there is a pause in the frivolity over in the corner where a group of bikers are partying.  People are moving away and body language is shifting from happy to on edge. He moves over quickly to find out what’s wrong.

Oh, joy of joys. It’s one of the frat rats that come in hitting on the President’s old lady.

Bouncer steps in and attempts to regain control. Hey there kid, you need to come with me right now.

Bouncer doesn’t give the kid a chance to argue. Slips a wrist control on the kid and walks him to the bar.

Shouts behind him. It’s ok guys I got this. Takes the kid to the bar and explains the situation.

Kid apologizes and agrees that it’s best if he leaves. Pays his tab and begins to walk out.  Everything is ok, right?

Not even close.

The bikers are pissed and they want to stomp the kid. Bouncer walks the kid out and faces off with the club. Hey guys, there is no need for this. We’ve all been young and stupid right.

Bouncer holds them at the door just long enough for the kid to drive off. I tell you what. I will buy your next round, what do you say. Bouncer knows that one or two of the members have turned and walked out the back door but he’s got to deal with the fire in front of him right now

The club agrees and returns to their corner.  Bouncer tells the waitress to take a couple of buckets over to the club. Then steps outside to see if the kid got away.

Club members are walking back in.

Bouncer checks the parking lot.  Nope no bodies.  Whew that was close.

Now we’ve looked at two situations that one thing was removed from the equation.  So, let’s examine a conflict with all three of the fire triangle in full swing.

Situation 3

Again, another Barroom.  This time there is no Bouncer.

Hard bellied Blond is on the dance floor.  Her husband is watching her shake and move. So is everyone else. A vulture (individual that swoops in on a woman hoping for an easy score) wings his way over to her.

Now the Blond is a fire starter. She likes to see her husband get jealous and save her. Vulture starts dancing with her and the Blonde replies by bumping and grinding all over the Vulture. Husband watches and begins to get super pissed off. Why is that guy trying to hit on his property?

Blonde knows the signs, he’s started to crack his knuckles and stands up. Time for the fun to start.

Husband walks over and blindsides the Vulture with a beer bottle across the skull. Blood flies.

The Vulture goes down. His friends rush over and jump on the husband.

Knife comes out and before you can blink, someone’s intestines are on the floor.

The Blonde screams, it’s the husband’s guts. He falls and the Vulture and crew run.

All because she needed to get her rocks off.

Folks, I have watched and been involved in every single one of these situations.

Now the questions I want to ask you is, “Are you one of the sources needed for violence to start?”

Are your reactions and responses one of the key components for violence to break out when a situation arises? Because if they are, then you are going to be in a continuous shit storm.

There is an adage: Don’t add fuel to the fire.

Well letting your monkey brain overload your hummingbird ass is a sure-fire way to turn a single spark into a full-on conflagration. Any action based in emotions can and will be a fuel source in one form or fashion. Whether it is intended or not.

You are responsible for 99% of the shit storms you get into if you allow yourself to overreact or over exaggerated your responses to stimulus. If you start getting angry because someone doesn’t respond to your demands or bow to your wants then you are the one responsible for any bad that happens.

  • Screaming at people has never accomplished anything other than to piss the other party off.
  • Demanding that others do what you say without the power to enforce your demands does nothing but add heat to the mix.
  • The threat of Properly Applied Violence is only useful if you have the capacity and capabilities to enforce it.

Think about it this way. Violence is either the best way for you to end the situation or the worst way to receive an education

  • Screaming at people.
  • Demands
  • Overreacting
  • Emotional outburst

All the above are fuel in some form or fashion. The Violence Triangle requires three things, same as the Fire Triangle.

  1. The Monkey Brain is the oxygen.
  2. Emotional reactions are the heat.
  3. Actions are the fuel.

Remove any of these three elements and you can remove the threat of violence.  Add to any of these elements and you will be engulfed in the outcome.

 

The Angela Meyer Interview Part IV – Erik Kondo

Erik: I have noticed a common complaint among instructors who teach WSD. They complain there is a lack of interest from most women for participating in self-defense classes. There are bursts of interest that usually coincide with a highly publicized assault, but in general, women don’t seem to be motivated to take classes.
What are your thoughts on this issue and how do you feel more women can be encouraged to get involved in self-defense training?

Angela: I feel like it’s all about the environment created. We live in a world that is still operating with gender norms and socialized patterns of behavior that differ for men and women. I definitely see “bursts of interest” coinciding with current events, (Our recent administration has caused a huge rise in WSD in Washington DC), but I also see something more.

Within any Movement, people need to be inspired by the “why.” Why will it benefit a woman to train in Self Defense? To make her safer from a statistically low violent attack? To have better skills to deal with assholes on the street who say shit? For therapeutic reasons from previous trauma? To burn calories?

When we are dealing with people who have busy lives, limited resources, schedules, and proximity to training facilities, the question becomes what will be the motivating factor(s) to commit? I’m not sure the latter reasons are a strong enough catalyst, especially when we are dealing with a significant “intimidation” factor for most women.

For instance, I know it is MUCH safer to wear my bike helmet biking through DC, but I don’t always wear it, because I forget or I don’t want to carry it around. The potential risk is not enough catalyst for me, but I wholeheartedly agree wearing it could prevent serious injury if I had an accident.

But, if for me, wearing a bike helmet had a direct effect on my everyday life, I may be more serious about making that happen.

Or take a practice like meditation. At some point, I need to directly understand how a daily meditation practice will positively affect my life. If I don’t believe it will, am I likely to do it? I may “will” myself for a period of time, but if I don’t have my own “why” and a direct experience for my everyday life, I would be less likely to make the time to meditate.

These are random analogies, but…when we are dealing with Women’s Self Defense, we are also dealing with a high level of intimidation, lack of comfort, and fear on top of all the other stuff.

So how can we create a “why” that has an immediate effect on their everyday lives? Because I wholeheartedly believe it does. (boundary setting) This is where Self Defense begins WAY beyond learning techniques and how to fight. As a teacher, I use the physical modalities to tap into something much deeper and shed light on daily patterns, belief systems, mannerisms and habits.

I also do not think anything exists in a vacuum. The physical training is a necessity to tap into the deeper work.

I come full circle in answering your question. I see the “trend” of women’s self-defense rising and I see out of this trend, more women seriously interested and committed to training in Self Defense. I think this starts with the way we teach. Not wishy washy, “Sex in the City” shit, but some serious physical intensity, AND the encouragement to pay attention to what bubbles to the surface…aka: self-awareness. What happens when you are physically uncomfortable? Do you habitually say, “I’m sorry”? Do you feel self-conscious when you yell? Do you love hitting shit? Do you make excuses? This kind of awareness and training has a direct effect on women’s everyday lives because it is all integrated. Every relationship: work, intimate, family, strangers, has a direct correlation to this deeper awareness of how we are showing up in our lives. (boundary setting) I’ve found that women get this. They are inspired by it. They find a “why” in it, which inspires them to find the time, resources, commitment for continued training.

Erik: You brought up several points that I think are worth expanding up.

Self-defense training is a matter of the Risk vs. Reward a/ka Cost vs. Benefit equation. In this case, for most women, the Benefit is not worth the Cost. Where the Benefits are defined solely in terms of dealing with some future unlikely stranger attack and/or verbal harassment and the Costs are the immediate use of time, money, and the intimidation created by participating in the class itself.
In this case, the immediate and certain Costs outweigh the future and uncertain Benefits.

Question #1: How would you describe the female “Intimidation” aspect? And how can it be reduced?

Question #2: Many in the Self-Defense Industry (The Merchants of Fear) use FEAR as the means to circumvent the Cost/Benefit equation. They use the motivation of fear as the primary driver for getting women to attend classes. This situation results in students attending a class or two as a means to reduce their fear (Fear Management). But as soon as their level fear dissipates, so does their desire for training.

I think you are talking about expanding upon the Reward/Benefit side of the equation so that it becomes greater than the associated Risk/Cost. Not being attacked/harassed is a Negative Reward in that you get the reward when something doesn’t happen. And most people in safe communities get this reward automatically. Dealing with an actual attack and/or harassment has a negative association since you still have been attacked and/or harassed.

On the other hand, Positive Rewards are tangible benefits that have an immediate benefit. Some of these benefits revolve around creating more respectful interpersonal relationships, greater self-esteem and confidence, improved self-awareness, effective boundary setting skills, and more. These expanded benefits can be obtained without having to actually be attacked.

Question #3: In my opinion, the commonly used Self-Defense Training is like an Insurance Policy analogy provides the wrong impression. The implication is that the Payout only happens if/when you get attacked and there is a continual associated cost. I think Self-Defense Training is more like your health. The more effort you put into improving your health, the greater the benefit regardless of if you get ill or receive an injury.

You said: “Self Defense begins WAY beyond learning techniques and how to fight. As a teacher, I use the physical modalities to tap into something much deeper and shed light on daily patterns, belief systems, mannerisms and habits.”

I think this is the root of an issue that causes great confusion in the Self-Defense Industry. The physical fighting aspect of self-defense is only a fractional part of complete Self-Defense (personal safety). Therefore, it should also be a fractional part of self-defense training. But physical training is also a vehicle needed to reach the student’s authentic self. In other words, self-defense training that is not physical is likely to only reach into the student’s cognitive mind. While this aspect is very important, it takes physical training to reach into the student’s nonconscious processes and emotional mind. And not just any kind of physical training will do that. It takes authentic physical training to access the student’s authentic self.

Question #4: It is here that opinions start to diverge. What fraction of self-defense training should be physical and what fraction be non-physical? What should the non-physical fraction entail? What constitutes “authentic physical training”? What are the diminishing returns of physical training? In other words, once the student has received a certain quantity and quality of physical training, does it start to have less and less ability to reach the student’s authentic self? And if so, how can the physical training itself be modified to keep providing solid returns on investment? Is it necessary to replicate the actual circumstances of an attack to create authentic physical training, or depending upon the individual involved, can authenticity be created WITHOUT making the training as realistic as possible?

In a nut shell, I think the authenticity of the student’s response created is more important than how it is actually created. That leaves open for a wide variety of different methodologies for physical training, but they should produce a relatively narrow result.

These are general questions. It is not necessary for you to answer them all. Please feel free to respond as you wish.

Angela: RE: Question #1. My initial response would be, more female teachers. We are primal creatures who see pattern recognition. When I see a woman teaching, I also see the possibility of me being like that. If I see a man, that’s great too. I have had numerous male instructors and coaches that are phenomenal, but there is also an unconscious understanding that I can never be that for obvious physiological reasons.

RE Question #2. YES a million times to this paragraph. After all of the Women’s Self Defense workshops/events that I teach, I make sure to spend time talking to each woman or groups of women and just listen. what I am hearing as a common thread is, they love the fact, that I make Self Defense not just about the physical stuff, but also applicable to their everyday lives. The majority of women in these workshops have a personal “aha” moment about how they are showing up in their daily life, and “in turn” asking the question, “why?” From this awareness they can choose consciously to do something different. There is extreme power in this conscious act of choosing.

As a teacher, I am not concerned about pushing women to their physical red lines…. I’m a natural at it. I demand it of myself. I ask others to hold me accountable. I tell them at the beginning, I am not there to be their friend or get them to “like me,” My job is to ruffle feathers and if they felt uncomfortable, or hated me just a little bit, I did my job. I do not teach anything physical, without understanding a “why” to the technical part of my teaching, therefore I don’t feel any sense of being a “poser” in the physical realm.

From that “real” and tangible space, I can ask these deeper questions without fear of being “too soft”, “woo woo” or conceptual.

RE Question #3: A million times yes to this statement.

RE: Question #4: I think my answer to the latter questions is, Live relentlessly into the questions, not the answers. Be okay with, “I don’t know.” As a Buddhist Chaplain, End of Life care counselor, and hospice worker, the “money” answer would be….“I don’t know” It takes gritty courage to live into the questions, without a need to find ground or certainty beneath us. Because the most honest answer is, there are not hard and fast rules. We are all going to die and thinking we can out-smart, out-buy, or out-control, that reality will always bite us in the ass.

I also understand this way of thinking is on a much broader and conceptual reality plane. We as human beings want and need answers and structure “Knowing and controlling” are not necessarily limiting, unless bastardized into truth and concrete “answers.” So at this point, it is vital to have the conversations, communicate and practice. Being willing to try and fail, or try and get feedback, or try and succeed, it necessary.

 

[decisiontree id=”4868

Political Violence and the Hive Mentality – Garry Smith

This article in its subsequent parts is a complete redraft of a previous article but brought up to date after reflecting on the recent political violence particularly in the USA. I am a firm supporter of people having the right to speak freely, however obnoxious I feel their views are. I hope it touches on points others fear to write about or discuss in case they are screamed at and attacked. So here goes, feel free to comment at the end, I will take any comments that I have not already included and weave them into the article, so it could be our first interactive article.

Regards, Garry.

I will start with a confession. Sometime ago before we had Bertie, our cute little Puggle, we had a Border Collie cross called Guinness. He was a lovely dog too and like Bertie used to like his walks. On one nice sunny day we were walking along a path in the Mayfield Valley and I noticed a large number of wasps coming in and out of a cavity in a tree. I am not sure why but I threw a stone into the cavity hitting the nest, guess what happened? Yes, out came the wasps and I made a run for it. The problem was Guinness did not.

The wasps caught up with Guinness, I tried swatting them off him with my hands but they, and there were a lot of them, began to crawl into his coat. I did what I could by getting him to a part of the nearby river that was deep enough and pushing him in. Hoping this would kill the wasps. They had already been on him for a couple of minutes and I had no clue as to whether they were stinging him. There were no signs that they were but he did slow down as we walked home.

I felt real guilt as my stupid actions had caused my dog possible suffering. The good part is after a nap on the lawn Guinness went about the rest of the day as normal.

The thing is I know about wasps, I know that like bees in a hive, they will swarm if they feel the hive is under attack let alone under actual attack. If you have seen bees swarm it is a pretty impressive sight and not something you want to provoke. Stings hurt and multiple stings hurt more. Insects, bees and wasps in this case, have no intellect, if attacked or if they think they are being attacked,

Swarming can also be the result of overcrowding in a successful hive so the hive splits and reproduces itself. This is different; these bees are looking for a new home. Our previous bees and wasps were looking to defend theirs, and for the insect mass attack is the best form of defence.

There are a number of different things that can trigger a swarm, overcrowding, lack of space, reducing pheromone levels in the queen, reducing pheromone levels in the population, increasing daylight are just a few, plus some species of bee are more prone to swarming than others.

Whatever signal that triggers the attack these insect will sacrifice themselves in the process. Take a look at this video.

Frightening stuff. The thing is people behave this way too. I am now going to reprint a book review I wrote for the February 2016 Conflict Manager on ‘The Crowd, A Study of the Popular Mind‘ by Gustav Le Bon 1896.

I first came across this book in my studies at the University of Warwick in a class called Social and Political Movements taught by Professor Jim Beckford. Jim was a great tutor and a really nice guy to boot; his classes were always looked forward to although his rigorous analysis of ideas may upset some of today’s precious petals.

The first class looked at the work of Le Bon and his study of the psychological nature of crowds. I remember liking it at the time but feeling that it was just too much guess work and overtly influenced by the authors experience of a turbulent and frightening, for him,  period of French history.

That was back in September 1990, much water has passed under the bridge since then, so why come back to it now?

Well it all comes back to a conversation I had with Rory Miller early in 2015 about ConCom and the triune brain when I mentioned Le Bon and his theory. Le Bon’s analysis is that once subsumed in a crowd an individual surrenders their individuality and a psychological mind is formed through contagion, emotions spread throughout the crowd and freed from individual responsibility the baser instincts take over. The individual ceases to think about the consequences of their actions as emotions take over and acts of both barbarity and heroism are possible.

Le Bon describes the ‘spinal cord’ as being in control and not the intellectually reasoning brain. 
 Ring any bells? Well it rang mine.

The thing is in the PC days of the 90’s this became a bit of an Aunt Sally, by the students that is, to be fair Jim used it in its historical context to begin a much wider and deeper exploration of the subject at hand. For the students, fresh out of some of the top schools in the UK, it was to be belittled, corny, out of date, lacking in evidence etc.

I was 31, I had been involved in a lot of crowd violence involving a full on riot with flaming barriers, thousands of people mobilised and hand to hand fighting with specially trained units of riot police, plus the occasional football riot, I thought differently.

Though written in a voice from a different age and though the criticisms raised were in part valid, it was not enough to write it off as a whole, I thought all along there was something of value here.

Like our friends the bees there are many different triggers that can cause the hive mind to kick in and for humans to swarm. Politics and religion are the big no go areas for most polite social intercourse because this is where families and friends can fall out. In a world where social media is helping people to inhabit their own echo chambers where the harmful and dangerous, people forget different, ideas, however horrible they are to you, cannot actually hurt you. Well the echo chamber is an increasing trend and it lends itself as an actual too to those who will benefit from influencing then manipulating others, the radicalisers.

Traditionally the political left accuses the political right of doing this and vice versa, but the centrist parties do it too, in fact all the political class do it, end of and religion have been doing it far longer..

Part II will follow next week.

 

[decisiontree id=”4868

The Fourth and Fifth Rules – Teja Van Wicklen

Here are episodes 4 and 5 from Teja Van Wicklen as she takes us through her Mommy and Me Self Defense course.

We will be putting 2 downloads a week here  so subscribers can collect the set for FREE, it is available on amazon for $13.98.

The Fourth Rule

The Fifth Rule

 

[decisiontree id=”4868

Facebook Post of the Week – Division of Labour by Marc MacYoung

You know my saying about any ‘domestic violence expert’ should be mandated to live in a trailer park for a year before they can hang up a shingle? I’m rapidly approaching the idea that anyone who wants to claim to be an expert about gender roles needs to be forced to work manual labor for a year.

I’m not talking lawn care, I mean construction, roofing, logging, trash truck and furniture moving kind of jobs. There’s a reason why. Technology.

It doesn’t take that much muscle to ride a commercial mower or even run a backhoe. I know a number of women who do long distance trucking. When they roll up to the docks, unloading is all done by forklifts. One of the big reasons women could go into the factories during WWII was much of the heavy work had been automated. But even that was a step forward from what there had been before the industrial revolution.

What I’m saying is much of what we think of as gender roles were in fact division of labor. Labor that had to be done by the people right there whether you were paid for it or not. Modern people have no idea how work intensive everything was back then.

Technology literally got women out of the kitchen because tasks that would have taken a person a half hour could be done by pushing a button and — if not walking away — five minutes. I’m not even talking washing machines, I mean electric mixers. Same goes for technology getting women out of the house. Objects that had been extremely time and labor intensive could be purchased at reduced prices because of manufacturing. How long do you think it takes to spin the thread, weave material and then make clothes? Here’s a hint, a 4×6 Navajo rug takes about 2 to 3 months — for an average weave. Fine takes 5 to 6. Now think about how many blankets there are in a family home.

Oh hey and did you know that baby formula wasn’t INVENTED until 1865? And it was created in Germany. It took a little while to get over here. Although feeding devices have been found, the number one alternative to a mother was for over 200,000 years a wet nurse (another lactating woman). Real useful if mom didn’t survive childbirth — which given medicine of the time… Animal milk just doesn’t do so well for human babies without the additional stuff Justus von Liebig figured out. 1865, not that long ago.

Here’s the important point, EVERYBODY worked. Maybe not everyone got paid, but unless you were an infant/toddler or an invalid, you contributed to the labor and resources of the family/group/tribe. Even doddering elders watched over the babies while younger women did other tasks.

I’ve worked in hard labor fields and they are mostly done by men because women simply don’t have the strength and endurance. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a metricfuck ton of other jobs needing to be done. Even in labor environments where there are women, there isn’t ‘equality’ in division of labor. While the women are working as much as men they typically do less strenuous jobs and jobs that require less muscle. (For the record, you see the same division between big men and smaller men on crews.) Here’s a surprise, in ranching and farming there are peak periods where there is all kinds of work that has to be done in a certain time frame. Yes, the women are out there too. But you’ll usually see this same division of labor. By default, there are strength requiring jobs the men do. While women do other — equally important — jobs.

When a modern person thinks of ‘jobs’ they think being paid. Historically many situations didn’t ‘pay’ regularly, you didn’t get paid off until you got crops to market, the ship arrived in port or livestock was sold. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a whole lot of other work to be done.

Take for example the movie “Witness” there is a community barn raising. Yep, men are swinging hammers and sawing. But guess what? There’s no pizza delivery, no jump into the car and drive to town for lunch. The women are working just as hard setting up, preparing food and wrangling kids. Then after lunch, packing it all up. Nobody got ‘paid’ but everyone worked — including the young. That’s what life was before technology. Hell, killing a chicken for dinner was considered a child’s job. It had to be done if you wanted to eat.

Thing is, this is how things were for 200,000 years of human history. We constantly worked… we had to in order to survive. Similar gender roles developed around the world as a result of the lack of technology and some very serious limitations. (Here’s something to consider, horseback riding while pregnant is even to this day strongly not recommended — it’s a high risk to both mother and baby.) Under those conditions, they are the absolute best chance for the women and children to survive.

Those rules were slow in developing and, yet, they are a lot faster changing . Not as fast as technology, but for human behavior, amazingly fast. But having said that…

What do you think all this technology has done to our consciousness?

Not our knowledge, our consciousness. It’s a simple question, but when you start looking you discover all kinds of things that don’t have simple answers — including gender roles.

 

[decisiontree id=”4868

A Gaping Wound in Self Protection Training for the Care Industry – Peter Jones

Let’s start by stating some facts on self protection law

  1. Boxers, Karate practitioners, Taekwondo people etc must register their hands and feet with the Police as weapons
  2. Martial artists are not allowed use their skills in self defence

Facts.

Now given that you’re reading Conflict Manager you may well be a serious martial artists well versed in self protection law. My guess is you won’t tolerate bullshit so you will have read the above with your mouth agape, wondering how someone could make these statements. Please allow me to explain.

I should start by explaining my background. I’ve been training in martial arts for over twenty-seven years and have amassed a variety of grades in different arts including some dan grades. These days my emphasis is very much on pragmatic self protection and as a result I’ve developed a very fine bullshit filter. I’m also a specialist nurse in the NHS working in emergency care.

These two disciplines of emergency nursing and martial arts compliment and influence each other, but that’s an article for another day. I also do a little agency work on the side. All of my nursing roles require annual mandatory training and this includes conflict management. For my main job I get an hour every other year. But this particular agency insisted on my doing a full day and had no interest in my credentials or experience. So I did it. Just to “tick the box.”

My suspicion is that they put the training out to tender and gave the contract to the cheapest company.

The day started well. The lady presenting was confidant, articulate, practiced and prepared. We covered the usual things; causes of aggression, types of language, a model for de-escalation and so on.

After lunch we covered law as it relates to self protection. Now, I knew going in that she needed to be careful, on my iPhone is the Kindle app, containing the latest Star Wars novel and the books of Mr Mark Dawes and Mr Leigh Simms. The latter two lack the entertainment value of x-wings engaging TIE fighters or indeed the deep discussions on ethics, actions and The Force, but they are the foremost authorities on self protection and the law and their books are very accessible. I keep them to hand for quick reference for when I’m teaching this material.

Our presenting lady started well in the right place, 1967 Criminal Law Act and all that. She got a little confused over the implications of imbibing alcohol and self protection but we can write that off as irrelevant to nurses on duty (we hope.), but then without warning or relation to anything previous she dropped the bombshell: anyone that does martial arts, Karate, boxing or whatever has to register their hands and feet with the police as weapons. Furthermore, us martial artists can’t use our skills in self protection.

Those that know me know that at times I’m as subtle as being whacked around the head by a lemon, where said lemon has been wrapped around a brick. I lost it.

I would like to think that normally I am an articulate, and I would hope erudite, person I think I simply declared “that’s utter tosh!”

But she persisted. We were clearly disrupting the class at this point so I gave her my business card and invited her to e-mail me the reference to these supposed “laws” and said she was welcome to peruse my iPhone Kindle library.

I wish I could say that I was exaggerating all of this using artistic licence in my writing for effect. But in the immortal words of Han Solo “it’s is true, all of it.” I worry about how many people she’s fed this misinformation too. I genuinely worry that someone might have some workable skills developed over a number of years in the dojo and now have the fear to use them when it matters due to the supposed consequences.

And then we did the practical session. Oh hell! I suspect you wouldn’t believe me if I did explain what she taught us, and again I didn’t hold back my opinions on it. She maintains that the techniques were endorsed by her son who is in the SAS or Royal Marines or Spetsnaz or something. I maintain that they were based around concepts that all sensible instructors dropped years ago. They were devoid of principles. Several times I asked about context. Was our attacker a 19 year-old six-foot-three unit with their brain addled by M-Cat? Or were they a frail 85 year old lady with a screaming urine infection? In my job both are possible. She wouldn’t even answer my question. (As a point of interest, one of my Aikido Sensei was a retired mental health nurse, his answer is to knock out the 85 year old and share a coffee with M-Cat boy. I think he’s joking, but I’m honestly not sure!)

So, what do we learn from this? Well primarily, if you pay with bananas then you’ll get monkeys. A well trained monkey might have been a very effective trainer but unfortunately this particular paid primate wasn’t well trained and was repeating how she’d been trained. Sadly I don’t know what we can do about it, aside from continuing to be the paragons of correct information and effective methods.

For reasons I won’t go into, I feel that there is a chronic wound in the way that (most) front-line NHS staff are training to deal with conflict. On this occasion the wound was gaping wide open.