Posted on 04/15/2003 12:10:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
I've beaten down a few women in my time. I'm not writing metaphorically here. I'm talking about punching a girl in the face, doubling her over by kicking her in the stomach, then putting her down on the ground with a right cross to the side of the head. I can't say I didn't enjoy it – an adrenaline rush doesn't know gender.
Now, before my inbox overflows with outraged accusations of criminal Neanderthalian misogyny, I should probably point out that this all took place in the brutal full-contact martial-arts dojo that was my home away from home for almost six years. I still remember my first day there, seeing all the fighters in their black robes and the savage gleam in their eyes as they warily circled each other before exploding in a paroxysm of violence. It was truly a place apart – a broken ankle was a cause for mockery and uproarious laughter, and if one was so unfortunate as to get knocked out during a sparring session … well, to that ignominy was added the expense of buying the victor's drinks that evening.
Of every 10 newcomers, one remained a month later. Few – very few – ever reached the highest level, as the punishing belt tests were not so much sought as fearfully avoided at all costs. They were tests of skill and discipline, but more than anything, they tested one's willingness to get back on one's feet after being knocked down, again and again.
There weren't many women in our midst, understandably enough. But I was close to one in particular, we called her "Penthouse" because of her long, flowing mane of hair and her not-quite-ready-for-Playboy prettiness. She was a single mother who'd been pushed around by her ex-husband one too many times and she was determined to learn how to defend herself. After three years, she was called on the carpet to test for her green, and I was one of those selected for her sparring test, which consisted of six consecutive two-minute rounds against three high-level fighters, none of whom had just been through a grueling three-hour demonstration of every strike, kick and kata in our repertoir.
By the fifth round, she was exhausted and bruised, barely able to keep her hands up to her chin, much less defend herself. She was nearly helpless, but she must have sensed my desire to take it easy on her, because she snarled at me not to dis her like that, that she'd earned the right to be treated as a fighter and a Dragon. And she had, so it was with genuine affection and admiration that I dropped her twice in the next two exchanges, leaving her with a black eye and a bloody nose. It was a wonderful performance on her part, as she never hesitated to pick herself up, unaided, from the concrete floor. A few months later, the entire dojo cheered her on as she mercilessly destroyed the competition and won her first tournament – never having fought a woman before, she said afterward that she couldn't believe how weak and slow her opponents were, how easy it had been when compared with her training.
But if my time in the martial arts taught me to respect the inherent toughness and mental resolve of women, it has also taught me that combat of any sort is no place for them. It may be easy for a woman who hasn't taken a straight-line headshot from a 200-pound man to spin airy myths of martial equality, but no woman like "Penthouse" would ever believe them, and only a man who hasn't felt for himself how easy it is to smash a woman to the ground would take them seriously for a second.
Modern combat may be less strenuous than it was in the age of the heavily-armored Greek hoplite, but it is still physically punishing. The fluid nature of America's new uberblitz tactics means that the attacking forces must carry more of their own supplies on their backs, and indicates that the supply lines will often be operating behind enemy lines.
The capture of Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson and the fact that a significant percentage of our casualties came from a maintenance company does not support the foolish myth of the American Amazon. Instead, it proves that women should be excluded from far more elements of the U.S. military than they are today.
Very few of todays regular soldiers ever get to do it anymore. I know hundreds of men who were in ww2, korea, vietnam, the gulf war, Grenada, etc, and none of them ever fought hand to hand with the enemy.
I agree that women probably would not qualify to be a navy seal, or a delta force member, but there is no reason to keep them out of the regular army, navy, marines, or airforce.
Once during the short time I took Tae Kwon Do classes with my son I was matched (as a yellow belt) against a woman black belt about fifteen years junior my age. She couldn't lay a hand or foot on me but but I staggered her once with a kick to the sternum and again when I caught her ankle during a kick and flipped her. I was anything but "trained" and out of shape to boot.
IMHO firearms and the use of tear gas and a stun gun are the best training a woman can have and effectively use.
No body knows more about self defense for women than Paxton Quigley:
http://www.paxtonquigley.com/
War May Redefine Gun Control
Tuesday, April 15, 2003 By Wendy McElroy
Despite the high emotions that surround war — or perhaps because of them — people are focusing again on "normal" life. But what is normal has shifted in ways both obvious and subtle. Consider how war has affected just one issue: the debate over gun control.
For years, gun ownership advocates have agonized over how to make women comfortable around guns. As of 2000, 41.7 percent of men and 28.5 percent of women reported having a gun in their household, and 39.2 percent of men but only 10 percent of women personally owned a gun.
Reaching out to women and minorities has been a high priority of organizations like the National Rifle Association, not merely to swell their ranks but also to convert segments of society that have traditionally opposed the right to own a gun.
Now, the outreach has become easier. As of 2002, over 210,000 women were on active duty within the military, over 150,000 were in the reserves. A steep increase in the number of women in the military means that an unprecedented number of Gen-Next women have overcome their mothers' aversion to guns.
Non-military women also picked up guns. NRA spokeswoman Nance Pretto reported that, in the wake of Sept. 11, women's enrollment in instructional shooting classes increased fourfold from years before. And gun dealers reported a sharp increase in women purchasing weapons.
The sense of insecurity caused by Sept. 11 was heightened as police officers in the reserves left for active duty, depleting police departments. Some politicians began to actively encourage women to protect themselves by owning guns. When a serial killer was loose in Baton Rouge in the summer of 2002, Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster advised women "you have a right to get a [concealed] gun permit. ... if you know how [to use a gun] and you have a situation with some fruitcake running around, like they've got right now, it sure can save you a lot of grief."
Foster received the predictable backlash of outrage from gun control advocates who suddenly sounded sexist. Holley Galland Haymaker from the anti-gun group Louisiana Ceasefire argued: "Maybe if you're a big, white guy who hunts all the time, it might do some good. For a woman who is surprise attacked, having a gun is only giving them [the attacker] another way to kill you."
I will ignore the racist implications of this remark and simply ask, "Why would a white guy who hunts be more competent with a gun than a woman who is trained to use it?"
To judge from how strained their arguments have become, gun control advocates realize they are losing the debate. It would be difficult to escape this realization. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1036 — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — which grants gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits resulting from their products. The vote (04/09) was 285 to 140. The measure has now moved to the Senate where it is expected to pass.
As Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., argued, "Manufacturers of legal products should not live under the threat of litigation simply because their product is misused ... [W]e don't sue Ginsu when someone is stabbed to death with their knife."
Again, the anti-gun arguments were shrill. A paper published by the Brady Center, entitled "Smoking Guns: Exposing the Gun Industry's Complicity in the Illegal Gun Market," openly accused the firearms industry of "actively and knowingly allowing guns to be sold into the illegal market." In short, gun manufacturers were publicly charged with criminal complicity.
Other gun control advocates are pushing to have guns declared as "weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." For example, House Bill 1210 in Washington State defined a WMD as a "device, object, or substance that a person intends to use to cause multiple human deaths." No specific weapons were mentioned but the Seattle Times opened its March 15 coverage of the bill with the sentence, "An anti-terrorism bill has spurred debate among lawmakers: Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction?" Possession would have been a class A felony had the bill passed with above-referenced language. Many in the pro-gun rights camp view the WMD argument as an indication of attacks to come.
The underlying facts of the gun debate remain much the same as before Sept. 11 and the war. The award-winning criminologist Prof. Gary Kleck states that firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times a year. 48 percent of those incidents involve women defending themselves; most of the time a shot is not fired. The conclusion: women benefit from gun ownership.
What is changing, however, are the faces and attitudes of the debate. A growing number of women feel comfortable with guns and want them for self-defense. In response, anti-gun advocates are using arguments that seem increasingly implausible such as classifying guns as WMDs.
Gun ownership is just one of the issues over which we will stumble on the way back to normal life. And, as people drink coffee and read newspapers in the morning, they will discover that the war has influenced every aspect of public debate, including the words we use to describe and redefine our beliefs.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
On the one hand their physical strength is even worse than your illustration. I recall the Air Force did some tests regarding physical strngth of women and the differences were very great. They on average had only 30% of the upper body strength of men, 50% of the mid body strength, but surprisingly, were over 90% as strong in the legs.
One has only to look at the women's world records in track and field to see the vast difference. A quality high school boy athlete can beat the womens world record in most events.
On the other hand, physical strength has little to do with deadliness. If one is talking about one on one physical combat in a model setting, women will do extemely poorly. If you tell 100 men and 100 women they must kill a particular person of the opposite sex within a week using all their wiles, skills and weapon of choice including poison, sex, guns etc., I would bet women would do nearly as well.
Women have killed over 30 million Americans since 1970. Dont underestimate the ruthlessness of the female.
Movie quotes:
Xavier Fitch: We decided to make it female so it would be more docile and controllable.
Preston Lennox: More docile and controllable, eh? You guys don't get out much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.