The Myths and Truths of Female Martialists

[Darth F.Takeda]

Women should learn to protect themselves and their famileis, but they need to be realistic about it.
It's a rare woman who can stand toe to toe with a man and win, they are such women and it does happen, but usually a woman meeting force with force gets crushed. I have seen too many female black belts with over inflated opinions of their fighting prowess who have never tasted their own blood and know nothing of street violence.
All the MA ranks in the world mean nothing unless you have done some hard action scenario drills and studied street violence.
Now a woman learns to fight smart, fight dirty and use weapons whenever possable is a different matter, not to mention the one that feighns being weak and draws her enemy in close for some swift and blinding vengence.
Now I know someone is going to come in with " I knew this girl that kicked the &%^$ out of this big guy." yes it happens and there are always people who exceed all expectations, but we have to use the rule of socieology in this discussion that states "You can look at a group and make statistically based assumptions and be right about the group, but it all falls apart when you go by individuals."

For all the liberated women out there learning to protect themselves and their families, keep at it.
Do remeber though, when the men were defeated in war in the past, the rapes were usually right behind it. You dont hear of women fighting off Roman legions after their men were defeated, you hear of mass rapes, killings, maimings and selling to slavers.

(And to the one who will bring up Buddicca, she burnt 2 towns, ambushed an understrength Legion, on the march in the woods (Lots of Roman defeats start that way) and when she finally had to fight a stand up battle, she was destroyed handedly.)

 

[Sukerkin]

Phoenix, I think perhaps I was a little too woolly in my intro such that you may have gained the impression that the opening gambit in the OP was what I really thought.

The purpose of it was merely to provide a platform upon which people would be able to build their counter-arguments and thoughts on the issue. That's why the title is "Myths and Truths" i.e. start out in the OP with the myth and the subsequent posts can give the truths as seen by the individual. I had intended to lead into my views and then put up the 'target' but changed my mind, hence the somewhat disjointed boundary between preamble and topic igniter.

The second facet of the thread is an attempt to pool everyones resources to see what role women have played in armed forces throughout history. It's somewhat of a tangent and maybe I would've been better served to have it as a seperate thread elsewhere but it was late and sloppy thinking won out .

 

[thardey]

A significant strategy of any trained fighter is to draw the opponent into your fight.

In the "karate vs. Kung fu" type arguments, the winner is the one who draws the other into a fight that they are not superior in. This is true for physical confrontation, as well as intellectual debate, as well as politics.

That said - can women fight as well as men? Absolutely. Can women fight as well as men in the way men fight? No.

Setting aside the mental aspect for a moment, when looking at a purely physical aspect of confrontation, the smaller fighter cannot expect to win by using the same strategy of the larger fighter. The one with the shorter reach cannot use the same distance as the one with a longer reach. Period. That's basic fighting strategy. The more significant the difference between physical advantages, the more significant the difference between strategies. That also means that at an extreme difference (whether between armies, or individuals) there are fewer "successful" defenses which can be used. Your odds become lower of being able to choose and execute that successful attack. However, it can still be done.

That's where the proper training comes in. It can help the smaller fighter to avoid being drawn into a style of fighting that does not help, and can give the smaller fighter a comprehensive system to stick to, other that just a bag of "tricks."

Generally speaking, most fights degenerate into the style that is the most coarse. That is, if they aren't over right away. The coarser, or "vulgar" style of fighting generally favors strength, weight, and height over fine motor control.

So, for women to fight successfully, they have to avoid the "coarse" type of fighting, and maintain their faith, and application in the technical aspects. This takes more training, and a tremendous amount of self-control.

When I started training for physical confrontation, (high school football) I was about the size of a medium built woman. (140 lbs. or so.) Because of my gender, there wasn't a social stigma, but my size was a constant source of ridicule. Add to that a set of extremely flat feet, and a desire to torture myself, and I found myself on the offensive line. (For our overseas friends who may not care about American Football, those are the big guys who wrestle around in the middle of the field, not the ones who carry the ball.) It was not uncommon for me to have to face opponents who outweighed me by 80 pounds or more. Yet, I did pretty well - I learned to play differently. I found that being smaller also had advantages, and that they were enough to make it work.

So from the purely physical side, yes it can work, but it takes a very special mindset to pull it off.

Which bring up the mental side. This part I'm not so sure about. If someone is told all of their lives that they will never win a fight, then that's a pretty self-fulfilling prophecy. If an entire culture says so, then that is even more of an influence. However, we can't discount the maternal instinct. My wife had no matronly feelings at all - in fact she was so dis-attached from children that she worried that she wouldn't be a good mother - until the instant our first child was born. It's like a switch got turned on, that influenced her in a way that was almost unnatural. That drive to protect is very strong, indeed, and it cannot be underestimated.

Another factor is the "draw them into your fight" tactic. Strong men want to force challengers to fight as they would. Often social pressures are used to enforce that, especially if the strong males are in a position of leadership. That means that they will set "the rules" to that end, for the sake of "fairness." If smaller people want to fight, then, under "the rules" they can only fight within their weight class. They never learn to fight dirty against those who are bigger. However, there's really no way to enforce these "rules." Other than women who allow themselves to believe that they can't fight, simply because they're women, or that they can only fight other women.

The mental aspect is the critical point. My wife was raised in sports, and is very athletic. She was raised with a "modern" outlook on her abilities as a woman, and is very confident. However, she has absolutely no desire to learn combat. If she had the desire to, she would be a great fighter. She just doesn't want it. There are many other women, (in my experience) more than men, who also feel this way. They could fight, but they don't want to. They could learn to shoot a gun, or use a knife, but they don't want to.
Insecure men seize upon this idea, and inflate it to apply to all women, claiming that women don't have the "balls" to fight.

But what this really boils down to: What's the point? If a woman wants to learn to fight, then TMA is great, because it teaches a technical fight over brawn. If it's an issue of having a "wingman" to back me up, I'll take whoever's willing to help. Beyond that, it's academic.

 

[Empty Hands]

...males simply 'detect' the world more coarsely, their nerves/receptors being about half as sensitive as a woman’s.

What? This is my job, and I've never heard that. I would need to see some heavy duty proof before I believed it.

The obvious summary of the above is that women are simply not 'designed' with fighting in mind. They are weaker, smaller, more reactive to sudden pain and less aware of what is going on around them in a stressed situation.

That makes learning to fight effectively much more important for women, not less. Unless you think they should lie there and take it from any predator who wants a piece?

 

[Sukerkin]

The 'nerve thang' is not really relevant EH other than it was one of a list of things I've either heard or read that purport to substantiate the inferiority of women in combat.

Maybe because I wrote it I'm reading the OP different to others but I would have thought that everyone here knows what a "Straw Man" argument is. It's usually done negatively to defeat someones position but can be turned on it's head as an opening for discussion.

The whole point of this thread is for people to structure coherent arguments that displace the myths of women and self defence and replace them with more realistic truths. It was meant to be a gateway for members to coherently and intelligently express their views.

If posters are not getting that message, then I need to get in to the OP and re-edit it to make it clearer because I'm not going to be able to come in every few posts to dissuade people from knifing me because they think I'm some misogynist dinosaur totting an outrageous sexist agenda.

I'd rather not have to insult peoples intelligence by resorting to a large font disclaimer at the top of the first post. Something of the ilk of the following:

"Views Expressed In The OP Do Not Reflect Those of the Author and are for the Purposes of Sparking Positive Examination of the Topic"

 

[harlan]

 

[Ybot]

There have been a lot of great points made already, and a lot to the point that Martial Arts, in general, where designed to give an advantage in the fight to the person who trained, no matter who they are. But I also want to point out that there are different kinds of fights, and not all require strength and size, in fact in some cases extra bulk can be a liability rather than an asset. In a pistole duel, for instance, does a strong person have any advantage? How about a short sword duel (La Maupin)? Now, admittedly these are not really common today, but these are situations that I can think of where size and strength are not as important as finesse and tactics.

 

[bowser666]

Having looked at your profile, let me tell you the following about me:
1. I'm older than you.
2. I was also brought up in a religious tradition, maybe not the same as yours, where women historically did not enjoy all the freedoms and choices afforded men.
3. My parents did not even pretend that my sister and I deserved rights and freedoms equal to those of men.

At some point, as we hopefully become mature and self-directed individuals, we have to examine our early upbringing, come to terms with it, and decide whether we want to buy into it wholeheartedly, or to reassess and put into perspective--and practice--what we discover to be true. I'm not pretending it's easy, but no worthwhile endeavor ever is.

Personally, I always wondered why men would think I couldn't lift a 35 lb propane tank, but saw nothing odd about me picking up up a 70 lb child. Or why anyone would think I couldn't be a corporate CEO or President of the United States, when I was fully expected to single-handedly run a 24 hour a day business--including accounts payable and receivable, operations, human resources, health services, purchasing, crisis management, communications, transportation, maintenance, landscaping, food service, and life support--in other words, my household! (And with no vacation time either) Or that I can subdue a raging toddler in need of a vaccination, but heaven forbid I practice martial arts!

Your assertions about supposed basic differences between men and women are scientifically unsupported. There is significant overlap between males and females for every single parameter--size, strength, pain tolerance, hand-eye coodination--you name it. And some of these factors are easily affected by training, education, and experience.

So, I have to say, Sukerkin, you need to get over the aspects of your upbringing that are untrue and unproductive. Just like I did.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thansk for those words and I hoep that others view them in the same light and understanding as myself Kudos !

 

[Andy Moynihan]

There have been a lot of great points made already, and a lot to the point that Martial Arts, in general, where designed to give an advantage in the fight to the person who trained, no matter who they are. But I also want to point out that there are different kinds of fights, and not all require strength and size, in fact in some cases extra bulk can be a liability rather than an asset. In a pistole duel, for instance, does a strong person have any advantage? How about a short sword duel (La Maupin)? Now, admittedly these are not really common today, but these are situations that I can think of where size and strength are not as important as finesse and tactics.

Well if we're going by the logic that men are supposed to fight toe to toe, strength on strength , then I guess I, as a 5'10", 250 lb. man, must not be able to fight, then, since I choose not to fight that way whenever I have a choice about it. *shrug*

 

[marlon]

Look, it really is as simple as this:

This is an incomplete argument to begin with because it assumes that there is only one way to "fight". Usually the argument goes something to the effect that because men are most often physically larger and stronger than women, that they cannot match the man in toe-to-toe, strength-against-strength combat.



Thanks for this above post!!
Well this is my point about what techniques to train. I think we should be training the techniques that work and arer effective when we are at a disadvantage not when things are equal. "cause as someone pointed out things are never ever equal. Why teach women differently b/c they are smaller and weaker...Those techniques thast work for the smaller and weaker are what should be trained. We should be learning how to train andfight from teaching women. And they above many otheres should learn martial arts because they are more likely to be attacked.


respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Jenna]

Of course, the top male sprinter will always be faster than the top female sprinter. By that token I can happily state that I am in no way the best female martial artist there ever was. And but likewise, I will not ever expect to have to fight a top male martial artist. As martial artists, are we not all adept at avoidance of confrontation and restraint? As a woman of above average fighting ability in comparison with peers, I am, anecdotally at least, more likely to encounter a male of average or below average fighting ability. And though this does not preclude an attack by a fighter, a boxer or a martial artist, as a woman, I will settle for probabilities.

The obvious summary of the above is that women are simply not 'designed' with fighting in mind. They are weaker, smaller, more reactive to sudden pain and less aware of what is going on around them in a stressed situation.

From the "weaker, smaller, more reactive..." description of the female, are we to believe that blokes are simply masses of stimulated muscle? Surely we now know that there is a great deal more to fighting than physical prowess? I believe that intelligence is the greatest delineation between good and great fighters. And while women may indeed be all these things above, I believe that intelligent fighting can give an otherwise disadvantaged fighter a disproportionate advantage. Likewise determination / intent / focus / desire, call it what you will, but this intangible factor is, imho, like a spinning turbo in any fighter. Not always the case, but these factors that cannot now be overlooked in assessing competence in fighters. It is not a mistake to rely on physical attributes and muscle alone?

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Live True]

I want to think Sukerkin for this thread, as it’s been a fascinating and enjoyable read! There have been many great posts and good thoughts to consider. Thank you all. In my head, I was going through some of the historical instances I know of ancient queens to modern leaders, where women have fought or led armies or simply organized and defended their homes whilst the menfolk were out fighting the war.

After reading Darth Takeda’s post, though, I can’t resist mentioning Boudicca in more details, as she is a good historical example of good/bad for this discussion of “myths and truths”. I think it’s easy for some to dismiss her accomplishments as overrated, but my take on what I’ve read is that it was the military strategy, and tools available to the Romans that defeated her in the end…which really has little to do with gender and EVERYTHING to do with training….hmmmmmm…

For those that are unfamiliar with Boudicca: her husband, an Icenian king, died and willed his kingdom jointly to his wife and two daughters with the Roman Empire as co-heir. This was, his, ultimately poorly planned, attempt to keep his kingdom whole and play both sides. Because the Roman Empire only recognized succesion through the male line, they annexed the territory, flogged Boudicca, and allegedly raped both of her daughters. This apparently pissed her off….go figure.

What I found impressive with her accomplishments, as I understand them, was that she organized and led the revolt by gathering supporters from surrounding territories. She played politics in a time when it was not common for women, at least not from a Roman perspective, to have any such abilities. Tacitus, himself, describes her as a woman possessing “greater intelligence than often belongs to women”. (Harrumph) She then led a fairly successful popular revolt against the Romans.

It was actually 3 (not 2) Roman cities (Colchester, London, and St. Albans) that her followers burnt and destroyed…admittedly one (London) was abandoned by the then Roman governor because he was intimidated by her growing numbers, so that’s a bit of an empty victory from a battle standpoint, but an emotional and symbolic victory for her followers.

Alas, she was defeated in the end due to superior training and organization…proving that numbers do not always equate to victory. As I understand it the Romans made better use of the terrain (can you say bottle neck) that minimized her numerical superiority, and they worked to the strengths of their training and tools (long shields and javelins, I think…I may have the terminology wrong). That and Boudicca’s large army was further hampered in it’s retreat by the wagon loads of family and support behind them. So, in the end, it was strategy, experience, and tools that made the difference, not gender or numbers.

I think the failure of this uprising was not a reflection of Boudicca’s gender, but her inexperience and lack of training. Many a fine trained commander failed to defeat the well-oiled machinery of the Roman legions, so I do not see this as an example of female inferiority, but as an intriguing example of potential and an example of the need for training.

Hope that provides some of the history you were looking for Sukerkin.

 

[Live True]

After that long post, I wanted to follow-up with some points that I feel worth adding to this discussion on whether women should learn to defend themselves (and this goes to both of Exile’s points on learning for combat unsought or sought):
Is the purpose to train and improve oneself or simply to match up with the boys?
On the first, it is well worthwhile simply from the improvements in strength, ability, and skill…not to mention the improvements in mental perception, self-confidence, awareness, experience, etc.
On the second, then it’s really a matter of skill, willingness to fight dirty (if life is at risk), successful training, and luck as much as anything. Not every woman will be able to compete evenly with “the boys”, but let’s face it…not every man can do so either. Can a small woman stand toe to toe with a large guy? If she’s very good at using his size as a disadvantage and has better speed/agility. ...perhaps….but then…aren’t all fights a matter of who uses what he/she has the best? And to Darth Takeda’s point…overconfidence cuts on both sides of the gender line and can help or hurt the smaller defender...whether they are male or female.

Another thought along the purpose/goal of training. If it’s always to “win”, then it may or may not be useful depending on the person training and their commitment (and teachers), but I would say it is a very female point of view to sometimes simply Defend and Delay to protect one’s children. As many have stated, a mother bear is much more dangerous than the average bear defending his food. Defend/Delay may allow reinforcements/help to arrive or simply allow those you are defending (children) to get away. The goal to training may not always be to simply defeat one’s attacker.

And a last point, that I believe has already been mentioned, I think the biggest reason for anyone, male or female to learn and train is to avoid being a victim. Numerous studies and a simple observation of Nature show that bullies and predators usually choose the obviously weaker or less aware prey.

Basically, I’d say that simply choosing to be a sheepdog instead of sheep makes the training well worth it. You may not be the top dog, but being a dog is better than being mutton stew!

 

[Hyper_Shadow]

I quite like mutton stew, mmm, nice and warm with fresh baked bread!

When I was doing my basic training we had a few female recruits on course with us. One of which got the award on our passing out for most improvement on course. This just demonstrates that it makes no difference with gender. I happen to know our military has many very fine women in it and they work bloody hard. Our platoon commander when we were training was a woman and she was a para; they're renowned for being tough and she was solid, put most of the guys to shame.

 

[tellner]

Motivation is also important.

The Gurkha regiments recently opened a number of slots to women who could pass the same tests as potential male recruits. They were filled in record time. Many of the new female recruits were former Nepalese Maoist fighters who belonged to castes where women (especially second daughters) traditionally end up as prostitutes.

Get screwed by random filthy strangers and die young of AIDS.
Have a gun and a job.
Go with tradition and be a sex slave.
The White Queen's pension checks have never failed to clear the bank.

*short pause*

"LEFT! RIGHT! LEFT! RIGHT!"

 

[Sukerkin]

I didn't know that, Todd. Well done those women :tup:.

 

[kidswarrior]

I'd rather not have to insult peoples intelligence by resorting to a large font disclaimer at the top of the first post. Something of the ilk of the following:

"Views Expressed In The OP Do Not Reflect Those of the Author and are for the Purposes of Sparking Positive Examination of the Topic"

Or maybe, Warning, you're entering a Socratic Method zone. Perhaps just to be fair to those who don't know you very well yet.

Sorry if this seems to be thread drift. I arrived late to the party Brought a great wine, though.

 

[Sukerkin]

That would be a great 'header', Kds. Wish I'd thought of it.

Now what's this wine of which you speak? :lol:

 

[LanJie]

The only women that I trained with were my older kung fu sisters.

The three women who were my Si-Je were all fantastic fighters, they were all intelligent but they were and are highly skilled in their art. They are all very fast and had strong powerful kicks and strikes as well as having excellent Chin Na skills.

The following are some other great female masters from both ancient and modern times.

Fa, Mulan: A daughter of elderly father that was required to enter the military during a draft. Mulan disguised herself as a man to take her father’s place in the army. Fa Mulan had been trained by the Shaolin monks and was an excellent martial artist and solider. She eventually became a general. A modern form of contemporary wushu has been created that uses some of Mulan’s training principles.
Fong Wing Chun, the second wife of Hung Gar Founder Hung Hei Goon. Fong was a master of a branch of White Crane Kung Fu and she taught her husband her kung fu style.

Mok Gwai Lan: The last wife of the Famous Grandmaster of Hung Gar, Wong Fei Hong. Madam Mok Gwai Lan was a great master in her own right. In age when few women were taught kung Mok Gwai Lan was trained at a young age by her uncle an expert in the family style of Mok Gar. Madam Mok was known as a champion of the common people for she helped her neighbors on many occasions when they were threatened by bullies and armed thugs. Madam Mok defeated the shocked attackers to the applause of the crowds of bystanders. Mok Gwai Lan also appeared on Hong Kong television in the 1970s and there are still many still photographs published of some those appearances showing the great master performing kung fu for the audience. She was in her 80s at the time.

Lau, Lilly and Ginny: The current leaders of Lau Fat Mon’s Ying Jow Pai: Northern Eagle Claw Kung Fu Federation. The Lau sisters were taught Ying Jow Pai at very early age and Ginny not only studied Eagle claw in her youth but was in the same peking opera school that Jackie Chan attended. Lilly is acknowledged as the federation’s grandmaster.

Um Mui
Um Mui is also known as Ng Mui and Wu Mei. She was the oldest of the Five Elders. This legendary Grandmaster was reputed to be the founder of three systems of Kung fu, Lung Ying Pai or Southern Dragon Style, Wumeipai, a system bearing her name Wumei’s system, Wing Chung Kung Fu. Grandmaster Um Mui killed Grandmaster Lei Ba-San to save the life of her nephew Fong Sai-Yuk. Grandmaster Um Mui along with Fong Do-Duk, Gee Seen Sim See, Lei Ba-San, Miu Hin are known as the five Shaolin elders. These five great grandmasters escaped the burning of the northern Honan temple in the mid 1700s and came to southern China.

Yuenu.
One of China’s greatest sword masters was born around the 7th century. She was a beautiful young woman that was a citizen of the Yue Kingdom
The Yue kingdom was forced to become vassals of the Wu Kingdom since 490 B.C. The main weapon of the 7th century in this area in China was the straight skill or Jian Dao.

During the 600s in China the Wu nation was at war with its other neighboring states. This was why the Yue King Jujian thought it was the time to strike back. The only problem he faced was that the swordsmanship of the Wu Kingdom was considerably better than his army’s.

Jujian had heard of a great swords master that lived in a distant mountain community in his kingdom, so he sent his consul and some of his swordsmen to find the master.

Jujian’s men were unfamiliar with the mountain area they were searching and became lost for many weeks. it was during this time that the king’s men became desperate for a good meal. They spotted a pretty young shepherd girl that was tending her flock and one swordsman decided to kill and eat one of her sheep.

The young shepherdess was furious and demanded payment for her slain sheep and the loss of it’s wool. The swordsman ignored her and she struck him with her stick with a flick of her wrist. The swordsman dropped the sheep and fell to his knees in pain.

The girl again demanded payment and again another swordsman tried to dismiss her. This solider used a half hearted attack. She again brought this man to his knees in pain.

After seeing that the actions of the girl were no fluke the remaining swordsmen attacked her at the same time. The girl then quickly and efficiently disarmed all the men in the same way.

After this display of incredible skill with a mere stick the king’s consul and his men realized that they had found the swords master that they were searching for, Lady Yuenu.

Master Lady Yuenu gained her sword skill through three sources. She practiced sword fighting against a white ape with a stick since she was a child. She then took strategies from the famous Chinese text, the I Ching or Book of Changes by Lao Zi and the Art of War by Sun Zi.

Yuenu was then taken before the king, Jujian to prove her skill. She easily disarmed ten of the king’s most elite bodyguards simultaneously in mere moments. The Lady’s sword skill was incredible and irrefutable.
Yuenu trained Jujian’s arm and the Yue Kingdom defeated the Wu Kingdom.

Yuenu’s beauty and refinement touched the king’s heart and the two became a couple. Yuenu tired of court life however and returned to her mountain home to improve her sword skills.

It was not long after Yuenu left Jujian, that he fell in love with, the most beautiful woman in China, Xisi.
Yuenu heard of this and was enraged. Royal messengers pleaded with Lady Yuenu saying that Xisi’s beauty was irresistible and it was not king Jujian’s fault. This made Yuenu even more angry.

Yuenu returned from the mountains and stormed the palace. She easily defeated the hundreds of soliders and archers barring her way.
She then struck at Xisi who was behind a curtain. Yuenu stopped her just inches from her heart. Yuenu realized Xisi was indeed even more beautiful than the reports she had recieved. Yuenu left the palace never to return.

 

[KELLYG]

I found the op interesting and had to think on it for a couple of days. I do believe that men are stronger in some areas physically. I also believe that females can be just as fierce and ruthless as a male. Just come between a female and her cub and see what happens, regardless of the species.

I think that society has successfully perpetrated the men are hunters and gatherers and women should be the nester to the point that whether true or not that is what people will assume.

HERE COMES THE GOOD PART. I think that women have outsmarted there male counter parts. If you are female and are in trouble scream loud enough and a male will come and protect you. No need for us to mess up our nails when the trouble will be handled for us. Also I think that if a female has to defend herself she can get away with allot more than a male. IE; home invasion if the defender is female it will be much easier for her to get away with shooting the invader than a male would. I know a lady that got attacked at a store and ended breaking the guy's shoulder. Well he decided to take her to court for damages and when the Judge looked at her and looked over at him, he stated to the attacker that he got what he deserved and dismissed the case. I think that the "weakness" also be used as a defense. As attacker, He sees a defenseless female and sees easy target. But if female and properly trained the attacker has no idea how much trouble he is in until its too late.

On a personal note. I being older and female did have a hard time learning how to fight. Having been thought that it's not lady like to do this and that. I don't think that the apparent physical differences were any problem for me. Having awesome instruction from masters that would in some cases modify techniques for people with smaller frames to insure there effectiveness. My biggest problem was imitating an attack and some self defenses that are close quarters were uncomfortable as well.