Nurturing Female Aggression

For Historical European Fighting Arts, Weaponry, & Armor

Moderators: Webmaster, Stacy Clifford

User avatar
Richard Strey
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 8:59 am
Location: Cologne, Germany

Postby Richard Strey » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:32 am

Interesting. That book is now on my list for secondary sources. ;)
We use pressure in sparring, as well. Although we don't usually get around to anything more than having a single individual bout with several fresh opponents one after the other. Or a nice game of relay-races with bouts inbetween, where you have to fight your enemy *now* before the other guy catches up.
We have a few girls who can fight fiercely, but other than most boys, they cannot control their anger/agression/fear reliably. While it seems for most guys rather easy to channel the fight-or-flight instinct towards "fight," the girls in question seem to have difficulties doing that all the time and break off instead. But if they do, oh my! ;)

J Marwood
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Postby J Marwood » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:51 pm

Nigel Plum wrote:James Marwood is our real expert on this stuff, & will be able to explain better than myself. I'll see if I can get him to pop in.


I dunno about expert but I have been enough of a masochist to go in for a fair bit of stress-based training so I'll add what I can.

I'd firstly like to say that what I write below is my personal opinion and I hope I don't ruffle any feathers. From the ARMA guys I've encountered on other fora I know you to be a robust and practically minded lot so hopefully I won't raise any ire (unless of course it encourages you to be more aggressive in your training in which case I'll consider it mission accomplished).

In my experience a lack of aggression can manifest itself in either genders, although women are frequently more socially conditioned to shy away from physical violence. Aggression and forward drive is the absolute key to victory outside of structured bouts and so is something that I feel it is vital to train if one wishes to do a martial art. Training without aggression is simply a slightly more complex version of patticake.

There are a number of different approaches I have seen to aggression training, from classical army milling and screaming bayonet drills to complex NLP-based approaches programmes. What I have learnt from all of these is that you absolutely cannot force someone to be aggressive. They have to want it for it to be possible. If someone doesn't want to access their inner beast then no amount of training will do it. It is possible to reason with people to lead them to accept that this is necessary but that is a whole different topic I think.

One of the best and most successful approaches geared towards increasing aggression (specifically for females) is the Nikita and Valkyrie programmes formulated by Dennis Martin and Marcus Wynne. This is an NLP based approach and is discussed in more detail here. This approach is based around building the desire to win and is possibly summed up best by an inspirational quote from a woman who successful defeated 3 attackers in South Africa - "I may lose but by God raping me will be the hardest thing you ever do".

Another very successful approach I have seen is that of visualisation. By leading a group through visualising a scene which leads to rage an instructor can increase the aggression levels and through drills reinforce this state. Frequent visualisation/usage leads one to be able to access the aggressive state more readily and more quickly. However, this training is VERY uncomfortable - being part of a group imagining walking in on someone sexually abusing their children is not a fun experience for anyone. It also really needs to be quite graphic. It can be done one-on-one, as a private exercise or as a group exercise - it all really depends on how open your group is and how hard it is for them to deal with the stresses the aggression brings.

The final technique I have seen (and the least successful) is to mock and abuse the students until they respond with anger. This is problematic as it will not work if people explicitly understand the stated aim. Also, people who are un-aggressive will be more likely to simply give up or leave than respond with anger - hardly an ideal solution. However, this is the approach I most often see!

For all of these you have to give explicit permission to 'lose it' and give an example. Often a class will be shy until the first one starts screaming expletives as they batter the pads. It is also common to experience laughing and joking as this happens. This is very, very natural - it is simply a way of dealing with the stresses of seeing an obviously angry person. I'd be inclined to let it go on for a while and then clamp down as people become more used to the stress.

It is important to differentiate between stress training and aggression training. Some of the things Nigel mentions above (the mental arithmetic tests and water assaults) are really geared to getting one to handle stress and respond well, drawing on you already existing rage state. If you are concerned with building the rage state then these kinds of drill will overwhelm the participants. For many the simple stresses of accessing the rage state and seeing others do the same will be hard enough to deal with.

The final vital point is to allow people to release the stresses that accumulate during these types of classes in a safe way. 2 or 3 times I have done an all day session of this kind of thing and got in the car to drive home pumped full of unused adrenalin and ready to demolish the first guy to look at me funny. Not Good! You must finish with physical activity to get people fatigued and give them a chance to socialise and communicate afterwards - a trip to the pub works very well here!

Hope that is of use!
James Marwood

User avatar
Will Adamson
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:01 pm
Location: Abingdon, VA

Postby Will Adamson » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:28 pm

How about purposefully drive through traffic to get to said class? I know I used to show up to college classes ready to bash some pinko heads. It didn't help my Latin too much. :oops:

There may be a difference between aggresive and pissed off though. I think it could be either a chicken and egg arguement, or a question of semantics. If there is a difference it would probably have to do with the degree of control the person has. I would think that being pissed off would require losing control a bit more than just being aggresive.

Then again, I really hate psychology. :wink:
"Do you know how to use that thing?"
"Yes, pointy end goes in the man."
Diego de la Vega and Alejandro Murrieta from The Mask of Zorro.

S. Hord
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:28 am

Postby S. Hord » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:05 pm

Will Adamson wrote:How about purposefully drive through traffic to get to said class? I know I used to show up to college classes ready to bash some pinko heads. It didn't help my Latin too much. :oops:

There may be a difference between aggresive and pissed off though. I think it could be either a chicken and egg arguement, or a question of semantics. If there is a difference it would probably have to do with the degree of control the person has. I would think that being pissed off would require losing control a bit more than just being aggresive.

Then again, I really hate psychology. :wink:


Well I dunno, I've been pretty pissed off before and have not lost my cool.

User avatar
Justin Lompado
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:34 pm

Postby Justin Lompado » Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:23 pm

Perhaps I am the only one who has never really thought about all of this stuff; like, can I be agressive, should I be, how agreesive is enough...I kinda just took my desire to learn and let the physical part flow out of me and develop on its own. For me, learning historical swordsmanship has been like a growing tree: the pure want to be connected with all of this history and knowledge was the trunk, and the rest, i.e. physical mechanics and mindset, naturally grew like branches. I guess what I'm saying is maybe the best way to develop the proper agression, if we can say there is such a thing among infinitley unique individuals, is just to practice and let it happen. I don't know much about psychology, but thinking about it too much will cause you to focus on your shortcomings as much as your improvements or areas that need improvement. I think less worrying about what is necessary in a personal "antagonistic" or "agressive" mindset and more focus on finding a reason to practice is a good way to develop the necessary skills (of course, then it has to be supplemented by actual practice but that should be a given 8) .
Una mente tranquillo da vita alla carne, ma passione fa i ossi decomposizione

User avatar
Benjamin Smith
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:44 pm

Postby Benjamin Smith » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:46 am

Aggression is a difficult thing to work with. I had a great deal of difficulty in my earlier years controling my aggression (too much rather than not enough). It was not that I was angry, or even out of control, but that when I attacked I did it with intent, force, and speed beyond my skill level, consequently people got nasty bruises every time they sparred with me because I hadn't learned how to use less than all the force I could bring to bear. It took a long time to break myself of the habit. Eventually the study group leader and I had a talk, we agreed to keep me out of general sparring until I had better control, and it's made me a much better fighter.

As for nurturing aggression, I would say that 1/2 to 2/3 of the interested people we encounter need the opposite of what I needed. The best methods I know are to have them practice attacking an opponent who will defend themselves, but not strike back. The most common problem I've seen with people being sufficiently offensive and aggressive stems from fear they will get hit, even with a padded weapon. This method helps them focus on what they need to do to win a fight and ignore the potential threat. As they gain confidence, the person they are training with should slowly add more and more counters, grappling, and eventually do away with the pretense.

As for other things we can do. Grappling in particular helps nurture aggression, although this is often difficult with smaller persons who may not have the muscle/weight for some of the techniques. Uneven fights in the favor of the people trying to learn aggression helps them learn to attack. Uneven fights not in favor of the person(s) trying to learn to be more aggressive, can also help them learn how to move and attack offensively.

That's just my experience with aggression.
Respectfully,

Ben Smith

User avatar
Justin Lompado
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:34 pm

Postby Justin Lompado » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:02 am

Benjamin Smith wrote:Aggression is a difficult thing to work with. I had a great deal of difficulty in my earlier years controling my aggression (too much rather than not enough). It was not that I was angry, or even out of control, but that when I attacked I did it with intent, force, and speed beyond my skill level, consequently people got nasty bruises every time they sparred with me because I hadn't learned how to use less than all the force I could bring to bear. It took a long time to break myself of the habit. Eventually the study group leader and I had a talk, we agreed to keep me out of general sparring until I had better control, and it's made me a much better fighter.

As for nurturing aggression, I would say that 1/2 to 2/3 of the interested people we encounter need the opposite of what I needed. The best methods I know are to have them practice attacking an opponent who will defend themselves, but not strike back. The most common problem I've seen with people being sufficiently offensive and aggressive stems from fear they will get hit, even with a padded weapon. This method helps them focus on what they need to do to win a fight and ignore the potential threat. As they gain confidence, the person they are training with should slowly add more and more counters, grappling, and eventually do away with the pretense.

As for other things we can do. Grappling in particular helps nurture aggression, although this is often difficult with smaller persons who may not have the muscle/weight for some of the techniques. Uneven fights in the favor of the people trying to learn aggression helps them learn to attack. Uneven fights not in favor of the person(s) trying to learn to be more aggressive, can also help them learn how to move and attack offensively.

That's just my experience with aggression.



Again maybe I am unique but I don't find grappling to be agressive. Boxing is agressive and can make you angry a little if you're fightig someone cocky, but still I don't ever feel a real sense of agression like I wanna just attack someone and punch his head off. Grappling, like I said, is even less so.
Una mente tranquillo da vita alla carne, ma passione fa i ossi decomposizione

User avatar
s_taillebois
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby s_taillebois » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:29 pm

Might be useful to refer back to the beginning of the thread, insofar as noting what M.C. stated about learning the techniques first. Granted it can be a problem (especially for some women) to practice with a certain degree of authority. But that, is very different from fostering simple aggression or even rage. Basically, under these conditions, most people (especially the initiates) will fall back into reflexive actions. First, that tends to preclude the learning of fencing (of any kind) as an art needing discipline. Second, often when someone's in that state, there is a tendancy to strike in manners which can be countered, especially after the first unexpected thrust or blow. And finally, like many other martial disciplines, uncontrolled emotional states, could result in heedless attacks. We are dealing in a discipline which does use weapons, even if it's a waster.
And additionally, although WMA/RMA is done with 'intent', it is not the same parameter as would be taught for defense from sexual assault or etc. It may have some uses for that condition, but overemphasis would tend to drive away those more interested in the historical or fitness aspect of this type of fencing.
Steven Taillebois

User avatar
Benjamin Smith
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:44 pm

Postby Benjamin Smith » Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:19 am

Justin, if you don't mind a small rebuttal, I'd like to defend my position that grappling does foster aggression. Taking/stealing the initiative so that one may attack their opponent, which is how I always have thought of/defined aggression, is key to grappling, is covered extensively in many manuals, and is addressed between the lines in most others. Even smaller persons, who are advised to counterattack when grappling with larger persons, must learn how and when they can best be aggressive to grapple effectively, particularly if there is an uneven match, either in terms of size and strength or numbers. Unarmed combat brings this to the fore for new people, very well I think, because there the elements of time, distance, and feeling are more clear, especially because size matters so much. Also there tends to be in my experience less fear of getting grappled and planted on your back/face/butt, than getting hit with a waster. The proximity of the oppontents when grappling, enhances the sense of getting in your opponent's face. Also it opens up whole realms of closing moves that require aggressive action and are useful in armed combat. So for fostering a new person's sense of how and when to attack as well as their confidence in attacking I believe it is very effective.
Respectfully,



Ben Smith

User avatar
Justin Lompado
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:34 pm

Postby Justin Lompado » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:44 pm

Benjamin Smith wrote:Justin, if you don't mind a small rebuttal, I'd like to defend my position that grappling does foster aggression. Taking/stealing the initiative so that one may attack their opponent, which is how I always have thought of/defined aggression, is key to grappling, is covered extensively in many manuals, and is addressed between the lines in most others. Even smaller persons, who are advised to counterattack when grappling with larger persons, must learn how and when they can best be aggressive to grapple effectively, particularly if there is an uneven match, either in terms of size and strength or numbers. Unarmed combat brings this to the fore for new people, very well I think, because there the elements of time, distance, and feeling are more clear, especially because size matters so much. Also there tends to be in my experience less fear of getting grappled and planted on your back/face/butt, than getting hit with a waster. The proximity of the oppontents when grappling, enhances the sense of getting in your opponent's face. Also it opens up whole realms of closing moves that require aggressive action and are useful in armed combat. So for fostering a new person's sense of how and when to attack as well as their confidence in attacking I believe it is very effective.


Ben,

A rebuttal is fine ( lots of debates in school...), actually I was hoping for some sort of feedback. Everything you said in this post I have quoted here is correct, and I don't think I ever said it was wrong. However, I said that for me the "agressive" stae of mind is not one that I can say I reallt consciously enter when training. If I'm goofing around with friends maybe, but when I'm trying to work to improve my skill I don't think so. I guess what I'm saying is everything you describe may very well happen to me, but I just don't think of it as such. I just focus on doing the technique right, and to do that, you're correct, you need to learn how to take the initiative, etc. We're not really in disagreement in what constitutes effective martial arts. However, maybe there is a difference in our mindsets. I never find myself thinking of whether or not I should be agressive or anything like that. I've heard people like me who approach fighting this way be called "cerebral". I guess that means I don't put a lot of emotion into my fighting, I just "do it". I gotta go if you respond I'd be happy to talk more
Una mente tranquillo da vita alla carne, ma passione fa i ossi decomposizione

User avatar
Jaron Bernstein
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:58 am

Postby Jaron Bernstein » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:50 pm

Perhaps instead of "aggression", we could substitute a modern sport phrase of being, "in the zone." This is a mode where one is not being a buffalo, but one is very much "in the fight," both offensively and defensively as the situation requires. Several people have previously suggested excellant means to get initially timid people into that mode.

User avatar
Benjamin Smith
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:44 pm

Postby Benjamin Smith » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:00 am

I geuss we were just differing over definition then, cool.
Respectfully,



Ben Smith

User avatar
Justin Lompado
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:34 pm

Postby Justin Lompado » Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:51 pm

Benjamin Smith wrote:I geuss we were just differing over definition then, cool.


Not even; just over what we thought were agressive actions.
Una mente tranquillo da vita alla carne, ma passione fa i ossi decomposizione


Return to “Research and Training Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

 
 

Note: ARMA - The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts and the ARMA logo are federally registered trademarks, copyright 2001. All rights reserved. No use of the ARMA name or emblem is permitted without authorization. Reproduction of material from this site without written permission of the authors is strictly prohibited. HACA and The Historical Armed Combat Association copyright 1999 by John Clements. All rights reserved. Contents of this site 1999 by ARMA.