Women Self Defence!

[Gerry Seymour]

You need to include what was asteriked at least if you want to quote it.

And you are, you should make no statement supporting the fact that you are not in a inferior position and you should have taken action to not be in that situation especially if you suspected somone of ill intent towards you. This can be applied to many situations, the one cited is the least worse one. (where you actually have a marginal chance, and that chance is not entirely based on the other person)

To support my statment, just replace "on your back" with "Being held up with a knife" or "being held up by a pistol/rifle". would you make any statement other than "you are done"? (now i will admit, there is a NOMINAL chance of besting the person in those sitations, but you have very little to no control, and this is if murder isnt the objective, you would have been shot or stabbed before you can think of a retort, potetionally muiltiple tiems if they are any good at it, again little to zero control, its their choice to shoot you and when, not yours.)



I also interpreted "on your back" to mean inferior positions in general, not soley on your back, but i already acknowledged being on your back is the least worse one i can think of. At least with what came to my head.

By your statement, literally every fight would end as soon as someone had a slightly superior position. That's patently not what happens. Being in a superior position to an equal or lesser skilled fighter means you are more likely to win, but certainly doesn't guarantee it, even then. Against a superior fighter from that positiion, it may not help much. Give me a BJJ above blue belt and let me get a superior position on the ground, and I've not yet gained a real advantage, because I'm in their area of strength (with a few exceptions of spots where I have skills that might balance things).

 

[Deleted member 39746]

By your statement, literally every fight would end as soon as someone had a slightly superior position. That's patently not what happens. Being in a superior position to an equal or lesser skilled fighter means you are more likely to win, but certainly doesn't guarantee it, even then. Against a superior fighter from that positiion, it may not help much. Give me a BJJ above blue belt and let me get a superior position on the ground, and I've not yet gained a real advantage, because I'm in their area of strength (with a few exceptions of spots where I have skills that might balance things).

There was no hyperbole intended if it appears that way through the neutrality of text is one thing. How i am interpreting this line of argumentation is underplaying the risks to a hyperbolic extent. (which i may have rebuffed with the opposite hyperbole, not you, i mean the argument line in general)

Now fights dont always 100% end in one definitive way, you cant say that without being dishonest, so i am not saying that. What i am saying is, they tend to and the majority do end and what needs to have happen for them to end, is one pariticpant needs to be put into a inferior position to allow them to be finished off. (what ever that is, doesnt matter) The definition and implication of fight would mean there is a struggle and one participant is actively stopping you from doing that, and thus trying to do it to you so you cant do it to them.


If we play it as equals, lets say its 50/50, putting somone in a inferior position makes it 70/30 (30% allows for the diverse range of positions, and you making a recovery or putting them in one) Why would you start in the latter?

Against a superior fighter from that positiion, it may not help much. Give me a BJJ above blue belt and let me get a superior position on the ground, and I've not yet gained a real advantage, because I'm in their area of strength (with a few exceptions of spots where I have skills that might balance things).

You dont really have a choice of who is starting anything, they could be the single best (technically worse for you) person in 100km coming over to do what ever to you, or the single worse. Just why would you risk starting in the inferior position if you suspected them? Its just going to be harder and reduce your chances. If they are your greater, you have made yourself More of a lesser. If they are your equal, they have been made your greater. If they are your lesser they have been made your equal.

(quoted as i specfically wanted to address that point seperate, but its sort of mixed with the end percentage point)

TL;DR and clarification of the above, my point is "why risk it?"


Addendum: I have stated before i am a weapons bug and more biased towards that and striking, movement for both is pretty important. And to be fair "inferior position" in both of those is normally after either someones lopped something off you, or has cracked your jaw hard enough to concuss you. So thats where the disconnect may come from.


I dont think i have seen, nor does anything spring to mind as a example if two BJJ people try to victimise each other, or one does another, or just two grapplers on somewhat of a equal level. Its normally somone better at grappling closing in from somone trying to box, or two people boxing each other as the fight. If anyone can find a video of grapplers involved in predatory violence, i would be grateful. Or just one trying to victimise the other. (focus on BJJ obviously) The other concern i would have for laying down is, they could initiate the attack by just jumping on your head. (imagine the defendu two legged one, i cant remmeber what its called off the top of my head)

Thinking about it, a video of the subject is probbly the best way to go about this. Id rather one of a real fight between BJJ people, and a technique breakdown, as opposed to just one or the other. (so i actually know whats meant to be happening, and actually know it can work)

If anyone can find anything, feel free to inbox it to me if they dont want to post it on the thread.

 

[Tez3]

A

There was no hyperbole intended if it appears that way through the neutrality of text is one thing. How i am interpreting this line of argumentation is underplaying the risks to a hyperbolic extent. (which i may have rebuffed with the opposite hyperbole, not you, i mean the argument line in general)

Now fights dont always 100% end in one definitive way, you cant say that without being dishonest, so i am not saying that. What i am saying is, they tend to and the majority do end and what needs to have happen for them to end, is one pariticpant needs to be put into a inferior position to allow them to be finished off. (what ever that is, doesnt matter) The definition and implication of fight would mean there is a struggle and one participant is actively stopping you from doing that, and thus trying to do it to you so you cant do it to them.


If we play it as equals, lets say its 50/50, putting somone in a inferior position makes it 70/30 (30% allows for the diverse range of positions, and you making a recovery or putting them in one) Why would you start in the latter?


You dont really have a choice of who is starting anything, they could be the single best (technically worse for you) person in 100km coming over to do what ever to you, or the single worse. Just why would you risk starting in the inferior position if you suspected them? Its just going to be harder and reduce your chances. If they are your greater, you have made yourself More of a lesser. If they are your equal, they have been made your greater. If they are your lesser they have been made your equal.

(quoted as i specfically wanted to address that point seperate, but its sort of mixed with the end percentage point)

TL;DR and clarification of the above, my point is "why risk it?"


Addendum: I have stated before i am a weapons bug and more biased towards that and striking, movement for both is pretty important. And to be fair "inferior position" in both of those is normally after either someones lopped something off you, or has cracked your jaw hard enough to concuss you. So thats where the disconnect may come from.


I dont think i have seen, nor does anything spring to mind as a example if two BJJ people try to victimise each other, or one does another, or just two grapplers on somewhat of a equal level. Its normally somone better at grappling closing in from somone trying to box, or two people boxing each other as the fight. If anyone can find a video of grapplers involved in predatory violence, i would be grateful. Or just one trying to victimise the other. (focus on BJJ obviously) The other concern i would have for laying down is, they could initiate the attack by just jumping on your head. (imagine the defendu two legged one, i cant remmeber what its called off the top of my head)

Thinking about it, a video of the subject is probbly the best way to go about this. Id rather one of a real fight between BJJ people, and a technique breakdown, as opposed to just one or the other. (so i actually know whats meant to be happening, and actually know it can work)

If anyone can find anything, feel free to inbox it to me if they dont want to post it on the thread

And this has what to do with women's self defence?

 

[drop bear]

There was no hyperbole intended if it appears that way through the neutrality of text is one thing. How i am interpreting this line of argumentation is underplaying the risks to a hyperbolic extent. (which i may have rebuffed with the opposite hyperbole, not you, i mean the argument line in general)

Now fights dont always 100% end in one definitive way, you cant say that without being dishonest, so i am not saying that. What i am saying is, they tend to and the majority do end and what needs to have happen for them to end, is one pariticpant needs to be put into a inferior position to allow them to be finished off. (what ever that is, doesnt matter) The definition and implication of fight would mean there is a struggle and one participant is actively stopping you from doing that, and thus trying to do it to you so you cant do it to them.


If we play it as equals, lets say its 50/50, putting somone in a inferior position makes it 70/30 (30% allows for the diverse range of positions, and you making a recovery or putting them in one) Why would you start in the latter?


You dont really have a choice of who is starting anything, they could be the single best (technically worse for you) person in 100km coming over to do what ever to you, or the single worse. Just why would you risk starting in the inferior position if you suspected them? Its just going to be harder and reduce your chances. If they are your greater, you have made yourself More of a lesser. If they are your equal, they have been made your greater. If they are your lesser they have been made your equal.

(quoted as i specfically wanted to address that point seperate, but its sort of mixed with the end percentage point)

TL;DR and clarification of the above, my point is "why risk it?"


Addendum: I have stated before i am a weapons bug and more biased towards that and striking, movement for both is pretty important. And to be fair "inferior position" in both of those is normally after either someones lopped something off you, or has cracked your jaw hard enough to concuss you. So thats where the disconnect may come from.


I dont think i have seen, nor does anything spring to mind as a example if two BJJ people try to victimise each other, or one does another, or just two grapplers on somewhat of a equal level. Its normally somone better at grappling closing in from somone trying to box, or two people boxing each other as the fight. If anyone can find a video of grapplers involved in predatory violence, i would be grateful. Or just one trying to victimise the other. (focus on BJJ obviously) The other concern i would have for laying down is, they could initiate the attack by just jumping on your head. (imagine the defendu two legged one, i cant remmeber what its called off the top of my head)

Thinking about it, a video of the subject is probbly the best way to go about this. Id rather one of a real fight between BJJ people, and a technique breakdown, as opposed to just one or the other. (so i actually know whats meant to be happening, and actually know it can work)

If anyone can find anything, feel free to inbox it to me if they dont want to post it on the thread.

Pulling guard isn't technically creating an inferior position for yourself.

I wouldn't do it. But people do get away with it.

 

[drop bear]

A


And this has what to do with women's self defence?

A fair bit in a meta sense. There are two ways people deal with fighting a person that is physically superior.

Either they try to go prison rules and eye gouge them or something Which is mostly stupid. Because the other person is still physically superior and can just eye gouge them back. But better.

Or they use position to create mechanical advantage. And then go prison rules if you want.

In self defense this second option is handy to know Because it increases the likelihood that you can determine the outcome of an attack.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There was no hyperbole intended if it appears that way through the neutrality of text is one thing. How i am interpreting this line of argumentation is underplaying the risks to a hyperbolic extent. (which i may have rebuffed with the opposite hyperbole, not you, i mean the argument line in general)

Now fights dont always 100% end in one definitive way, you cant say that without being dishonest, so i am not saying that. What i am saying is, they tend to and the majority do end and what needs to have happen for them to end, is one pariticpant needs to be put into a inferior position to allow them to be finished off. (what ever that is, doesnt matter) The definition and implication of fight would mean there is a struggle and one participant is actively stopping you from doing that, and thus trying to do it to you so you cant do it to them.


If we play it as equals, lets say its 50/50, putting somone in a inferior position makes it 70/30 (30% allows for the diverse range of positions, and you making a recovery or putting them in one) Why would you start in the latter?

While your overall comment here is reasonable, you're missing a few thoughts. First, the person in the inferior position may be the superior fighter in that situation (as with me dealing with a BJJ'er of reasonable rank on the ground). So them being in an inferior position doesn't really indicate the fight is nearly over. Now, keep it on the ground and let them get me in an inferior position, and we're probably nearing the end - because they're better equipped in that area.

As for equals, nobody is talking about purposely starting in an inferior position. I suspect you don't have enough experience with things like BJJ to understand how many positions on the ground where they LOOK to be in trouble that they are actually in control and well protected.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Pulling guard isn't technically creating an inferior position for yourself.

I wouldn't do it. But people do get away with it.

Wasnt guard pulling, or i didnt interprete anything written as guard pulling. (id know what you mean if you wrote "guard pulling") Although i have seen people get slammed from that. But no real BJJ directed complaint there, plenty of grappling tourments dont allow slamming from diffrent positions.

 

[Tez3]

Wasnt guard pulling, or i didnt interprete anything written as guard pulling. (id know what you mean if you wrote "guard pulling") Although i have seen people get slammed from that. But no real BJJ directed complaint there, plenty of grappling tourments dont allow slamming from diffrent positions.

This is women's self defence though not grappling tournaments.

If you play by the rules of competitions when fighting for your life you've stuffed up.

 

[Alan0354]

Should Women learn self defense more and more nowadays? How it will help in nowadays life? From what thing women should start learning the self defense tricks?

I think all women should learn self defense. By nature, women are not as strong as men in general, learning martial arts and self defense is the biggest equalizer. BUT, from my observation, women don't seems to want to learn for one reason or the other. I am trying so hard to get my grand daughter to go to a school. She did a few years of ballet, she can kick and all that, I ended up showing her round house kick, spin kick and all that, then I show her punching and kind of play sparring with her to try to get her interested. But still, she's really not that into it.

Hell, I don't want my little girl to be abused by any man!!!! I kept talking to the mother, but she refuses to do anything, keep wanting her to learn piano and all that!!!

Then my wife, she did a lot of high impact aerobics before and did a lot of fast walking. That worn out her hips and ended up having two hip replacement. I kept telling her to spread out the aerobics using upper body like punching the bags. I got her groves, I have two heavy bags hanging and she just refuses to do it. I told her before the second hip replacement, she didn't listen, ending up had to replace the second hip. Doing rounds on heavy bags is almost as good as running!!!.....ALMOST!!!

What can we do to motivate them?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

While your overall comment here is reasonable, you're missing a few thoughts. First, the person in the inferior position may be the superior fighter in that situation (as with me dealing with a BJJ'er of reasonable rank on the ground). So them being in an inferior position doesn't really indicate the fight is nearly over. Now, keep it on the ground and let them get me in an inferior position, and we're probably nearing the end - because they're better equipped in that area.

As for equals, nobody is talking about purposely starting in an inferior position. I suspect you don't have enough experience with things like BJJ to understand how many positions on the ground where they LOOK to be in trouble that they are actually in control and well protected.

Never said it was nearly over, just inferiroty of the opponent is needed to actual win a fight. Or thats the rule if you want to word it another way.

A better example i think i have is, as far as i know once a choke is set the one being choked is over. A superior person going to a inferior position would be equal to letting the lesser start off either choking them or halway through choking them. Inferior postions make the superior and inferior both equal. And see my previous statement for the rest of that.

I also recall "if it was initiated on the ground" somewhere along here, or starting in a inferior postion as somewhere along here, to which i have stated you failed in awarnesss and stratagy if you do that. And have failed at least one principle of self defence.

Addendum: also as far as i know if you are attacked most people try to make sure they have some advantage, so you are just painting a target on your back. Or how weak you appear/weak of a positon you are in is a factor for if somone attacks you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Never said it was nearly over, just inferiroty of the opponent is needed to actual win a fight. Or thats the rule if you want to word it another way.

Actually, you said: "If a assualt starts and you are in a inferior position*, you are done."

So, yeah, you said it was more than "nearly over".

 

[Tez3]

I think all women should learn self defense. By nature, women are not as strong as men in general, learning martial arts and self defense is the biggest equalizer. BUT, from my observation, women don't seems to want to learn for one reason or the other. I am trying so hard to get my grand daughter to go to a school. She did a few years of ballet, she can kick and all that, I ended up showing her round house kick, spin kick and all that, then I show her punching and kind of play sparring with her to try to get her interested. But still, she's really not that into it.

Hell, I don't want my little girl to be abused by any man!!!! I kept talking to the mother, but she refuses to do anything, keep wanting her to learn piano and all that!!!

Then my wife, she did a lot of high impact aerobics before and did a lot of fast walking. That worn out her hips and ended up having two hip replacement. I kept telling her to spread out the aerobics using upper body like punching the bags. I got her groves, I have two heavy bags hanging and she just refuses to do it. I told her before the second hip replacement, she didn't listen, ending up had to replace the second hip. Doing rounds on heavy bags is almost as good as running!!!.....ALMOST!!!

What can we do to motivate them?

Where do I start? Well, let 'them' choose what they do.

What you need to do is aquaint yourself on what harassment and assaults on women actually are.

The reason your wife didn't do as you told her is because you told her, you nagged, you bought stuff, you kept going on as if you know better about her body than she does, of course she didn't listen, quite right too. You disrespected her, you unexplained and you are patronising.

WE don't need motivating. You need to allow your female family members autonomy over what they chose to do. Learning a few kicks and punches does nothing. I bet they know more about being safe as a female than you do, you are talking as a male and it shows.

 

[Alan0354]

Where do I start? Well, let 'them' choose what they do.

What you need to do is aquaint yourself on what harassment and assaults on women actually are.

The reason your wife didn't do as you told her is because you told her, you nagged, you bought stuff, you kept going on as if you know better about her body than she does, of course she didn't listen, quite right too. You disrespected her, you unexplained and you are patronising.

WE don't need motivating. You need to allow your female family members autonomy over what they chose to do. Learning a few kicks and punches does nothing. I bet they know more about being safe as a female than you do, you are talking as a male and it shows.

I cannot disagree more. Most common response I heard from women is "it's too violent", they rather do something "more pleasant" even for exercise like aerobics. I heard a lot that they don't even want to think about it.

It's a violent world. You are encourage victimhood.

 

[Tez3]

I cannot disagree more. Most common response I heard from women is "it's too violent", they rather do something "more pleasant" even for exercise like aerobics. I heard a lot that they don't even want to think about it.

It's a violent world. You are encourage victimhood.

I've been practising martial arts for over forty years, taught many many women, my own daughter does kickboxing and MMA having started with karate.

You have no idea of life from a female point of view, what it's like for women and girls every day and all you think is to teach them to 'fight'. Dear Lord we fight every. bloody. day. The sexist remarks, the put downs, the touching, the judging, the critisims, the patronising, the assumptions and you've shown that you also do this. Stop, just stop.

Perhaps they don't want to talk about it because they've been sexually assaulted, they want to do something more pleasant because it's in a place where they feel safe not a gym/dojo/dojang full of men trying to teach them as if they were men too. 90% of sexual assaults are committed by people known to the victims, women need much more than kick and punch. If you think that's all it takes no wonder you don't get favourable responses.

To be able to defend oneself competently, with the aim of escaping the best way you can, women's self defence has to be taught differently from everyday martial arts. Most self defence training is dubious anyway, no resistance training, short courses and instructions to women...'don't go out at night' 'don't wear short skirts '.

Victimhood,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

o be able to defend oneself competently, with the aim of escaping the best way you can, women's self defence has to be taught differently from everyday martial arts.

Tez, I may have missed it if it came up elsewhere in this thread - I've been spotty keeping up on some threads lately and miss things. Has there been a discussion of how this should be different to suit this purpose?

 

[Tez3]

Tez, I may have missed it if it came up elsewhere in this thread - I've been spotty keeping up on some threads lately and miss things. Has there been a discussion of how this should be different to suit this purpose?

There's been very good suggestions on this thread, as well as the idea which I agree that grappling/groundwork/B JJ whatever you to call it is actually a more useful thing to learn than just kick punch. Confidence and assertiveness training work well.

There's a lot of things that put women off martial arts classes, all very valid and some reasons are shared by men too. Shaming women because they say they want something 'more pleasant' to do is unfair, a woman isn't going to tell a man she's intimidated by the students, or that she's been assaulted and training would be a great stressor for her, male instructors can unwittingly put women off classes as can over friendly men. I've actually discussed this with women who have often been met with derision when expressing an interest in training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There's been very good suggestions on this thread, as well as the idea which I agree that grappling/groundwork/B JJ whatever you to call it is actually a more useful thing to learn than just kick punch. Confidence and assertiveness training work well.

There's a lot of things that put women off martial arts classes, all very valid and some reasons are shared by men too. Shaming women because they say they want something 'more pleasant' to do is unfair, a woman isn't going to tell a man she's intimidated by the students, or that she's been assaulted and training would be a great stressor for her, male instructors can unwittingly put women off classes as can over friendly men. I've actually discussed this with women who have often been met with derision when expressing an interest in training.

I ask primarily because over the last few years, I've ended up with more female students than male. I suspect the smaller classes and more mature students (I haven't had a guy under 40 in my classes in many years) is more inviting, but that's a guess.

Over the last 15+ years, I've moved to teaching more groundwork and close grappling, and focused the striking on control (controlling the situation to get to grappling if that stays necessary) at the early levels.

But yeah, people want what they want. I might think something is a good idea, but I don't think that crosses into the "should" category. People get to set their own priorities and have their own preferences.

 

[Hanzou]

A fair bit in a meta sense. There are two ways people deal with fighting a person that is physically superior.

Either they try to go prison rules and eye gouge them or something Which is mostly stupid. Because the other person is still physically superior and can just eye gouge them back. But better.

Or they use position to create mechanical advantage. And then go prison rules if you want.

In self defense this second option is handy to know Because it increases the likelihood that you can determine the outcome of an attack.

I’d like to point out that the woman had zero chance while on her feet striking. She only gained a chance (and an advantage) when she took the fight to the ground.

 

[Alan0354]

I've been practising martial arts for over forty years, taught many many women, my own daughter does kickboxing and MMA having started with karate.

You have no idea of life from a female point of view, what it's like for women and girls every day and all you think is to teach them to 'fight'. Dear Lord we fight every. bloody. day. The sexist remarks, the put downs, the touching, the judging, the critisims, the patronising, the assumptions and you've shown that you also do this. Stop, just stop.

Perhaps they don't want to talk about it because they've been sexually assaulted, they want to do something more pleasant because it's in a place where they feel safe not a gym/dojo/dojang full of men trying to teach them as if they were men too. 90% of sexual assaults are committed by people known to the victims, women need much more than kick and punch. If you think that's all it takes no wonder you don't get favourable responses.

To be able to defend oneself competently, with the aim of escaping the best way you can, women's self defence has to be taught differently from everyday martial arts. Most self defence training is dubious anyway, no resistance training, short courses and instructions to women...'don't go out at night' 'don't wear short skirts '.

Victimhood,

I guess you guys just want women to be weak and submissive. This is 21st century, woman want equality, then they need to step up.

I am really really surprised how you guys think. I am old, but I am a true believer women can be strong and should be, not be submissive.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I guess you guys just want women to be weak and submissive. This is 21st century, woman want equality, then they need to step up.

I am really really surprised how you guys think. I am old, but I am a true believer women can be strong and should be, not be submissive.

So they should submit to you by doing the things that you want them to do, in order to prove that they are not submissive?