Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: tittle@glacier.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Rape on bicycle path
Message-ID: <9106061355.aa04157@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 91 22:57:09 GMT
Lines: 158
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: glacier.ics.uci.edu

This topic has been of interest to me for the last three years, and
especially in the last year, when I started learning how to shoot a
gun.

In <1991Jun6.032952.23195@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:

>  The "anti-rape" techniques I've seen in some self protection books
>are foolish and useless.  Noteable among these are the "eye myth" and
>the "go for the crotch" myth.  As these are the most basic ideas, and
>the first to occur to anyone, they are what the Rapist would never let
>happen.  He will be on his gaurd for such attempts, and will disarm
>them without a thought.

This really depends.  However, they *are* obvious targets and will be
well protected.  Other non-obvious targets, though, are always taught
in self defense classes.  For example, if I were to attack (in self
defense, of course) another person with a knife, I would never mess
with trying to stab the person, or go for the eyes or groin.  I'd
hamstring him, either behind the knees or the ankles.  The other
target is under the armpit -- it is fairly hard to raise your arm
afterwards (these are all slashing attacks, not stabbing attacks).  As
he points out below, stabbing attacks do not have an immediate effect
other than pain, which the person may be used to dealing with.  The
exception is, of course, if you get the knife up under the sternum and
into vital organs.  This is much more difficult to do than it sounds
though, as you have to be sure you get past the rib cage.

> Also high on the stupid list, are plans to
>defend oneself by stabbing with a hatpin, sharp umbrella or knife.
>Even with a knife, it takes much skill to use effectively.  Knives
>wounds are not stopping wounds, they are slow wounds.  A perp with a
>lethal knife wound will linger for minuntes or hours, still able
>continue his attack.

The key phrase here is "skill".  Do not ever think, whether female or
male, that you will be able to effectively defend yourself, with or
without a weapon, if you have never had any experience and training.
I could effectively defend myself with a knive, but this is because of
long martial-arts training.  It also helps that my SO has studied
fighting with cops and passed the training along to me.  I could
defend myself from a knife attack depending on the knife skill of the
attacker. (But again, it takes training to recognize a truely skilled
knife fighter from one who's just put together adhoc techniques.)

>  The Rapist/mugger is likely a street fighter, and innured to pain.
>Such a person is not likely to be disauded by the same things that
>would stop you.  A man who has been through perhaps many severe
>beatings is not going to be afraid of honking horns and sprays.
>Dedicated criminals have bought their own mace and "stun shockers"
>etc. to use on themselves and acclimate themselves to them.

If you think you can defend yourself by "beating up" the other person,
you are subscribing to a fallacious -- and personally dangerous --
assumption.  On the other hand, assuming that the attacker/rapist is
completely inured to counter attack is self-defeating.

[Of course, I have something of an advantage.  An ear-piercing horn
thingie can't be used against me... ;-)]

>  Also foolish is the idea that lessons in Judo, boxing, Karate etc.
>will make a small woman a match for a large determined man.  It just
>isn't so.

Here is where we get into true feminism relevance.  This is not
foolish at all -- it is only foolish if you subscribe to the notion I
debunked above.  In the first place, many martial arts techniques,
particularly defensive ones, are not designed to "beat up" the other
person.  They are designed to disable or control the person.  If a
large man attacked me, I would counter with disabling or potentially
lethal techniques -- because I know very well that any prolonged fight
is most likely to go badly for me.

This brings up the second point.  Serious study in self-defense is not
just a matter of learning how to punch someone.  It is also learning
how to recognize potentially dangerous situations.  It is learning to
think, seriously, of what you would try to do in certain situations.
It helps to lessen the fear of violence itself and focus on ways to
deal with it.  It helps you stop and think instead of panicking.  Most
men are taught or are expected to know these things, women are not.

Taking a six month course in self-defense will probably not turn you
into a self-defense marvel, and you shouldn't behave as if it had.
However, it should give you a good sense of what you *can* do, and how
to recognize potentially dangerous situations.  The attitude expressed
above is too much of a "small people, especially women, are always
going to be victims," and that is just not so.

As for long term martial arts study, I can make the following points:

  * There *are* good techniques for small people to use on large
people.  Many famous founders were small, delicate oriental men.  I
study Aikido, founded by Ueshiba Morehei, who was 140 and 5'3 or
thereabouts, especially when he was very old.  We saw a film taken of
him in the 40's (he died in the mid 60's in his eighties, this is a
new art) where they lined up a bunch of marines in a circle around him
and told them to go for him.  He picked out one person, swung the
person right past him (in effect switching places), and walked out of
the room.  The person he swung by got the brunt of the attack.  This
illustrates a couple of points.  First of all, that violence does not
need to be met with opposing violence.  Especially if you are smaller,
you will never be able to match or exceed with sufficent
counter-violence.  Second, you can succeed with simply escaping; you
don't necessarily have to stick around and continue with the struggle.

  * In any martial arts, there will be techniques that work better one
way or the other; when the attacker is smaller or larger than the
defender.  You very quickly learn which techniques work better for
you, and especially when training in free-for-alls, you learn to make
effective use of those techniques.  You also learn how to avoid
certain techniques being used on you.  For example, I really cannot
deal well with a two-handed grab (onto one hand).  I know the
techniques, and I can apply them to get out, but it is not easy.  So
that is one that I watch for, to counter before the grab takes place.

  * It takes a LOT of training.  If you stop and think about it, that
makes sense.  You're learning what your body can do, you are learning
what can be done to redirect the other person's attack, you're
learning how the different attacks are composed (one of the things I
did not expect to learn was to learn how to *attack* -- Aikido is
purely defensive -- but you have to execute a good attack on the other
person for that person to effectively learn the technique to counter
that attack.  Waving your arms in the general imitation of an attack
is not good enough.).  Learning all of these things is a very valuable
experience for me -- I've learned what I can do with my body, I've
learned effective techniques, and most of all I've learned to make
truely realistic assessments of my limitiations in potentially violent
situations, instead of being guided by fear and ignorance.  But it
takes a lot of time and effort.

As the saying goes, one of the hall-marks of a true black belt is that
she or he does not get attacked in the first place.  The confidence
borne of long training is readily apparent.  Street attackers choose
people who look like victims, who do not look like they know how to
defend themselves.  Trained people can spot and diffuse situations
before they escalate.

>  Ironicly, the book I just saw yesterday reccomended that women _not_
>carry the one self defense tool that has any chance of making a small
>weak woman safe from an attacker: The handgun.

Yes and no.  The gun is a true equalizer in some respects.  However,
the woman has to know how to handle it and has to be prepared to use
it, not just threaten with it.  Many people, men as well as women, are
not prepared for that.  You have to know how to handle it to present a
creditable threat; people who are afraid of guns, have never or rarely
handled them, and who have never shot a gun are obvious to spot.  If
you wind up having the gun taken away from you because you couldn't
shoot or because you couldn't handle the gun (an uncocked or
unchambered gun, for example, will put you in a real spot), you are in
trouble, needless to say.  However, it *is* an excellent self-defense
weapon, if you are prepared to use it.

--Cindy

"The last thing feminism is about is exclusion.  Feminists can be
defined as those women and men who recognize that the earth doesn't
revolve around anybody's son---or around any one group."
  -- Regina Barreca, _They Used to Call Me Snow White...But I Drifted_