Are martial arts effective self-defence for women?

[aerius]

While I agree that a gun's utility value as a self-defence weapon, it should be used as a deterrent rather then killing with it outright. Otherwise, the case won't be as clear.

Weapons are not deterrents. You do not pull a knife or gun and brandish it hoping that the other guy will step down and go away. In fact if you've pulled a knife on someone, you've just given him justification to pull out his gun and blow your head off. You pull out your weapon when you're going to use it, as in draw, shoot, here's a dead perp.

Anyone who hasn't conditioned themselves to use their personal weapon accurately and reflexively, probably oughtn't be carrying - for reasons of public safety, as much or more than their own.

Who the fuck has that sort of time if they have a full-time job and a family to worry about in addition to whatever other hobbies they enjoy? (ie - jogging). In other words, your suggestion is worthless for practical self-defense.

If you're going to carry a weapon, you damn well better know how to use it under realistic situations. It's just like driving a car, if you're going to pilot a 2 ton missile on wheels, you damn well better have the license and skills to do so. If you have a weapon but don't know how to use it, it's fucking useless and you're better off without it. It's a hazard to the user and others around them, just like a car with an idiot who can't drive behind the wheel.

[General Zod]

Around here, at any rate, you don't necessarily get arrested for unlawful carry. Your weapon *will* be confiscated, and you *will* have to appear before a judge, and you *can* actually get your weapon returned, if you can satisfy the judge that you had reason to carry, even if you lack the proper permit. I have seen it done, at first hand.

Anyway, if you come to be involved in a shooting - even a fully justified one - details regarding the legitimacy of your carry will be just about the very last of your worries.

At least, around here. I know that other places, and particularly other countries have really truly hysterical reactions to the mere presence of a firearm, regardless of the facts of any individual case.

Here's the rub. Your area is not representative of how the rest of the world works. Carrying a firearm in some cities or countries can be grounds for arrest. Try something that's more universally applicable.

Your post suggests to me that you lack the first-hand experience and practice, to make that judgment.

I've handled guns before. When I've taken safety courses, I wasn't very good at it and didn't really have that much enthusiasm for doing anything beyond the basics. In order for your suggestion to be even remotely feasible, the person carrying the weapon needs to actually care enough to learn how to use it properly. There's also the psychological impact shooting someone has. Not everyone will be willing or capable of dealing with those kind of ramifications, which again makes your suggestion impractical. Also, what about people with psychological disorders that make giving them any type of lethal weapon dangerous? They still need to defend themselves, but suggesting they carry a gun is outright stupid.

[Kanastrous]

Weapons are not deterrents. You do not pull a knife or gun and brandish it hoping that the other guy will step down and go away. In fact if you've pulled a knife on someone, you've just given him justification to pull out his gun and blow your head off. You pull out your weapon when you're going to use it, as in draw, shoot, here's a dead perp.

Yes.

Isolate, reach, draw, align, and fire should be a conditioned series of movements.

The decision to fire should essentially be made, before you even draw the weapon.

Remember, we're not talking about law-enforcement officers, who have a very different set of obligations, than an individual private citizen protecting herself.

Here's the rub. Your area is not representative of how the rest of the world works. Carrying a firearm in some cities or countries can be grounds for arrest.

It's up to individuals to decide whether they want to balance the possible need for a self-defense weapon, against the consequences of getting caught with one where it's illegal to carry.

And, I should think it obvious that I'm talking about areas where it's feasible, if not legal, to obtain and carry a firearm. If we were talking about singing, would you feel it necessary to point out that there are areas (like, underwater) where singing just isn't practical?

In order for your suggestion to be even remotely feasible, the person carrying the weapon needs to actually care enough to learn how to use it properly.

I wonder how you failed to notice that I covered that in my initial post. Training, practice, all that stuff I mentioned...

There's also the psychological impact shooting someone has. Not everyone will be willing or capable of dealing with those kind of ramifications, which again makes your suggestion impractical.

So because it's not suitable for everyone, it isn't suitable for anyone?

Again, what's your point? Some people can't or shouldn't drive cars. So what? Means nothing, when it come to people who can, or should.

Also, what about people with psychological disorders that make giving them any type of lethal weapon dangerous?

I'm all in favor of psych screening for people who want to acquire firearms through legitimate channels.

They still need to defend themselves, but suggesting they carry a gun is outright stupid.

And if you can quote me where I have suggested that unbalanced people ought to carry guns, I will make a $100 donation to the charity of your choice, and send you the receipt via registered mail.

[General Zod]

If you're going to carry a weapon, you damn well better know how to use it under realistic situations. It's just like driving a car, if you're going to pilot a 2 ton missile on wheels, you damn well better have the license and skills to do so. If you have a weapon but don't know how to use it, it's fucking useless and you're better off without it. It's a hazard to the user and others around them, just like a car with an idiot who can't drive behind the wheel.

I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion that people "serious" about self-defense should get a handgun in the first place when it's simply not viable or practical a significant chunk of the time.

[Cairber]

We teach hapkido at the school I teach at. But it isn't just all about grabs, throws, and other incapacitating movements. We teach about when to use them. We also teach rape defense and are certified in this area; in addition to the actions taught in hapkido, rape defense includes classes on different ways to, for example, get your attacker off you once you are already on your back and they are on top. There are also a few lessons on probabilities that we know (such as what to do if forced into a car). We do teach knife defense in this course as well.

However, even when someone has completed the training, i feel the ability for these courses to be effective also lies in the person themselves. The course isn't enough to give someone the confidence to fight in a probable do or die situation.

In addition, if the person doesn't continually practice, the grip breaks, etc are not going to be natural movements or readily available to that person in a case of need.

[Zixinus]

What kind of martial arts have you practiced? Among the things they taught us in jujutsu was how to get out of various holds, whether the hold was from the front or behind and in various ways. Including chokeholds. Granted that it requires practice and also luck, but it can be done.

Yeah, I kinda realised that's a bad example in retrospect. Still, once the opponent has a grip from behind, you are in a losing situation. That, and some grips are more solid then others.

EDIT: I've had most practise with Wing Tsun by the way. Stopped though, as I had enough of feeling humiliated when everybody runs faster then me. A stupid decision I know, but I just had enough.

[Darth Wong]

Weapons are not deterrents. You do not pull a knife or gun and brandish it hoping that the other guy will step down and go away. In fact if you've pulled a knife on someone, you've just given him justification to pull out his gun and blow your head off. You pull out your weapon when you're going to use it, as in draw, shoot, here's a dead perp.

Yes.

Isolate, reach, draw, align, and fire should be a conditioned series of movements.

The decision to fire should essentially be made, before you even draw the weapon.

Jesus fuck, you're full of shit. Is this woman supposed to pull her weapon on every guy who looks at her funny? Shoot people on suspicion of being would-be rapists? Or is she supposed to keep it hidden until a rapist sneaks up and jumps her, at which point she'll never be able to get it out and use it safely? What if she shoots someone before he tries to jump her, just because he's walking too close to her? Is that "justifiable homicide" in your mind? How do you know he intended to do anything?

I agree though, that your idea would be fantastic if would-be rapists walked up and declared their intentions before acting, preferably with witnesses present and within earshot.

[General Zod]

And if you can quote me where I have suggested that unbalanced people ought to carry guns, I will make a $100 donation to the charity of your choice, and send you the receipt via registered mail.

Anyone serious about self defense - especially women serious about self defense - should master the use of a handgun (including weapon-retention and proper discretion regarding when to use it), and carry routinely.

Are mentally unstable people not serious about self-defense? What about other people not suited to carrying guns?

[Kanastrous]

Jesus fuck, you're full of shit. Is this woman supposed to pull her weapon on every guy who looks at her funny?

No.

Shoot people on suspicion of being would-be rapists?

No.

Or is she supposed to keep it hidden until a rapist sneaks up and jumps her, at which point she'll never be able to get it out and use it safely?

You can practically carry concealed for a fast-draw. I have done it routinely.

You seem to want me to be saying that it's a panacea that will work every time no matter what, and all will be perfect. Which is not what I have been saying.

What if she shoots someone before he tries to jump her, just because he's walking too close to her?

What if she shoots herself? What if she shoots an innocent bystander? What if the ammo detonates and blows off a finger? What if the round in the chamber duds and she can't recycle fast enough?

What if, what if, what if...

...all fair observations - except that once again, I wasn't pimping concealed carry as a perfect panacea. Simply as being superior in defensive value, to hand-to-hand fighting.

I agree though, that your idea would be fantastic if would-be rapists walked up and declared their intentions before acting, preferably with witnesses present and within earshot.

If only it worked that way, it would save ever so much time and fuss...

[Kanastrous]

Are mentally unstable people not serious about self-defense?

I haven't discussed the matter, with the mentally unbalanced people I know. Doesn't seem like a good idea, somehow.

What about other people not suited to carrying guns?

Again, it's this weird sort of if-it's-not-suitable-for-everyone-then-it's-not-suitable-for-anyone sort of thinking.

[Cairber]

I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a gun, but I do feel confident about self defense and my ability to stay away from situations that would need it because of my training. That said, I do keep a knife in the car and walk to my car with my keys between my fingers when I'm alone.

[General Zod]

Are mentally unstable people not serious about self-defense?

I haven't discussed the matter, with the mentally unbalanced people I know. Doesn't seem like a good idea, somehow.

What about other people not suited to carrying guns?

Again, it's this weird sort of if-it's-not-suitable-for-everyone-then-it's-not-suitable-for-anyone sort of thinking.

Perhaps not making blanket assertions that "anyone" who is serious about self defense should get a gun would be a good idea then. That can easily be interpreted to mean you think anyone who wants to be able to defend themselves should get one and just ignore any other alternatives that exist, which is stupid.

[Zixinus]

Simply as being superior in defensive value, to hand-to-hand fighting.

If distance can be made and the gun can be drawn. At which point the perp realises that he is staring down a barrel.

[Kanastrous]

Simply as being superior in defensive value, to hand-to-hand fighting.

If distance can be made and the gun can be drawn. At which point the perp realises that he is staring down a barrel.

Ideally, at which point the perp sees a bright flash.

Perhaps not making blanket assertions that "anyone" who is serious about self defense should get a gun would be a good idea then. That can easily be interpreted to mean you think anyone who wants to be able to defend themselves should get one and just ignore any other alternatives that exist, which is stupid.

Perhaps not making the blanket assumption that my interlocutors won't immediately leap to the most extreme and foolish possible interpretation of what I wrote, would be a good idea, too.

My own fault for leaving an opening, it's true.

I'll work on that.

[Lagmonster]

However, even when someone has completed the training, i feel the ability for these courses to be effective also lies in the person themselves. The course isn't enough to give someone the confidence to fight in a probable do or die situation.

This is part of the problem I was railing against. It's not that it's unrealistic to use martial arts for self defence if you're a young woman, it's the idea that people are watching movies or listening to idiot trainers who are filling young people's heads with the idea that they will be ninjas once they get a few years of training under their belt.

As I said, I've never really involved myself with martial arts, so I was somewhat disgusted with the idea that schools were telling their students that they were perfectly safe walking alone at night with nothing but their three years of training to protect them.

[General Zod]

Perhaps not making the blanket assumption that my interlocutors won't immediately leap to the most extreme and foolish possible interpretation of what I wrote, would be a good idea, too.

My own fault for leaving an opening, it's true.

I'll work on that.

It's not a "blanket assumption" to point out faulty logic in your claims.

[Ted C]

So considering that I don't know anything about the actual effectiveness of martial arts in the real world, what would someone who knows what they're talking about say to a young woman who said something similar about her ability to fight off surprise male attackers? Is the difference between men and women simply not equalized by martial arts, or is a trained female martial artist really more than a match for muggers and rapists?

To put it bluntly, size and strength matter. You have to have substantially greater skill to make up for a small disadvantage in size and strength. If she's a five-footer who ways 100 lbs wet, karate lessons probably won't be enough against a six-foot-tall, 200 lb attacker.

Weapons matter. An unskilled attacker with a gun, knife, or club still has an advantage over an unarmed defender with some martial arts skill.

And has she even considered the possibility that the attacker might be skilled in karate or some other martial art?

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps not making the blanket assumption that my interlocutors won't immediately leap to the most extreme and foolish possible interpretation of what I wrote, would be a good idea, too.

My own fault for leaving an opening, it's true.

I'll work on that.

It's not a "blanket assumption" to point out faulty logic in your claims.

I was noting that *I* had made the blanket assumption, not you.

Although you seem to have assumed that (a) I advocate arming mentally deranged people (b) I insist that people lacking financial means and practical access, should still somehow get weapons. Since I didn't explicitly state that I don't advocate those things.

Are we all *really* obliged to explicitly list absolutely every last single possible conceivable exception to a given statement?

Isn't that the kind of bullshit game that Creationists like to play, when discussing things that make them uncomfortable?

[Cairber]

so I was somewhat disgusted with the idea that schools were telling their students that they were perfectly safe walking alone at night with nothing but their three years of training to protect them.

Yeah that is troubling. Though, I know I had a rape defense program once where a lot of our women worked in the city and had at least some walking to do in the evening (which, during the winter, made it dark out). That was a motivational factor for many to join the program. So I guess I wouldn't immediately say empowering people to 'walk at night' is bad idea.

But you seem to be describing more along the lines of choosing to go run in the park at night or something.

[Balrog]

If you had to pick something, I'd recommend ju-jutsu. The reason is that it combines the grappling moves of judo with blows, kicks, joint locks and crippling maneuvers and doesn't particularly pull things short in what it teaches like in judo. I've practiced both judo and jujutsu myself way back when and of the two, jujutsu is vastly superior as a practical self defense method. Judo is jujutsu with the kicks, punches and a lot of other nasty stuff removed.

While true for the traditional style, at least at my place our sensei did teach us moves more practical for self-defense, including how to disarm someone of a knife or gun. Plus, even normal moves can be very deadly in a real-world environment; slamming someone into hard concrete is going to hurt a lot more then several layers of matting, giving you more then enough time to run the hell away.

[General Zod]

I was noting that *I* had made the blanket assumption, not you.

Although you seem to have assumed that (a) I advocate arming mentally deranged people (b) I insist that people lacking financial means and practical access, should still somehow get weapons. Since I didn't explicitly state that I don't advocate those things.

Are we all *really* obliged to explicitly list absolutely every last single possible conceivable exception to a given statement?

Isn't that the kind of bullshit game that Creationists like to play, when discussing things that make them uncomfortable?

It helps to make arguments that don't rely on lame blanket statements when you're trying to get a point across. Being more concise doesn't hurt either.

[TheFeniX]

The most important tool in self defence is situational awareness and avoiding bad situations, followed by Nike-fu and the gift of gab, in other words, running for it or talking and bullshitting your way out of it when things go wrong. If all that fails, and it's pretty rare that it does, then you're left with attacking with everything you've got until the perp(s) is down & out or you can run for it and get the hell out of there. And that, I can tell you, is very ugly, and not something you want to go through.

All through our Concealed Carry Class, this concept was beaten into our heads. A lot of people view a gun, knife, mace, pepper spray, etc as this catch all device that will handle all their self-defense needs. I've heard people say "I got robbed once, this guy came out of nowhere and pointed a gun in my face. If I had been carrying a pistol, that wouldn't have happened." The complete stupidity of their statement doesn't even register with them.

Self-defense isn't about training or weapons: it's an attitude you present to everyone that says "Don't fuck with me, I am aware of my surroundings." You know what I do when someone is making me uncomfortable? I stop or slow down, look them in the eye, and say "How's it going?"

Another concept we discussed was the OODA loop. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The criminal (or maybe it's just some guy caught up in his own world) is already in his act phase when you are being accosted. If you're like most people, you're stuck somewhere between observe and "did I remember to turn the oven off before I left home?". He's already got an edge because he knows how the situation is going to play out provided no new information enters the scenario. By saying "Hello," you run a good chance of "resetting" his OODA loop back to "Observe" as he/she now has new information to process before he can decide on a new course of action. That gives you precious time to make your own decision about his/her intent.

That's getting complicated, but I tell anyone who asks "Where do I start with self-defense?" the same answer: "Get your eyes off the ground, look people in the eye, and talk to them." Criminals love marks who are looking at the ground off in la-la land. Mostly because they couldn't identify them after the fact and they're perfect in that they probably won't know what's going on until long after they've called the police.

To sum up this little rant: learning a martial art doesn't make you shit all in the scope of things in self-defense. It's the same bullshit lines given by women after "Tai-Bo" classes that say "I feel I could defend myself with this if I had to." Yea fucking right. They teach actual self-defense classes for a reason, and I'd bet good money they teach you 90% attitude and only 10% physical defense.

[Kanastrous]

Being more concise doesn't hurt either.

Specific examples of where I need to be more concise would be welcome.

I'm always looking for ways to improve, there.

[The Yosemite Bear]

If I recall correctly Wing Chung was actually designed for women to defend themselves against men. However Jeet, being derived from Wing Chung, Boxing, and Greco-Roman Punkration would probably be best.

[Mobiboros]

I use this quote a lot. It's from my Krav Maga instructor. And he got it from his instructor who was in the Israeli Special forces for like 20 some odd years.

"Martial Arts is not an I win card. Think of it like you have a tooldbox for confrontations. All martial arts does is place more tools in your toolbox and hopefully help you use them with a clearer head. "

In that sense ANY self-defense training is better than no self-defense training. But there are better and worse methods. Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and a lot of traditional hard martial arts are probably not what you should be learning for self-defense. Take Krav Maga, Take JJ or BJJ. Even take MMA classes. Really, for self defense you need a small group of "Attacks" but a large group of "Escapes" or "Holds". If you can jab, right cross, left hook and knee. You're pretty set for attacks in most self-defense situations the average person will encounter. However you're boned if you don't know how to escape various kinda of holds. It's extremely important to be able to escape chokes quickly.