How different are men & women really? (Lise Steenerson's blog)

[jks9199]

Lise Steenerson has written a very important blog entry explaining a lot of the differences between men and women... Very definitely worth the time to read it.

Are men and women all that different? Do they defend themselves differently? Should they be taught differently? If so, why and how? Should they be taught by a man or a woman? Age old questions. If you are teaching or planning to teach women self-defense, or if you are planning on attending such a class, do yourself a favor and read on. It’s a bit long but definitely worth your while.

Full blog here

Another way I've seen it put is that a woman is always dealing with a nightmare opponent... Someone bigger, stronger, and inherently much more aggressive and prepared for violence than they are. So things that might work great for someone like me may well be useless for a woman.

 

[Cyriacus]

Ill keep a distance at first, but ill say this:

In most cases, a male attacking a female is more confident.

 

[jks9199]

Read the article. Lise has done a great job breaking down HOW and WHY men and women are different. She addresses things like the difference in adrenalization patterns, and what that means for a woman during an attack, the relative differences between upper body strength, and so on.

 

[Cyriacus]

Read the article. Lise has done a great job breaking down HOW and WHY men and women are different. She addresses things like the difference in adrenalization patterns, and what that means for a woman during an attack, the relative differences between upper body strength, and so on.

The page wasnt loading earlier (thats my internet being sporadic, not the page).

Upon actually reading it, yeah, its a pretty great article.

 

[K-man]

Another way I've seen it put is that a woman is always dealing with a nightmare opponent... Someone bigger, stronger, and inherently much more aggressive and prepared for violence than they are. So things that might work great for someone like me may well be useless for a woman.

Like she said about the SD video teaching ineffectual strikes, people teach stuff that either doesn't work or can't work against a bigger, stronger attacker.

I spent the weekend at a fantastic seminar, but some of the stuff we learned, I will never pass on. If it doesn't work easily for me, with my size, weight and experience, there is no way it will work for someone smaller and weaker. I look for techniques that do not need excessive power or speed. Young martial artists seem to be preoccupied with speed and power. If they have never looked beyond that, how are they going to make things work when they are 60 or 70?

The same principle applies when teaching women or younger girls self defence. I always look for things that will hurt with minimal effort. Regardless of the adrenalin response etc, the most important thing to do is strike effectively and get the hell out of the place. :asian:

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

A few feminists I know would rage at this article, simply for suggesting men and women are not equal in this area (of course, with some exceptions, they are not, but i would never say that to them )
That aside, I thought it was an amazing article, which came up with some new ideas, and taught me some stuff I truly did not know, like how women punch with their arms, rather than their hips/shoulders...if I ever become an SD teacher, I will make sure to give this article some serious thought, and fact check much of it, mainly to see what else comes up as I do.

 

[Cyriacus]

Young martial artists seem to be preoccupied with speed and power. If they have never looked beyond that, how are they going to make things work when they are 60 or 70?

By using their youthful strength to do stuff a 70 year old could do, only better?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Ms. Steenerson has some good points, but she also is making a lot of broad generalizations and is engaging in a certain amount of pseudo-science in attributing biological causes for differences that can better be attributed to cultural factors. That's in addition to citing a few stereotypes that probably have more to do with her own preconceptions rather than any actual research.
In fact, the role of culture and life experiences seem to be completely lacking from her essay. She lists women punching with their arms vs men punching with their whole bodies as if that was an inherent biological difference rather than a generalization based on the fact that men are more likely to have more experience in fist fights and are more likely to have had at least a little bit of instruction in how to punch at some point in their lives.
If I had to compose a statement on the topic, it would probably go something like this:
Biological differences: Women are on average smaller than men. Due to differences in testosterone levels, a woman will have a significant strength disadvantage compared to a man of the same size, age, and fitness level. These are, of course, averages. A large woman might be stronger than a small man. A woman who is an elite athlete will likely be stronger than a man who works a desk job.
Cultural differences: Women are much more likely to be socially conditioned not to engage in physical violence than men. They are much less likely to grow up engaged in roughhousing, wrestling, and fistfights. They are less likely to engage in fitness activities or professions that build raw strength. They are less likely to come into a dojo psychologically prepared to deal with rough physical contact or inflict pain on an opponent. Once again, these are averages and generalizations. I have known women who were totally comfortable brawling or grappling with men.
Tactical differences: In general, women are likely to face different forms of violence in the real world. Women are less likely than men to engage in the "monkey dance" to establish physical dominance on the bar room floor. They are much more likely to face sexual assault. The different forms of assault can sometime lead to tactical opportunities for a woman being assaulted - an assailant who feels confident of his physical superiority might leave openings when attacking a woman that he wouldn't if he was dealing with a 6'4" 200-lb man.
Implications for teaching martial arts: Firstly be prepared to teach each person, male or female, as an individual. A small, shy, peaceful, unathletic man might need a very gradual and progressive introduction to contact while a large, athletic woman who grew up brawling with her brothers might be ready to jump right in to hard sparring. That said, there is a certain statistical validity to generalizations about the population. If you want your classes to be accessible to the average woman, you would be well-advised to offer a training path that starts within the student's comfort zone rather than throwing everyone into the shark tank from the get go.
Secondly, if your curriculum doesn't include the methods for a smaller, but more technical person to overcome a larger opponent, then your classes are unlikely to benefit female students.
Thirdly, if you are teaching self-defense rather than pure sporting methods or a cultural art, it would be a good idea to cover the forms of aggression that women are likely to encounter.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm with Tony here... it's a good article, but is too heavily biased towards her personal experience (and possibly her personal limitations and skill level, such as the comment that "women throw with their arms, men with their bodies", which is just plain odd. If my female students didn't throw with their "bodies", they'd be corrected pretty damn quickly), and some guesswork on her behalf. There's a number of things I'd question, if not outright disagree with.

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm with Tony here... it's a good article, but is too heavily biased towards her personal experience (and possibly her personal limitations and skill level, such as the comment that "women throw with their arms, men with their bodies", which is just plain odd. If my female students didn't throw with their "bodies", they'd be corrected pretty damn quickly), and some guesswork on her behalf. There's a number of things I'd question, if not outright disagree with.

I guess I am sort of in the middle on this. I don't know enough medicine nor physiology to agree or disagree with Ms Steenerson. I understand that aculteration and experience shape a lot of things about us as Tony Dismukes and Chris Parker say. I am also not big on generalization by either side of this. All of us are what we are based on both genetic factors, as well as experience and aculteration.

But men and women are different. I watched my grandson jump into mud puddles and wondered why in the world he would do such a thing. Then I thought about my own youth. I did some pretty silly things myself. More than once. Boys see a mud puddle and wonder what will happen if they jump in with both feet. Then they try. They see another mud puddle and wonder if it will be different that the last time; doing it just the same, or with some variation, like jumping higher. Boys just seem to naturally tend more towards agression to solve problems. That carries into manhood normally. What do girls do? I don't really know how they think, but they don't jump into mud puddles very often. Whatever that says.

I have found in my limited MA teaching experience, that women seem to approach learning an MA differently than men. They aren't as agressive, they don't wish to inflict pain, they don't enjoy being touched in grappling situations. Is that aculteration or genetics? I don't know. Probably some amount of both.

Regardless, the article got me thinking more about the subject. If I ever return to teaching MA, however unlikely that is, I will re-read the article a few times to see if there aren't things I need to be aware of. Thanks jks9199 for the link.

 

[billc]

Men and women are different...Sam Colt made them equal...

 

[Chris Parker]

And... way to miss the point and push an agenda with an inaccurate and irrelevant marketing slogan, Bill. Classy.

 

[DennisBreene]

Clearly, because she is generalizing, there are instances where her points won't apply to a given individual. However, many students will probably be closer to her generalizations than not. I agree that assessing the individuals strengths and weaknesses is important in tailoring the individuals training, but there is nothing wrong with assessing the curriculum and optimizing techniques that are more effective when one is less powerful, smaller and less aggressive by nature. Such individuals, male or female, would seem to be the most likely targets of opportunity for an aggressor I believe. The other very important factor is training out some of our "civilized nature". Much like military basic training, where the intent is to train in a certain level of conditioned response for those moments when one is likely to freeze. I think that many of the subtle and complex techniques we learn are wonderful to practice and may be very effective after years of training, but until that level of proficiency is achieved, it seems that the KISS philosophy would be more reliable. In a similar line of thinking; I have always had a problem with the concept of teaching self defense or one step sparring techniques in numerical order. I'm concerned that it inserts an additional cognitive delay into what should be a conditioned response. Instead of reacting to a grab to the hand, are we setting a student up for a scenario where the initial response might be "what was technique number 2?" before the actual defensive response begins.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh, I agree that having a good general understanding is very useful... and even that generalizing can be a good, useful thing. The problem is when the generalizations are inaccurate, such as the one about the different adrenal timelines Lise provides (the example of the husband coming home, getting upset about some shopping, and walking out to calm down... while the wife gets worked up over a longer time. Now, that I took as being quite a useful piece of insight into interpersonal dealings with men and women, but really inaccurate and useless in the context she was using it... women get adrenaline dumps in the same timeline as men do... if you doubt that, do you think that if a woman's child was in danger, say, trapped in a car after an accident, it'll take her 10 minutes plus to get worked up to respond?), as inaccurate generalizations can be more dangerous than no generalizations at all.

 

[DennisBreene]

Oh, I agree that having a good general understanding is very useful... and even that generalizing can be a good, useful thing. The problem is when the generalizations are inaccurate, such as the one about the different adrenal timelines Lise provides (the example of the husband coming home, getting upset about some shopping, and walking out to calm down... while the wife gets worked up over a longer time. Now, that I took as being quite a useful piece of insight into interpersonal dealings with men and women, but really inaccurate and useless in the context she was using it... women get adrenaline dumps in the same timeline as men do... if you doubt that, do you think that if a woman's child was in danger, say, trapped in a car after an accident, it'll take her 10 minutes plus to get worked up to respond?), as inaccurate generalizations can be more dangerous than no generalizations at all.

Agreed. But then, the science of physiologic response to stress is much more complex in general. Even the adrenaline response varies between individuals and types of stressors. I choose to accept her illustrations as simply that and not demand strict adherence to hard science to decide whether the point she is attempting to make is credible.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm not demanding strict adherence to hard science, I'm saying that her example of the different adrenal responses doesn't actually deal with adrenaline at all... it's dealing with emotional reactions. And, to make something acceptable as credible, I do like it to at least deal with what it claims to....

 

[Cyriacus]

Agreed. But then, the science of physiologic response to stress is much more complex in general. Even the adrenaline response varies between individuals and types of stressors. I choose to accept her illustrations as simply that and not demand strict adherence to hard science to decide whether the point she is attempting to make is credible.

For what its worth, most of what she said reflects the actions of most of the women ive known. I dont know nearly enough about the science of it to speak for the reasons, and ive only known (on more than an obscure acquaintance level of people i know only as far as when i forgot their name) a couple of dozen women, which is hardly a universal test pool. One factor has to be that if you tried to make an article which covered every contingency, exception, and reason, itd be a really, really, long article.

I'm not demanding strict adherence to hard science, I'm saying that her example of the different adrenal responses doesn't actually deal with adrenaline at all... it's dealing with emotional reactions. And, to make something acceptable as credible, I do like it to at least deal with what it claims to....

Im inclined to agree that she does draw some questionable analogies.

 

[Chris Parker]

There's quite a bit of good, accurate information there... but there are also a number of topics that aren't. The catch is not taking it all as accurate based on the parts that are, therefore accepting the parts that aren't.

 

[DennisBreene]

On that point. I can certainly agree.

 

[oftheherd1]

...
Instead of reacting to a grab to the hand, are we setting a student up for a scenario where the initial response might be "what was technique number 2?" before the actual defensive response begins.

That's a good point. In the Hapkido I learned, we generally learned defenses in groups of 7. So 7 strikes for a to a wrist grab, 7 grapples to a wrist grab, and 7 throws to a wrist grap. When testing, we had to demonstrate correct knowledge and application of 3. I knew students who would pick three, often the easiest three, and concentrate on those and use those for their tests. Some here would applaude that approach for its simplicity. Our teacher did not try to dissuade those students.

My approach was to learn all of them as well as I could, and during testing, simply react. Whatever technique sprang to mind/use, was the one I employed and I tried to do it as correctly as possible any time I used it. My thought was that in a real situation, just as you state above, I didn't want to spend any precious micoseconds deciding what was a good technique. I just wanted a technique to be employed that would in fact work. I guess my situational awareness and tongue-fu are better, because I never had to put that to the test in a real SD situation. But I have always thought it was a correct approach to learning.