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)