skirtcafe.org

Pythos wrote:I would actually like other's opinions as to whether this topic should continue other than Uncle al's or CF friend's. They have made their case for closing the topic, but other's here seem to want to participate.

Mod hat on

I have not suggested closing the thread. My admonition of "a tap on the brakes" was a request that those who continue to participate in the thread do so in a manner that is relevant to, and consistent with, the function and values of SkirtCafe. SkirtCafe does not exist primarily to discuss matters like these; there are better fora for that.

This is an important topic and I personally think it should be discussed.

It's had a pretty good discussion already, and lots of people have chimed in. This is quite the healthy thread, and it's generated a lot of interest and some controversy. However, it's not really fashion-related, except in a tangential way, and has continued to drift from even that tangential relationship; it's veering dangerously off course, and it takes the ground altogether, it will get locked or deleted.

Mod hat off

Every time we choose to go outside we run the risk of getting shot or beaten by some sh*t head for any reason, not just our skirts.

If you live in that tough of a neighbourhood, prudence would dictate moving. By and large, we are quite safe, and we prove that each time we go out and return home again without incident. In short, generally speaking, if one does not actively seek trouble, then trouble will stay beyond arms' length. It bears repeating that the incidents described in this thread are anomalies and one of the reasons we're so put off by them is the fact that they are so rare.

Yes, I'm with you on this issue, Pythos! This topic (& the Goth girl killing) does have tremendous relevance to those of us whose clothing choice(s) may draw unwarranted 'attention'. "Let's get back to talking about skirts"? Well, we've never left it. It's an issue that is a core element of why this forum exists - surely? If we could all, and I stress "all", just get up in the morning, say, "I feel like wearing my long/short, denim/cord skirt today, rather than my uncomfortable tr*users/jeans!" and not give a second thought to it, then that really would be personal 'freedom'.

With all due respect to other folks' viewpoints, at no stage in the proceedings do I regard any murderer, or even 'just' a perpetrator of unprovoked violence, as a 'victim' - regardless of age, background or parental (or religious) 'failings'. We run the risk (certainly in the UK, and possibly(?) the USA) of encouraging such folk to actually 'see' themselves as 'victims', not the pariahs of Society they inevitably are. Time after time, instances of 'bleeding heart' 'forgiveness' undermines the very core of our existence. Misquoted, mis-interpreted religious 'one liners' such as, "Turn the other cheek" give the impression that folk should be 'happy' to suffer violence at the hands of an assailant. The original script was intended to mean, "Look at the problem from a different perspective", a totally different slant. In other words, (for instance) if you're outnumbered, withdraw, re-group & re-think your position. Certainly not, "Hit me, one more time!"

When I was younger, I was always anti-hanging, as it seemed, to my way of thinking, to almost 'glorify' the (first degree) murderer - a final burst of ego. However, a tiny minority of the UK population decided to take it upon themselves, not to replace it with a less macabre and costly 'solution', but to abolish capital punishment. I'm not bothered about it being perceived as 'ritualistic', the legal process must be seen to be so. It must also be seen to be fair, but to both sides, victim as well as perpetrator. The balance, in the UK, has been tipped way too far in favour of the criminal. We are no longer 'allowed' to protect ourselves in our own homes, let alone on the streets. Hit out, and injure, a burgler (armed or nay), and you're the one 'they' will send 5 squad cars and a dozen cops to arrest and charge. Dunno what they'd do to a skirted bloke who upended a knife-wielding thug on the streets, mind!

Just up and moving let's the thugs win. Do you not realize that? I have heard people say that to parents who's kids are getting bullied. "Oh well you should move to a different school district". WHAT ABOUT THE FREEKING BULLIES? Just let them choose another target? That is the attitude that has led to the increase of intensity of bullying.

You have to stand your ground, not run away.

My area is not all that rough. But there are areas that are, and as far as I am concerned those areas should be safer than mine.

Bullies should be dealt with. Not allowed to continue their prejudice.

Self defense classes are available and should be utilized. The same goes for martial arts classes.

I have to agree with crfriend on this one. This discussion is in danger of veering into a direction that will do nobody any good.

If the discussion were actually discussing realistic, practical ways to deal with situations where we as skirt-wearing men are in danger of potential or actual violence, I might feel differently.

But I don't see any of that in this thread. Instead, I see a lot of a lot of expressions of the desire to do violence, often extreme violence, to those who represent/symbolize all that we find threatening, as if that would actually eliminate all threats (real and imagined) for once and for all. This is not only unrealistic (and addictive), but it leads us to think in terms that might make us less safe instead of considering actions that might actually make us safer. And it's just a repetition of the by now tiresome old solve-violence-with-bigger-and-better-violence myth that we (especially men) get hit with all the time in our culture. I wouldn't need to come to SkirtCafe if that were what I wanted, I'd just turn on the TV.

I've never been a big fan of revenge and I don't understand how, even when someone has done me a terrible and serious injury, making their life miserable makes my life better.

But for me, there is an even more compelling argument against the death penalty (and that's what we're talking about, right?). Can anyone here guarantee me, without any doubt whatsoever, that in each and every case where we have convicted a murder and sentenced them to death, that we have gotten the right person?

Of course not.

And if you can't, I don't understand how you can condone having the government take someone's life when there is a possibility of a mistake.

Doesn't my suggestion for self defense training count as a positive way to protect oneself?

sapphire wrote:Doesn't my suggestion for self defense training count as a positive way to protect oneself?

Yes my dear young lady, but this is still up to the judgement of the
'trained' person. When should he/she start his/her defence? At
the first question? First movement that may be conceived as
threatening? That lies with the instructor. Now, IF a student
takes the position that, once trained, any action is threatening,
they ( the student ) become more of a menace than the original
perpetrator. Granted, this takes things to the extreme, but that is
where this thread is going.

A good self defence class will benefit anyone. The instructor
MUST instill specific guidelines for the students to follow.

My $.02 worth--but I'm tired of where this is going.

One sad event in a school, now its up to 'how to do someone in'.

One must be aware of his/her surroundings, and what is happening
near them so they can take appropriate action like walking a
different direction. But, Hey folks--this is common sense!
Remember-Think before you Speak/Act, you might not be able
to take anything back that you later regret!

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

sapphire wrote:Doesn't my suggestion for self defense training count as a positive way to protect oneself?

Well, possibly not in the context of Societal responsibility to curtail violence, whether on the street or not! Let me explain....:

In the UK, if you use any form of martial arts or self defence training to defend yourself (I do not jest) and your would-be assailant sustains even as much as a visible slight bruise, then you are generally in far, far more serious trouble than they are. Unless you can prove that you issued a specific warning (during the assault on yourself), that is. Nigh on impossible, if you're alone and set alone by a gang! Our eldest son, bullied at school, took such courses as you suggest. And yes, did his self confidence a world of good, into the bargain! But, he never forgot the 'verbal warning' lesson. A good job, as he was put in a couple of situations of needing to use 'defensive' measures. Results? One broken arm and one broken leg - for his assailants. Both cases came to court. One custodial and one probation (the magistrate took a little pity on the second thug!). Both were forced to admit they had received a verbal warning, before continuing their attacks.

However, that was all before our present Government took power and some of the woolly thinking displayed by the odd participant or two here (sorry to say) took hold. No, I'm sorry, the respective Authorities should be mandated, pressured, forced by public pressure to relinquish 'rewarding' thugs and ne'er-do-wells, stop callously disregarding victims and actually punish convicted culprits - more especially those who use deliberately use violence, including weapons, to carry out their crimes. I cannot believe the nonsense I read here of trying to introduce lurid tales of 'extreme violence' and 'revenge' into the equation. Justice is 'owed' by the perpetrator, not to the State, but to the victim. Other than the ultimate penalty (death) for fully proven first degree murder, I am no supporter of capital/corporal punishment, but I don't see why criminals should luxuriate in warm, comfortable prisons with all food and amenities found, either.

Merlin,
I'm astonished by this and perhaps I shouldn't be. I do remeber the debate here in the US about trained folks using their training to ward off an attack. In fact I recall the debate from the 1950s.

Over the years, I've lost track of how this issue was resolved.

Seems like an upside down world doesn't it?

But at least we know that if our retirement funds run out, we can always revert to crime to get a place to live and meals to eat.

Sapphire

I too have heard that if you are accosted by multiple people, and you are able to fight all of them off, or disable them YOU are at fault for using excessive force.

This is really ridiculous.

So basically what you as the victim are supposed to do is let the thug (thugs) beat you down. You get their ID (If you survive), not fight back, and then report it to the authorities...who most like will do nothing.

This is insanity. Pure and simple.

Yes, Sapphire & Pythos, that's sadly the case! We've had a couple (probably more) of 'high profile' cases of pensioners disturbing (usu. armed) burglers in the homes, belting them with whatever kitchen implement that came to hand and being arrested and prosecuted! Apparently, it contravened the burglers' 'human rights' to go about their thieving ways having no fear of being accosted!

I suspect that (bringing the topic back to 'skirt-related'), being 'out and about' wearing a skirt (& note, I'm not even being gender specific) might well be used to infer an 'act of provocation' by an assailant's legal team.

merlin wrote:We've had a couple (probably more) of 'high profile' cases of pensioners disturbing (usu. armed) burglers in the homes, belting them with whatever kitchen implement that came to hand and being arrested and prosecuted! Apparently, it contravened the burglers' 'human rights' to go about their thieving ways having no fear of being accosted!

Of course the (in this case obvious) failure of the legal system to achieve justice is one of the strongest arguments against capital punishment. Let's face it, if the system can't identify the actions to be investigated, how can we trust it to prosecute the right person, let alone reach a safe verdict?

Children who taunt and are violent have been failed by society. While I don't have an answer to what to do with kids who have already grown up damaged (my gut feeling is that far more twisted individuals are created than born that way) I believe more good comes of preventing this in the first place than dealing with it afterward. While that is not easy either it takes people who care and look out for others and a system of reporting parental negligence that is effective in getting an intervention.

Since the discussion began about violence in schools this article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/National from The Globe and Mail about young people standing up for others seemed topical. Young people in this world aren't just the messed up ones, there are also some stunning examples of young people teaching the adults about the way the world should work.

That is so good to read. Now if only it will pick up huge amounts of momentum for all people excluded for stupid reasons.