This is a discussion on Do women have an advantage? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by sojourner I was not advocating going hand on hand. It was in response to her significant other taking her down. If she ...
SIXTO - Agreed wholeheartedly about the mindset. Most times the battle is won/lost before the physical engagement begins.
I'm involved in MA and train w/ LEO. I've trained corrections officers in H2H. It is amazing what a "petite and pretty female" can do once she gets some confidence and then adjusts her mental attitude.
I've been knocked down, bloodied and bent over by some of the "petite and pretty female" COs that I have had the pleasure to train. Once they experience success in H2H, their mindset definitely follows.
My main teacher gives them the techniques. I am the big 275 lb hairy biker hippie that they confront and eventually bring me to my knees.
I take it as my job to help them not only overcome me physically, but to overcome their fear and trepidation.
Edited to add - man, woman, big, small, whatever, it is your mental attitude first, your techniques second. Your body follows what your mind tells it to do.
Sure they do.........And so do geeks with guns............like myself.
OK, I know that I probably will get banged up for this, but let 'er rip fellas. This is real life, not some politically sensitive talk show.
For all intents and purposes, women ARE smaller, less physically powerful and less of a threat to BG's out for no good. (disclaimer: I have three daughters... my wife is tougher than me, in that any man who delivered ONE baby via his private members WOULD QUIT AFTER ONE KID and mothers are tougher when someone messes with Momma's Cub... I don't want to be there)
But, women, on average are not as formidable as men. Of course, you have your N'th degree martial expert in women (and men) and you have your psycho women (and men) but the AVERAGE man on the street is going to be physically more powerful than a woman.
(throw your tomato's now, but I firmly believe this. THAT is a huge reason why women didn't fight in combat. You buddy gets captured and you try hard to rescue him, but to the average American red-blooded soldier, who values life and was taught respect from birth, you capture his fellow soldier who happens to be a woman, and he thinks that she is being tortured, raped or beaten, AND THAT BOY IS GOING TO GIVE HIS LIFE AND LAST DYING BREATH TO SAVE HER)
I have a wife and three college age daughters. They are tough women, lady-like, but tough enough to stick together no matter what. I would doubt that any of them would run from trouble. My wife has no known fears (or none that she has shown me in our 29 years together)
Point is: Whoever said that thinking of women as "little ladies" is outdated in 2007 is (in my opinion) wrong. Women are women and I feel that they should be treated as such.
Sorry to disagree with your "modern age" beliefs, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between men and women. I believe that men and women are wired differently and created like that for a purpose.
(my 2-cents) Let the attacks begin. I expected to get banged up for this, but it is true and comes from my heart.
Joel, I dont disagree with you at all. I don't really think anyone here does. Thats what this thread is about, or at least thats what I got from it.
Women are different than men. Women need to understand their weaknesses and exploit their strengths. This is true for everyone.
Women need to learn to take care of themselves. There is not always a man around to do so, besides more and more of the guys I run across qualify as men only in the anatomical sense.
"Just blame Sixto"
First off, welcome aboard!!! I agree with you here - I love and respect a lot of women, and personally despise that "little woman" knuckle dragger crap. However, that does not make them any bigger or stronger, and we are talking life and death reality here.
For the record, I used to practice and teach a martial art. I have been on the mat with a small statured woman who was maybe 5'4" tall, and about 115lbs of solid muscle. She kicked me hard enough that the impact of her foot with my cup echoed off the walls, only to be drowned out by the sounds of my puking my guts out. (In my defense, I was only a 19 yr old white belt at the time, but I was 6'2" and 225lbs) She easily dropped me like a bad habit, and with very little effort. Later, a little guy who was about the same size, who wore bow ties and suspenders (and looked like he lived in his mother's basement) climbed up one side of me and down the other, kicking, punching, chopping and elbowing me every step of the way. Ouch!
I have learned that a small statured person who is properly trained is a very formidable opponent - on the mat. The street is sometimes an entirely different story. Please allow me to explain: Actual human predators do not just walk up to you, bow at the waist and proceed to drop into a "cat stance", ready for a fight. They watch, stalk and often attack in pairs or in teams. They will most likely "blitz attack" from behind, and the fight will likely begin with your skull being smashed open on a corner post of your car, a lamp post or concrete wall. Under those conditions, a small statured person - male or female, faces a significant disadvantage when being attacked by a person or persons who outweight them 2 to 1. In Paxton Quigly's book, "Armed & Female" there is a story about a young woman who spent three nights a week in the gym, and another three nights a week in a dojo (martial arts school) IIRC, and was very, very fit, and very well trained in h2h. Her attacker (and rapist) dressed as a woman, laying on the ground covered with fake blood. She(he) cried for help, claiming to have been raped. When the young lady in question approched and attempted to render aid, the BG nailed her square in the face with a single punch that took her out of the fight instantly. It was all over from there.
Situational awareness is HUGELY important. However, unless a woman wants to spend 10 or so years studying a martial art, she is clearly at a significant disadvantage going h2h with a guy. That is a simple fact. And EVEN WITH such training, it is a very dicey proposition at best.
A woman may well have a tactical advantage as far as a BG not taking her seriously, and that may buy a little bit of very critical reaction time. However, without a handgun (and a bunch of training with it) she's most likely not going to fare well against a predatory male. That's the sad fact, and it is a SERIOUS dis-service to give women a false sense of security by telling them anything different. All of that "stick 'em in the eye with a rat-tailed comb" crap goes out the window real fast in a real attack.
In my experience training and being trained, the major hurdle for the females is the mental attitude. Once they "get" the warrior mentality, they are on fire and willing to train and learn. Males, on the other hand, have that mentality, but think that the mentality is all they need and forego the training/instruction and try to overcome on brute force.
Whether male or female, brute force does not matter much if someone outweighs you by 30 lbs or more. But mindest does.
I believe women do in fact have an advantage in these types of situations. The scum bag most likely doesn't expect a woman to be anything other than helpless so he would be quite shocked when the lady fights back and actually does some serious injury to him.
I certainly do not mean to imply that all training, or all trainers will give female students a false sense of security. Professional trainers will certainly do nothing of the sort.
My comments are directed more at the "Self Defense" classes I've seen taught at colleges where they teach their students to poke attackers with nail files and umbrellas, rake their eyes with car keys, and related ineffective, lame crap like that.
I am a HUGE proponent of training - for both genders, but that training needs to be realistic, real world stuff . Dealing with predatory humans, often in multiple opponent situations is pretty tough to do without firearms. That means that much of the training must be firearm oriented. Such training, coupled with the right mindset, practice and equipment will translate into a genuine sense of well being and GREATLY enhanced survivability- which is exactly what it is supposed to do.
College self defense classes are mostly a joke. Any of my friends who are female know that they can come see me and I'll teach them better ways to defend themselves (I'm no master at anything, but I can brawl and know a a few things from several martial arts forms.) Besides, as stated it is mostly mental, and that is the real key.My comments are directed more at the "Self Defense" classes I've seen taught at colleges where they teach their students to poke attackers with nail files and umbrellas, rake their eyes with car keys, and related ineffective, lame crap like that.
I was taking a class in Shuai-Chiao, an old Chinese martial art, and most of the work was on throws, falls, and other related skills. 4 females in the class, 16 males, of whom I was the largest. The class was supposed to be focused more towards using techniques in self defense as opposed to seriously studying the art. The instructor wouldn't let any of the really small males or any female spar with me, or practice at all. How does that effect their confidence when they are told "No, he is to big, stick with your partner". I'm not all that big, 5'11, 225, a little heavier then, but odds are if a female gets attacked, the male will be bigger. I offered to meet with any of them after class so they could practice throws with someone twice their size, they all declined. The instructor's message apparently went through loud and clear, the stuff works great if the person is the same size as you. It actually made me kinda mad, I wish there was a guy twice my size in that class, so I coulda practice hip throwing him, just so I knew I could.
An attacker is much more likely to underestimate a female, simply because of common perception. If they can use this to their advantage, great for them. Just adds to the surpirse of speed, surprise and violence of action that is needed to survive a violent encounter.
Fortes Fortuna Juvat
Former, USMC 0311, OIF/OEF vet
NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Reloading Instructor, RSO, Ohio CHL Instructor
I agree. I'm not professionally trained in any type of martial arts or any other "style" of fighting. The only fighting I've ever done has been with my sisters and whatever my husband has taught me.it is a SERIOUS dis-service to give women a false sense of security by telling them anything different. All of that "stick 'em in the eye with a rat-tailed comb" crap goes out the window real fast in a real attack.
When he demonstrated to me how easily he (5'9", 200 lbs) could bring me down, it was a great lesson to me to never overestimate myself or underestimate ANY attacker (man, woman, large or small). Heck, my two little cousins I was babysitting ( 4 years old and 6 years old little little boys) with help from their dog, had me on the ground and were beating the crap out of me..lol.. (then again, I really wasn't fighting back, but still). I have no illusions about being able to fight off an attacker once they have me, and so I watch my perimeter like a hawk.
I mean really.. do I look intimidating?
In all seriousness.. situational awareness, a gun, and the will to use it is going to stop and attack faster, cleaner, and more efficiently than ANY hand-to-hand technique I could ever pull out of the wild blue yonder... I'll start there.
Of course they are, at least on average. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise (and no one has).Originally Posted by Joel
I think you misunderstood. Yes, women are on average smaller than men. The original post, however, included a comment from a man who apparently thought that guns are "man toys" and that the "little lady" was not capable of learning how to shoot well or be safe with a gun. That sort of thinking IS outdated, and is just plain stupid!Originally Posted by Joel
I think it is a fact of life that women are much more of a target than men simply because the bad guys donít view them as a serious threat.
A woman with the proper skills can definitely take advantage of that.
I agree with other posters who say that many martial arts schools do a disservice to women by trying to convince them that all of these pretty Hollywood techniques will work on the street.
During the force on force class I attended a couple of weeks ago, I talked to a young lady in the class and asked her how she came to be there. She said that she had heard about the course while taking self defense for women classes at the same place we had the force on force sessions. Itís called Team Ruthless (that aught to tell you something).
She said that this was the first self defense course that she felt good about.
Apparently, they start the women off slowly, learning techniques, etc against a very cooperative attacker. Then they escalate little by little until after a number of weeks, the women are testing their skills against a fully padded attacker who is really trying to succeed in his attack. She can let go, not hold back, and get as good a look at what a violent attack is like as can be seen in simulation.
This is the kind of training I would like to see my wife take. She is a better shot than I am and we actually met at a martial arts school way back before Moses was even a crossing guard. And the best part is that she seems interested in such training.
I want her to also get some on the ground fighting training because even though as others have pointed out ground fighting is NOT a situation a woman wants to be in: Stuff happens! Training in ground fighting at least gives a woman some options to try as a last resort. Not to mention that it should be a great way to stay in shape.
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).