Refusing To Train Women- Is This Acceptable?

Where i go , the main instructor has said that he won't train women. His reasoning is that women tend not to train as "hard" as men and are more likely to complain about rough training.

We train MMA and due to the obvious physical contact involved he says it ends up being unfair on all involved-men tend not to try techniques with "commitment" when faced with a female partner and the women can get a false sense of their own capabilities.

We train a "give as good as you get" philosophy - if somebody gets rough with you , you reciprocate. If you get kicked in the nuts on purpose , you kick em right back. This is where training with women makes the situation very difficult ( literally and metaphorically).

The other instructor does hold a women-only training session once a week though.

My question is ,do you think this is fair? Or even legal?

To be honest I sympathise with his opinion. This doesn't mean I am a misogynist but I do understand the reality of training in a full contact environment. Men definately "hold back" when faced with a female opponent.

 

The club needs a visit from the likes of Rosie Sexton and Rachael Wheatly - both VERY capable MMA/ Grapplers that can and do compete on equal terms with men their weight - no problemo!

What's you're instuctors next move? Bench press test new students and turn away anyone who can't bench their bodyweight?

 

It wants to make sense. It really tries to, and in an altruistic/misguided sort of way it does. Personally, I'll go easier on a student if he or she can't keep up, taking extra care around women because they tend to be a bit more fragile, in my experience, than men. Whether most women are or not, I don't know. I'm just going on what I know about the women I know.

 

I'm with Yoda on this one. Personally, I think this instructor might change his views if he realized many of his students could probably be laid out on his own mat by one of these such capable women.

I train with plenty of guys who are a foot taller and a lot stronger than I am, and we're usually very good friends. I'd probably say that they do pull their punches and such a little more than they do with men, but if you fight harder and faster, they have no choice but to keep up.

 

Nope. I think its cobblers.
But at the end of the day, I guess it's up to the instructor who he wants to teach. The 'holding back' of some men when faced with a female opponant is something that has to be resolved in the same way that the 'intimidation factor' that some women feel when faced with a large aggressive male opponant has to be resolved. Personally I dont believe that women should be excluded from the class because the men are unable to deal with them, or because it is assumed that women are incapable of training hard enough. If the instructor feels that he wants the class to be that hardcore, he should also exclude those males who dont match up. Students should then be selected according to their individual motivation and ability to participate in the class. As far as the 'give back as good as you get' is concerned, I believe that in a training situation proper discipline and judgement by both the instructor and the individual are paramount. It's all very well saying that men are holding back becasue they're sparring with a woman, what they should be doing is judging their opponant and responding appropriately, whether they are male or female. In a training situation I dont think it's appropriate for a 300lb participant to go all out to deliberately do enough damage to break the leg of a 150lb participant regardless of what sex they are.
I suppose the 'women only training course' goes something along the lines of 'how to subdue your opponant with the use of a 4 inch stilletto heel'......

 

I dont want to be sexiest in any way. But if a male master and a female master faught against each other. I think a male would win. Its body structure is more open, strong. As a female is protective. I think woman are extremely good fighters. But when it comes to neck and neck I think it would be a man. Im not sure. It would be good to see a match.

 

Interesting observations - but irrelevant to the question asked.

 

There are female only classes and seminars, so what if there is a male only one? It's one school not accepting women, it's not like some huge breach of civil rights.

 

Guys indeed hold back their punches when sparring against women...until they have to defend themselves against a capable and skilled woman. It happened to me, and I had to lose all my chivalrous ideals when it was my rear end on the line.

At the gym, most women indeed are a bunch of wussies who do it for the cardio and the fitness aspects of the art (muay thai), whereas most of the guys are only interested in learning how to fight. No problem there, no one suffers because of it.

But there are indeed a couple of ladies who want the real deal, and they get as much as they want of the real thing - and a couple of them can indeed kick some serious (male) ass if they want to. So we may conclude that your coach is wrong on all aspects: if he wants a hardcore class, he should look for hardcore students of either gender.

 

What Disciple MarkV said is not only irrelevant to the questions asked, it's, in my opinion, unfair. I have no doubt in my mind that many male fighters are better than female fighters, but to generalize that a male master will win, especially if they are equally matched in experience and weight, is basing fighting a little too much on the physiological aspects of a fight, and not enough on the psychological ones.

The instructor should only accept hardcore trainees of either gender rather than denying women who might be seriously dedicated to the art.

 

You know, maybe it is best if that particular instructor doesn't teach women. He obviously has no idea what he is talking about...maybe he shouldn't be teaching anyone. Does he only let guys in over 6 feet tall as well? Does he have criteria for how much they bench press and how cardiovascularly fit they are?

He is full of horse turds. All the women I know who train do it as seriously and diligently as the men they train alongside. All of what he said in reference to training in a substandard way because they are women is crap and any decent partner will work to their partners level - be it a women or a small man or a beginner. I guess he only takes experienced people in as well so newbies don't slow down the more advanced people? Garbage...

As to your question "is it fair?" No. Is it stupid? Yes. But life is hardly ever fair and very often stupid.

 

He may be doing it with an eye on avoiding any legal complications in case of injury. A bit of a "catch-all" to exclude women entirely, admittedly, but there you go.

 

He sounds pretty ignorant to me. Yes its his school and he can teach who ever he wants or doesn't want to. But to alienate half the population is pretty dumb.

 

I'm sorry if my coach come across as a chauvanist(sp?), I doubt that he thinks in that "me Tarzan , you Jane" manner.

I think his attitude stems from the fact that his experiences in training ,and training with, women have resulted in his believing that this only hinders the development of both parties. Perhaps he has been unlucky to have trained only with women who have been half-hearted.

And for those of you who ask , yes he also dislikes training men who aren't "committed". Such people are advised to either sharpen their ideas, or are advised not to bother returning.

 

This I can sympathise with. It's a fault on the part of men but an issue none-the-less.

That I can't sympathise with. In my experience, all the women I know who train MA tend to train doubly as hard as the blokes. As if they are single handedly trying to destroy the stereotype that women are weaker than men. To be fair, they usually succeed.

I can see the logic of having separate training. After all, in all professional sports athletes only compete against people of the same sex. But refusing to train women full stop? That's just daft.

 

i think it is a fair enough question.of course there are plenty of women who can and do train with men, but from personal experience there are just as many who are looking for a cardio class or false sense of reality about self defense. i trained at a muay thai club where women join but not want to get kicked. so if ateacher only wants to run a gym for fighters i see no reason he can't denie anyone who doesn't want to be a fighter(including men).

 

The proper way to do it would be to interview each student and then just turn down all the women

 

Rickson Gracie does not teach women. Also there are some Koryu (Classical Japaneses arts) that will only allow women to train in naginata and Shoto. Martial arts schools are private schools (Business definition) so can set-up standards as they wish. For tMAs I personally don't think that it makes sense but, for MMA fighter gyms that train fighters and hopefully pros than it is understandable.

 

Kick the sexist jerk in the nuts and find a new school .