The rather boring reality of self defence (for some)

[JowGaWolf]

Stop means stop but it doesn't mean that the attacker will stop. At that the question becomes "now what do I do" and depending on the type of assault, you may only have a few seconds to come up with an answer.

 

[Rayrob]

Going back to the OP'S original post, in these circumstances the best course of action would be to reach behind you, grab a handful of faeces and throw it hard into your attackers faces.................. No faeces to hand? Don't worry there will be, lol.

 

[Steve]

Stop means stop but it doesn't mean that the attacker will stop. At that the question becomes "now what do I do" and depending on the type of assault, you may only have a few seconds to come up with an answer.

While the legal definition of self defense centers around a response to violence, it's really not that simple. Is it? Depending upon who you are and in what specific context, an assault isn't necessarily life threatening. And it often isn't as simple as punching your way out of it. Isn't the above really the fundamental point of the thread? And so, respectfully, when you suggest that women just need to learn to fight better, and dumb down the entire complex subject of self defense for women to punching the bad guy, I think you're missing the point a little.

I'll just repeat my own opinion, for what it's worth. I think most self defense training is like a placebo. It's all non-specific and provides benefits that are tangential to actually making a person safer or better able to defend him/herself. It's like a security blanket.

For it to be truly beneficial, I think there needs to be some analysis up front of what specific dangers are being addressed, and a plan for measuring the effectiveness of the program in addressing these specific dangers. The link to the study in Canada is a good example of what one type of self defense training program could look like to address one very specific group of people.

There is a self serving lack of interest in statistical analysis that I find very troubling.

Self defense for a cop is just fundamentally different than for a non-cop. Similarly, self defense for the college coed is fundamentally different than for a middle-aged, white collar worker. Male vs female is different.

I took some time to read through the links provided by aedrasteia. Very interesting stuff, and I appreciate her sharing it. I poked around some of the instructors sites and was curious to see what was offered in Washington State. This was the first paragraph on the first page:

You know those encounters: a young dude eyeballing you across the parking lot or on the bus, a guy trying too hard to buy you a drink at the dance club, or the chatty friend of a friend introduced at a party begins asking questions a bit too personal. Maybe your brother-in-law is giving you a look that gives you the chills, a co-worker's barely appropriate "humor" puts you on edge, or a client's comments suggest his prime interest isn't business. Let's face it, every female over the age of 14 (and many under that age) has experienced a creepy approach.

Is this person messing with you -- or planning to harm you?

How can you tell -- and what can you do -- before something happens?

 

[JowGaWolf]

While the legal definition of self defense centers around a response to violence, it's really not that simple. Is it? Depending upon who you are and in what specific context, an assault isn't necessarily life threatening. And it often isn't as simple as punching your way out of it. Isn't the above really the fundamental point of the thread?

This is why I say if the only way to stop the assault is to hit back then hit back. An assault doesn't have to be life threatening to justify hitting back or fighting back.

when you suggest that women just need to learn to fight better, and dumb down the entire complex subject of self defense for women to punching the bad guy, I think you're missing the point a little.

Interesting. There's no argument when men are encourage to learn to fight better, but when women learn to fight better it suddenly becomes a "dumb down" issue.

Not sure why men are so intimidated about a woman's wanting to learn how to fight well enough where she can beat up a man.

 

[Steve]

This is why I say if the only way to stop the assault is to hit back then hit back. An assault doesn't have to be life threatening to justify hitting back or fighting back.

Interesting. There's no argument when men are encourage to learn to fight better, but when women learn to fight better it suddenly becomes a "dumb down" issue.

Not sure why men are so intimidated about a woman's wanting to learn how to fight well enough where she can beat up a man.

I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that learning to fight is a placebo for most people, male or female.

It's so funny to me that you're trying to frame this the way you are. If someone suggests that you're not getting it, and he's a male, it's because he's intimidated. If someone suggests that you're not getting, and she's a female, you just kind of ignore her, like you did with aedrasteia's post.

To be clear, regarding women's self defense, I'm entirely deferring to people who are in a position to be credible on the subject. That's not me. And, after reading your opinions on the subject, I don't think it's you, either. Instead, that's the people who have done the research and are heavily invested in the development and delivery of effective training for that demographic. Links to a few of those people have been shared in this thread.

While I've stated several times that I believe self defense training must be tailored to a specific demographic and targeting some specific, measurable goals, what those goals are is not for me to say. People have done extensive research into women's self defense, and what they have found is well stated and available for anyone who's interested in learning more about it.

To the subject of this thread, the boring reality of self defense is that it is not the same for you as it is for me as it is for someone else. AND, it seldom has to do with punching someone in the nose.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It's so funny to me that you're trying to frame this the way you are. If someone suggests that you're not getting it, and he's a male, it's because he's intimidated. If someone suggests that you're not getting, and she's a female, you just kind of ignore her, like you did with aedrasteia's post.

So your assumption about that I'm ignoring aedrasteia's post is based off what? Just because I don't respond to something, press like, or press agree doesn't mean I'm not reading. I didn't realize I had to let everyone know what I read and don't read in here.
My bookmarks show something different

 

[Steve]

So your assumption about that I'm ignoring aedrasteia's post is based off what? Just because I don't respond to something, press like, or press agree doesn't mean I'm not reading. I didn't realize I had to let everyone know what I read and don't read in here.
My bookmarks show something different

Awesome. I presumed you were ignoring her post because of what you wrote. Glad to hear from you otherwise.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Awesome. I presumed you were ignoring her post because of what you wrote. Glad to hear from you otherwise.

I'm really big on woman's self-defense. I've known way too many women of sexual assault, physical assault, and harassment. I've also known women who didn't get much of it and those women walked and carry themselves in a different vibe. If they told a person to stop, it wasn't from the perspective of a victim. It was from the perspective of a warning. When I tell people to stop or that I don't want to fight. It's not from the perspective of a victim it's from the perspective that I'll hurt them if they don't. Me saying stop or I don't want to fight is me being nice, and helps to position myself legally for the pain I'm about to bring. lol.

But seriously, I have family members that have been victims of this. So I'm all for a woman being able to learn to fight better. I'm not saying this as a put down because I tell my son the same thing. He's gotta learn to fight better form a self-defense perspective.

 

[Phobius]

Dont forget, someone who knows how to fight always has the option not to. The same can not always be said vice versa.

 

[drop bear]

I'm really big on woman's self-defense. I've known way too many women of sexual assault, physical assault, and harassment. I've also known women who didn't get much of it and those women walked and carry themselves in a different vibe. If they told a person to stop, it wasn't from the perspective of a victim. It was from the perspective of a warning. When I tell people to stop or that I don't want to fight. It's not from the perspective of a victim it's from the perspective that I'll hurt them if they don't. Me saying stop or I don't want to fight is me being nice, and helps to position myself legally for the pain I'm about to bring. lol.

But seriously, I have family members that have been victims of this. So I'm all for a woman being able to learn to fight better. I'm not saying this as a put down because I tell my son the same thing. He's gotta learn to fight better form a self-defense perspective.

You are suggesting a whole bunch of methods based on no evidence. And comparing them to a system that is evidence based.

Where are your results?

 

[JowGaWolf]

You are suggesting a whole bunch of methods based on no evidence. And comparing them to a system that is evidence based.

Where are your results?

What are you talking about? What methods have I suggested?

 

[drop bear]

What are you talking about? What methods have I suggested?

Hitting people. Mostly. Which I am all for by the way. But you do have to follow the evidence.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Hitting people. Mostly. Which I am all for by the way. But you do have to follow the evidence.

here's my statement. What evidence is needed?

if hitting them was the only way to stop the assault, then yes, I would hit them.

 

[aedrasteia]

here's my statement. What evidence is needed?

I'm thinking we can benefit from starting a new thread. Your thoughts? Others? Moderators?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Hitting people. Mostly. Which I am all for by the way. But you do have to follow the evidence.

Yes I think it's a good idea.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is still not the same as saying someone is unqualified. Unverified is not the same thing.

The difference is that with someone whose qualification has not been (or cannot be) verified, you simply don't know whether they are qualified or not. If some valid test or trial has been applied, you know one way or another.

To say unverified is the same as unqualified would be to say that someone cannot hit a home run with their odd swing because you've never seen them hit one, nor heard any verifiable claim of it. Obviously, if they've been playing a while and watched, the lack of verification makes it really likely they are unqualified to hit a home run. However, maybe they simply haven't been watched by anyone who could report it to you.

The point is, not knowing is not the same as knowing a negative. Wherever possible, validation is a good thing. Its absence is not proof of a problem - just lack of proof of a solution.

 

[drop bear]

The difference is that with someone whose qualification has not been (or cannot be) verified, you simply don't know whether they are qualified or not. If some valid test or trial has been applied, you know one way or another.

To say unverified is the same as unqualified would be to say that someone cannot hit a home run with their odd swing because you've never seen them hit one, nor heard any verifiable claim of it. Obviously, if they've been playing a while and watched, the lack of verification makes it really likely they are unqualified to hit a home run. However, maybe they simply haven't been watched by anyone who could report it to you.

The point is, not knowing is not the same as knowing a negative. Wherever possible, validation is a good thing. Its absence is not proof of a problem - just lack of proof of a solution.

There is this concept called the celestial tea cup.
Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki

It is not up to me to disprove the claims or ability of any given self defence guru. It is up to them to prove it.

So if they are unqualified and unverified. I am a lot safer assuming they are crap than I am assuming they are good but I just haven't seen the results yet.

 

[Phobius]

I don't think you are using Celestial tea cup correctly here.

If you did, that would mean your mother was a virgin when she gave birth to you. After all you have no proof she actually 'did it'. It is just hearsay from those involved. This would make you a holy man, but do not let that go to your head.

Secondly noone on a forum can ever provide proof over a forum, any attempt of doing so can be argued and as such nothing is true if written on the internet. A healthy view to have perhaps but would also make the existence of a forum rather boring for all non-trolls.

To conclude, celestial tea cup is just a non-proven theory you brought up that can not be proven because it is just as celestial as the tea cup itself. Without proof the theory of nothing being true unless proven is not true. Or is it? Since if it is not true, that means it could be true without being proven.

Logic hurts.

 

[drop bear]

I don't think you are using Celestial tea cup correctly here.

If you did, that would mean your mother was a virgin when she gave birth to you. After all you have no proof she actually 'did it'. It is just hearsay from those involved. This would make you a holy man, but do not let that go to your head.

Secondly noone on a forum can ever provide proof over a forum, any attempt of doing so can be argued and as such nothing is true if written on the internet. A healthy view to have perhaps but would also make the existence of a forum rather boring for all non-trolls.

To conclude, celestial tea cup is just a non-proven theory you brought up that can not be proven because it is just as celestial as the tea cup itself. Without proof the theory of nothing being true unless proven is not true. Or is it? Since if it is not true, that means it could be true without being proven.

Logic hurts.

There are accepted arguments in logic. The celestial tea cup is very applicable to the constantly shifting goal posts of self defence. Which almost always relies on heresay and dogma to support their views.

You can provide proof over the internet and it can be scrutinised for veracity. So to suggest proof is the same as no proof is not correct.

You can still use logic as evidence. Especially accepted logic..

 

[Phobius]

I actually disagree, proof can only be peovided when people can agree on terms and definitions. The only ones you can prove anything to is A. Yourself and B. Those that want to believe you.

There of course exceptions such as discussing terms where all parameters can be experienced by each individual such as that humans have five toes on each foot. And still that is not anything than an incorrectly defined statement which is proven false already.

Truth be told you should not care about whether or not someone makes an attempt to prove themselves. Simply have a discussion and allow people to clarify themselves and argue with you.

Celestial teapot is missing one aspect, most things in life is neither True nor False. Both alive and dead until you actually look on it for real. Therefore proof is not the term here, sane is. Is it sane. Logic can be argued and is based on the person you talk to.

As for this discussion, You dont need any proof and you know that.. You only need to understand, try or visualize and then make up your own mind. If you wish you can then argue that your truth must be same for all but the statement that your truth is the truth for all would be a celestial teapot. It would be impossible to prove AND True or not would change nothing for anyone.