(in case it has any impact on this section, mindset changes in the next section and this was written mostly before the mindset change)
I never said you did that either. I am refering to the overall topic and what i have seen with it, which is people wave BJJ around like its a magic wand and will solve all your issues of being smaller and weaker by engaging in one of the most atheltic parts of fighting. The only thing that truely makes this redudnent is weapons, but i usually (and presume others) gloss over thaat as a known fact when people ask about martial arts, and then it solves the issue of weapon laws etc. Also, i just remmeber mid writing this, BJJ doesnt have striking normally, striking takes place and tends to accompany somone being attacked, can you say hold them in this position while they have free access to punch you in the back of the head? (working on the basis since its not done you dont have experience in not exposing yourself to effective strikes)
My prefrence towards clinch based and takedown based fighting in this sitiation would be, because A) most female on female social fights i have seen is one handed clinch to the hair, or some other part and hitting with the other hand and that tends to cause a tumble, and B) If the person is stronger than you, you want to minimise the time you take within the kill zone of grappling range. (doesnt even have to be a male, could just be a stronger female) Im going to reply to the rest with my prefrences firmly established with some reason behind them.
Athleticism isnt soley strength(used them both as synonomyms to reduce writing time, apoligies for confusion), its edurance as well and just overal ability. Being bigger and more atheltic certainly helps in fighting, especially grappling. Just to reel in the hyperbole a little from both sides, as lets be fair, not everyone is a 250CM 200kg strongman and not everyone is a prodidgy in BJJ. If we just bring it to normal size archs, lets say: 169.9cm is the average female height and 173.4 Is male. (Wiki list for my countries height averages, i dont understand imperial and cant convert) So that is, if my maths is correct a diffrence of 4cm if both persons are textbook average, i dont think thats much of a height diffrence. Apparntly 251cm is the tallest man thats been recorded globally. So lets just keep it within average ranges, somone who is on the shorter side would find somone who is average bigger, and the reverse for bigger side. I dont really see the need to discuss "what if your bigger and stronger" because then you have the advantage, and there are a few videos out there of females who are bigger than the male in question victimising them.
That was a lot more rambly than i intended it to be. I am throwing out weight, and health conditions and age diffrences, for sake of argument they have none and are the same age. Weight brings in the issue is it fat or muslce? Obesity crisis muddles that, granted it gives you a advantage if they cant move 100kg's easily irrespective if its muscle or fat, or mostly one or the other.
And me realsing that males may generally be more resistant to punching than females has made me realsie this is the wrong angle to go with this, and makes the above next to usless other than pointing out how hyperbolic we were both being. The better angle is this, if you are weaker you are always at a dis advantage, but fighting back increases chances of living if somone tries something (depends on motive) as you make yourself a harder target so they leave for a easier one, one of the principles of defence, make yourself a hard target. (with the caviate that attracts people after hard targets, as hard targets tend to be hard because they are valuble) As long as you go into it with the angle of "you are making yourself a hard target and buying time at minimum, and maybe can best them if the odds are in my favour" i dont see the issue. Just no hollywood parapalgic dwarf is going to go mano a mano against a 200cm, 200kg strongman who has a 10-1 boxing record. You arent likely to best them (not the dwarf here)unless there is a pretty big skill outset, or you get lucky so its probbly best you dont think of yourself as besting them rather you have disrupted what ever they were going to do to you thus made it a victory on your behalf.
Oh if you wernt in a public place for buying time to make sense, you violated another principle of self defence, and thats observation and route selection, and also having somone with you which dissuades (some) crime. Just going to paraphrase a geoff thompson quote "the point of self defence isnt so you feel safe going down a dark alley, but to avoid the dark alley"
Striken through because i wasted way too much time writing and i think i made some good points that should be read, it just isnt in play as reply to the argument. (i dont know if everyone knows what a strike through means, but thats it in breif as i have spent way too long writing this part)
(written before above relisation, but i stand by it)
Explained my prefrence towards judo earlier, takedown based so it should minimise your exposure to grappling more than BJJ which seems to be more, i dont know how to word it, gripping them based. Ground fighting if done in Judo (its allowed and done) is normally reserved at higher levels, the focus is on takedowns. Its 30 seconds to pin your oppinent or put them in whatnever approved submissiones as far as i know for olympic judo. Its not the end all be all, but i think the FOCUS should be on takedowns and clinch work, not the only thing you do.
(written with the above realstiation)
the 30 second blitz judo ground fighting may or may not be more useful for playing for time, as its partly to play for time. If you know you cant get into a superior position, play for time and minimise their effect. With the above caviate about location, i would say you are dead if you cant best them and no one will come to help, but defetism literally kills people. (but you are dead)