Guest Article – Page 11 – Conflict Manager

Conflict Management and Practical Karate Part I – John Titchen

This four part series is designed to be a brief introduction to the field of non-violent resolution tactics.

Part One – Underpinning Principles

Part Two – Verbal Approaches

Part Three – Body Language

Part Four – Personal Psychology

PART ONE – UNDERPINNING PRINCIPLES

All aggressive and violent behaviours have underlying causes, which could be summarized under the headings of chemical factors and psychological factors. These are interrelated but for the sake of brevity are listed separately. Understanding and influencing these (through communication) is the best way to resolve conflict.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS

Motivating factors

These may be far more varied than the examples listed below, but can generally be categorized as immediate or primary causes and underlying or secondary causes.

Immediate causes affecting decision-making and behaviour:

Physical presence or (over-long) eye contact interpreted as a challenge, overly alpha or beta male body language, a push or stumble into a person, the spilling of food or drink, a vehicle accident, peer pressure, denial of a perceived need.

Secondary causes affecting decision-making and behaviour:

Family or work stress, suppressed anger (generally linked to the former but inhibited by potential consequence), racism or social/political beliefs, past experiences, peer pressure, the role and acceptability of violence and aggression in both upbringing and normal social environment, fatigue, past success in achieving aims through aggressive or violent behaviours.

Inhibiting factors

These could be categorized as physical and social factors.

Physical factors:

The relative sizes of parties involved, perceived strength and ability of the other party, the ‘known quantity’ of the other party, body language, perceived alertness, company (of either party), immediate consequences, likelihood of injury.

Social factors:

Peer reaction – acceptance or alienation, legal and family or work repercussions, the social acceptability of aggression and violence within the individual’s social group.

Through positioning, body language, listening and using appropriate tone and speech the underlying aim should be to attempt to reduce the individual’s motivation to continue to use aggression and possibly attempt violence, while strengthening their inhibition against such approaches.

CHEMICAL FACTORS

Drugs

Alcohol or other substances weaken inhibition and can reduce awareness and comprehension. This will affect the ability of another person to influence the individual’s motivation and inhibition.

Underlying medical conditions

Due to a pre-existing health condition the other person may not necessarily be on the same ‘operating system’ as everyone else and may not respond in the same way.

Adrenaline

Aural and visual exclusion along with other side effects of adrenaline may hinder communication and attempts to influence the individual’s motivation and inhibition.

It is unlikely that there is much that you can do once an incident has already begun that will mitigate underlying chemical factors. If spotted early enough then the effect of drugs such as alcohol can be reduced by slowing absorption into the blood stream by providing food and withdrawing further alcohol (if safe to do so), but these are factors that are largely outside your control.

It is important to be aware of the role of chemical factors as ‘tipping points’ in an individual’s behaviour patterns. Whether they are part of the primary or secondary cause of the problem they may lower the probability of a successful non-violent de-escalation.

The Other School to Prison Pipeline – Malcolm Rivers

It started like it always had: words exchanged between two parties, all part of rituals of posturing and dominance. The dispute followed the conventional script but ended rather abruptly. Uncharacteristically, the usual aggressor seemed to flare up and, for once, declined to take the conflict to its natural conclusion. This time he had a plan.

He waited. The routine was consistent and well established: we spent the first hours of the day in one location, walked them in lines to use the bathroom, and then brought them to lunch. Despite our need to supervise, policy required us to wait outside the bathrooms. It was at that point that I heard the thumping.

The sound was loud but so muffled that it took me a second to register. By the time I’d decided to ignore protocol and made it through the door, grunts of pain and exertion joined the thumping. The two of them were in the stall, one slamming the other’s head against the wall. He’d sat on the issue for several hours, waiting for an opportunity to get make his move without interference.

He’d set it up perfectly, like a pro, and at only 7 years old.

The assault wasn’t even the issue. Though it’s troubling that one second grader had set up another for a carefully planned and executed beating; factoring in witnesses, transition points, and even rules that prevented us from intervening; the bigger problem is what happened afterward: nothing. The boy had followed through on a premeditated assault and there were no consequences or changes; nothing happened. He’d learned, at an impressionable age, that what he’d done works.

Every day in schools all over the country students, staff, and families have similar experiences. Students use violence against each other or staff members; destroy property; and much, much worse and nothing happens. The problems with this dynamic are numerous and complex but there is one central element that supersedes the rest: the bait and switch that society, through the education system, subjects students to. Students spend as many as many as 12 years being conditioned to believe that the system doesn’t have teeth…until it does.

I’ve spent the past 14 years working in education in a variety of capacities. I’ve been a teacher’s assistant, mentor, tutor, coach, teacher, intervention specialist, contracted guest instructor, and professional development director. I’ve worked with, taught, coached, or mentored at every grade level. I’ve had some incredible experiences throughout, but my time as an elementary school teacher in a predominantly poor, low performing school in one of the worst school districts in the country was probably the most challenging and definitely the most illuminating.

For many kids, their first contact with outside authority arrives in the form of school staff. Teachers, principals, counselors, and coaches form students’ baseline expectations for extrafamilial authority in their formative years. When the school environments condition them to believe that those extrafamilial authority figures had no power to provide real rewards, or real consequences, they learn an extremely dangerous lesson that is repeated, for years, until they encounter other, more emphatic, authority structures like the criminal justice system.

Students as young as kindergarteners went on destructive rampages in school only to be ignored or placated. One young boy walked around destroying everything he could get his little hands on and was given a lollipop for his trouble. It worked…until the next day when he, understandably assuming breaking things was the easiest way to get free candy, shattered a window. He’d learned that most of the time, especially for the students with extreme behaviors, the school couldn’t or wouldn’t do very much. The only real leverage schools had was directly connected to what parents would do to deal with their children’s behaviors. So, when parents did nothing or even encouraged disruptive, destructive, or violent behavior, the school was left in the lurch: stuck with a student they had no leverage with and a family that would do nothing to help. I saw repeated cases of violent or destructive behavior that, under any other circumstances, could easily derail their lives very early. The student who strangled a teacher with a telephone wire in third grade and nothing happened. The student who pulled a box cutter on another student and nothing happened. The students who sent a teacher to the hospital with a fracture and nothing happened. All of these students learned, consciously and subconsciously, that they could be violent and destructive and those in authority would not act or might even reward the behavior.

Much has been made of the “school to prison pipeline” the set of practices that supposedly “criminalizes” children by introducing them into juvenile and adult legal systems at increasingly younger ages. What I’ve seen and experienced was the opposite: a school to prison pipeline built by a profound disconnection between students’ actions in school settings and realistic consequences. The students I worked with were conditioned for years to believe that everything from stomping each other out to sexual assault would be met with formalized bluster and bravado but no actual consequences.

The reasons for this dynamic aren’t all that complicated: the education system is in the business of shining shit and calling it gold. Teachers, administrators, and other staff understand that many, if not most, of their efforts to address any but the most destructive of student behaviors will be met with platitudes or unhelpful nonsense, or just ignored. Many bureaucrats of the educational hierarchy, serving politicians whose only interest is the perception of an ignorant public, institute policies that hide, ignore, or placate these students, further conditioning them to believe that breaking things and hurting people are the easiest ways to get a reward or out of the classroom. These young people learn that violent criminal behavior is a safe bet, or even a good idea, and school becomes a staging area for street issues or a fun place to throw a tantrum. As soon as the students cross the threshold to the outside world their conditioning will get them hurt or in trouble.

As the education system continues to churn out students who participate in, witness, or are victims of violent behavior for years with little to no consequences, it’s no wonder than many of these young people find themselves in trouble with the law or otherwise have difficulty being productive members of society. Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of families and friends to bring children up in ways that will promote their safety and development but schools can play positive roles in keeping students from being conditioned to take dangerous behaviors lightly or at least avoid facilitating a bait and switch that sets students up for devastating consequences.

LINGUISTIC SYMBOLISM – Darren Friesen

“They’re just words.” Words and their symbolic meaning can have a profound effect on the receiver, one that may not at all be intended by the messenger. We all have our own individual life experience and frames of reference and those uniquely individual experiences can change the way we take in meaning, unique from others. Words like ‘defense’, ‘defend’ or ‘self-defense’, ‘counter’, ‘reaction’ and ‘block’ when turned into ‘greater aggression’ or ‘overwhelming response’, ‘pre-emption’, ‘action’/’counter-action’ and ‘destruction’ can change the entire context of how one may need to utilize violence as a counter-violence measure. Simple changes in vernacular like women’s self-defense to women’s empowerment, self-defense to counter-violence, tactical response to tactical solution can drastically alter perception and therefore the mentality of how it’s absorbed and put into play.

People are innately and unconsciously affected and influenced by the term one gives them. Think of it as neurological conditioning. If, for instance, they believe it’s a strategy, they will act accordingly, that it’s neutral and effective as strategies are perceived as something with contextual positivity, an element that helps their cause. The term submission has an entirely different psychic definition to the vast majority.

For example, utilizing ‘submissive postures’ in the interview phase of conflict may and can be a great tool to either de-escalate or to deliver a pre-emptive attack, context-dependent, but the issue isn’t with the concept itself, but in the terminology. Submission may indeed be a form of negotiation but it is widely perceived as a negative by the vast majority in the public. If your goal is to teach someone to utilize it as a tool for mutual benefit or for persuasion purposes, your approach may be entirely correct but if it’s subliminally absorbed as something relating to weakness, loss of advantage or cowardice, it may have the exact opposite impact on them when utilizing or attempting to utilize it. It may also transfer to other areas outside of the given circumstance like a domino effect.

The point isn’t that it’s a conflict with the methodology (whatever that may be), only the importance of the title you give it as it absolutely changes the mindset and implementation of the skillset to the receiver. Inevitably, it’s not the message but the delivery of said message. The meaning is very often in the receiver’s interpretation of it, not the sender’s desired intent and that, my friend, means everything as they are the one putting the skill into play and, in our industry, it could be a high price to pay.

Take the word ‘fuck’, for instance. Adding it to “What do you want?” can turn the meaning into a far more powerful one for the purpose of creating space, both psychological and physical. How the person on the receiving end understands the intent of the question is irrevocably change and may even create a momentary shock as to the audacity. A means to an end. (and preferably not when Mom shows up at your door with a pie and 2 cups of coffee) Swearing can be a useful tool to provide an exclamation mark on intended meaning.

The reverse can be true regarding the name of your brand new shiny tactical folder, dubbed by the maker the “Headscalper 3000.” If ever actually needing to use this tool in an actual self-defense scenario (although I realize many simply do this a hobby or pastime and rarely even think of the consequences during their training of what it is they actually do) I’m sure your plea of self-protection may fall on somewhat more deaf ears with judge, jury and LE when explaining why your pet is titled so aggressively. (“Killer” the pitbull, anyone?) This goes towards all logos, school names and techniques as well. They represent you and your intent, your mission statement, if you will.

Graphic, aggressive and macho terms, for instance…what you call them may put you in legal hot water later on. Mantras can have the opposite effect in the form of empowerment if utilized correctly and with achievable aims. I see discussions end in hostility, threats and challenges to agreed-upon “violence” on Facebook almost daily now as one word’s meaning can change the entire context of digital graphology. Factor in different cultures, machismo and pride and you have a powderkeg. (Facebook is not a self-defense scenario, by the way, but don’t tell anyone)

Next time you’re unwinding and watching TV or surfing the net, pay attention to commercials and ads. Notice the subliminal words, phrases and images they utilize to manipulate (another word that CAN be beneficial to move someone toward a positive mutual outcome but that has staunchly negative connotation) you into buying their product or service. Political and social propaganda is driven by this same methodology.

For Americans, this is the perfect time for you to be aware of this: political rhetoric, subtle media manipulation, negative campaign ads, partial journalistic storytelling without context…they toy with your perception to push you towards another thought process. It is truly everywhere and it has a profound impact on how we think, what we do, our reactions to stimuli and, in this case, our ability to manage conflict or deal with violence once/if that avenue has past. Words have heavy neurological impact based on experience, emotion, trauma, euphoria, societal dictates and a host of other triggers. It truly pays to be cautious in the words you use.

The Biomechanics of Motion Part II – Jari Peuhkurinen

LINEAR MOTION AND THE SPRINTER THEORY

I have surmised that there are 5 different ways to create mass motion in order to create force/momentum;

1. Shifting weight to the desired direction where we want to deliver force.
2. Taking a step that moves our mass to the desired direction where we want to deliver force.
3. Moving our mass with a linear jump to the desired direction where we want to deliver force.
4. Rotational movement of the body. (this will be explained later).
5. Combination of these.

The sprinter theory is involved when we are producing linear forward / upwards motion. Start by thinking about the way we walk, run or jump forward. Think about the way sprinter aligns himself before explosive start or think about American football player ready to tackle and takedown his opponent. By looking our normal way of moving; walking, running and jumping reveals a lot about the economic way for creating forward motion. If we look sprinters or long jumpers accelerate their body mass to maximum speed, one could say that it reveals the way to accelerate your body mass most effectively. All movements like running, sprinting, tackling and so on, produce the kind of momentum we want to create in self-defense also. There is acceleration and velocity of mass, which give us the force and momentum.

Acceleration and velocity are most effectively developed in linear forward motion. It can be directed in straight line movements like sprinting or straight punch. Upwards movements like long jump or stepping-in uppercut. How are legs and body positioned for optimal motion development? In my opinion body alignment for the optimal motion is crucial;

1. The skeletal structure of our legs and upper body should be aligned towards desired direction of the motion. This means that head, shoulders, hips and knees are aligned. If it would be more efficient to align skeletal and muscle structure for example sideways, we would see Usain Bolt doing sideways explosive starts in the Olympics.

2. Feet-knee-hip alignment is crucial for the engine to be able to work in its maximum capacity. Muscles and joints and ligaments of the legs produce the motion. Joint alignment should support the mass we are trying to accelerate and the direction the mass is accelerated to.

3. Joints and muscles have certain angles which enable optimal muscle force production. Think about sprinting again. Would you be able to do explosive start from squat position? Or could you do it if your knee joints where locked to extension? From those positions your start would probably not be the best possible. Optimal angle for a muscle to produce force in its range of motion is in middle of that range.

In example when moving forearm in its full range from extension to flexion, its range of motion is about 145 degrees. This doesn’t put the middle of the range in 90 degrees as taught in many systems, but instead the optimal angle is less than 90 degrees. This same principle applies to knee joint also. So when we want that explosive acceleration the angles must be less than 90 degrees and most certainly the joint can’t be locked, like taught in many traditional systems.

This alignment of the legs and body and optimal joint/muscle angles enable the explosive acceleration and creation of force/momentum we need to be able to produce and deliver to our opponent. We can develop acceleration and velocity to other directions too, like sideways and backwards, but not as effectively. This doesn´t mean that those motions should not be practiced.

But there is more to take into the account when we are talking about self-defense. This sprinter theory only describes the optimal way to produce acceleration. If you want to examine the chain further up, and think about how the force continues towards you opponent you need to take into the account things like, maintaining balanced position, spinal alignment and angle, shoulder-elbow alignment, motion-contact timing, short/long impulse and so on.

I was already talking about linear forward / upwards motion, but let´s look upwards motion more closely. Let’s examine the way to produce upwards force from standing still position, which in self-defense can be used in lifting, takedowns and throws but also in striking techniques and pushing movements. The movement can be just weight moving upwards without losing the contact on the ground or a take-off, it can involve also rotational motion.

Think about weightlifter doing a squat, or yourself picking up something heavy from the ground, or just making a jump straight up in the air, any type of movement that involves creating force upwards straight against gravity. You can find that once more that, if you want to be able put into use all of that muscle force you have and produce explosive movement those alignments need to be in order.

Joints in your legs need to be aligned properly with your upper body. Balanced position ensures that you center of mass is located between points of balance and so on mass is aligned with feet-knee-hip line. Muscle/joint angle works the same way as in forward linear motion, middle of the range of movement. So again there is the same principle involved, how you align your whole body to get the maximum force out from your system and keep that alignment so that you can deliver that force and momentum to your target.

Motion downwards introduces a new physical concept into the picture; potential energy. In physics, potential energy is energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position relative to others. So basically if we lying on the ground, on our backs, we don’t have potential energy stored to our body. When we stand we have the potential to use gravity and drop our weight down. So because position of our body relative to ground we can use potential energy to produce
force/momentum.

Every time we have the possibility to use gravity as “an assistance” we can also utilize potential energy. If we raise our body upwards, or have the possibility to drop ourselves to the opponent the force will be greater.
Some arts, like ITF Taekwondo uses this in a principle called Sin-Wawe movement. It basically teaches you to raise your body straight upwards as much as you can and when you start to deliver the punch at the same time you go forward and downwards. I’m not sure about the effectiveness of this particular motion, but the principle is sound. If you can, always create motion of your body mass to the direction where you are executing your movement, be it linearly forward, upwards or downwards.

ROTATIONAL MOTION

Rotational motion occurs around axis, that can be internal, like body parts rotating around a joint(s) or rotational motion of whole body, when spine acts as an axis. In here I’m taking a look into the concept of rotational motion in whole.
There are few physics terms that need to be explained. When taking about rotational motion we are talking about moment of force and rotational momentum to differentiate them from linear force and momentum. Same difference is with terms of speed; angular acceleration and angular velocity.
Rotational motion is used in several types of movements in martial arts. Most commonly rotational motion can be observed together with linear motion. This combination was called general motion; in forward linear motion body is also rotated strongly to cover more distance and produce that extra moment of force. The motion of body mass, shifting of weight or stepping in can be combined to rotational movement in all directions; forward, sideways or backwards, also to up/downwards. Only types of movements where rotational motion is not utilized are simultaneous movements with both hands in the same direction. Example when you are reaching forward with both hands.

To understand the production of moment of force and angular momentum you need to understand the relationship between axis and lever. Make a short test; stand straight, with hands relaxed at your sides. Now imagine that there is an axis running through the top of your head straight down to the ground. Now when you rotate your body around that imaginary axis the lever is the length of your clavicle to you shoulder. If you raise your elbow to the side, the levers length increases. If you straighten your whole arm, you have the maximum length of the lever you are able to use with your hands if there is no impact weapon included.

The moment of force is a simple concept; the lever arm travels certain distance depending how much you rotate your axis. If you rotate your body so that your hand moves from side to front, that’s 90 degrees, it is called rotational displacement of π2 rad. Distance the lever travels is shorter towards the point of axis and longer towards the end of the lever. Since it takes the same amount of time to the lever (arm) to travel different distances along the lever arm, this means that there has to be a difference in velocity. In the end of the lever the angular velocity is the greatest, so the conclusion is that because mass x velocity is momentum, the rotational momentum has to be greater in the end of the lever because the velocity is greater. That’s the magic of lever.

You can probably already see the numerous ways this can be used in self-defense and martial arts. To make matter at least little bit more complicated let’s think about how we can still produce great force with shorter lever arm. Think about for example short range body shots. The lever is not so long and still we can produce much moment force. The answer lies in the other variable; mass. When striking with straight arm, the mass of the arm is not that much (mass x velocity). Now when the lever is shorter our it is easier to utilize the weight of the body. Other variable also increases when the lever arm shortens; acceleration. It is easier to accelerate shorter lever than it is to accelerate long lever and as you remember mass x acceleration is force. In the case of rotational motion; mass x angular acceleration is moment of force.

How do we produce explosive rotational motion? Again because we want to get acceleration and develop velocity, we need to be able to utilize proper mechanics into the movement. If you take a look at athletics performances where powerful rotation is used, such as javelin throw or baseball strike, they use wide range of motion to create velocity. That is not a good mechanics for in martial arts. We need to be able to create rotation with shorter range of motion and not load our strikes or kicks. The degree of rotation is between 90 to 140 degrees, put even a shorter rotation does the trick of adding force. Note that I´m excluding the spinning type of movements that can be effectively used in sport martial arts, but are not recommended for self-defense.

Powerful rotation comes from the core muscles and is combined with weight shifting in the direction of target. Explosive hip movement functions as the engine for this motion.

So what can we do with rotational motion:
1. Increase force, by adding moment force in linear movement.
2. Increase reach by rotating body.
3. Produce moment force in ranges where linear movement is not possible.
4. We can also cause motion in our opponent by rotation, same as pushing. Rotation motion is usually combined with pulling, as in Thai clinch work for example.

“STATIC MOTION”

From the point of view of physics if there is no motion, no work is being done. Still in self-defense pinning someone against a wall or ground, is work being done by muscles and bodyweight. I call this static motion. This is very useful form of producing effect in many situations.

Closely related to static motion is another principle that I call the power of locked joint, these two work together very well. If you think back about what I have explained earlier, you can see that muscles, joints and ligaments are the engine that we use to create motion. Let´s take an example; if you lock your knee joint your muscles in your thigh are in full extension. So there is no possibility for you to produce more movement forward or upwards with that leg, until you bend the knee joint and the muscles are in flexion. So the muscles are weak when in full extension and can´t produce motion, but here lies the power of the locked joint. When the joint is locked, it is strong and this can be used in various situation to our advantage. For example, when pinning opponent against stationary object we can lock the knee joint so that it remains strong and does not give in even when there is pressure directed back at us. Same goes when trying to maintain distance between bodies or opponents arm and your body. Even when opponent is significantly stronger, the locked elbow provides a strong mechanism to maintain distance.

SUMMARY
It is easy to see that understanding our basic body motion is crucial in learning martial arts and self-defense. Everything develops around motion. Every technique, no matter what style or system involves motion. How effective motion is produced in those systems or arts varies, but what doesn’t vary are the laws of physics and physiology behind human motion. Like I said there are limited number of ways we can create motion what is limited by how our body is designed and there are limited ways to produce force, because of that design.

Hidden in Plain Sight? – Mark Hatmaker

Let’s see if we can pull off a thought through-line that moves from a concept in zoology called cryptozoicism to an incident in the history of Scottish warfare, to a passage from Shakespeare’s Macbeth, to Tap-Out T-shirts and NRA stickers, and finally to some speculations on personal protection.

First…crypto-wha?

Basically it is the technical term for evasive movement or deceptive covering as in camouflage or bio-mimicry, in which a species has evolved or adapted/adopted a strategy of blending in with its environment or taking on the guise of a creature deadlier than the self in hopes of deterring attackers. We have the chameleon or octopus at one end of the spectrum blending with its environment almost instantaneously and at the other end the venomous and vibrant coral snake and the sneaky but similarly colored [and harmless] scarlet king snake and the need of the rhyme “Red and yellow kill a fellow.”

The following passage from The Outline of Science, Vol. 1: A Plain Story Simply Told by J. Arthur Thomson is probably all the explanation needed for the concept.

“For every animal one discovers while observing carefully, there must be ten unseen. This is partly because many animals burrow in the ground or get in underneath things and dip into dark corners, being what is called cryptozoic or elusive. But it is partly because many animals put on disguise or have in some ways acquired a garment of invisibility.”

Modern hunters and indigenous peoples for ages have adopted cryptozoic tactics to stalk prey, from modern camouflaged duck blinds to American Indians swimming submerged under a bundle of cattails attached to the head to snatch water-fowl from below.

It is no stretch to assume that mankind also adopted cryptozoic strategies when facing other men in battle. Despite the long period of vibrantly colored military uniforms and attacking in formation, we see cryptozoicism in modern Battle-Dress Uniforms (BDUs) and have countless tales of “stealth by disguise” being used as a battle tactic. Let’s look to one for illumination.

If we are familiar with Macbeth we will know the story of the Walking Woods of Birnam. If you’re not familiar, no worries.

Macbeth was based on an actual royal spat. Malcolm was gifted The Royal Forest upon his marriage to the Princess Ada in 1160. A portion of the Royal Forest is known as Birnam Hill. The treacherous Macbeth has designs on Malcolm and his property, and Malcolm is aware of Macbeth’s solid military skill so rather than meet him head-on he uses a strategy of camouflage to get close to Macbeth.

In Act V/scene iv Malcolm advises his men:

“Let every soldier hew him down a bough

And bear’t before him; thereby shall we shadow

The numbers of our host and make discovery

Err in report of us.”

Spoiler Alert: This bit of poetic cryptozoicism is successful.

Camouflage, bio-mimicry, and cryptozoic tactics are and have been so successful for many species, including man, for so long it is a point of curiosity that it is largely abandoned in the civilian sphere in some quarters.

I call your attention to the proliferation of Tap-Out t-shirts and other like garments or tattoos that proclaim some affiliation with martial prowess.

I call your attention to the adoption of military clothing or law enforcement tactical clothing by members of the civilian population.

I have had remarked to me by many friends in the military or law enforcement that most of the folks you see in the mall who just so happen to be wearing tactical boots or some other such accoutrement more than likely are not currently on-duty with the local police or military personal on leave. Rather they are civilians who have adopted the costume of the life-style.

I use the word “costume” for three reasons.

The first, it is correct. Any clothing we don is and can be referred to as a costume.

I also use it in the “play-acting” sense as anyone who dons the clothing or gear of a particular lifestyle is signaling that they wish to be associated with the dressed-for occupation. After all when we see a child in a Spider-Man costume we don’t assume he’s thinking Wonder Woman thoughts.

Now, to be clear I am not mocking adopting costumes, we all do it to varying degrees. We see sports jerseys and baseball hats galore on any given day and yet how many of these folks do we think are actually actively engaged with playing the advertised sport? I do not think sports paraphernalia wearers are attempting to make me think “Hey is that guy in the #12 New England Patriots jersey Tom Brady?” I think I’m supposed to assume he’s a fan and likes football.

But when we see the guy in combat boots, slate-grey cargo pants, and a clip-knife showing are we to assume cop who just got off duty? Or big big fan of law enforcement fashion?

Again, no mocking going on here—stay with me.

What may actually be occurring here [wittingly or unwittingly] is one of two things: True Signaling or Decoy Signaling.

The True Signaling Combat adopter may indeed possess the military and/or LE background we are seeing in the costume and we are simply noting an expression of that background. It is also signals “Hey, I just don’t wear the jersey I play the game.”

The strategy of the Decoy Signaler is similar to that of the benign scarlet king snake being mistaken for the venomous coral snake: “I may not be a high-speed/low-drag Spec-Ops warrior, but I look like one so watch yourself.”

In either respect of signaling there is no real value judgment applied-yet.

Here’s what we must ponder. Gang colors are also signals, often True Signals. To those unaffiliated with any gang, colors often let us know which part of town to avoid or when to cross a street. A sort of porcupine or skunk strategy.

To the affiliated, gang colors signal to members of other gangs “Ah, a target!”

Most gang members are killed by other gang members who recognize that they are gang members exactly because of conspicuous signaling.

A bit ironic and a seemingly unwise strategy.

Also ironic—military and LE tactical gear is designed to be cryptozoic, to blend in. Donning said gear outside of the environment they are meant to blend in with is the opposite of their intended purpose, which leads me to assume we’re back to decoy signaling as opposed to utilitarian adoption. A Desert Camouflage Uniform makes sense in many hot-spot war zones, but far less so while shopping at Target.

Again, I have no argument against such signaling, I myself have been gifted hundreds of t-shirts from fight gyms the world over. I’ve had the honor of being in some of these gyms for only a single weekend and I wear them not because I am “affiliated” with that gym but rather because they were gifts from kind folks, because they are comfortable, and because they are convenient. I assume that is why many such conspicuous signalers wear their costumes as well.

But…we do have to ask ourselves when some predators have actively confessed that they see such costuming as targets of first choice in spree situations [as in gang colors] is this piece of apparel always the wisest choice?

It may be, it is merely a question to be asked.

With cryptozoicism in mind, for the next week each time you encounter any costuming ask yourself what signal am I seeing here? And more importantly, examine your own wardrobe choices and ask “What exactly am I signaling?” And are there any drawbacks to the signal I provide?”

http://www.extremeselfprotection.com

Escape and Evasion – Randy King

Every self defense program I’ve seen so far has an escape protocol to it; it has some part in the curriculum that mentions that escaping is a great idea, how to escape, where to escape, and what to do. I find, though, that most people don’t actually train to escape, and this becomes quite the issue when it comes to conditioning-type training. If you are part of the relatively new school of conditioning-based training, operant conditioning, or response-based training to stimulus, it is very important that you give your students the opportunity to escape, and reward them for escaping when you’re training the drills. A lot of instructors pay lip service to escape drills – they say that you should have an escape plan, you should have an evasion plan, you should make sure you know what’s going on, you should be able to de-escalate – but then no training time is devoted to the skills of escaping, evading, or de-escalation!

What I find in of a lot of self defense programs is that they are still just a fight program. To use the paradigm that Rory Miller set up in his book Facing Violence, there are seven things that must be considered for self-defense. You need to understand the legal and ethical ramifications, you need to understand violence dynamics, you need to understand escape and evasion, you need to understand operant conditioning, you need to understand “the freeze”, you need to understand the fight, and then of course, the aftermath of all these things. On this paradigm, which I find is the best I’ve seen so far for self-defense, escape and evasion is in the first three things you need to learn! Everybody talks about it, but it seems nobody actually does it. So, when training with your students, you need to make drills where escape is the best option, and it is a rewarded option – running away is okay! Redefining a win becomes very important.

I want you to understand that most of the time, when people come to a martial arts/self-defense class, they expect to learn the fighting part of the situation. But if they’re only learning the fight part, it’s just martial arts, we’re just passing a system down. We’re just showing them that there are ways to deal with violence, but when people get into violent situations, there’s always a lead up, and then a follow up portion. Understanding the lead up to self defense situations is far more important than the self defense techniques themselves. Saying this, you might do every single thing right, you can pay attention, you can follow all the rules, you can know who the bad guys are in your neighbourhood, you can plan escape routes, you can know where the fire escapes are, you can understand where to run and how to run, you can have a great sprint time, and you can still get attacked. I’m not saying that this is going to make you invincible. Understand that there are times when the fight has to happen, but that’s not always the case, and in fact it’s rarely the case.

Getting your students familiar with the mechanisms ahead of time, making sure they understand how people attack, making sure they understand violence patterns, making sure they understand how to run, and where to run, is hyper important. It can be really hard to add this aspect into your curriculum, especially if you like the kicking and the punching and the choking and the throwing. It can be very hard to add some kind of escape drill, because maybe you feel like it’s not fun for your students, maybe you think just paying lip service to it is okay. I’m here to tell you that it’s not okay. It’s your job to build drills that use escape, or that give your students the opportunity to escape.

Something we talk about all the time is that 60-80% of human communication is body language. That includes task-based stuff, so if you say every day “Oh, and don’t forget to escape” but you never let your students physically escape, and you never wire their brains for escape, they won’t believe that escaping is a proper option. When the brown matter hits the fan, they’re going to have trouble going to an escape pattern, as opposed to an attack pattern. Attack patterns are important, but I think escape patterns are even more important, especially in the real world. Yeah, it’s great to be Rambo and beat the bad guy up, but almost every fight comes with hard-won knowledge. Every single fight you’re in, you might hurt yourself, you might break a bone, you might twist an ankle. All these things can happen, and they will affect your life outside of that fight. Most people focus on the thirty seconds to a minute of most violent encounters, where the outside surrounding part of it is much more important. So – how do you teach people to escape and evade? By building escape drills into your curriculum.

There’s only really four things you can do in a fight. You can escape, you can control them, you can disable them, or you can lose. Obviously losing is not on the table – you don’t want to train your students to lose, there’s no point in putting reps into losing. You can choose to lose, you can choose to submit, you can do that, that is fine. You can choose to curl up in a ball and get kicked, you can choose to let people do what they’re going to do to you, and that also can be a viable strategy. You may have been training them in disabling an attacker, you’ve been training them in kicking and punching, you’ve been training them how to restrain people, but you’re taking one-third or one-fourth of their options off the table if you’re not teaching them to escape.

You need to teach your students where to escape and how to escape, and how to map a pattern in time and space to get away from the attacker. You could build a drill where it’s “all right everybody, you’re going to do your counter ambush drill, you’re going to do your favourite setup and instead of going to your follow-up I want you to escape, and I want you to escape to a doorway.” The problem with this is, setting a fixed position for an escape is beneficial for the first one or two reps, but the human brain is lazy, it’s a pattern recognition machine. Its job is to create the most efficient pattern possible. As soon as you create one static place in your gym to run to, after two or three reps the brain is just going to have a pattern to do that and they’re no longer developing the skill set to escape.

You also need to define the parameters of escaping. If we’re escaping from asocial violence, we obviously want to run towards lights and people. More people means more witnesses, and more witnesses usually prevents asocial violence. Lights also mean more people that can see you. If you are trying to stop social violence, you are going to try and escape away from crowds, because if it’s social violence and I run into a crowd of people, and the other person’s trying to fight me and they’re trying to gain status in their group, the more people that watch, the better it’s going to be. So for social violence, you need to get away from the surrounding people, you need to create an environment where they’re not going to gain the social standing they need. Identifying the type of violence is a whole different article – there’s already a number of them in this publication about that. Just understand you need to define the parameters of escape, what escaping is, lights and people, or away from the people who are trying to fight you.

There is a drill I have created that rewards escape, and this is by far the drill that is most stolen from me by every other instructor who meets me, so I definitely want to give this drill to you. I call this drill the “High-Five Drill”. This is a great solution to the problems mentioned above.

For this drill, we start with a person attacking you, and you do whatever movement pattern you’re working on that day, if you’re working a pass or a sweep or a throw or whatever, doesn’t matter. After the student has done the technique, I want them to run, and they’re going to run to an instructor. Why we call this a high-five drill is very simple – the instructor is going to walk around the room holding up their hand in a high-five position, and they’re going to keep constantly changing position and moving around. This forces the student to actually look and find the person, to scan the environment so they find the safe path, and then they have to get to it. The bigger the group you’re in, the better this drill gets. The reason is you get every single person in the room doing the drill at the same time – it’s a “you go, I go” drill. So, my partner attacks me, I do whatever technique I’m working on, I put them on the ground, I do my counter ambush, etc. Then I have to scan the room and find the person who has the high five, and I have to get to that person as fast as possible in the safest way possible.

The rules of the game are simple. I have to find the quickest, safest way to get to the high five person. I have to do the high five from the front, not the side or the back, and this is for the safety of the person doing the high five, and I cannot bump or smash into any other person in the room. In this game, the other people are barriers, rather than people. In real life, you could obviously smash your way through people to escape, but for this drill these people are barriers, corners, alleys. We need to move around these “human pylons” in order to map a safe escape path.

In closing, what I want you to do is make sure your students have an escape pattern, have the parameters and goals of where to escape, and then have a training regimen that rewards the fact that they can escape, and then you’re teaching a true self defense program.

Blame, Responsibility and Agency- Tammy Yard-McCracken, Psy.D and Rory Miller

Vctim blaming. Taking responsibility. In assault, especially sexual assault, these are buzzwords that get people to quickly silo into prescribed emotional positions. We rarely find that useful.

In this article we will explore one tool for managing the aftermath of being a victim of violent crime. Our intent is not to present an emotional or political “truth”. This is about taking a situation that many people want to define by a set meaning and adapting it for the benefit of the survivor.

There are some truths we have to explore first:

1) All violent crimes happen within an interaction between the perpetrator(s) and the intended victim(s). Stranger assaults in remote places are relatively rare. Most people are victimized by people they know. There is a relationship. There is communication. The central crime is not the only piece of the interaction and the person cast in the victim role has a degree of control over the antecedents of the crime.

2) Events become violent crimes because of the intent of the bad guy. Looking at point 1— all interactions between any two or more people are interactions. Your morning talk over coffee. The stranger who struck up a conversation on the train. Your waiter taking your order. Any of those events that didn’t become violent stayed peaceful because someone lacked the intent. Bad events are bad events because bad people had bad intent.

3) The agency to affect the world exists. It is inherent in all humans. The perpetrator wants someone to play the victim role. Sometimes the disparity of power is so great that there is no way to evade the victim role. But one can choose the type of victim to be. Sometimes there is no good choice, but there is always choice.

4) Just as violent events have antecedents, they have aftermath. How the aftermath is managed has profound effects on the future of the individuals involved.

5) Mentally, humans are almost infinitely plastic. They have the power to change their views of the world and in doing so, actually change the world in which they live.

Blame, responsibility and agency.

“The person cast in the victim role has a degree of control over the antecedents of the crime.” One emotional response to this idea is that it is victim blaming. If the victim had control, he or she could have prevented it. Having failed to prevent it, the victim caused the crime. The cause of the crime is to blame. The victim is blamed. QED.

We used “QED” (quod erat demonstrandum) so the stance must be at least valid. Truth is another matter.

Our concern is not whether this statement is true or false. Our concern is that the statement is not useful, and this is key. When pointing out a person’s inherent power and agency becomes described as victim blaming, the net effect on any potential victim who listen is a decrease in agency. A decrease in personal power.

And an increase in the likelihood of future victimization

When the impact of violent crime is fundamentally a blow to the Target’s experience of control, decreasing this individual’s experience of agency and power by way of blame serves no one. Except future perpetrators preying on primed Targets.

In the aftermath of a violent encounter, you will play it over and over again in your head. You will wonder if you could have done anything different, if you could have changed the outcome. Here is the tool:

The more responsibility you take, the more agency you will have in the future.

People who have a violent emotional reaction to anything with even the whiff of victim blaming tend to have a strong reaction to this. But think it through. If someone says, “There was nothing you could have done,” this person is telling you, “There is nothing you can do in the future. If you are faced with the same circumstances again, the outcome will be the same. You might as well curl up and give up.” The message runs deep. If there is nothing you could have done, then there is nothing you could ever do. Nothing you can learn, no skill, no training, no wisdom will help you. The power belongs to the bad guys. Now and always. The statement profoundly destroys any chance at future agency, if it is internalized.

Aftermath or not, anywhere in your life, beware of anyone who discourages you from learning, growing, or training. The purpose of training is to become smarter, more aware, stronger, more powerful. If someone discourages that, they have a reason for wanting you ignorant and dull, weak and powerless. Why would anyone want you weak if they cared about you?

The opposite extreme: “It’s all my fault!” can be equally paralyzing. Fault becomes blame and blame becomes punishment. Self-flagellation is not a good place to grow from.

Mentally, humans are almost infinitely plastic. The words people use change how they perceive their choices and from the choices, possible actions. “My fault” breeds blame and self-punishment. “My responsibility” becomes an incentive to understand the variables in the precedents and increase the skills to deal with those variables. It increases agency and personal power. Pause. Breathe. “Responsibility” does not mean fault, does not mean for example, that the target of a rape wanted it, asked for it, or any other reflexive comment you might equate.

Look at the word. Responsibility. At its Latin root, it means to respond. It is on us to choose our response. In this choice there is strength.

We can state categorically that the greater the responsibility one takes in the aftermath of a violet encounter, the greater the possibility of strength. The greater the likelihood that one experiences Post Traumatic Growth instead of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But —

To push any agenda, to tell any survivor what he or she is supposed to do or supposed to feel or supposed to experience is to once again deny them agency. It is a second layer of victimization. Seeing the possibility of reframing blame to responsibility to agency is a tool, not a weapon. Something that a person can choose to use. But it must be a choice.

Back To Life: Back To Reality, Part I – Dave Wignall

The Martial Arts industry is many things. For a start it is very political. No news there really. It is also very changeable and, at times, even fashionable. A bit like the latest ‘Keep Fit’ download or DVD. “Train like celebrity X, you too can be like (insert name)” and all that hyped nonsense. That said, Martial Arts training is also very rewarding, educational, inspirational, confidence boosting, can help improve self esteem, improve on general health and fitness, instil a great sense of achievement and push us to our physical limits. There is indeed an abundance of good stuff that Martial Arts training can give us that would be hard to dispute.

However, sadly, it also breeds bad stuff. Bad stuff that welcomes greed, massages egos, produces inexperienced instructors, encourages ‘untouchable’ and unchallengeable individuals sitting high on usually self appointed pedestals, or offers a second income once you have taken a quick instructor course if you have the cash ready. Naturally there’s no experience necessary. In fact if you don’t have the money to hand, or maybe you don’t even want to put in any amount of work to achieve this superficial instructor level, you can always go online and buy a black belt certification of your choice with a shiny new black belt to match. You can buy a Karate 4th Dan, Ju-jitsu 5th Dan, or even an (ahem) Expert or (ahem) Grand Master level in Krav Maga and Voila! You are ready to teach anyone who wants to pay you their hard earned cash. No questions asked of course. I mean, what’s the point of credibility in an industry that has few governing bodies that rarely investigate, check and ensure that what is being taught to students is safe?!

The quite shocking and dangerous thing with these clubs and organisations is that once the metaphorical smoke and mirrors clear and break, what is left is the stark belief by many that what is being taught, inexperienced or not, is a self protection system that – when transferred to the street – will work. The harsh reality is, of course, it won’t. Well ok, it could have some level of success, but this is generally down to the individual resorting to their own ‘default’, which could be simply lashing out at the attacker and running away at pace. No skill in that and training is hardly needed, huh? Effective? Yes. Looks good? No. So why then do we see so much convoluted, fine motor skill based defences being taught when, in all honesty, they haven’t really got a chance of being successful? The answer? I believe it is because ultimately, very little is challenged. Techniques and concepts are just accepted and it is taken for granted they will work without question, and therefore the ‘parrot fashion’ learnt technique is duly acknowledged by all that ‘x’ is what you do when ‘y’ is presented. No margin for failure, no margin for error, no tactical application, no strategic implementation, just learn by rote.

I’ve found across my many years of teaching in this industry that challenging instructors is something that aggravates them and, to some degree, the students of these instructors can also be equally touchy. This shouldn’t be the case at all because we are all here to learn, right? Why they react in the way they do can be for a whole host of reasons. Challenge or suggested change can be viewed as a direct attack on their teaching ability, their Martial Arts prowess, or their precious discipline. In case it is overlooked, I will mention at this point that I don’t go in for the hero worshipping nonsense. We are all human beings and some of these people were in the right place at the right time. Years of training along a certain ‘pedigree’ does not automatically make that person right in what they say or do. Yes, they may be extremely good at what they do within a safe and controlled environment, but if it were possible to take what they are teaching out of the Dojo, place them in a violent, real life situation, and see how they fare, I think most would be shocked. All theoretical of course but to know what ‘reality’ is, you have to experience it or at least talk to people who know what they are talking about. You can’t beat experience. Mike Tyson once said “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”. I tend to agree.

So whatever the reason may be for these challenges being taken the wrong way, there should never be anything wrong with being asked a question. I advocate it in my club. Are we not all here to learn together, grow together, develop together and in doing so, all remain that little bit safer? If a student of mine presented me with a defence/technique/response that seemed more effective, more efficient than one I was teaching, I would willingly break it down, work with it under pressure and if it proved to be a more practical approach than something I currently taught, I would introduce it into the club. No ego, no feelings hurt, no embarrassment, just being truthful and open. By not taking on board the views and opinions of others, by not even opening the door for discussion, we end up building a very closed and insular environment and culture in which we train. This has no benefit to the student or instructor alike yet sadly, experience has shown that when questions are asked and challenges put out there, illusions are disrupted, dents are created in fragile egos and comfort zones breached. Possibly the worst of all is that when a more efficient method is actually presented, and the instructor knowingly continues to teach the less effective option, the teaching becomes dishonest and as a result, is short-changing the student. “My bat, my ball, my club and I teach what I want to, even if my students are being lied to” is an attitude I have seen adopted by far too many people. It fast becomes more about the instructor than it does the student.

I’ve been actively involved in Martial Arts and Self Protection for 34 years now and have been teaching for around 20 of those years. During that time I have been privileged to have met and trained with some wonderful, experienced people who have been at the top of their game and who, as individuals, have taught thousands of students across the world. The thing is, as a student or a teacher, we have to be clear about the nature of our training. Is it a traditional Martial Art, for example, like Karate or Ju-Jitsu, or is it a sport like Mixed Martial Arts? Certain aspects of each of these can of course cross over into the street arena, but it is a dangerous path to tread if the training processes of the student instil a false sense of ability and security. There are exceptions to the rules, of course – there always are – but these are generally few and far between. When, within the realms of regulated competition, even professionals find it difficult to secure an arm bar or a choke, what hope would your average student – training once or twice a week – have against a committed attacker? If, when training in the Dojo, your fast, pressure-tested knife defence works perfectly against your partner – who helps your defence succeed by attacking half heartedly and then stops mid-flow to let you perform your well rehearsed defence – then I’m afraid that you, your partner and whoever is teaching you in the belief that what you are doing is ‘real’ are all being dishonest and naive.

If you are teaching or being taught Self Protection, you need to identify where the flaws are. If you don’t do this at all and simply accept that in ‘real life’ it will work, you are treading a very dangerous path and false train of thought. Imagine, if you will, trying a roundhouse kick against an attacker in the street. (I never teach these kinds of moves but for those who are not aware, it’s one of those kicks to the head you see in all Martial Arts films.) It works fine on a shiny polished floor with or without training footwear, but this time you slip over on a puddle of alcohol or something equally as slippery – vomit, grass, mud, gravel, urine, you get the idea. That kick could be the last mistake you make as you hit the floor and your armed assailant closes range and bears down on you for the kill. It works a treat in the Dojo, wins points in competitions, helps towards earning your next level for your grading, and looks great on your promotional videos. How on earth did it fail?

Well, the reality is that you have been negligent in your considerations. You have not realised the stark differences between the environment in which you train and the environment outside. You finish training, pleased that you have just learnt a certain technique, strike, weapons defence, lock, choke, takedown, whatever it is, but then open the door and walk back onto the street to make your way home. Back to life and back to reality. Your Dojo is a cocoon of like-minded people who don’t want to hurt you (well, not too much) and will aid you, unknowingly most of the time, in helping you succeed. That is a great and wonderful thing of course, and something to be welcomed. I am proud of all of my students, the mutual respect they show for each other, the understanding, the stories, the insights, the questioning, the laughs, the fun – mostly the fun – but we never lose sight of the fact of why we train like we do and why we train at all.

Dave Wignall

Chief Instructor – Simply Krav Maga Ltd

CT707 Israeli Krav Maga Systems Instructor

UK Representative CT707 Krav Maga Systems

www.simplykravmaga.com

train@simplykravmaga.com

Contact: 07971 838338

Women, Running and the Threat of Assault – Heidi MacDonald

So, who remembers this photograph?

The woman in the photo wearing bib number 261, is Kathrine Switzer, and she was the first woman to run the Boston Marathon in 1967. When this photograph was being taken, race official Jock Semple was attempting to physically remove her from the race. Women were just seen as simply “too fragile” to complete a full marathon.

It wasn’t until 1972 that women were officially invited to participate in the Boston Marathon. This was 49 years ago. So what’s changed since then?

Well, if we judge by a photograph, a lot. Check out the September 2016 cover of Runner’s World magazine:

Big difference in less than 50 years, no?

I ran a Google Search on Runner’s World magazine covers, and I was struck by how often a woman graced its cover. Our buying power in the marketplace, especially with regards to sporting goods, has certainly exploded since that infamous photo of 1967’s Boston Marathon. Forbes has reported that women make up for 85% of consumer buying power in the US.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanaglass/2014/10/20/untapped-resource-the-power-of-the-women-in-sports-marketplace/#b6fc9994ec27

All of this sounds great, and it certainly can be used as a rallying cry of girl power. I, myself, am an avid runner. I ran my first marathon two years ago and earlier this year tried out a 50k race. There are pics on my FB page of me in Spartan races in Spandex, with smudges of dirt on my face, shoes caked in mud. Challenges that push me mentally and physically are a siren call to me wanting to test my true grit. Most people think I’m crazy to put myself through such an uncomfortable experience. I’m ok with people not understanding that.

But there is another side to running that women must grapple with – and that is our safety.

I’m often told by my adoptive mom, “you need to be careful when you go running alone!” To which of course, I roll my eyes and say, sure. My self defense and MA background is kind of forgotten in those conversations. But she does have valid reason to worry. And not only because of my gender. I am deaf with a cochlear implant. I sometimes go running in silence on the back country roads of northern Vermont and Quebec’s Eastern Townships. It’s peaceful, and it’s often the part of my day where I’m not getting pulled in a dozen different directions by my 3 jobs, my writing, my grad school applications, my races, and so on.

I go running alone because I usually don’t know anyone who’s willing to go running with me early in the morning. I can’t simply wait around to go run until I find someone who will go with me. To me, that’s a time-waster. My life and my brain tend to run at warp speed. Only natural that my feet do too.

My mom has some basis to be concerned. Running in quiet – I am not going to hear a car come up behind me, slowing down, following me. If I trip and fall, there will not be a fellow runner to help me up. If i get injured on a run, I can’t call for help, as I don’t carry a cell phone. There are issues and prospective dangers for me, and it does cross my mind every time I lace up my beloved Asics Gel.

But I also have this irritating thought…”I never hear someone telling a man to be careful and safe when he goes out for a run…”

It’s true though, right? How often have you ever heard someone saying that to a guy?

The fact of the matter is that women are still seen as the more vulnerable population, even in this 21st century age of smartphones and never-ending Twitter tweets and Facebook selfie postings.

And the media likes to focus on those discrepancies, big time. Especially if they’re of a violent, sensational nature.

A few that stood out to me recently: This summer, Google employee, Vanessa Marcotte died this summer when she went out for a morning jog. She was found murdered in the woods, a half-mile from her home.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/08/google-employee-vanessa-marcotte-killed-after-jog-princeton-ma-karina-vetrano.html

Another woman this summer was sexually assaulted and murdered not far from her home as well.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Karina-Vetrano-Runner-Missing-Dead-Queens-Marsh-New-York-City-Phone-Clothes-Sex-Assault-Strangle-389209622.html

These women were beautiful, vivacious, and should not have met the ends of their lives in such violent manners.

There are a few other cases in the news that caught my attention while researching for this article, but the one case I kept thinking about, wasn’t a new case or murder, but a rather old one:

The Central Park Jogger.

I was very young when this was reported on the major news network, but I do remember the constant stream of Dan Rather’s voice and face on our small television set, ominous and frightening. I didn’t understand rape, or sexual violence at the time. But I understood that something very bad happened to a woman.

If you don’t remember the details, here they are: In April of 1989, a young woman who was later identified as Trisha Meili, was assaulted on her evening jog through New York City’s famed Central Park. The details of her assault are horrifying. She was raped, sodomized and beaten to near death. She was found naked, gagged and covered in dirt and blood. She was comatose for 12 days, and not expected to live, due to the extensive nature of her injuries and severe head trauma. However, she did. But she has no memory of the assault itself. Which may be a blessing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case

Five men were convicted of the assault. Several years later, their convictions were vacated, when a serial rapist confessed to being the lone assailant, and DNA evidence confirmed his account.

As gruesome and heartbreaking as the cases I list above are, I have to ask:

Are female runners honestly a higher risk group for sexual assaults and murder, or is it just focused and more sensationalized by the media?

It could be both.

There’s not that much out there on statistics involving female runners and violence, and there should be. However, I did find this article from 2013, that asked the same questions currently percolating in my mind.

http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2013/10/are-runners-likely-to-be-targets-of-violent-crime/

In 2012, there were 12,765 murders in the US. Only 2,834 were women. But…only 1,557 of those murders were committed by a stranger. So that means that the overwhelming number of murders, were committed by someone the murder victim knew personally. So that could be interpreted to mean that the random sexual assault and murders of female joggers is a rare occurrence, right?

Maybe not. These statistics are from four years ago. Have these numbers changed? Because I am noticing an increase of intense discussion and reporting on social media of sexual assault, like the Stanford rape case. I’m not certain if it’s because of the media’s laser-like focus on violence, or if it’s because women are choosing to no longer be quiet about traumatic events.

And in turn, this is challenging the conversations we’re having about sexual assault. About the root issues of power, control, ego, male privilege.

I feel like this is a conversation that got started in April 1989, but we have neglected to finish the conversation. 27 years have passed, and we are overdue to finish this conversation. Or at the very least, get even more vocal in the debate. The magazine covers of Runner’s world that depicts women in sleek sports bras and tight little shorts, promotes the idea of a world where women can run without fear of harm, of being free to show off her muscles and body. Honestly, if I dressed like that on one of my morning runs, I fear that I would be a target for catcalls and roving male eyes. Talk about uncomfortable. My skin crawls at the thought of such unwanted attention.

Yes, almost 50 years have passed since Kathrine Switzer’s famed run in the Boston marathon, and I do realize that the late 80’s was a different climate for women with regards to the Central Park Jogger case when compared to now, and the Stanford Brock Turner case.

But has it? A Canadian judge in 2014 while presiding over a rape case, scolded the victim in court and asked, “why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”

I honestly want to know, what the hell, if anything, has changed? Have things improved for the better, or worse? And I want to see statistics that back it up, not just read heartbreaking stories of beautiful young women found mutilated and raped in woods near their homes. These women had families and left behind grief-stricken parents, spouses, partners, small children.

I don’t want these stories to make me pause while lacing up my shoes for a morning run, and wonder if that will ever be me. If somebody will one day find my body in a ditch on a back country road, and someone will call my father with the worst news of his life.

Just because I’m a woman running alone, and that makes me a vulnerable target.

I want answers and concrete statistics to tell me, do I have something to worry about? Or is the media just sensationalizing the few female runners who become both victims and headlines?

I don’t want my voice to be the lone voice in the sea, crying for answers, or demanding for changes to the gender perceptions that seem to be at the root cause of male privilege and violence. But I don’t want a discussion to escalate into the gender wars, though. I want a passionate, constructive discussion among those in the running community, as well as a push for new research to either support or dispute what we see, hear, and read in our daily news feed.

So tell me: Am I safe?

Rape Culture – Gershon Ben Keren

In recent months, I’ve read a lot of articles in the media, by journalists and bloggers, that suggest the solution to rape and sexual assaults against women, is a simple one: men should stop raping/assaulting women. This is also an argument that is extremely prevalent on US college and university campuses. Unfortunately, when we look at the facts around these cases, this argument doesn’t make sense- it has no basis in reality. It is a popular opinion, but one that can lead us down some dangerous, although unintended, paths including victim blaming, and putting the responsibility for certain aspects of an assault onto women, rather than the assailant – something that was implied throughout the recent Brock Turner case.

Rape is often seen as a crime that is primarily motivated by sex, and is often attempted to be understood from this perspective. Many people still believe that rapists are sexually frustrated individuals driven by “normal” sexual desires and urges, that they are unable to fulfill due to the lack of availability of a consensual partner. One of the reasons that this view exists is because we try to understand the world as we see it, rather than accepting that there are individuals out there who have a different world view to ourselves; who see things differently to us. Many rapists have partners and/or are married and have an active “consensual” sex life. It is not the need for sex that drives the rapist, but the urge to exert power, anger and control over a non-consenting victim.

A rapist is not looking for consensual sex through negotiation, only resorting to forceful means when this doesn’t work; from the outset they are looking to dominate and control a non-consenting victim. Only when we accept this will we start to recognize rapists for who they are and begin to understand the experiences of their victims. If we believe that sexual assailants are actually searching for consenting victims and only rape out of frustration when their target refuses, we may inadvertently introduce the suggestion that the victim may in some way be responsible or guilty for leading this person on, and contributing to their frustration either by the way they dressed, acted or behaved, etc. This is a very dangerous door to start opening, as it can be used to explain away a sexual predator’s nature, behaviors, and actions.

There is a big difference between someone who is pressuring, negotiating, and shaming a person into consensual sex, and someone who is seeking a victim to sexually dominate and control against their will, and unfortunately this difference is rarely acknowledged. In our current culture, it is becoming more and more acceptable to behave in a misogynistic way towards women, and for men to have an attitude of entitlement towards sex. However, this entitlement is based on the belief that women should want to consent to have sex with men, and it is only a matter of pushing and pressurizing to get this consent.

There are of course women who have consented reluctantly to sex with men they didn’t really like, or would rather not have, after being pressured and bullied, however from the man’s perspective and understanding it was consensual; they were seeking consensual sex, through anti-social means. Do such attitudes need to be addressed? Absolutely, however they need to be addressed, separately and differently to rape, as the motivations of the individuals who engage in them, are very different to those of rapists. To try and deal with them in the same way and with the same methods will not be successful. These anti-social bullies are motivated by sex, whereas rapists are motivated by anger and the need to have power and control over their victims.

Rape is a premeditated act, committed by a sexual assailant, who has fantasized, and to some degree planned and orchestrated their assault – that may be as simple as deciding not to take “No” as an answer. This is different to an anti-social, bully trying to negotiate a “no” into a “yes”, in order to have consensual sex, with a possibly reluctant and hesitant partner. The sexual assailant will have fantasized and masturbated over their control and domination of an unwilling victim, who they can humiliate and dispense their anger towards, whilst the anti-social, misogynist will fantasize about a willing partner who wants to please him, because he is entitled to be treated in that way i.e. women want to have sex with him. One can potentially be educated concerning their views and attitudes towards women, whilst the other is a predator who is to a greater or lesser extent hardwired to sexually assault women; for any number of reasons.

Rapists, will often try to identify themselves not as predators, but as those who believed they were engaged in acts of consensual sex, and unfortunately, many people believe them -because they don’t distinguish between the motivations of a predator, and the forceful, demanding, and entitled behaviors/actions of those looking to negotiate and engage in consensual sex. The “men just need to stop raping women” argument, needs to be re-labelled to, “men need to stop pressurizing and bullying women who don’t want to have sex with them, into having sex with them” and this should be coupled with the advice that women should be trained in how to identify men who are sexual predators. Society has a role to play in educating men on how to “negotiate” consensual sex, and the individual has a role to play in learning how to predict, identify, avoid and deal with sexual predators.

One of the reasons I believe that misogynistic behaviors and actions towards women have been linked and tied up with rape and sexual assault, is because this type of attitude and treatment of women, lacks a term/definition. I have always referred to it as “Sexual Aggression”, and I believe that many universities and colleges in the US don’t actually have a “Rape Culture” but instead a “Sexually Aggressive” one, and it is this that needs to be distinguished and addressed. Brock Turner tried to hide behind this culture argument and used it to explain, excuse and discount his actions. He tried to argue that rape and sexual assaults are caused by alcohol and drugs, and the sexually aggressive culture on university campuses, rather than on a predatory personality, and the judge at his trial bought this argument. One of the great dangers behind the “men just need to stop raping women” argument, is the belief that it is a lack of education, which causes men to rape, and that if this sexually aggressive culture could be addressed, there would be fewer rapes. Brock Turner knew that what he did was wrong. The fact that he tried to argue that his unconscious victim had in fact consented, demonstrated that he knew that sex with a non-consenting partner was wrong – and he knew this, regardless of the amount of alcohol he’d consumed.

Sexually aggressive individuals may become angry and antagonistic when a woman refuses their advances, or won’t acquiesce to their requests. They may also vent their frustrations in other ways, such as trying to humiliate and embarrass the woman they were trying to convince to sleep with them, however this is because they are unable to get consent. They may keep bullying and pressuring, but these actions and behaviors are designed to force a change of mind, and this is where the motivations behind them differ from that of rapists and sexual predators, who aren’t looking for consent. These individuals are not primarily motivated by sex, but by other, darker urges. Unfortunately, education and a change in “culture” won’t stop them; appropriate personal safety training, and self-defense can. If we can accept that rape is a premeditated crime, born out of masturbatory fantasy, and committed by predatory individuals, and not a product of a culture, sentencing will be fairer, and victims much more likely to come forward and identify their assailants, without the risk of judgment. If we continue to argue that rapists first seek consensual sex, and only when that fails, and as a last resort engage in non-consensual sex, we start to bring into question how the victim behaved and acted in the situation, and that is doing them the greatest of disservices.