Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!jla From: jla@usl.UUCP (Joseph L Arceneaux) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Self Defense Message-ID: <191@usl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 5-Jan-85 11:18:33 EST Article-I.D.: usl.191 Posted: Sat Jan 5 11:18:33 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 03:13:11 EST Organization: USL, Lafayette, LA Lines: 73 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)