Duchess Elina has graciously given a rebuttal to our Philosophy along with some other words of wisdom. For ease of reading all the words that are indented are the original text from the SwordMaiden.com philosophy.
I too have noticed that some people use the book as an excuse, and when I lecture, I do my utmost to show it as a tool, not an excuse. It is, I’m afraid one of those things that has taken a life of it’s own.
As for areas that you disagree with the book, I don’t think we disagree at all. For instance:
“Stance. While the sword foot forward stance may be a good position for women fighters, you have to realize that you have to be able to throw a good shot with whatever foot is forward. There is no way in the heat of a quick battle that you can always revert to your sword foot forward stance. You have to be able to switch.”
I agree completely, unfortunately I only allude to it on pages 48, 52 and 54, instead of coming out and saying so. In the lecture I do highlight this that every fighter will eventually need every stance. In the book I only point out that this is usually an easier one for a woman to *start* with.
“Blows. There is no such thing as a ‘woman’s blow’ versus a ‘man’s blow’. A woman can throw any blow a man can and vice versa. The only reason you can’t throw a specific blow is because of how your body is setup, not because of your gender.”
Absolutely correct. I don’t think I ever say that there are male and female blows. I do point out that some will likely be easier for her than others (the pure strength shot is always a low percentage one for me, like most women, likewise my husband does not land the one that bends the wrist in a peculiar manner as well as I do).
“The 5 Hurdles. Elina never says that the hurdles apply to all women, but it seems that in practice everybody assumes that all women go through these hurdles. This is not true, there are many women who don’t have these hurdles at all”
Absolutely! and I say so specifically on page 74. I do highlight this more in the lecture, since you are not the only one to point this out.
“Lizard Brain. The lizard brain allows you to externalize some of your internal mental attributes. If people used this as a tool to overcome their shortcomings, this would be an excellent method of dealing with a problem. But what we have observed with some of the people who use the Armored Rose concept is that the ‘lizard brain’ allows the externalization and denial of responsibility (”I’m not to blame; it is Society’s fault for conditioning me this way.”), as opposed to the acceptance of responsibility for your own actions.”
I’ve noticed that *some* do this also, certainly not everyone who uses the ‘Armored Rose concept’, even though it is specifically brought out in the book as a tool for externalization and overcoming rather than an excuse. As I said, you really can’t control what others interpret.
I’ve tried to emphasis in the lecture the points you raised above, as they do not seem to be clear enough in the book, and in the next edition I will find some way to highlight them.
