What would you teach?

[Dark_Sunshine]

I've been asked by a couple of friends (female university students) who are living on their own for the first time, to teach them some basic self-defense. Aside from the psychological aspects, what do people think are the most important concepts to teach. I'm starting off with basic movement, both standing up and on the ground, but beyond that, I'm a bit mystified, this is the first time I've had to put together a program. Any suggestions?

[Reprobate]

I'd teach two basics:
-in order to do the most damage, you have to be close.
-in defending your life or body, everything is allowed, including gouging, tearing, and ripping.

[OULobo]

Obviously, as you mentioned, mentality is the most important thing. The most important aspects being aggression and preparedness. You have to enter a physical conflict with the idea that you are refusing to be a victim at all costs. You have to eliminate all the high risk points of the daily life, like unlit parking lots at night and not having you keys ready, or jobbing alone with a walkman on. If you are looking to teach techniques I would only teach standing escapes and ground defense. Things like mount and guard defenses and vital targets like throat, groin and shins.

I personally think that the most important aspects of basic self defense are mental more than physical. It is easier to avoid a situation than to confront one. Minimal techniques allow for better memory retention.

[Touch Of Death]

1. Distance is your best friend.
2. Teach them a good strong punch of the back hand.
3. usefull targets when distanced is closed.
4 a few usefull tactics for setting up the shot off the back hand.
5 grappling counters,then revert to lesson #2 and #1.

[lvwhitebir]

Awareness is 80% of self-defense. If you're aware and confident, you're less likely to ever be attacked. Make sure you go into ideas on what to look for and how to avoid dangerous situations. The book "The Idiot's Guide to Self Defense" works really well in this regard. I use it for classroom discussions and provide it to the students.

If this is a short course, make sure you identify the intended audience: are they wanting to defend against spousal abuse, rape, muggings, etc. Each basic topic changes the types of techniques you teach.

For example, since most rapes are caused by people known to the victim, make sure you teach techniques from those scenarios (e.g., date rape from sitting on a couch attacker is already on top of you). Grappling positions dominate these classes.

Abuse is usually done with hand strikes from a standing position. So you would need to put in a lot of blocking and quick counter strikes.

Muggings, on the other hand, are usually done with a weapon. In that case, you teach different techniques, but make sure they understand to hand over their valuables first and only defend if they fear for their life.

In all, make sure the techniques you teach are very basic, utilizing quick strikes that provide the defender distance to escape. My goal is that the techniques I teach are usable after 1 lesson. Escape is the #1 goal in self defense.

WhiteBirch

[clapping_tiger]

Instead of a punch or how to punch. I teach the people who want one quick pointer, the heel palm. You can deliver a lot more power because you don't hold back as much as you do with a punch. A punch to a hard part of the skull will hurt your hand as much as their head. You can come around like a hook, you can thrust it forward like a straight punch. and you can add in a claw for extra damage to the eyes with ease.

[Zepp]

In addition to what's been mentioned, you should show them how to break out of simple holds and grabs, and progress to getting out from under an attacker when on the ground.

Once they've got a handle on some basics, you may also want to cover using handy objects as weapons, such as using keys on soft spots on an attacker's body.

Imagining the likely scenarios of an attack should give you plenty more ideas.

[Cruentus]

I assume we are talking about technical stuff beyond awareness and psychological. Awareness and the psychological aspects are the most important aspects. With that being said, here is some technical stuff.

1. Targeting: 4 main targets - eyes, throat, groin, knee/shin area.

2. Blocking - you already instinctively know how to block...so let's further hone that ability. Take a nerf ball or beach ball. Tell your students you are going to randomely throw the ball at their head or body. They ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CATCH IT, but are to pretend it is a rock that they have to protect themselves from. Then spend a little time throwing it at them...and try to catch them by suprise. They will instinctively move their bodies, and put one or 2 hands up to block the ball...basically doing an "oh s**t" block.

Then tell them that this is your basic parry, which is one or 2 hands come up for protection of the vitals, batting away at the strike. Then have them partner up. The partner's job is to at medium speed and with control try to hit the blocker. The blocker is going to move and protect themselves instinctively, the same way they did with the ball. Now although they won't be experts, you'll be amazed how well they will be able to block after only
this quick lesson.

3. Striking - Although this can be really tough, they already instinctively know how to strike as well. The hardest part will be to get them to let go of their preconcieved notions on how they think they should strike, and their inhabitions, so that they can learn. But certain strikes take more time to perfect, like the punch. So don't teach them those. Teach them palm strikes, finger jabs, elbow, knees, and low kicks...strikes that can be used instinctively rather then strikes that take a lot of practice to learn and perfect. Practice striking to the vitals previously taught. I find that focus pads help with this, as well as block and counter drills w/ partners.

4. Releasing Grabs - As women, if they are attacked it will most likely be by another male who is trying to control and manipulate rather then just "fight." So you must address grabs. Go over releases from same side and cross hand 1-handed grabs on wrist, 2 handed grabs on wrist, wrist grabs from behind, headlocks from both front/behind, body locks/grabs fromboth front and behind, and grabs on the ground. Also go through grabs in tight spaces where an attacker could use a corner or wall.

You don't need a whole lot of complex counters or joint locks, just go into release + hit + run.

5. Weapons - go over improvised weapons, and pssible weapons that they could carry w/o a lot of training needed. Go over safety and precautions with these. Do partner work with weapons also. Also discuss what to do if they have a weapon, mostly from the escaping side.

6. Other possabilities of attack: anything that works, skin grabbing, biting, gouging, etc. Just implant the idea.

Remember one important thing: KEEP IT SIMPLE! I am sure you have a wealth of knowledge you could teach them, but they just need to know how to defend themselves in the simplest way possible.

This should help!!! :D

[Cruentus]

Whoops! I went to edit...and I quoted myself! If someone could delete my 1st post....:confused:

[7starmantis]

The main areas we teach are soft tissue areas with pressure points. I agree with PAUL about the four targets, those are amazingly effective. I don't think I agree with the blocking idea as a 110lb woman would get hurt worse trying to block a full punch from a 250lb guy than getting out of the way of it. But, there is a line there that needs to be touched on.
Alot of hold releases and knee kicks to get out of the situation. We teach where some of the major pressure points are in the throat, ribs area, groin, knee, even underarm. The point is, nothing is illegal in a self-defense situation.
On another note, I think it is importnat to say thank you to all the people who activly teach womens self-defense classes, thye do our society a great favor.

7sm

[Seig]

I just helped with a defensive tactics class for Security Officers, the thing I stressed was, it doesn't matter what I show you, if you do not practice it, it is useless.

[ZYBERKILL]

I would teach the basics stances, blocks, punch and kick. i would keep it simple with only 5 to 10 self defense tech, and stress the fact that the best self defense is not to be there. show them the main pressure points so that they strike and run.

[arnisador]

See also:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2409

[arnisador]

Originally posted by PAUL
Whoops! I went to edit...and I quoted myself! If someone could delete my 1st post....

Done.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by arnisador
Done.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

Thanks! :)

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
I don't think I agree with the blocking idea as a 110lb woman would get hurt worse trying to block a full punch from a 250lb guy than getting out of the way of it. But, there is a line there that needs to be touched on.
7sm

With the "drill" and methos I described, they don't end up "blocking" in the traditional sense. They end up parrying and moving out of the way of the strike. It's hard to explain on the net, but you'd be impressed to see how some of the most timid women are able to protect themselves after only a short lesson! :D

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by PAUL
It's hard to explain on the net, but you'd be impressed to see how some of the most timid women are able to protect themselves after only a short lesson! :D

And thats what its all about!
Good for them, and good for you for helping them.
I can never convey how much importance I put on womens self-defense classes.

7sm

[MA-Caver]

I was reading and was thinking. (Uh-oh)... What got me to thinking is that mind-set is also important. For we, who enter the world of Martial Arts have learned (or are learning) to prepare for whatever battle/fight/defenses we come upon, or comes upon us. The average person doesn't. ... unless violence is part of their everyday environs. Study people in your office, work, school... ask yourself if they are able to handle such situations. You'll see what I mean. The average person goes along their daily routines, bee-bopping to whatever and doesn't have a "warrior's mindset of being prepared for ANYTHING."

Fear is what makes most attacks successful. Sadly in particular successful in (most) women. Fear of getting hurt. We as MA's know that we're gonna get hurt regardless. Only the most skilled of us may come out of a physical conflict without a scratch or a sore muscle. The average of us will, the next day, feel that (lucky)punch to face or the ribs, or our arms/legs from our blocks.
A woman being attacked (and forgive any stereotyping if any) will be pumping with fear; fear of the rape and fear of the pain after the attack, the psychological effects after the attack they'll have to deal with later. I'm speaking of immediacy, the RIGHT NOW. The sudden appearance of a knife or gun would scare the hell out of a lot of people. Staying calm dispite those shocks takes practice. Confidence can go out the window right along with the skills learned if fear takes it's rein.

All techinques and skills and tips aren't worth squat if the individual is too frighten at the moment to recall or use them. This has always been an attacker's advantage. A smart one will sieze upon them immediately because surprisingly... they're just as scared of getting hurt as everyone else.

Teaching students, potential victims how to calm themselves when fear strikes (suddenly or slow-build-up) will go a long way and they'll be more effectively able to use whatever techinques an instructor gives them to fend off an attacker.

Warding off an attack is difficult, warding off fear is a whole other ballgame. Teaching how to manage the fear (can't make it go away completely) and dealing with it right then, right there and face the attacker if escape or distance is not possible (at the moment) will help I think. Dealing with, if not overcoming, the fear at the moment will help bring them to the point of effective defense and/or distance they need.

:asian:

[hardheadjarhead]

I have to agree with MACaver that mindset is the most important thing when it comes to women's self defense (or for that matter, anybody's self defense). If a woman hasn't the will, the way isn't an issue. She'll likely lose. This is true for both genders.

I have to take exception to some of the techniques suggested here...and I do so, I know, at risk of ticking some people off.

While palm heels, backhands, knees, and whatnot are all quite valid martial arts techniques and great for any martial arts curriculum, they often will not work for a woman who is facing a lethal force situation. By lethal force situation I mean she is facing the threat of serious bodily harm (rape could be included here) and would be thus justified in causing serious bodily harm.

Women generally carry fifty pounds less mass than a man. Studies show that pound for pound that muscle is weaker than a man's. Her attacker is flooded with endorphin's and enkephalins and adrenalin, as he is stoked and primed for attack. He might also have intoxicants in his system rendering him even more immune to pain.

Given that disparity of strength and size, and given the often tremendous advantage an attacker might have over a woman...I teach two techniques.

A testicle crush wherein she reaches down, grabs one or both, and squeezes for all she's worth.

An eye gouge with the thumb that is done by placing the midpoint of the palm on the midpoint of the jaw and thrusting the thumb into the eye socket. All the way. To the hilt.

The latter one turns a lot of women off ("Ick. Eye juice"). The first one...the crush... they seem to embrace (forgive me) with relish.

These two techniques, if pulled off, cause shock and incapacitation. The attacker WILL require hospitalization.

While the other techniques might possibly work (and they probably all have at one time or another), these PROBABLY will work. I'd go for the higher percentage of techniques.

They're also simple.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[Cruentus]

Eye gouge and groin grabs are good, if they are in a position to pull it off.

The reason why I teach eyes, thoat, groin, knee/shins as 4 main targets is not because I think that a 100 lb. woman is going to kick a 200lb male in the shin, and he is going to stop attacking her. I do it because you never know what position you might get stuck in, and this gives her targets in 4 different "zones", eyes being high, throat being not as high, groin being midlevel, and shin/knees being low. So, if both their arms are pinned, they'll think groin. If they can't hit groin, they think knee/shins. If a hand gets free they'll think eyes. If he turns his head and she misses the eyes, she can go directly for a throat strike. These targets just give her options, without complicating things too much.

Also, I think it is important to teach a few different methods of striking, particularly methods that won't injure the women if executed. A punch, without ample time to train with it, would be ineffective because not only is it unlikely that they will do damage with the technique, but they are in danger of breaking their hand, thus rendering their "tool" helpless. A palm, hammer fist, or elbow may not do much more damage then a punch if it is not to a vital area, but at least the woman won't break her hand or hurt herself by executing the technique.

Intent
One of the most important part about teaching "the right mentality" for self defense is teaching about intent. Intent plays a major role in any conflict. An attacker who is only intending to steal money, an attacker who wants to kidnap you, and an attacker who wants just to kill you on the spot are all going to attack differently. If a man has a knife and just wants to assasinate you w/o wasting any time, you have much less of a chance of survival then if a man wants to capture you and take you to his home. It is just important to have an understanding of this from an attackers prospective, even though this cannot be controlled.

More importantly, though, women need to understand what their own intent is. Their intent should be to escape and survive, not fight. Ask any Cop or Bouncer in the country which they would rather have, a perp who try's to fight them, or a perp who will do anything or go through anyone to escape when they need to be detained. Trust me, they would rather have the perp stay and fight. It is much more difficult to handle someone who is intent on escaping if you are trying to detain them. Fighting just leads to their eventual capture. Women need to have this intent to escape.

If they are trying to fight their attacker, then yes, they most likely will lose, and most of their weapons are rendered helpless. The shin or groin kicks or throat punches won't work. THeir eye gouges might work, their testicle grabs might work, but if they fail to execute the attack the 1st time, they are most likely done for. A woman with only a little self defense training will most likely lose a fight with a man. Period.

But, if she is intent on escaping and surviving, NOW she has a fighting chance. It may only take a quick shin kick, and grab release to send the woman running like mad and screaming "Fire" towards the exit. It may only take throwing whatever is in her hand at the time up in the attackers face to buy her the one second she needs to innitiate her escape. You never know, which is why I teach the different attacking zones, and the different techniques.

I think when teaching techniques to women, it is important to bring reality to the table. I know it's hard with all the unrealistic girlpower bulls**t that is out there now a days (like the movie 'enough' with Jay-Lo), but realism is the best medicine. It will give them the humility they need to understand that they most likely aren't going to beat a bigger stronger male in a "fight" so they will learn to be both careful and aware, yet it also gives them the confindence they need in knowing that they are not helpless, and can escape and survive with proper awareness, intent, and strategy.

So, now that I have explained further, you all might understand why I teach different techniques and target zones in womens self defense classes. It is not because I expect them to beat their attackers in a fight, it is because I want to give them the tools to innitiate their escape.

:asian:

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by PAUL
So, now that I have explained further, you all might understand why I teach different techniques and target zones in womens self defense classes. It is not because I expect them to beat their attackers in a fight, it is because I want to give them the tools to innitiate their escape.

:asian:

That's one of the key points in a self-defense class IMO. There are a ton of situations that people will find themselves in. If their goal is simply to provide romm to escape, they only need to learn a handfull of simple techniques that will help them out of most of them.

Heel palm are great when they're standing, but not as good on the ground. Eye gouges are great on the ground, but not as good when standing. Knees and elbows when you're very close, especially when he's grabbing your waist in front or behind, but suck from a distance.

Just giving the person two options, an eye-gouge and a groin-grab is too limiting IMO. There will be plenty of situations where neither target is available, or the woman simply doesn't see the need for such "violence." For example, in a date rape situation, she may not want to maim the attacker because it's her "friend." I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm simply saying that is probably the mindset and she'll need different tools to get out of trouble.

WhiteBirch

[hardheadjarhead]

In a sexual assault, the eyes or groin are going to be available at some point.

The most common type of sexual assault doesn't involve the man hitting the woman...it involves intimidation. Often a woman can defuse this with assertiveness...a slap, punch, kick. Rapists don't typically attack women they perceive will resist or report. In this scenario, what you teach might work.

However, if it escalates beyond that level, kicks to the shin are going to be hard to pull off. When I give self defense lectures, I'll have my partner, a female black belt, kick me as hard as she can to the shin. She wears shoes or dress boots. I then pull up my pant leg to show I haven't any padding on.

If a women attacks the shins because they're open, and nothing else is available, it'll do little more than inflame the attacker if he's the type to continue the attack against resistance. Rmemeber, this guy has control issues with women...she's fighting his control. What she needs to do is incapacitate, not escalate.

I have to disagree with White Birch's statement that eye gouges aren't good while standing. If a woman clinches, gets in tight, places the palm on the midline of the jaw and then inserts the thumb into the eye socket, it'll work. We're not talking sparring range, here. When an assailant makes his move, he's typically worked his way into arms reach using charm, a ruse, whatever.

Many women don't like eye gouges...and can't get the emotional and mental mindset necessary to do them. The testicle crush is then available.

Seventy percent of sexual assaults are oral. The rapist demands ********...it gives him a rush and a feeling of control. The testicles are then available.

A woman can bide her time, verbally promise him no resistance (even go so far as negotiate with offers to do WHATEVER he wants if he doesn't hurt her), and then attack when the time is appropriate...this assuming he isn't attempting at that moment to kill her. The situation dictates the response.

We've put this into sparring. On the ground a woman can effectively attack either of these targets. Even while mounted. If her hands are pinned, he's going to have to let go of her at some point to undo his pants, whatever. It works.

When we spar it, we do a gradient sparring, first having the attacker give light energy and then later ramping it up a bit. The woman will place her palm on the jaw and call "eyes" or just reach down and grab his cup protected groing and call "groin". We've found that she often can get both...particularly if she nails the guy in the first three seconds of the altercation. She gets the guy before he can exploit or consolidate his attack.

Something else people have to consider...not all victims are young and healthy. What do you teach a woman with Spina Bifida who is in a wheelchair? A woman who is in her seventies? The latter HAS to incapacitate him as quickly as possible. A punch from him would devaste her. She has to do something that will drop the guy instantly.

By the way, folks, I argue this with the greatest respect for you and what you're doing. I'm pleased beyond measure that you're all teaching women's self defense. My hope is that we all learn from this dialogue, trade ideas, and evolve our theories.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[OULobo]

I agree with most of what has been said, but I think that the idea of an eye gouge (hand anchored thumb insertion method) is much harder than expected on an aggressive or defensive individual. A resistant or in this case aggressive person will not let much near their face. Having enough time to grab and apply pressure through an eyesocket while a likely stronger attacker is thrashing his head away, knashing his teeth at your fingers and punching you with full power and speed is extrememly hard. I think unexpected and quick "gouges" like whips and flicks would be a better choice. I whole heartedly agree on the nut grabs though, ooch!

My opinion is that the best advice, as mentioned in this thread before, is teaching awarness, prevention, deception and escape. I'm probably back stepping here but, I agree only somewhat with aggression. I think all the actions taken in this type of situation should be done aggressivly (except deception), but I think that offensive aggression, taken beyond a means to escape or evade, will only get them beaten to a pulp, along with whatever else the attacker has planned. My only major point is that it should be stressed that most women cannot and should not go "toe to toe" with an aggressive male. Salvation lies in escape.

[MA-Caver]

Good, realistic thread here.
One of the things that I noted was about Intent.
If one thing is certian it is virtually impossible to describe what one attacker's intent is. You just won't know until it happens. I've read about (real-life) crimes where the attacker just wanted money and ended up raping and killing. True the attacker may have not originally intended the end results but a victim (male or female) isn't going to know that until it's over.
Thus assume and always assume worse case scenario. They're going to kill you. Is this paranoia... well considering the satistics out there of violent crimes in this country alone... do you really want to take that chance that all the attacker wants is just your money?
Any person with the mindset of approaching another with the intent to overpower and dominate and intimidate to get what they want whether be it money, sex, death; should be considered dangerous. Particularly in the case of a 110 lb woman against a 220 lb. man. A person entering illegally your home while you're still in it should be considered extraordinarily dangerous because they're in the privacy of your home. A lot can be done in there in a short amount of time.

Eye gouges yes, are icky to a lot of women. But I disagree that a woman being threatened, manhandled, pawed, violated will shirk from it once the situation becomes REAL to her. Have you ever seen two women fight? Geez man, makes some male to male fights seem sissy by comparison. Don't underestimate a woman's resolve under certian circumstances. They'll surprise you as well as their attackers and themselves.

But agreed... a woman should fight if it's her last day on earth. Men should do as well too.

[Cruentus]

For the record...

I don't want to discount the effectiveness of eye gouge and groin grab as explained by steve scott; they are very effective techniques, and more effective then any shin kick or palm strike for sure. I only am saying that options are needed, because no technique is a sure thing. So, they need to have options regarding striking tools, and striking zones. If a womans hands are pinned to a wall or the ground, she had better know how to use her feet, knees, head, and teeth if she has too. If the attacker is aware and doesn't allow an eye gouge to be executed, she needs to know that she can shove a palm strike, bic pen, or cell phone into his throat.

Fight with all you have available, so that you can escape, in my opinon! :D

[hardheadjarhead]

Paul, et al...

I think everybody here has hit on certain truths. Some points I disagree with...but as I've indicated I'm glad we're discussing it.

MACaver, my experience insofar as women and fighting attitude is that many of them are painfully shy. These aren't necessarily victims, but women who seem to be wired that way. Studies have indicated that this can be a genetic trait for both genders. Teaching these women fighting attitude is difficult. I've had two women who were victims that were actually the most spirited...they cried when they sparred, but they fought the hardest. Their reference point for wanting to fight was very, very real and stark for them.

Paul's attitude of fighting with anything at hand is exactly the kind of attitude I would advocate...as far as technique, I defer to the simple methods I've called for.

I like the idea of escape, as espoused, if flight is possible. I think escape would be difficult if the guy isn't incapacitated...fully.

Keep the talk going, folks. I'm jumping between two or three threads, so I might be out of the loop for awhile. Your stuff has been stimulating, and I appreciate the input.

In either this thread or another, I recommended "The Gift of Fear" as a good reference. One I'm reading now is "Predator" by Anna Salter. Anybody have any recommendations for references?

Regards,

Steve Scott

[MA-Caver]

hardheadjarhead wrote: MACaver, my experience insofar as women and fighting attitude is that many of them are painfully shy. These aren't necessarily victims, but women who seem to be wired that way. Studies have indicated that this can be a genetic trait for both genders. Teaching these women fighting attitude is difficult. I've had two women who were victims that were actually the most spirited...they cried when they sparred, but they fought the hardest. Their reference point for wanting to fight was very, very real and stark for them.

Yes I agree, having been previous victims the cry "NEVER AGAIN!" is strong. It doesn't surprise me and it saddens me that they cried during sparring.

I recall that most special forces' combat training includes: escape and evasion. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

I learned MA for the simple purpose of hurting the attacker as quickly and as efficently as possible so I can do ONE THING... RUN!
There's no way that a skinny cuss like me is gonna go a round with a bigger guy and come out ahead. Oh sure there are techinques and some of those I've learned. But reality check...
I've spent time on the mean streets of big cities (Dallas, DC) and the stark truth I've learned which is appliciable to everyone is hurt them before they can hurt you and get the hell outta there.

If I'm cornered...god help them. But I'm always gonna look for that out and take it the instant it's available.

Yes women are stereotypically shy when it comes to a "fighting attitude" but they should never be underestimated. You say it's difficult to teach the "attitude" but it's not impossible right? ;)

:asian:

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm nearing 47 years of age, and escape and evasion means something different to me at this point in my life. I have arthritic knees...something that hit me just this year...and running is difficult. I sympathize with the older woman, the woman carrying a child (children). Getting away isn't always easy. It might be possible...but it isn't necessarily going to be fast.

One of my students was stuck upstairs with two burglars downstairs...she had two children, one age six the other an infant...upstairs with her. They ended NOT coming upstairs, thankfully, and ran when she started flipping on lights and calling for her husband (it was a bluff, he wasn't there). She had nowhere to run.

Barricading herself while calling the cops would have been a good technique...if her bathroom door was solid core with a reinforced frame, and if she had had a cellphone or a phone on a designated line. She had neither. All of this is 20/20 hindsight. My point...flight was impossible...fight was the only option had the guys been committed to getting her. Flight is great...if available.

MACaver, you're absolutely right...it ISN'T impossible to teach the attitude, and I try not to underestimate women. I try never to underestimate anybody, regardless of gender, ability, or disability. When you underestimate people, you get pleasant or upleasant surprises from them when they exceed your expectations.

The shy women are the ones that need the attitude training the most...and this is where I think martial arts training is an excellent resource for building up their spirit. Rapists...heck, probably any sociopath... typically don't attack women who are assertive and fiesty. They attack women they perceive won't resist them or report them...the shy ones.

I read last month where shy people's brains are virtually identical in appearance and basic function throughout life...but that their behavior can change regardless. Social skills and assertiveness can be learned as a coping skill, in spite of genetic wiring. Martial arts can be a big part of this coping mechanism.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[Dark_Sunshine]

Thank you very much to everyone who has responded, the comments I've read have confirmed my suspicions, that self-defense has dimensions that didn't even occur to me.

Fortunately, my friends have indicated to me that they want to make these lessons an ongoing priority, right now we're meeting once a week.
I've started by emphasizing the need to take control of a situation. It has been said quite rightly that fear can prevent a defensive reaction, so the first step any potential victim should take is to gain the upper hand in the situation. Ideally, this would be by running away, however, especially in confined spaces, this is not an option. So my advice has been, use movement to gain advantage. Move from side to side so an attacker can't corner you, if you're on the ground, keep your feet between your head and the attacker.
I've also taught about basic stance, the most important physical reaction (other than run) being to step back while raising hands, making all weapons (hands and feet) available.

While I do appreciate the importance of the psychological, I'm trying to avoid overemphasizing it, I've found that in teaching martial arts, people learn better through just doing, rather thinking. Although I've lectured at length on the concepts of confidence and fear, and perception and awareness, I find that these ideas only become ingrained in conjunction with constant practice of physical techniques. The more aware a woman is of her physical abilities, the more psychologically comfortable she will be with self-defense.

[Cruentus]

What is most important is that you and your students are doing SOMETHING. Somethin' is better then nothin'! And, as you go along and do more research, you'll get better at what you are doing.

Just remember to never stop getting better!

:asian:

[hardheadjarhead]

I couldn't agree with Paul more...you guys are doing something. It sounds like we all are...I think that's awesome.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
In a sexual assault, the eyes or groin are going to be available at some point.

Agreed. But there are other attacks that women need to worry about, such as assaults and robberies. In fact women are victims of 10x more assaults than rapes/sexual assaults (according to the 2001 National Crime Victimization Survey). Eye gouges and groin attacks are not often as available nor as desireable in those instances.

To me, there are 5 types of crime scenarios that need to be addressed in self defense courses:

- Spousal Abuse (requires a lot of defensive training and empowerment exercises to build confidence)
- Simple Assault (standing defenses and attacks, defenses against strikes and grabs)
- Aggravated Assault (he has a weapon, so we do disarms and escapes)
- Robbery (knowing when it's escalating to something more)
- Rape (standing grabs defenses and ground fighting dominate)

In order to properly teach a self-defense course, you have to determine your target audience's needs and desires; make a class specific to the scenario. It's very difficult to address all of them in a short period of time.


Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
I have to disagree with White Birch's statement that eye gouges aren't good while standing. If a woman clinches, gets in tight, places the palm on the midline of the jaw and then inserts the thumb into the eye socket, it'll work. We're not talking sparring range, here. When an assailant makes his move, he's typically worked his way into arms reach using charm, a ruse, whatever.

Unfortunately, to make it work she has to be in clinch range, with a stronger attacker (most likely). I would prefer to strike from outside clinch range first, hoping to get away without getting grabbed. In most non-rape situations, he starts from a distance, so you should train to recognize when someone's trying to get in close and avoid/stop it. In most rape scenarios, the victim knows the attacker and are less likely to *want* to apply such potentially lethal techniques.

And, yep, the attacker has to get into range at some time to do harm. But you should train to try to avoid it at all costs. It's better to have a good distance defense first. Good stance work/defensive posture and a good heel-palm are what I think help to discourage the attack.

I just had another thought too. Has anyone seen any studies on what percentage of victims that fought back were found guilty of overstepping their defense? I mean, if someone used an eye gouge and blinded the guy it's a potential lawsuit. I wonder what the law thinks about it. I wonder how I could even look it up?

But, really, my point was that there are different scenarios with each requiring different attacks and defenses. I don't dispute the effectiveness of the eye gouge or groin grab. I only believe they are a small part of a larger arsenal available.

WhiteBirch

[hardheadjarhead]

"Unfortunately, to make it work she has to be in clinch range, with a stronger attacker (most likely). I would prefer to strike from outside clinch range first, hoping to get away without getting grabbed."

The confrontation will usually start at clinch range, and the victim will have been grabbed...at least in a sexual assault.

Now, if the intended victim isn't grabbed, is able to keep her distance, then your tactic will work. But in 85% of the attacks the victim knows the attacker. He'll be close.

Insofar as worrying about overstepping oneself in countering an assault, perhaps. In Indiana if it is an attempted sexual assault, the woman has the right to use lethal force, which by Indiana's definition means she can incapacitate him.

Overstepping oneself might occur if a guy groped a woman in a bar and she takes out his eye. IF however, she is isolated, threatened, has reason to fear for her life, the law will almost always side with her.

Good point about the other types of attack. They aren't always sexual assaults. You had some excellent observations here.

You also made a good point about a woman not wanting to hurt an assailant she knows. Watering down the techniques for the sake of palatability can get a woman seriously hurt. How about trying to teach her an appropriate mental state for fighting back instead of limiting the techniques?

Some assailants are going to be defused by a punch or a kick. Those that won't be, however, are going to be extremely aggressive and strong. In the techniques you advocate, it'll take years of physical and emotional training or a woman to master herself and the methods and then apply them in a confrontation. Even then they may fail if the attacker is committed.

As I sit here, there is a 73 year old Japanese-American woman in my school on the mat training. She is five feet, one half inch tall. She weighs a hundred and ten pounds. She is a survivior of heart surgery.

What should she be taught? A palm heel? Striking from the outside? There IS no outside range for her, given her tiny size.

Thoughts on this?

Regards,

Steve Scott

[Seig]

I was waiting to see if anyone brought it up. When teaching women self defense, I bring a woman's magazine to the class. I tell them as I hold the flat magazine up that this is a potent weapon and completely legal in all 50 states. They usually look at me with a confused look until i roll it up and start hitting things with it. I usually break a few boards with it (club motion and then with the butt end). I have been hit with those things playfully and they hurt, put some fear and/or anger behind it.......

[hardheadjarhead]

Seig...

Okay, a rolled up magazine. YOU can use it to break a board. You're a kenpo guy with, I assume, years of training. You're a male, and probably carrying at least fifty pounds more muscle than the average female. I have no doubts whatsoever you can employ it with confidence in your own self defense.

Look at the type of women I listed above and tell me how many of them can truly trust themselves with a rolled up magazine.

How long will it take that grandmother to become fully proficient in the art of "magazine do"?

LOOK AT THE OPERATER. If you teach some of these women how to use a magazine in a crisis situation it could get them killed.

Again, I don't doubt YOU can whip a hurt on someone with that tool, I question whether THEY will be able to.


Regards,

Steve Scott

[KenpoTess]

From a female's perspective, Any item near at hand can be a weapon. I've done the Magazine thing, it works~! It's similar to a club attack in essence, but using the 'butt-end' of the 'tool'.
Now going outside of the box here, Grandmothers ( a personification that all grandmothers are old, weak and unable to wield something to their defense, which is sooo untrue)


What should they use in their defense, that won't get them hurt? I don't think I want to see a knife or gun in a parkinson affected hand, and for sure not in someone who's got vision limitations.
Soo if magazines can cause the victim more harm than good.. Instead of dissing other peoples posts.. let's hear how you would remedy this issue?



:soapbox:

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Insofar as worrying about overstepping oneself in countering an assault, perhaps. In Indiana if it is an attempted sexual assault, the woman has the right to use lethal force, which by Indiana's definition means she can incapacitate him.

Wow, that's interesting! Indiana's laws are certainly progressive in this regards. All of the definitions of Lethal Force that I've seen say it's the right to kill. Non-lethal force is that force up to killing. Usually lethal force is *very* limited in scope. Since they give the victim this much leeway, it would be interesting to see their legal definition of attempted sexual assault. In most states, just groping is sexual assault, which by this law could get you pretty banged up by the victim.


Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
You also made a good point about a woman not wanting to hurt an assailant she knows. Watering down the techniques for the sake of palatability can get a woman seriously hurt. How about trying to teach her an appropriate mental state for fighting back instead of limiting the techniques?

I don't consider it "watering down." I consider it teaching effective defensive techniques that they can employ easily and comfortably. I do teach groin strikes and eye gouges, but they are not my primary techniques. It's extremely difficult for the woman to quickly get into the correct mental state when being attacked by her boyfriend. They are generally very shocked at the assault and won't jump to lethal techniques right away. They first push, then smack, getting progressively more aggressive as the situation unfolds. My goal is to teach them something they will comfortably employ that will help them escape the situation as early as possible, not something they'll find too difficult to employ until it's too late.

We also work on the mental state as well. Unfortunately, almost all of the women I've worked with get squeemish just doing an eye gouge on a BOB, let alone trying it on a real person. I would rather give them tools they would use rather than forcing one on them that they would hesitate using. Your mileage, of course, may vary. Perhaps your classes have different students than mine.


Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Some assailants are going to be defused by a punch or a kick. Those that won't be, however, are going to be extremely aggressive and strong. In the techniques you advocate, it'll take years of physical and emotional training or a woman to master herself and the methods and then apply them in a confrontation. Even then they may fail if the attacker is committed.

Why would a heel palm take "years of physical and emotional training to master?" Heel palms, hammer fists, slaps, elbows, and knees are very easily applied because they really use them nearly every day without realizing it. My goal is to show them that these moves can easily be applied and, coordinated properly, can cause enough damage to create openings in which to flee. The only real difficult techniques I teach are on the ground because women do not typically have any wrestling background at all. Boys wrestle as kids, so they pick things up easily (well, at least are more likely to try them).

In my classes, we practice the techniques for 2 classes, then apply them to an aggressive, padded attacker in the third. It's very refreshing how hard and fast they are able to strike, easily knocking me back to create an openning in which to run.

I believe that any attacker that is extremely aggressive and strong will be undeterred by just about any defense. Him twisting slightly out of her hand grasp and striking her is bound to incapacitate her at the first sign of a defense. That's why I always advocate fleeing at all times; you don't want to go head-to-head with a monster like that. He revels in the pain and damage he inflicts. Luckily, most rapists flee at the first sign of a serious defense.


Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
As I sit here, there is a 73 year old Japanese-American woman in my school on the mat training. She is five feet, one half inch tall. She weighs a hundred and ten pounds. She is a survivior of heart surgery.

What should she be taught? A palm heel? Striking from the outside? There IS no outside range for her, given her tiny size.

First off, I agree that certain defenses are more effective than others given a person's physical abilities. That's why I go for some variety and see what the person does best with, then try to enhance that. A woman of that age may have strength and flexibility limitations or a low-pain threshold that will change the defense immensly. But a man wanting to know some self defense would be taught completely different techniques. You can't teach a group based on the weakest member.

Second, I disagree with the "no outside range." There's always an outside range. You have to let them inside unless they just jump you. She can always use her feet to keep away from him. Perhaps she can't strike without him grabbing her, but she doesn't have to strike it he isn't in close enough. If it's date rape, you may not have caught onto the signals, but if you had, they would not be on top of you when you are finally attacked. If it's assault, it always starts with the person approaching you somehow, as you said earlier, usually with a ruse. It's in your best interest to know how to maintain distance in these cases, show the attacker that you know what's happening and that you're prepared to defend yourself. That diffuses many of the attacks (most attackers want easy victims). That to me is the essence covered in the Gift of Fear; recognizing your sixth sense to help avoid danger instead of having to defend against it.

Finally, as far as age is concerned, women of her age group have far less to fear than those younger than them. From the national statistics again:

For general crimes:
Age 12-25 106.9 incidents per 1000 people
Age 26-49 53.5 per 1000
Age 50+ 13.3 per 1000

For Sexual Assault (including completed rapes):
Age 12-25 4.7 per 1000 people
Age 26-49 1.2 per 1000 people
Age 50+ .2 per 1000 people

So, anyone over age 50 has a far less chance of being a victim in the first place. It's great that she's training, no doubt about that, but my target audience for my self defense courses is for the 12-25 age group, because it's where its most needed (at least twice as many general crimes and four times as many sexual assaults). I'll teach older individuals, but I don't change the techniques for the whole class because of their limitations. I find what they're comfortable doing out of all the techniques and try to enhance it.

It all goes back to my earlier post. Find out what the target audience is (age, sex) and what they're defending against (rape, assault, etc.) and use that to pick appropriate defensive measures. Not all measures will work in all instances.

WhiteBirch

[hardheadjarhead]

Tess,

I didn't intend to "diss" his post.

The line about "magazine do" might have come off as snotty...I admit. For that I apologize. If I feel strongly about something, and here I do, I often throw tact to the winds.

I've already posted what I think will work for most women...as far as the grandmother I mentioned, she knows my methods. I think they'll work for her better than a palm heel or an elbow.

I agree a gun might not be the best technique for a woman with Parkinson's who might not be able to see well in the first place. I don't think a magazine would be a suitable substitute...particularly with Parkinson's.

I simply don't think a magazine is an effective weapon in the hands of the typical person.



Whitebirch,

The wording in the Indiana Code is this:

IC 35-41-1-7
"Deadly force" defined
Sec. 7. "Deadly force" means force that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.8.

If you're interested in their sex crimes definitions, check:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/

Here's a more in depth view of "defenses related to culpability". I love Sec. 2's last sentence:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.


The rest of it is interesting reading, if you choose to go to the site. I don't want to fill up too much of this post with it.

You made some good observations here:

"First off, I agree that certain defenses are more effective than others given a person's physical abilities. That's why I go for some variety and see what the person does best with, then try to enhance that. A woman of that age may have strength and flexibility limitations or a low-pain threshold that will change the defense immensly. But a man wanting to know some self defense would be taught completely different techniques. You can't teach a group based on the weakest member."

I submit the weakest member has a right to have her needs addressed. You target a specific audience, which is fine. I'm sure you're up front with those signing up as to your methods and how you're targeting a certain age group. I don't make that distinction.

You're correct in pointing out the age groupings for sexual assault. Women in the grandma category generally don't get attacked. But they sign up for classes wanting to learn how to protect themselves. And they do, sometimes, get attacked. Bottom line, they're fearful of attack...and I will do what I can to teach them something appropriate for their age group.

As for "outside range"...you made another good point. I was working from the assumption the predator had grabbed the victim. You were working from the "Gift of Fear" scenario where the student has used their inner instinct to spot the aggressor, and has kept them at a distance. I didn't understand fully where you were coming from.

Still, I teach going forward, clinching, and attacking at the first sign of overt hostility. This is assuming flight isn't available. The grandmother I mentioned, for instance, isn't going to be able to outrun anyone...her size is so small that I doubt she's going to keep any outside range for very long.

Seig, if I dissed you, once again I apologize. I may come on strong regarding this topic...and I'll have to watch that.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Whitebirch,

The wording in the Indiana Code is this:

IC 35-41-1-7


Thanks! I found it online yesterday and gave it a good reading. It sounds like what I thought it would. Basically it says that if you "reasonably" fear for your life or "serious bodily injury" you're allowed to use deadly force. I would be curious to see how the courts interpret this since the burden is on you to show it was a reasonable fear. As most laws, it's pretty vague and open to interpretation. I'm looking for Ohio's law regarding the same, but darned if it ain't harder to locate...



Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
I submit the weakest member has a right to have her needs addressed. You target a specific audience, which is fine. I'm sure you're up front with those signing up as to your methods and how you're targeting a certain age group. I don't make that distinction.

I agree, everyone in the class should have their needs addressed. I haven't had to overtly make a distinction, I just show the options available and work them a "reasonable" amount to allow the students to become comfortable with what works for them. If a defense doesn't work for them, I'll either help them improve it or move to something else which would be more effective given their limitations.


Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Bottom line, they're fearful of attack...and I will do what I can to teach them something appropriate for their age group.

Can't do any better than that!


Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Still, I teach going forward, clinching, and attacking at the first sign of overt hostility. This is assuming flight isn't available.

Our methods are different, so we have a different perspective. Can you describe what you mean by "overt hostility?" For instance, what conditions do you teach that tell the "victim" to attack?

WhiteBirch

[hardheadjarhead]

Thanks! I found it online yesterday and gave it a good reading. It sounds like what I thought it would. Basically it says that if you "reasonably" fear for your life or "serious bodily injury" you're allowed to use deadly force. I would be curious to see how the courts interpret this since the burden is on you to show it was a reasonable fear. As most laws, it's pretty vague and open to interpretation. I'm looking for Ohio's law regarding the same, but darned if it ain't harder to locate...

You were correct in pointing out earlier that "sexual assault" includes groping by some standards. I was referring to a forcible felony situation like a rape. I noted on the DOJ web site the rape statistics include "rape attempts". "Sexual assault" by some definitions include groping and exhibitionism. Some people might consider an obscene phone call a sexual assault...I hadn't heard of that, though.

You're also correct in pointing out that the burden is going to be on the victim to demonstrate reasonable fear...not always as easy as we'd like to think.

"Overt hostility" would mean a grab, attempt to hit, verbal threat of physical force combined with the above. I try to address common sense here by giving examples of poor judgement as well as good. One example I use is from about twenty years ago...I was jogging to class across a park like area on campus. I stopped to ask a woman the time (I never wear a watch) and she pulled mace on me. It was broad daylight, we were in an open area, there were at least seventy five people within fifty yards of us sunning themselves, playing frisbee, or watching a woman needlessly preparing herself to mace a guy who presented no threat. She had, by no conceivable measure, any reason to feel she was in any danger. I'm just glad she didn't spray me...I had enough of that stuff in the Marine Corps.

You're touching on an interesting point, though...when is it "reasonable" or not? A cop arrives on a scene where a guy is lying injured on an apartment floor...the woman claims it was an attempted rape/battery. If it was a guy that broke through the back window...the cops likely wouldn't arrest the woman. If it was somebody she knew, it gets complicated. Was it a rape or a domestic issue that went bad? Was it justified or did she nail him for cheating on her? There are a lot of gray areas. Nothing is ever easy to quantify or qualify when you're dealing with the human condition.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[Michael Billings]

I get my stats from DOJ also. One thing that was pointed out in a training I attended, done by them a few years ago was that there are probably MORE sexual assaults than reported.

An example of this is the conviction for Burglary of a Habitation, which was originally filed as a Burg. of a Hab with Intent to Commit (wic) Rape. You see this same plea for other Sex Crimes due to the stigma and lifetime registration, with all the associated punitive outcomes associated with this. I have seen Agg. Kidnappings, Agg. Assault w/ a Deadly Weapon, etc., that were originally Rapes or Attempted Sexual Assaults. This is fairly frequent and NOT the isolated case. It is not a spin by DOJ, but they can only count what is reported.

Good info on this thread, it is giving me additional material to teach. Keep it up.

(By the way - I LOVE magazine-fu, a close relative of magazine-do.)

-Michael

[hardheadjarhead]

Sexual assaults...rape...everything...are certainly under-reported.


(By the way - I LOVE magazine-fu, a close relative of magazine-do.)

Okay! I give up with the magazines already!

I'm going to have nightmares of you guys chasing me with Redbook, Cosmo, and Muscle and Fitness...you'll be hitting me and chanting some mantra of self defense. I'll never be able to read a magazine if this keeps up. It'll be like aversion therapy. I'll vomit when I walk into the doctor's reception area and see Sports Illustrated. I'll scream at Field and Stream.

I raise my hands, I beg and plead for mercy. Kamerad! Kamerad! I'd say it in French if I knew how.

Hell, if I wait ten minutes they'll just surrender for me.

SCS

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
"Overt hostility" would mean a grab, attempt to hit, verbal threat of physical force combined with the above.

Thanks for the example. When you first mentioned it, I got a picture similar to your time incident, but in which the woman jumps you and beats the hell out of you because she thinks you'll be hostile and she should pre-emptively strike.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, you can't count on the people nearby to help you and you never know what that strange man approaching you is going to do. Asking for the time or directions is the main ruse used to attack. I teach women to have their hands up and be alert, letting the guy know you'll mean trouble. A few of the books I have that teach about using mace say that in order for it to be effective you have to have it up at shoulder level, open, and ready for use. I guess she read the same book.

WhiteBirch

[hardheadjarhead]

Thanks for the example. When you first mentioned it, I got a picture similar to your time incident, but in which the woman jumps you and beats the hell out of you because she thinks you'll be hostile and she should pre-emptively strike.

One of the reasons I listed that example was to illustrate an extreme that all of us, not just women, should avoid.


Unfortunately, in this day and age, you can't count on the people nearby to help you and you never know what that strange man approaching you is going to do. Asking for the time or directions is the main ruse used to attack. I teach women to have their hands up and be alert, letting the guy know you'll mean trouble. A few of the books I have that teach about using mace say that in order for it to be effective you have to have it up at shoulder level, open, and ready for use. I guess she read the same book.

Don't know if she read the same book or not...but if you'd been there, I think you would have agreed she had no reasonable justification for drawing it like that. There was no way I could have isolated her. There were no bushes or anything I could have forced her into and out of site of the witnesses who were quite close. To drag her off to a car I would have had to carry her at least a hundred yards in the open (I'm not a big guy...barely 145 at the time). The area I approached her in was filled with people, it was in broad daylight, it was in the center of a University in a town known for its social conscience. This was not New York and she was not Kitty Genovese. People would have come to her aid.

The risk to any attacker in this situation would have been extreme. Predators go for low risk situations...they don't want to be caught. What she did, by any reasonable standard, was silly. The probability of danger to her was very, very low given the setting and circumstances. There is a point where our responses are extreme, and hers was that.

My point is that it is bad enough that rapists have torn our social fabric, we need not tear it further by paranoid over-reaction and irrational incivility.

When you say "this day and age", to what previous age are you referring by this suggestion that it was any better?


Regards,

Steve Scott

Addendum: New Yorkers...I don't for a moment characterize the social conscience of your town by what happened with Kitty Genovese. I was using that as an example. 9-11 has shown us all the heart and compassion of your people.

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
There is a point where our responses are extreme, and hers was that.

My point is that it is bad enough that rapists have torn our social fabric, we need not tear it further by paranoid over-reaction and irrational incivility.

Oh I agree she over-reacted. We don't know her mentality at the time, however. Perhaps she had been recently raped, mugged, attacked or whatever. She definitely felt threatened none-the-less. I'm glad she had the courage to stand up to her perceived threat, whether there was one or not, and appears to have done so successfully. People in that state of mind can have a variety of different responses from just lashing out to curling up into a ball and crying.

I'm also saddened that she felt threatened and that her paranoia is driving her.


Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
When you say "this day and age", to what previous age are you referring by this suggestion that it was any better?


Just a generic comment I guess. When I was growing up, we ran all over the place with no worries. Our parents never knew where we were and the doors to our house were nearly always unlocked. Nowadays, it seems like there's a crook behind every bush waiting to lash out at us and we have to keep huddled together for safety, never letting anyone out of our sight. If we go out on our own we have to carry a weapon and not let anyone within 6 feet for fear they may jump us.

Crime *is* growing by leaps and bounds. I read a book called "Strong on Defense" by Sanford Strong who documents how fast it's risen in the past decade or so. I don't remember the figure and don't want to hazard a guess until I look it up again, but it's huge.

Congress recently opined that 1 in 5 women will be raped in her lifetime and Americans are now more likely to be a victim of crime than of being in a car accident.

WhiteBirch

[hardheadjarhead]

Oh I agree she over-reacted. We don't know her mentality at the time, however.

True...she might have been a rape victim. She also could have been a misandrist making a political statement. I'm not sure she perceived a threat, nor acted in courage. Again, we don't know.


When I was growing up, we ran all over the place with no worries. Our parents never knew where we were and the doors to our house were nearly always unlocked. Nowadays, it seems like there's a crook behind every bush waiting to lash out at us and we have to keep huddled together for safety, never letting anyone out of our sight. If we go out on our own we have to carry a weapon and not let anyone within 6 feet for fear they may jump us.


Crime *is* growing by leaps and bounds. I read a book called "Strong on Defense" by Sanford Strong who documents how fast it's risen in the past decade or so. I don't remember the figure and don't want to hazard a guess until I look it up again, but it's huge.

Mr. Strong's claim isn't reflected in the Department of Justice's statistics on violent crime, which I tend to trust.

Check here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm

Rape, robbery, assaults with handguns are all dramatically down. Reported rapes alone are at less than a third of their 1973 numbers.

The reason I asked you a question regarding this is that your comments reflect what I call the "reactionary response." Many people's perspectives of the world present an ideation of the past, i.e, "life ain't what it used to be." We tend to create this mythic world view that there was a better time once...even when data shows differently.

I fault, in part, the media for this. We perceive greater crime because we read about a horrific child molestation case in Great Britain, or we see on t.v. the trial of a serial killer in Russia. Fifty years earlier there were bad things of like nature happening in these places and elsewhere, but our world was closed and we were sequestered by our lack of information...we simply didn't have the present technology to reach out across the world and find out what was happening.

When we're younger, we also don't read the news...and that is another form of isolationism that keeps us ignorant of the evils of the world. Not many teenagers read the news. Many middle aged folks are addicted to it. As we grow older we catch up on world events...and get this growing impression that rot has set in. In actuality, we're just becoming aware of rot that was always there.

People didn't talk about rape that much in 1950. By 1975, the taboos had been lifted and it had been exposed as the social ill that it was. Were women and children raped LESS per capita in 1950? We might never know...but I submit it was, at best, kept in the shadows. This change towards cultural honesty also feeds the notion that our society is going down hill...when it may actually be doing better in some respects.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
When we're younger, we also don't read the news...and that is another form of isolationism that keeps us ignorant of the evils of the world. Not many teenagers read the news. Many middle aged folks are addicted to it. As we grow older we catch up on world events...and get this growing impression that rot has set in. In actuality, we're just becoming aware of rot that was always there.

People didn't talk about rape that much in 1950. By 1975, the taboos had been lifted and it had been exposed as the social ill that it was. Were women and children raped LESS per capita in 1950? We might never know...but I submit it was, at best, kept in the shadows. This change towards cultural honesty also feeds the notion that our society is going down hill...when it may actually be doing better in some respects.

Regards,

Steve Scott

Excellent observations.

I don't think that the way people treated others have varied that much. Murder, rape, thievery, etc., have always existed. Perhaps, in smaller groups, people may co-exist better.

"Back then", people seem to understand the concept of reliance on family, neighbors, and a trust on the basic goodness of mankind to protect each other. Has this changed? I think that concept hasn't changed.

I've heard some say that what is different now is that many people seem to purposely isolate themselves from others who are nearby, unless a social tragedy strikes close to home for them.

Now, I agree to a large part with that thought, but perhaps what is actually different is not necessarily isolatism from each other, but rather the perspective we hold of each other? We think that in comparison to earlier years, life is different. We think life becomes worse and more crime ridden. We think that we can't trust other people unless we know them. Other generations that grow older also held the same view, regardless of what decade they lived..."we" become more cynical and jaundiced the older we get as we become more experienced with life and how humanity treats each other.

It is our exposure to world information and perspectives that changes us when we expand knowledge to the ever widening circle around us, just exactly like you pointed out.

I had a friend who, when I shared my theory of why society think things are different, asked how we can "overcome" this flawed view.

I don't know if that view is flawed per se, but to "overcome" it would be to have an optimistic attitude of life with a grain of salt of what reality is regarding people.

- Ceicei

[hardheadjarhead]

I don't know if that view is flawed per se, but to "overcome" it would be to have an optimistic attitude of life with a grain of salt of what reality is regarding people.

Which, if you think about it, is keeping on the topic of this thread. When we teach self defense, we have to teach a world view to go with it. We can't be fearful to the point of paralysis, or have this unending anxiety dominating our life. We need to be prepared for conflict...but not overly obsessed with its potential occurance.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Mr. Strong's claim isn't reflected in the Department of Justice's statistics on violent crime, which I tend to trust.

Check here:


Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. I got the following information from two sources, Strong on Defense and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Self Defense.

Strong On Defense:
Crime has increased 550% from 1960 - 1993
300% increase in violent crime from 1960 - 1993

Idiot's Guide
FBI Crime Clock:
1973: 1 violent crime every 36 seconds
1993: 1 violent crime every 16 seconds

1973: 1 rape every 10 minutes
1993: 1 rape every 5 minutes

One other claim, I think from the Idiot's Guide, was that in 1960 nearly all violent crime was reported. In 1993, less than 30% was reported.

WhiteBirch

[hardheadjarhead]

Thanks...I'll check out your sources as well. I haven't heard of either of those books.

I don't know how anybody could make the determination that nearly all violent crime was reported in 1960 versus today. What would be the instrument of measurement? If you get any more details on that, let me know.


Regards,



Steve Scott

[lvwhitebir]

The only thing I could find was from the National Crime statistics. It says that in 2001 49.4% of all crimes of violence are reported, and only 37% of property crimes. I have nothing on any other time period and would be interested in seeing the rates in the 1970's as a comparison. The charts you pointed to certainly didn't show a 5-fold increase anywhere in it.

I think I know why he makes that claim... The charts you pointed out were based on crimes per 1000 people. Since the population has increased greatly since the 1970's, maybe Sanford Strong is basing his claim on the total number of crimes committed. That might then fit. So, in his case, the number has gone up, but the chance for a particular individual has not gone up.

WhiteBirch

[hardheadjarhead]

Good point...the per capita crimes and the total crimes are certainly going to give a person a different perspective.

I read a book called "Pointman" some years ago...and the author, an Evangelical, stated that 40% of all teenage girls get pregnant. He had misread the stats on teen pregnancy, which showed that 40 girls out of 100,000 get pregnant. When I looked up the stats I could see how he made the mistake...he latched on to the number 40 and thought that was a percentage figure.

Regards,

Steve Scott

[KenpoTess]

Some very good responses.. how about adding to them :)