Commenting on the posts before directed at my former post...
Yes, I completely understand that statistics and common physiology are not in my favor, as a woman. Yet, I just can't stand the over-generalization there is about women protecting themselves.
If those two "trained" women are still able to be overcome more than 3 times out of 10, then they are using the wrong tactics against that situation and assailant. Ever heard of PPT? Very strong without needed strength.
Taking out the testosterone calling, no offense, but it doesn't have to be how
hard you strike your assailant. The most important factor in the equation is
where.
There are so many pressure points that are open, "even for a woman", on both sides of the body that will bring an assailant down. Doesn't have to be a mighty lion punch, just fast enough to make contact and move. Betcha any girl can punch faster than a guy can. I didn't stay harder, I said faster. (shorter arms, less mass, more detail-oriented)
It's not a matter of a woman being able to knock the guy out and then stand upon his unconscious body beating her chest letting out a mighty Tim Allen roar. It's getting the space needed to get to either the neighbor's, your weapon, whatever plan you have in place to better defend yourself. Men would do just as good in the same situation. But, for some reason, society will tag you men as a wuss for not knocking the guy out.
Sad, really. I come out with less bruises but just as successful, but still we are downplayed as being the maidens in distress in needed of a knight's rescue.
Bleck......I hate that.
You know, maybe if the "other" gender would give the general population of women a little more credit for what we are able to do, rather than not able to do, it would motivate more women to learn the
correct tactics on how to handle a would-be enemy.
I'll stand by Annie Oakley's words..."Anything you can do I can do better."
And, if I can't at this very given second, I'll bet you my last dollar that I'll find a way how.
Shan