Are Women Doomed on the Street?

[KickChick]

I've received permission from Fran Joseph to post her article here on MAP here in this forum ... many thanks to you Fran ! :)


Are Women Doomed on the Street?

By Fran Joseph [Fran Joseph has been training in martial arts since the age of seven. She holds black belts in hwarang do and taekwondo.She is a Senior Instructor of Jeet Kune Do and Eskrima/Kali & an expert in nunchuku, (which she taught to "DRAGON" star, Jason Scott Lee), Fran has choreographed fight scenes for several major films along with her partner, Jerry poteet. She also works with various law enforcement agencies. ]

The following article originally appeared in Real Fighting Issue #6

Imagine a tennis player judging the power and accuracy of her serve solely by its form. Visualize a volleyball player sharpening her "spiking" skill by hitting only air. Also finally, picture a pole-vaulter competing in today's event while refusing to use a fiberglass pole? Ridiculous; you say? As farfetched as the above scenario may sound, many women martial artists, unlike their female counterparts in other sports, have not availed themselves of modem training methods. Instead, they are still relying on so-called "traditional" training methods that are all-but obsolete when applied to sell-defense situations on today's urban streets.

What's wrong with tradition? Nothing at all, as long as we distinguish between stylized forms of kicking and punching, with their emphasis on pre-arranged or choreographed kata, and combat-oriented martial arts that stress actual contact over aesthetic or ceremonial considerations. Furthermore, most classical martial arts have a preponderance of "passive" blocking movements that women can ill afford to use against much larger, stronger opponents when precious seconds can mean the difference between life and death. So we can further distinguish between "blocking-type" martial arts regimes, and hitting, or "striking-type" martial arts training.

At this point, it should be understood that we are not discussing "this" style versus "that" style, but rather, evaluating a methodology of training. This approach to training has an underlying premise: All martial arts training should parallel actual combat as closely as possible. With this premise in mind, we now have a checklist with which to analyze whatever martial art we are presently studying, so we can be confident our training is truly applicable for someone of relatively small stature in realistic fighting.

Women's martial arts study must incorporate impact-training from the inception of the program. After all, how else can you know? How hard you kick and punch unless you are making solid contact with something? Impact training can be broken down into three progressive stages. At the first stage of training, the practitioner develops power by striking (or kicking) stationary targets, be it a focus glove, air shield, heavy bag, etc. which will also acquaint her with her own reach (distance) and body mechanics.

The second phase of impact training requires the female martial artist to hit moving targets, such as the top and bottom bag, air shields, focus gloves, Thai pads, etc., which an alert coach or training partner can move randomly at a variety of angles, thereby compelling the student to deliver strikes while moving. Unlike the performance of forms, nothing in this stage of training is pre-arranged, since the coach moves her targets in an unpredictable manner. This phase not only enhances mobility and precision, but also acquaints her with the attribute of timing, since the targets are constantly moving. The third phase of impact training is the unrestricted force brought to bear on an "opponent" who a wearing full body armor. This is not a self-defense mode of training, because the partner wearing the protective gear will not cooperate, but rather be hitting, kicking, and striking you as well. The "assailant" is not a model "mugger," but an aggressive adversary changing the combat ranges with no consistent pattern of attack.

This brings up another item on our checklist of combat-oriented training; a method of training that encompasses all four ranges of combat. How often has a well-meaning male martial arts instructor encouraged female students to develop their kicks since the "legs are much stronger than the hands?" Yet, statistics show that most assaults on women occur in the "in-fighting," or close-quarter range of combat. While back-spinning kicks may-be beautiful in the gym, it is unlikely that you will have time to even launch any kick, since the range of combat closes in less than one-tenth of a second. To restrict oneself to a martial arts method that emphasizes long-range kicking is to limit one's coping abilities in the other ranges of a violent confrontation.

So important is this in-fighting range for women that it is imperative we have the necessary "tools" to deal with aggression in this "war zone." Strikes that convey the most damage in the shortest time must be perfected. This means hitting, and not blocking, on the first move. Since no referee will say, "break" when the combat range closes, women must launch damaging shockers so that the assailant cannot continue his attack. (This concept eliminates most restraining-type arts that were developed when professional warriors were clad in armor, thus prohibiting striking or kicking of any sort.)

Some of the most efficient (if not artistically pleasing) strikes are: the finger jab, which should be cultivated on something harder than a pillow since you will likely run into facial bone. (You can build up to striking padded diving goggles by starting to finger jab your shower curtain.); elbows, knees and headbutts can be perfected on focus gloves or Thai pads; low kicks (below the waist) should be directed to the groin, knees, femur bone, or shins and can be practiced on a partner wearing shin guards or long "banana bags."

Now that we have discussed impact training and range familliarity, let's examine another cornerstone of combat-ready martial arts training - contact conditioning. This is the phase pf training that most women (including myself) would rather avoid. Contact conditioning is the progressive and controlled willingness to absorb impact, and can only be obtained by a willingness to don gloves and headgear and "go for it" Taking a punch is critical, because women have not had the exposure to full-contact sports, such as football, in which most men have participated. This is not an endorsement of two partners standing toe-to-toe and "duking it out," but enough conditioning in your martial arts training that will allow you to continue past the shock of pain and impact in a real encounter.

While we are on the subject of conditioning, you must realize that you are much more likely to be struck by a jab or hook on the street than a sidekick or ridge-hand. A familiarity with basic boxing will let you feel confident in effectively dealing with it Rest assured that there is nothing unfeminine about women who can deliver jabs, crosses, hooks and uppercuts with explosive power. Once again, however, it is important that after you master the basic mechanics, you attempt to execute these strikes while someone is trying to hit you back. After all, it's very different shooting a handgun at a target range under ideal conditions than it is attempting to shoot with accuracy when someone is firing back at you. Familiarity with boxing will help to "demystify" realms of combat that until recently were reserved for men.

Our checklist would not be complete unless we mention two other items. It would be ludicrous to imagine a running back in football refusing to be tackled by anyone except those of his own height and weight. Yet, when women train exclusively with other women, that is exactly what they are doing. Women must experience the aggressive energy and greater strength of men in their martial arts training regimen, or else, like the runner, they will not develop the evasiveness and resilience necessary to compete. Like the professional athlete, female martial artists must take advantage of supplemental training, along with practicing just technique.

What female tennis player could hope to compete even at an amateur level without some sort of weight training program? Supplemental training (weights, conditioning, etc.) will not replace skill of movement, but will surely enhance it. Merely looking smooth, flexible and yelling while delivering a kick or strike is not enough to make it powerful. Once again, the female martial artist could do well to observe the training programs of professionals athletes, who do not rely on sheer repetition of movement to increase skill, but rather supplemental training regimens to develop "attributes" necessary for their particular sport.

Finally, a martial arts program that does not include weapons training is basically incomplete in preparing the female practitioner for street combat. No matter how diligently a woman trains, she is at a disadvantage when facing a much larger, stronger assailant, let alone multiple attackers. The ability and willingness to use a knife, stick, or other weapon will give the female martial artist an "equalizer." Just as the feudal samurai in Japan would never walk the streets without their sword, women in urban areas of the U.S. must likewise be armed and ready to protect themselves with their weapons of choice. Like empty-hand training, weapons training should emphasize hitting (cutting, stabbing), rather than blocking or wide, flowery movements that look beautiful in kata or forms, but have little or no application to combat.

Are we going to continue to pretend that the traditional methods of martial arts training are sufficient, or will we discover the hard way that our training regimens do not work against someone who is not a cooperating partner? Are we going to avail ourselves of a way that allows us to fight back?
Modem training methods will eliminate many of the unpleasant surprises that female martial artists would encounter in an actual confrontation. Ignorance on our part of modem martial arts training methods will only benefit our aggressors. So let's avail ourselves of innovative training techniques so that we have the power (and speed, coordination, conditioning, etc.) to fight back and win.

http://www.franjoseph.com

[Sgt_Major]

Great article. Good find KickChick

[Kwajman]

No matter how much training you have, women are almost always at a disadvantage in the street.

[shotokanwarrior]

What, even Sunshine Fettkether? Yaahh, come on. We are not so defenseless as to need extensive weapons training to survive if attacked. Tell that to Amanda Monti, for God's sake. I'm not saying this just to be obnoxious, I honestly find it incomprehensible that women are doomed unless they have a huge amount of training.

precious seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

Death?!

Fullcontact fighters have a hard time killing each other...yet any normal man can kill any normal woman?

Rest assured that there is nothing unfeminine about women who can deliver jabs, crosses, hooks and uppercuts with explosive power.

I'm unfeminine full stop (thin as a rake with no hips) so that doesn't affect me :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[KickChick]

We are not so defenseless as to need extensive weapons training to survive if attacked. I'm not saying this just to be obnoxious, I honestly find it incomprehensible that women are doomed unless they have a huge amount of training.


Really? .... we are not talking "extensive" and "huge" amount of training here SW.

Let's see untrained woman vs. trained woman surviving an attack....

Did you not even read this article.

Fran brings up some very good points that I would like to combine with the Womens Self Defense Course Guidelines thread.

Point #1 "to analyze whatever martial art we are presently studying, so we can be confident our training is truly applicable for someone of relatively small stature in realistic fighting."

Point #2 The necessity of contact conditioning ...." the progressive and controlled willingness to absorb impact" which not many women are comfortable with ... well, besides you & me possibly ;)

Point #3 "Women's martial arts study must incorporate impact-training from the inception of the program." ..... training in this area is crucial IMO

Point #4 "Strikes that convey the most damage in the shortest time must be perfected. This means hitting, and not blocking, on the first move."

Point #5 Training WITH men!!!

Point #6 "Like the professional athlete, female martial artists must take advantage of supplemental training, along with practicing just technique."
Aside from cross trainingwhenever possible .... if you're outta shape you can kiss your arse goodbye! Develop some physical strength and endurance

Point #7 Weapons training is indeed an asset .... besides knife and stick training, I also advise firearm training when applicable (age/area of country)

.... and last but not least the point of traditional martial arts training being sufficient enough to protect a woman on the street?

[Matt_Bernius]

Death?!

Fullcontact fighters have a hard time killing each other...yet any normal man can kill any normal woman?There are many fundemental differentiations between ring and street that we can't pass over. Perhaps the most important one in that in a ring fight/duel there is a consent by both parties to fight. In a self defense situation, even where there is verbal and emotional contact leading up to the physical confrontation, that dual consent may not be there. So only the attacker is coming out swinging. Additionally, a lot of the pro-fighter's ability to resist damage ties back to overall training. They're physically and mentally prepared to absorb and counter damage.

I'm not saying that the average Jane (or Joe) is a delicate flower. And most people take take a lot more than they realize. However, they're not used to it and losing initative and control of the situation, for even a moment, puts someone at a significant disadvantage. Said disadvantage needs to be made up quickly, and that's a lot of inertia to overcome to reach a point of domination in the confrontation. So I think the "second/life/death" statement is a good one.

As for the article, I dig it based on a quick read.

- Matt

[Rebel Wado]

Nice article... thanks for posting it KickChick.

[wrydolphin]

There's a lot of food for thought in this. Thanks for sharing it!

[spacepimp]

This articles not just for women....

[ubermint]

For the most part, the article is right. Full contact training, fighting in all three ranges, fighting with men, these are all good things.

I do disagree with the eyes and groin as primary targets.

And the "Life and death" part is a little cartoonish.

[oldshadow]

Good article KC. Most people underestimate the damage that a larger stronger person can do to a smaller person. If you look at the cases where a female was struck by a larger male one or most likely repeatedly you get the idea of what type of damage can be done in a short time. This however does not mean that this only happen to females. We had a recent case here where a guy was killed when he was struck and went out on his feet. Hitting the pavement with his head did him no good. This does not mean a female can not defend herself (or a guy for that matter) you just must have a realistic view of what that means and train for it.

[gedhab]

What, even Sunshine Fettkether? Yaahh, come on. We are not so defenseless as to need extensive weapons training to survive if attacked. Tell that to Amanda Monti, for God's sake. I'm not saying this just to be obnoxious, I honestly find it incomprehensible that women are doomed unless they have a huge amount of training.



Death?!

Fullcontact fighters have a hard time killing each other...yet any normal man can kill any normal woman?



I'm unfeminine full stop (thin as a rake with no hips) so that doesn't affect me :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

You have to consider the majority, not the extremely talented few.

[Kwajman]

I think a trained woman would actually have an advantage over a mugger. The element of surprise when she clocks him one would be greatly on her side.

[Shantari]

i think not.......did you ever watch that jackass episode where that Muay Thai chick kicked that one dudes ass. Im just saying that the average stalker/mugger doesn't practice MA's, but might be more street oriented, but thats not to say a well trained Woman can't defend her self

[Matt_Bernius]

I do disagree with the eyes and groin as primary targets.Why might I ask? I think, as long as those are taught to not be cure alls they make a lot of sense. Especially the eyes. My broader objection is to the idea of finger strikes. A raking motion across the eyes is equally effective, especially considering how easy it is to scratch a cornea, and a much lower risk technique. It can also be easily integrated into a palm strike scenario.

As far as the groin, while no one should rely on a groin strike as their only line of defense, it's still useful. Especially in cases when that's one of a flurry of techniques. While a blow to the groin should never be considered enough to put someone down, it may be enough to help create a pause or loosen a grip enough to buy time or extra hits.

What would you propose as primary targets?

- Matt

[Shantari]

crotch grabbing could be effective, hairpulling, nose picking, all those cat fighting techniques.

[Xian]

Many Chinese families have their children train from a very young age in martial arts, so I have a friend who is a young Chinese woman who has completed the Eagle Claw and Wing Chun systems of combat (and now teaches them in Singapore). She is currently studying Russian Systema and she had an interesting comment about womens' self defence:

"I am of slight build, barely over one hundred pounds, and I can't compete with the strength of Mironov (her Systema teacher), nor can I cover as much groundly as quickly as he. My defense is weaker than his offense and my reach and ability to grapple are inferior. However, I possess several advantages and methods by which I may succeed. First: the finger jab to the eyes. My elongated fingers are my furthest reaching weapon, save my knife, and they give me an extra inch and a half to strike a target. They can also strike a small target such as the eyes, or attack the shoulder pressure point, leading into an elbow. Secondly: the Eagle Claw, as long as I attack with precision, the Eagle Claw is a fighting ending tool. Grabbing the throat or the ear, or grabbing weak spots along the arm and a few other applications ends a fight very quickly. I can't use it for all of the uses a man could, because I'm not strong enough physically to make it a controlling device. Third: Low kicks. A kick that makes a ninety degree angle out of your two legs is the longest range my body will ever reach, and it does it quickly and effectively. Against some opponents it will hit them in the gut, for some it can even be turned into a groin strike. Kicks below that, to the thigh and to the knee usually, are also very effective. The lack the reach of a straight side kick, but can be executed very quickly and with very good results. I do not favor many Eagle Claw style high kicks because against many opponents they won't be high enough to effectively and quickly reach their head, also, they require that I limit myself to a shorter range using a slower attack.
Women like myself can also use our slighter build to make ourselves harder to hit, when I stand in a fighting stance I will make a smaller profile than many men, and it's easier for me to make small adjusting movements. the System's shifting motions are ideal for me at my size and can allow me to make any number of knife strikes or other attacks."

[ubermint]

Why might I ask? I think, as long as those are taught to not be cure alls they make a lot of sense. Especially the eyes. My broader objection is to the idea of finger strikes. A raking motion across the eyes is equally effective, especially considering how easy it is to scratch a cornea, and a much lower risk technique. It can also be easily integrated into a palm strike scenario.

Primary target implies that it is the first thing a student learns.

1:The eyes are a small target, not easily struck or even raked.

2: Gouging the eyes is hard to do without the ability to grapple (you are trying to hold onto a moving target). Pulling the wrist is a natural reaction, and from there your wrist can be pushed to the ground. As a defense against mount, it's moronic.

3: He may be wearing glasses. He may simply blink or close his eyes, and if you've already gotten to clinch or ground (which is pretty damn likely for women), you don't need to see to continue fighting at that range. Even the cornes thing is unworkable with contacts.

4: Does everything in WSD have to have "scenario" at the end of it?


As far as the groin, while no one should rely on a groin strike as their only line of defense, it's still useful. Especially in cases when that's one of a flurry of techniques. While a blow to the groin should never be considered enough to put someone down, it may be enough to help create a pause or loosen a grip enough to buy time or extra hits.

1: Expecting a soccer mom to outstrike a rapist with a "flurry of hits" is asking for failure. Unless the woman has invested signifigant time in learning to strike powerfully(read: muay thai, boxing) the rapist is tougher, he hits harder.

2: Men instinctively protect their groins. We're taught it from an early age, it's reinforced in movies etc. Any women's self defense book will show it, and I would expect many would-be rapists have seen such books.

3: Most importantly, it's pain based. Some people will respond to pain. Some won't.


What would you propose as primary targets?

- Matt

If we're talking about women, I doubt the ability of a woman with only a few weeks training to outstrike a man.
However, if I were teaching a specific striking program (hypothetically, since i'm not a ranked thai boxer), It would be much the same as anyone else:
Primarily the jaw (proven for KOs), the rest of the face, the thighs, possibly the back of the neck if she's gotten good at clinchwork. After those are well ingrained, maybe we'll start with body blows, ribs, liver, etc.

[Capt Ann]

crotch grabbing could be effective, hairpulling, nose picking, all those cat fighting techniques.
Nosepicking??

Eeeeeeeeeewwwwwww!!

[Matt_Bernius]

Uber,

Couple counters. One of the key lessons to first impart in Women's self defense is the need to maintain distance at all times. The more distance, in most cases, the more you are safe. However, if the situation has escalated to physical encroachment then, like it or not things are going to be escalating in close, and sometimes the best path for the defender is literally through the attacker. At that point, people need to be used to close quarter combat.

As far as the rakes, we're going to need to disagree. From my experience and review of training material, they're not that hard to do or teach. Even with eyes closed, the sensation of having fingers run over the eyes is disorientating. If it causes glasses to come off, even better. Again, I'm talking raking as a component of striking rather than gouging.

Now as far as the issue of outstriking your opponent, that's an over complication. Again, I'll fall back on the police profile data that suggests that most attackers are afraid of two things:
1. getting hurt
2. getting caught
A flurry of targeted resistance can be enough to prevent an attack from going forward. Or enough to build escape space. The last thing people expect is for a victim to go towards the attacker (in fact, there are branches of tactical Kali that base their "oh crap" knife defense on literally running over the attacker).

As far as the male protection of the groin. that isn't a bad thing, because to cover one area you open another up. Hence why I specified FLURRY.

As and far as scenario, it's a solid place to start. The fact is that things can be reduced to a couple major scenarios. If you have limited time to train, you play the averages first and then scale out. And before anyone calls me on that idea, the fact is that's how all fighting arts work. It's just self defense programs tend to be a bit more explicit about it.

- Matt

[megk]

KC, Great article! I totally agree that women need to start getting hit. I train with some women that won't spar with full gear because they are afraid of getting hit. The only way to overcome this fear is to take a blow and see that we are tougher then we think. It builds our confidence, plus if we ever are in a real situation we hopefully won't freak out and crumple into a crying heap when our atacker gets a blow in on us.

Oh, and I where acrylic nails, so even if the guys eyes are closed tightly, I am still going to do some damage when I jam my fingers in his eyes or rack them across his face.

[barkercat]

I agreed with most of what you had to say on this topic, except one thing. Advocating the training of, and use, of knife work. Saying things "like women in urban areas of the U.S must likewise be armed and ready to protect themselves with their weapons of choice" and then talking about training to stab and cut is downright irresponsible from a legal standpoint.

What happens if while "defending" herself the other person dies. Arguing self defence may not be such a slam dunk as one may think, just because a man attacks a woman. Were there any witnesses? And what happens if the person doesn't have a knife and you kill him? What if he does? The police would likely view that as a fair fight, especially if the woman is trained to use a knife. What about the fact that carrying concealed weapons is illegal in most states. It is in Canada where I live.

What about the psychological impact of taking a life? The emotional ramifications can scar a person for the rest of their lives.

You would be wiser to stress how to avoid confrontations and disarming techniques, rather than advocating carrying knives and other weapons to defend oneself.

What say the rest of you out there in the martial arts world?

[wrydolphin]

In the US, realistically, if evidence can prove that a woman was attacked and she can reasonably prove that she was in fear of her life, then she should be ok legally. The system is more likely to judge in her favor.
What about the psychological impact of being attacked, raped, brutalized and left for dead? That's a double edged sword that I am afraid I am unable to answer to anyone's complete happiness I am afraid. Truthfully, I would rather be able to regret taking a life then being dead myself. But that's just me, its different for everyone, male or female.
I would hate to try to disarm someone armed with a knife. The damage would be pretty substantial.
Anyone else have thoughts?

[Rebel Wado]

I agreed with most of what you had to say on this topic, except one thing. Advocating the training of, and use, of knife work. Saying things "like women in urban areas of the U.S must likewise be armed and ready to protect themselves with their weapons of choice" and then talking about training to stab and cut is downright irresponsible from a legal standpoint.

What happens if while "defending" herself the other person dies. Arguing self defence may not be such a slam dunk as one may think, just because a man attacks a woman. Were there any witnesses? And what happens if the person doesn't have a knife and you kill him? What if he does? The police would likely view that as a fair fight, especially if the woman is trained to use a knife. What about the fact that carrying concealed weapons is illegal in most states. It is in Canada where I live.

What about the psychological impact of taking a life? The emotional ramifications can scar a person for the rest of their lives.

You would be wiser to stress how to avoid confrontations and disarming techniques, rather than advocating carrying knives and other weapons to defend oneself.

What say the rest of you out there in the martial arts world?

Knives are considered lethal force. It is better to be trained in lethal force so you can be more responsible, than to stick your head in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

I'm not advocating carrying or use of lethal force, but as an option, I advocate using it responsibly. Know the laws, know how to use it, know how to carry it and store it safely, and ACT RESPONSIBLY.

If I recall correctly, and my memory may not be correct with all the details, but I had a friend about fifteen years ago, she was followed down a street and attacked. She had a folder (knife) and cut the attacker on the arms, he let go which gave her time to pull out her pepper spray and use it on the SECOND attacker that was coming in because she fended off the first attacker. Okay, my memory is really going on this one. Anyway, she got in trouble because she did not know the local laws where she was travelling which did not allow her knife to be carried. She spent a night in jail, got the knife taken away and a slap on the hand. Then she was let go and the two attackers went to prison.

If local laws allow you to carry a weapon like a small folder or pepper spray, I recomend you learn how to use them responsibly. It gives you more options, just be aware the weapon only helps you if it is in your hands ready to go, so don't depend on weapons.

How can someone be responsible with weapons if they know nothing about how to use them properly and nothing about the local laws?

[Matt_Bernius]

The arguement about whether or not to deploy deadly force is a difficult one. However I always think of Ed Parker's maxim:

Better to be judged by tweleve than carried by six

The fact is anyone concerned with self defense should be prepared to do what ever it takes to get home safely.

- Matt

[spooky]

crotch grabbing could be effective, hairpulling, nose picking, all those cat fighting techniques. Nose picking?Ya what if they have really long noses hairs?What would be the defence aginist this? :rolleyes: :D

[KickChick]

The fact is anyone concerned with self defense should be prepared to do what ever it takes to get home safely.

- Matt

Absolutely ! Key point ....

Also a woman may not in fact be carrying such a weapon on her person, but say she manages to dislodge the weapon from her attacker (however this may happen... I have read about certain cases where the woman was hesitant in using the weapon due to the fact that they never held or even used a weapon before!)

Weapons training (aside from learning application) will dispel the fear that surrounds it.

Weapons training also heightens awareness skills. Having a weapon coming at you, be it a stick or sword does help to encourage you to pay close attention to your opponent.

[tellner]

No matter how much training you have, women are almost always at a disadvantage in the street.
That depends very much on what mean by "the street". No, this isn't the Clinton impeachment hearings. It's the vital but seldom asked First Question in Engineering(tm): What problem are you trying to solve?

First, let's deal with the obvious things. Men, on the average, have more lean muscle mass, more upper body strength, longer reach, greater overall size, more testosterone and better familiarity with violence and physical aggression than women do. And women have generally been taught to be deferential to men. Those are all advantages for men when it comes to standing there and beating the heck out of each other. No doubt about it.

A woman whose goal is to beat a man on those terms had better be darned good, a body-Nazi, or a few standard deviations above the mean on some physical attribute.

Now look at what we mean by doomed, disadvantage and the street. It's a question of goals, resources and situations.

A lot of people (mostly men) talk about "The Street" in a very vague way. Self defense is part of it. Unexplained fights in bars with other men are a big part of it. What amounts to duels in the urban outdoors are another part. There are flavors of military operations somewhere in there.

The goals can be pretty fuzzy, but if pressed (and I've spent a bit of informal research time pressing people on this) it's a combination of things.

For men, establishing dominance over other men in social situations can be a really big part of it. Beating down someone who disrespects you, winning a bar fight, showing some punk who's boss, impressing your girlfriend and winning arguments when they turn physical are all dominance things. Usually they involve breeding rights at some point.

Women do these things with violence, too. But it's not nearly as common, and it's most often with other women. The differences between the sexes aren't that important if the sexes aren't doing the same things with the same people. Women tend to use weapons and tactics more suited to what they tend to be better at.

There are professions which involve the use of force like police officer, CO, security guard, bouncer, mental health worker, soldier. In all of these being big, strong and able to pug are useful. But most of the time you're managing people. Psychology is at least as important as your fists if you want to live long enough to collect Social Security. And the goals are usually not to win a fight b ut to control a situation, often two different things. You have to be able to use force as needed. But fighting isn't all of the picture even there.

Women will have disadvantages in a lot of these jobs, but they have advantages as well. It's not clear how the scales will tip on that score. The more the profession involves weapons or people skills the less important the differences become.

Then there are sports. A kickboxing match, a K-1 fight, backyard boxing or an IDPA meet are all sporting events. They are designed to test different things, sometimes to amazing extremes. I only mention them because a lot of people use sporting events to show that women are doomed in "The Street" and use the sporting environment as a simulation of the real world.

There are a few important things to keep in mind about sporting events.

The first is symmetry. Everyone there has the same goal. The same standards define winning and losing for each of the competitors. Once the action starts the event goes until time runs out or someone wins according to the rules.

The second is that specific things are being tested. In a practical pistol match it's a matter of who can hit the target as accurately and quickly as possible in a given situation designed to combine things like speed, eye-hand coordination, use of cover, stamina, and the mastery of task-specific skills. Mixed Martial Arts shows who can make another person submit with a combination of size, strength, conditioning and skill at some combination of wrestling and kickboxing.

Sports rules and goals reward specific things. Change the sport and you'll find other people winning. Take the 100m hurdles. If it's a question of running and jumping over the hurdles Ethiopians will beat Apaches. If you have to crawl under the hurdles at night without anyone hearing you, well, that is a whole different matter. In sports designed around size, strength, raw speed and physical aggression (i.e. most of them) men will usually beat women, particularly at the highest levels.

This gets back to the fundamental question "What problem are you trying to solve?"

The reality is that what women have to deal with is mostly the threat of violent crime directed at them by men. Here's where questions of goals and symmetry come in.

The criminal wants to do a crime as quickly and with as little cost to himself as possible. He wants to select a good victim and take what he wants. If he's got some foresight he also wants to minimize the chances that someone will make pay him later.

The defender wants to prevent the situation from developing, stop it early, escape from it, make the criminal give up his attack, make it impossible for him to continue or convince him that the price he'll have to pay isn't worth what he hopes to gain. Any one of these counts as success. Very few of them involve standing up, folding one's hands into fists and beating the attacker into submission.

If the classic self defence first trio - prevention, avoidance and deterrence - have failed, there's still a lot of asymmetry in the resistance and aftermath parts of the program. A robber wants to rob. A rapist wants to rape. Killing or injuring may be involved, but they usually aren't the primary motivation.

A defender who does her level best to tear the criminal's head off and beat him to death with it has certain advantages in achieving her goal of not being raped or robbed. She might get labelled as crazy, usually with the classic b-word tacked onto the end, but it's precisely that and that unwillingness to conform to expectations that can lead her to victory despite her "obvious" disadvantages. What she wants and what he wants are two very different things.

Or consider the aftermath part of the process. We had a self defense student who stopped a big, strong college football player intent on rape. She is the sort of well brought up young Chinese woman who wouldn't say excrement if she had a mouthful of it. Very pleasant. Smiles a lot.

First, she stopped his initial physical attack. She was a little unclear on exactly how, which is not unusual. All that we could determine four days later was that she had bruises on her knuckles and elbows and finger marks on one side of her neck. Then she yelled and swore at him for what she later figures was a quarter to half an hour.

Why did she achieve what she wanted "on The Street"? First, he wanted a compliant victim who wouldn't object. He made a mistake in the victim selection progress. He fell back on using size and strength. She was willing to escalate further. Then he tried verbal intimidation, a belated attempt at seduction, appeals to guilt and a few other things. She made each of these, and the hope that he could later pretend that the whole thing was consensual impossible.

I can not be more specific without violating the terms of service of this forum as regards profane language.

If it had been a contest of who could out box the other she would have lost. But his goal was to commit a crime which required success at every step. Hers was to interrupt the process at any point by any means.

[tellner]

Really? .... we are not talking "extensive" and "huge" amount of training here SW.
...
Point #1 "to analyze whatever martial art we are presently studying, so we can be confident our training is truly applicable for someone of relatively small stature in realistic fighting."

A lot of training falls down here. Some of it because it relies too much on long term training, over-complicated technique, size or strength. Some of it fails on the confidence portion of the program. Many teachers stress humility and being peaceful. For a young guy with more testosterone than myelin that's probably a good thing. For a woman whose primary need is to be ready, willing and dangerous with someone whose first name she knows it can be just the wrong approach. The pseudo-militaristic dominance and submission games of a "traditional" dojo can start off teaching most women precisely the wrong lessons for what they need.


Point #2 The necessity of contact conditioning ...." the progressive and controlled willingness to absorb impact" which not many women are comfortable with ... well, besides you & me possibly ;)

A lot of people would be surprised at exactly how little of that it takes to make a big difference in outcomes. Even holding Thai pads for their classmates a few rounds every week for a couple months gets them used to being knocked around. In confrontation exercises at the end of the program it's often that first hostile contact that gets them to grow fangs and claws and get mammalian on the attacker. :D


Point #4 "Strikes that convey the most damage in the shortest time must be perfected. This means hitting, and not blocking, on the first move."

There's also an issue of economy of motion here. Most martial arts schools and too many self defense programs teach "Block then hit". That's two beats to his one. And the first one is reactive. It trains the student at some level to accept that the attacker is in control of the action.

My Silat teacher likes to say "If you block, you might block. If you hit, you've already blocked." It saves at least one beat and makes have to respond instead of controlling the action.


Point #5 Training WITH men!!!

I have to agree and disagree at the same time. Training with men is important at some point in the program. In the context of long-term practical combatives training it's vital. In the early stages of a self defense program it can be extremely counter productive. We can go into more depth on this if you are interested. For now, I'll just say that psychological and social issues often need to be dealt with first.

The old Colt Single Action Army used to have the following engraving:

"Be not afraid of any man,
No matter what his size.
When in danger, call on me.
And I will equalize." :woo:

[QUOTE].... and last but not least the point of traditional martial arts training being sufficient enough to protect a woman on the street?
Indeed. If by street you include "Your own home" - the most common site of violent crime against women.

[tellner]

This articles not just for women....
Indeed not.

[tellner]

Primary target implies that it is the first thing a student learns.
In all fairness it usually means "shots you should be conditioned to go for if you can get them." If you have a real chance to get a knee bar or naked choke the knee and the throat are primary targets, more than punching the forehead for instance. A lot of women starting a WSD program have no idea at all what to hit or grab.


4: Does everything in WSD have to have "scenario" at the end of it?

LA! The heavens open. The angel choirs sing. The Voice booms out "Give the man a cigar." :Angel:

My son, you have hit on the single biggest weakness in women's self defense training. Most of the really bad programs are designed around very specific scenarios. Unless everything goes exactly according to plan the defender fails. It sets them up to fail.

1: Expecting a soccer mom to outstrike a rapist with a "flurry of hits" is asking for failure. Unless the woman has invested signifigant time in learning to strike powerfully(read: muay thai, boxing) the rapist is tougher, he hits harder.
We've been over this elsewhere. It isn't about winning a boxing match. It's about showing up for a crime ready to fight. The success rate of untrained women stopping rapists by striking is just too high to ignore.

2: Men instinctively protect their groins. We're taught it from an early age, it's reinforced in movies etc. Any women's self defense book will show it, and I would expect many would-be rapists have seen such books.

3: Most importantly, it's pain based. Some people will respond to pain. Some won't.
Eyup. Ever seen a bunch of footballers (soccer players to Americans) lining up for penalty kicks? On the other hand, we teach an advanced spiritual centering technique called The Sublime Meditation of the Four Verbs. It goes something like this: "Grab. Squeeze. Twist. Pull." The answer to this subtle koan is "What is the sound of one testicle rupturing?" That one is a lot less pain based and a lot more likely to make a guy go straight into shock - at least according to the professional opinions of ER doctors and urologists we have consulted.

[Pete Ticali]

The article was very good. All of it's points are valid, but I can't help but wonder why it seems to imply that these elements are not in the normal training program (male or female).

Yes, I understand that there are "some" programs that may not have as much as some of us would like, but I really hope that most traditional or even semi traditional programs could claim these characteristics.

In my experience most schools elevate from no contact to light contact to medium contact and the advanced ranks tag each other rather regularly. I can't remember the last dojo I saw that didn't have at least a heavy bag.

Not only do I consider weapons like nunchucks, SAi & Bo mandatory for upper belts, I regularly explain their theories and application in the modern context, using other random implements in replacement.

Anyway, THis post isn't meant to be about me. I would tell anyone who identifies with the article ( meaning that these things are not in their program) to use it as a constructive checklist of what to ad. All students need to experience "reality". It is best we offer them a safe(er) place to do it than let them awaken to it outside.

Pete Ticali

[ubermint]

Uber,
Now as far as the issue of outstriking your opponent, that's an over complication. Again, I'll fall back on the police profile data that suggests that most attackers are afraid of two things:
1. getting hurt
2. getting caught
A flurry of targeted resistance can be enough to prevent an attack from going forward. Or enough to build escape space.

Escaping is much more about grappling than striking. Though there are striking options in clinch and ground, they're predicated on having the positional skills to get out of there in the first place.
If you're not grappling, you have space to run away.

As far as the male protection of the groin. that isn't a bad thing, because to cover one area you open another up. Hence why I specified FLURRY.

And what is the man doing this whole time? Men are naturally better strikers than women.
Striking is highly weight dependent. The vast majority of women simply aren't equipped to outstrike a man.

As and far as scenario, it's a solid place to start. The fact is that things can be reduced to a couple major scenarios. If you have limited time to train, you play the averages first and then scale out. And before anyone calls me on that idea, the fact is that's how all fighting arts work. It's just self defense programs tend to be a bit more explicit about it.

- Matt

That depends on what you mean by "scenario": Is at alive or dead? Is the attacker really trying to hurt you? Is the contact real? Or is it prescripted, with the "attacker" told to give up when they guesstimate the woman might have won?

[ubermint]

My son, you have hit on the single biggest weakness in women's self defense training. Most of the really bad programs are designed around very specific scenarios. Unless everything goes exactly according to plan the defender fails. It sets them up to fail.

I was kindof being facetious, merely making fun of the cartoonish D34DLY STR33T language prevalent in WSD, but you bring up a good point. Prescripted scenarios set you up to fail. It's play acting.
Maybe to some people "scenario" means "attacker tries to take my damn head off" but that's not what is meant in most WSD courses.


We've been over this elsewhere. It isn't about winning a boxing match. It's about showing up for a crime ready to fight. The success rate of untrained women stopping rapists by striking is just too high to ignore.

Apperantly the success rate for actually trying anything is pretty high. Which begs the question "Why not just tell her to flail?".


Eyup. Ever seen a bunch of footballers (soccer players to Americans) lining up for penalty kicks? On the other hand, we teach an advanced spiritual centering technique called The Sublime Meditation of the Four Verbs. It goes something like this: "Grab. Squeeze. Twist. Pull." The answer to this subtle koan is "What is the sound of one testicle rupturing?" That one is a lot less pain based and a lot more likely to make a guy go straight into shock - at least according to the professional opinions of ER doctors and urologists we have consulted.

Good luck doing that through denim. Or any other kind of pants for that matter.

[tellner]

I agreed with most of what you had to say on this topic, except one thing. Advocating the training of, and use, of knife work. Saying things "like women in urban areas of the U.S must likewise be armed and ready to protect themselves with their weapons of choice" and then talking about training to stab and cut is downright irresponsible from a legal standpoint.
Against a real threat of death or serious bodily harm? Not all women will be comfortable with the idea of deadly force. But it would be irresponsible not to fully inform them about the option and to provide competent teachers if they choose to prepare themselves to use that option.

There are legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of deadly force, including weapons. No doubt about it. But firearms and knives remain the single most effective means of preventing successful rape and robbery. And if, G-d forbid, a woman is the target of someone who really wants to kill her she had better be prepared to fight effectively with the best weapons she can find.

In private my wife and I refer to this as The Decision with the capital letters. A woman who says something like "I could imagine defending myself, but I couldn't possibly use a weapon. I might kill him," hasn't really made the decision for serious self defense possible. One who honestly says "I could do whatever it takes to defend myself or a loved one" has learned the only important lesson. She may choose to use a particular tool or tactic or not. But until she's come to that point she's lacking something essential.


What happens if while "defending" herself the other person dies. Arguing self defence may not be such a slam dunk as one may think, just because a man attacks a woman. Were there any witnesses? And what happens if the person doesn't have a knife and you kill him? What if he does? The police would likely view that as a fair fight, especially if the woman is trained to use a knife. What about the fact that carrying concealed weapons is illegal in most states. It is in Canada where I live.
What we're talking about here is "The immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury". Do you understand what we mean here? The situation is so terrible that if she doesn't use deadly force she honestly believes that she will be murdered, kidnapped, raped, sodomized, crippled, robbed by an armed man, be stuck in a burning building or stand by and watch it happen to an innocent person. That's the justification for the use of deadly force in Canada, the UK, Tanzania, Australia and so on.

We're not talking about "slam dunks" here. We're talking about life or death or as close as makes little difference if you aren't ready to use whatever you can to stop the crime. Even in the UK, which completely bans the carrying of any item, even a toothpick, if it's meant for self defense, the law has alwys held that a person in that situation is justified in using any means and any tool that comes to hand as long as it doesn't unduly endanger other innocent people.

Any responsible teacher will do his or her best to teach students to stay inside the law. We get the professional advice of lawyers or at least have the relevant statutes on hand for our students to read for themselves since we aren't attorneys.

And why do you put defend in quotation marks? And what is this about fair fights. We're talking about not getting robbed or raped here. Not "mutual combat" or "duelling" which are completely different matters under the law. If what I've seen and heard from court reports, police, lawyers and expert witnesses is any indication a woman who was honestly afraid that she was about to be robbed, raped, murdered etc. uses a knife or gun she has a very good chance of not getting anywhere near a courtroom unless it's as a witness for the prosecution in the rape or robbery trial.

What about the psychological impact of taking a life? The emotional ramifications can scar a person for the rest of their lives.
So does being killed. So does having a man stick his penis into you without your permission. There is research on this in the criminology and psychology literature. To make a long story very short, those who kill in legitimate self defense are not unchanged by the event. But they do an awful lot better than those who were victimized. They even do better than police officers who were thrust into the situation because their jobs demanded it.

You would be wiser to stress how to avoid confrontations and disarming techniques, rather than advocating carrying knives and other weapons to defend oneself.

What say the rest of you out there in the martial arts world?
Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to disarm an armed man who is trying to injure or kill you? Do you know anything about the success of cognitive, communication, and reasonableness in stopping an attempted violent crime?

No?

Well, disarming someone who has a weapon is very, very difficult. If you think you could take a knife away from my wife you are welcome to try. I'd be willing to bet three months mortgage payments that you can't do it. Most police departments teach that the presentation of a weapon is grounds for the immediate use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force, not a wristlock to harmlessly disarm the attacker.

The non-violent non-confrontational approach is fine right up until the time that violence is offered. At that point it drops your chances of escaping unraped to about four percent or slightly higher than your chances if you do nothing at all. Once someone has decided to hurt you in particular and has made it physical a whole different set of tools is required.

Frankly, I think your post shows an incredible contempt for the good sense and competence of women.

[KickChick]

Frankly, I think your post shows an incredible contempt for the good sense and competence of women.


.... and I thought I was the only one that thought that. Let's try and change that :)

Good discussion here .. very informative posts tellner -thank you!

.... I'm glad I posted this article.

[tellner]

Ubermint, a couple points

1) I never advocated wild flailing any more than you advocate flopping around on the ground like a landed trout. Pure striking isn't a good physical strategy any more than pure grappling is, but it's something that we can teach the basics of in a short time which also has a high percentage in the real world. We try to teach as best we can. When I have some health issues squared away I plan to go back and get more grappling skills to improve that part of the program.

2) We tried out the G-S-T-P with me in various kinds of pants. Denim was more difficult, but after a while the experimenters were able to get ahold of one or both goolies with a pretty high percentage of success, even through regular weight jeans. Skin tight ones were very difficult. The stylin' saggin' sort would have been child's play if playing with children that way weren't illegal :p There's a little bit of technique to getting it to work. In experiments with other volunteers the reaction to the attempt was interesting. They didn't have much of a problem with women trying to kick or knee them in the groin. A woman grabbing and starting to squeeze a testicle got a definite flinch reaction - a statement so understated as to be actually misleading.

3) When you try to be humorous you often make good sense. When you try to make sense you come off as humorous. *shrug*

[tellner]

.... and I thought I was the only one that thought that. Let's try and change that :)

Good discussion here .. very informative posts tellner -thank you!

Thank you, KickChick. *doffs cap, tugs forelock*

I'm kind pretty passionate about the subject. Preaching and teaching it is somewhere along the lines of a religious obligation.

.... I'm glad I posted this article.

[shotokanwarrior]

Impact training = Hitting bag, am I right?

TMAs could definitely do with more of that, if my Shotokan class is anything to go by. We don't do any.

Oh, and Tellner, I admire your articulateness (is that a word?)

[gedhab]

Impact training = Hitting bag, am I right?

TMAs could definitely do with more of that, if my Shotokan class is anything to go by. We don't do any.

Oh, and Tellner, I admire your articulateness (is that a word?)

I don't know about impact training but bag/pad work is resistance training.

[MDN]

is that strength is more important than technique? That the only way for women to succeed in the martial arts/self-defense is to attain physical strength?

By the authors logic a woman could never use arts such a aikido, hapkido, jujutsu, ect...

[tellner]

Oh, and Tellner, I admire your articulateness (is that a word?)
I think the term you're looking for is "too fond of the sound of my own voice" :cool:

[tellner]

Impact training = Hitting bag, am I right?

TMAs could definitely do with more of that, if my Shotokan class is anything to go by. We don't do any.
If you specialize in striking you have to hit things a lot. If you don't you'll never learn how to do it right. You'll probably break your knuckles or wrist the first time you punch with any power. Get some bag gloves and some hand wraps. Have someone who knows how to use them teach you how. Do many, many rounds on the heavy bag, focus mitts and Thai pads.

Impact training can mean training to hit things by hitting them. It can also mean training to get used to being hit (usually by holding pads for someone else).

[ubermint]

Or by sparring, which teaches both.

Ubermint, a couple points

1) I never advocated wild flailing any more than you advocate flopping around on the ground like a landed trout. Pure striking isn't a good physical strategy any more than pure grappling is, but it's something that we can teach the basics of in a short time which also has a high percentage in the real world. We try to teach as best we can. When I have some health issues squared away I plan to go back and get more grappling skills to improve that part of the program.

Yet if you're going to teach striking, why not teach striking that has a proven record of success (Boxing, thai kicks, clinching with knees and elbows, etc.)?

Striking is pretty weight dependant. Compare the weight classes of boxing and sub grappling.


2) We tried out the G-S-T-P with me in various kinds of pants. Denim was more difficult, but after a while the experimenters were able to get ahold of one or both goolies with a pretty high percentage of success, even through regular weight jeans. Skin tight ones were very difficult. The stylin' saggin' sort would have been child's play if playing with children that way weren't illegal :p There's a little bit of technique to getting it to work. In experiments with other volunteers the reaction to the attempt was interesting. They didn't have much of a problem with women trying to kick or knee them in the groin. A woman grabbing and starting to squeeze a testicle got a definite flinch reaction - a statement so understated as to be actually misleading.


Again, it's pretty hypothetical. How do you spar with this technique? How do you know it'll work on someone hitting back? I can't even imagine where you'd apply this. Do you a baseball slide with your hands instead of a mitt and his balls instead of a regulation baseball? You certainly wouldn't do it from under mount.
I'd rather not rely on any technique that doesn't work if my opponent is wearing certain type of jeans...especially in central texas, where good 'ol boys favor tight jeans and mullets.

[tellner]

Or by sparring, which teaches both.



Yet if you're going to teach striking, why not teach striking that has a proven record of success (Boxing, thai kicks, clinching with knees and elbows, etc.)?

Striking is pretty weight dependant. Compare the weight classes of boxing and sub grappling.
Uh, dude, what sort of striking did I say I taught? Do you know what's in my WSD curriculum? I've very carefully not described much of the striking and grappling we teach, and I'm not going to go into details in a public forum where the werewolves might be hanging out. I will say that you know targets and strikes that are not nearly as size and weight dependent as punching someone in the skull or stomach with your untaped, unwrapped, ungloved hand. I've had a bit of training in the same sorts of things and have at least as much common sense as you do. Deduce from there.



Again, it's pretty hypothetical. How do you spar with this technique? How do you know it'll work on someone hitting back? I can't even imagine where you'd apply this. Do you a baseball slide with your hands instead of a mitt and his balls instead of a regulation baseball? You certainly wouldn't do it from under mount.
I'd rather not rely on any technique that doesn't work if my opponent is wearing certain type of jeans...especially in central texas, where good 'ol boys favor tight jeans and mullets.
It's one of a number of things we've tried under stress conditions as an experiment. The reason was from some very specific real-world data that we wanted to test. I didn't say that this was a primary technique. You're filling in a lot of blanks to suit your preconceptions here.

[shotokanwarrior]

Noo, Tellner, I wasn't being sarcastic when I said you were articulate.

Getting hold of some bags or pads will be a pain in the ass as I live in rural Ireland. Can you recommend any makeshift striking receptacles?

[tellner]

Just being self-deprecating, shotokanwarrior.

As far as makeshift things to hit go I've never really put ones together. Ordering online and letting the Post Office take care of delivery has always been easier. Take a look at Ringside's Boxing 101 (http://ringside.com/store/boxingequipment101.asp) for ideas about the equipment that you might want and which might fit your budget. Hand wraps are essential in any case. Shipping from the US is expensive, even with the euro's great exchange rate. You might want to look for local online retailers.

If you want to make your own equipment see what you can get hold of along the lines of heavy canvas or vinyl cloth, old rags, closed-cell foam, leather, chain, swivels and grommets. Look at the equipment from the boxing supply places and go from there. Focus mitts and a heavy bag are very important. Thai pads or kick shields are probably going to be useful. Bag gloves and hand wraps are vital.

[shotokanwarrior]

Thanks, Tellner.

Ah, self deprecating. Sorry about that. I'm not very good socially. Afraid of pissing people off.