# How different are men & women really? (Lise Steenerson's blog)



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2013)

Lise Steenerson has written a very important blog entry explaining a lot of the differences between men and women...  Very definitely worth the time to read it.


> Are men and women all that different? Do they defend themselves  differently? Should they be taught differently? If so, why and how?  Should they be taught by a man or a woman? Age old questions. If you are  teaching or planning to teach women self-defense, or if you are  planning on attending such a class, do yourself a favor and read on.  Its a bit long but definitely worth your while.



Full blog here

Another way I've seen it put is that a woman is always dealing with a nightmare opponent...  Someone bigger, stronger, and inherently much more aggressive and prepared for violence than they are.  So things that might work great for someone like me may well be useless for a woman.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 25, 2013)

Ill keep a distance at first, but ill say this:

In most cases, a male attacking a female is more confident.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2013)

Read the article.  Lise has done a great job breaking down HOW and WHY men and women are different.  She addresses things like the difference in adrenalization patterns, and what that means for a woman during an attack, the relative differences between upper body strength, and so on.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 25, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Read the article.  Lise has done a great job breaking down HOW and WHY men and women are different.  She addresses things like the difference in adrenalization patterns, and what that means for a woman during an attack, the relative differences between upper body strength, and so on.



The page wasnt loading earlier (thats my internet being sporadic, not the page).

Upon actually reading it, yeah, its a pretty great article.


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Another way I've seen it put is that a woman is always dealing with a nightmare opponent...  Someone bigger, stronger, and inherently much more aggressive and prepared for violence than they are.  So things that might work great for someone like me may well be useless for a woman.


Like she said about the SD video teaching ineffectual strikes, people teach stuff that either doesn't work or can't work against a bigger, stronger attacker.

I spent the weekend at a fantastic seminar, but some of the stuff we learned, I will never pass on. If it doesn't work easily for me, with my size, weight and experience, there is no way it will work for someone smaller and weaker. I look for techniques that do not need excessive power or speed. Young martial artists seem to be preoccupied with speed and power. If they have never looked beyond that, how are they going to make things work when they are 60 or 70?

The same principle applies when teaching women or younger girls self defence. I always look for things that will hurt with minimal effort. Regardless of the adrenalin response etc, the most important thing to do is strike effectively and get the hell out of the place.    :asian:


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 26, 2013)

A few feminists I know would rage at this article, simply for suggesting men and women are not equal in this area (of course, with some exceptions, they are not, but i would never say that to them )
That aside, I thought it was an amazing article, which came up with some new ideas, and taught me some stuff I truly did not know, like how women punch with their arms, rather than their hips/shoulders...if I ever become an SD teacher, I will make sure to give this article some serious thought, and fact check much of it, mainly to see what else comes up as I do.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> Young martial artists seem to be preoccupied with speed and power. If they have never looked beyond that, how are they going to make things work when they are 60 or 70?



By using their youthful strength to do stuff a 70 year old could do, only better?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 26, 2013)

Ms. Steenerson has some good points, but she also is making a lot of broad generalizations and is engaging in a certain amount of pseudo-science in attributing biological causes for differences that can better be attributed to cultural factors.  That's in addition to citing a few stereotypes that probably have more to do with her own preconceptions rather than any actual research.
In fact, the role of culture and life experiences seem to be completely lacking from her essay.  She lists women punching with their arms vs men punching with their whole bodies as if that was an inherent biological difference rather than a generalization based on the fact that men are more likely to have more experience in fist fights and are more likely to have had at least a little bit of instruction in how to punch at some point in their lives.
If I had to compose a statement on the topic, it would probably go something like this:
Biological differences: Women are on average smaller than men.  Due to differences in testosterone levels, a woman will have a significant strength disadvantage compared to a man of the same size, age, and fitness level.  These are, of course, averages.  A large woman might be stronger than a small man.  A woman who is an elite athlete will likely be stronger than a man who works a desk job. 
Cultural differences:  Women are much more likely to be socially conditioned not to engage in physical violence than men.  They are much less likely to grow up engaged in roughhousing, wrestling, and fistfights.  They are less likely to engage in fitness activities or professions that build raw strength.  They are less likely to come into a dojo psychologically prepared to deal with rough physical contact or inflict pain on an opponent.  Once again, these are averages and generalizations.  I have known women who were totally comfortable brawling or grappling with men.
Tactical differences:  In general, women are likely to face different forms of violence in the real world.  Women are less likely than men to engage in the "monkey dance" to establish physical dominance on the bar room floor. They are much more likely to face sexual assault.  The different forms of assault can sometime lead to tactical opportunities for a woman being assaulted - an assailant who feels confident of his physical superiority might leave openings when attacking a woman that he wouldn't if he was dealing with a 6'4" 200-lb man.
Implications for teaching martial arts:  Firstly be prepared to teach each person, male or female, as an individual.  A small, shy, peaceful, unathletic man might need a very gradual and progressive introduction to contact while a large, athletic woman who grew up brawling with her brothers might be ready to jump right in to hard sparring.  That said, there is a certain statistical validity to generalizations about the population.  If you want your classes to be accessible to the average woman, you would be well-advised to offer a training path that starts within the student's comfort zone rather than throwing everyone into the shark tank from the get go.  
 Secondly, if your curriculum doesn't include the methods for a smaller, but more technical person to overcome a larger opponent, then your classes are unlikely to benefit female students.
 Thirdly, if you are teaching self-defense rather than pure sporting methods or a cultural art, it would be a good idea to cover the forms of aggression that women are likely to encounter.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2013)

I'm with Tony here... it's a good article, but is too heavily biased towards her personal experience (and possibly her personal limitations and skill level, such as the comment that "women throw with their arms, men with their bodies", which is just plain odd. If my female students didn't throw with their "bodies", they'd be corrected pretty damn quickly), and some guesswork on her behalf. There's a number of things I'd question, if not outright disagree with.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> I'm with Tony here... it's a good article, but is too heavily biased towards her personal experience (and possibly her personal limitations and skill level, such as the comment that "women throw with their arms, men with their bodies", which is just plain odd. If my female students didn't throw with their "bodies", they'd be corrected pretty damn quickly), and some guesswork on her behalf. There's a number of things I'd question, if not outright disagree with.



I guess I am sort of in the middle on this. I don't know enough medicine nor physiology to agree or disagree with Ms Steenerson. I understand that aculteration and experience shape a lot of things about us as Tony Dismukes and Chris Parker say. I am also not big on generalization by either side of this. All of us are what *we* are based on both genetic factors, as well as experience and aculteration.

But men and women are different. I watched my grandson jump into mud puddles and wondered why in the world he would do such a thing. Then I thought about my own youth. I did some pretty silly things myself. More than once. Boys see a mud puddle and wonder what will happen if they jump in with both feet. Then they try. They see another mud puddle and wonder if it will be different that the last time; doing it just the same, or with some variation, like jumping higher. Boys just seem to naturally tend more towards agression to solve problems. That carries into manhood normally. What do girls do? I don't really know how they think, but they don't jump into mud puddles very often. Whatever that says.

I have found in my limited MA teaching experience, that women seem to approach learning an MA differently than men. They aren't as agressive, they don't wish to inflict pain, they don't enjoy being touched in grappling situations. Is that aculteration or genetics? I don't know. Probably some amount of both.

Regardless, the article got me thinking more about the subject. If I ever return to teaching MA, however unlikely that is, I will re-read the article a few times to see if there aren't things I need to be aware of. Thanks jks9199 for the link.


----------



## billc (Mar 26, 2013)

Men and women are different...Sam Colt made them equal...


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2013)

And... way to miss the point and push an agenda with an inaccurate and irrelevant marketing slogan, Bill. Classy.


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 27, 2013)

Clearly, because she is generalizing, there are instances where her points won't apply to a given individual. However, many students will probably be closer to her generalizations than not.  I agree that assessing the individuals strengths and weaknesses is important in tailoring the individuals training, but there is nothing wrong with assessing the curriculum and optimizing techniques that are more effective when one is less powerful, smaller and less aggressive by nature.  Such individuals, male or female, would seem to be the most likely targets of opportunity for an aggressor I believe.  The other very important factor is training out some of our "civilized nature".  Much like military basic training, where the intent is to train in a certain level of conditioned response for those moments when one is likely to freeze.  I think that many of the subtle and complex techniques we learn are wonderful to practice and may be very effective after years of training, but until that level of proficiency is achieved, it seems that the KISS philosophy would be more reliable. In a similar line of thinking; I have always had a problem with the concept of teaching self defense or one step sparring techniques in numerical order.  I'm concerned that it inserts an additional cognitive delay into what should be a conditioned response.  Instead of reacting to a grab to the hand, are we setting a student up for a scenario where the initial response might be "what was technique number 2?" before the actual defensive response begins.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 27, 2013)

Oh, I agree that having a good general understanding is very useful... and even that generalizing can be a good, useful thing. The problem is when the generalizations are inaccurate, such as the one about the different adrenal timelines Lise provides (the example of the husband coming home, getting upset about some shopping, and walking out to calm down... while the wife gets worked up over a longer time. Now, that I took as being quite a useful piece of insight into interpersonal dealings with men and women, but really inaccurate and useless in the context she was using it... women get adrenaline dumps in the same timeline as men do... if you doubt that, do you think that if a woman's child was in danger, say, trapped in a car after an accident, it'll take her 10 minutes plus to get worked up to respond?), as inaccurate generalizations can be more dangerous than no generalizations at all.


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 27, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, I agree that having a good general understanding is very useful... and even that generalizing can be a good, useful thing. The problem is when the generalizations are inaccurate, such as the one about the different adrenal timelines Lise provides (the example of the husband coming home, getting upset about some shopping, and walking out to calm down... while the wife gets worked up over a longer time. Now, that I took as being quite a useful piece of insight into interpersonal dealings with men and women, but really inaccurate and useless in the context she was using it... women get adrenaline dumps in the same timeline as men do... if you doubt that, do you think that if a woman's child was in danger, say, trapped in a car after an accident, it'll take her 10 minutes plus to get worked up to respond?), as inaccurate generalizations can be more dangerous than no generalizations at all.


 Agreed. But then, the science of physiologic response to stress is much more complex in general.  Even the adrenaline response varies between individuals and types of stressors.  I choose to accept her illustrations as simply that and not demand strict adherence to hard science to decide whether the point she is attempting to make is credible.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 27, 2013)

I'm not demanding strict adherence to hard science, I'm saying that her example of the different adrenal responses doesn't actually deal with adrenaline at all... it's dealing with emotional reactions. And, to make something acceptable as credible, I do like it to at least deal with what it claims to....


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 27, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> Agreed. But then, the science of physiologic response to stress is much more complex in general.  Even the adrenaline response varies between individuals and types of stressors.  I choose to accept her illustrations as simply that and not demand strict adherence to hard science to decide whether the point she is attempting to make is credible.



For what its worth, most of what she said reflects the actions of most of the women ive known. I dont know nearly enough about the science of it to speak for the reasons, and ive only known (on more than an obscure acquaintance level of people i know only as far as when i forgot their name) a couple of dozen women, which is hardly a universal test pool. One factor has to be that if you tried to make an article which covered every contingency, exception, and reason, itd be a really, really, long article.




Chris Parker said:


> I'm not demanding strict adherence to hard science, I'm saying that her example of the different adrenal responses doesn't actually deal with adrenaline at all... it's dealing with emotional reactions. And, to make something acceptable as credible, I do like it to at least deal with what it claims to....



Im inclined to agree that she does draw some questionable analogies.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 27, 2013)

There's quite a bit of good, accurate information there... but there are also a number of topics that aren't. The catch is not taking it all as accurate based on the parts that are, therefore accepting the parts that aren't.


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 27, 2013)

On that point. I can certainly agree.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 27, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> ...
> Instead of reacting to a grab to the hand, are we setting a student up for a scenario where the initial response might be "what was technique number 2?" before the actual defensive response begins.



That's a good point.  In the Hapkido I learned, we generally learned defenses in groups of 7.  So 7 strikes for a to a wrist grab, 7 grapples to a wrist grab, and 7 throws to a wrist grap.  When testing, we had to demonstrate correct knowledge and application of 3.  I knew students who would pick three, often the easiest three, and concentrate on those and use those for their tests.  Some here would applaude that approach for its simplicity.  Our teacher did not try to dissuade those students.

My approach was to learn all of them as well as I could, and during testing, simply react.  Whatever technique sprang to mind/use, was the one I employed and I tried to do it as correctly as possible any time I used it.  My thought was that in a real situation, just as you state above, I didn't want to spend any precious micoseconds deciding what was a good technique.  I just wanted a technique to be employed that would in fact work.  I guess my situational awareness and tongue-fu are better, because I never had to put that to the test in a real SD situation.  But I have always thought it was a correct approach to learning.


----------



## Zero (Mar 27, 2013)

Generally an interesting blog to read.  Has already been said but, despite the pretty graph, I saw no scientific evidence or support as to women experiencing adrenalin dumps differently or peaking later and to a lesser degree than men. I am not a medical practitioner but would be surprised if women did not get the same (pro rata) slug of adrenalin as a man faced in threatening situation or, as Chris points out, when dear kiddie is stuck under a fallen tree etc.

The thing I really did not like was the "women throw punches differently, with their arms rather than hips".  Sure if no training but then equally there are a lot of girly-men (oopps, better change that) sissy-men that have had no training or watched boxing or rough housed so they also throw with the arms only or flail about.  I do not think biomechanicaly there is any reason why a woman, starting from scratch, would throw a punch differently to a man. The girls/women I have sparred with, with any training know how to punch and to generate power.

That section on oxytocin and why women may be susceptible to rape seemed to have some scientific/hormonal basis but I am not sure if the linkage is correct, I am not sure what to think of that section and whether a women is actually less inclined to fight to defend herself rather than a child or family member.  Maybe in times of where the woman has appeared less resistant she has calculated that there is a better chance of her living if she does not fight the rapist to the death. I don't know. I don't want to get into a discussion on rape but any female members, views on whether they agree that women would be more inclined to defend other loved ones rather than themselves would be interesting. This section does not ring that true with the majority women I know (that said, many of such women do MAs and so are trained ballbreakers).

The more I think this over, the less inclined I am to think that women and men inherently come at SD or confrontation from a different position. Yes, men are "generally" more aggressive.  Yes, men often have a greater background in fighting and possibly physical confrontation than women when first turning up at an SD class etc.  But I am not sure if you fundamentally need to approach SD for women as needing different considerations as to hormonal or emotional factors.  Sure women, particularly smaller women may need different techniques, to use in certain SD scenarios than a normal sized or large male.  But when you have a man and woman with the same experience and training is there anything more to it than that?


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 27, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> That's a good point.  In the Hapkido I learned, we generally learned defenses in groups of 7.  So 7 strikes for a to a wrist grab, 7 grapples to a wrist grab, and 7 throws to a wrist grap.  When testing, we had to demonstrate correct knowledge and application of 3.  I knew students who would pick three, often the easiest three, and concentrate on those and use those for their tests.  Some here would applaude that approach for its simplicity.  Our teacher did not try to dissuade those students.
> 
> My approach was to learn all of them as well as I could, and during testing, simply react.  Whatever technique sprang to mind/use, was the one I employed and I tried to do it as correctly as possible any time I used it.  My thought was that in a real situation, just as you state above, I didn't want to spend any precious micoseconds deciding what was a good technique.  I just wanted a technique to be employed that would in fact work.  I guess my situational awareness and tongue-fu are better, because I never had to put that to the test in a real SD situation.  But I have always thought it was a correct approach to learning.


  Our training was similar.  We were taught several techniques.  When asked to demonstrate a technique the grand master would state the attack and we chose the defense, then he would say show me another one, and a third etc.  We also learned to sequence our counters based on presenting targets of opportunity.  The initial block and counter might be set but after that it was "if you want to" as he would say as he demonstrated a series of  counters based on how the opponent positioned after the preceding counter.  It must have had some effect. The only time I used it was when someone at college threw a punch at me as I was leaving the bathroom. I had blocked and the counterpunch was on it's way when I recognized him as a fellow member of the campus Karate club and pulled it.  I think both of us were equally shocked by the speed of the response.


----------



## chinto (Mar 27, 2013)

OK, some of it I do agree with , but for instance I do NOT agree that men only face her so called "social violence". Men are attacked with Homicide and Robbery and even at times Rape in mind by the attacker... the last is not common at all of course but does happen.  2: I would say that if attacked on the street weather your a woman or a man you had better assume its a lethal situation up and until it is shown not to be. and 3: I did not see in the article, though i did scan it not read it completely, her mention the fact that it has been shown that women learn aggression less redially and easily then men. ( military and other studies have shown that. )

That all said I would say the main difference in training a woman is you have to train her to be very proactive and respond quickly to any threat. her smaller size and strength put her at a disadvantage, but a higher level of training can counter act that of course. ( that is after all the idea of Martial Arts )


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 29, 2013)

chinto said:


> OK, some of it I do agree with , but for instance I do NOT agree that men only face her so called "social violence". Men are attacked with Homicide and Robbery and even at times Rape in mind by the attacker... the last is not common at all of course but does happen.  2: I would say that if attacked on the street weather your a woman or a man you had better assume its a lethal situation up and until it is shown not to be. and 3: I did not see in the article, though i did scan it not read it completely, her mention the fact that it has been shown that women learn aggression less redially and easily then men. ( military and other studies have shown that. )
> 
> That all said I would say the main difference in training a woman is you have to train her to be very proactive and respond quickly to any threat. her smaller size and strength put her at a disadvantage, but a higher level of training can counter act that of course. ( that is after all the idea of Martial Arts )



I presume that the very presence in a martial arts or self defense class demonstrates an active interest in changing how one responds to threats. I realize that some of what I say is a bit tangential to the topics title but I hope it is true to the core message which I see as defending oneself against someone who is significantly larger, stronger, or more aggressive.  I don't think that core is restricted to women defending themselves against men.  One of my favorite training partners is a gentleman who is probable 6'5" vs my 5'9" and I would estimate 100# heavier.  I cannot muscle through anything against him and it forces me to work on precision.  It also forces me to analyze my tactics against him (getting away becomes a very high priority).  I think that, as a general principle, training that is primarily for self defense within whatever overarching art we practice,  should be subject to constant scrutiny.  Can we do it (whatever technique "it" happens to be) more efficiently, more effectively and will it work against someone who is significantly more powerful?  Ideally, the techniques that are taught early on are ones that can be learned quickly, are more immune to the downside effects of adrenaline and fear (don't rely as much on fine motor skills) and more "universally" applicable to attacks from all aggressors.  The obvious intent being to fast track personal safety within the curriculum of the study of a martial art as students are taught the larger body of an art over many years.  I don't know how common such an approach is; it just makes sense to me.


----------



## chinto (Mar 29, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> I presume that the very presence in a martial arts or self defense class demonstrates an active interest in changing how one responds to threats. I realize that some of what I say is a bit tangential to the topics title but I hope it is true to the core message which I see as defending oneself against someone who is significantly larger, stronger, or more aggressive.  I don't think that core is restricted to women defending themselves against men.  One of my favorite training partners is a gentleman who is probable 6'5" vs my 5'9" and I would estimate 100# heavier.  I cannot muscle through anything against him and it forces me to work on precision.  It also forces me to analyze my tactics against him (getting away becomes a very high priority).  I think that, as a general principle, training that is primarily for self defense within whatever overarching art we practice,  should be subject to constant scrutiny.  Can we do it (whatever technique "it" happens to be) more efficiently, more effectively and will it work against someone who is significantly more powerful?  Ideally, the techniques that are taught early on are ones that can be learned quickly, are more immune to the downside effects of adrenaline and fear (don't rely as much on fine motor skills) and more "universally" applicable to attacks from all aggressors.  The obvious intent being to fast track personal safety within the curriculum of the study of a martial art as students are taught the larger body of an art over many years.  I don't know how common such an approach is; it just makes sense to me.



yes you are correct!


----------



## Swifty20 (Apr 4, 2013)

Doesn't seem to have been posted yet, so here's the response she gave to critics of her blog post:

http://womenselfprotection.blogspot.com/2013/03/blog-review.html


----------



## mook jong man (Apr 5, 2013)

This woman does not seem to have heard of Wing Chun has she?

[video=youtube_share;dcx0AqADF0E]http://youtu.be/dcx0AqADF0E[/video]


----------



## Cirdan (Apr 5, 2013)

Meh, the main things to consider when teaching or sparring is size, age and skill level. Women don`t need special instruction or treatment any more than men do.


----------



## szorn (Apr 14, 2013)

I'll admit that I am no expert on women's physiology but I don't see any references for her findings. Based on the number of years I have been teaching and the amount of clients, both male and female, I would say that what she details is applicable to both men and women. In fact, I teach almost everything she mentions to both men and women. Through pressure testing, scenario replications and adrenal response drills I haven't seen much of a difference between men or women. Those that show obvious differences are those people that either have been through the adrenal response drills before or work in higher risk jobs that have exposed them to adrenaline in real life on a number of occasions. or victims that have survived violence or some other extreme life-or-death situation. In other word stress inoculation through multi-exposure but it doesn't appear to differ between gender.

While it is true that men often deal with difference forms of violence than women, it's also true that sometimes it's the same. There are essentially 2 basic aspects of violence. While she breaks them down into social and asocial, I prefer to break them down in to symmetrical and asymmetrical. In other words the assault is either two-sided or one-sided. Social violence tends to be two-sided or "symmetrical". For men this is the typical bar brawl. However, the majority of real assaults tend to be one-sided or "asymmetrical" and this is where it's the same, regardless of gender. The types of pre-assault indicators will be the same, weapons and types of threats will be the same, the approach may be the same, it may be either an "interview" or an "ambush" but in either case gender will make little difference.

Yes, we all know that there is an obvious strength difference between the genders, at least on average. However, any solid self-defense program will not be based on strength anyway. It will be based on strategies and tactics that are applicable to everyone regardless of age, strength, gender, or athletic ability. While I do agree that women should be taught how to take advanatage of the physiological strength of their legs and hips, I have to disagree that the entire program will be different from what an average man should learn to survive violence.


Steve


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 14, 2013)

There is of course one other thing. At least as far as i know, most boys grow up being rough with other boys. Girls dont get exposed to violence as often as early on.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 14, 2013)

Ms. Steenerson has posted the beginnings of her response & explanations to criticisms of the first piece:
[h=2][/h]                            [h=3]Stress response difference between men and women[/h]


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 18, 2013)

There are many classes specialized for women self defense in most martial arts/self defense training facilities. I think the reason is obvious. In most cases, women and men would experience different types of attacks. A woman is much more likely to be grabbed, rather than punched or kicked. While a man is much more likely to be punched or kicked, rather than grabbed. In my personal opinion, from a self defense perspective, women should train less blocking movements and more defense against grabs. Men should spend less time on defense against grabs, and more blocking/deflecting.


----------

