Do women simply need to learn how to fight more?

[QueenoftheRant]

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30272204

No one's picked this up yet so far as I can see. Hurray for the people concerned, its so good to see women who are willing to defend themselves at need. It also highlights a question I've long been interested in. Personally I had my fair share of fights when young and I would love to see physical self defence training taught to all girls in schools rather than netball. I wonder whether that is the necessary last answer to male aggression. I think of male aggression essentially as gender based bullying and the usual way of stopping bullying is to hit back.

But of course there're two points: firstly a male friend once told me that if women could defend themselves more effectively they would be targeted more as men's restraints towards them would drop.

And secondly do we really want a world where fighting is a way of life?

Any takers?

Yy Queen that's what I meant. I think it's a valid discussion to be had in a safe space, but I do think women are already blamed for not fighting back so I can see victim blaming bring a potential outcome iyswim.

Interesting thread.

My personal perspective is it was great these women were able to fight back, and I'm all for girls and women learning martial arts / self defence.

On the idea in general of women should fight back more being "an answer" to male violence, this is problematic for me for the reasons other have raised and mainly because:

• If women start fighting back then men who want to attack them will use means to get around that e.g. arming themselves, drugging them, getting some martial arts training themselves etc
• Men who want to attack women will simply go after the more vulnerable as happens to an extent at the moment anyway. I am not convinced that it would reduce the incidence of assault but just shift the victims over a bit

I personally don't feel, whatever kind of self defence training I had had, that I could fight off a man who was bigger and stronger than me. There are times I wished I could have but I think only a gun would be effective...

Just realised I just regurgitated what Lonny and CountessofFitzdotterel said (wonderful name btw!). Sorry! Skim read!

And YY to shifting the violence to the more vulnerable, Seven. Good point.

It's just not tackling the issue either, which is male violence and attitudes.

And think of the men who target vulnerable women- children, learning disabilities, ill women ( Jimmy Saville), girls in care, and drugging women or plying them with alcohol. Abusive men target vulnerable females.

Absolutely, AWholeLottaNosy.
Suggesting that the problem here might possibly be women's lack of self-defence skills is just shifting the focus to the wrong place.

AWholeLottaNosy... and anyone interested.

Have you ever heard of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu?

I tried it a while back, and it seems like the most suitable style of martial arts I've ever seen for women. It's a ground-based grappling style so a lot of the positions are relevant. Google an image of 'Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Closed Guard' to see what I mean.

I tried it a while back but didn't stick it out. There were small and skinny women there though who were dominating huge muscular men who'd just joined, so it seemed pretty effective.

I don't think this is any kind of answer. It's basically like saying women should carry knives, or Mace or whatever, to protect themselves. What's going to happen?

A - the man overpowers the women anyway and the attack becomes more violent
B - the women overpowers the man and gets away, and he goes on to attack someone else, more violently
C - society at large becomes better armed/trained, and women are still weaker
D - your well armed/trained woman becomes older and frailer, is injured/pregnant/has a child with her, and is vulnerable to a man who isn't thus incumbered

A woman once told me, "Oh, you'll be all right, you're tall and athletic and you have an aggressive walk." That might be true, and it might make me a second-choice victim (while I'm still athletic and able to walk aggressively, whatever that means), but it doesn't solve the problem.

And what about the women (like me) who simply don't want to 'train up', for want of a better word? I'm not saying I'd never fight back, I think you have no way of knowing how you'd react in that situation, but I don't want to learn martial arts, I don't want to meet violence with violence. There's just no place in my life for this. I'm i letting the sisterhood down? Wishing victim hood on myself? Or making a positive choice and teaching my (boy) child a positive way?

I haven't got the time to dedicate to learning a martial art. I really haven't. I'm small, I weigh under 8 stone, I'm old. Even if I did learn a martial art then I would have to dedicate a hell of a lot of time to it to have a chance of fighting off even an average sized man. Give that man a weapon or a friend the element of surprise and I'd be fucked.

I did successfully fight off an attacker once. The only reason I managed it was because he was very, very drunk.

This woman helped a couple of teenagers who were being harassed by a group of men. The men beat her to death with a bat

I take all the points everyone has correctly made about the risks of standing up for yourself (whether being blamed, being more hurt, turning the predator on someone else, turning men towards even more violent attacks, seeking out women who look more vulnerable etc.). Notwithstanding, given that men are not going to stop being violent anytime soon, has anyone got a better idea for helping the the individual woman in the situation we are currently in are than giving them the best possible skills to defend themselves if it is appropriate?

Looking at the three examples I gave - yes I perhaps should have allowed the muggers on the two occasions to hit me and take my money (except sod that for a game of soldiers) but I concede that arguably I took a risk that maybe I should have avoided. But in the situations my daughters were in - the one who could have been dragged into a car, she almost certainly avoided rape, perhaps even murder through the way she acted. The other one, who was in Thailand at the time of the attack, would certainly have been raped and again, perhaps murdered had she not fought him off. So I think they were both correct in their actions and would have been worse off by not resisting. Neither of my daughters are particularly big; in fact the one who threw her attacker over the balcony is 5' 2" and weighs less than 8 stone.

I am certainly not suggesting that a lack of self defence skills is diverting us from the issue, which is men's violence or that women who don't fight back should be blamed in any way. But I remain convinced that any protection/defence we can give our girls we should. I dread to think what would have happened to my DDs had they not been confident young women with the instincts and ability to protect themselves. One of the most important lessons we can teach our DDs is don't freeze. If you have to act (because defusing or running is not an option), act fast and be ruthless.

There was no other option for them in their situation and I thank God they had the wherewithal to save themselves.

grimbletart I read a public health leaflet in South Africa many years ago (when the risk of contracting HIV through rape first became a huge issue, and rape was really perceived as a life-or-death matter) advising women who were being threatened with rape to urinate or vomit if they could. Thankfully I have never had the need to try that myself, nor talked to anyone who has, but the people putting that kind of literature together talked to a hell of a lot of women, and I don't think they'd suggest that just for fun.

That (and what I said in my last post) aside, I do think it would be an excellent thing for all women if being physically strong became more the norm. For all sorts of reasons - health, how women feel emotionally about their bodies, the messages we send out... and because if a women is confident that her "NO!" plus a physical shove will be noticed, she's more likely to do that, rather than just think, "Shit, well, he's stronger than me, I may as well get it over with and not get hurt."

Obviously that only applies to a limited number of circumstances, but I do think it's still important. Also, if women see their bodies as functional rather than ornamental, they're less likely to acquiesce in situations where they might think, "I'm not comfortable with what's happening... but he's my boss/a jock/suck a nice guy/so good looking/etc."

I have taken up self defense classes as I was scared about what exH could do.
I chose a particular type of class because I was already 40 and tiny compared to ex who is tall, large and strong, albeit slow. It is supposed to use the attacker's strength against him.

If anything, it has taught me how difficult it is to fight off an attacker, although I have learnt some useful tools.

Surprisingly, though, I have only been threatened once with physical violence since then and it was by a woman.

A friend has been physically attacked by her husband. I have considered teaching her how to defend herself, but I am very worried that if she did fight back she would be even more seriously hurt, so I understand the concerns mentioned in this thread.

Self defence is not really or just about fighting, though. It's about escaping. It can be to yield to preserve our life.

I don't understand this idea that a rape- and violence-free world is some kind of cloud cuckoo, idealist utopia.

We have seen a sea-change in many now-vile-previously-entirely-acceptable scenarios - off the top of my mind :

• Slavery
• Women as chattels without a vote
• Disabled babies and children tossed into homes and left to die prematurely
• Attitudes to homosexuality
• The eradication of torture and the death penalty (in most civilised countries)
• Drink driving
• Mother and baby homes, and the motion of pre-marital sex being the epitome of wickedness.

I could go on.

Why do people think rape and male violence are just something we will always have to live with.....?

I don't think that's what people are saying though, Margaret.

If I'm reading it right, what Grimble and others are saying is that we should work towards a society where rape and violence are a thing of the past, but that in order to deal with the world as it is, it can be useful for women to be or become physically stronger.

There are problems with that view including that it could cause more difficulties than it solves and could be used as yet another stick to beat women with.

Given that various studies put the incidence of psychopathy somewhere between 0.5pc and 1pc of the general population, I think it's very unlikely that a society without violence is possible. Until we find a cure or treatment that works anyway. And no one has so far.

It's likely that violence against women is perpetrated by other men without those tendencies as well so I'm not saying nothing can be done.

While we're never going to stamp out violence completely, I don't think the reason VAWG is so appallingly widespread is because there is that incidence of psychopaths. It's because those psychopaths are enabled by a wider society that tolerates that violence.

Without exception, when you hear on the news about a serial killer or attacker of women whose acts are so extreme they don't sound like they have anything to do with normal behaviour, you later hear details leaking out about the lower-level violence they started with, the domestic abuse or assaults on women in prostitution, that were tolerated by a society that thinks these things are acceptable.

And in the same vein, the fact it's so hard to convict a rapist means that by the time a rapist is convicted he has often accumulated many many victims. We might never stop a proportion of men wanting to rape, but if no-one ever raped more than once there would not be nearly so many rapes.

It would be hard to imagine a society with no violence but a society where it is not endemic is possible.

Biologically, men are bigger than women because of violence, particularly within the context of competition between males for women and resources.
It will be very difficult to completely remove that biological drive.
But I think it is possible to construct societies where violence is reduced, frowned upon and where rape is strongly discouraged.
Comparatively, some of us already do live in societies where much progress has been made, although not enough. I think it's quite possible to improve, but I would think that making sure that violence on women is reported and punished, along education and changes in overall attitudes, has a better effect than women being able to defend themselves physically.

I think it's quite possible to improve, but I would think that making sure that violence on women is reported and punished, along education and changes in overall attitudes, has a better effect than women being able to defend themselves physically.

I agree that on a societal and population basis you are totally right. But, for the individual woman an increase in strength, confidence and skill gives her a slightly better chance if she is attacked.

The two 'remedies' should go together. They are not mutually exclusive.

As many posters on here say in debates on other issues, we should also listen to the lived experience of women - my DDs are examples of lived experience.

How about legalising guns instead?

Then more rapes would happen at gunpoint, I expect.

I expect to be able to walk down the street without having to punch molesters off my body.

Fighting people should not be expected of women.

I completely agree with grimbletart. I find it interesting that we seem to be equating self-defence with violence.

First, because as Lweji says, self-defence is not just violence, it is a whole group of things to protect yourself.

Second, because self-defence has for centuries been considered a legitimate form of violence, both at the country and individual level. The law does not expect you to just accept violence, whether you are a person or a country, you are allowed to defend yourself. Survival is a basic natural right.

Except -- this doesn't seem to apply to women so much, or women have been socialised in ways so as to suppress our natural self-defence instincts. We must be nice, we don't want to hurt people, even if they are being dodgy and trying to rape us.

So I'm not sure I would specifically teach martial arts, but I would definitely teach women and girls that they should listen to their instincts, that they have a right to protect themselves, and a range of tools to help them do so.

I understand people's concerns about victim blaming but that is happening anyway. And I think it's more likely we will be able to change social attitudes about that than we will be able to eliminate violence.

I expect to be able to walk down the street without having to punch molesters off my body.

So do I, so do most people: unfortunately not all men reach our expectations and until they do we have to have a plan B.

Fighting people should not be expected of women.

Bit sexist Fanjo? . Personally I think the world would be better if it were not expected of men either and in that sort of world maybe plan B would not be needed.

Anyway, I am in a bit of a minority here, so l'll bow out hoping that education, changing culture and time will provide the utopia we all want.