Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mit-eddie!barry
From: barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Self Defense (long, but interesting)
Message-ID: <3392@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-Jan-85 12:48:47 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3392
Posted: Sun Jan  6 12:48:47 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Jan-85 03:32:09 EST
References: <191@usl.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 107

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.