Vie Sauvage et Survie
Techniques et savoirs de survie => Survie en milieu urbain => Discussion démarrée par: ** Serge ** le 27 juin 2010 à 11:01:46
-
http://progressivedefence.com/articles/war-on-mars-and-venus/
War on Mars and Venus – The differences in the anatomy of male and female violence
By Joe Saunders
I’m all for equality and inclusion. I’m all for equal rights and respecting everyone as an individual. I firmly believe that a woman is capable of achieving anything a man can, though she may have to use different methods. However, it would be inaccurate to say there are not dramatic differences between men and women on a physiological, psychological and emotional level. Nowhere is this more evident than in the study of real world violence.
Quite simply, men and women fight very differently for very different reasons.
Before I go any further, let me clarify that I know there are always exceptions to every rule. There will be women that fight the same as men, and men that fight like girls – I’ve even worked with a couple. However, one of the core tenants of my training methodology is to prepare for probability, not possibility. Thus, let’s look at the majority.
Male vs. Male violence
The vast majority of physical altercations the average civilian male will get into in his life time are ego-based. Of course, if he is a soldier, police officer, corrections, security, etc., this may be different, but let’s deal with the average guy in an average job. From the pre-pubescent dust up in the school yard over hurt pride, an errant insult or just to see who is tougher – right through to the thirty-something bloke that finds himself in an altercation with a bouncer on his Friday night after work drinks. It’s all about the imaginary concept of “face” and the lengths we go to, to save it.
If you’ve ever watched one of these ego-driven fights unfold, you’ll notice there’s a lot of posturing involved and usually very little in the way of intent to seriously injure. They will both puff themselves up, maybe push and shove, yell profanities at each other and eight times out of ten their friends will come and conveniently pull them apart. Face saved. Neither man lost, and both “defended their honour”. However, when the friends aren’t there to separate them, eventually someone has to commit to either walking away or throwing a punch. It is nearly always a right roundhouse (or haymaker) punch, even with those that are left handed. Either the recipient drops, throws punches back, or they end up in a wrestle. Eventually someone ends up on the ground, maybe takes a kick or two and the fight is over. Damage is normally superficial. Serious injuries and fatalities do happen, but they are largely accidental and due to secondary impacts or pre-existing medical conditions.
If this seems highly ritualised, that’s because it is. If we step away from humans for a second and look at the animal kingdom, you’ll see the exact same patterns play out. When a young male brown bear gets sick of the alpha male in the pack getting all the attention, occasionally there will be a challenge. It is about pecking order and group hierarchy – it is about ego and “face.” However, very rarely will these two males actually fight to the death, despite it being readily apparent that they both have the ability to kill the other. Instead they will pace, growl, stand up on their hind legs and try to intimidate each other. Often, this is where the battle ends as one bear will accept defeat and walk away. If they do engage, it becomes a stylised wrestling match with some clawing and biting. Eventually, one will submit. Just like in humans, the injuries are normally superficial and both bears will resume their place in the pack. Fatalities do happen, but they are in the minority of cases.
So, why does the dominant bear not kill the submissive bear? Why does the ram, after losing the clash of skulls with his superior, not circle back around and bury his horns into the other’s ribs? It can, in simple terms, be considered an evolutionary safety switch. If we think about our primitive ancestors, these kinds of battles almost certainly occurred. However, largely they would have been between members of the same tribe – tribemates that would rely on each other to assist with hunting and warfare when the time came. If they killed each other over the right to mate, or a perceived slight of character, the whole tribe would suffer. And thus the safety switch is there ensuring that once “face” has been saved, once the ego has been sufficiently boosted or knocked down a peg, the violence stops.
We really haven’t evolved that far – young men will still fight over girlfriends, over insults, over tribal allegiance (although this is another matter with different psychology) and over hierarchy in a group. The safety switch doesn’t always save lives, but it is still readily apparent when watching these fights play out.
Female vs. Female violence
Women do not tend to fall into the ego battle quite as much as men. In years gone by it very rarely happened at all, but I have to say in recent years I have seen a disturbing increase in senseless violence amongst women. Still, let’s deal with the majority for the time being.
Again, looking at our neighbours in the animal kingdom, you’ll notice that female animals rarely fight others in the group. They may occasionally hiss at each other, but it would be extremely rare for an actual fight to break out. This does seem to run parallel with the slanging matches and sexually suggestive insults that I’ve seen and heard young girls throw at each other, without an actual fight ever materialising.
Why is this? The answer can once again be found in evolution. With the exception of a few ancient civilisations, women were never the warriors. They were never on the front line. Their “honour” as such was normally defended by a husband, brother or son. Why? Some would say it was simply because physiological differences made men more adept warriors, more rugged, better designed for combat. I would argue that perhaps the reason men evolved this way is because they were expected to do the fighting. It’s a little bit of chicken and egg. Perhaps the most convincing reason as to why women were kept away from fighting is that they were, and are, simply too valuable to lose.
Even with the aforementioned safety switch, fighting still costs lives. In our primitive tribe, female lives were invaluable as without women, there were no children. Men can father as many children in a year as there are women to go around. Women, however, can only produce one. Let’s say we had a tribe of ten men and ten women, producing ten offspring every year. If we send the women to war and lose four, next year we only have six offspring. However, if we send the men to war and lose four, it is still quite possible that next year there will still be ten offspring (and happier remaining men!) So you can see how, evolutionarily, women are not designed, nor inclined, to involve themselves in meaningless conflict.
Why then, do women fight? While men fight largely as a result of ego, women tend to fight more often for pure survival. They are generally either fighting for their own lives or for the lives of their young. Whether their life is actually in danger is immaterial, it is the perception of such that flicks the switch towards violence. Think of the hopelessly drunk young girl who attacks a police officer trying to help her up out of a gutter; her perception (however skewed by alcohol) is that her safety is in serious danger and thus she attacks – the same as a lioness protecting her cubs or a mother magpie swooping school children.
Since women are not designed for ego fights, they also lack the safety switch I referred to previously. Women are much more likely to maim and disfigure during a confrontation than men are. They are not fighting with the aim of showing superiority; they are fighting with the aim to incapacitate. The term “fighting like a girl” to describe biting, clawing, scratching, gouging, using weapons and hair pulling is apt and with justification. These acts are far more common amongst women than amongst men. Whilst conflict between men seems to be more common, conflict between women tends to be more vicious.
Male vs. Female violence
Male on female violence is a topic no one really likes to discuss. There are multiple variables that appear in domestic situations, but the core characteristics of each sex remain the same. Men are normally fighting for ego (in this case, dominance) and women are normally fighting for survival.
If a man attacks a woman, he usually does so using slightly different technique to how he would attack a man. The woman is perceived to be a less threatening, less powerful target, and thus the goal is often to humiliate and dominate her as a way of boosting his self esteem. This is why we often see abusive men standing over women, grabbing her wrists, pinning her down, striking her with an open hand and threatening to choke her. It is also why these men will make their victim apologise or say degrading things during the attack. It’s about control and domination more so than damage.
A woman attacking a man, however, is normally only concerned with doing damage. In my experience on the front line, I much preferred restraining and evicting men than women. Women were far more vicious, had much less concern for my welfare and were far less predictable. In a situation where a woman has been attacked by a man, she must use this advantage and attack with maximal ferocity and maximal intent. There is no denying that men have physiological advantages over women when it comes to combat, but I firmly believe that a woman with the right mindset can use this to, at the very least, even the odds.
Progressive Defence
Self Perfection through Self-Protection ©
-
article interessant sur plusieurs points:
-une explication parmis d'autre illustrée par l'histoire decrite dans l'article sur l'agression de jeunes femmes en Afrique du Sud. (un post recent). Il semble que les hommes aient plus de chemin à faire que les femmes pour acquerir l'etat d'esprit adequat dans la pratique de la self defense.
-une notion que j'aime bien: celle du combat rituel chez les males, qu'on retrouve chez les animaux et dans laquelle existe des regles dont la finalité est de proteger le groupe. Traditionellement chez nous je pense que la lutte et ses dérivés (sambo) remplissent ce role. Plus recemment la boxe anglaise et encore plus recemment la boxe pieds-poing. En sachant que les deux dernières sont considérées par beaucoup comme déjà des sports barbares et cruels. C'est un point de vue. Mais cet article (si j'ai bien compris) met en avant le combat rituel entre male comme necessaire à la paix du groupe social, les combats de boxe ou de lutte (sports de combat en général) deviennent dans cette optique un outil et une expression de civilisation.
Et dans un sens plus large le sport en général en fait.
-
Plus recemment la boxe anglaise[...]
Fresque dite "des boxeurs" Akrotiri, Santorin environ 1500 BC
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/NAMA_Akrotiri_2.jpg/357px-NAMA_Akrotiri_2.jpg)
Nihil novi sub sole !! :up:
-
Exact!
le pugilat existait très longtemps avant la boxe comment j'ai pu oublier? Il a disparu en meme temps que les J.O. en 394 par l'empereur romain Théodose 1° qui pensait que c'etait contradictoire avec une religion monothéiste. (d'après ce que j'ai vu sur le wiki). Interessant cette relation entre la pratique de sport de combat et de sport tout court et les évolutions de société. Je sais pas trop quoi en conclure mais cette date ne correspond-t-elle pas dans l'occident au passage vers un systeme féodal? On s'aperçoit qu'il reapparait pendant la révolution industrielle. Est-ce un hasard?