misguided idea that men and women are equil. yet even the government now admits we are not

"The government" (a vague citation -- which government, and what documented policy?) is not an unassailable moral compass. "The government" once held that slavery was acceptable and that women and minorities couldn't vote. Government policies evolve over time.

Also, being "equal" under the law does not imply being "identical" biologically.

nothing more that [sic] a losers excuse to beat a woman

Since when is SCA combat "beating" the opponent? I fight both men and women in the SCA. We don't "beat" each other -- we contend with one another in a mutually-enjoyable contest of skill. Is it wrong in your opinion to play chess against a woman? How about tennis? How about tackle football? I have listed several items in order of increasing "violence", starting with chess which has zero contact, tennis in which the woman could be struck by a ball you hit, and football wherein you deliberately block or tackle against the opponent. Where do you draw the line? How would you react if someone else said it's unchivalrous to play chess against a woman because you might damage her self-esteem? This is ridiculous.

SCA combat, when practiced responsibly, is no more violent than tackle football. If you are "beating" your opponent -- male or female -- then you are hitting too hard. That has nothing to do with gender.

I would never, ever, EVER strike a woman in anger (or anyone, except in self defense or to protect a loved one). On the other hand, I have enough respect for my female opponents on the list field, that I regard them as my equals.

Women on the list field are adults, with thinking minds and trained bodies. They are on the list field because they voluntarily choose to be there, just as I do. They are facing me because they want to test their skill against mine, and allow me to test my skill against theirs. No one is getting hurt. Both of us are having an enjoyable day, getting a good cardiac workout, and making new friends. The warriors I fight -- be they male or female -- deserve and expect that I will do my best against them. (I do make an exception when training a brand-new fighter, but that exception is based on their novice status and the fact that they are not yet able to fully defend themselves. I treat men and women the same in this regard.)

I know plenty of women -- and men -- who do not wish to put on armour and be struck by rattan. They simply don't choose to become fighters. No one is being forced into armour to be "beaten" by someone else.

I fully acknowledge your personal right not to fight women, even though I do not understand your rationale. Corpora says that no SCA combatant can be forced to face another combatant. But to imply that anyone who chooses to meet women as equals on the field of honor is somehow a violent woman-beater is completely wrong.

Chivalry does not mean protecting women; it means protecting the weak. The women who put on armour in the SCA are strong, skilled, and capable. They do not need my protection. They deserve, and will always receive, my respect as an equal.

Justin

I've had a lot of problem at first with the local group who simply would not shut up and drop the subject. It got so bad that I finally had to go to the State human rights commission to inquire about the subject. And according to the commission, under the rule of law when anybody says the word no then that's the end of it. Because no means no and it doesn't matter if it's a man saying it, or if it's a woman saying it, when somebody says no that's the end of it. There is no further debate, there is no further discussion, and if people don't shut up about it, it constitutes an act of hostile environment sexual-harassment. In fact, the State human rights commission has already informed me, since everything is fully documented in writing by way of e-mail, that I do in fact have a valid complaint and have had for several months. So far I've chosen not to take any action because there is a one-year statute of limitations on filing a complaint with the commission or a two-year statute of limitations on bringing a civil action. It's like this, I don't have to explain anything, and I'm not going to. People can question me about it here online or anywhere away from any SCA event, or monthly business meeting of the local group, or any practice session, then I will talk to them about it. But if it's ever brought up again at any event or business meeting or practice session then there will be hell to pay. And somebody's actually try to make the excuse that since their volunteers with a nonprofit organization that they are exempt from sexual harassment law, but when the state commissioner read that she practically fell out of her chair. Because it's not true. Anybody can ask me anything about the subject anytime they want so long as it is not at any SCA event of any kind, and so long as nobody attempts any act of retaliation which is forbidden under state and federal law. Kenny