[cuchulainn]

from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-06-10-palmer_x.htmPosted 6/10/2003 6:42 PM
Guns offer false security
By Kimberly Shearer Palmer
Before I held a revolver, I thought only police officers and psychopaths shot guns. Guns seemed uncontrollable objects that could inflict death at any moment; I preferred to avoid them.
Then I learned how to shoot. My friends arranged a trip to a shooting range outside Chicago. Our instructor, a former police officer, taught us how to stand and point, hunching our shoulders for accuracy. We shot at the target silhouettes' heart and lungs before aiming for its head. In real life, our instructor explained, our attackers might wear bulletproof vests.

I was thrilled with my new power. A technological advantage now would let me fight the bad guys, even ones bigger and stronger that I am — or so I thought. Guns give women equal killing ability, but they also draw us into the dangerous illusion that owning one makes us safe.

More women are using guns. The number of National Rifle Association Women on Target programs — shooting clinics for women only — more than doubled between 2001 and 2002, says Stephanie Henson, manager of the NRA's women's programs. Last year, clinics were held in 38 states. Henson says women's interest is so strong that the NRA recently launched Woman's Outlook, its first magazine aimed just at women.

Self-defense is the reason the overwhelming majority of Women & Guns' readers are interested in using guns, says Peggy Tartaro, the magazine's executive editor.

Not so equal

But gun popularity among women is based on two misconceptions. First, gun advocates often call guns the great equalizer between men and women. In reality, according to a new study by the University of California at Davis, women who own handguns are more than twice as likely to be murdered with a firearm by their partners than those who do not. While this may be partly explained by the fact that women who fear an attack are more apt to buy a gun, the study shows guns often fail to help women protect themselves.

"Having a gun gives women a false sense of security," says Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington non-profit that urges stricter gun control. "Guns can be taken away, and women can be killed by their own guns."

The second misconception is that guns are the only solution to help otherwise "weak" women protect themselves. In fact, a wide range of self-defense options, from chemical sprays to street fighting, gives women the tools to fight back.

Fight, don't shoot

A popular new form of self-defense training simulates attacks on the street and in the bedroom by male "attackers" wearing protective padding. This realistic-training approach includes verbal and psychological elements that prepare women for real-life situations. Fighting off a man in a simulated attack is much more likely to resemble a real incident than shooting at a target-range silhouette.

Self-defense classes also offer a significant psychological benefit. After taking self-defense courses with simulated attacks at The Empower Program Inc., a Washington non-profit, my younger sister and I felt more confident walking down the street. We were aware that at any time, anywhere, we knew how to fight back. The course also taught us how to avoid violent situations and how to de-escalate encounters before they become deadly. Like Jennifer Lopez's character in the 2002 movie Enough, in which she learns to fight to protect herself and her daughter against her abusive husband, we had reclaimed our right to feel safe while depending only on our own bodies.

Considering guns as women's only shot at self-defense is like eating fat-free cookies to ward off obesity; they can make the situation even worse. Instead of buying a gun, I'm sticking to basic street smarts that will always be there when I need them most.

Kimberly Shearer Palmer is a graduate student at the University of Chicago.

[Dan from MI]

In reality, according to a new study by the University of California at Davis

That study was funded by the California Wellness Foundation, which funds the anti-rights group "Pacific Center for Violence Prevention". Follow the money.....


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918511/posts

[El Tejon]

She thinks simulated "attacks" will "empower" her? Tell you what I hereby volunteer to be the attacker and I won't wear padding, but I won't let you touch me.

"Street smarts"??? And when she get in trouble who will she call? Men with guns.

Spoken like a true Chicagoan--like a sheople.:D

[P95Carry]

What a crock!!! A woman, trained and with a gun is sure as hell NOT gaining ''false security'' ..... she will have the option, the same as any guy .... to defend herself if the need arises.

The ownership of a firearm and even the carrying thereof .. brings with it an implicit and even onerous responsibility but at the same time .. it is the great ''leveller'' .. such that ''in extremis'' the individual (note lack of gender discrimination) can have at least a good chance of defence.

We have had many threads, illustrating the fact that .. by and large, those who carry can enjoy a greater confidence but also ... a greater urge to resist a final confrontation .... until things get so bad perhaps that there is nothing else left. There is no innate and over riding desire to shoot .. anyone ... as the ''easy option''.

This is IMO ''gender insensitive'' ........ the more woman who pack .. the better as far as I am concerned. My wife won't pack but at least she has her SD revo .. and that is something.

[Standing Wolf]

Before I held a revolver, I thought only police officers and psychopaths shot guns.

She obviously hasn't learned a single thing.

[CZ-75]

How is a woman with some rudimentary self-defense training going to fight off an armed attacker?

I believe I read that Bruce Lee didn't think that martial arts were any advantage against guns, and I certainly won't dispute that.

Did anyone notice that the pro-gun portion of the writer's attempt to present balance uses weak and general arguments, while she includes a significant quote from an anti and a cite to a study proving her conclusions? Nah, couldn't be. Her "in reality" phrasing sure gives her away; particularly ironic since this is as close as she gets to reality. Using her new found "kung fu death grip" techniques taught her at her Wednesday night self-defense class, she will surely be able to disarm multiple attackers, dodge bullets, and fight off a varitety of weapons. :rolleyes:

[Tamara]

"Having a gun gives women a false sense of security," says Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington non-profit that urges stricter gun control. "Guns can be taken away..."

So pull out your back-up gun and shoot the guy. Duh! :rolleyes:

The second misconception is that guns are the only solution to help otherwise "weak" women protect themselves. In fact, a wide range of self-defense options, from chemical sprays to street fighting, gives women the tools to fight back.

Let me see if I have this right: you're too weak to keep him from taking your gun away, but you're bad enough after your little once-a-week classes to be able to go Jet Li on his arse. Uh, okay, whatever... :scrutiny:

Self-defense classes also offer a significant psychological benefit. After taking self-defense courses with simulated attacks at The Empower Program Inc., a Washington non-profit, my younger sister and I felt more confident walking down the street. We were aware that at any time, anywhere, we knew how to fight back.

Oh, that's just rich! A .357 would give you a "false sense of security", but an hour a week of punching a friendly man in a red rubber outfit gives you "self-confidence in your ability to fight back". Honey, have you any idea how flippin' stupid you sound? :D

...we had reclaimed our right to feel safe while depending only on our own bodies.

Do you depend only on your own body to change a flat tire or fly to Spokane? Didn't think so. Look down at your hands. See the one wiggly digit that's pointing in a different direction from the others? That's your "thumb". Notice how it can be moved in opposition to your other fingers, allowing you to grasp "tools" to manipulate your environment? Getting any ideas? No?

Instead of buying a gun, I'm sticking to basic street smarts that will always be there when I need them most.

That would be what we call a "false dichotomy". See, when you carry a gun, you have even more need to use your "basic street smarts", because the object of the game is to not have to shoot somebody, get it?


Honey, why don't you just admit that you are still scared of guns instead of deluding yourself and misleading your readers (at least those with a complete absence of critical thinking skills)?

[citizen]

Tamara-

BTW-Did I tell ya I luv ya????;)

(God, it's GREAT havin' a first-class female around!:D )

[Sean Smith]

Somebody doesn't grasp "disparity in force," a.k.a. no mater how fit and tough-minded she gets, the typical man will be able to tear her limb from limb with his bare hands if he so fancies.

Also, she's obviously a sponge-head. That never offers a tactical advantage. :evil:

[XLMiguel]

Right on, Tamara!!! Especially the comment on street smarts.

Ms Palmer and women like her perpetuate the "two-brain theory" and why a lot of people think that women really are dumb. It this half-wit thinks an hour-a-week 'self-defense' class is sufficient and 'empowering' (Lordy, I hate that word!), I fear we will soon be reading her obituary. I'm gald it helps her self-esteame, but I doubt it will kep her whole. Take thee to the range, lady, and train there, too. Sheesh.:rolleyes:

[foghornl]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of buying a gun, I'm sticking to basic street smarts that will always be there when I need them most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Street Smarts are handy, but no da** good when you are encircled and outnumbered 5-to-1.

[Kharn]

Oh, that's just rich! A .357 would give you a "false sense of security", but an hour a week of punching a friendly man in a red rubber outfit gives you "self-confidence in your ability to fight back". Honey, have you any idea how flippin' stupid you sound?
U of Delaware (Along with most other colleges, I assume; I attend UD) offers the Rape Aggressive Defense (might have the A word wrong, but its acronym is RAD) class for women only. It is pretty pitiful from what I have heard, the guy in the suit outweighs most college girls by 2.5 or 3:1 and hardly even tries to hold onto them. For some reason, I doubt they would let me show up with an Asp (or a concealed Airsoft Glock) and see how well I did (or how fast the Kampus Kop in the suit runs away when the Airsoft comes out).

Kharn

[Sean Smith]

Tamara:

[sing-song voice on] some-body needs to write a let-ter...[/sing-song voice off]

:neener:

[MrAcheson]

Delaware also has (had) standard self defense classes for both genders which are far more complete. I believe you have to take them for credit though. Thats not including the free classes from the Shotokan Club which are probably at least as useful as batting a guy in a rubber suit around.

When I was in college a female friend said "I bet I could take you" in friendly conversation on a similar topic to this one. I said "you're on" and we went to a suitable soft grassy spot. Keep in mind she is fairly athletic and I am not (I was 6' 145 and she was about 5'4" 130ish). Long story short, I was nice and tried to be gentle when I took her off her feet. After three or four tries, she realized she wasn't going to be able to knock me down. I think it shifted her understanding of self defense against even unintimidating men like myself.

Awareness is a powerful weapon to have and probably the more important weapon out of the two choices presented. But awareness and a gun are not mutually exclusive. This reporter is creating a false dichotomy.

[Leatherneck]

Tamara,
Thanks for making my morning! Priceless...:D

TC
TFL Survivor

[DonP]

Do these people realize how demeaning they are to women with this tripe?

About the only thing they left out is referring to a woman defending herself as "little lady"!

Tamara, your response was thoughtful, well written and downright funny in some places.

And please don't generalize about Chicago, there are still 2 or 3 of us here that haven't grown wool yet and are still struggling.

Don P.

[El Tejon]

Don, Chicago veteran here. I know what you are saying, but I can just see the author walking down Ontario sipping her latte chattering away about how awful guns are.:rolleyes:

What I heard over and over in Chicago, "if only they took their guns away.":scrutiny:

[rrader]

according to a new study by the University of California at Davis..., ...Having a gun gives women a false sense of security," says Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center

Well now.... At least she cited some objective and unbiased sources. Of course she would have to in order to receive a high mark for her paper at an institution like the University of Chicago where an objective Socratic search for the truth is always the operative principle.

[Partisan Ranger]

WARNING: ILLOGIC ALERT! ILLOGIC ALERT!

Women are weak, pathetic enough creatures to have a .357 taken away from them by a criminal savage, yet....

A week of self-defense training and that previously weak woman can now take on and defeat an aggressor twice her size

[Sean Smith]

On a more serious note…

It is a bad side effect of a good thing that most women don’t grasp how far behind the power curve they are in relation to men when it comes to the use of muscle power.

Proportionally, women have (to use a generous estimate) 60% of the upper body strength of men at equal levels of physical training. But women aren’t proportional to men… they are, on average, substantially smaller. Thus, a woman could very easily be half the strength of her attacker from the get-go.

With lower-body strength, which is a hell of a lot less useful in a melee, women are closer to men (anywhere from 75% to parity, depending on who you believe), but they still lag in absolute terms.

With training, if anything the gulf gets even wider. Let’s look at the high end. In the 198 pound class, the men’s bench-press record is 683 pounds. The record for women of the same weight is… 390. All the women’s records hover around 2x body weight, while the men’s records hover around 3.5x body weight (with some higher and some lower for both). This may sound abstract, but guys in prison aren’t lifting weights and getting huge to look good in a tux the next time they go to the opera. They are doing it so they can beat you up, rape you, and/or kill you.

Lest you think I’m slanting the numbers unfairly against the women, consider this: the woman who set the 2000 record in the 198 pound, CERTIFIED DRUG-FREE, bench-press made it up to only 265 pounds. That means that a top-tier, non-steroid using woman power lifter is arguably weaker than most guys who get a good workout at the gym 3 times a week.

What is the bottom line of all this? As a woman, you will NEVER close the gulf in raw physical power between you and the average male, let alone a larger-than-average or physically fit one. The fact of the matter is, the typical 60-pound dog is more dangerous to a man than an unarmed 120-pound woman.

The author has indulged in a dangerous, but comforting illusion in the place of coming to grips with uncomfortable reality. She rests somewhere between sad and contemptable.

[cuchulainn]

Small people (male or female) can learn to effectively defeat larger mass folks -- see Asian martial arts -- but a gun sure makes it a lot easier.

The obvious corollary to Tamara's comments: If the woman has the martial arts training to out-fight a bigger man, why the huge fear of him disarming her (whether of a gun that she warns against or the chemical spray that she advocates)?

[BigG]

Tamara you owe me a new keyboard. *wiping up spewed coffee from in and around the keys* :o

[Pilot]

Guys (and gals) its academia. She is just writing what her professors want to hear. And leave it to USA Today to print it. Morons.

[BigG]

...academia... The College of Modern Ostrich Behavior, prolly. :scrutiny: :barf:

[Partisan Ranger]

I get it....relying on a lucky punch to the throat or a kick to the crotch is less risky and safer than carrying a gun for self-defense.
:rolleyes:

Do the clocks melt in the world you inhabit?

[Tamara]

That's what really cracks me up about this woman's polemic. I'm bigger than your average male, and stronger, too (given the fact that most guys don't work out enough to make use of the natural advantage granted them by testosterone); I've studied, over the years, a double handful of various hand-to-hand combat techniques, and have, in honest-to-Wotan fistfights, made grown men cry. I still carry a gun(s). Why? Because all it takes is a male roughly my size who has stayed in shape and has any experience in bare-hand dustups, and *poof* mother nature has thrown the advantage in his court, simply because I don't take 'roids, while his body makes 'roids.

Don't tell Kimberly, though, because it might damage her new-found self-esteem.

[El Tejon]

Tamara, you make grown men cry just by posting those gun photos.:D

[Nightfall]

Bruce Lee and Jet Li combined couldn't take out an average shooter with a good firearm. A once a week course in punching a big red rubber man will not give you the ability to.

[dustind]

I believe there are only 73 cases of firearms being taken from someone a year. 63 of those are from police officers forced to open carry and grapple with bad guys. Why does she think that she will be one of the unlucky ten? 98% of the time the attacker will flee at the mere sight of a gun.

[CZ-75]

Some 18 year old punk took out three cops in Alabamastan over the weekend by getting a gun from one of them.

[Sean Smith]

Mindset is a funny thing. The nugget of truth in the half-digested ideological slag that makes up that article is that hardware (the gun) will not fix a software problem (the mindset). Unfortunately, her idea of developing the proper life-or-death mindset has about as much in common with The Book of Five Rings as it does with the secret recipe for making Coca-Cola. She clearly has not the slightest concept of the threat she is dealing with, her own innate capabilities, and the mismatch between the two that could needlessly get her killed.

And oddly enough, people with the proper mindset for the task have the proper tools to deal with it. Sure, it is "the carpenter and not the tools," but how many carpenters do you see using bal-peen hammers to do sledgehammer work? :rolleyes:

Speaking in general, this sort of thing has always baffled me. I'm a 6'2" male who works out regularly and used to be in the Army. I haven't been in fear of physical violence for who knows how long. For me, guns are mostly for fun, but I still like the idea of having a proper weapon when I need it. Because even a cursory study of violent criminals reveals that:

a. Some of those guys are farging huge.
b. Most of those guys will have SOMETHING... even a big stick will give them an advantage over your bare hands.
c. There is often more than one of them to deal with at a time.
d. Many of them are so doped up that they won't stop just because you've broken a couple of their bones.

So the idea that a 5'2" tall woman could live in the same world and think they are prepared to deal with its threats by learning how to drop an f-bomb and quirt stuff I put on my tacos in a thug's face is really, really wierd to me. :scrutiny:

[Trisha]

Kimberly has "street smarts?"

For real? Wow! Do they come in fashionable colors, you know like all those bandanas I see being worn in ethnic neighborhoods? Is there an educational cd I can listen to, you know, with all the 'right' music to listen to in some of those really scary streets?

I'm so relieved to know that someplace really, like, sensible, the University of Davis - they're up on all this, right? They even let professors with dope convictions teach there - I bet they all have "street smarts" too!

((sigh))

Normal people rule the world. . . and yet some look askance at me?

[StLGlocker]

I think Charlotte Johnson feels fairly secure.
http://www.thestarpress.com/tsp/news/local/03/jun/0606shootingsnews.php

[Monkeyleg]

Tamara, I have to ask a serious question: are you as nimble on your feet in verbal discusssions as you are in written ones? If so, you should really get yourself out on the talk show circuit. You can decimate a foe like no one I've ever seen.

[OEF_VET]

Tamara, way to make a point. You rule!

I'm so glad my fiancee thinks like you do, and she was born and raised in Illinois. Granted, it was Southern Illinois, and her dad is a strongly pro-gun, police firearms instructor and lawyer, but Illinois nonetheless. We've had several discussions about the rather idiotic argument that a woman with a gun is just going to lose it to her attacker who will then turn it on her. Her response generally goes something along the lines of "Like hell!" I'm so glad she sees the light and realizes that if an attacker can get a gun away from you, no cell phone or no amount of martial artistry will help either.

It boggles my mind to realize that these sheeple actually believe that a woman incapable of retaining her gun from someone will be able to bare-handedly hold off an attack long enough to call the cops and then wait for them to show up. How do these sheeple get so dumb? Is it in the bottled water they drink? Or the tofu, soy, no harmed animal, 'food' they eat?

Frank

[Betty]

I'm such a whopping huge gal that taking on a 6' 280 pound man would be like a bug on a windshield.

That's why I carry a gun. A big one. And another gun. And I learned how to use them. :scrutiny:

[Idaho]

While I agree with all the above posts, the author of the original does make one legitimate point, albeit obliquely: a gun is not a magic talisman. Some people (men and women both) think that the mere fact of owning a gun is sufficient. You all know that it is not - it takes both the gun and the training to be effective. So, if the choice is presented between a woman buying a revolver, dropping in 5 rounds and putting it in the nightstand, versus a woman going to martial arts classes regularly and maintaining situational awareness - well, I would probably say that the second choice is the stronger one. Obviously the best choice would be to have a gun and train with that, but we all know there are people out there that own a gun who barely know what end is the pointy end.

[Solinvictus70]

There is one word that discribes the woman who wrote the op-ed piece: victim.

[BigG]

In fairness, it all depends on the mindset. You can't want something for someone more than they want it for themselves. I see people ask "what kinda gun should I get for my girlfriend?", etc. Unless THAT person has decided that the gun is the answer for them, it could prove a liability to them. It sure ain't going to prove a help to somebody who believes that hurting a fly is wrong or that a gun just frankly scares the hell outa them. Just my two sense.

[NukemJim]

Tamara, Most excellent response.

dustind:

I believe there are only 73 cases of firearms being taken from someone a year. 63 of those are from police officers forced to open carry and grapple with bad guys. Why does she think that she will be one of the unlucky ten?


The theme of having the gun taken away from a nonLEO is a commonly used argument against CCW. I have been trying to find a reference for this type of number . dustind can you help with a source please? :)

Thank you

NukemJim

[sm]

The author wouldn't know common sense if it jumped up and bit her on the arse, she'd probably turn the other cheek.

Tamara -way to go. :D

Interesting Idea about Tamara, Runt's, Trisha...and I can add others like pax...gathered together for an interview would be great. Even a column from time to time.

[citizen]

What a Speaking Tour THAT would be!!!!!!!!:what: :what: :what:


(Oh; to be their agent!......:eek: )

[Duncan Idaho]

"Guns can be taken away..."Then take them back.

[bogie]

I'm such a whopping huge gal that taking on a 6' 280 pound man would be like a bug on a windshield.

Runt, if you EVER decide that you wanna spar with this 6'2" 280 pounder, there's a couple of conditions.

1. You get searched and relieved of hardware.

2. You get searched again, to get what was missed the first time...

3. I get to wear a cup. And padding. And have an EMT standing by...

Someone oughta talk sense to that girl.

[Harold Mayo]

I really need to take up journalism. If a woman with HER intelligence can get a piece like that published, I should be on my way to a Pulitzer in no time at all.

I simply MUST repeat what others have said:

If you can't keep your gun from being taken away, how on earth are you going to beat the same person in an unarmed fight?

A simple self-defense course gives you the abililty to beat up someone who is used to violence as a way of life? How stupid is that?

GUNS give a false sense of security? How about your little self-defense course giving a false sense of security?

Let's see...let's assume that I want to rape and/or rob and/or murder this lady. Will I hesitate if she pulls a gun? Hell, yes! Will I try and take it? I doubt it. If she acts like she's going to put up a little bit of a physical fight, am I going to hesitate? Only to laugh! Hell, the feistier, the better!

A man willing to do violence in that way is no stranger to it. He's had more experience and has more will to do violence than some grad student who has had a self-defense course and strong, experienced adult males are probably going to be on even terms with him in terms of an unarmed fight. A woman with a self-defense course? I feel sorry for her.

Street smarts? I don't think that she has any.

[redhead]

When someone tells me that some bad guy just might take my gun away from me, I tell them that if that happens, then I let them get TOO D___ CLOSE!!! :rolleyes:

[CMichael]

It's hard to say anything that hasn't already been said.

I have a wee bit of training in martial arts.

There is a much different mindset from practicing "moves" in a class and the rage involved in a true fight.

Also the bad guy has an advantage. He gets up in the morning, closes his briefcase, and goes out and mugs people. Most honest citizens don't have this type of experience.

Women also have that physical body strength disadvantage.

The only real chance a woman has once violence is started is a gun or hopefully a way to deter the violence.

[gunsmith]

but those guys can never ever grab a cell phone, and how many 78yr old ladies are going to take martial arts??? :cuss: :fire: :rolleyes:

[CasualShooter]

Kimberly Shearer Palmer is a graduate student at the University of Chicago. :uhoh: Suprise??! :rolleyes:

It's sad that so many young minds continue to be filled with so much cr_p by faculties with liberal bias at these universities. Ms Palmer, and those whom she may in turn influence by her writings, are being setup for a rather rude awakening if she/they should encounter attackers in the real world.:banghead:

Tamara -- good rebuttal. I hope you are submitting your comments for publication in other media as well as this Board. Have you considered submitting an article presenting an oposing view to USA Today? I hope so. Women with the ability to think should not let the air heads continue to dominate the mass media with such illogical tripe without challenge.

[MAKOwner]

That has to be the most illogical piece of crap article I've ever seen. Not because she disagrees with me, but because it's 100% completely illogical. So the gun is false security, but her inept "self defense" gyrations that she learned in 5 minutes are now apparently world beating martial art skills??? Give me a freakin break.... She's now confident to walk the streets with her newfound street smarts and defense skills? She is overjoyed in her newfound power??? Talk about a false sense of security.... Sure that is good stuff to know, and street smarts and awareness are extremely important. But take that stuff along with the gun and she is now indeed much safer. This idiot is in la-la land for crying out loud...

[mattd]

Anti Gun Letters often start out with a story if you havn't noticed.

I would never shoot let alone fight another family member. If you shoot a family member, you got family problems, not a gun problem.

[TekChef]

This gal sounds like a front of the house food server I work with.

She is a "barbie" type...she has the bleached blonde hair, blue eyes, etc.

I asked her once how she would defend herself , as her type is a MASSIVE target to the rape inclined. She knows I own firearms, and I love to shoot..
soo what does she say?
She talks about how guns are not necessary and how she has attiained a high level of skill in a martial art over years of study.

I give her kudos for stuyding the marital arts...it's always good to know hand to hand in case a attacker does get that close, and you have to fend them off/stun them, etc

She said she would never need a gun..then I proposed the following to her-
what if her attacker was a CAREER rapist/thug who has MUCH more of a reach then she does, more power, and has done much streeet brawling.
OR let's say this man had a few lines of coke before hand.

She went off about how she would fight him off...RIIIIGHT.
Tamara said it best...even with years of hand to hand, unless you hve great experince fighting, it is only going to take one person bigger, stronger and more experienced to take you down fast.

Said attacker might just ignore that kick, trip her up and have his way with her in seconds. OR not feel it in the case of the drugs.


Best choice?
Learn both hand to hand and firearms use...TRAIN TRAIN TRAIN...and hope you NEVER have to use it.

[mattd]

I hate when women say they kicked guys asses, but they just never fought a guy who will fight back.

I was watching the man show, and they have a thing called the wheel of destiny, a man hair dresser, small guy, won a fight with a professional women boxer, and he was keeping up pretty good tell the end when he got caught against the ropes. I think if it would of been a guy a little bigger and not a sissy and a decent fighter he would of won if he wanted to.

They also had a bit called strip basketball with 2 juggies former college basketball player, looked like it wasn't rigged and Jimmy and Adam still won by a few points.

Point being, Men are better (or alot better) at some things than women because they are born male.

[GSB]

how many 78yr old ladies are going to take martial arts???

Good point. The same applies to men. We're not all going to be Jack Lalane at age 80.

[Guy B. Meredith]

Can we get Tamara's educational notes off to that moron?