Discussion in 'Beginners Corner' started by AtomicRabbit, Feb 19, 2019.
I assume guys are in more danger of violence.
I don't know that's true DB. We're likely in more danger of the violence best covered by fight training.
Can you explain how a thing/skill/technique that a person does a few dozen times in a likely non-formal environment engrains enough that they will recall it to some level of proficiency while in a very high stress situation? I have more faith in their flight instinct. Again, the brief class, if presented as such, is a good primer to start more repetitive training. I go not get your directly going to fighting. Probably semantics.
Not familiar with the term. What is a "cash in transit course"?
If hes from the U.K its what the SIA uses for private security, its the people you see who drive the armoured vans from banks and such filled with money. And walk around shops with the breif cases filled with money and the like.
(a picture is worth a thousand words after all)
I believe Steve is talking about courses aimed at reducing the odds of the young women ever ending up in a high-stress situation where they might need to have proficiency in fighting techniques.
Why do you assume this? I'd say douchebags are the most at risk. Being a douchebag is definitely a high risk behavior, particularly if you like to drink in public .
Yes. Addressing their confidence, role playing common scenarios, teaching common sense things like not going to parties alone, never leaving your drink unattended.
I am specifically commenting on tje common trope that self defense is something that takes years. Where we have seen actual studies, courses as short as 24 or 30 hours have reduced the rate of rape, attempted rape, and other sexual assaults by half.
As I said, knowing how to fight might be a handy skill, but if you are an averahe person looking to be more safe, it's probably not in the top ten behaviors one might address.
And of course, I'm not talking about people who are in violent professions.
My point is that those skills are irrelevant if you address high risk behaviors. Learning to fight is fun. But I've said before that if we look at actual statistical data, the chances of being murdered in the usa are very low. Ecen of being mugged . Where it happens it is often the predictable outcome of high risk behaviors.
Studying for years just in case you run across a predatory rapist is fine. But far less likely to help you if the actual risk is your best friend's boyfriend or the guys in a frat, or maybe your uncle. In contrast, we know that 30 hours of training things other than fighting gona very long way to mitigating the above situations by avoiding the riskn entirely and encouraging the will to resist, which we see over and over is more important than fighting skill.
I think the difference in timeline comes from using a different primary definition. Teaching this sort of stuff shouldn't take long (and endless repetition likely has a quickly diminishing return, since it's all simulation and role-play).
as a group we naturally think that dedicating a bif chunk of your life to ma, is both benifical and necessary, coz that what we do. but actually supporting that with some data about real world situations and you come back with a few anecdotes. theres is no guarantee that in a stressful situation that your going to have greater proficiency at a technique that some one who has done it for 30 hours. non at all. rather your faced with choosing one technique iut of dozens of variations, whilst they will only have one, so theres no decision process to delay things.
all over the world non ma defend themselves adequately every day, it's clear that doing so then doesn't necessarily requires thousands or even hundreds of hours of training
I have seen one guy tried to drag a girl into his car in the street of Honolulu, Hawaii. That girl was screaming for help. People on the street just watched. Nobody was willing to stop that guy.
And women shouldn't dress provocatively?
Either way a lot of violence is predatory. It doesn't really matter if the guy is a duchebag or not.
The simple point I’m trying to make is that safety is objectively measurable, but being able to fight (while fun) isn’t universally helpful. Meaning, we have crime statistics that break out by all manner of various factors, so we can see that some behaviors and circumstances result in higher risk of violence.
The choice is, do I continue to do this thing or not? If you choose to drink to excess publicly, alone, learning to fight might help mitigate the risk. However, you could choose not to drink to excess, or just have a buddy. Or drink to excess at home. There are many very effective ways to mitigate the personal risk, and only one of those might benefit from fighting skill. This kind of evaluation could be applied to any situation. Some will lend themselves to learning to fight. Some, many if you’re an average person, will be effectively overcome by making some simple changes.
Women have been raped and sexually assaulted throughout history, despite wearing corsets, layers of petticoats and other garments. They were also not allowed out on their own or to go out drinking they were still raped. Instead of telling women how not to be sexually assaulted how about we teach boys how not to rape and assault when they get older.
Alesha MacPhail trial: Boy, 16, found guilty of rape and murder of six-year-old in Scotland
And instead of police we will teach people how not to commit crimes.
I agree. But I don't think predatory violence always factors on duchbaggery. I think that is a misconception.
So for example those college studies of self defence. One of the ways to mitigate that risk is go to a safer college. Or not go to college.
But unfortunately not always able to be achieved.
Men especially are more likely to be placed in a higher risk environment. So for example I generally close late at night. And that is because I am the guy.
Douchebaggery is one of many. If a person wants to learn to fight, I agree that could be useful. But usually, there are things one could do that are going to be more useful in less time and for less money than training to become a competent fighter. This doesn’t even account for whether the particular brand of martial arts training is actually teaching fighting skills, because that’s not a given.
It’s like going to school to learn to be a mechanic so you can keep your 1977 Mustang 2 running. Sure, you can do it. But by the time you account for the cost of tuition, your time, and the inherent unreliability of the Ford Mustang 2, for far less money and in way less time, you could buy a more reliable car. In the end, the car you buy will consistently get you where you want to go, and you didn’t have to invest the time and money into becoming a trained mechanic. Now, if you really like that mustang 2, it might be worth it to you, but then don’t delude yourself. At that point, it’s no longer about reliable transportation.
Why not do Both? If young ladies can take a 30 hour class that is proven to reduce their likelihood of being the victim of sexual assault by about 50%, why wouldn’t you support that?
I do support it.
Separate names with a comma.