Bart the Lover

Hello, folks. I've noticed a number of posters saying that in order to progress in their art, it is necessary to teach. What does everyone think about this? Is this a requirement in your art? Is it a good thing? Any anti views? What (if anything) do you believe teaching has added to your understanding of the art? This last question is really to students who taught only because they had to, rather than those who chose to do it. Has anyone changed arts because they didn't want to teach? I'm asking because I simply don't understand what teaching (a class) has to do with your development as a martial artist. If my club decided tomorrow to make taking classes a requirement for advancing, I would most likely leave. I have no interest in teaching, and I would be terrible at it. Admittedly, I have found that trying to explain a technique to someone helped me understand it more fully. But you don't need to take an entire class to get the benefit of that. In fact, you don't even need to say it (your explanation) out loud--simply imagining having to explain a technique to someone can help. So it's not that I don't see any value in teaching--I do. Surely, though, dragging someone mumbling and red-faced to the front is pointless. It's not fair on the class, either. I know I want to be taught by someone who wants to be there, and enjoys it. Thoughts? Comments? Thanks for your time. Regards, Bart the Lover

Cor. I wouldn't mind some of that. By the way, in our lottery we don't pay tax on the winnings. Hurrah! But our prize money is much smaller. Boo! Out of interest, what are the odds? Six numbers out of how many? Regards, Bart

DLopez wrote: Yes, hitting her back would be a consequence. But so would going to the police (arguably a worse consequence). Whenever people hear of female on male abuse, they think: But he could hit her back! How can this be?! Hence the rather unsympathetic attitude of most people. But when people hear of male on female abuse, they never seem to think: But she could go to the police! How can this be?! These are both consequences that for whatever reason don't generally happen. And the abusing partner knows this. Not only are they not punished, they are rewarded--because the abused doesn't leave. And many women are capable of hitting back, if only they knew it. This absurd notion that women are completely defenceless children against any male between the ages of sixteen to about sixty leads to them taking crap they shouldn't. I am NOT saying men should hit their partners if they themselves are hit. It's better simply to leave. Report it to the police, too, depending on the severity. This applies to men and women equally. You say the police would assume you were the aggressor and treat you accordingly. I can't speak for the US, but where I am from it wasn't that long ago that violence in the home was treated either as a joke, or as a private matter. The authorities took nothing to do with it. I don't recognise this female Utopia where a man is punished severly if he lifts a finger against a woman, but where she is free to beat him. It's only recently that rape in marriage was even recognised as a crime. Some Utopia. Having said that, women are violent. Why should that surprise anyone? I don't agree that it is rare. We just don't hear about it. Again, I can't speak for the US, but over here, when you ask people for their experiences rather than rely on reported crime, a quite different picture emerges. Not only do men report attacks from wives/girlfriends, but violence is reported in all manner of personal relationships. There is violence in gay relationships, both male and female. Elderly parents report abuse from their adult children. It isn't simply that 'women are violent too'. Human beings are violent, unfortunately. We think of it as a male problem because generally it is young men who get drunk and fight and make a nuisance of themselves in city centres. But that's only one form of violence. Anyway, what I wanted to clarify was: there is reliable evidence that both sexes are abusive and bullying to one another in their private relationships. Both sexes, when questioned, come up with the same lame excuses. The vast majority of these wouldn't dream of hitting their colleagues or a stranger. There would be consequences: they would be sacked, reported to the police, hit back, or all three. And I believe they do it because they want a convenient human punchbag to take all their anger and frustration out on. It's as simple as that. That explains why it gets worse over time--they have to inflict worse damage to get the same feeling of satisfaction. Sorry if this sounds a bit brutal with regard to your experiences, DLopez. God, I'm depressed now. I think I'll become a hermit. Fenris-wolf wrote: Why, thank you! *Blushes, bats eyelashes coyly* Regards, Bart the Lover

I've thought of something that MA has changed, despite what I said earlier. It's motivated me to start running regularly, because I wanted to improve fitness for classes. I ran before, but it was sporadic. I actually look forward to my runs now. It's superseded my original aim and become an end in itself. Does that qualify? Regards, Bart the Lover

I hate to be a wet blanket, but surely most people are not exercising anywhere near enough to need a special sports drink? I have a hard time believing the average MA class depletes the body of essential whatsits. Professional sportsmen and women train for hours a day. What might be helpful for them won't apply to everyone else. It's just a marketing scam. I would save your pennies, Topic, and buy a tasty snack after your workout. Regards, Bart the Lover Edit: To aes--anyplace that doesn't 'allow' water breaks doesn't deserve your money. If you need water, take it.

I don't think it's wrong for a man to hit a woman per se. It's wrong for anyone (male, female, adult, whatever) to abuse a position of greater strength. And until recently, it was simply taken as a given that any man was superior to any woman. A young strong man, who hits an elderly infirm man, is just as bad as a man who hits the average woman. It's the abuse of power that matters, not the sex of the victim. Drunken Monkey wrote: If a woman slaps you (which is a hit) would you hit her back? If she was armed, or attacked you (hitting you repeatedly) then you would be justified in defending yourself, in my view. However, I don't think a single hit from a woman (unless she's built like a brick privy, and the man is small) can justify hitting her back. Even if a woman if threatening, it's still wrong. What matters is not the threat, but the capability of carrying it out. So a seven stone woman threatening a sixteen stone man is not equivalent to a sixteen stone man threatening a seven stone woman. Please note that these are just general comments; I have never seen Big Brother so I can't judge the specific incident you are talking about, Drunken Monkey. However, I take issue with your assertion that the male contestant had no way to leave. Of course he can leave, at any time. It's not a prison. He can't leave without withdrawing from the competition, but so what? As far as baiting goes, yes it's wrong to wind someone up and threaten to hit them, knowing that if they hit you all the opprobrium will fall on them. But that doesn't make it acceptable to lash out. I think occasionally being wound up is a small price to pay for being physically stronger. DLopez: In my view, your ex is just the same as men who beat their partners. I don't think it is anything to do with any kind of unfair male- female dynamic. People who bully and abuse their partner do so because they get away with it. If there were consequences, they would be much less likely to do it. That is equally true of women as it is of men. We're just not familiar with hearing about female on male abuse. aefibird wrote: Once you accept being provoked verbally explains or justifies (at least in part) hitting someone we're all in trouble. This is the type of thing that men say in explanation for hitting their partners: she was gloating about being unfaithful/called me useless in bed/said I had a small one. Well, boo hoo. Say nasty things back, or slam the door or smash something. But don't hit. Regards, Bart the Lover Edit: I just realised, aefibird, that I was assuming the female Big Brother contestant didn't start the physical confrontation. If she did, that changes the flavour of what you wrote. Sorry if this is the case.

Poor Jade. I'm ruining her thread with this to-ing and fro-ing. Drunken Monkey: saying 'See?' suggests getting het up. At least, that's what I would be feeling if I said that. No offence intended. Um, I agreed with you on this.

Sigh. I'll try again. Agreed. But she did say: And I don't think it's unreasonable of me to connect this with my instructor's beliefs. I was guessing that Ripper was thinking similarly. I thought his tone somewhat aggresive too ('Sorry Jade for ruining your world'), but that is par for the course for the Internet. There's no need to get so het up. See? (said with a wink) Regards, Bart

Ho-hum. Now it is you, DM, who isn't reading posts correctly. I said Jade made reference to articles that approximate this [perfecting your character]. As for no-one saying it is exclusive to MAs, it was my contention that it is implied, rather than explicitly stated--and I used my instructor as an example of this. Perhaps I arranged my paragraphs incorrectly. It wouldn't be the first time. You seem to be hauling Ripper over the coals for previous posts. I was responding to this one only. I have no idea whether he/she habitually sets up a straw man. Regards, Bart the Lover

May I ask why your instructor chose you? Does teaching interest you? Please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems slightly odd to ask a low ranked person to teach. I wouldn't like to demonstrate a technique, never mind take a class. I realise that there was a shortage of high ranks, but either someone has the skills to teach or they don't--being asked to fill in because you're available seems very unfair. The reason I'm asking this is because I'm wondering whether you're confident with the material (confident enough to be teaching it). In the unlikely event that my instructor asked me to take a class of kids, I would say no--because I'm simply not qualified for it. I was wondering if maybe this thought was behind your hesitency in putting the child in his place (gently). Did you want to do the class? Anyway, to answer your question: I would give one or two warnings to be quiet, then I would put him out of the class if he persisted. Even if you have reservations about teaching, they are between you and your instructor. It shouldn't affect class discipline. I agree with White Warlock; you are there to teach, he is there to learn. I wouldn't punish with press-ups, as seems to be common practice. My club does this and I don't approve. I don't think any exercise should be used as a punishment for children. I don't agree with humiliating him either (by getting him to take the class/ridiculing him). I had school teachers who used this to control classes and it's horrible. You don't want to put him off going--you just want him to pipe down. How old is the child? You need to be a bit firmer with a twelve or thirteen- year-old than an eight year old. If he's closer to eight, he's probably a bit over-excited and is enjoying the opportunity to show off his extra knowledge (even when it's wrong!). But if he's an adolescent, his behaviour smacks of trying to undermine you, and you should be stricter with him. Best of luck with the teaching. Regards, Bart the Lover

I have to agree with Ripper, I'm afraid. I personally haven't changed at all as a result of training. However, I wouldn't deride anyone for saying they had. I just don't think it's an effect exclusive to MAs, as has already been mentioned. I do find it a bit annoying when my instructor bangs on about this. It is my impression that he believes MAs to be helpful in character development to a degree unmatched by anything else. I imagine it is this that Ripper was trying to debunk. Maybe your experience of this depends on where you live. English public schools traditionally use team sports in much the same way. Drunken Monkey wrote: Technically, this is true, but she did start her post with reference to articles which do say something approximating this. She didn't say she agreed with them, though. In the end, Jade, if you've found something which aids you in unconnected areas of your life, keep doing it--whether it's MAs, football, or flower arranging. Regards, Bart the Lover

I'm sorry to hear about your frightening experience, ad. But keep training! Don't give up. Have you told your instructor(s) about this? Maybe they could introduce some scenario training--you might be able to salvage something from this. I do have a question, though. Did you not consider getting off the bus with your friends? I realise it wasn't your stop, but could you have walked the rest of the way, or got another bus? Take care. Regards, Bart the Lover

Doesn't anyone think those sites are funny? I think they're hilarious. They're too silly to get worked up about. Personally, I'm an atheist.

JerryLove: You are correct; parts of Scotland do indeed have a terrible problem with knives. It isn't the whole country, though. It is mainly a problem for the west--Glasgow in particular. The Highlands and the east of the country are much safer. Football has actually cleaned up its act in recent years, however. It's England that has the trouble with football hooligans, now. You do get sectarian violence, though (both inside and outside football). I think Drunken Monkey was just reflecting that whipping out a gun seems (from our perspective) a little Wild West! I don't think he was claiming Britain or Europe to be a violence-free idyll. And surely police brutality happens everywhere? Regards, Bart the Lover p.s. I thought your article was very interesting and informative.

sano wrote: Beacause it's true, sano. I am very unlikely to meet someone with a gun. You're going to have to trust me on this assessment. Of course it's possible. That is why I said 'very unlikely' rather than 'never'. delta1: What kind of people have you worked with?! I can't think of anyone I would be tempted to leave to their fate (if I could do something about it). My inaction isn't maybe the moral thing to do, and it's certainly not very noble. It's motivated by self-preservation. But how I felt about my colleague wouldn't enter into my decision. Regards, Bart the Lover

CheekyMusician wrote: Ugh! The man's an *! Shame on you. Did you hear his interview with Jo Wiley on Radio One? What a wally.

Spacecowgirl: It wouldn't matter if you were five foot nothing and ninety pounds. Muay Thai is an excellent art, full stop. I don't mean that your size (in itself) won't affect the outcome of a physical confrontation. I mean that Muay Thai will help you achieve the best that you can do, within your personal limits. Don't be depressed by that caveat: your limits will be (if you are willing to work very hard) far higher than you thought possible. You wrote: Sigh. The only questions you need ask yourself are: Am I too small/light to be attacked? Will being female prevent an attack? No. Unfortunately, some people still feel threatened by the idea that a woman or a girl may enjoy a contact sport. Ignore them. Go for it! Good luck. Regards, Bart the Lover

To answer honestly, I personally would do what the attacker wanted. I am very unlikely to meet someone armed with a gun (thank God), but if I did I have zero training in dealing with it. I simply do not have the knowledge to effectively disarm the attacker. Obviously, I would do the non-confrontational things--calling the police, getting the numberplate. If I was with someone close to me (family member), then it would be different. I would do everything possible to stop the abduction, training or no training. delta1 wrote: Eh? What are you saying here?

This is just suggestion, surely. A video proves nothing. If you ask someone to close their eyes, and then tell them over and over they are falling, some people will actually fall over. It doesn't mean you're influencing their nervous system. They do it to themselves. Until these things are done under laboratory conditions, in properly controlled trails, I'll remain an unbeliever. Scorcho wrote: Science is neither western nor eastern. It is a body of knowledge of the physical world. Regards, Bart the Lover

Neil wrote: I have to disagree with this. Current goverment guidelines recommend that adults should have a diet which is no more than thirty-five percent fat. This is not a target figure; the body does not need this much. Most of us are consuming far more than this. But the advice on oily fish is good. Also, fat is very high in calories. You don't have to eat that much more to get a lot more energy from your diet. Fat provides around eight or nine calories per gram, much more than protein or carbohydrates. Healthy eating doesn't change because you are naturally slim. The proportion of fats to the other food groups is the same. Ironberg still shouldn't be eating more than thirty-five percent fat. Remember that fat doesn't just accumulate on the surface of the body, it is also stored around the organs. Ironberg may have more fat than he realises--this is why getting his body-fat measured is such a good idea. However, it sounds as though he can afford to eat a bit more. As others have already said, Ironberg, you are still growing and developing. You may find you start to fill out a bit in the coming years. But if you don't, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you. As Ben said, it may be that you're inclined to be slim naturally. If you are eating enough, and the correct foods, and you have plenty of energy and your fat percentage isn't too low, then relax! Don't beat yourself up over something you can't change. Regards, Bart the Lover

I have to admit, Cheeky, that your post gave me a bit of a laugh. Not because you've hurt yourself, but because it reminds me of the times I have somehow landed on my butt on the floor. I know what you mean. I once ended up on the floor after half falling, half flinging myself down! I think maybe these things happen when your mind is on one set of movements, but your body is doing something else. Don't rush back before you are healed--you'll only make your injury worse. I know it's frustrating, but there's no harm in taking a week or two off occasionally. You might find it helpful to go over your training in your mind: sparring, combinations etc. Reflecting on what you know, and inventing novel ways of putting it together, is training as well as punching and kicking. Take painkillers, rest, and perhaps go to the doctor if it doesn't improve. Look at it this way: now you have a legitimate reason to recline on your chaise-longue watching telly (maybe you could bribe/threaten someone into feeding you chocs while you're lying there). I'm glad to hear you are keeping up the training with your dad. How's that going? Are you getting good use out of the kicking shield? Are you seeing a difference in power yet? Hope your ankle gets better soon. Regards, Bart the Lover

The second one made me laugh! (I have a very silly sense of humour.) Here's a golden oldie: Question: What's brown and sticky? Answer: A stick!

wrestlingkaratechamp17 wrote: Your loyalty to your friends is commendable. But unfortunately, I really don't think there is anything you can do. I've never understood why some teachers find it necessary to belittle and humiliate their charges--I've experienced that too. I imagine that teaching probably attracts a minority of people who enjoy making others feel small. It's the same with any position of authority. At least in high school you have many different teachers, instead of being stuck with one bad one all year, like in primary (elementary). The best advice I can give is to keep your head down and do what is required for this guy's class. Don't let him get to you. If he is someone who enjoys undermining others any reaction you give him will encourage more of the same. Don't let one teacher ruin your schooldays. Good luck. Let us know how you get on. battousai16 wrote: Blimey. I'm glad my teachers didn't do that. How on earth did he get away with behaving like that? Didn't any parents complain? If I were a parent at your school, I would report it to the police. As for anger managment--phooey. People act this way not because they're angry (or we'd all do it), but because there are no consequences. Presumably, he wouldn't throw a chair at Mike Tyson, no matter how angry he was. Were you ever tempted to throw something back? You can tell us...we can keep a secret. Regards, Bart the Lover

Rockuman wrote: This annoys me, too, but it doesn't compare to making a cup of tea and discovering there's no milk! Argh! Some others: People who allow their children to stand on bus seats. Grrr! People walking into rooms, then leaving, and not shutting the door behind them. Shut the bloody door! How difficult can it be? People who have to be asked to move aside when you want to be past them on the street. Parents with push-chairs are the worst, particularly more than one, side by side. People who treat shop workers as though they are an inferior form of life. Parents who let their children ride in their supermarket trolley (not in the seat bit, but the part where you put your food). People have to use it after you, you twits! But the worst: noisy eaters. It's so inconsiderate. Ahhh. That's better. God, I sound so intolerant! Regards, Bart the Lover

karatekid1975: If you're worried about calcium, you might like to consider including these in your diet: Spinach, broccoli and watercress; Almonds and sesame seeds; Figs; Pulses such as peas, beans, chickpeas etc. I was reading just the other day that apparently some tinned fish (salmon and tuna were mentioned) contain more calcium than the fresh variety. The canning process allows small bones to be eaten, instead of discarded. You could try eating canned as well as fresh, if you don't already. Some fruit juices are fortified with various vitamins and minerals--see if your supermarket stocks them. Soya drinks contain calcium and protein. iolair has given some great advice, but I think I would take issue with the comment on eggs. It's true that the yolk contains most of the fat, but it also contains alot of nutrients. I think the caution with eggs is really only important for meat eaters, who generally are eating a diet higher in fat than vegetarians. Also, nuts are high in fat, but there is some evidence that not all of it is absorbed by the body. Do you cook much? I really think that is the best way to make sure you have a proper range of foods to meet your nutritional needs. Cookbooks also have info on this kind of thing, too. All this talk of food is making me hungry! I hope my post has been helpful to you. Regards, Bart the Lover