Friday, January 01, 2010

The Little Black Book of Violence

I spent part of New Year's Eve reading a book Glenn ordered (after seeing it on Jules Crittenden's blog) entitled The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting. With a title like that, how could I stay away?

The first thing that struck me about the book is that it states it is focused on young men as men commit about 80% of violent crime and are the recipients of violent crime at twice the rate of women. Funny then, that the authors give an example a few pages later of a male friend of theirs whose sister snuck up behind him while he was doing the dishes and tried to kill him with a steak knife. "One moment he was leaning over the dishwasher and the next there was a wedge of razor-sharp steel whistling toward his lower back. Why? She simply wanted to know what it would be like to murder someone..." Uh, okay.

Do authors ever read what they are writing when they are trying to make points? If you are going to talk about how men are the ones who are violent and this is why they need your book, stick with the program. But okay, enough with my pet peeves. This is a book for guys, hence the title, and it is actually pretty good.

It begins with a section entitled, "Before Violence Occurs" that shares a good first rule of self defense: "Don't get hit." The authors talk about how to avoid situations or locations where violence is more likely to occur. These places include traveling through the wrong neighborhoods, hanging out with the wrong people, or frequenting the wrong night spots, and/or acting inappropriately in these places. The authors--two experienced martial artists--point out that there is almost always a build-up to violence, one that many people are not aware of. They teach you to have situational awareness without being paranoid or mentally exhausting yourself. They discuss simple tips like when it's time to leave a party before violence escalates. It's good advice, especially for young men who often have to learn how to deal with aggression, even if they don't want to.

The next section gives advice on what to do during a violent encounter. This chapter is full of information on how to deal with drunks. Their advice? "Never argue with a drunk....They can be unpredictable, violent, and very difficult to corral....Hitting a drunk really doesn't work all that well most of the time....A better strategy is to either dodge his blows in order to let him overbalance himself and facilitate your escape or spin him to cause disorientation and make him fall. Once he's down,you can control him or move to safety."

In the same section, they state, "Never hit a girl...Unless she's armed." They smartly state that, "In today's world, distinctions of gender are made by friends, family, police, and courts. The role of combatant is, oftentimes, secondary." They give advice on how to deal with women, though I would have liked to see more. They do say that if "she is armed with some sort of weapon, all bets are off."

Finally, the last section is on the "Aftermath of Violence" where there is good info on how to perform first aid, handle blows to your self-esteem, deal with psychological trauma, and deal with the police without getting yourself hurt or shot. They even give advice on how to avoid a domestic violence charge and suggest that you conduct a background check on your prospective partner to protect yourself before she moves in. They at least suggest you listen to any warning bells you have and take them seriously. It seems to me that if you feel the need to hire a private investigator as they suggest or conduct a background check on your partner, you already have the answer you need about the relationship.

Anyway, the book is a good one to give to a young man (or read yourself) to fine tune his knowledge of what to do before, during and after a violent encounter. I will definitely keep it on my bookshelf.

Labels: ,

57 Comments:

Blogger DEK46656 said...

Regarding “The first thing that struck me about the book is that it states it is focused on young men as men commit about 80% of violent crime and are the recipients of violent crime at twice the rate of women.” followed by the example of the woman attacking: 80% still leaves 20% from women, that being 1 in 5. I haven’t read the book (…yet, I’m checking into it) but not supplying any examples would have been disingenuous to the statistic: no examples would have diminished the clarity of the statistic.

The idea of the book is interesting; these concepts would have been what my sister taught in her women’s self defense classes. She was also an experienced martial artists, and had related some of these approaches to me in the past.

11:28 AM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

"situational awareness without being paranoid or mentally exhausting"

The bingo quote.

11:50 AM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger Will Brown said...

They discuss simple tips like when it's time to leave a party before violence escalates. It's good advice, especially for young men who often have to learn how to deal with aggression, even if they don't want to.

Most especially for those young men who have discovered how much more aroused their young women dates become following proximity to violence. Since arousal of the lady in question is frequently one of the objectives of the dating process, I predict widespread (yes, it is a terrible pun) dismissal of this aspect of the well intended advice offered.

1:34 PM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger Cham said...

Regarding criminal background checks. My state has put everyone's criminal history on the Internet, right down to vehicle moving violations. Out of habit now I make a quick check of just about anyone that I consider dating, befriending or with whom I do business or volunteer work. I am always surprised about how some of the most nicest, friendliest, mild mannered people have some of the most spectacular criminal records: assault, battery, assaults on police officers, debt issues, drugs, drug paraphernalia, domestic violence and the like. I also notice that no matter how many times I might interact with a person and how well I get to know them it is very rare that they bring up and discuss their frequent interactions with the judicial system.

I agree with the authors, if you are dating someone, anyone, check the criminal history regardless of whether you have a little hunch or not. Don't let your sweetie's secret violent behavior be an unpleasant surprise when you find yourself dodging a blow to the face.

4:20 PM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger Helen said...

Cham,

After thinking about it, I do think that the author's advice is good, but it is sad that our relationships have come to this.

5:01 PM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger Trust said...

According to "America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, 97% of violence is carried out by men and 25% of women are raped. Boteach further preaches that adultery is an epidemic among men, and men who do so hate themselves and have contempt for women. Insofar as women who cheat on men, Boteach preaches that "when women cheat, unattentive husbands are almost always the culprits" and that if a man treats his wife well she'll never divorce him and reciprocate one hundredfold.

Not to bash Boteach, but just to show the mindset among even the most decent of people that "men bad, women good."

In reality, women initiate half of all domestic violence, maybe more. The trust and innocence we ascribe to them skews stats in two ways. First, we believe false accusations against men inflating their numbers, and we don't believe true accusations against women deflating theirs. And the fact that men are shamed results in even more deflating.

That is not to say men are good and women are bad, just to say that both are human and both capable of terrible behaviors.

Happy New Year

5:15 PM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger Helen said...

Trust and all,

Happy New Year!

5:58 PM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger kmg said...

A sweeping article about how feminism has gone too far :

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

The author kicks off the decade with this as the defining issue.

6:37 PM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger kmg said...

A sweeping article how feminism has gone too far.

The author kicks off the decade with this as the defining issue.

6:45 PM, January 01, 2010  
Blogger DADvocate said...

...avoid situations or locations where violence is more likely to occur.

A practice I've always tried to follow. Avoid certain bars, restaurants, etc. Avoid certain people. Over the years, friends of mine had friends that I considered suspect and/or dangerous. If the questionable friends came by while I was there, withing 15 minutes I would politely take leave of myself.

I consider this advice the key to avoiding violence. It's easy advice to follow and it's really quite easy to anticipate situations and locations where violence may occur. You may be big and tough and have a weapon but you can never be sure what you might encounter. There's no good reason to take unnecessary chances.

11:00 AM, January 02, 2010  
Blogger Topher said...

Chris Rock advised to this effect.

"Don't go to parties with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside, but what about all those [guys] outside with guns? They know you ain't got one!"

12:36 PM, January 02, 2010  
Blogger Topher said...

Here's my question:

How come we can teach men to practice risk management, to avoid violent situations and it's perfectly OK?

But if we try to tell educated, intelligent college women not get silly-drunk at frat parties, to not date demonstrably violent men, or to avoid intimidating violent people or provoking them to escalate, it's "blaming the victim" and "they should have the right to do whatever they want without fearing violence."

12:40 PM, January 02, 2010  
Blogger kenlowder said...

This is a good book on waking folks up to the real world we live in. You need to be alert to what is going on around you at all times. I see to many folks in the ER who were not paying attention. All of their stories begin with 'I was just minding my own business." That ranks right up there with 'hey ya'all watch this' in terms of ems job security.

Ken Lowder

9:40 AM, January 03, 2010  
Blogger Locomotive Breath said...

In the same section, they state, "Never hit a girl...Unless she's armed." They smartly state that, "In today's world, distinctions of gender are made by friends, family, police, and courts. The role of combatant is, oftentimes, secondary." They give advice on how to deal with women, though I would have liked to see more. They do say that if "she is armed with some sort of weapon, all bets are off."

Tiger Woods is the biggest kind of jerk around. That being said, if Elin really was bashing him with a golf club, notice how he felt his only option was to flee and that self defense was not possible?

10:11 AM, January 03, 2010  
Blogger Cham said...

Kenlowder:

You forgot to finish the sentence:

"I was just minding my own business when someone dissed me so I decided to teach that person a lesson."

And then to continue:

"So that is why I am serving 10-15 at the correctional facility."

1:22 PM, January 03, 2010  
Blogger Danny said...

In the same section, they state, "Never hit a girl...Unless she's armed." They smartly state that, "In today's world, distinctions of gender are made by friends, family, police, and courts. The role of combatant is, oftentimes, secondary." They give advice on how to deal with women, though I would have liked to see more. They do say that if "she is armed with some sort of weapon, all bets are off."

Interesting and sad at the same time. Even though even if she has a weapon chances are after its all said and done people will still take her side if you fight back.

Frankly when it comes to dealing with women who want to be violent with men I apply the same rule that I apply to violent men. "If she thinks she badass enough to come whip my ass then she is badass enough to get her ass whipped by me."

More than likely no one will believe anyway so the least I can do is properly protect myself from the damage she is trying to cause.

And about Tiger Woods. Yes he was being unfaithful but I find it interesting what the early rumors/reports about her attacking him with a gold club have turned into. Comedy Gold.

Awareness and prevention of violence isn't going to get very far with people thinking that the only type of violence that needs to be address is male against female.

1:31 PM, January 03, 2010  
Blogger Rory said...

Wow.
Read the book- I'm biased, of course, since I wrote one of the intros-- but Kris and Lawrence did an excellent job of not sugarcoating the fact that the world isn't fair.
I support the idea that a female threat with similar intent, means and opportunity as a male should be treated the same way... but I'm also not willfully blind to the fact that the jury probably won't see it that way.
If you train or plan without a thorough understanding of and respect for the environment in which you act, including the legal environment, you might be training to go to prison.
Not all truths are comfortable, especially on this subject.

Rory

5:42 PM, January 03, 2010  
Blogger cinderkeys said...

Topher:

ut if we try to tell educated, intelligent college women not get silly-drunk at frat parties, to not date demonstrably violent men, or to avoid intimidating violent people or provoking them to escalate, it's "blaming the victim" and "they should have the right to do whatever they want without fearing violence."

I suspect there's backlash involved. Women hear all about how we should be vigilant, how we shouldn't get into bad situations, etc. When you hear that enough, it starts to feel like women should simply expect men to be psychopaths, and they have no responsibility for their own bad behavior. Which is not only unfair to women, but incredibly insulting to men.

Don't get me wrong. "You shouldn't get crazy drunk at a frat party" is excellent advice. There just needs to be equal emphasis on creating a culture in which it's considered wrong to be a victimizer.

6:05 PM, January 03, 2010  
Blogger Alex said...

The simple fact of the matter is it's un-PC to state that young black males commit the majority of violent crimes and thefts.

10:32 PM, January 03, 2010  
Blogger TMink said...

Alex, you could state that young males from fatherless homes commit the majority of violent crimes and theft and be even more accurate.

Growing up without a father is a better predictor of future incarceration than race.

Trey

11:11 PM, January 03, 2010  
Blogger kenlowder said...

Cham said...

Kenlowder:

You forgot to finish the sentence:

It's the winners that go to jail. I usually see the losers in the er. The one that were just minding their own business when they got hit in the head by that flying beer bottle, jumped be ten guys, shot at, ect....

Ken

6:19 AM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger MikeT said...

I suspect there's backlash involved. Women hear all about how we should be vigilant, how we shouldn't get into bad situations, etc. When you hear that enough, it starts to feel like women should simply expect men to be psychopaths, and they have no responsibility for their own bad behavior. Which is not only unfair to women, but incredibly insulting to men.

That's just a hyper-emotional response on the part of a number of women. Most men would have no problem having sex with a drunk woman who isn't totally slobbering drunk or passed out. If a woman is drunk, but still able to act like she knows what she's doing, a typical man is not going to give her a breathalyzer test.

Many of us have also gotten sick of that rubbish about "if she's been drinking, just don't go there" because men don't get the benefit of the doubt here when they're drunk. A woman with a .04 BAC is supposed to be off limits, but a man with a .16 BAC is expected to be able to understand consent and give it?

That's the way this whole system works.

7:35 AM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger Trust said...

MikeT said... Many of us have also gotten sick of that rubbish about "if she's been drinking, just don't go there" because men don't get the benefit of the doubt here when they're drunk. A woman with a .04 BAC is supposed to be off limits, but a man with a .16 BAC is expected to be able to understand consent and give it?
__________________

Basically, if a man gets drunk and drives, he's guilty of a DUI. If a woman gets drunk and drives, he's guilty of a GUI. Fair enough.

Yet, if a man gets drunk and has sex, he's responsible for the consequences. If a woman gets drunk and has sex, she's a rape victim.

Even if we uphold that questionable logic, one must ask: if we have to give breathalyzers and blood tests to calculate the drunkeness of a person at the time of an instance, how do we calculate blood alcohol of a women who has sex when she "discovers" she was really too drunk to consent days or weeks later? (perhaps after her husband or boyfriend finds out) Seems like reasonable doubt one could drive a truck through.

Then again, the bottom line is that we as a society have an image of women we uphold at all costs. If there is any way at all to pin a woman's poor choices on men, we as a society do it.

8:23 AM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger Trust said...

@Basically, if a man gets drunk and drives, he's guilty of a DUI. If a woman gets drunk and drives, he's guilty of a GUI. Fair enough.
___________

Ooops, need more coffee. the sentence should read: "Basically, if a man gets drunk and drives, he's guilty of a DUI. If a woman gets drunk and drives, she's guilty of a DUI. Fair enough. "

8:23 AM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger TMink said...

Thanks Trust, I was trying to figure out what a GUI was without asking.

Happy New Year.

Trey

10:27 AM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger Spamtrap said...

As a former LEO, my observation was that there is a lot more violence being committed than is reported. Another was while violence committed against women was almost always reported, the inverse was seldom reported until the paramedics or the coroner was called. I have no numbers or studies to back up my conclusions but the 80% number sounds too high. Empirically, my estimate of the percentage of violence committed by men is probably 60% or less. How one would design a study to confirm such numbers I don't know.

10:53 AM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger lakane said...

The best source of crime statistics in the United States is found at the Bureau of Justice Statistics web site:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

Their methodology is as fair and impartial as anything available.

1:10 PM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger cocaburra said...

Cham, you're an ugly fat dumb bitch and we all hate you. Just fuck off forever. You will never be loved bitch.

1:27 PM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger cocaburra said...

Cham, you need to stop taking outt your issues about being divorced. No doubt your husband got tired of being married to a dumpy controlling bull-dyke like you, but instead of learning a lesson and making yourself less physically and psychically vile, you insist on ruining every discussion on here with your pathetic whining and 'not all woman are like that' patronising platitudes.

why don't you just piss and leave everyone else alone.

2:20 PM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger No Nonsesnse Self Defense said...

I am the other guy who wrote a forward for this book. I'll springboard off what Rory Miller said about the realities of our legal system.

I've been doing expert witness work in court over the last few years. I have seen the basis for the following statement, "DA's see everything as a crime." It is critical to know that bias is out there waiting for you if you find yourself involved in violence.

To DA's it's not 'self-defense (which is legal), everything is a fight (which is illegal). The basis for my expert witness work is that most lawyers do NOT understand what constitutes self-defense. And this includes your defense attorney.

Knowing about this bias is important as it leads to another factor. When we feel threatened, our emotional/ monkey brain will often prompt us to say AND do things that
a) holds our ground
b) protects our pride
c) shows the other person we're not to be messed with.

The DA will use these actions against you -- to 'prove' you were an active participant in a 'fight.' Thing is the DA is usually right and that's why it's so easy to convict you. These actions DID help create and escalate the situation to violence (rather than working out the way we hoped).

LBBofV is great in pointing out how certain situations commonly lead to violence. You need to know just being in these circumstances will be used against you. Then I'll tell you that your actions under stress will be used as a double whammy to nail you.

Dr. Helen mistakenly believes that I advocate just laying down and being a victim. That is not true. I am however, a big fan of a 'good faith effort'(GFE) to withdraw from a situation. Not only is this an important strategy for avoiding most violence, but a GFE is an important tactic for showing the jury that it isn't 'just another fight between two ******.' (Which is what the DA is trying to sell).

A GFE goes a long way to establish the other person was the aggressor. It might not keep you out of jail for the night, but it will be an important element for when the DA is trying to paint your actions in the worst possible light.

LBBofV is a refreshing look at often overlooked elements regarding violence -- namely the pre and post aspects. The authors really did their homework by talking to people with live-fire experience with violence, not just 'training.' They also talked to people who understand the 'lead up to' and the aftermath of violence. LBBofV is an important read for everyone, not just young men.

Marc MacYoung

2:23 PM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger cinderkeys said...

I am however, a big fan of a 'good faith effort'(GFE) to withdraw from a situation.

Thanks for your comment. Here's a question for you.

Say you glance at somebody. That person glares back and says, "What are YOU looking at." Obviously, the correct response isn't to glare back and reply, "Nothing. What's YOUR problem?"

But how far does your good faith effort need to go? Is it enough to say something friendly? ("Hey, we're cool.") Or do you have to actually walk away? And if you walk away, mightn't the bully take this as a sign of fear and follow you?

2:37 PM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger TMink said...

You might want to lay off the coca burra. It is giving you an attitude.

Trey

2:51 PM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Wow, not sure what got into cocaburra's saddle. I certainly don't have Cham. I always read her comments as I feel she speaks honestly. Maybe some day I'll go hiking with her. She certainly goes to some neat spots.

3:18 PM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger Helen said...

cocaburra,

I don't typically ban many people here and I would like for you to be able to continue posting, so please have your say in a less hostile manner. I want to keep the door open here for everyone to speak.

Rory and No Nonsense Self-Defense,

"Dr. Helen mistakenly believes that I advocate just laying down and being a victim."

I appreciate both of you stopping by to share your opinion with us. I understand you are looking at violence from a legal perspective. I respect that. I think that on an individual level, what you say makes sense, if you don't end up wounded or killed by your attacker. If you end up living through violence, then sure, it would be great if you have a good legal case--and could prove that you did everything right. But in a fight for your life or in the heat of the moment, that may be very hard and harder yet, is to tell when to retreat.

The example in the LBBofV given was of a woman who stopped fighting with all her might because her attacker stopped and told her that he just wanted an ATM card. She stopped and was murdered. The question is, how do you know when to retreat and when to stop so as not to be injured? I imagine that you see a number of cases where people get into fights over ego. I am not talking about that here. I am talking about someone who is attacked and is not sure when to retreat, for sometimes that can end with bad consequences, far worse than sitting in a courtroom in a whole lot of legal trouble. Perhaps I come at this from a different perspective, having worked on cases where innocent people have been murdered in the most brutal of ways imaginable. Retreating, perhaps, was not an option. On the other hand, your advice seems good for an aggressive individual who happens to lose his temper and engages in fights or does not retreat for reasons of ego.

6:32 PM, January 04, 2010  
Blogger Micha Elyi said...

Trust said...
@Basically, if a man gets drunk and drives, he's guilty of a DUI. If a woman gets drunk and drives, he's guilty of a GUI. Fair enough.
---------------
Ooops, need more coffee. the sentence should read: "Basically, if a man gets drunk and drives, he's guilty of a DUI. If a woman gets drunk and drives, she's guilty of a DUI. Fair enough."


You were closer to the truth the first time, Trust. Take a look at these spots produced US Dept of Transportation. Notice that in these TV spots, all the drivers depicted as DUI are men. These spots ran during the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year holiday periods. They'll run again when the Super Bowl approaches.

Why do these ads vilify men, exclusively? Because 97% of people are Boteachs and Bidens; they absolutely cannot wrap their heads around the idea that a woman can behave harmfully, even be a criminal.

When Spamtrap noted that "violence committed against women was almost always reported, the inverse was seldom reported" unless people are inconvenienced by having to step over or around a dead or wounded man, he was illustrating one consequence of the near-universal blindness to harming or assaultive behaviors committed by women. The makers of the upcoming flick Hit Girl intend to thrill their audiences by exploiting their Her Violence Isn't Violent, It's Cute prejudices.

2:27 AM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger cocaburra said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:19 AM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger cocaburra said...

Helen, you're a hypocrite. Why do you bother whining about how badly the media treats men, and how men's opinions are shouted down and ignored, and then when a bitch like Cham comes on here and does exactly that, you let her get away with it, because it doesn't bother you?

Well it bothers me, you pathetic, ego-tripping dumb-ass. You just want the slavish devotion that the men on here give you, for your half-assed tokenistic empathizing, when really you're barely better than the women you're complaining about.

You can't be a 'good feminist' any more than you can be a 'good racist'.

11:42 AM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger The Archivist said...

Idiot.

11:50 AM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger DADvocate said...

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but someone has a hostility problem. /sarcasm

12:18 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger Sloan said...

Dr. Helen, I think I can speak for all when I say that I've really had quite enough of cocaburra. Ban the troll, please.

12:45 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger Dave Cornutt said...

Marc, thanks for stopping by, and I enjoyed reading your comments. I agree that if you are challenged in a bar or some such, you should make every effort to de-escalate the situation (while, of course, keeping your six covered). It's not only a good legal strategy -- as I say about automobile accidents, the best way to avoid being injured in one is to not be in an accident in the first place.

However, as a middle-aged, married man, that's easy for me to say. It wasn't so easy when I was young, because the advice you give is so spectacularly unsuccessful for young men interested in attracting the opposite sex. Rare is the young woman who will respect a man for backing out of a fight. I experienced this first-hand when I was in college. A girl I was interested in went to a party with me. A bunch of guys who weren't invited crashed the party, drank all the alcohol, and then got raucous. As they started to trash the apartment the party was in, I suggested to my date that we bail out and go to a movie.

I was right about the party; after we left, the police were called, and several people were arrested for D&D and drugs. Problem: the girl lost interest in me after that. I could see it in her face when we were leaving the party. She turned down a date the next week, and then started dating one of the guys who had gotten arrested.

For young men who want to be upstanding citizens and avoid trashy behavior and legal trouble, what do we tell them? That they just need to forget about girls until they reach 35?

1:25 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger cinderkeys said...

For young men who want to be upstanding citizens and avoid trashy behavior and legal trouble, what do we tell them? That they just need to forget about girls until they reach 35?

Nah. Tell them they need to forget about dating idiots. Believe it or not, there are a lot of women who don't think an criminal record is sexy.

1:48 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger No Nonsesnse Self Defense said...

Helen, you might want review Rory Miller's book Meditations on Violence. Rory & I strongly influence each others work. We are developing a program regarding conflict ... and how not to freak out when challenged.

That last statement is not a veiled insult, but a statement about human nature. Rory & I divide violence into two fundamental motivations: Social & asocial/predatory. (The / is we use different terms to describe the same thing). Here's a condensed and simplistic explanation.

Social violence(SV) IS the most common. SV is how, we as humans, function together in a group and enforce boundaries. I discuss some of the different 'kinds' of violence here
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/violencetypes.htm

SV is NOT to kill or injure the person. While it might escalate to that, it's not the initial intent.

Rory coined the term 'monkey dance'(MD) to describe the pattern people follow while engaging in SV. This is primate conflict behavior AND it is the default pattern people fall into. Whether you call it autopilot, instincts or programming, doesn't matter. We are programmed to react emotionally to a MD. We get the cue & we start the cycle.

Asocial/predatory violence (APV) is an entirely different ballgame. It's what you, as a forensic psychologist, view the end results of all the time. Unlike SV (where the threat of violence is a tool to achieve an end) with APV, violence IS the goal.

Also, while the end result can be social (or something else),the goal itself IS to injure or kill from the start.

There is massive overlap and variation, this is a simplified introduction to the concepts.

You deal with these two types of violence in entirely different ways. The problem most people have is that they cannot recognize the difference. This manifests in many ways...

1) They mistake a monkey dance/SV as APV. They think that if anyone is offering them even a threat of violence, he must intend to kill them.

2) Thinking this, they over-react. This is where you get people chasing someone down the street slashing that person's back with a knife & then -- in utter sincerity -- claim it was self-defense.

3)Due to intentional blurring and confusing of SV & APV (via marketing & agendas)people don't recognize the differences. They don't know you don't monkey dance with APV (if you do, you'll give him the green light to attack).

4)They believe the sports based 'SD' training they get (which would work in MD & SV) also works against a APV. You start monkey dancing against a APV & he'll just shoot you.

Why is this important? When we feel threatened, our first instinct is to start MDing.

If we give into this autopilot program, we're going to escalate the situation. Even if we don't end up dead, a MD will put you in jail ... not for defending yourself, but for fighting. And straight up, you WILL have been doing that. MDing is the fastest way to participate in the creation and escalation of a conflict. This crosses the line from SD into fighting. MD behavior is what I was talking about regarding the prosecutor using your words/ actions against you in court.

Speaking personally, I'll blow an AVP's brains into a fine pink mist in a heartbeat when -- despite all efforts and warnings -- he commits an attack. However, with that also comes responsibility. I have to be able to recognize a MD and SV and know NOT to pull the trigger. That's what I mean by 'not freaking out.'

Both Rory & I were consulted heavily on LBBofV. Getting this kind of important information out is why LBBofV was written in the first place.

MM

2:16 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger Helen said...

Marc MacYoung,

Thanks for your follow up reply. You provide some good information. I agree that violence is a very complex interaction that requires a flexible approach rather than one size fits all.

2:56 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:36 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:39 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger cinderkeys said...

And I don't mean to insult the women who have a brain and who do not act the way I described above - and those women exist - but they should also take a look at how their "sisters" behave.

Like idiots, some of them.

I'm not going to defend the actions of a woman who runs off with drunk fistfight guy any more than you're going to defend the actions of drunk fistfight guy. I hope they're very happy together. Meanwhile, people like Dave Cornutt can do better.

Most women are extremely easy to manipulate. Just watch how they act. Watch what they REALLY react to - not what they SAY they react to.

Do you think this is more true of women than men? Human beings as a whole are exceptionally poor at understanding their true motivations. I suspect that you just notice it more in women because you're not trying to date men. :)

6:51 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger Topher said...

"I think Freud and the other Big Wheel People who supposedly couldn't figure out women simply didn't LOOK AT HOW THEY REALLY BEHAVE."

I often find that friends of mine who claim "I don't understand women" are really saying something else. Usually it's an exercise in denial - they claim they "don't understand" because they want to believe they didn't get blown off, shot down or cheated on.

Sometimes they are saying they don't agree with what a woman has done. What they don't understand is the motivation, how she's making her decisions. (We always want people to make decisions in the way that most benefits us personally.)

Or they are saying that they don't want to fathom that they could have a great date with a woman and then she doesn't want to go out again. We tend to want to stick to our positive impressions about people even when evidence argues otherwise.

Any guy who tells me he's getting "mixed signals," I tell him he's getting a very clear - negative - signal.

11:58 PM, January 05, 2010  
Blogger TMink said...

Topher wrote: "they claim they "don't understand" because they want to believe they didn't get blown off, shot down or cheated on."

An excellent point. Our view of the good woman, like the good mother, runs deep. Accepting that women kill most of the infants and commit most of the abuse toward children is very difficult. In part because accepting the fact and thinking about it is really quite frightening.

Trey

11:04 AM, January 06, 2010  
Blogger Dr said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:11 AM, January 06, 2010  
Blogger YMAA_com said...

Thank you Dr. Helen, and thanks to all for this excellent discussion on an uncomfortable topic. This female-on-male violence issue is discussed in this book excerpt article: http://www.ymaa.com/articles/listen-to-the-subtle-and-not-so-subtle-warnings

11:16 AM, January 06, 2010  
Blogger Professor Hale said...

Dr. Helen, I think I can speak for all when I say that I've really had quite enough of cocaburra. Ban the troll, please.

I don't agree. While he is very much off topic, his random frothing is mildly entertaining, though a bit distracting. I am guessing this is the day he had to send the alimony check to his ex.

2:18 PM, January 06, 2010  
Blogger cinderkeys said...

YMAA_com: Thanks for the link. A friend of mine knows somebody who REALLY needs to read this. I'm going to pass it on right now.

2:49 PM, January 06, 2010  
Blogger Topher said...

TMink,

"An excellent point. Our view of the good woman, like the good mother, runs deep."

In the case we're discussing, I really don't think it's a gender thing - so far as I can tell, women "over-optimize" the men they want to date as much as men over-optimize the women they desire, assigning them a presumptive set of superlative characteristics without cause.

Once you switch to some "evidence-based" judgment, the lack of "understanding" of your would-be mate vanishes.

People in the process of dating give their paramours WAY too much power over their own emotions...but I guess that's the point, no?

7:26 PM, January 06, 2010  
Blogger Semper said...

Whoah, was that the same Marc "Animal" MacYoung who wrote a bunch of SD books back in the 80s/90s?

I read a few of those in college and I can honestly credit him with my #1 commandment of self-defense: "No be there." (which has been updated over the years, I see) Those were short, smart and extremely practical books.

If that's the same MacYoung, allow me to say "thanks" for the wisdom. I put it to good use.

9:23 AM, January 07, 2010  
Blogger lakane said...

Cinderkeys: Say you glance at somebody. That person glares back and says, "What are YOU looking at." Obviously, the correct response isn't to glare back and reply, "Nothing. What's YOUR problem?" But how far does your good faith effort need to go? Is it enough to say something friendly? ("Hey, we're cool.") Or do you have to actually walk away? And if you walk away, mightn't the bully take this as a sign of fear and follow you? What do you do in a situation like this?

It depends.

With social violence, typified by the "what are you looking at" type of thing, the other guy isn't necessarily trying to pick a fight but rather to exert dominance over you, make himself feel better, or the like. If you're prepared to, you can usually walk away. You leave; he feels that he's won. But, oddly enough, you're the one who truly won. You made a conscious choice not to engage in stupidity. You responded rather than reacting. The tougher you truly are, the less you should feel a need to prove it.

Or, you can change the channel so to speak, so that the other guy has a face-saving way out too. For example: "I was looking at your shirt. Same thing my ex-girlfriend bought me. But it looks a lot better on you, man."

By trying to talk things down and/or walk away, you have made a good faith effort at withdrawing. If it's a social dominance thing, he will let you go so long as you resist the urge to utter a face-saving parting shot on the way out. Keep your pride in check, keep your mouth shut, and try to leave. If he follows anyway, you know that his intent is predatory. And, you can clearly articulate in court why you had to stomp a mud-hole in him.

6:55 PM, January 16, 2010  
Blogger cinderkeys said...

Lakane: Interesting stuff. I may have to read the book. :)

2:07 PM, January 17, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home