Discussion in 'Women's Self Defence' started by Metal_Kitty, Feb 22, 2011.
Habitual Acts Of Violence
High Altittude Ovarian Vacuum... its a russian KGB secret killing technique...
Nice thread. Lots of good examples of why MA of any sort =/= self defence.
An analogy that I think is interesting is the same people use to avoid your house being burgled. You don't spend days mounting tripwires in your hall, covering the stairs in marbles and balancing buckets of water on every door, you just make it look harder to burgle than the other houses. Gates, locks, alarms, simple stuff. Target hardening I suppose.
Any SD, including women's needs to focus primarily on the awareness and target hardening issues. Then it needs to cover HAOV. I have to thank jwt for it, but I now find it amazing that people teach SD without knowing what the common attacks are.
As for what art to learn, that's missing the point. It's not about the trading card imaginings where BJJ's Groundwork 11 beats Rapist's Position 7.
Attackers stop because their desire for a goal is overcome by your desire not to be a victim. So fighting off an attacker is about making it "better" for them to go elsewhere, it's about target hardening. You don't need to defeat an attacker, you need to break their will to win, you need to make them look elsewhere.
It would make for an interesting poll to ask how many MAists train against the HAOV.
I agree with the statement however there is an issue to do with what is being taught - is it a two hour seminar, a one day course, a weekend intensive, etc...
Basically I would argue that a short course of say a few hours could be adequately delivered to people with no SD training by someone who had been taught to deliver just that course. Yes an expert is better but suppose you wanted to teach everyone in the country some SD - then the quick-coach method might be better...
Another and better question is what actually makes a good course - I have seen a wide variety of courses over the years and very few get the mix of verbal / situational / psychological / physical / tactical / etc etc right - and even if you get it right for group 'A' it may not be right for group 'B' - Of course I accept that this may be where an expert trainer helps as they can IN THEORY modify the course to suit the audience - although in practice I wonder if this actually happens all that often "This is my drum and I like beating it this way"
It's many years since I last taught a womens self defence class and I only did it because I was persuaded that there were a reasonable number of women who would ONLY come and train in an environment with other women students. In fact, some women will only feel comfortable training if there is a woman instructor. Of course a mixed class allows for far better interaction and role play but I guess that I agree that any training is probably better than no training.
I think I may have wondered around a bit with my above thoughts - hope that some of them make sense
Thanks for the responses everyone.
Some very good points have been made. I agree that self defense and martial arts are not the same thing, and that a large component of self defense should be based on avoiding being the target in the first place...i.e. situation awareness, verbal diffusion and psychological components.
Thinking back, when I first created the thread, I didn't have those things in mind...I was only thinking about the actual physical defense once an attack has already begun. I think for that component of it...women definitely need to train with male partners, if not male students then definitely a male instructor. I think women who've never trained with men will get a shock when they're faced with a large, strong male opponent, because suddenly everything they've learnt changes....even psychologically.
I think Fish of Doom hit the nail squarely on the head when he said its largely about mindset. With everyone, a killer instict (in my opinion) is more important than anything else. People, both male and female, take years and years learning how to fight, yet still a lot cant simply because they dont have it in them (which is not a bad thing). For all those women who have survived an assault, in how many cases is it due purely to their SD training and how many to their mindset? Personally I think a lot of SD instructors use womens natural fear to make money. And for women who take SD classes, why think that you can learn how to defend yourself without putting in much effort? To give you a fighting chance? You already know how to run and you already know the vulnerable parts of a human body.
You raise a couple of interesting points.
I still teach female only courses on a regular basis. Sometimes that's because the venue/organisation is female only - but most of the time it's because I say that I can do a co-ed course of a single sex course, but the single sex course is better. Why is the single sex course better? because the predominant nature of the threat for men and the threat for women is different. Running a single sex course (particularly a short course) allows me to focus on what they need. For people coming to regular classes this is less of an issue, which is why I run co-ed classes.
Reference your saying that a short course could be delivered by someone with little training here I would take completely the opposite view! In fact, the shorter the course the better the instructor needs to be to ensure that the greatest benefit is given.
When we look at the breakdown of the really short courses - the physical element goes out of the window (especially if you've only been given 1 - 1.5 hours). It is the least important aspect of the training. The most important things are the threat identification and avoidance, fear management, the verbal defuse, the empowerment by the law to act if required and the personal empowerment.
Personal empowerment is a tricky subject. Some people naturally have it through either genetics or their upbringing, others don't. To switch that on, that takes more skill than any short 'train to be an instructor' course can deliver. It's more than just telling empowering stories and examples - you can't just get it from a script.
the fact that youve broken it down into all these catch phrases..I particularly liked the term 'verbal defuse'...means that youre complicating something that is really very simple. I put up with enough of this acronym bs at work sorry
not really an acronym but still bs
and what the hell is personal empowerment?? seriously what a load of *&^%
there will always be two truths in life..kids will want to learn cool (unrealistic) moves and there will always be someone there to say to women.."you could be the next victim..hurry, enrol now"
Call it self-confidence then - I fail to see why this has flipped your switches so badly...hardly the worse level of BS out there and certainly not worthy of such vitriol
Remember how you took a ban for making multiple, short posts melb? Guess what's going to happen soon unless you stop making multiple, short posts?
Edit: Just saw the next two posts and the profanity. Have some time to reflect.
Frankly I would be more concerned with them talking crap, but either way the result will probably end up being similar
It's interesting you say this because I've known of women and female instructors who insist that men can't teach women self defence because they're not women and don't know what it is like to be a woman.
I think training with men has value and if you can get women to do it then you should. However from a self defence perspective I think care needs to be taken in terms of what the men are doing (as role players) in the training.
I'm not sure I agree with your second point as I would think that most women are aware how different a large strong male is compared to a female partner of the same size unless they've grown up with no brothers and/or no boyfriends.
I call BS on this - that is like saying they cannot teach moves that work against a man because they are not men and do not know what it is like to feel the impact.
Agreed - it need not become a sparring match, but the sheer size differential is often a valuable learning tool. I tend to allow the moves to be done against me as the instructor at the end because the classes view me as non-threatening and also know that I never "sell" a move unless they do it properly
You asked what personal empowerment was?
Some people will automatically defend themselves. They are that way through a combination of genetics, upbringing and environment. The majority of those people will avoid or fight off an attack through the street smarts and attitude they have gained over life with no requirement for any self defence training. Those that do choose to train are more likely to opt for martial arts with a strong combative and competitive element because they are already programmed that way.
However, there are many people who do not have this ability. They've not been taught by their families to stick up for themselves, and/or they've been raised in sheltered environments which means they've never had to develop real street smarts. Through a combination of genetics, upbringing and environment these people are not mentally aware of the threat (which can cause media induced unnecessary anxiety until trained and briefed - bear in mind that one of the roles of a good self defence instructor is to dispel anxiety through appropriate information and training, not to make people fearful or paranoid) and are not prepared to fight back (at times where it is necessary - bearing in mind that a combative response is not always the best response). These people need personal empowerment.
You said above that
- that's what personal empowerment is about. It's about finding and flicking the switch to make these people able to fight back.
Too fancy a term for you? Tough. It's a Ronseal term - it means exactly what it says on the tin.
Are you calling on those saying it? Or are you calling on me in that you think I'm making it up?
I think the fact that I teach self protection and self defence to women indicates where I stand on the matter.
These are pretty common terms. I'd rather use the phrase 'verbal defuse' than say "methods of talking to someone which might de-escalate the situation and avoid an attack". Far more complicated.
Separate names with a comma.