The Myth of the Warrior Woman
Posted in Martial on 03/31/2009 11:07 am by Jason ParksI was part of a conversation the other day discussing the ‘myth’ of the competent female warrior. In certain circles, on the net, there is a bit of an argument raging for and against this point on what appears to be a very one sided debate.
Those who are arguing for the myth viewpoint really seem to be winning. Their arguments are logical, well thought out and very reasonable and as a result they are difficult to refute. However, I feel that there is a tiny flaw in their argument that should be addressed, mainly that the entire premise is wrong!
Firstly, warrior women are not a myth they are a matter of historical fact. You can argue as to why they can’t exist due to athletic disadvantage in light of MMA as much as you like, but there they are.
Below is a small list of some of the women recorded as matter of historical fact who could be called “warrior women”.
Wong Cong Er, Boudica, Isabella I of Castile, Maria De Estrada, Lilliard, Grace O’Malley, Amaron and Kenau Hasselaar, Marguerite Delaye, Dona Catalina de Erauso, Vishpla, Aahhotep I, Zabibi, Samsi, Tomyris, Himoko, Jingo Kogo, Mavia, Saimei and Dihya al-Kahina. Trung Trac, Trung Nhi, Tran Thi Doan, Phung Thi Chinh and Trieu Thi Trinh. Medb (Maeve) of Ireland, Aife (Aoife) of Alba (Scotland), and Queen Scathach of Skye. Queen Aethelburgh, Queen Thyra of Denmark, Hetha, Visna and Vebiorg , Sela and Alvid , Emma Countess of Norfolk, Matilda Countess of Tuscany (and her mother), Sichelgaita Princess of Lombardy, Urraca Queen of Aragon, and Teresa of Portugal.
Aristocratic ladies who led troops in seige and battle included Alrude Countess of Bertinoro, Eleanor of Castile, Queen Urraca of Aragon, Marguerite de Provence, Florine of Denmark and Berengaria of Navarre, Queen Tamara of Georgia and the Empress Maud (also known as Matilda, Empress of Germany, Countess of Anjou, Domina Anglorum, Lady of the English, Matilda Augusta and Matilda the Good). Maude de Valerie was a Welsh revolutionary. Nicola de la Haye, daughter of the castellan of Lincoln defended the town against several raids and was made sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1216.
Jeanne of Navarre led her army against that of the Count de Bar. Isobel MacDuff Countess of Buchan, Jeanne de Danpierre Countess de Montfort (also known as Jane, Countess of Montfort), Isabelle of England, Christian Lady Bruce, Marjory Bruce, Mary Bruce, Phillipa of Hainault, Lady Agnes Randolph (also known as Black Agnes), Agnes Hotot of Dudley, Adelaide Ponthiey, Jeanne de Belleville, Margaret of Denmark , Jacqueline of Bavaria (Countess of Holland, Hainault and Zealand), Jehanne la Pucelle (Joan of Arc), Isabella of Lorraine, Maire o Ciaragain, Mother Ross, Mme de Saint Baslemont de Neuville and La Maupin Lady Ann Cummingham, Blanche the Countess of Arundel, Brilliana the Countess of Harley, Alyona of Russia, Anne Chamberlyne and Anne Marie Louise d’Orleans Montpensier. Duellists included Mademoiselle La Maupin, Mademoiselle de Guignes, Mademoiselle d’Aiguillon, Mademoiselle Leverrier, Lady Almeria Braddock, Mrs Elphinstone, Comptesse de Polignac and Marquise de Nesle, and the nuns of the Yong Tai Temple.
This is a very small list of the countless women who have been recorded as taking the field, taking to pirating or who duelled with a blatant disregard for impossibility of the matter.
Now as difficult as this may be for the average martial artist to understand (both male and female) it is important to note that battle has realities that modern (often sports based) practice can never cope with but that is ok because modern martial arts are not intended to. The women in this list did understand those realities and history marks them as having done what modern sports based practitioners are debating as impossible myth. It is awfully reminiscent of the old saying that “those who say something is impossible should not interfere with those who are doing it”!
It isn’t really surprising that this kind of argument can rage, fuelled in no small part by martial artists, as most people think that martial arts can offer some qualified training. Unfortunately most martial artists don’t know the difference between sport and battle. Perhaps the easiest way to describe the difference between sport and battle is that sport is about being fair and battle is about being unfair. If we believe in the fair fight then we obviously don’t understand fighting. There is nothing fair about fighting at all. There is a statement in the Sun Tzu Bing Fa (Art of War) that says that “the Commanders of old did not demonstrate valour”. This means that they didn’t like a challenge. They got the win where they could by seeking out opportunities for when the enemy was at their weakest or by deliberately seeking out weaker opponents to attack. This is skilful war. Anything else is too risky to be a choice and although there are many instances of valour in war, these occur (in most cases) out of necessity. Individuals found themselves in unfair situations and chose to risk all so as to endure.
When women are forced into these positions there is another important element that the vast majority of martial arts and self defence training seems to ignore and that is what happens when you lose.
In sport if you lose you go home disappointed. In a brawl you might have some superficial damage like a black eye, bleeding nose or missing teeth. In a real fight injuries can be far more serious but in battle you will probably be maimed or killed. Add to this that a man may be tortured or enslaved. But for women, throughout history, they can expect to be raped, mutilated, enslaved (so that this abuse can continue) and/or killed. In battle, women cannot afford to risk losing and so they must understand their limitations far more then men. They must remain professional in their approach and avoid relying on aggression and intimidation in the way sport teaches you. How to injure or kill a man in such a way that his body doesn’t fall on you and pin you, how to prevent him from using his (supposed) physical advantage (because its only an advantage if he can use it), how to prevent capture, how to use his rage, lust or bloodlust to your advantage and most importantly how to fight like a woman and not like a little man. These skills are completely alien to the vast majority of martial artists, male and female but they are vital for a “warrior woman”.
I love martial arts, but it’s a man’s world. I really don’t think that the majority of women involved in martial arts practice are getting a good deal or even an adequate one. Perhaps instead of arguing over ‘myths’ a better topic for discussion would be ‘How to avoid dis-empowering women in martial arts training’!
Stay tuned.
03/31/2009 at 5:16 pm
Agreeeeeeeeed. Good article.
If I remember my history studies correctly (and I’m going from memory here), the
North Vietnamese had a really nasty and well trained regiment of female assassins used
for infiltration. Experience showed that, on a battlefield where stealth, patience
and judgement were key (ie any battlefield), females were suited to the job.
There are more examples in the French resistance to Nazi occupation. In fact, the
examples pop up in any situation where something more creative than “shock and awe”
methods are called for.
On that note, most modern martial arts are about “shock and awe”. Fine in theory, but
the reality of battle is different. Anyone wanting to dispute that can have a look at
the progress of continuing modern battles where “shock and awe” were well publicised
tactics. Real battle is a more desparate thing, with higher stakes. It doesn’t ever
end when the flag falls, or the ref blows the whistle. This is when it comes down to
the spirit of survival, and that isn’t gender exclusive.
It’s a wider issue than just martial artists. The same argument arises with regard to
commanders in chief. The myth is based around that whole idea of women being
“nurturers”, stemming (I’m putting this a little simplistically - sorry) from the fact
that they bear children. The idea is that they will be reluctant to send troops
into battle. I have one thing to say to that - Maggie Thatcher.
M, from Bond, would argue that she’s less likely to send troops to their deaths
unnecessarily. “I may not have balls, but at least I don’t have to think with them”.
I agree that the loudest voices appear to be winning in this debate. I don’t believe
that their claims are well thought out or logical. Outside of martial arts, it is up to
the person making a claim or offering a theory to prove that theory. As Shifu displayed,
history is full of female warriors - you don’t even have to look that hard. The other
side offers nothing in the way of proof - just anecdotal stories of females not going
so well in “combat”. I’m struggling to think of cases where a female claimed that “the
Japanese can’t build planes” immediately after viewing an airshow where the Zero was
proudly displayed, or a female who thought a winter Russian offensive would be a good
idea. In fact, I can’t identify a single military disaster that was “planned” by a
woman. Ok, you can argue that there statistically haven’t been enough women in command.
So this proves nothing - but it doesn’t look good for the prosecution - lots of
successful female warriors - no disasters.
You can argue in circles, and it goes nowhere. What is provable is that there is
historical evidence of the effective female warrior throughout history.The truth is,
good leaders are good leaders, and good fighters are good fighters. It’s a matrix of
experience, training and applied learning (amongst other things).
Nice posting, Shifu. It’s the elephant in the room that noone wants to address. A lot
of martial arts teachers put a lot of time trying to market to women. But once they are
on the floor what do you do? I guess the standard thing is to rip them off.
I need to shamelessly plug Mountain Gate Shaolin here: last time Shifu was in Canberra
(Christmas, I think) we talked a bit about how your martial art has to be able to
apply to any context. The point being, if you can’t make your stuff mission specific
when it needs to be, what good is it? Realistically, there is scope in Shaolin to be
able to use it in anything from sparring to combat operations. The point is - train
smart, follow your Shifu’s teachings, and you’ll get it. It’s worked for well over 1500
years, and it will work for you - and that isn’t gender specific.
Andrew Chalmers
03/31/2009 at 9:01 pm
wow so very intresting and also very true nice work on the artical and andrews comment nice work. So how are you doing andrew long time no speek whats been doing
04/01/2009 at 11:07 am
Thanks for the great post Shi Fu. It would be really great if you could add some links to some of the women, and to the raging debate.
I think that the reason many martial arts believe it is a myth, is because, as with religion, many martial arts basically have taken local cultural expectations of the day and enmeshed them into the martial style to maintain the status quo. It is no coincidence that many of the Japanese martial arts don’t recognise women as equals on the battlefield when in Japan itself, some schools still refuse to allow capable and worthy women to attain the black belt. It is no coincidence that many styles (particularly some European ones) only take into account brute strength, because for centuries or millennia the physically strongest _man_ would win. I think one of the strengths of many good martial arts (including many Japanese and European styles, as well as from all around the world), and certainly a strength of Shaolin Gung Fu is that there is an understanding growing that physical strength won’t win you the game. It takes skill, tactics, and overall the ability to know what works for you as an individual both on and off the battlefield. Each person is individual and has different strengths, whether they be male or female, big or small, fast or slow, and a good martial art or good martial artist should be able to easily facilitate anyone to be a great martial artist.
There is nothing masculine about martial arts, as they are fundamentally about knowing yourself completely, and being the best and most harmonious person you can be on the battlefield, but more importantly off the battlefield. With this in mind - plus the overwhelming historical evidence - the fact that there is a debate raging at all shows the utter lack of real understanding of these practitioners and how limited their practise is.
04/01/2009 at 1:53 pm
There is a great book called “The Armored Rose” (http://swordmaiden.com/armoredrose/) for women who want to fight as a fully armoured combatant (a ‘heavy’) in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism). It deals with many things - the differences in physiology and mental outlook, and the ways these can be overcome. Women _do_ fight as heavies in the SCA, at all levels of competition, and suffer the same stupid prejudices as women in martial arts. The swordmaiden website is an excellent resource for everyone involved in training women fighters, as well as the post at http://www.scatoday.net/node/4066 which lists many of the famous women fighters and powerful women in history.
I think much of this comes down to observing that there _are_ differences between men and women, but that doesn’t stop either sex from doing everything that they’re mentally or physically equipped to do. As Shi Fu says, the people saying it’s impossible should not get in the way of the people actually doing it.
Have fun,
Paul
04/01/2009 at 6:34 pm
Harmony on the battlefiend … interesting. I prefer to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of
war. And believe me, the dogs are hungry. Because revenge is a dish best served cold,
and it’s all you can eat day at the deli. Ok, it’s late and I’m quickly running out of
cliches.
I did some surfing last night (on the net - we don’t have any good beaches in Canberra),
and I came across some of the “arguments”. I use the word “arguments” because it sounds
better than coming straight out and saying “bantha poo-doo”:
The one that I’m going to go off about here is the “mass” argument. This little beauty
in logical thinking revolved around the fact that parts of the body that make up the
weaponry (arms, legs, etc) carry more mass in a male than a female. Therefor, a man and
a woman can kick and punch it out, but the man will win out simply because the woman
will break first. The argument was backed up with the dubious observation that many
smaller women don’t have the bone mass to break a man.
This will make sense to fans of wars of attrition. The rest of us prefer to rely on
that cool thing called “a clue”.
Yup. Mixed into the site are various ads for Qigong and meditation. From that, we can
assume that the person has heard of the concept of what I’ll lump under the heading of
“spiritual mass”. Whatever you want to call it (qi, chi, etc), I think anyone reading
this site will agree that it has mass, and one of the outcomes of our training should
be to develop it in some way. We can also agree that it is wound into everything we
do - combat or otherwise. Most of us have been hit by a variety of people, and have
noticed that there is a differnce between them that can’t be explained just in terms
of differing bone and skin densities. I tend to see the technique or arm or leg or
whatever as a delivery method - like in missiles - it isn’t the missile as such that
you have to worry about - it’s the warhead, and you never know what type of warhead it
is until it blows up in your face. There’s conventional and non-conventional, but
let’s not go there now.
It’s a pretty foolish trap that so many martial artists (and many spiritual leaders)
fall into. They hammer the fact that stuff is imeasurable and elusive, but then try to
measure it.
I think that Shifu opened a big can of worms in this posting. It goes to the heart of
addressing the real problem - ignorance. That can needs opening and throwing in the
bin, because it’s a couple of hundred years past its used by date and starting to smell.
I’m interested to see where this thread goes. Most people studying martial arts for
some time will have come across it in one form or another - too fat, too skinny, too
much muscle, not enough muscle, too dump, too intelligent, too short, too tall …
It’s good that this is out, because, apart from being something worth discussing, it
also indicates that the members of this organisation are not going to tolerate that
sort of behavior.
04/02/2009 at 6:49 am
@Andrew,
Hey Andrew, I think being in harmony with everything happening around you is _vital_ on the battlefield. I’m not talking harmony like kittens and flowers
If you aren’t in harmony with everything happening around you, then how can you be aware of yourself and your opponents (and the battleground, and the weather, and the outcomes, context, etc, etc) such that you can help gain the best outcome? The best outcome may be winning, or conceding, or getting hit, it depends on the context, which is where I believe Western thought differs wildly from older Eastern thought. I don’t think most people particularly in Western countries are able to think in a contextually senstive way. We see good/bad, right/wrong, win/lose and forget to see all the greys in between.
So yes, I believe harmony is important in battle, as it is in life
Looking forward to training together sometime soon.
04/03/2009 at 1:13 am
All good stuff I say.
Being physically stronger in a ‘me crush now’ kind of way has it’s place, but it’s not the best place. Physical strength simply won’t last that long, the muscles tire. What does the ‘superior male warrior’ do then? Strength, stamina and agility must surely be backed up by intelligence, strategy, creativity, an understanding of the enemy and a survival plan.
I think there is an arrogance that comes with thinking that if you are stronger you are better. I have been studying martial arts for over a decade now and in my experience, most men approach this topic in a superficial way. They pay lip service to the idea that a women could be an effective warrior. I have trained with a lot of different men; big men, strong men, clever men, small men and stupid men, but of all those men, only a couple have ever really demonstrated throug their actions that they believed physical strength wasn’t the ultimate achievement.
The majority of men, and unfortunately the majority of women believe that the physically stronger you are the better you are. It has also been my experience, in training and in life, that this is total crap. What makes someone a good warrior is not their physical strength, but their understanding of self. Understanding their own strengths and weaknesses, understanding their enemy, being resourceful and being honest. Maybe it’s a simplistic way of looking at it, but I don’t think that muscle mass scores high points against a knife or a gun. Warriors make the best use of what they have and if you think that physical stength is the only thing that counts you need to get out more, because it has nothing to do with gender.
End rant.
04/03/2009 at 2:25 am
Pia
No problem. I just wanted harmony, or what it means for you, explained. I have an issue with the use of words like “harmony”, “battle”, “warrior”, “enemy”, “Buddhism”, etc. The reason being that the terms have been so abused that they no longer have any meaning. The Americans call their version of the “Unknown Soldier” the “Unknown Warrior”. Debate raged in Australia in military circles at to whether we should adopt the same term. Luckily, we didn’t. For a number of reasons. A soldier isn’t necessarily a warrior, and you don’t need to be a soldier to be a warrior. For most of us, the term warrior implies some sort of spiritual element, with ethics and honour coming into it. Soldiering can be a very differnt thing. Not to mention the fact that many dictionaries define “warrior” as “one who makes war”. That makes sense in the strictest sense of the word, but historical usage has attached so many meanings that it becomes a little ambiguous.
I agree with your definition of harmony, but I didn’t know that at the time, and I don’t like to assume. Hence the “interesting” comment, because I knew you’d elaborate. Thanks for that. Your “kittens and flowers” analogy would be funny, if it wasn’t so true. The term “harmony” has been pretty much been taken over by pacifists. I don’t see the term as being liked to pacifism, but popular usage disagrees with me.
Which actually brings me to something that has bothered me about the entire martial arts community for some time. Language evolves, but apparently it doesn’t in the martial arts community in general. Mountain Gate offers something that is pretty rare - honesty. It also offers an evolutionary practice. Part of this is evidenced by the fact that Shifu has come up with original terms that describe the practice better than existing “traditional” or “classical” terms. “Restorative Learning” is one of those. There’s honesty - everything you need to know about it is in the title. I like this line of thinking - coming up with our own terms that are honest and are more descriptive of what we’re trying to do than popular terms.
Back to the actual topic: we’ve established that women cop a raw deal, but what is to be done about it? I see part of MGA’s mission as redefining martial arts - in practice and terminology. It’s a discussion that Shifu and I (and others) have been continuing for about the last 15 years. Before any of us graded to black belt under Shifu, we were required to submit a detailed description of what we wanted that belt to mean, and what we should be. Part of the examination was displaying that you actually became that person. This exercise is one of the best tools that I’ve come across in MGA. It forces people to actually think about what they came for, and take some ownership of it, rather than just go through the grading motions.
The ongoing challenge for everyone is to define and constantly re-define what they want from their practice. That leads to creation and out-creation. Sadly, the “myth” of the female warrior isn’t restricted to females - it’s everywhere. For anyone who has done the exercise, it isn’t as easy as you might think. Reading my first attempts, I realised that in 10 pages I hadn’t captured the totality of what I wanted. If I couldn’t explain it in a way that I could understand myself, then I’d get exactly that: non-descript “stuff”. In the end I did it, and it was less than 10 pages. Others did it in 1 page with real clarity. We all got what we came for. We could also see in black and white where we fell short.
We can talk about the past with respect to historical training problems - that’s the starting point. But, as a young organisation populated by people who want to hammer out issues that matter to them, led by the calibre of Shifu, we have the opportunity to fix it. When we get to the heart of it, what we are all trying to do in our training is redefine the “warrior” by finding out what it means for us - male or female. I belive that it will be different for everyone. In that regard, there is space in the practice for everyone, and gender ceases to be a big picture issue. There’s nothing more boring than us all being the same.
So I’m curious. Throw it up there - what does this “warrior” term mean for people? And are we warriors now? I’d say yes - “warrior” isn’t an endpoint - it’s something you are, whether beginner or advanced, and the fact that a person continues to keep searching stands for something. By throwing it up there, another term, one that is unique to MGA, will probably present itself.
Keep the provocative posts coming - it’s far more fun.
04/03/2009 at 10:00 am
Hi,
I thought I’d mention some other warrior women from my history lessons; the Goths. When the Goths went into battle, the warriors’ wives would fight along side their husbands (life partner, whatever) bare chested to distract the enemy. The warrior women were given the same rank as their husband, but if they went into battle alone, they were not given any rank. This wasn’t because they were seen as inferior, but because they were seen as unpredictable and free spirited; a lethal weapon on any battle field. They typically wielded smaller blades than the men, but this allowed them to strike much quicker and with more grace. A soldier challenging a Gothic woman on the battle field soon found himself bleeding to death before he even had a chance to land a strike.
Speaking of harmony on the battle field, I thought I’d mention the martial arts of some of the most furious warriors ever met in battle; the Vikings. While travelling, Vikings would ‘meditate’ by becoming ‘harmonious’ with their surroundings; they would look in every direction and focus on every sound and every sensation and mutter these experiences to themselves; soaking in everything possible. I’m talking every tree, every animal, changes in terrain; the lot. When it came time to do battle, they were so comfortable with their surroundings, they could fight with extreme rage and fury, yet still react to every change or command in an instant. Their mind focused on the field, while their fury focused on the fight.
I know this probably doesn’t have much to do with the topic, but I thought I’d brag for a moment about my ancestry.
04/03/2009 at 11:53 am
Hi Andrew! It’s awesome to hear from you.
To answer your question, “What does this ‘Warrior’ term mean to people?”…
To me, a Warrior is someone on a great quest; whether they know it or not. When I say quest, I mean something far greater than a simple accomplishment or objective. We have a primal or conscious drive towards something that urges us to grow and perfect every aspect of our existance, the existance of others and/or existance itself. This quest can encompass any number of achievements or experiences, either intentional or otherwise, but in a way, it never ends… and neither do we. Neither death nor Ragnarok stands in our way.
This is a great article and a great set of comments too!
04/03/2009 at 11:43 pm
Hi
Let me first say that though I am new to the martial arts community I am not surprised that the same attitude towards women is there as is displayed throughout history. From my studies into the warrior women of the past I have found it difficult to find much about them where as there is a smothering quantity for the men.
Fact: Warrior women exist in all cultures, all time frames and men try to hide that fact.
Example: Joan of Arc was burned at the stake as a ‘heretic’ (She was later canonised by the church that put her to death) and the French King who owed her his crown abandoned her.
As the previous posts have stated men do have physical advantages over women but women have other advantages over men.
These advantages are part of our design, part of what makes us women.
Yes there are the things that get joked about like women can multi task and men can’t but some men can do that. Im talking about other things, as was mentioned women couldn’t afford to loose so they had to be clever and think things through and plan carefully in order to be assured of victory to avoid the consequences but there are also other things that drive women into battle.
History has shown that women will go into battle simply to support their partner in any way that they can (very dutiful wives weren’t they?), but there are also others who had different reasons.
The Amazons for example, though extremely romanticised through myth and legend, did exist but at the time were not known as “Amazons” that name was given to them by the story tellers. There are many thoughts about their basis but all centre on a tribe who, for one reason or an other, were deprived of their fighting men and the women had to defend themselves, found out they were good at it and trained all the women as warriors as well as the men.
Women have what we call maternal instinct, this is a very strong drive to ensure the well being of those we are responsible for, be it our children, immediate family or those entrusted to us by circumstance. This is the driving force behind many women who went to war, they went in order to prevent harm to those they were responible for. And I know that if anything were to threaten my children I would go through Hell and high water in order to keep them safe.
But women also go into battle for revenge.
The saying “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is a very real fact.
To prove my point I draw upon a woman who is touted as a warrior queen who faught to free her country, this is how she is remembered.
I speak of Boudica.
In reality she and her husband lived in harmony with the occupying Romans until they crossed her. For reasons unclear the Romans broke the truce, murdered her husband, raided her home and raped her and her two daughters. Boudica was out for blood and in the process she almost succeeded in freeing Britain from Roman rule, she was bested by an experianced general who resorted to sneaky dirty tactics in order to face an army that would have otherwise turned his army into fertilizer. War just aint fair.
As many generals discovered if you stimulate a woman’s desire to protect her charges, back her into a corner or give her a bloody good reason to want you dead you better look out because women are dangerous.
Elizabeth the First ruled in a time where the ‘known’ world was arrayed against her but England survived because it was her baby, she used and inspired the resources at her disposal and successfully defeated her enemies.
This being all fair and honorable thing that is so dominant today does disadvantage women in combat against men because it is not REAL, by that I mean it is not an accurate reproduction of battle where all things are equal. There may be exceptions as with the Society of Creative Anacronism, but from what I know in most circumstances there is no leeway for anything other than perfect reproduction of what you have learned. This gives no room for the inventiveness that women need to apply in order to combat the brute strength of men.
I say this to those who believe women warriors to be myths, come to my house, threaten my children and see what happens.
I know for a fact that my husband will complain because I didn’t leave anything for him except for maybe scraping leavings of idiot off the floor.
04/04/2009 at 1:50 pm
As much as I hate to do it, I feel it appropriate to quote Bruce; “there’s no such thing as a 90 pound weakling tossing a 250 pound giant”.
Downplaying physical strength and fitness in what is essentially a physical contest is a dangerous and naive cop out. I don’t give any credit whatsoever to feminist martial artists’ justification through denial bullshit that is all too common. Identifying a weakness, and justifying it through devaluation of the lacking quality is about as tactically stupid as it gets. Discrediting strength and the like simply because it does not come naturally, or they are indicative of, and associated with men, or not associated with women is akin to ignoring blitzkrieg because it was used with great success by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. Likewise don’t promote agility or technique etc, simply because they are stereotypically associated with successful women combatants, or perhaps more accurately held up as the answer to defeating physical strength. They both provide combative options, but can not work in isolation, although;
As Pia pointed out “[European styles] …only take into account brute strength, because for centuries or millennia the physically strongest man would win. This is something to think about.
If we assume that the ‘strong man, weak, woman’ paradigm (which seems to be a theme for this thread) holds, then for the same ‘bang for buck’ women generally need to excel technically at a level which is far greater than that of the stronger, presumably larger man, to compensate for the differences in physical ability. Few women do. If you’re a 50kg woman you’re not going to have a picnic of combat unless you’re utterly brilliant, or conducting a brutal guerrilla campaign against the Smerfs. Most women are not brilliant martial artists, but some could be. Shifu is correct in saying its a man’s martial arts world and as such men have set the standard which women must meet. Martial arts, like warfare is an interdependent game. Sure there are elements which are an uphill battle, it may not be fair, but ultimately (if we are to engage in the ‘a real warrior is…’ circle jerk) isn’t this what warrior-hood is all about - Confront?
Most women start this process on the back foot. Firstly many women do not believe in their ability to defend themselves, which initially is a good thing because they can’t and they are under no illusions about going for ten with Rutten. However this becomes a very large hurdle to overcome in training to achieve a basic level of combat ability and confidence. Physical strength is intimidating until you have the technical understanding to negate it. And some men believe that they will prevail over the weaker woman. Essentially they are having a psychic agreement. Secondly, i believe this has been covered, the costs for for women are higher, which adds pressure and distraction. Thirdly there are very few societies on earth where warrior women are part of their national psyche. This places the mass of history, and social norms against the woman practitioner. Whether this is just or not it irreverent, it’s the reality we have to work with.
Certainly muscular strength has its limits, but for a fight to continue until physical strength is exhausted seems a little optimistic for the defender and certainly doesn’t translate well into a workable strategy. Especially for women. Attrition against a stronger, possibly larger opponent seems risky given strength and size both add hugely to the ability to physically take punishment - they hold all the cards. Take someone like Chalmers, who can squat maybe 90+ kilos in reps. That’s enough pile drivers to ensure you have time to walk off, drive home and enjoy a large turkey sandwich while the bin-men are still looking for teeth.
Muscle mass, may have little to do with defence against weapons, but at the very least it places tissue between a blade and vital organs, at best it provides an option for disarmament through muscular tension. Nor is understanding of self, enemy resourcefulness and honesty necessarily going to save you from a hot and sweaty Harrison Ford having a bad day, or PROM-1 APMs.
Although these are largely semantic points unless you carry a knife or gun or anti-personnel mine for personal defence.
But muscle mass and strength unquestionably does provide endurance, and options for insertion survival, evasion, resistance and escape. The circumstances that facilitate combat and survival after combat. They also allow more room for error, and the ability to take more punishment that an equally qualified smaller person. These skills, peripheral to combat, are if anything more important.
There has been a lot of talk like ‘it’s really about skill and tactics and strategy and knowing yourself, and loving yourself’ etc., to the detriment of physical ability, and just putting your fist through someone’s face. In perhaps more cases than the traditional martial arts community would like to believe strength and aggression and surprise count for more than than they would be comfortable with. Not to discount strategy, but how about developing strength as a strategy for combat? Or how about knowing yourself and not going into combat in the first place, as a strategy for survival?
Physical strength is a tremendous advantage. It doesn’t necessarily make you better, but at the end of the day all of this has nothing to do with who’s better, or who’s a good warrior, or good person, or what’s fair. It’s about who walks away.
Ultimately though characteristics such as strength, technique, skill etc. are asexual to a point. They can be used effectively by men or women, but assuming equality in technical skill, (and simply because it is a man’s world, more men have more technical skill than most women, assuming that it can be quantified) strength and endurance become deciding factors, and on average, more men will find it easier to acquire and maintain more strength than most women. Again to be a successful woman combatant statically the odds are well against you. As a woman, relying on solely on better technique or skill is a mistake. This is really like formulating a battle plan relying on Japan not having a nuclear weapons capacity. Men have comparable capacity to acquire those abilities, and some already have strength and technical precision and can fight like like a 90 pound woman who can throw a 250 pound man because they are one.
There are interesting qualities that can work to women’s favor, and should really be at the fore front of a debate about gender participation in the martial arts, or warfare (rather than strength vs skill) should be things like women having more nerve endings than men, or estrogen as a valuable hormone for dealing with massive trauma, or that women have a lower percentage of surface area where it is an acceptable outcome to take a hit. These are more gender specific issues than the differing approaches to violence discussed above.
D
@Andrew
As for the nature of a warrior, although personally I believe that the term has ceased to be useful, rather like harmony; I believe that it’s simply being here, now, with yourself, moving, breathing, and acting independently.
04/05/2009 at 2:55 am
Cool. I was wondering when guns and knives would be brought into this. I don’t want to enter in on the side of muscle is best, but I do have to make a point about this. Special operations teams around the world do weights training for a number of reasons. The obvious reason is that, when going behind enemy lines without backup, they’re carrying a lot of stuff, tabbing possibly 50-100km a day. That stuff can be a 60kg pack.
Most people won’t be doing that on the way to the car from the ATM. One of the other reasons for weights is that mucle mass does score points against a gun or knife.
1. It decreses recovery time and increases the chances of a better recovery.
2. Muscle mass isn’t dead weight - it’s working muscle. The more there is, the more redundancy is built in. Anyone who has squatted around 100kg will know that there are a lot of supporting muscles contributing - the stronger those minor muscles are, the more likely they’ll be able to assist in supporting your weight if a major part of the muscle is damaged. If hit in the leg by a small calibre round, supporting muscles can enable someone to escape, and in some cases people have kept fighting. I’d prefer it if nobody comes out with the rediculous claim that it won’t help you if you’re shot in the head - nothing will (except maybe a helmet, and that’s debatable) regardless of how big or small you are. It’s also worth remembering that, statistically, a lot of people get shot or stabbed - a surpisingly small amount of them die. Guns and knives are not the easy option for the untrained - they require skill and training or they are more threat to the user than the target. The chances are that you may survive, and you want the best chances.
3. If captured by “outlaw” states who don’t care about UN conventions relating to the treatment of prisoners, there’s a good chance they’re going to get cut up while tied to a chair. Usually, while waiting to be given the good news formally by the professionals, they’ll be beaten and kicked by squaddies while tied up. Fighting back might result in some teeth being removed or a red hot poker being stuck somewhere it shouldn’t. Accounts I’ve read have actually been worse, and they have survived.
In this instance, your ability to block, punch, kick, whatever, is no longer an issue. Survival is, and survival can come down to your ability to take unthinkable beatings and torture simply through willpower and the amount of redundancy that is built in.
SAS troops captured in Iraq experienced these beatings. They quickly learned to crawl into a ball and let muscular tissue take the beating. They knew that kicks to ribs and face could be fatal, so they covered them and hoped that the beating would stop before they passed out - because if they passed out they’d have no control over where they were being kicked. Mass helped in this as well.
Ok, so this isn’t going to happen to most of us (though I might point out that there are people in MGA who are thinking of lines of work in this type of area). But the point is, if we are having a discussion about “warriors”, we need to take into account the real thing.
Redundancy is one of the big issues that people raise in the “muscle bashing” camp. Redundancy isn’t a bad thing. In combat, you’re going to cop some damage. Maybe not from the drunk who picks a fight in the pub - I’m talking about the person who enjoys violence and is good at it. Redundancy helps by giving you that margin for error.
I don’t promote error. However, we’re all students. There’s always someone better, or you’re not always at your best. Whatever the case, strength doesn’t hurt. I’m not saying that it will help either, just that it won’t get in your way. And on that point about people who love violence and are good at it - many practitioners fall into the trap of thinking that it’s all about personal development. We’re into that, but there are many who put a lot of effort into learning to fight to become a better predator. Now there’s a thought - bad guy armed with Da Hong. It’s a cool form - and popular.
I used the term “muscle bashing” because that’s where this thread is at risk of going. We’ve gone from defending the concept that women can fight, to outlining the failings of muscle. The simple fact is that both are good with correct training.
Muscle can become a disadvantage if you let it. The same way that being a small woman can be a disadvantage if you let it. Shifu had me do different things including the Shaolin form 7 Star Fist to fix my stuff. He got me doing things where I had no choice but to drop the blocky thinking. He never asked me to drop the weights. I find it telling that in 15 years (probably more) I’ve never heard him advise a person that weights are getting in the way of their practice. Maybe he has, but I haven’t heard about it.
I’m not saying muscle is best, I’m just saying it isn’t crap either. It doesn’t equate that for small to be good, big must be bad. To cut to the chase, I agree with Karen - smart is best, male or female.
By the way, Daniel Baker mentioned earlier tonight that he’d posted a response. I can’t see it. I don’t know what he said. Daniel - I hope you weren’t being offensive …
04/08/2009 at 11:33 am
Daniel - “(if we are to engage in the ‘a real warrior is…’ circle jerk)”
“As for the nature of a warrior, although personally I believe that the term has
ceased to be useful”
Yep. Good call. Fun while it lasted. Look forward to the next topic.
05/09/2009 at 10:03 pm
The original point made in the article was that there is apparently a raging debate that the ‘female warrior’ is a myth - the reasoning being that women are physically weaker than men, therefore a female warrior could never beat a male warrior.
It is undeniable that in a physical conflict, physical strength is a vital aspect. What is objectionable about this entire argument is that it assumes superiority of physical strength is the only measurement of a warrior, and that the physically stronger must, by definition, be the better warrior.
As a woman training in a martial art, I am very aware that a woman must be exceptionally skilful to counter someone of greater size and physical strength amd that a woman’s emotional response to violence and conflict is very different to men. Being smaller is undeniably one of our significant disadvantages. But assuming we are talking about warriors and not drunken bar brawls, it is certainly not a “naive cop out” to point out that relative physical strength and muscle mass are not the only things that dictate the outcome of a conflict, and that it is a weakness to assume they are all that is needed (which is the view that lead to this dicussion in the first place).
As the countless examples in the above comments demonstrate, the female warrior is certainly not a myth.
The definition of a warrior is someone who engages in war. Though I admit to attaching other ideals to the term, looking around, I certainly don’t think that it has ceased to be useful.