I am often asked a question along these lines, "Hey Mark, I have some women in my class, what's the best approach to teach them?"
Answer: Like a fully-functioning intelligent human being with an interest in combat sports or street defense.
Or, on a related note, many gyms offer female-only classes in what seems to me some curious hearkening back to "separate but equal" days.
Before anyone running or gladly attending a single gender-mandated class gets those hackles up, stand down. I am completely aware that many women (not all) prefer the female-only approach. When it is the individual's call to be separated from others, by all means exercise that preference.
Who I am addressing today are those who may have wondered "why the genders must be separated" (Hint: I see no reason for it), or if the genders are mixed "should there be a difference in treatment?" (Hint #2: Not so much)
From what I can tell in conversation with many, these questions are way stickier than they appear at first blush. So, let's see if we can perhaps make things a little less stickier.
First, if you are a female and prefer the company of a female only crew, that's your call--I'm not here to talk you out of it. I would ask you why you prefer working with your gender alone? In asking this question I've received some of the following answers...
"I find working with women-only less threatening."
OK, that's fair, but might I suggest that no matter your gender if you find your current coaches or training partners threatening then maybe that isn't the place to train-- man or woman. The ideal environment to foster learning is one that will challenge you, constantly raise the bar (your personal bar, that is) and be hell-bent on encouraging you and coaching you to get to new levels. Threatening in the fired college basketball coach sense has no place in the equation.
I would be completely thick-skulled if I did not acknowledge that some women turn to self-defense in response to an unpleasant incident in their real lives. I have encountered two polarizing attitudes in women who have endured such a thing.
Attitude #1 is "Don't candy-coat it, I want the real thing because that is never, ever happening to me again." You ladies, are my heroes.
Attitude #2 is of a more withdrawn nature, less likely to accept the interplay and full scope of training that is vital to inculcate real-world skills. I sympathize and empathize with both attitudes but I will say that attitude one is, well, the far more useful. Those who suffer with Attitude Two, I offer the following advice, if you have chosen your coaches and training partners well, then trust your judgment and get to training. These folks are your partners in the game, they are here to help.
If you do not trust them enough to give yourself up to the training then, get out of there, move on to where you can feel comfortable. If that place is nowhere at the moment, then might I suggest putting training on the back-burner for a little while? Give it a little time.
Another common response to why female-only training is...
"I don't want to get hurt."
Not getting hurt is a mighty smart stance to take but might I tip you to the following news, I am a possessor of male genitalia and I can testify (note the root of that word) that I don't want to get hurt either. I can't think of a man or woman I have ever trained with who approaches sessions with this attitude "No matter what the lesson plan is today, can we schedule an injury?"
With that said, we must accept the fact that combat training is a contact sport and there will there be a few bumps and bruises down the line? That is, if you're doing it right. All contact will be scaled to skill and weight class (coming to that) but expecting to absorb the full impact of the training (so to speak) in a hands-off method is akin to expecting to become proficient at football or rugby without allowing for any blocking or tackling whatsoever.
To be frank, I often find classes where the genders are mixed problematic in the opposite sense, the male partners are often a bit too solicitous of their female counterparts. They are behaving quite the opposite of what some fear, they are being considerate gentlemen. And this, as much as a fan of respect, honor, and manners that I am, I find this over-solicitation a disservice to the women.
No, I'm not saying don't be courteous, don't be a gentleman, but I am saying that this over-extension of "taking it easy" actually implies the opposite of respect (unknowingly and un-intentionally, of course). "Taking it easy" with your female cohort is in a sense saying "You can't handle this so I will treat you with kid gloves."
This isn't license to knock your female partners out (if you were capable or even of the inclination) it's just a bit of advice to treat each other as the considerate, intelligent, able human beings that each of you are.
Rather than the sexes avoiding one another, or tip-toeing around one another might I suggest we regard one another as the athletes, or burgeoning athletes that we are. If we are going to adjust for differences let's let those adjustments be in deference to a distinction we already make--weight class.
Contrary to popular myth and in agreement with a particular type of email spam--Size Matters. Size differences are why we have weight classes. Combat classes are often composed of athletes of all sorts of shapes and sizes and we are all perfectly used to the idea of holding back a little when you are much bigger than your partner or pushing a little harder when your partner is bigger than you. What I'm saying, guys and gals, play like your weight class, not your gender.
A couple more thoughts on the subject before we sign off here.
One--Some grappling positions are a little, um, comical to the rookies in a co-ed crowd. These positions may lead some to think "Oh, how would that look if I did that?"
Answer: It would look like you're training.
To those who sweat the "compromising" grappling positions, it's not merely a gender-mix hesitation, most same-gender-only participants ponder the same thoughts on their first day. It's fun to tell two beefy Marines to lie down and one get between the others legs. The first time they may cock an eyebrow but then it all quickly turns to business because that's what it is.
Two--The tears factor. Men and women possess different ratios of the hormones testosterone and estrogen (and viva la difference!) These hormones can (not in all) in some individuals cause them to involuntarily express stress or frustration differently.
In some women, that stress expression is tears. Are these tears signs of weakness?
These tears are no more signs of weakness in women than they are in the approximate 1/3rd of males who cry upon winning inside the octagon.
There's a fine scene in the film Courage Under Fire which concerns a female chopper pilot performing well in a combat situation. One of the crew incredulously observes, "The captain's crying." The pilot (played by Meg Ryan) says plainly, "It's stress, that's all."
And that's all there is to it. Some men express stress with false braggadocio and some women tear up. Female UFC phenom Rhonda Rousey is said to cry at some point practically every day in her training. Anyone think she's weak?
Nah, me neither.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the two concepts of the day are : Respect & Weight Class.
SHE'S TOUGH (168 PAGES) Contents include Motivation, Female Approaches to Extreme Conditioning, Common Concerns & Remedies, Nutrition Facts, Tips on Building a Training Crew, Gear Recommendations per Commitment Level, Complete Exercise Vocabulary, and 3-Full Months of Exercise Menu Programming.
It will retail at $12.95 ($22.95 International) but for the month of June you can pick up an autographed copy for $11 bucks even ($20 International)--that's S&H included.
