Would you hit a woman who was unarmed?

[TularosaKungFu]

As others have implied, the dignity and honor of the woman would factor into the response, but many now are not really the woman so much as female ape with rabies.
A woman I had every right to deck was not hurting me anyway and was easy to put right out the door and shut. I lean up against it and she tries to tear it down. Pfft! That was kids i cared about mother, even though dignity was not hers.
Another spoiled beasty thinking very mistaken things would get what i thought would burn most - guerilla woman? There are so many downs and outs, its how beast you want to look. War is war, but in the street i don't think overdoing it, or worse, is good form. Instincts and rage are ours to control and nobody wants to be the creepy one that indulged on it.

 

[Hyoho]

A skilled martial artist should not have too much trouble is disabling a normal woman without punching her. But some are real brutes.

My ex came through the kitchen window at 3:30 in the morning. She used a hammer. She whaled at me and did manage to injure me. I had no choice lay her out with thrust to the neck. Police arrived and it took six of them to get her screaming and kicking to the wagon.

They told me next day it was drink, drugs or both!

**** happens!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

"I'm pretty sure there a quite a few women out there who take a hit better than most men. Some of them do it on a regular basis in competitions."

Ok, now you're making even less sense. If you want to make comparisons they should be reasonably the same. Women who take hits in competition can take a hit but that doesn't mean they can take a hit from a man who is also in competition. You say "They can take a hit better than MOST Men." That is categorically incorrect. I said they can take a hit better than SOME men. Compare apples to apples and you have no argument. As I said before, all things being equal, a woman doesn't have a shot which is why they don't compete against each other..

Okay, so where's your evidence for your very strong claim that there are very few - if any - women who can take a hit better than a man? You state I am "categorically incorrect".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As others have implied, the dignity and honor of the woman would factor into the response, but many now are not really the woman so much as female ape with rabies.
A woman I had every right to deck was not hurting me anyway and was easy to put right out the door and shut. I lean up against it and she tries to tear it down. Pfft! That was kids i cared about mother, even though dignity was not hers.
Another spoiled beasty thinking very mistaken things would get what i thought would burn most - guerilla woman? There are so many downs and outs, its how beast you want to look. War is war, but in the street i don't think overdoing it, or worse, is good form. Instincts and rage are ours to control and nobody wants to be the creepy one that indulged on it.

Take "woman" out, and would you say the same about men?

 

[Steve]

Yeah, I'm sure. A minuscule number of women who train professionally to fight in the ring are not the norm, and your logic is flawed. But if you want to go that route, consider this. Take two average people, one female, and one male. Let them both train the same for an equal amount of time, and then answer the question. There's a reason women do not compete against men in combat sports. Now if you want to take that same trained woman and go find some weak male who is not athletic and plays video games all the time after work, you MIGHT have an argument.

I think it would be great if we keep as much of the control as possible and change the variable. Not all men compete. I think if you take a woman and a man of roughly the same age and weight, and trained them for an equal amount of time, but only one competes.

I would bet dollars to donuts that the person who competes will be at a significant advantage every time.

 

[Steve]

On the topic, outside of sport and competition, I don't think I'd hit anyone unless I felt like I absolutely have to. And frankly, I've never had an interest in punching people myself competitively, either.

Thinking back over my life, my instinct has always been to grapple or run. Control the other person or stay at a safe distance from them. So, I guess my answer would be no. Probably not, though I don't think it's gender specific.

 

[lklawson]

Would you hit

YES!

a woman

Wait, I stopped reading before I got this far. Is that supposed to change the answer?

who was unarmed

Same question.

but attacking you?

Is that a requirement?

 

[jayoliver00]

Just throw teeps/front kicks to keep them away. I ain't scared of no woman. Just keep teeping her belly until it pops out of the yoga pants; then she'll quit.

 

[jayoliver00]

I think it would be great if we keep as much of the control as possible and change the variable. Not all men compete. I think if you take a woman and a man of roughly the same age and weight, and trained them for an equal amount of time, but only one competes.

I would bet dollars to donuts that the person who competes will be at a significant advantage every time.

I disagree man. It takes a lot of woman to beat a man of equal size. I've trained women from scratch, that will whoop untrained or lowly trained men. But equally trained men w/o ring fights but w/sparring up to hard KO sparring, will usually beat said woman. I currently train a former, pro athlete female who made it onto the world stage in competition. She is very strong, agile, and super fit, yet very little punching power. She would crumble if a man her size went full power to her head.

Another woman who's also a pro kickboxer. Super strong & fit, but the punching power is just weak. She can probably beat most dudes in pushups & pullups, but no power in her punches. She works a lot on weights too; competition level Crossfitter.

 

[Steve]

I disagree man. It takes a lot of woman to beat a man of equal size. I've trained women from scratch, that will whoop untrained or lowly trained men. But equally trained men w/o ring fights but w/sparring up to hard KO sparring, will usually beat said woman. I currently train a former, pro athlete female who made it onto the world stage in competition. She is very strong, agile, and super fit, yet very little punching power. She would crumble if a man her size went full power to her head.

Another woman who's also a pro kickboxer. Super strong & fit, but the punching power is just weak. She can probably beat most dudes in pushups & pullups, but no power in her punches. She works a lot on weights too; competition level Crossfitter.

Fair enough. Until we get some real data, we may never know for sure. This is one of those things where I think we can be misled by individual accounts. In order to really know for sure, we'd need to be intentional and gather a lot of data.

Some people fantasize about being killers. I fantasize about having the funding, time, and institutional credibility to organize studies on this stuff. Though I will say, I'd tackle the sport vs street training model debate first, and then move to other stuff.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Surely you respond in accordance to the level of threat?

Be careful. I said that and stirred up a huge pot.

To a point. There are many aspects to using force justifiable, legal, moral, preferences, tactical. In one situation I might be willing to take some "damage" and in another zero damage.

This is flat out wrong. ANY time your response is not in accordance with the threat level, you are in the wrong. If you under-respond, you end up injured. Or dead. If you over respond, you end up in jail. Or dead.

 

[Jared Traveler]

This is flat out wrong. ANY time your response is not in accordance with the threat level, you are in the wrong. If you under-respond, you end up injured. Or dead. If you over respond, you end up in jail. Or dead.

I'm not implying that you over respond. I'm not going to end up dead because an unarmed woman is trying to hit me. What you think I'm saying, is not what I'm saying.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I'm not implying that you over respond. I'm not going to end up dead because an unarmed woman is trying to hit me. What you think I'm saying, is not what I'm saying.

There's two issues with this statement. 1: You might end up dead because an unarmed woman is trying to hit you. Check out reddit's sub watchpeopledie (I think that's the sub name). A large portion of the deaths are people getting knocked to the ground and their head hitting first so they die. Both men and women are capable of that.
2: No matter how unarmed someone sees, they could be armed. Someone could swing at you with what seems like a closed fist, and when they strike you discover there was a pen , a stiletto, a kubotan or a knife in their hands. Or they have some mace on them and after spraying you follow up with whatever, that you can't respond to. I guess my point is just because you don't know that they're armed, doesn't mean they're unarmed.

 

[Jared Traveler]

There's two issues with this statement. 1: You might end up dead because an unarmed woman is trying to hit you. Check out reddit's sub watchpeopledie (I think that's the sub name). A large portion of the deaths are people getting knocked to the ground and their head hitting first so they die. Both men and women are capable of that.
2: No matter how unarmed someone sees, they could be armed. Someone could swing at you with what seems like a closed fist, and when they strike you discover there was a pen , a stiletto, a kubotan or a knife in their hands. Or they have some mace on them and after spraying you follow up with whatever, that you can't respond to. I guess my point is just because you don't know that they're armed, doesn't mean they're unarmed.

First, thanks for the well thought out reply. To your fist point, I think I will take my chances regarding the probability of being knocked out by a woman. To be clear, just because I'm not keen on striking them does not mean I'm not defending myself.

To your second point, I agree you can't always know what they are holding. I think it's a good point to consider as anyone following this threads considers moral self-defense.

With that said, if I'm unaware of the existence of a weapon, I'm not sure that is helpful. If I think they are unarmed, I'm not likely to hit them period. But that doesn't mean I'm allowing myself to take damage.

If I become aware of a weapon, that will likely change my approach to solving the problem. What I'm not going to do is elbow every woman who might try to take a swing at me, just in case they are armed.

For me it isn't always about surviving, rather it's about how I chose to live my life.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

First, thanks for the well thought out reply. To your fist point, I think I will take my chances regarding the probability of being knocked out by a woman. To be clear, just because I'm not keen on striking them does not mean I'm not defending myself.

To your second point, I agree you can't always know what they are holding. I think it's a good point to consider as anyone following this threads considers moral self-defense.

With that said, if I'm unaware of the existence of a weapon, I'm not sure that is helpful. If I think they are unarmed, I'm not likely to hit them period. But that doesn't mean I'm allowing myself to take damage.

If I become aware of a weapon, that will likely change my approach to solving the problem. What I'm not going to do is elbow every woman who might try to take a swing at me, just in case they are armed.

For me it isn't always about surviving, rather it's about how I chose to live my life.

I think a good portion of your view depends on how good you are at grappling. If you're a sambo/judo/bjj/jjj/wrestling/shooto expert then yeah you can get away with not hitting them and focusing on grappling to limit your own tisk. If you haven't practiced an art th at focuses on grappling, then becaide of your own deficiency the best option may be to strike if there's a possibility of them having a weapon on them (even if you don't see it).

That's not really a man vs. Woman thing though. In general if you know how to grapple that's the better option since you're less likely to end up with a mansalughter or assault charge. But if you don't have that skillset, it's more important (imo) to make sure you stay alive and safe than worry about your own honor or legal standing

 

[Jimmythebull]

Women in Bars can be vicious too. I've seen a Woman put a glass into someone's face. I've personally never beat a woman but in such a case where she tried to Main & seriously wound me I would make sure she got a good beating.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I think a good portion of your view depends on how good you are at grappling. If you're a sambo/judo/bjj/jjj/wrestling/shooto expert then yeah you can get away with not hitting them and focusing on grappling to limit your own tisk. If you haven't practiced an art th at focuses on grappling, then becaide of your own deficiency the best option may be to strike if there's a possibility of them having a weapon on them (even if you don't see it).

That's not really a man vs. Woman thing though. In general if you know how to grapple that's the better option since you're less likely to end up with a mansalughter or assault charge. But if you don't have that skillset, it's more important (imo) to make sure you stay alive and safe than worry about your own honor or legal standing

I am thankful for my background in primarily judo and Sambo. It has served me very well. I agree with you.

Although while their could be exceptions, generally a guy even with low skill is at little risk when a woman swings on him. Most women don't have the bone structure or hand size, or training to throw powerful bare knuckle strikes. Untrained kicks are likely to do little to no damage.

I guess it's okay to imagine a weightlifting, army ranger, MMA female fighter attacking you, but this scenario is possible, but extremely, extremely unlikely.

Regardless at 6'3" 210, I'm likely to have a significant physical advantage, regardless of a females skill level. In addition, I'm not a fragile person.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Women in Bars can be vicious too. I've seen a Woman put a glass into someone's face. I've personally never beat a woman but in such a case where she tried to Main & seriously wound me I would make sure she got a good beating.

Again, per the original post, I'm talking about an unarmed woman. I do agree they can be vicious.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I am thankful for my background in primarily judo and Sambo. It has served me very well. I agree with you.

Although while their could be exceptions, generally a guy even with low skill is at little risk when a woman swings on him. Most women don't have the bone structure or hand size, or training to throw powerful bare knuckle strikes. Untrained kicks are likely to do little to no damage.

I guess it's okay to imagine a weightlifting, army ranger, MMA female fighter attacking you, but this scenario is possible, but extremely, extremely unlikely.

Regardless at 6'3" 210, I'm likely to have a significant physical advantage, regardless of a females skill level. In addition, I'm not a fragile person.

You are assuming, as you mention here, a woman without training. While based on personal experience most people that train are men, that's not a guarantee. And a trained low kick, high kick, jab or cross can do quite a bit of damage, regardless of gender.

I guess that part of this may be I'm a 5'7 man who weighs, with extensive weight training, 150 pounds. But a trained women has an advantage if I'm unwilling to throw punches. And if you add the extra things I mentioned (them being trained, having hidden weapons, or other advantages), it's stupid in terms of self-defense and family-defense to refuse to strike them.

 

[Jared Traveler]

You are assuming, as you mention here, a woman without training. While based on personal experience most people that train are men, that's not a guarantee. And a trained low kick, high kick, jab or cross can do quite a bit of damage, regardless of gender.

I guess that part of this may be I'm a 5'7 man who weighs, with extensive weight training, 150 pounds. But a trained women has an advantage if I'm unwilling to throw punches. And if you add the extra things I mentioned (them being trained, having hidden weapons, or other advantages), it's stupid in terms of self-defense and family-defense to refuse to strike them.

I can agree that the safest route is to maximize what you are legally allowed to do. Smash their nose, break an eye socket, crack a rib. I can't argue against this being the safest course of action.

However, life is all about establishing prioritize. Survival ranks high on my priority list, but it is rarely my highest priority. Risk management is also not about eliminating all risk. It's about evaluating risk in light of your goals.

Calling it stupid is only viewing it through one lense.