n9020351@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (James D. Del Vecchio) (06/07/91)
[This has wandered in as a cross post between rec.guns and talk.rape. It may be of interest. --CTM] osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (andrew.vida-szucs) writes: Re: Andy Freeman on the uselessness of CS mace and air horns against grown men. > Generally, I give them no choice but to cooperate. BTW I got > blasted with one of those 'made to sell, not to be effective; devices > about 2 weeks ago. It was nowhere near my ears and still I thought > I would shit. I found it painful. I don't think too many muggers > would not be at least momentarily stunned by a shot 6 inches from their > ear. In that moment you run, stab the bastard, shoot him, take his > eyes or whatever. All you need is that momentary lapse in his > concentration and the wherewithall to take proper advantage of it. The "anti-rape" techniques I've seen in some self protection books are foolish and useless. Noteable among these are the "eye myth" and the "go for the crotch" myth. As these are the most basic ideas, and the first to occur to anyone, they are what the Rapist would never let happen. He will be on his gaurd for such attempts, and will disarm them without a thought. Also high on the stupid list, are plans to defend oneself by stabbing with a hatpin, sharp umbrella or knife. Even with a knife, it takes much skill to use effectively. Knives wounds are not stopping wounds, they are slow wounds. A perp with a lethal knife wound will linger for minuntes or hours, still able continue his attack. The Rapist/mugger is likely a street fighter, and innured to pain. Such a person is not likely to be disauded by the same things that would stop you. A man who has been through perhaps many severe beatings is not going to be afraid of honking horns and sprays. Dedicated criminals have bought their own mace and "stun shockers" etc. to use on themselves and acclimate themselves to them. Also foolish is the idea that lessons in Judo, boxing, Karate etc. will make a small woman a match for a large determined man. It just isn't so. Ironicly, the book I just saw yesterday reccomended that women _not_ carry the one self defense tool that has any chance of making a small weak woman safe from an attacker: The handgun. Go figure. Jim Del Vecchio
tittle@glacier.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) (06/07/91)
This topic has been of interest to me for the last three years, and especially in the last year, when I started learning how to shoot a gun. In <1991Jun6.032952.23195@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes: > The "anti-rape" techniques I've seen in some self protection books >are foolish and useless. Noteable among these are the "eye myth" and >the "go for the crotch" myth. As these are the most basic ideas, and >the first to occur to anyone, they are what the Rapist would never let >happen. He will be on his gaurd for such attempts, and will disarm >them without a thought. This really depends. However, they *are* obvious targets and will be well protected. Other non-obvious targets, though, are always taught in self defense classes. For example, if I were to attack (in self defense, of course) another person with a knife, I would never mess with trying to stab the person, or go for the eyes or groin. I'd hamstring him, either behind the knees or the ankles. The other target is under the armpit -- it is fairly hard to raise your arm afterwards (these are all slashing attacks, not stabbing attacks). As he points out below, stabbing attacks do not have an immediate effect other than pain, which the person may be used to dealing with. The exception is, of course, if you get the knife up under the sternum and into vital organs. This is much more difficult to do than it sounds though, as you have to be sure you get past the rib cage. > Also high on the stupid list, are plans to >defend oneself by stabbing with a hatpin, sharp umbrella or knife. >Even with a knife, it takes much skill to use effectively. Knives >wounds are not stopping wounds, they are slow wounds. A perp with a >lethal knife wound will linger for minuntes or hours, still able >continue his attack. The key phrase here is "skill". Do not ever think, whether female or male, that you will be able to effectively defend yourself, with or without a weapon, if you have never had any experience and training. I could effectively defend myself with a knive, but this is because of long martial-arts training. It also helps that my SO has studied fighting with cops and passed the training along to me. I could defend myself from a knife attack depending on the knife skill of the attacker. (But again, it takes training to recognize a truely skilled knife fighter from one who's just put together adhoc techniques.) > The Rapist/mugger is likely a street fighter, and innured to pain. >Such a person is not likely to be disauded by the same things that >would stop you. A man who has been through perhaps many severe >beatings is not going to be afraid of honking horns and sprays. >Dedicated criminals have bought their own mace and "stun shockers" >etc. to use on themselves and acclimate themselves to them. If you think you can defend yourself by "beating up" the other person, you are subscribing to a fallacious -- and personally dangerous -- assumption. On the other hand, assuming that the attacker/rapist is completely inured to counter attack is self-defeating. [Of course, I have something of an advantage. An ear-piercing horn thingie can't be used against me... ;-)] > Also foolish is the idea that lessons in Judo, boxing, Karate etc. >will make a small woman a match for a large determined man. It just >isn't so. Here is where we get into true feminism relevance. This is not foolish at all -- it is only foolish if you subscribe to the notion I debunked above. In the first place, many martial arts techniques, particularly defensive ones, are not designed to "beat up" the other person. They are designed to disable or control the person. If a large man attacked me, I would counter with disabling or potentially lethal techniques -- because I know very well that any prolonged fight is most likely to go badly for me. This brings up the second point. Serious study in self-defense is not just a matter of learning how to punch someone. It is also learning how to recognize potentially dangerous situations. It is learning to think, seriously, of what you would try to do in certain situations. It helps to lessen the fear of violence itself and focus on ways to deal with it. It helps you stop and think instead of panicking. Most men are taught or are expected to know these things, women are not. Taking a six month course in self-defense will probably not turn you into a self-defense marvel, and you shouldn't behave as if it had. However, it should give you a good sense of what you *can* do, and how to recognize potentially dangerous situations. The attitude expressed above is too much of a "small people, especially women, are always going to be victims," and that is just not so. As for long term martial arts study, I can make the following points: * There *are* good techniques for small people to use on large people. Many famous founders were small, delicate oriental men. I study Aikido, founded by Ueshiba Morehei, who was 140 and 5'3 or thereabouts, especially when he was very old. We saw a film taken of him in the 40's (he died in the mid 60's in his eighties, this is a new art) where they lined up a bunch of marines in a circle around him and told them to go for him. He picked out one person, swung the person right past him (in effect switching places), and walked out of the room. The person he swung by got the brunt of the attack. This illustrates a couple of points. First of all, that violence does not need to be met with opposing violence. Especially if you are smaller, you will never be able to match or exceed with sufficent counter-violence. Second, you can succeed with simply escaping; you don't necessarily have to stick around and continue with the struggle. * In any martial arts, there will be techniques that work better one way or the other; when the attacker is smaller or larger than the defender. You very quickly learn which techniques work better for you, and especially when training in free-for-alls, you learn to make effective use of those techniques. You also learn how to avoid certain techniques being used on you. For example, I really cannot deal well with a two-handed grab (onto one hand). I know the techniques, and I can apply them to get out, but it is not easy. So that is one that I watch for, to counter before the grab takes place. * It takes a LOT of training. If you stop and think about it, that makes sense. You're learning what your body can do, you are learning what can be done to redirect the other person's attack, you're learning how the different attacks are composed (one of the things I did not expect to learn was to learn how to *attack* -- Aikido is purely defensive -- but you have to execute a good attack on the other person for that person to effectively learn the technique to counter that attack. Waving your arms in the general imitation of an attack is not good enough.). Learning all of these things is a very valuable experience for me -- I've learned what I can do with my body, I've learned effective techniques, and most of all I've learned to make truely realistic assessments of my limitiations in potentially violent situations, instead of being guided by fear and ignorance. But it takes a lot of time and effort. As the saying goes, one of the hall-marks of a true black belt is that she or he does not get attacked in the first place. The confidence borne of long training is readily apparent. Street attackers choose people who look like victims, who do not look like they know how to defend themselves. Trained people can spot and diffuse situations before they escalate. > Ironicly, the book I just saw yesterday reccomended that women _not_ >carry the one self defense tool that has any chance of making a small >weak woman safe from an attacker: The handgun. Yes and no. The gun is a true equalizer in some respects. However, the woman has to know how to handle it and has to be prepared to use it, not just threaten with it. Many people, men as well as women, are not prepared for that. You have to know how to handle it to present a creditable threat; people who are afraid of guns, have never or rarely handled them, and who have never shot a gun are obvious to spot. If you wind up having the gun taken away from you because you couldn't shoot or because you couldn't handle the gun (an uncocked or unchambered gun, for example, will put you in a real spot), you are in trouble, needless to say. However, it *is* an excellent self-defense weapon, if you are prepared to use it. --Cindy "The last thing feminism is about is exclusion. Feminists can be defined as those women and men who recognize that the earth doesn't revolve around anybody's son---or around any one group." -- Regina Barreca, _They Used to Call Me Snow White...But I Drifted_
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Truth or Dare?) (06/08/91)
In article <9106061355.aa04157@ics.uci.edu>, tittle@glacier.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: > In <1991Jun6.032952.23195@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes: >> Also foolish is the idea that lessons in Judo, boxing, Karate etc. >>will make a small woman a match for a large determined man. It just >>isn't so. > > Here is where we get into true feminism relevance. This is not > foolish at all -- it is only foolish if you subscribe to the notion I > debunked above. In the first place, many martial arts techniques, > particularly defensive ones, are not designed to "beat up" the other > person. They are designed to disable or control the person. If a > large man attacked me, I would counter with disabling or potentially > lethal techniques -- because I know very well that any prolonged fight > is most likely to go badly for me. I agree with Cindy. There's a difference between taking a few lessons in Judo for self-defense and actual serious study of the martial arts. I do believe that actual, serious study of Judo does give a small woman the skill and strength to protect herself -- at least it gives her a better chance than she would have /without/ that training. I also agree with Cindy when she discusses how serious study in the martial arts can help lessen fear. One thing that I learned in the five years I have studied Judo is not to panic when there's a body on top of me. I have learned how to escape from underneath a very large man because I know what points are the weakest and what parts are the strongest. I fully believe that girls should be encouraged to take Judo. It's probably the best martial art that a woman could study. Judo does entail a lot more physical contact than Karate or Tae Kwon Do. In Judo, you have to learn how to deal with having a person right up next to you and it really is much more defensive than offensive. It involves both standing and floor technique. In fact, smallness can be an advantage in Judo -- when I'm going to throw a taller person, it's easier to position myself. If I have to throw someone of my own height (not likely, since most of the time I work out with men and I'm only 5'2") it requires more effort. Not to mention the fact that when I'm actually able to devote time to Judo, I have the /best/ body I could ever want. :-) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon Lindsey O'Neil "I could be happy/I could be quite naive/ Bitnet: oneil@unomai1 It's only me and my shadow/Happy in our Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu make believe/Soon." -- Tears for Fears ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (06/08/91)
In article <9106061355.aa04157@ics.uci.edu> tittle@glacier.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: >This topic has been of interest to me for the last three years, and >especially in the last year, when I started learning how to shoot a >gun. > >In <1991Jun6.032952.23195@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes: > >> The "anti-rape" techniques I've seen in some self protection books >>are foolish and useless. Noteable among these are the "eye myth" and >>the "go for the crotch" myth. As these are the most basic ideas, and >>the first to occur to anyone, they are what the Rapist would never let >>happen. He will be on his gaurd for such attempts, and will disarm >>them without a thought. [deletions] >> Also foolish is the idea that lessons in Judo, boxing, Karate etc. >>will make a small woman a match for a large determined man. It just >>isn't so. [deletions] >As for long term martial arts study, I can make the following points: > > * There *are* good techniques for small people to use on large >people. Many famous founders were small, delicate oriental men. [deletions] > * It takes a LOT of training. If you stop and think about it, that >makes sense. >> Ironicly, the book I just saw yesterday reccomended that women _not_ >>carry the one self defense tool that has any chance of making a small >>weak woman safe from an attacker: The handgun. > >Yes and no. The gun is a true equalizer in some respects. However, >the woman has to know how to handle it and has to be prepared to use >it, not just threaten with it. Many people, men as well as women, are >not prepared for that. You have to know how to handle it to present a >creditable threat; One point made in _Armed_ and _Female_, is that interviews with criminals reveal that swearing must accompany any talking one does on presentation of a gun, as that is 'criminal-speak' for 'I'm serious' (Quotes are for emphasis, not to mark quotes from book) She also points out that training is a must. Having read on the net about _Armed_ and _Female_, I bought the book even though I don't like guns. There are several interesting personal stories in the first section of the book, and a lot of eye-openers re: what we've always been told about self-defense and about guns. Interestingly, the author was one of the original gun-control advocates. She gives a profile of who should and shouldn't own guns (I flunked), and seriously addresses the issue of kids and guns. It turns out (if I read her correctly) there are some models that can be mostly proofed against kids too young to be trained in safety, although that is only a back-up to keeping it locked out of reach in the first place. She also gives a profile of kids who shouldn't be trained in gun use, and my younger daughter also flunked this list. I find it interesting that my personal feelings about my own situation weren't contradicted in the book. But, a lot of things I thought I knew turned out to be just plain untrue. Did MS. review this book? If so, in what issue? I can't find a back-issue that has a review in it. I think the stories in this book have a lot to say to feminists, and it deserves more attention from the feminist community. Is violence the answer to violence? Rarely, according to the author. But feminists must not fall so much in love with women's preference for verbal resolution of conflicts as to assume we can talk our way out of *anything*. I have often read (in feminist magazines) that women police officers are often more skilled at defusing a situation verbally, but IMHO it is significant that they still carry guns. I don't want to get into a big thing about guns in this forum, but I think the book is interesting, and I recommend reading it. If the only people who read it are those who think about guns enough to read talk.politics.guns, (for instance, I don't), then IMHO too many people will be less informed than they should be. ~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.uk (Colin Dente) (06/10/91)
Note - the relevance of this to soc.feminism is getting a little strained, but I do believe that this is a point of sufficient importance to be worth making here. I would suggest that any possible ensuing discussion about the relative merits of the different arts move to rec.martial-arts, though. - Colin In article <16026.284f9dbe@zeus.unomaha.edu> oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Truth or Dare?) writes: > > >In article <9106061355.aa04157@ics.uci.edu>, tittle@glacier.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: >>[About the usefulness of serious martial arts training] > > I agree with Cindy. There's a difference between taking a few > lessons in Judo for self-defense and actual serious study of the > martial arts. So do I... > > I also agree with Cindy when she discusses how serious study in > the martial arts can help lessen fear. One thing that I learned in > the five years I have studied Judo is not to panic when there's a > body on top of me. I think that this is probably one of the most important things to learn from the martial arts. > > I fully believe that girls should be encouraged to take Judo. It's > probably the best martial art that a woman could study. Here I must disagree with you. In the vast majority of cases, Judo has become primarily a sport, with little emphasis on real fighting (i.e. dirty stuff). I would suggest that women (and men, for that matter) who are serious about learning a martial art for its self defence value would be best advised to look for a club offering either Jiu Jitsu (the fighting art from which Judo was derived), Aiki Jitsu (from which Aikido was derived), or one of the "harder" styles of Aikido. The reason why I suggest this is that these arts all stress the importance of fighting methods that do not involve throwing, as well as throwing. I am 5'10", 180-ish pounds, and a blue belt in Jiu Jitsu (effectively two belts below black belt), and I wouldn't *consider* attempting to throw an attacker in a real situation - It's just *too difficult*. That said, I agree with most of what Sandra(? - sorry - I just deleted your sig - perhaps I should call you Truth or Dare ;-)) says. > Not to mention the fact that when I'm actually able to devote time > to Judo, I have the /best/ body I could ever want. :-) Maybe if I train harder I can become the 170 pound lean-mean-fighting-machine that I'd prefer to be ;-) Colin -- Colin Dente | JANET: dente@uk.ac.man.ee.els Manchester Computing Centre | ARPA: dente@els.ee.man.ac.uk University of Manchester, UK | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!manchester!dente ... I am the one you warned me of ...
cindy@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) (06/10/91)
i think i know why that book recommended not using a hand gun. any weapon you carry can be taken from you and used against you. it wouldn't be too hard for a large attacker to get a hand gun from a "small, weak" woman, then use it to threaten or shoot her. hence an attacker who may or may not have been armed is now definitely armed. this is why a lot of literature on protecting yourself tells you to learn self-defense that can be done without weapons. -cindy kandolf cindy@solan.unit.no trondheim, norway