In the spirit of better late than never, this entry is the follow-up to Fight Back, Part I. (I said I’d post Part II in several weeks, right? I’m pretty sure that’s what I said. No, I said a couple. I know. Mea culpa. Also possibly holidays culpa.)
This post is a follow-up on one idea: that women can’t win fights with men. As with the last post (and really, as with any post), what is written below is based on what I have experienced and read; if you have something to add, or some specialized knowledge, please jump in below with your comments.
On that note, the three-pronged reply to “women can’t win fights with men”:
* A pound of muscle is a pound of muscle, regardless of who it’s attached to;
* Women are stronger than they think; and
* Strength alone doesn’t win a fight.
1:1
Many people believe that all men, as some sort of single unit, are stronger than women. And reason says that simply isn’t true. Men’s strength is just as variable as women’s. Men, on average, are bigger than women, with a higher lean body mass-to-fat ratio. But women generate the same force per unit of muscle as men. That is, muscle pound to muscle pound, women and men are similar in strength. A strong woman is strong, full stop. And in conflict against a not-as-strong man, she has more than a fighting chance.
Women may also build strength differently than men. Even when weight training, women do not show the same muscle enlargement as men even though their strength is increasing. Bulk and strength have come to be synonymous, and they’re not. Coordination and muscle memory have significant say in whether you can yield what you’ve got.
“For every girl who is tired of acting weak when she is strong…”
From when we’re little, we’re all bombarded with messages about girls’ physicality versus boys’ physicality. Boys are more rambunctious, stronger, more aggressive. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
And those messages burrow deep into both little boys and little girls, and they affect what those kids grow up thinking they can do (“…there is a boy tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable”).
There are many different ways a woman can be physically strong. And how many push or chinups you can do is not the only or the most accurate measure. Women tend to be stronger in their lower bodies. But we’re led to be fearful of “thunder thighs” and subtly (or not so subtly) encouraged to make our legs as lean and thin as possible. Embracing the idea that you have to have matchstick legs, or that your thighs should meet an arbitrary measure like not touching at the top, can mean sacrificing one of your greatest natural assets.
The pressure to skinnyify yourself is so strong, it may help to engage in whatever activity you find satisfying (yoga, kickboxing, martial arts, self-defense classes, weight training, swimming, squash…) that reminds you that your legs are strong and functional and not just decorative.
And our strength is not limited to the lower body. In this study, women underestimated their own upper body strength by between 24.4% and 29.6% (by comparison, men underestimated by between 7.3% and 14.5%).
So odds are you’re already a lot stronger than you’re giving yourself credit for.
The Governator versus Jackie Chan (or Michelle Yeoh)
Let’s wrap this up by flipping it all over and looking at it another way: strength is not the only factor in a physical conflict.
The men v. women strength debate is a bit of a red herring. Any experienced professional fighter will tell you that strategy, smarts, thinking on your feet, wile, guile and cunning are just as important, if not more, as your benchpress stats. And in the case of a woman being attacked, we have the additional supports of adrenaline, and the instinct for self-preservation.
Not to mention that all people have something in common — we’re all the same flesh sacks, with all the same weak points. The groin is just one of many targets. Eyes, nose, ears, throat, armpits, knees, ankles, feet; there’s no shortage of fragile bits and pieces. And many of those don’t even have to be hit, poked, or stomped particularly hard in order to inflict damage enough for you to get away.
Those are some of my thinkings. Feel free to reply below and add your own.



Digg
12 comments
BRILLIANT!
And thank you for the links like to the estimated vs. actual studies.
I love what you said about legs. Funny--despite taking IMPACT and reading feminist lit for months, I hadn't made the connection between "skinny legs" and "no thunder thighs," so I hadn't seen the cause-and-effect relationship between aesthetic pressures and thigh muscle mass among women.
Fascinating.
Funny how much I'd heard friends complain about the lack of aesthetic value in their legs, how much I'd complimented them on how strong their legs looked, yet how I never imagined that these friends might do more than lose fat--that they might lose muscle mass if they needed to to get their legs thinner!
Posted by Katie
February 5, 2007, 3:05 PM
As a keen judo player,I have to say the difference in strength between men and women is not to be underestimated. It often astonishes me just how weak women are compared to men. This is not to say that women cannot be skilled fighters,(they can) but to pretend that they are not at a very significant disadvantage is dishonest.
Posted by Roly B.
April 20, 2007, 3:19 PM
As someone with experience (to varying degrees of keenness) in a few different martial arts (including Muay Thai and Aikido), I've had a very different experience than you.
Regarding "women" being at a "very significant" disadvantage -- that's an extremely broad statement, and disregards countless variables (e.g. are you referring only to judo techniques; to all women?).
I'm a woman of not-insignificant (but not especially unusual) strength, and in sparring with male opponents, I have never had any difficulty holding my own. I might say that I've had the complete opposite experience -- I am often astonished at just how equally matched a strong & skilled female fighter is against a strong & skilled male fighter.
I am not even referring there to those martial arts where skill is infinitely more important than strength. In Aikido, for instance, success is based almost entirely on technique and timing. The burliest, brawniest challenger in Aikido can be flipped head over heels by the most petite practitioner. (And, regardless of the gender of the competitors, that is just awesome fun to watch).
Besides, while martial arts may be useful, it's only one of many tools: when you're defending yourself you're not restricted to kata. Even if you haven't mastered a judo counterattack, you can still scream, bite, stab, poke, and etc your way to safety. Being confident and skilled in self-defense techniques is not reliant on strength. And it is dishonest and detrimental to women to perpetuate that myth.
Posted by catherine
April 20, 2007, 4:47 PM
I agree that it is a broad statement to say women are at a very significant disadvantage. I'm only basing it on my own experience. I have truly found the difference in strength astonishing. However, I'm talking about one situation, ie. judo. Women could equally as well say that men's vulnerable testicles put them at a disadvantage, and be astonished at how delicate men are. I imagine a well-aimed kick in the nuts from an angry woman would put a man out of action. I suspect women don't normally do this to men out of fear of hurting them?
Posted by Roly B.
April 21, 2007, 1:42 PM
I do Mixed Martial Arts and one of my instructors is a woman. This one sparring session she was going for a clinch to knee my ribs and abs but accidently hit my testicles. It hurt but I didn't go down. She said I was pretty endurant as she had done it on purpose and most men didn'T stand let alone fight. Then we did some Jui-jitsu. Just before rolling on the matt she asked me if I would remove my cup and allow, should the opportunity present itself that she grab and squeeze my nuts. I was reluctant, but she said in a real fight it might happen, there's no honor out there, it's for your own good. So we started to wrestle, I was beginning to go for a full mount (pin her arms standing on top of her) when she pushed me off and went straight for my nuts- and squeezed-hard. I automatically went for my balls but she had a surprising grip, I remember moaning and she was yelling: Give up! Tap and i let go! But I'm a bit hard headed..I started to punch her in the breasts...i figured it was fair since she had me by the balls and she squeezed even harder. I remember almost passing out, man she hand a steel grip, I was actually blinded by pain..anyway, I tapped after three LONG minutes and she said your really tough. But I win. Basically this little situation taught me that a woman's grip is her best weapon, nuts can't slip or move, it's like a trash compactor for your balls basically.
Posted by Marx
April 30, 2007, 2:32 PM
Catherine said:
“This post is a follow-up on one idea: that women can’t win fights with men.”
Catherine seems to be confusing self defense against sexual assault with the practice of old fashioned man vs.man back-alley bare-knuckle brawling. In the case of the former, a women who fights back stands a very good chance of escaping a rapist, but in the case of the latter, the same women faces the probability that she’ll end up getting her skull fractured.
FYI, it’s much easier to incapacitate a guy who’s trying to grab you than it is to hurt a guy who’s trying to punch your brains out. This is exactly why the vast majority of domestic violence cases end up with the women taking the bruises and the guy facing jail time.
Catherine also said:
“The men v. women strength debate is a bit of a red herring. Any experienced professional fighter will tell you that strategy, smarts, thinking on your feet, wile, guile and cunning are just as important, if not more, as your benchpress stats. And in the case of a woman being attacked, we have the additional supports of adrenaline, and the instinct for self-preservation.”
No! In fact most professional fighters will tell you that size, strength, speed and determination will overcome superior training in most cases. There’s no shortage of stories of black-belts being beaten up and raped by untrained attackers who were simply bigger, stronger, faster and more determined than their victims.
Karate training simply will not prepare you for real-world fighting and neither will it prepare you to fight off a rapist!
Posted by Joe
November 2, 2007, 10:37 AM
Great article! I've shied away from self-defense for another reason altogether. I've heard that when one is well trained in karate, being surprised can cause your body to react aggressively before you have a chance to think, potentially harming an innocent person. Some of these expert fighters probably worry their bodies have become like loaded guns that might go off at any time. Maybe its better just to know simple skills like how to block punches, exploit tender places in the body, stay on your feet, fight from the ground and free yourself if you're being held. Taking constant self-defense classes could be empowering, but that also takes time, doesn't necessarily help that much, and makes me focus on an impending physical threat to my body which may never happen. How often can we see that self-defense has actually helped us protect ourselves? I believe there are instances, but I never hear about them. I think if I was more aware of them, it would really help me choose my path here and feel safer in general. Thanks for this. It's so useful.
Posted by Myra
December 25, 2007, 1:42 PM
I did not see this comment when you first made it Joe -- so I apologize for my delay in responding.
* Joe, we seem to be in agreement that women who fight back against an attacker stand a good chance of getting away (which is statistically defensible). Though I become less clear on whether or not you actually believe this towards the end of your comment.
* You start off by saying that "a women who fights back stands a very good chance of escaping a rapist" then go on to say that "there’s no shortage of stories of black-belts being beaten up and raped by untrained attackers". These two comments appear to be in contradiction. Unless these stories all involve women who didn't fight back, and their being black-belts is incidental.
* We seem to be in agreement that speed and determination are important factors in the outcome of a conflict. Though you wrap them into a point of disagreement, and are not clear on which kind of conflict you are referring to: self-defense or "brawl". "Overcome superior training in most cases" of what?
To clarify my own position, while the post is based in a discussion of self-defence, I do hold that the factors I discuss can be important determinants in any physical confrontation.
* You also seem to be suggesting that victims of domestic violence receive injuries because they're not good at "brawling". Your additional comment which implies that women are at a disadvantage because domestic violence is all punching and no grabbing seems completely fallacious to me.
Besides which, from what I understand, in physical spousal abuse many women do not engage physically at all out of fear of reprisal or escalation (on them or their children), coupled with an actively reinforced inequality where she is kept disconnected from social supports and her own self-esteem.
I wish you were correct, that "the vast majority of domestic violence cases" end with "the guy facing jail time". If you have evidence of that I'm sure we'd all appreciate you posting it here.
* We need to be careful not to muddy what we're talking about when we discuss physical conflict. You're quite right Joe, while there may be common elements, friendly sparring in a karate class is not the same as "real-world fighting" (or "back-alley bare-knuckle brawling"). And brawling is not the same as self-defence against a random assault. None of which is the same as domestic violence.
However, while I don't remember suggesting karate as preparation for "real-world fighting" (if by that you mean a brawl between idiots in an alley), I completely stand behind my comment that any physical activity that acquaints you with, and builds on your sense of strength, is one of most confidence-building activities you can engage in. And the extension of that -- that confidence, strength (physical and mental), and smarts all contribute to your actual physical safety, in any context.
Posted by Catherine
December 27, 2007, 4:13 PM
Women are taught from a young age that they are the vulnerable sex, but we have no part of us as vulnerable as testicles. Fighting back does not have to be about strength / size if you know what to do.
Posted by Nicola
January 4, 2008, 12:41 AM
"Women are taught from a young age that they are the vulnerable sex, but we have no part of us as vulnerable as testicles. Fighting back does not have to be about strength / size if you know what to do."
That's quite subjective. The testes are vulnerable in that they are easier to target than the female external genitals but an advantage of the testes is that they are highly mobile and they can even be sucked or inserted up and out of the scrotum. And yes,testes can be grabbed which would be hard to apply on a clothed vulva,but that is quite a desperate technique.
Women's ovaries can be injured by blows to the abdomen,although they are fairly well protected there,and a strike to the vulva is considered extremely painful. Women also need to wear special breast protection in a lot of sports. So while men's testes MAY be more sensitive than anything of the vulva,breasts etc., it cannot be considered much of an equalizer because:
-the testes are a few inches of tissue. Women have a lower pain tolerance and are more delicate all over the body,save for the possible exception of the groin,where they could therefore be merely delicate.
-men's greater speed and strength compensates for any perceived,relative toughness of a female body part. So when a fit man attacks a woman,it makes fairly little difference where he's gonna hit her.
Hoping for a saving cheap shot is logically similar to a mouse pointing at the vital points of a cat, ignoring the far superior powers of the cat and one's own vulnerabilities that equal out any perceived vulnerabilities of the cat. Now I'm not saying that a woman's chances of dispatching a man who knows what he is doing are as small as a cornered mouse's, but the reasoning would be similar.
Women have the relative privilege in that the male attackers are often after sex,and prefer to rape a concious woman,which is quite a difficult task. If male attackers were looking to simply beat women like they beat men,women would be in far more danger. Anyone who has been washing a resisting cat knows that it is hard to hold the animal in place even though it does not weigh too many kilos. The rapist chooses often to try and succeed in a comparable task,just against a larger being.
Posted by Nicholas
April 1, 2008, 8:12 PM
Good point Nicola.
Re: Nicholas's comment. In summary, I disagree with pretty much everything you said (obviously). Also, besides its inaccuracy, your cat washing comparison is possibly the worst analogy ever written down.
Posted by Catherine
April 2, 2008, 4:35 PM
I partially disagree with Nicola's point. I've discovered that a woman's groin area is just as much a weak spot as a man's is, although it IS harder to score a clean hit on a women's genitalia than it is on a man's. And hitting a man in the testicles will not always debilitate him completely.
And Nicholas ponted out every misconception possible about women's genitalia as a target. Well, almost. (didn't anyone else find it cool that the two posters were named Nicola and Nicholas?)
But as for the whole power thing, I will say that the strongest of my friends is about 5'1" and she weighs about 110 lbs. So yeah, I see Catherine's point.
The only thing in the article that I must comment on is the way you said women have adrenaline and self-preservation instincts. Now, you probably didn't mean it this way, it's probably just me interpreting it wrong, but you made it look like men don't get adrenaline rushes or have no self-preservation instinct, which I must disagree with first hand.
Anydangway, all in all I found that this was a well-written, informative and, to a certain exten, inspiring article, and that this can apply to anyone, male or female, 100 lbs. or 300 lbs. so we can all cut to the chase and say: "Humans are all equal. Now, who's up for a soda?"
Posted by Matt
June 15, 2008, 8:03 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.