Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Sheepdog Strategies

As we left the chiropractor's office, my wife told me about her conversation with the doctor. "I told him that we were going to jujitsu class. He said, 'Why do you need jujitsu? One look at your husband and anyone would leave you alone.'" Then he added that jujitsu would help her back.

Although I found the doctor's observation flattering [I was a somewhat less "portly" fellow in those days], I also immediately recognized the flaw in his reasoning. I was not and could not always be with my wife or children to protect them.

Any Christian Martialist sheepdog will know what I'm talking about. You are always alert and ready to protect the lady or ladies in your life. But you cannot always be there when she is vulnerable.

If the woman in your life thinks that self-defense (including the use of firearms) is not for her, your frustration is increased. The more you try to interest her in her own protection, the more she resists.

I'd like to build a few posts under the title of "Sheepdog Strategies" that address the problem of how to protect your family when you're not there. Your ideas and experiences are welcome. (Comment, please!)

Continued in "Sheepdog Strategies, 2"

11 comments:

Stephen Boyd said...

I could understand teaching women a few unarmed defensive techniques, but do you think it is necessary for them to take a whole martial arts class?

Gravelbelly said...

If they resist the idea, all attempts to train them in self defense will be fruitless.

Question for you. Should they be defenseless unless the males in their lives are around? Should they just dial 911?

This is a complex issue, and I'm opening it for discussion precisely because I don't have all the answers. Although . . . I may have one or two.

Stephen Boyd said...

In a self-defense situation, we should not rely on the police.

As someone once said, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I definitely think women should be trained in the use of weapons, I just don't know if it is right for them to invest time and energy learning a martial arts system.

I do hope that you don't think that I am "getting on to you" for allowing your wife to do this!

I simply don't know and this is something I have been thinking alot about recently.

Gravelbelly said...

No offense taken. I am interested, however, in your reasons for saying that it's "not right" for women to "invest time and energy" in martial arts.

As #5 would say, "More input," please.

Stephen Boyd said...

As I see it, a man's body is designed for fighting. A woman's body is designed for bearing children. When I said, "I just don't know if it is right for them to invest time and energy learning a martial arts system", I meant that it contradicts purpose of design.

Does this make sense?

Gravelbelly said...

A mother bear's body is designed for bearing cubs, but that does not preclude her from defending them (Prov.17:12)

Yes, by design, most women will be smaller, lighter and weaker than their attackers. Should we further hamper them by denying them expertise in techniques that could help even the field?

This is not to say that in the ordinary course of things women should be the first line of defense, but orcs generally choose them as victims when they are alone & apparently vulnerable.

Theresa said...

Stephen,
I would say that a woman's body was designed to be able to help man in taking dominion over the earth. Childbearing is one very important aspect of that that ensures future generations to carry on the God given work.

Your current view is common in some Christian circles, and a perhaps unintended consequence is that a woman who is strong and practical is made to feel unfeminine. I believe that a woman who can squash bugs, shoot straight, discern the difference between a panhandling schtik and a pre-attack inquiry, carry around a toddler half the day, and back up her husband or father in any situation is feminine indeed. This is not to dis the woman who cannot do these things. I can only assume that God has matched the woman who is squeamish about chicken plucking with a man whose calling does not involve plucking chickens.

Regards,
Theresa

Raquel said...

As a female...

If I'm walking down the street and get attacked I'm not going to have a firearm with me. (Concealed carry is illegal where I live.) I'm unlikely have a knife for a combination of reasons including the fact that there seems to be a vast conspiracy against including pockets in women's clothing.

If I do get attacked then I have all the same issues of panic, freezing, adrenaline stress, etc, that a guy would have to deal with, except possibly more so in my case, which means I need to be able to respond automatically without having to think about it. Now, I might use different techniques than a guy would, tailored to my size and body build, but I'd still need to be skilled in them.

I do agree that years of a traditional martial arts class doesn't necessarily help with this, but limiting us to 'a few techniques' seems...arbitrary.

This comment ended up longer than I planned; hopefully it's it least interesting. :-)

Raquel said...

I managed to crosspost with two other comments. Apparently I type slowly. :-)

Stephen Boyd said...

Ladies, I sincerely hope that y'all do not think me dis-respectful in my comments! I appreciate your responses especially.

I guess this is what I'm trying to define in my mind: The difference between a feminine lady who is able to protect herself and the macho woman who is trying to take over the world. When Theresa said that the common idea was , "a woman who is strong and practical is made to feel unfeminine", I think this is probably because this is the image of most feminists. I completly agree that a woman can be strong, practical, and feminine. A good example of this would be the women who stood alongside our Scots-Irish forefathers.

What do y'all think? Can y'all understand where I am coming from?

Theresa said...

Stephen,
I did not think you were disrespectful, and I appreciate that you are working to define femininity Biblically, and not by ruffles and lace and a pretty face. No,the Bible defines authentic womanhood starting with the fear of the Lord. The feminists may try to stake out strength and practicality, but God claimed it for His daughters first. Read Proverbs 31! (This passage is written specifically to unmarried young men looking for a true woman to wed, btw, not married women as 1,000s of women's bible studies seem to think). "She girds herself with strength, and makes her arms strong....strength and dignity are her clothing"
Regards,
Theresa