So, first, please excuse the screen name; I wasn't pre-thinking my registration process. I am neither a novel nor a girl. (I've been unable to find the magic button to make a better name of myself. I'll work on it.) I am, however a novelist -- and a woman -- who finds herself drawn to plots that require a good deal of females on the offense.

I'm looking for feedback from FightingArts members who have thought about how women fight differently than men.

I've been frustrated with both my real-world and my on-line writer critique groups, both of which are dominated by men who think it's silly for women to jump into physical dustups. (Even the few women in my groups are all, "I'd never!"

My husband, who is a black belt in something-or-another and now does some sword thingy that requires weird pants, recommend I ditch the writer types and come to you all for ideas. He's been a poster here off and on over the years.

There is plenty of stuff about how women AS VICTIMS can combat attack. But little, I've found (outside of movie/comic-strip stuff) about women, who are proactive, who insert themselves into a fracas, work their gender to advantage in real-world situations.

I'd love to hear from folks who have thought about this.

I'm not sure what this means, people who insert themselves into violent situations proactively in the real world are either 1) professionals whose job it is to do so, or 2)usually making a really stupid mistake.

You have three basic categories to go with:

Women full contact fighters - easy, find some interviews.

Women Martial artists and martial arts teachers - harder to find, but they are definitely out there.

Women who have survived violent attacks, sounds like you're not interested in that, but that is where you will find the most 'authentic' stories of women prevailing I would imagine.



Hmm, if you want to insert a does of reality into your fiction, i've heard good things about Violence: A writers guide by Rory Miller.



You have to define what you mean exactly, violence isn't just one thing, it's a bunch of stuff.

Are you looking for stories of women jumping in to bar fights, protecting their children, helping their boyfriends beat someone up?

Zach, I hear you.

And your first point is pretty much what I've gotten from the paunchy, writer types.

I'm not interested in professionals or stupid people; I'm interested in the folks in between. And where random heroics go down.

Perhaps it's always unwise for either a man or a woman to go on the offensive or rise to the defense of a stranger. Yet that's what heroes are made of.

I'm interested in the unique ways women accomplish such heroics. How women shape the battlefield differently. I'm pretty sure I don't have to be a professional hero or stupid to fight for and rescue someone even if I'm 5'7 and 135 and left my gun in the car.

I'm interested in how that works.

Im still not sure what you are looking for, you made a comment about not wanting to hear about "victim" stories, but if you are looking for stories about women physically prevailing, that is overwhelmingly where you find that kind of thing..victim stories.

If you are talking purely physical combat women are at a huge disadvantage to men both in terms of physical attributes and social conditioning...that shapes the very heart of what you are talking about.

I don't mean any offense here, but it sounds like you are trying to look at reality to find material for fiction, I think if you continue your search, you will just end up with a different idea of reality.

Again my best recommendation to you is to check out the Rory Miller book if you are really trying to put some kind of realistic spin on a fantasy heroine.

http://www.amazon.com/Violence-A-Writers-Guide-ebook/dp/B004EYTBNA





It seems like you are starting from a sort of romanticized viewpoint, and trying to fill in the gaps with stories from reality, my guess is reality will usually disappoint in comparison!

Just in case though, here is a link I got from someone else:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/5071328/Karate-student-floors-attackers

There are stories (a few on here) about women prevailing against violent attacks, but usually they have been the victim of an attack, rather than intervening in an incident.

There are also stories of folks on here who have gotten involved in disuptes between parties to try and help them out. One case in particular springs to mind: a man who posted on here tried to intervene when a man was physically threatening a woman (who turned out to be his girlfriend).

The guy who intervened was berated by both the attacker AND the attackers girlfriend.

No one in particular seemed to regard this guy as a hero. The consenus from the thread was that discretion is the better part of valour i.e. getting physically involved can and often does make things worse.

Some ideas from that thread were it may have been better to phone the police and warn the attacker that the police were on there way.

I suppose it depends on the situation. Certainly Law Enforcement Officers I've heard interviewed always discourage "have a go heroes".

Regarding specifics to women I'm not sure, but I'll have a look to see what I can find.

There is another class of women "who insert themselves into a fracas, work their gender to advantage in real-world situations." You'll find them in the lists of violent criminals, psychopaths etc. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos

Hope your post actually reminded of a rather unsavoury story I read in 2009 about Ashley Wolfe, wife of Defendo chief Bill Wolfe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...nner-dance.html

Also note in the above article how the soliders wife tried to get involved.

Presuming you are dealing with fiction, or searching for inspiration for fiction, then film offers greater example's of women taking direct violent action.

Famke Jansen as the assassin in Goldeneye- a sort of femme fatale who uses sex to engineer her targets into vulnerable situsations, then chokes them to death with her thighs!! (I could think of worse ways to go )

The women of the Matrix movies, using speed and flexibility over brute strength.

G.I. Jane, where Demi Moore faces the challenges of elite military training designed for men.

Aliens, where Sigourney Weaver uses her knowledge and lack of arrogance, as well as her lateral thinking to do what the marines cannot.

In real life, you would do well to look at the remarkable history of the female snipers of the russian army in WWII, and why the female mind proved so adept at the skills needed to excell as a sniper.

When it comes to 'street' violence, then there isnt an awful lot of difference in mindset between male and female physical agression. Web sites like 'Comegetyousome.com' have loads of footage of women fighting, both spontaneous and pre-arranged, and it just looks like what guys do, but with more hairpulling.

A few years ago, my wife was out with friends, when 2 guys 'jumped' a male friend of hers. She grabbed a pool-ball and used it to hammer one of the attackers repeatedly on the back of his head and then face and knocked him out. You may want to see the use of a weapon of opportunity as a factor in evening the odds between the sexes, but at the end of the day, the mechanics of beating the sh1t out of someone are not gender specific.

What a treat to have so many great responses.

I've read the articles. Thanks all.

Zach, the book looks great. I'll order it as soon as I can figure out how to do so without a Kindle.

Cord, very helpful how you linked the special talents with each of the female film characters. Great story about your wife. So I've got a list going now -- speed, flexibility, knowledge, humility, access to pool balls.

So I was too narrow in how I phrased my original post. I don't just mean how women may physically fight differently than men, but how women may approach the whole gamut of a confrontation differently.

For example, I've intervened in domestic altercations five times in my life. Not because I meant to but just because something happened right in front of me and...well...I was just there.

I have a scene in my current work in progress that I based loosely on the last time I intervened. There was nothing spectacular or action-hero about either the real situation or the fictional scene. But when my critique group went over the scene, both the male and female members found it unbelievable. When I explained the real situation it was based on, they thought I was crazy.

I was frankly surprised by their reaction. So I ran it by an online critique group and got much the same thing. When I talked to my husband about these reactions, he suggested that a couple of things could be going on. One, folks may not be assessing risk very well. Two, folks may not understand how a woman can use her sex to advantage in a confrontation or intervention. Three, he suggested I come here and discuss it with you all.

I have a couple more scenes coming up in which women physically intervene in confrontations. I'm trying to figure out why my perception of risk is apparently so much different than my writer crowd's so I can make these scenes work.

Drat, perhaps I should just tell the story that started all this. I'm swimming in a motel pool in the middle of the night. No one else around. Didn't bring a phone to the pool. Every time I'd come up for air, I'd hear a man and woman fighting in the parking lot. Just yelling at each other. She poked at him a couple times and he didn't poke back. That sort of thing. I just swam, but paid attention. One time I came up just in time to see him bash her head with his truck door. She went down I didn't think about it, I just jumped over the pool fence (short) and went running across the parking. I think I was yelling something as I came, swimsuit, dripping wet. When I got close, he was standing over her, staring at me, and telling her to get in the truck. She was just lying on the pavement. I stopped a good distance away and told him to back off. I kept saying it. He started arguing, saying it was her fault and blah, blah. I kept saying something like, "I know. I saw. I'm taking care of her now. All you can do is get in your truck." He did. I pulled her up. He left. I had her call a friend to pick her up.

So not that dramatic. I don't think I was crazy. It's not like I went hunting for some altercation to interrupt. It just happened in front of me and no one else was around to do anything. Of course, no matter what I did, it could have gone bad. But I took advantage of the weirdness of a wet woman running across a parking lot in the middle of the night. I was loud. I stopped well before I got to him. I didn't engage his arguments, but agreed with him and told him what he had to do.

So these things were just instinctual. I'd like to hear from folks who have thought these sorts of things through. Does that make sense?

It was a courageous thing to do running, wet and yelling to that dust-up by the pool. This was a case of you doing the brave thing when that women needed someone bad.
The guy was probably a bully who got his kicks by intimidation. By you coming along after his cowardly behavior it probably scared him. He knew that his anger dug himself a big hole and he better get away from the scene of the crime. It matters not who started the argument, The minute he bashed her head he was at fault.
It appears that you used some psychology on the pathetic dude. By agreeing with him you gave him an out and he took it.
In my Goju class we have some principles that we take from Aikido. One of them is project your ki. This can be done in many ways. The simplest being your voice. By speaking in a authoritative tone it can be some what disarming to a attacker. Don't act like a victim and you won't be a victim.

Mark

What you describe is not uncommon, nor particularly genfer specific.

When someone commits a crime, be it assault, theft, or similar, in a public place, they rely on 'social blinkers' - the innate instinct of the crowd to defer responsibility for intervention to those around them. If everyone does this, then the incident becomes 'invisible', and the victim stranded and as alone as in a wilderness. It is this phenomena that inspires self defence trainers to tell women under attack to yell 'fire' instead of 'rape!' or 'Help!' - fire is a threat to everyone in the area on a personal level, so it encourages intervention in the name of self preservation.

Man or woman, the very act of standing up and saying 'oi! what the fvck are you playing at!!??' to someone climbing through a house window, sawing through a padlock on a bike, or pushing a girlfriend around, is enough to break the spell of unaccountability; and in a great many cases, is enough to stop the acts completely and trigger escape in the perpetrators.

gojuman, ah, so there's one I hadn't thought of. Presenting your opponent with a way out and keeping that way open. That's smart and perhaps easier for a woman because a male opponent is not going to feel as cornered in the first place as he would with a man intervening. Maybe? Perhaps? So one advantage a woman could have if she knew to use it. (I wasn't thinking like that; I just wanted him to leave.) Thank you.

Another advantage a woman may have is what a contributor on the forums (I think it was Kathryn) talked about before. Jurisdictions (heck, society) may view reasonable force for men and women differently.

A woman may be less likely to be viewed as using excessive force if she is seen to be defending herself. I'm not too sure on the exact statistics to prove if there is this sort of gender bias in the law, but I would guess it's plausible.

A woman from Belfast confronted a person trying to steal her car in 2009. She confronted the thief, who threw a rock at her. She came prepared though and had a claw hammer with her. Rock missed her, she attacked the thief and broke his jaw and knocked him the ground. Police arrived and took what was left of the car thief away.

No charges were ever pressed against the women. Indeed the male judge commended her during the trial of the car thief.

If a 6'5" male bodybuilder attacked that same car thief with a hammer in that same situation, would he have had charges pressed against him? Who knows?

What if it were true that women could get away with more in terms of excessive force? And what if a woman knew it!? She could wreak all sorts of havoc ha ha!

Cord, yes, I've seen this diffusion of responsibility play out a few times.

A fellow writer relayed a story about being at the beach and seeing an old man fall off a ferry. Everyone on the beach was upset and watching this guy drown and no one doing anything, including my friend, who was a buff, young man at the time. A woman pointed at him and said something like, "You. Go." He did and saved the guy. He said the funny thing was that until the woman pointed at him, he'd just assumed someone who was better qualified would do the job. We talked about how this woman must have surveyed the gawkers on the beach, spotted the most likely hero and told him to be one.

I love the story because it reminds me that there are many ways to be heroic. That unknown woman played as much of a part in rescuing the old man as did my friend because she put a stop to this diffusion of responsibility and she picked the right guy for the job.

You, like Mark, also mentioned triggering an escape instinct in the bad guy. I'm cogitating on that. Are female interveners (I know, not a word), less likely to trigger a fight responses and more likely to trigger a flight response?

Prizewriter, I just put a hammer in my purse.

I suspect you are right. Even if size/sex differences aren't written into law, I'm guessing law enforcement, prosecutors, juries would be more lenient simply on an emotional level.

So perhaps a woman intervening in a confrontation would feel more free to use tire irons and hammers and pool balls and would not feel an onus of acting with restraint or appropriate force. That makes sense.

I never suggest that a woman should "intervene" in a confrontation.

The best use if defense, is mentality

Not by the virtue of their gender alone, and it would be dangerous for a woman in such a situation to act with an underlying 'men wont hit women' mentality. Many guys wont hit a woman if the accepted western social conditioning is ingrained in them, but, using your own experience as an example, if you had played that situation harder, tried to 'teach him a lesson' or threatened him, then he had already displayed violence to a woman (the very reason you were there), and would have lost no sleep giving you a beating.

A classic example of female intervention causing escalation can be seen pretty regularly on the streets of Britain at pub/club closing time, friday and saturday nights.

It plays out like this:
2 guys are drunkenly rowing in the street. 1 guy's girlfriend joins in, screeching at guy 2. Guy 2 insults her, causing the boyfriend to take a swing. They get into it, and the girlfriend tries to pull the guy of her boyfriend. The guy shoves/punches her away. Bystanders see this, and more guys wade in to hit the guy who hit the girl. Friends of the guy who hit the girl wade in to protect their friend from a gang-beating.
In the space of 6 minutes, police are splitting up a fight involving 10+ people, where without female involvement, it would have been 2 guys exchanging words and posturing, most likely leading to nothing.

I have seen personaly variations on the above well over a hundred times.

Cord, yes I understand. You don't want to become a liability when trying to help someone. I suppose no one can be certain they won't become a liability, but looking for ways to diminish the possibility is smart and staying out of it if you can't even smarter.

Here's what I'm wondering.

Let's just keep with my example. I'm rushing across the parking lot toward this guy. He's going to either react with a fight instinct or a flight instinct. I'd like to encourage the flight instinct, which seems interwoven with what you all said about leaving a door open for your opponent to escape.

I think my husband would be focused more on the bad guy and taking care of him (as you said, "teach him a lesson"). He would have more likely come right up on the guy. He would have inadvertently diminished this guy's ability to go with the flight instinct and increased the odds of eliciting a fight instinct. Whereas I was more focused on the girl and taking care of her. So for me, the girl was the target and the bad guy just an obstacle I wanted removed. But for my husband, the bad guy would be the target.

Also I doubt this guy felt physically threatened by me; the threat was more that I was going to make a stink and eventually someone in the motel would hear and call the police. Whereas if my husband came at him, the guy would have been more likely to feel physically threatened and more likely to fight.

Perhaps there's a difference in motivation/purpose and approach with some of these situations that can lead to very different responses.

You all are are great. I've already collected some ideas for shifting focus and adding detail to my confrontation/fight scenes that I think will help with believability.

There's your answer.

In this situation, your reaction is simply better than your husbands from a perspective of the )(*& really hitting the fan.

Alot of men cannot escape the dominance game, they will go there even when it's the worse, stupidest, most dangerous option, I know i've done it before. I remember times when I was much younger I pretty much escalated someone in to wanting to fight me..even if my rational mind knew it was a stupid thing to do.

Most of the women i've met in martial arts etc. that really impressed me did so because (by virtue of gender or something else) they understood the complete uselessness of "teaching someone a lesson", you could say they were goal-oriented in a way that many men with many years of martial arts training never manage to be.

Teaching someone a lesson in a dangerous situation is exactly the opposite mentality of what keeps you safe and unmaimed, if you are looking for something heroic in physical situations with the female psyche i'd start with the fact that women can be less likely to get caught up in those games, and maybe (as in your example) just see the "bad guy" as an obstacle between them and their safety, the safety of others, etc.

A couple of things that are essential to de-escalation/avoidance of violence are communication and empathy. If you are going to reason with someone, then you have to be able to get to the heart of their problem immediately, and act in a way that they will respond positively to. That is not always easy, and to be good at it under pressure is as hard as to be able to fight well.

Women, as a rule, tend to have a more developed empathic ability, and are also good emotional communicators. Nature or nurture can be argued, but is largely moot, as the overall gender attribute exists.

If focused and harnessed to deal with agressive situations, this natural ability could well put women at an advantage in prevention of physical violence

Okay, this is making sense to me. I think it helps explain why the male writing critique members found the scene unbelievable and/or the female character stupid/crazy. I think they were seeing the character's motivations/actions through a lens of bravado, while I intended the character's motivations to be goal oriented, no ego motivation whatsoever. A little tweaking of the language will go a long way toward removing that divide.

So tell me if I'm wearing out my welcome. I will take advantage of you all until I've got a quiver full of ideas or you tell me to go away. (I am feeling a tich guilty though as I will never be able to participate here with any sort of expertise on fighting arts. I do, however, freely contribute to newbies in my area of expertise, so perhaps a bit of passing it along.)

I'm going to relate another incident because giving specific examples seems to spark some great ideas. And it also helps me clarify my thoughts. So this one is not fictionalized in any scenes in my work in progress, but it shares some stand-off elements with a scene I'll be working on soon.

This, for me, was the scariest of the situations I've intervened in. Well, I don't even think I "intervened" in this case. I'd be interested in discussion about what dynamics were at play here and options I did not consider.

I was in college, had a live-in position with an old lady, Ida, who owned a big farm in the country. She had divided a section of the farmhouse into an apartment. One afternoon I was soaking her feet in a tub like I did every day after classes while she sat in her chair -- one of those motorized chairs that lifts the occupant into a standing position.

We started hearing all this thumping and shouting coming from the apartment to the side, rented by a middle-age couple. We looked at each other, both pretty aware of what was going on. We'd seen the signs. I'd even talked to the woman once about it and...well...you can guess how that went. So I just kept massaging Ida's feet. The thumping stopped and next thing I knew, the woman is at the front screen door, yelling for me to let her in.

I do. I see the man banging out of his door at the same time. I slam the regular door and lock it. He's out there banging and shouting. I call the police. The woman is crying and basically hysterical. I hear him rip the screen door off. I'm not worried because there's a solid, locked door yet. Also the police are on their way, although the farm was quite a distance out in the country. If figured ten minutes at the most. Also, later I realized, I had completely forgot to lock the back door, but he apparently didn't think of that either.

Meanwhile, Ida has started the long process of getting the chair to lift her to a standing position. So I'm just getting this woman to sit down in the kitchen and telling Ida to stay in her chair, when he breaks the door open. I don't know how. The door stayed on its hinges but somehow the lock broke. (I have wondered to this day how that happened and have distrusted locks.)

Anyway, he comes rushing in, casting about for his wife/girlfriend. She's behind me in the kitchen. Ida, still waiting for her chair to lift her, is in the living room directly in front of the door. He comes after his woman. I kinda stick my arms out wider and move with him so he can't get past me. He backs off a couple steps. She's screaming now. Ida has managed to get herself standing, but she's standing in this tub of soapy water.

I'm terrified that she'll fall and hurt herself trying to step out of the tub. I'm terrified she'll get her feet out of the tub and go after this guy. She was one tough, mean broad. I'm terrified he'll accidentally knock her over because he's storming around.

And, frankly, I was terrified of him. He was big and had that sort of gone-to-seed bulk about him. He kept kind of faux charging at me, then pacing around, punching and kicking random things in the house. He punched the wall to the side of my head once. I could see that he hurt his hand and we had to patch the hole later.

All I could think was to tell the woman to go in the back hall. I thought that if he couldn't see her, maybe he'd calm down. She did, but we could all still hear her screaming away back there. And I don't know that I didn't make it worse.

But I just kept blocking the way and he kept staying a bit away, but charging in and hitting random things beside me. I just couldn't see any way out of it. I don't know if I was right or not, but I felt like rather than calming down, he was working himself up. The woman was back there screaming and obviously very scared.

I also had this sense that when he did get himself worked up enough, he wouldn't just shove me aside. I thought he would hit me -- a lot. Like I've said, I've had a few run-ins with violent acting men, but he was the only one I've felt this from. And I've no idea if I was right or just really scared and not thinking straight. So it was this weird standoff, during which I couldn't figure a way out. And I was shaking so badly by this time and didn't even trust my body to obey me or that I was thinking straight. Odd, but I can't remember a single thing I said to him; I just remember trying to get Ida to sit back down and bossing that woman around. I'm sure I must have talked to him, but I've no recollection.

It just seemed to go on and on. Ida trying to lift her feet out of the tub, a look of terror on her face. I couldn't get to her. She wouldn't just sit down like I kept telling her. I kept wondering why the police weren't there yet. I'm sure it was less than ten minutes, but it felt like forever. I just couldn't think of a solution. I remembering thinking that I wasn't worried that he'd kill me; I was just afraid of being hit a lot. I remember feeling shame, in the moment, about those thoughts.

Then, even weirder, when two policemen did arrived, he just poof changed. He was all hang-dog and compliant. It really was a poof, snap-your-fingers change. (Another bit I've never understood.) Poor Ida had managed to get one foot out of the tub, but was still trapped with the other foot in the tub. The woman started screaming even more loudly. The police handcuffed him and took him out. One of them came back for the woman. Ida has a wreck, shaking; she'd thrown up. I tipped Ida back into her chair. The police asked me a couple of questions and fifteen minutes from when it started, I was back massaging Ida's feet and the water was still warm. I don't think I stopped shaking for another twenty minutes, but it was just over. The couple never came back to the apartment.

I came away from that experience frustrated because I do think it was headed for something a lot worse, and it was only because the police arrived that it stopped. But I don't really know if my senses were off kilter or not. I think about what if the police had been five minutes later or I'd never got to the phone. I think about how this man and woman had probably been going at it for years and that my actions may have [censored] him off so much that he would have taken it much further if he'd got hold of her, and I wonder if I made it worse. But I don't know what I was supposed to do. I think about how I couldn't come up with a solution to this standoff thing, which I felt pretty sure I was going to lose if not for the police showing up. I also think about how little I was able to think and act in the middle of things.

I suspect that understanding this situation, the scariest in terms of domestic interventions I've encountered, would help me figure out some of why my scenes aren't doing what I want them to do.

I'm off to bring a yacht up AK's Inside Passage for the next couple of weeks. I'm crossing my fingers that I'll come back to some scintillating discussion on this topic.

novegirl

You should read Gavin De Becker's "The gift of fear". It is a superb book by an expert on self-protection. Oldman (a member on here) recommended the book to me. Mr De Becker has helped advise a lot of women about self-protection. He would be a good source of information for you.

De Becker talks about understanding and listening to instincts as a means of self-protection. He said people often instinctively knew when something was wrong in a situation, but rather than question the outside world, people question themselves and their own instinct.


http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Gavin-de-Becker-Talks-About-Abusive-Relationships-Video_1

You have made this distinction before, implying that there is a fundamental difference in motivation for intervention between genders. I would urge you to discard this, as it is not the case. Anyone who intervenes in a violent crime shares the same 'goal', that being the safety of the persons at risk. The methods may vary, but the motivations are uniform.

As to the situation at the farmhouse, you quite often see people in a destructive rage, happy to damage the inanimate, but with no real compulsion to harm people. This is why he was happy to demolish a door, but backed away from hurting you. If he was prepared to hurt in order to get to his wife, then he simply would have done it in the height of his momentum, and swept you aside upon gaining entry. The punching of walls, the ranting and shouting is all a dissipation of aggression. Its a coping mechanism. All the time such things are used, as frightening as it may seem to be around, there is little chance of physical escalation. Equate it to a bull elephant's 'dummy' charge- a bluff, a show of dominance, but no intent of completion.
The police arriving signaled the end of the illusion, hence the instant passivity - I guarantee that that this couples relationship consisted of far more psychological, than physical abuse. He will have condtioned her to be scared of his anger for its own sake, and there will have been much more damage done to TV's and doors than to her person over the years.

As to dealing with it, you just do what you can. That is no different for men or women, and whilst training can give you more tools in a distressing situation, there is never any sure fire way to 'prepare' for something that could go any one of hundreds of ways. I have been dealing with violent incidents and confrontation professionaly one way or another for 20 years, and with all the experience in the world, you often come away with a feeling that you 'just winged it' and made it up as you went along, and in a sense that is always true, and also healthy - the day you become nonchelant and stroll in thinking you have it all worked out will be the day you wake up in hospital wondering who changed the script

Hello novegirl:

You ask a difficult question. I fear that Zach may have several good points. However...


<<how women fight differently than men.

Two arms, two legs, a brain... you/they (women) are the same in most ways in the context in which most of us typically encounter them. We do not see "frail", nor "weak". We do not notice their breasts, their bodies, their lips, their eyes... they are our opponents and our partners, sometimes total strangers, sometimes they are our friends.

But they can harm any of us, badly and very easily if we dismiss their ability(ies) solely because they are female, supposedly a "lessor threat". A foolish mistake.

There are a few books I might suggest to describe the perspective I think you might be seeking?


"Women in the Martial Arts; A New Spirit Rising" Linda Atkinson

Far and away the template by/from which the other later works were written.

"A Woman's Guide to Martial Arts..." Monica McCabe Cardoza (Overlook Press)

"Women in the Martial Arts" Edited by Carol Wiley (North Atlantic Books) would be one.

=========

Though I am sure many here can certainly articulate their views
I suspect the group you will want to speak with/explore is the National Women's Martial Arts Federation http://www.nwmaf.org

Perhaps they will have a unique perspective which as men, we might not possess?

Jeff

Forgive me for saying so, but the way you put the question risks attracting some pretty stereotypical answers. It may not, but it's a risk.

In any case, I doubt the differences are huge. Male and female martial artists practice the same skills, so they probably fight using roughly the same techniques and strategies. A female martial artist who was smaller and lighter than a male opponent would probably fight the same way a smaller, lighter man would.

I suppose you could try contacting groups such as The Guardian Angels in London. They have a page on Facebook as UK Guardian Angels. I mention them because they were founded by a woman who used to do female protection patrols on her own. When I interviewed them several years ago they had a number of female members (which, I believe, some of the US chapters had stopped for some time).

One thing I've noticed with intelligent female MAists, while sparring, is they don't attempt to trade blow for blow with a guy my size. They get in and get out quickly. They are often more nimble and flexible and use this to an advantage.

That said, small guys do the same.

That's for sure Trevek. I've noticed that when sparring with the upper belt women black and brown belts I have to be ready for their sneaky techniques. They buzz in and out from angles that make it harder for me to counter.That beig said, I like sparring with the women because their deceptive way of attacking forces me to use better timing and be lighter on my feet.

keep training, Mark

Most men have an aversion to hitting women. Some women will use this aversion to confront men, and rely upon this aversion to avoid the danger involved. They intervene with the expectation that they will not be struck or others will protect them. They have no illusions of defeating the man physicality and stand bravely relying on others (the aggressor or bystanders) for safety.

Men who intervene have to expect a physical confrontation and rely upon their physical power (in posturing or fighting) to come through the danger.

The goals are the same in intervening but the mindset is different. Of course, these are big generalizations but this is what I have witnessed most often.

Well said everyone. In a street confrontation I've seen small women get in the way of big guys and talk them down. I've also seen mouthy little gals who have taken their life in their hands by mouthing off in the middle of a potential violent situation. These gals think because they are a womeen that they are untouchable. There are fellows out there who will hit a women. Pathetic, but there out there.


keep training, Mark

And other women who'll wade in too!

We had a situation here in Poland a couple of weeks ago. My school is teaching Middle Eastern students. One night a lad was at a disco and got into an argument with a woman (I think he'd trodden on her foot accidentally). Eventually she slapped him across the face... he returned the favour.

I would recommend the book "Why Does He Do That?" by Lundy Bancroft as well as the "Gift of Fear". It provides a detailed understanding of the thought processes of perpetrators of domestic violence.

With respect to the last scenario you described (the one with Ida), your response as a woman was perfectly valid. You didn't need to stop the guy, just needed to stall him long enough for the police to arrive. You also were concerned with the well-being of the elderly and the target of the violence. These are very different responses than a man would have had in the same situation, imo.

The perpetrator was perfectly in control of his rage (as evidenced by his sudden calm demeanor when the police arrived). He had conditioned the woman to respond to his "rages" with compliance. In his mind, the target was the one who escalated the issue by going to seek help from you. (She likely had a "hunch" that this time was different and she was in serious danger).

Being a by-stander in this sort of situation can sometimes be dangerous. But often the perpetrator is aware that he doesn't want to be caught and also that he can always punish his target later when there are no witnesses.

You probably saved the target from serious physical harm by intervening the way you did. In that respect, the confrontation with this man was successful. No one was hurt, the police intervened, and hopefully the target was able to access services which helped her escape from this potentially fatal domestic violence situation.

Just a little about me: I am a martial artist and MA instructor, a self-defense instructor and a novelist.

I'm still not exactly clear what your crit groups saw as the problem with your character or her actions. Maybe you can clarify their specific responses.

In female-women self defense, the methods and ideals have to differ than that of male self defense

Disagree completely. The ideal is plainly stated in the definition - defence of yourself. There can be no other ideal without it ceasing to be self defence.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I agree. Defending one's self is what it is. Keeping yourself from being harmed by others.Period.

Mark

I can understand what was meant with the statement of ideals and methods being different for women. The motivation of the perpetrators is different with female targets than male targets. So the ideal response in a given encounter might be very different.

This is especially true in situations involving domestic violence, where the ideal response should take into consideration the female target's long-term safety, not just a response to a specific encounter. She might conceivably allow herself to be harmed in some cases; she might not fight physically; she might give in.

Self defense is self defense. Women may perhaps have some advantages over men in being able to stop conflicts from happening but when it gets to the physical part of self defense it's all the same.

The only problem women have is in physical strength but I know some women who are still quite womanly and much stronger than average Joe when it comes to defending yourself.

The outcome (defend) is the same. But as I stated;
the methods and ideals have to differ than that of male self defense



I have attended and hosted defense seminars. Female defense seminars are different

Thanks. I see you do understand

I disagree that self-defense is self-defense.

Here's a sample scenario: Your husband comes home from work in a foul mood and you are pretty sure you are in for a rough night. You do everything you can to keep him from blowing up, walking around on eggshells and trying not to upset him or make him angry. Finally, he tells you to put the kids to bed and because he is "in the mood for some love, right now". You have seen him this way before and know you will end up with bruises by the end of the night, he'll probably smack you around a bit, but your experience tells you that once that is over with he will probably fall asleep and leave you alone for the rest of the night. You think if you obey him quickly enough you might even be able to avoid a real beating like the one he gave you last week when you were a little slow to respond to his "request". That beating put you in the hospital for 24 hours and when you came home the children hadn't been fed and were still wearing the same diapers and your husband reminded you that you were responsible for taking care of the kids, not him. And you'd better not slack off again or else you never know what will happen to you or maybe one of the kids."

What should a woman do to defend herself? What would be the ideal response in this situation? Should she put the children safely in their rooms and allow herself to be raped and beaten by her husband? Should she engage in a physical confrontation with him? Should she try to de-escalate the situation? Should she sneak quietly out the back door while he is undressing?

And this is just pointing out difficulties in the actual individual encounter at the moment. This doesn't address the social, emotional, economic abuses she might be experiencing that create additional complications in dealing with a long-term plan for her safety.

Good post dude.

At heart the problem is when people equate "self defense" with a narrow set of physical skills. Self defense involves a pretty broad range of concepts, and the physical stuff is just what happens when it all fails.

To say it's "all the same" is an intellectual cop-out..only the same in a very narrow, purely physical sense..and even then it's a questionable statement because the dichotomy between who people are, and how they fight is a false one.


That's the problem with saying something like a woman woulod fight like a small guy..that's only true in the dojo or gym, in the real world that's impossible because we have to fight from who we are, people can't suddenly ditch a lifetime of social conditioning, experiences, personality and being because they do martial arts.

She shouldnt be home when her husband gets home. Her and her kids should be packed and living in a womens shelter.

Anything else is not adequate self defence.

And lets not get sidetracked by this issue either, because the dynamics of an abusive relationship are NOT gender specific. Jealousy, the undermining of self confidence, and control through behaviour and violence are just as common with women being the perpetrators and their male partners the victims. The big difference is that in such situations, the man is much less likely to come forward and seek help.

The original question was specificaly aimed at the gender differences in tactic and motivation when intervening in violent crime/disorder in a public environment.

Domestic violence is an entirely different ballpark, and as I said, self defence in that situation is a)work on self esteem to not settle for or tolerate a bad partner in the 1st place, and/or b) get the hell out of the relationship by any means necessary if stuck in one.

There is no other answer to that scenario.

I agree Cord. Don't hang about waiting for the next time. I understand that might not be an easy option to make. Love can be blind as far as couples go. But when theres kids involved aswell i think it dosnt count. When he gets back from the pub, whos to say that they wont be the next victims of his wrath? I grew up in that environment. Not very nice!

Whatever the particulars of the situation, a woman has to look at things differently than a man. If a guy who outweighs by 50 lbs you comes up to you on the street and pushes you down..what do you think he's after? I'd wager that for most men such a situation would usually be a pissing match, and nine out of ten guys (rightly or wrongly) would want to engage and teach him a lesson.

Put a woman in that position and you are talking about a precursor to assault, rape, or both. How can things be the same?

Self-defence to my belief starts with awareness and avoidance. Be aware of the threat and do what you can to avoid it. Prevention is better than the cure as they say.

If you miss the signs of being attacked, then forget about all the fancy techniques either get running or go crazy. Thats just my opinion though.

I respect the Krav maga mentality because of its explosiveness and i believe that makes for reality self-defence.

Is 38 years old too late to be learning KM or should i just stick with the styles i do now and just borrow the KM concept?

Again, i disagree. 7 out of 10 guys in a confrontational situation wont say 5h1t if you stuff their mouths full of it.

This accepted wisdom that all men are somehow hardwired to fight is not the case, and most men on the street do not have the self confidence or ability to do diddly squat to an attacker- why do you think there are so many attacks? If muggers/mindless thugs got back what they gave in a high percentage of circumstances, they wouldnt do what they do.

Any social hierarchy is based on a balance of dominance and submission. That is not a gender based balance, its social conditioning and personal psychological make up. The vast majority of men are as scared and useless when under attack as this thread percieves women to be - if this was not the case, then 90% of martial arts classes would vanish overnight. The fear of being powerless, the fear of violence, the fear of domination is far more widespread than the opposite. There is only one alpha male per group- kinda dictated by the name.



Rape is not about sex. Its about power. Men dont turn to male rape in prison for sexual pleasure, its a dominant act. In the open world, again, male rape is far more common than we would like to think, and is considered the worlds most unreported crime.

If you get jumped/mugged by a gang, do not presume that your only injuries will be from fists and feet. Its all about dominance, and the expression of that in all its forms crosses genders suprisingly easily.

Cord, I vehemently disagree with you that there are just as many female perpetrators of domestic violence as there are male. There is absolutely no statistical evidence for such a statement. One of the common tactics of abusers is that they turn tables on their targets and blame the targets as the ones causing the problem. I believe that men have introduced this concept of the huge numbers of male targets on a cultural or communal level as such a tactic. This does not mean that women never perpetrate relationship violence, it does happen. But it is comparatively rare. Further, even in the rare cases of male targets of domestic violence, I believe the dynamics of relationship abuse are different between male perpetrators\female targets and female perpetrators\male targets.

Having said all that, I agree this is heading off-topic and have no particular desire to pursue it. I only used that example because it was extreme enough to show just how different women's self-defense is compared to male.

If we are dealing with generalities and the most common scenarios there are still a number of differences between women's self-defense and men's. As pointed out above, women are often confronting opponents who are larger and stronger than they are, they are often attacked in isolation from others, they are often attacked by predators whose intent is to punish them, they are usually less experienced than men, they are usually less likely to want to hurt someone, they are more likely to use verbal and emotional strategies; the list goes on.

Cord, where did someone say that women are scared and useless?

There are plenty of cases of domestic violence perpetrated by females.
Not as many as males, but plenty just the same.
Many women know that their male partners won't strike them back, and they take advantage of that situation.

I'm in the interesting position of agreeing with both Cord and Shusha.

Re Shusha, true that "women are often confronting opponents who are larger and stronger than they are, they are often attacked in isolation from others, they are often attacked by predators whose intent is to punish them, they are usually less experienced than men, they are usually less likely to want to hurt someone, they are more likely to use verbal and emotional strategies"...

Re Cord, "Any social hierarchy is based on a balance of dominance and submission. That is not a gender based balance, its social conditioning and personal psychological make up. "

Combining the two, "That is not NECESSARILY a gender based balance, it's social conditioning and personal psychological make up, combined with the physiological differences in size and strength which make women much more convenient victims, as are smaller and less aggressive men in prison."

Similar to comparing male and female eating habits -- both eat, but social conditioning helps determine food choice, table manners, belching etc., and physiology determines the amount consumed. Eating is eating; to me the differences are more trivial than the similarities in method and function.

That is not what I said. Physical domestic violence is one possible symptom, or tactic, used within a relationship, by an individual to assert control over their partner as an expression of their psychological issues.

An 'abusive' woman may use jealousy, rage, manipulation, and prey on the percieved insecurities of her male partner in order to gain psychological control and dominance in the relationship. In short, its a form of bullying that seeks to create a situation where the male 'treads on egshells' is not allowed female friends, not allowed to spend extended social periods away from the partnership, and is 'programmed' to behave in a way that every action he takes is in an effort to appease his partner.

Many, many men end up in this situation, and many men have been attacked by partners wielding weapons of opportunity in a rage when such behaviour reaches critical mass.

The pyschological 'breaking' and undermining of a person in an abusive relationship follows a smilar psychological pattern, and timeframe, be the victim the man, or the woman - any unequal relationship defined by fear is abusive.



Its the general held 'wisdom' that a woman will, by default, be inferior to any given random male in a physical confrontation. What interests me is the contradictory mysoginy on Martial arts logic. Run a straw man argument on any given forum in which a big strong man fights a skilled trained smaller man, and due mention of physical advantage will be made, but inevitably, the wisdom 'training will out' will prevail.
Then run the same scenario with a bigger stronger man against a comaparative physicaly weaker female, and suddenly she is helpless, and requires weapons, help, an act of god and a rabbits foot to survive.

My point was not about the lack of ability of women, it was the lack of ability, and taste for violence in the vast majority of 'ordinary' men.

The idea that by virtue of being a male alone, you will be able to deal with violence better than a female, is utterly, utterly ridiculous. Most men live in fear of violence just as much as women. A guy walking home alone in the dead of night on a dark street is every bit as wary as a woman in the same situation. Some may use bravado and body language to try and convince otherwise, but you see it every weekend - the guy on his own, walking in the street (not on the pavement), with imaginary water bottles under both arms, swaggering up the street to his home. He is not 'owning' the road, he is avoiding hedges and blind spots. He is not posturing out of hubris, he is trying to make himself look bigger/stronger to warn off atack.

At the end of the day, any reasonable human being of any gender, is terrified of conflict.

Does this not assume that any attack against a woman is automatically sexually/gender based? If an attack is robbery based, is it necessarily different for a man or a woman? Likewise, as domestic violence also takes place against males (with both male and female perpetrators) may not the defence tactics be simlar?

I imagine that for many women the idea that an attack will automatically result in a sexually based attack is perhaps the basis of much SD. Assume any attack is sexually motivated and use this as your defence motivation.

No one said anything like that.

In fact, I would argue the opposite is true.

The few women i've known who get involved with the "self defense" aspect of MA have a much easier time with it because they already are operating from a mindset of survival rather than confrontation or dominance.

Whereas many men I have known (including probably 80% of male martial artists i've met) literally have trouble understanding the clear difference between an escalated pissing match in front of a bar, trying to teach someone a lesson, and trying to get away from or having to subdue someone who is trying to really do harm to you. that's not to say the pissing match can't turn into one of those..

Self defense with men often becomes about a 'game'where you beat the other guy, whereas it seems like women, by virtue of having to view violence from a different point are easily able to just think about survival and safety.

I don't think that a sexist statement at all, if anything it just points out how stupid and boneheaded most 'self defense' is in martial arts culture, where people have a hard tiome distinguishing between the grown up equivalent of a schoolyard brawl, and an actual assault.

So no one said males can deal with violence better, in fact if you read was written you could easily extrapolate it in the opposite direction - Men can have a tendency to make it worse because they like to get involved in the dominance game.

A good point. I remember when I was living in Belfast, I had visited a female friend and was heading home. She suggested that my friend and I cut across a pitch black park area. I commented that there was no way in hell i was going across the park... it was dark and I couldn't see who was there (and I have a lovely british accent). She, being an ardent feminist, asked, "So you're scared? Ha! Now you know how every woman feels!" Then she asked, a little incredulous... "Really, are you scared to go across there?" I pointed out that there were many reasons, good and bad, for someone to decide to attack a person walking in a dark place at night 9especially in that town) and to me, it wasn't just a matter of being 'scared', it was a matter of common sense and I'd be practically 'asking for it' if i walked somewhere like that at midnight, whether I was male or female.

Precisely. And many 'self defence' classes rely on propogating that fear.



Not at all. I would go further though, and say that the core tenets of self defence run across not only genders, but also motivation of the attacker.

As an example, a victim's primary goals in their situation are:

1. Avoidance (ideal) through sound personal choices in regards to travel arrangements and environments frequented.
2. To prevent/limit physical contact and injury with/from their attacker.
3. To maintain an escape path, remain on their feet, and to flee as soon as possible
4. To do everything possible to alert others to their plight.
5. To maintain awareness and take in details of the attacker to pass on to law enforcement.

Now, as a basic framework, is that any more, or less relevant to a male being stalked on a footpath and attacked for his new 'smart phone', or a woman accosted by a sexual predator?



In both cases, the only answer is the cessation of the relationship, and distance between victim and abuser, with intervention by authorities where necessary.



Yep, and for men, it is never factored into their scenarios, yet it happens. I had to deal with a guy who had been beaten and gang-raped in the toilet of the pub I was working in at the time. He needed hospital treatment, the men responsible were held at the scene, but released when the victim refused to press charges due to the stigma of the event. He just went ahead with not sexual assault charges. Women are not the only victims of abuse and sexual assault.

Agreed.
My girlfriend holds a second degree black belt in Isshinryu, and even though she has the skills to dominate, her mentality is to get away from confrontation if at all possible.
Guys tend to let their egos get in the way, especially when there's women around.

Cord, you said:

"Jealousy, the undermining of self confidence, and control through behaviour and violence are just as common with women being the perpetrators and their male partners the victims."

I know of no statistical information which supports this statement. I do acknowledge that men also experience relationship abuse. I acknowledge that it is vastly under-reported, significantly more so than for women who experience abuse which is also under-reported. I acknowledge that services for male targets of abuse are very difficult to find. I acknowledge that abuse is abuse and that emotional, social and economic abuse is just as significant as physical violence.

However, you seem to be arguing that female perpetrators\male targets happen with the same frequency as male perpetrators\female targets and I do not believe there is statistical evidence to support this. Also, I believe that male targets experience relationship abuse differently than female targets do. Not that it is less painful, but that there are differences.

Zach: I totally agree with this statement. Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

"The few women i've known who get involved with the "self defense" aspect of MA have a much easier time with it because they already are operating from a mindset of survival rather than confrontation or dominance."

"Does this not assume that any attack against a woman is automatically sexually/gender based? If an attack is robbery based, is it necessarily different for a man or a woman?"

~80% of physical assaults perpetrated on women are by someone she knows, most often her boyfriend, husband, ex-boyfriend or ex-husband, father or other male relative (in roughly that order). Are these based on sex or gender? I think it would be more correct to say they are based on societal and cultural expectations of male and female roles, but yeah, they are. So, do I automatically assume that any attack against a woman is based on sex or gender? No. But a large majority clearly are.

If we were to take a more gender-neutral situation, such as robbery, I still believe you would find differences in the both the most likely response of male vs. female targets and the best responses of male vs. female targets.

And most children are abused by a family member or person in the families trust. And most murders (male and female) are perpetrated by someone known to the victim.

That is not a gender statistic, it is proof that for most people to hate enough to harm, they must know the subject of their hatred well.



As I said earlier on many occassions, with men being unwilling to come forward and deal with the stigma of their abuse in official channels, statistics are pointless, (Indeed, statistics in general are one of the most malleable and misleading forms of information you can rely upon), however, seeing as you set such faith in them, care to back up your above claim with some?

I don't dispute the relationship between attacker and target, indeed, it wouldn't be any news to me that the number of males attacked by those who they knew was also high, especially in the domestic situation. However, my question was more about whether an attacker, such as a robber, used different techniques against female/male targets. Obviously, in many cases they would, even using the threat of sexual attack. But how else might the tactics differ? Different striking area perhaps (is it common to try to kick a girl in the crotch as it is to a male?), are attackers less likely to attack a male face on?

I have known several people (male and female) attacked or mugged and often the attack is simply steamrollering into someone, knocking them over and running with their bag... mind you, I imagine this is more useful on a female carrying a handbag (purse, to Americans), but I could be wrong.

Crimes of violence (robbery, rape, sexual assault, simple assault, aggravated assault)

male victims: 49% non-stranger, 42.4 strangers, 6.7% unknown
female victims: 69.8% non-stranger, 26.6% strangers, 3.6% unknown

Table 43a, Personal crimes of violence, 2008, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept of Justice.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0802.pdf

Homicides

male victims: 46.1% non-stranger, 15.5% stranger, 37.4% unknown
female victims: 63.6% non-stranger, 8.7% stranger, 27.6% unknown

of the female victims killed by non-strangers 30% are intimate relationships (spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend) while only 5% of male victims were killed by intimates.

of the male victims killed by non-strangers 29.4% are killed by friend\acquaintance.

FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm

So the simple response to 'have you statistics to back upthe above statement' is a simple 'No'.

Didnt think so.

Cord,

Your disdain and sarcasm doesn't particularly contribute to a meaningful discussion. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong by insightful comments and well-thought-out arguments, though.

Generally when someone prefaces a statement with the words "I believe" it is understood to be an opinion rather than a statement of fact which is backed up with statistics. Which is why I thought you must have meant the stats on the facts I posted, which I have now provided.

But I'll see what I can come up with re: the robbery scenario.

There seem to be three different areas of discussion that are possible here:

1. Are there gender differences in the motivations of choosing a target and in the goal of an attack?

2. Are there gender differences responses (natural or trained) of the target during an attack?

3. Are there gender differences in the optimal response of a target during an attack?

I had assumed it was the second two. I note we haven't really looked at female/female fighting, which is often a lot nastier. Indeed, I think females often use other weapons and targets than men (scratching, pulling hair, screaming, stilletoe shoes etc)

Men use weapons of convenience too; if society dictated that they had long nails and long hair and wore high heels, there'd be more male scratching, hair pulling etc. Ask a guy with a ponytail whether he's ever had his hair yanked by another guy in a fight.

NO! It never happens... Show me a Steven Seagull film where he gets his hair pulled!

Wow kazow!

What fascinating stuff.

It's going to take me a bit to go back through and digest and order the books and read the links you all have provided. Thank you.

Through reading the dissention here, I'm seeing that even basic words we toss around are loaded in different ways for different folks and become catalysts for misunderstanding. If, even the communication between folks who are interested in and have studied martial arts gets tricky, think how much more tricky to communicate to a broader audience. Even the word "confrontation" may well conjure up a different image for male readers and female readers. I'm guessing "physical confrontation" even more so.

Shusha, you asked me to pinpoint my critique group's reaction to my female/male confrontation scene. The group's reaction was so out-of-blue to me that I didn't have the presense of mind to drill down into their general critiques of 1. unbelievable or 2. the acting female character was just crazy. Franky, I doubt these critiquers could be more specific. It's up to me to get behind their broad criticism, understand, and adjust my prose. Having read a fair share of genre novels with male/male confrontations and having read plenty of violent confrontation scenes in my co-horts' work, I'm pretty sure that it is the FEMALE active role in a ordinary-world sort of story that creates the believability problem in my work. The problem I wish to get a handle on so that I lose nothing of the heroic acts my female characters will undertake, but also keep my reader with me, believing, and believing in my characters' sanity.

While out on the boat these last two weeks, I had a series of conversations around these topics with my husband, father, mother, and sister. It was all very provocative to me, and, frankly, reiterated that perhap my thinking is askew and that it will take some doing and some good writing to bring readers along with me. The upshot of these discussion was that we (male or female) DO long to be heroic, but that we are also so afraid and we often fail and we are often ashamed. When we are telling stories, we need to be as cognizant of the reader who is living with shame as the reader who is living with the remembered glory of heroics.

I'm going to go through the posts now one by one and respond.
But first a bottle of wine is in order and another thank you. This stuff is engaging and I wish to weigh in.

Prizewriter, yes I saw Gavin on O and my karate instructer has incorporated many of these ideas into her women's self defense classes.

Funny, but my family was saying that this very thing may be part of my problem. I DO trust my instincts and Do act on them. I'm perhaps atypical and therein lies part of my disconnect in writing such scenes. I have not read Gavin's book and perhaps it goes into the how and why some folks do not trust and that would give me some insight I need. I've put the book on my amazon order list.

Thank you.

Cord,

I find myself both disagreeing and agreeing with you. I've no professional experience, but perhaps a couple of layman's experiences that I think exemplifies the difference in target/goals that come into play here.

So the only time I've used my MA training... Okay, I should back up. I grew up doing Judo; my dad's fault. I've stuck with some sort of MA most of my life. The truth is I just kind of suck. Oh, I can fall really well. Push me off a second story, even, and I'm good. I can kick high with perfect form and my blocks are on angle. But I can't actually do anything when anyone is hitting at me. I've come to terms with this. I'm lame. To this day, no matter how much I've played catch with the boy or practiced juggling and so forth, if my husband tosses me the car keys, I'll watch them arc toward me and let them hit me in the face. I'm just lame when it comes to whatever that is.

But back on point, the only time I actually used MA training I was at a playground, chatting in a clump of moms, when this big kid took a tire from this little kid. (It was one of the playgrounds on the poor side, where a tire and a stick were hot commodities.)

I said to the big kid, "Give that tire back."

He said, "You gonna make me?"

I surveyed the moms about; none of them admited owning the big kid.

So I said, "Okay. I guess I will."

So here, as I approach the kid -- he was my height, maybe fourteen -- I was absolutly not thinking about the little kid whose tire had been stolen. I was thinking about the big kid as I marched on him. I knew I could take him, although I had no idea how, and I knew his attitiude irked me. I wanted to teach him a lesson. I was not afraid for myself.

So here's the part I disagree with you. The difference in what I percieved as our abilities, despite size, which was pretty equal, made me fearless of this bully. I supsect that my lack of fear focused me on him rather than on the little boy he'd done wrong.

Because I could have stood in front of the bully and demanded he leave and so forth. Or helped the little boy up from the dirt the bully had shoved him down into.

But no. I marched up to the bully, thinking only, "I wonder what I'll do." I did a perfect manueuver for the situation, which must have been harewired into me through some damn MA exersise I'll never remember. I did some sort of arm bar, brought the boy to the ground, pushed him in a bit. He released the tire, which the little boy jumped up to capture. I made the older boy say he was sorry and told him to go home.

When I let him up, he ran away. All the moms clapped and the little boy started rolling his tire. Then one of the moms said, "How did you do that? That brat is always here pulling that crap." Then another mom said, "Well apparently it's easy and we could have done it a hundred times ago."

So contrast my target there with the swimming pool incident. In that case, the the guy was quite a bit bigger than me, young, muscled. No matter how high I can kick or how perfect my block angles or how well I could fall, I did not see a physical confrontation with him working out well for me. I assume I knew this on some level while running across the parking lot.

You know what though? If I did feel pretty sure I could take him and "teach him a lesson," I would have. I suspect our "targets" and "goals" are based more on ourselves and our perception of our abilities than on the "bad guy" and the "victim." Think about it. What, in the heat of a moment, triggers a safe bystander to thrust themselves into the fray? Anger. An overarching feeling that THIS should not happen. And it WILL NOT when I'm arround. I think our instincts vacilate between attack the perpetrator and rescue the victim depending on our abilities. Sure the same outcomes arise - the victim is rescued; the perpetrator flees. The SHOULD NOT happen DOES NOT happen, But the focus is all different. The fact that I did not in this pool case, but chose, instinctually, to focus on the victim, was an acquiecensee to what I viewed as my diminished power, not what I would have wanted -- if I were 6'4" and could breathe fire. I would have taken out the man. Perhaps? Maybe?

But I do think that how we evaluate our targets has a lot to do with how we evaluate ourselves.

So back to my college farmhouse incident. Maybe you're right. Maybe this guy was wearing himself out smashing around in our living room. But that's not how it felt. I think in my last post, I admitted to trusting my instincts -- and maybe too much. My instincts told me he was testing me for flinch and fear. My instincts told me I couldn't step aside or do anything else but block him and not budge because he was looking for a sign of weakness. I didn't start out feeling weak, but I got there and I couldn't figure a way around.

Another series of novels I would suggest, should you find the time, are Jonathan Maberry's 'Joe Ledger' novels: 'Patient Zero', 'The Dragon Factory', and 'The King of Plagues'. The stories centre around a government agency called 'The Department of Military Sciences' a super covert group who deal with cutting edge bio-terrorism. Its far fetched stuff - sort of a cross between '24' and '28 Days Later', but what would be of interest to you, is that Maberry is a very high ranking martial artist, who writes very strong action oriented roles for women in combat/defence situations, as well as offering a lot of interesting subtext to the psychology of conflict for both male and female operatives.

They are also a great read which helps

In regards to your own work, do not worry too much about trying to please anyone but yourself- like you said, trust your instincts, and if you want your character to intervene, ask yourself what you honestly feel you would do in the situations you create. If you are writing a weaker character, then simply ask yourself what you would actually prefer to do in that situation to keep yourself safe above the wellbeing of others. If its true to you, then it cant be far from the mark.

Ronin, thank you for the book suggestions. I'll order up one or two of them.

fileboy, you're right. I tried to amend the question and add some context for just that reason. Looks like it helped. The responses are giving me some unexpected insights.

Trevek, yes, I remember the Guardian Angels, now that you bring them up. Had no idea they were still prowling the streets. I'll do some research. Thank you.

gojuman and Trevek, on the trading blows bit, I think you are dead on. I've done a bit of research, with the help of and ER doctor friend, on the different tolerances for taking blows in women and men. Women's bones, including the skull, are thinner and less dense. Also connective tissue in most regions is less robust. Most women simply can't trade blows very well. A blow of equal force will, most likely, disable a women more than a man. So yes, bringing this wolf-like, darting in and out, and off center, style to the fore is something to keep in mind.

everyone, umm....I think this goes back to the notion that men and women may view the target differently in an intervention. I'm not sure that a woman intervening is thinking or consciously relying on either the aggressor or bystanders to provide her greater safety, but I'm quite certain this basis against hitting women can be a safety net. For example, once I came out into a bar parking lot to see two men fighting. Neither was winning or had the other down. All I did was turn around and go back into the bar to tell the bartender. But if I saw a man and woman fighting, I'd probably be more inclinded to intervene more directly. This cultural bias works in the favore of women. Right? Have I understood what you're saying?

Susha

I'd enjoy reading one of your novels. If you are willing, please give me a title. Perhaps this forum has a private messaging function I've not yet found if you are hesitant to go public.

While you're right that in this situation, it all worked out okay for me and Ida (I've no idea how it worked out for the woman), writing up the story for this thread reminded me of how much it's always bothered me that I was reliant on the police arriving. I read this scenerio to my son and husband, asking them, "What could I have done differently so that I was not at the mercy of the police arriving?"

My son had an interesting response. He said, "You shouldn't have trusted the door." Now there's no way I would have thought at the time that I shouldn't trust the door. But as my husband and I discussed this, we came to the conclusion that it's smart to figure out what you are putting your trust in -- and then figure out a back up, just in case your trust-meter is off. I can think of several back ups I had at my disposal, if I'd been thinking on this level.

But I'm wondering what else I could have done in this situation if the police wouldn't have shown or if I'd never even gotten the call off. This is perhaps more a personal question for my own knowledge, but I can see such a thought proccess helping to make my confrontation scenes more believable as well.

Ideas?

By the way, I responded perviously to your question about my critique group's response. I often find that my critique group is the bomb for pointing out weaknesses but is rarely on target for suggested fixes. Most of them are genre writers, and I do a more literary thingy. They often suggest a problem in a nuanced emotion scene should be fixed with a helicopter landing in front of my characters, despite that there are no helicopter pilots or even any mention of helicopters in the preceding scenes. A bit of an exaggeration, but not much. I find this critique group invaluable BECAUSE they write so differently, but have to work around their far-flung "fix" ideas.

Please forgive all mispellings. My desktop went down and I'm reliant on my ancient laptop, which will die if I install the spell-check version of google.

So, to respond to Cord, Shusha, 47MartialMan, and ZachZin's exchange about whether female self-defense is different from male self defense, I'm thinking ZZ is more on target here.

Think about it this way. Much of training is not simply to learn this block and this kick and to go off line. Sure that's all basic, but then you start to get a feel for what you're good at and bad at and how to use your strengths and weaknesses. Certainly, this comes into play for male vs. female trainers. But it is universal as well.

For example, my father, who was the judo champion at my home state's annual fair for a few years, asked my husband on our recent trip, to teach him some kicking moves on the new heavy bag Dad had setup in the garage. My husband quickly realized that Dad could and should not really kick. My husband worked with him on low, raking, stomping kicks, which worked with my dad's weight and flexibility level and also worked to get my dad into close range, where his size and amazing hand strength could work for him.

Similiarly, I remember, years ago, learning all these wrist breaks and so forth to get an attacker's hands off you. They worked super good in class. Dad came to visit and, of course, I proudly want to show him all I'd learned. I could not break his holds. Ever. Even with the little shock-move rakes and stomps. He was a commercial fisherman; he kneeds one of those hand grip gismos when he drives. All that practice with breaking grips does me no good against such a strong hand. I learned that. I brought it up with my MA instructers. I said, "And when that doesn't work, what?" I asked them to help me figure out other options. (Frankly, they were at a bit of a lose, but we had a cool old guy who'd studied kempo all his life. Mr. K put his arm around my shoulder and taught me some nasty things that are more about just being willing to go there than about hand strength and leverage.

Another example, I cannot catch anything. Okay, a boat line, but anything else, I just can't. I'll stand there when my husband tosses me the keys and let them hit me. I've always been this way. Maybe I get mesmerized by watching the arc. Maybe never learning ball games as a child. Who knows? I can't catch anything. Same thing with blocking. I can't seem to get my arm up fast enough to block anything coming at my face or upper regions. Sure, I could train and train and get past whatever comes between me and a catch, but after learning to juggle (because the husband thought that would help) and learning to catch baseball with my son, I still was just terrible. Instead, I've focused on ducking and moving off line. Ducking comes pretty easy and moving off line, well, I've felt a steady progression. Maybe from all those years of key tosses; I'd duck, the keys would skitter under the next car over. My husband would have to crawl under to get them. He learned not to throw keys at me; I learned to duck.

The point is that I think so much of training is about first understanding our strengths and weaknesses, and, second, working around and with them. Thus, by definition self-defence (or offense) is highly individual. Certainly, sex differences, but that's only a start.

I suspect that folks who don't see this are the folks who have no glaring weaknesses that are constantly leaving them with key ring and baseball bruises. If your necessity doesn't necessitate you learning how to individuate your training, I bet you folks don't even know how the other half lives. But then there are the Mr. Ks. This old guy in our classes scared everyone. I remember once, when we, for a short time, had a bunch of women, our instructors told the women we could pick men to spare with. All the women bunched up and we discussed who we'd pick. Everyone was saying, "Anyone but Mr. K." I remember thinking, "Mr. K is exactly who I need." I chose him as my sparing partner for the entire class, which led to a whole relationship, which in turn, led me to come to him when I sought ways to deal with grips I couldn't break. He was a work aound for me. I suspect that some of you here have not felt the necessity of seeking out work-arounds precipitated by your weakness.

To say we all have heads and arms and legs and thus training and fighting is the same, to me, only telegraphs that you have not had much exerience with your own weakness. More power to you. It would be nice to feel/be so capable. But that's not where I live. And not the sort of advice that's useful -- when you feel weak; when you intervene anyway.

Female self defense has to differ slightly from male self defense?

This is utter nonsense. Sorry, but it is.

Allow me to relate to you, the story of me.

As I write this, I sit here, 6ft tall, 262 lb, heavily tattood, 36 year old male. I have lifted weights consistently since I was 15 years old, and have worked my entire adult life, (bar a 3 year hiatus) in the security industry- bouncing, armored truck cash courier, and currently a senior member of the security team of the University of Cambridge.

Not a lot should bother me, right?

Wrong.

2 years ago, my left patellar tendon snapped. This rendered my leg completely useless, as my thigh muscles no longer attached to my lower leg. A puppet without a string.

Not only did it take 2 ops, and the massive amount of rehab needed just to be able to walk again, but this episode has left me in vastly new territory when it comes to dealing with confrontation.

My job is to stick my nose in, intervene, and generally pay great attention to people and situations that normal people would be quite happy to either ignore, pretend werent happening, or phone law enforcement to come and deal with from a very safe distance. I am front line- my job is to go say hi and spoil an a-hole's fun.

Up till my knee went, I could run away if things got too much. I had a certain level of mobility to maintain distances, and control spatial factors. I also had trustworthy power in my legs and core for dynamic delivery of physical tactics to deal with a situation.

I dont now. I physically cannot run - high impact would be too much for the structure of the tendon. At best if I did run, I would be in pain and out of action for months through a partial tear, at worst, it would give completely, and I would be left hobbled on the floor, at the mercy of anyone who saw fit to harm me.
I cannot kick, nor can I generate as much torque through my hips in punches or throws.

So what should I do now? a) should I behave differently in my job, and betray an underlying weakness through my actions? Or b) should I play the bluff, and continue to act from a mindset that does not entertain my new restrictions?

If I take path a) will it keep me safe? Will anouncing to a gang of trespassing would-be thieves that I am diminished instill pity in them? Not likely. Far more likely that they would take the chance to attack.

but if i take path b), what happens when the inevitable happens and someone calls my bluff?

You think you feel incapable?! You should have limped a mile in my shoes, January 2010 when I came back to work and had to deal with this dilemma for real, not in a story.

But then I had an epiphany. That being that prior to the injury, I had on countless occasions, already dealt with situations that had they gone bad, I would not have been able to handle- at least not without some personal cost to health and wellbeing, and that while my leg was not as it once was, my mind, my judgement, my verbal, and non verbal communication skills and my experience were undiminished.

The truth of it is that if you are going to intervene, you must do so from a position of strength. It doesnt have to be physical, but it has to be recognisable as strength.

That was the difference in your 2 stories- you, not the oponent.

In one you saw a 14 year old boy, and a series of presumptions kicked in in a blink of an eye - the psychology of bullying, age related lack of real confidence and experience, the advantage of being an adult/authority figure, the fact he was just a damn kid. So you went in for the kill.

In the other you saw a full grown man, drink/drugs could be a factor, there were no other bystanders to help you/be witnesses, he was already a proven women beater. So you played it safe.

There was every chance that the 14 year old was on course to be a letterman on his school wrestling team, or that he was carrying a blade, or that he was high.

There was also every chance that the adult male was a true dominant coward, or had a blown knee or an artificial left arm, rendering him less able to be the physical force you turned him into

You made your choices based on presumption, not really any empiricle evidence that could give reasonable certainty of outcome.

Thats not to say that you did wrong - we all, male and female, subconciously filter what we percieve through a whole range of 'truths' that are no such thing, merely ingrained personal beliefs, and make a judgement call on the best course of action.

That uncertainty however, remains in EVERYONE (including attackers/aggressors, incidentaly), and manifests as a sense of fear, trepidation, and a sensation of weakness.

At the end of the day, controlling these personal demons is the foundation of controlling the situation. You must be the eye of the storm, because to not be, means you will be levelled by debris very quickly, irrespective of if it be a grumpy teenager or a thug on the street.

I feel like I don't quite understand what the argument is here now.

That was great post Cord, and props for putting some personal food for thought out there, you had a lot of stuff int here worth pondering. I'm unsure where exactly you disagree with novelgirl though. Do you advocate she just view the issue of dealing with/intervening in violence as gender neutral?



That seems to prove her point, we all ultimately will fight like who we are, we can try to change that however we'd like, and to some degree we might see small bits of improvement.

However, i'd say the smart money is on the person who accepts their limitations and learns how to operate anyway, rather than someone trying to simply deny those personal "truths", as those things WILL be there when the [censored] hits the fan, and they most certainly will play a part in how you react.

It's one thing to advocate being aware of your own conditioning, maybe doing what you can to expand your viewpoint and move past some of it, but in the end you are who you are, and when things get bad...you will still be that person, not the enlightened version that has moved past all their weaknesses.

Absolutely.



Thats not what I said. Besides which, no professional boxer was born with the natural resiliance to punishment, the biomechanics ingrained to punch with that power, nor the fitness to do it round after round. Plenty of men and women use training, familiarisation with the stresses and contact of fighting, to completely transform their reactions and instincts in a physical encounter.

My point was how when we believe we react accurately to the situation before us, we seldom do, as the whole situation can never be known, and what we do see, we do not see in a neutral light. That is the same for men, women, attackers and victims.

Again, i'm confused, this seems to speak to her argument, not yours. Seems like you are agreeing that we are limited in our perspective by who we are and forced to act on that, like it or not.



So the solution is for women to become boxers? Seriously, if the answer were as easy as "just become a great fighter, male or female"..we wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation. Sure, training can do alot to broaden how you will react. In the context of the conversation, i'm not sure how meaningful that is..she was asking about "normal people" (I think)..not professional combat athletes.

Again, i'm not how any of this points towards this being a gender neutral issue, it seems to point to the opposite.

Again, THIS. IS. NOT. WHAT. I. SAID. OR. MEANT.

For clarity:

The original argument is that women and men have fundamentaly different reasons for, and thought processes during intervention. That males think more about the domination of the transgressor than the safety of the victim, and that women are less likely to let ego influence how they approach the intervention.
Nove then expounded on that by suggesting that the presumed more cautious approach to intervention by a female (and in her personal experience), is not due to not wishing to be more aggressive, but due to lacking the confidence in their tools for escalating to a potentialy physical confrontation.

My position is simply that men who intervene inherently feel the EXACT SAME fear, doubt in their abilities, and reticence to put themselves in danger. That, by virtue simply of being a man, we are not inured to terror, pain, or a sense of helplessness in circumstances that could turn violent. We also, have no better idea of how to fight in our 'instincts', and require just as much training in the physical and psychological stresses of fighting to become effective at it.



Gross oversimplification of my point, but lets run with it. 2 different women walking home seperately in different towns on a given friday night.

Woman A is completely untrained in any form of fighting whatsoever.

Woman B takes Muay Thai classes 2 times a week, including sparring sessions.

Both women are attacked by a sexual predator, who accosts them, grabs them and gropes them, with a goal of penetrating them with his digit/s.

Of the above 2 women, which is more likely to fight off and discourage their assailant into fleeing in failure?




And my point here would be that professional combat athletes are 'normal people'. They would not be fearless in the event of attack (sexual or otherwise). They have the same hardwired physiological responses to danger, they feel pain, and they can, by defintion be 'beaten' or bested. They bleed, fart, pick their noses, laugh at dirty jokes, and if they see a crazy guy threaten a woman on a street corner, would have the same inherent FEAR of the uncontrolled and unknown. Its how they may be able to channel and deal with that emotional cocktail that differs, and seperates them from the untrained. And that is a learned skillset, available to both sexes.



I hope that this post makes things clearer for you.

Goodness,

Cord your story is moving. The fact that you have been big and srong and able most your life and faced a time of weakness and were able to rethink where your strength actually came from, I suspect, is rare. To understand that your perceptions and judgement and non-physical confrontation ability were as, if not more, powerful than your body or training in physical fighting and then to decide to continue in your line of work with this new understanding, is commendable. One could even say heroic, if one were a novelist and given to heroic journey sorts of language. But let's just keep it all real and let me say that, I think, your reassessment of your strenghts probably serves those you safeguard better than you could have before you'd suffered and lost and reasessed.

I wonder if the heart of the disagreement here is more about where folks are focusing. You speak of the sameness of a fear reaction in men and women in an intervention; you speak of the same ability to be hurt. Yes, agreed. Men and women probably equally experience fear and open themselves to pain and possible death, even, when they intervene.

I think, perhaps, I failed to adequately explain myself, and once again I failed in writing even my personal confrontation scenes. (Let alone my fictional ones. So this is good for me.) I have not once felt FEAR when I initially reacted to some situation. The FEAR has always come after I've stuck myself in the way and had that oh-sh1t moment. Perhaps I have bad genes or something went off in my upbringing, but whatever cocktail of areneline and whatever else, for me, has, thus far, left the thinking side of my brain coming to while running across a parking lot or a beach or a neighbor's yard. My FEAR instincts make me attack; whatever is still capable in my brain, then, tries to figure out what to do with the headlong rush.

I don't mean to be this way. I'm quite a fearful person -- when I have time to think. I SCUBA dive all over the lakes in our area, but when I had the opportunity to dive in Hawaii last year, I chickened out because I'm [censored]-my-bikini afraid of sharks. When I backcountry camp in bear country, I have to have four loaded BIG GUNS ready at each side of the tent because you never know which side the griz will attack from. I'm a fraidy-cat. When I have time to think -- and think poorly. When I don't have time to think, I don't, and I just get myself in pickles.

It seems to me that you are more focused on initial response. You seem to think this is a trained reaction. While I'm sure that one can train oneself to some degree, I also think that some of this is simply in the genes -- or hormonal response. So one person experiences a dump of adreneline as a freeze; another as a flee; another as an attack. I was intending to write that, for me, I'm pretty sure that I've just got bad genes. The sort that propel me forward when I've got an adreneline dump. But, now, my husband is here with me and I've read him this section of the thread, and he said, "No, wait. Think about it. Perhaps there is more of a nuture compenent to your reactions." He reminded me that I grew up commercial fishing in dangerous Alaskan waters, where one minute I was retching off the side and the next minute, in full raingear, I had to jump off the heaving bow with a line onto a heaving dock and loop a cleat in 20knot winds and eight-foot seas. I said, "Well, that wasn't about overcoming fear -- or barfing -- that was just about getting done what had to be done." He said, "Exactly." He has now inumerated numerous other incidences involving bears and guns and collaspsing old mines and shifting shipwrecks, and PMS (I don't count that), that are part of my upbringing. "See," he said, "you were probably just raised wrong."

Anyway, I've told him it was HIM that was raised wrong and he's insisted it was me, and we're two bottles of wine in and still not sure how to get to the crux of the disagreement.

But, after he smacked me around -- in an entirely verbal sense, which he can't go three round with me -- he said that you were telling a tale of how you changed up what you put your trust in, based on your physical limitations. I said, "Like most women would from the get-go, no torn ligaments necessary?

Yes, but it is not learned identically by any two people, much less learned, utilized, viewed the same by different sexes, walks of life, dispositions, experiences what have you.

There are plenty of people with really good, valid, hard training who have had it fail miserably in real life. There are also plenty of completely untrained, "weak" people who end up successfully fending off attackers twice their size.

This really seems like reductionist argument to me, there is so much going with reaction to violence that has nothing to do with martial arts training. 99.9% of martial arts training out there seems to totally ignore all that stuff anyway, and treats it as if it exists in parallel universe to the real world.

If training is unable to address these kinds of questions, then I would argue it is not anywhere the kind of safety net you seem to think it is with your example of the untrained vs. trained women, or more appropriately, I would say there is a mental piece there that might have little to do with the martial arts training itself. If every time I walk into the dojo as "Dojo Zach", and over time I start to think that Dojo Zach will be who I am when someone is really trying to hurt me, I am setting myself up for disaster, the element of who I actually am in the real world is inseparable from how I will fight, and that goes alot deeper than just the stuff i've trained in.

So without going off on any more of a tangent, I have to say i'm still pretty unconvinced by the argument that this stuff is the same for both sexes. It certainly isn't about women being somehow "weaker" though. Violence is a big "if" question, preparation to it, reaction to it isn't something that can be as simple "well just train and you'll be fine, it's the same for everyone".

IMO big part of training with regard to hopefully gaining some skills applicable in the real world is coming to an understanding of who you are, what you are and are not willing to do, what you think you are and are not capable of. I assume that someone's sex HAS to play a big role in that.

Sorry if i'm moving to far away from the subject Novelgirl, I'm just finding the conversation interesting, and I figured that even if i'm veering off course a bit it would be worth putting it out there.

Yes it is. The human species has a universal ability to adapt to environment. Its why there are 6 billion of us spread across every extreme of climate and terrain on earth.



You have answered your own argument for me there. Lets extrapolate from your above statement: Many who take martial arts training for many years, find they lack the tools to defend themselves in a real incident, but you also observe that the vast majority of martial arts training available does not provide the tools and skills to deal with violence.

I couldnt agree more. Novegirl herself has made comments about 'learning moves' or 'techniques' in the past, but not how to apply them in an uncontrolled environment of aggression. That means she hasnt learnt them. Not really.

There is a reason in my example, (a real one by the way, based on the current serial sex attacker active in Cambridge UK - 8 attacks across the city, one woman fought him off, and she had low level competetive fight experience), cited Muay Thai as the skillset, and why I stipulated she sparred regularly.

The big differences between a fighting gym and a martial arts club/class, are the atmosphere and the intensity. Time and again, you will hear criticisms about 'arrogant' or 'intimidating' environment in a gym that produces competetive, full contact fighters. Muay Thai, q-bury rules boxing, MMA, all such places feel scary to a newcomer. There are old blood stains on the flooring, and the sound of hard striking all around. Its not the 'womens self defence day course' that runs in the church hall, nor is it 'Black Lotus academy of Martial arts- lose weight, gain confidence, learn to defend yourself' . Its a place where people learn to inflict, and absorb violence. To have someone stood in front of you that wishes to dominate you, and you have to negate that threat and impose yourself upon them.

Of course it feels intimidating to many people- it should. But those who feel most uncomfortable in that environment, are those that need it most. But they will go to the nice, relaxed, welcoming class twice a week, where they run through endless technique drills, get belts for hard work, and may spar, but never too hard.

They have built a false self confidence, and they have learned NOTHING applicable to deal with the intensity and ferocity of a real attack.

So its not that training is unable to address these kinds of questions, its that most training out there gives the wrong answers.



We have a uniform physiological response to danger. That is nature. How we deal with it, and channel it is nurture, but it is NOT gender based. Novegirl has already clearly stated that her instinct is to meet agression with agression. That could be seen as a male stereotype reaction to violence. Many men will not hit back, will not speak up/intervene in a situation, hamstrung by a feeling of helplessness - this fullfills a negative female stereotype. So if both sexes have the ability of fight AND flight, then how can gender be the deciding factor over experience? and if experience includes familiarity with dealing with violence, how can that not help you when under attack?

I pretty much entirely agree with Cord - the sexes on stereotype are different physically and mentally but the physiological response to danger is the same in both sexes.

As I also consider physical confrontation to be the same for both sexes - saying that women on average are weaker is a strawman some men are weaker than other men or even women by physical strength and ability.

In self defense the mentality is the most important part. Most people regardless of gender are rightly terrified of violence INCLUDING men.

And most people have 0 physical talent for fighting, not to mention the mentality.

The mentality to be a predator and defend yourself is actually the same an attacker also feels fear which is part the reason of why he picks out targets that seem weaker than he is.

Self defense is a lot of things the preventive measures are awareness and avoidance but once the self defense becomes physical it all relies on turning fear into a weapon - as my Sensei once said it isn't about technique it's about the willpower/spirit to drive your attack through like a wild beast.

That's a sort of simplification but I agree with it based on my own experiences that have been very real and threatening..

Much of the reason we humans have been able to adapt to even extreme environments is because we have done so as cultures that are very reliant on division of labor. The folks who are good at building shelters, build a lot of shelters and get even better at building shelters. Same with hunting or farming or taming falcons. We divide up the work based on ability. Age then sex are the two most universal and first divisions.

These divisions of labor occur all the time in regular life. Last Father's Day my husband wanted my son and I to go river kayaking. We had an accident. I was in the lead when I swept around a corner and saw a mess of deadwood. I yelled back to my son and husband, who were able to get to shore. But it was too late for me. I went over, ended up losing my kayak, stranded on the opposide side of the river and all scraped and freezing. My husband divided the labor. He sat the boy down on the bank around the bend, an age division, at 11, he decided the boy would be the most help by staying put. He went after my kayak, dumped his own, came back to tell me that the very expensive paddle I'd borrowed from a friend was stuck in a sweeper downriver. He'd tried to get it, but the sweeper wasn't holding his weight. It held mine and I got the paddle. He handled getting my kayak, which was waterfilled and wedged under a log, and his kayak, which had shot up into a tree, free. I couldn't have got those kayaks loose. All I had to do then was get back across the river. I found a downed spruce that stretched two-thirds of the way across, crawled out as far as I could, jumped, and swam as hard as I could. He went downriver to catch me if I couldn't make it. I did. He had bruises all over; I had scratches all over; the boy was scared but fine. We divided the labor according to our strengths, which here were very much about age and sex.


It just seems ludicrous to maintain that training is learned identically by any two people. I'm pretty sure that you aren't really saying this and that I'm misunderstanding you. To take it outside the male/female realm, we had a young man at our dojo who had frequent stupor seizures -- sometimes several during a class. Of course he trained differently.

It also seems that, when it comes to fighting, the tool you have is your body and all bodies are not equal. My husband is tall and his reach is longer than mine. I have to get closer to him to hit him. This is just biomechanics. I can't train a longer arm. The kid with seizures can't train himself out of them, although he did get on the right mix of medications and doesn't have them so frequently.

I'm not sure I agree with your postulate that a woman who has done MA training is necessarily going to fight back more readily during a sexaul attack than a woman who hasn't. I would assume that the woman who had training may fight more effectively. This is just based on antecotal evidence, but I've seen folks who just freeze up in hairy situations and folks who don't. Much of these responses seem more hardwired than conditioned. I do think a person can do the sort of training that tries to mimic stress, fear, exhaution responses, but that's a whole level that most folks don't either need or want to tackle.

I even think that some training can result in a woman (or anyone, I suppose) being less likely to fight. This example only goes so far because it's not about an attack, but perhaps it makes part of the point.

When I was 20, I was working as a cocktail waitress at very rough bar in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. At the end of the night, one of my tasks was to stand by the door and make sure no one left with bar glasses. One guy refused to give me his glass and he was kind of out in the parking lot, taunting me about it. Of course, I took out after him. I chased him. It wasn't until we were way down the beach that I even realized he was playing with me, staying just ahead of me. I probably chased him a quarter mile away from town before it hit me that this was probably stupid for a bar glass. I ran back. Today, I would have stopped chasing him at the end of the parking lot, because I have better judgement, partly from running through scenerios in MA classes, especially those women's self-defense classes. They love to run you through scenerios in those classes. So I think that sometimes training can mean that you fight less because you judge better. If that makes sense.

I have heard from a source I trust that it is how a person carries him or herself that can be most important in an encounter. Walk like a victim, you are perceived as a victim. Walk with relaxed confidence, encounters tend not to happen.

Just want to comment on part of the discussion that occured while I was gone. This stuff about domestic violence and male/female violence stats.

I did a series of newspaper articles years ago on violence against the disabled and so spent some time with U.S. FBI crime stats. Overwhelmingly, most violent acts are perpetrated by men AGAINST men. I can't remember the rates and this was years ago and for the U.S. But I bet the stats remain pretty much the same. Men are victims of violence FAR more than women. When you start breaking down the numbers by the catagory of crime, I'm sure rape is one of the catagories that goes the other way. I think Cord is right, though, that male rape is even less reported than the notorious under-reporting of rape in general. (I did a bunch of research on prison rape in the U.S. for a book and was shocked by its prevalence and how little anyone is doing about it. Then if you've been keeping up on the torture tecniques used in places like Egypt and Syria -- my gosh -- it's just appauling how prevalent male-male sodomy stuff is used.

All that to say that I agree that men are more in danger of physical violence than women as a general rule. (Another aside, I studied some archeology and anthropology for a book and interviewed an archologist who wrote a book that theorized that through most of human pre-history, an average of 1/3 of males died in violent clashes -- war, skirmishes. About the same number of women died in childbirth. Perhaps neither here nor there other than evidence that men have always been more at risk for violent confrontation.)

All that said, I make a thick, dark line between emotional and pysical domestic abuse. In intimate relationships, whether between husband and wife, sisters, friends, we are always more able to hurt each other emotionally. And we do. But the victim is free to leave. In the midst of a physcial attack, the attacked person is not free to leave...well, I guess I should say that the weaker attacked person is not free to leave. Most often in male/female relationships, this is the woman. Sure, we could say that the next day, when he's gone off to work or to the bar, the woman is as free to leave as the victim of emotional abuse is. But in the moment of physical abuse, the victim is NOT free to make choices. And the ultimate threat in these situations is that the abuser could kill the victim. This is just not the same level of threat as emotional abuse, where the threat is the attacker will make you feel even worse about yourself. Right?

Anyway, all my cents on the subject.

iaibear, in some women's defense class I took, the instructor told of a case, where I man would go through grocery stores and knock his shopping cart into female shoppers' carts. The women who appologized to HIM, he would target as likely victims. Don't know if this one of those urban myth sort of stories. But I suppose one thing a person who "walks" like a victim does is appologize for things they didn't do.

Drat, it just hit me that the crux of the disagreement between Cord, and those who agree with him, and ZZ/Shusha and those who agree with them, could simply be a different frame on the initial question. While Cord and the likeminded are focused on the entire of the population, having not narrowed the field to those who intervene.

This is probably my fault for initiating my questions poorly.

So when I asked about how men and women may deal with confrontation differently, I was already biting off the perhaps small chunk of the population -- women or men -- who intervene. I agree that many folks of either sex just don't. Astoundingly, we keep even hearing stories about folks who don't even use their cellphones from a safe distance. So, I'm athinking that the folks who have come down on the side of ZZ are assuming this prerequisit -- that we are talking about the folks who do intervene.

It may well be true that just as many men as women are of the sort -- whether instictual or conditioned -- to intervene. It may be true that the initial fear response is equally strong in men and women and equally propells them to either fight or flee. While I may have some quibbles in this reguard, they are entirely based on the kind of men and women around whom I have spent most of my life, and, therefore, probably not hard-fact relevant. (Although I'm compelled to mention a few facts that are not soley based on the sorts I consort with. By and large, men are far more likely to participate in sports that will hurt them. Rock climbing, technical mountain biking, white water kayaking, boxing, deep-water SCUBA, the list goes on. This tells me that men are more attracted to activities with a higher danger quotient. Sure, of course, we know there are women who do these things. But check out the local climbing cliff and check out the local dance class. There is a gender difference here, and, I suspect, it's got something to do with our tolerances for, and appreciation for adreneline sports. Look at the typical moves men watch -- The 300, The Matrxi, whatever. What are chic flicks? Sure some Tomb Raider stuff, but by and large they are romantic comedies and shopping fantasies. Look at the ratio of men to women in the sort of blood-on-the-floor fighting gyms you described, Cord, versus the ratio at the mall-work-out dojos. These differences are not just some modern invention. In most past cultures that we know anything about, men tend toward the hunting/fighting side and women tend toward the foraging, egg collecting, baby raising, cooking. Birth control has radically changed this. It used to be that pretty much every adult woman was either pregnant or breastfeeding.
But even today, when we women can control this, it still has it's impact. I separated a rib while I was pregnant the first time because pregnant women's joints/bones soften. I probably did it either biking or in karate class. It didn't go away. I have a rib that's not well attached to my sternum and the muscles around there sometimes cramp up and bend me over even years later. So I guess, I'm trying to concede that you could be right that men and women experience a fear reaction equally and respond the same way, but also that there's a lot of info in your way and I'm not sure. My point is that, I think, for the discussion I initiated, or tried to, it is beside the point. I am trying to get a handle on what folks, who intervene despite, or because of, their intial fear response, can then do when sex/size/skill (however it turns your crank to think of it) is not on their side.

It seems like you're wishing to focus on the folks who don't intervene. That's an interesting topic, too. And, it seems to me that you're saying, if you're one of those people who gets frozen with fear, training in bloody gyms with lots of violence and yelling is a good way to work with your weakness. Agreed. Wholeheartedly. For me personally, and also for the characters I'm writing, this isn't the problem. I haven't had issues in the scenes I've done with fearful, non-combative characters.

I can see that in your line of work you probably see wall-flower sorts all the time, which explains your concern with this. But I'd be very interested if you were to skip past that part and get into what various skill/size/intention levels can and do do differently in confrontations.

So I'm not responding to novelgirl, and here's why. A couple weeks ago, my wife, novelgirl, was asking me about how the people on her writing forum, the degenerate lot, couldn't understand how any woman (even perhaps a man) would intervene in a domestic dispute. So I says to her, you should talk to the good folks at fightingarts (my forum). Okay, so I don't really post here much, but I used to lurk regular back in the days of Old Man vs. Razwell.

Anyway, I've been watching this thread, and thinking, cool, Cord's weighing in. But I find myself disagreeing with Cord. Not so much on the physical or even the emotional universal differences between men and women, but on that nurture, sociological male/female divide.

I believe that in human society women are women when they are of sexual maturity. But men have to become men -- by some rite of passage, or proving themselves to be providers or protectors or whatever a culture values men for at a given time. So that when my wife told me about this experience at the pool -- I wasn't there -- I can't help but wonder what I would have done if I were there. I'd like to think I would have shut it down a lot quicker before anyone got hit with a car door. But I don't know. I wonder how it would have went down if I'd done exactly the same things my wife did.

Would my rushing up to the incident play differently than my wife rushing up? Okay, we're both in bathing suits and dripping wet and yelling, but then, what? Is there a different vibe?

So it seems to me that women can often be more focused on results than on proving themselves. Which reminds me of much of the focus of Zen in Asian martial arts. Much of Zen is an attempt to remove ego from confrontation. So what if women just don't have that whole training-to-remove-Cobra-Kai bit to contend with? In fact, don't we find ourselves in the dojo, slowing down and shutting down the young men's egos, while with most of the women, we're all, "You are tough; you can do this." We're trying to get all the young men not to be tough guys, to embrace this Zen thing, while we're telling all the women, "You are Cobra-Kai. You go, girl."

Hey look, I don't purport to have the answers, if I did, I wouldn't have sent my wife here. But it seems like there are gender differences, even though, yes, there are little guys and spunky women that seem to break the mold.

I think the "gender differences" are subjective at best. Some people see men and woman as being totally different, whereas others see minimal differences between men and woman.

Personally I'm dubious of ANY attempt for people to assign themselves an identity based on some larger collective. People are individuals and have to be assessed on their individual merits and flaws.

In terms of the "right of passage" stuff for men, I don't buy in to that. People mature at different rates and again this is an individual thing. I matured slowly over time, I didn't kill a boar with my bare hands and think "Whoa, I'm a man now!" Ok I'm being facetious here but I don't think it is necessarily a bolt of lighitng moment that always makes a person mature. It can simply be dealing with everyday life and dealing with that over a long period of time that allows a person to mature.

I read a review of a great book by a psychologist. She wrote about the development of boys in Western society. For the life of me I can't remember the name of it but it was a detailed review and featured an interview with the author.

She said that generally little boys and girls from their time of birth until puberty have more or less equal ability to express their feelings and communicate. Little kids, regardless of gender, are by and large equally emotional.

When puberty hits, things start to change biologically of course. What also changes is the social pressure exerted on these youngsters to conform to gender sterotypes. At puberty, boys are suppose to play contact sports and not cry. They are not suppose to talk about their feelings. If they get hurt and complain, they are told to "Man up" or "strap on a pair". The author of the book argued that it is this social brutalization of young boys that often leads to them becoming more aggressive, emotionally crippled and generally less able to communicate their feelings.

So the idea that "men should be men" could be as much about social pressure and societies expectations of what a man should rather than biological factors. The author also said that if young girls were brutalized in a similar way in society (i.e. encouraged to be physically aggressive and not communicate or express themselves emotionally) then they could turn out the same way as an emotionally crippled, aggressive male.

In that sense it is social pressure to conform which shapes an individual, not necessarilty their gender. Hence we see gentle, communicative men who are good care givers, and we also see women who are aggressive and struggle to express their emotions. It seems to be the case, the author argues, that nurture dictates this as much (if not more so) than nature.

This agrees with a point Cord made in the sense that a persons gender doesn't necessarily determine what they will or will not do, it is more the experiences they've had (or haven't had) and how they have adapted to those experiences that will determine their reaction and ability to cope in a conflict situation.

But if a group of women get marooned on a deserted island, then the division of labour gets devided the same regardless, and survival continues based on that structure. The only limitation is the finite span of the group due to the lack of reproduction. The rest of it - the building, hunting and all that stuff would happen through human ability to adapt regardless of gender.



There are many paths to the same goal. My point is, that when it comes to dealing with confrontation, it is either learned (ie, its now in you to use instinctively), or its not (works great in a class with people not trying to hurt you, but not under real pressure in conflict). Thats not a gender thing, thats an individual thing.



I am not saying that everyone uses the same techniques or tactics, I am saying that any method used comes from the same core of ability to function under attack, and that is not limited or affected by gender.



Well, as I said, my example is a recent real world one. Also, I have worked along side women doorstaff, and 2 of my senior MA instructors are/were female. I also married a woman who has no qualms about engaging in physical violence to protect herself, and has done so on many occasions, so I have real world first hand experience of what a woman can accomplish in a physical encounter, including against the opposite sex




If the training doesnt go there, then there is no chance of adaption to the stressors. What you have said above, equates to any and every learning process in life, from learning to walk, through schoolwork, to job skills to fighting. Remember the first time you drove a car? How unnatural it was? losing track of where the indicators were, the shift, balancing looking in mirrors with seeing the road ahead?
How about now? How much conscious thought do you put into the mechanics of driving? Not a lot I would bet - its hardwired through familiarity.
Now what if you were taught to drive badly? If you were purposefully given wrong rules of the road and given a faulty car? Your driving would be terrible and dangerous. Outside of as a hobby, most MA classes are to fighting what bad lessons, wrong info, and a bad car would be to driving.



But thats not a gender thing. Plenty of guys (me included) would not chase a guy over a glass. Its alaska, so I presume a fairly small population, and a lot of regular faces. Let him have the glass, and the next time he came in, serve every drink he has in a disposable plastic glass. Problem solved. I worked in a bar where all drinks served in the last 40 mins before closing, were served in plastics and bottles were not allowed to be drunk out of. More than one way to skin a cat - but its nothing to do with gender.

I don't have much else to say here, I'll reiterate that I think trying to boil this question down into a simple evaluation of physical skillsets, or the MMA vs. TMA debate absolutely misses the mark.

Anyway it's been an interesting conversation and good points made by all.

Other than that, i'll post this link that most certainly touches on some stuff we are talking about:

http://www.foxsportswest.com/05/31/11/Th...2&gt1=39002

Zach Zinn, sad but fascinating article. I remember reading about Martin and watching one of her fights when I was researching for a book about Lalia Ali. Martin was the girl to beat back then. Will be interesting to see what she does now. The story has movie-deal written all over it.

Cord, I understand your point of view and your willingness to go into further detail has been helpful.

As far as what I've collected from everyone about how to make scenes with female characters who intervene in confrontations with men more believable, the discussion has been valuable. I'm eager to get to my next confrontation scene to see how these insights will play out.

So, thanks all.

To come full circle, the salient point I was trying to make to you in regards to your writing, is that, in the full range of human conflict, both women and men are capable of acting out of bravado, hubris, courage, anger, empathy and true humanitarianism. Indeed, no individual will act from a pure single emotion, and the mix will be individual and unique to them as a person, not their gender.

Whatever you write, it will never be as unbelievable, or far fetched, as some proven true accounts that you will find on record, so write what feels true to your character, not what pleases other writers in your coven

Excellent advice, Cord. It pleases me to move my readers, thus I have to get behind the few, but crucial, instances where I have a disconnect with my readers. This thread has given me what I need to understand the differences that trip me up; I hope. Fingers crossed.

After I tackle these few scenes, I'll perhaps post a little list of what I did differently because of these discussions.

Many thanks.

Sounds great. Looking forward to reading your results.