welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (02/15/84)
eater of fist lines Self Defense for the Lay Person So you want to learn how to defend yourself. The best defense is don't get into a dangerous situation. So you ask what do you do if you cannot avoid a dangerous situation. First, learn to be alert. Pick out whose around you. See what your environment is. Always have a plan ready in the event that you are attacked. Second, learn to look alert and confident. Look like you know what your doing and that you are not afraid. You ask what do you do if you are attacked. RUN! RUN like hell! Also YELL! YELL like a goddam banshee! Finally you ask what do you do if you cannot run and yell. Go limp and let the attacker have whatever the attacker wants. Whatever you do, don't struggle and don't hurt the attacker. Why is this good advice. I contend it is good advice because there is no way in hell a few courses in some martial art is going to protect anybody in a fight against a mugger. Oh yes the instructor might be able to protect him/herself. But, anybody else, like hell. Remember that is how the instructor makes her/his living. Also remember that a mugger makes his/her living by mugging. Even an instructor who is mugged is at a big disadvantage. Muggers don't walk up an say now lets prepare for a mugging. They have the advantage of surprise and the first blow. Muggers don't go through a ritual, they just do it. I have never been mugged. Of course the fact that I am built like Rosie Greer doesn't hurt. On the other hand nothing pisses me off so much as the assumption many people, including martial arts instructors, make that they can throw me around at will. Yes there are holds that are effective against someone like me, but the average lay person and most so called martial arts instructors don't know how to apply them properly. Last time I was volunteered at a martial arts demo for women, the demonstrator, a "woman student" executed some funny kind of karate kick. I just grabbed her heel and picked up right up off the ground by her feet and then gently set her down. Now what would I do if I was mugged, why I would follow my own advice. RUN - RUN like hell. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (02/15/84)
--
It's been suggested that your martial arts training will go for
naught, that the only thing to do is run like hell. Well, that's
one of the things you do learn in martial arts, although it
won't work if there's nowhere to run, or if you're surrounded.
The most important lesson of martial arts training is how to
center yourself and not panic. Folks who have learned this
naturally carry themselves in a confident manner, as they can
focus their "chi".
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 15 Feb 84 [26 Pluviose An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***bev@hlexa.UUCP (Beverly Dyer) (02/17/84)
Advice to women to stay away from situations in which they might be mugged, or to run, doesn't help at all. We all know that much. Martial arts won't necessarily help alot either but it can't hurt, and its always better to have a little confidence (through practice) and maybe a little skill. Marial arts are good for womens self defense because they are not as based on brute strength as most western forms of fighting. Actually the two best tidbits of advice I ever heard about self defense for women were: 1) Two fingers in the attacker's eyes. Use a good strong thrust, but it doesn't take much. 2) Pretend you're going to feel him up and get two fingers around the balls then just press them together firmly. This should be devastating enouph to knock him to his knees, maybe even out altogether.
cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (02/24/84)
a
Unfortunately, courses in self-defense can harm a person. If, for
example, you have just taken a few-week course (and some are offered in just
a few hours) you may come to believe that it is possible to ward off an
attacker and tend to walk in places or times that, before, you would not
have.
As such, perhaps the best things to be taught in such courses (and some
do) are that this one course will not make one invincible and that quick,
full-force retaliation is required if one takes this course of action.
Problems still arise however as keeping people segregated or always on
the alert are harmful and that if retaliation is not successful, the amount of
force used by the rapist will likely increase. Remember, rape is not an act of
sex but one of violence/domination in which sex is involved.
Unfortunately, self-defense courses "may" also swing the focus of anti-
rape activities towards arming everyone instead of reeducating the actual or
potential rapist so that rape is not a considered action.
Take the courses, but be aware of their limitations and remember
that they are not the answer. As well, be wary of rip-off courses designed
primarily to capitalize on the fear of being assaulted.
Cameron Anderson
watarts!cdanderson
Six years of competitive wrestling but never invulnerable!arndt@smurf.DEC (03/15/84)
A serious note on the topic. I highly recommend (is that the kiss of death?) the following book. SELF-DEFENSE for YOUR CHILD: Practical Defenses & Assault Prevention for Elementary School Age Boys & Girls, Bruce Tegner & Alice McGrath, Thor Pub., Ventura, Ca. 1976. "Self Defense for Your Child is a fully-illustrated, clearly explained practical course for parents and teachers of elementary school age boys and girls. The techniques are appropriate for the age level and are easy to learn and easy to remember. They are effective without being violent. They are safe to learn and practice. Assertive behavior to minimize the threat of assault is emphasized. Self-defense is viewed not as preparation to fight, but as instruction in attitudes and procedures to avoid becoming a victim of assault. The physical defense actions are a back-up for prudent behavior and confidence." The point is well taken in the book that our culture (T.V.,etc.) portrays children and women as victims of assualt rather than someone who can deal with different kinds of assault. I feel that starting as children, with the above described type of training, women and children CAN do something about self defense. That's all for now. (I can't believe it- nothing hateful,cheap,or disgusting!) (That leaves me open to the charge of being inconsistant!)
sam@phs.UUCP (03/27/84)
While I agree with Kenn that the "hit and run" approach is the best one for dealing with a street attack, I don't agree that martial arts training is of no use unless one has earned a black belt. First, I think it is important to distinguish those arts which focus on learning to punch, kick, or otherwise strike an attacker in order to defeat them; and those which do not employ strikes. Even fairly low-ranking belts in my chosen art, Aikido, have learned how to break a grip and move out of an attacker's grasp. In addition, Aikido techniques are effective against an attacker of greater size and strength than the victim. The techniques will not work well if the defender attempts to use muscular strength, for they are based on using the momentum and energy of the opponent's attack in responding to the attack. For this reason, and because they have a lower center of gravity, women are frequently at an advantage in Aikido. The other important thing to keep in mind is that very few women know how to punch or kick effectively. For this reason I think that practicing any martial art or taking self-defense classes is one of the most important steps any woman can take towards feeling (and being) safer on the streets. Women have been socialized to be nice to EVERYONE, to "keep your voice down", and to tolerate verbal and, in many cases, physical abuse by men. We have to learn how to be nasty when the situation warrants nastiness, how to use our voices, our fists, our feet, and our minds to defend ourselves, and, most important, we must realize that we don't have to take the abuse. We don't have to sit and listen in silence to sexist jokes, we don't have to turn our heads and quicken our pace in response to catcalls on the street, and we don't have to be victims of male violence. What we have to do is choose to fight back at all levels, against all attacks on our bodies, our minds , and our spirit. For me, the suggestions that I should choose my manner of dress in order not to inflame the passions of the creeps on the street, that I should rely on men to defend me, that I should stay out of certain areas and stay at home after dark exemplify the way in which violence against women serves to maintain men in their position of power over women. This is what Susan Brownmiller is talking about when she claims that all men benefit from rape. No matter how much an individual man may despise the fact, in many ways he owes his station in life to the fact that rape occurs. Women must realize that they cannot rely on the male establishment (police, courts, government) to protect them. They must learn to protect themselves. We have to take back the night with our own power. "However we dress, wherever we go, YES means YES and NO means NO!" Sherry Marts decvax!duke!phs!sam
jla@usl.UUCP (Joseph L Arceneaux) (01/05/85)
There seem to be a couple of threads in this discussion, so I will attempt to address them both. One is, should women (or any- body, really) learn self-defense or a martial art in order to protect themselves in hostile situations. The other concerns how much force to use in such a situation. The question of how much force to apply in a threatening situa- tion is something of a sticky issue for martial artists. Basi- cally, the better you are, the more options you have and the more control you have over how much damage you do to the other guy. Beginners have not the time nor experience, I think, to execute 'good judgement.' For them it's more of a binary question-- either do something or be a victim. For a trained fighter though, a decision must me made as to how much damage to inflict to an attacker. Of course such factors as severity of the attack, etc. must be taken into account, but there seem to be two flavors of trained response. The old world response (a la Funakoshi) is to do the minimum neccessary to neutralize the attack and then run away. I have only read about this approach, however. Without exception, instructors I have know have advocated incapacitating the as- sailent, using the argument that if you merely stop the guy and start to run away he may pull out a gun and shoot you in the back. There are of course problems with this approach also (such as being charged with manslaughter), and it does seem overly ex- cessive. My feeling is that the circumstances should dictate the response, with maybe a tendency toward more force since it's safer to overestimate the capabilities of the attacker than to underestimate them. This is very similar to the question of the 'subway vigilante' of NYC. I have heard little of this episode, but I understand his intent was to wound only. It does seem that merely flashing his gun would have been a sufficient deterrent, but then I don't feel too much sympathy for his attackers either. This brings up another comment, which is that many, many people seem to be carrying guns these days (the "great equalizer") which tends to render less and less practical martial arts training. However, I suspect that for women this may be different as would-be rapists would not oft use a gun (any stats on this?). Hence I feel that women would and do benefit from either martial arts or self-defense training. The trick is to find a good in- structor. (I have also heard that in the great majority of rape cases, strenuous resistence on the part of the women would have deterred the rapist. Some of my friends have argued that this would merely bring about further harm to the women. I would be interested to hear comments and/or statitstics on this.) I have know a couple of women who resorted to carrying guns as a means of rape deterrent. I am not sure I agree with this, but I can certainly understand their motivation. One last comment I'd like to make is in support of the martial arts for women. Some one on the net (with regard to the street- crossing issue) brought up the question of female/male equality in terms of strength. Well, the martial arts are a valid means of balancing out this difference between the sexes. Comments are welcomed. -- Joseph Arceneaux (ut-sally!usl!jla)
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (01/06/85)
From (barry!mit-eddie) >The question of how much force to apply in a threatening situa- >tion is something of a sticky issue for martial artists. Basi- >cally, the better you are, the more options you have and the more >control you have over how much damage you do to the other guy. >Beginners have not the time nor experience, I think, to execute >'good judgement.' For them it's more of a binary question-- >either do something or be a victim. For a trained fighter >though, a decision must me made as to how much damage to inflict >to an attacker. You are quite correct. This has long been a dilema for martial artists. Especially for women martial artists. Women have long been trained not to do physical damage to others, and martial arts is a complete "re-training" in a physical power women are not used to having. Unfortunately, when a beginning woman martial artist is faced with an attacker, many times the "programmed" response is to do nothing because of a lack of confidence in this newfound physical power. Or worse, to half hartedly do something, which aggravates the situation and causes more harm to come to the victim. >Of course such factors as severity of the attack, etc. must be >taken into account, but there seem to be two flavors of trained >response. The old world response (a la Funakoshi) is to do the >minimum neccessary to neutralize the attack and then run away. I >have only read about this approach, however. Without exception, >instructors I have know have advocated incapacitating the as- >sailent, using the argument that if you merely stop the guy and >start to run away he may pull out a gun and shoot you in the >back. There are of course problems with this approach also (suc >has being charged with manslaughter), and it does seem overly ex- >cessive. My feeling is that the circumstances should dictate the >response, with maybe a tendency toward more force since it's >safer to overestimate the capabilities of the attacker than to >underestimate them. There is also another problem to the "minimum necessary" response. If the minimum necessary to subdue an attacker causes them permanent physical damage, the attacker has been known to sue the victim on the grounds that the attacker "wasn't really going to hurt her, much". The worst part about this is that in some cases, the attacker has won. I am not stating that one should kill anyone that poses a physical threat (there would not be many men left in the world since most of them can pose a physical threat just by existing), but there are many more factors than "to fight, or not to fight" which come into play here. Unfortunately, if a martial artist is having to take the time to think of where to hit, how hard, and what will the long-term consequences be, by that time, it may be too late. >This brings up another comment, which is that many, many people >seem to be carrying guns these days (the "great equalizer") which >tends to render less and less practical martial arts training. >However, I suspect that for women this may be different as >would-be rapists would not oft use a gun (any stats on this?). >Hence I feel that women would and do benefit from either martial >arts or self-defense training. The trick is to find a good in- >structor. (I have also heard that in the great majority of rape >cases, strenuous resistence on the part of the women would have >deterred the rapist. Some of my friends have argued that this >would merely bring about further harm to the women. I would be >interested to hear comments and/or statitstics on this.) The statistics I have been quoted (by my chief instructor) are that most rapes occur without a weapon involved. Also that strenuous resistance WILL deter 90% of all rapes. The rapist is looking for terror and degradation, and if the victim doesn't show either of these, usually, the rapist will go look for "easier prey". However, it is the other 10% that have to be worried about. It is a judgement call. There are no clear cut answers. In the vast majority of cases, strenuous resistence will work. But the most important point to make is that it must be STRENUOUS RESISTENCE. Half hearted kicks or punches may only serve to make the rapist much more angry, and cause much more harm than good. >I have know a couple of women who resorted to carrying guns as a >means of rape deterrent. I am not sure I agree with this, but I >can certainly understand their motivation. If the woman is prepared to use the gun, it is a great deterrent. However, if she is only carrying it with the idea that the mere sight of a gun will deter rape, it may do much more damage than deterrence. She should also be well trained in its use and be a relatively accurate shot. >One last comment I'd like to make is in support of the martial >arts for women. Some one on the net (with regard to the street- >crossing issue) brought up the question of female/male equality >in terms of strength. Well, the martial arts are a valid means >of balancing out this difference between the sexes. Or at least it takes away one male advantage...the physical one. It also brings about a great self confidence, and a greater resistance to intimidation. Furthermore, the knowledge that you can do major damage to the idiot giving you a hassle at the bar eases the degradation of his action, even if you do nothing in retaliation. And that is a great comfort. The last thing I'd like to mention in regards to women in martial arts, is that you most probably won't see bands of black belt women roaming the streets looking to beat up would be rapists, etc. As one progresses in the martial arts, the more one is aware that there are many, many people out there that are much better than you are. You also become aware of the damage that can be inflicted on another, and that the same damage can also be inflicted upon you. It tends to make you more cautious instead of less. That caution also extends to doing your utmost to prevent attacks before they become attacks. Many schools train women in avoidance techniques, which can be MORE important than learning how to damage someone after the attack occurs. If more women found well rounded self defense programs that train not only in physical self defense, but avoidance techniques (and in some cases, assertiveness training... helping someone stand up to an attacker verbally, so perhaps another target will be looked for), there would be fewer attacks.
molefeuvre@watarts.UUCP (Michael O LeFeuvre) (01/08/85)
> From (barry!mit-eddie) > > > >One last comment I'd like to make is in support of the martial > >arts for women. Some one on the net (with regard to the street- > >crossing issue) brought up the question of female/male equality > >in terms of strength. Well, the martial arts are a valid means > >of balancing out this difference between the sexes. > > Or at least it takes away one male advantage...the physical one. It also > brings about a great self confidence, and a greater resistance to intimidation. > Furthermore, the knowledge that you can do major damage to the idiot giving > you a hassle at the bar eases the degradation of his action, even if you do > nothing in retaliation. And that is a great comfort. > Mostly, I agree with xxxxxxxxwhat I have read on the net about martial arts and self-defence for women, but there seems to be one thing glossed over. Martial Arts skills are do not "take away" the advantages of size and strength. A lifetime of training will not make someone elses muscles smaller or their reach shorter. It only gives you an advantage of your own. Enough training can make up for an extra thirty pounds and longer arms, but your opponent remains dangerous. And if your opponent also has training, they are more dangerous still. It is all a matter of degree. In fact, I think the major advantage of martial arts training for women is psychological, but no less real for that. Carlo @ the U of Waterloo
ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076) (01/11/85)
Self defense, in the legal sense, is a very peculiar subject. In most jurisdictions you cannot legally use deadly force in defense of property; often you cannot use deadly force against a less deadly attack. Anyone interesting in defending himself would do well, I think, to investigate how these matters are treated in the jurisdiction where he lives. There is a horror story about an old woman who shot a male attacker in her own home, after he had chased her into the basement; she was convicted of some moderately serious charge, possibly a flavor of manslaughter, on the grounds that she could have escaped the attack by crawling out a window (remember how high above the floor basement windows are?), and thus the use of deadly force was not justified. I'd like to think this isn't true, and I've never seen a specific citation of the exact case, so maybe it really ISN'T true. But anyway, be careful who you kill and where you kill him! It has also been pointed out that it may well be better to worry about standing trial for killing your attacker, than to worry about recovering from the damage done to you in the attack. Here's hoping you never need to worry about it! -- David Dyer-Bennet -- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb
jla@usl.UUCP (Joseph L Arceneaux) (01/11/85)
> > Mostly, I agree with xxxxxxxxwhat I have read on the net about martial > arts and self-defence for women, but there seems to be one thing glossed > over. Martial Arts skills are do not "take away" the advantages of size > and strength. Well, I would say that martial arts COULD turn size and strength of the assailant from an advantage to a disadvantage. > A lifetime of training will not make someone elses muscles smaller or their > reach shorter. It only gives you an advantage of your own. Enough training > can make up for an extra thirty pounds and longer arms, but your opponent > remains dangerous. And if your opponent also has training, they are more > dangerous still. OK, but I would like to qualify this--I would rather have to fight a large, strong, untrained person than a small, well-trained person (note that this category includes women). Of course, this depends on the quality of the training, but I am assuming a high degree thereof. > It is all a matter of degree. In fact, I think the major advantage of > martial arts training for women is psychological, but no less real for that. > > Carlo @ the U of Waterloo I disagree that the major advantage for women is psychological. Sure, there is that too, but this advantage is a RESULT of the acquired defensive capability. I hasten to add that I believe (with proper instruction), a women trained in the martial arts is more than a match for the average man. At least I have seen women who could easily best most men I knew. So, given this training, such women would have no more reason to fear males in general. -- Joseph Arceneaux (ut-sally!usl!jla)
551rcg@hound.UUCP (R.GANNS) (01/30/85)
I once heard the point made that if you have to use
deadly force to repel an assailant, you'd better kill
them; else, they're liable to sue you afterwards for
everything you'll ever own.nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (01/31/85)
> I once heard the point made that if you have to use > deadly force to repel an assailant, you'd better kill > them; else, they're liable to sue you afterwards for > everything you'll ever own. Well...if you kill them, you can still be sued by their heirs. In any case, you're in a position of deciding between several unpleasant alternatives: loss of property and legal hassel vs. rape or death (your own) And unfortunately, when one must make such a decision, there isn't much time or data with which to work. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL