Women in Force on Force training

[Jeepcrazed]

Jackson started a thread asking why there aren't more women in this part of the forum, and that started me thinking. I take classes, love to learn and feel very strongly that I need to train in order to be prepared. That being said, I want to do a Force on Force class...but haven't yet. Why is that?

So here's a question for you trainers, as well as those who attend training.

How would you work with a woman in a Force on Force class?

While I think that most firearms training can have men and women completely equal, this is one area where I do see a few differences between men and women that I believe are important to recognize.

1. The "why" of an attack on a woman could be vastly different than a man. Personally, I see this as the biggest difference.
2. I could be completely off here, but I would suspect the method of approach by an attacker could be different, maybe due to point number 1....or maybe due to the next point..
3. While there are differences within the sexes, as I mentioned in Jackson's thread, men will generally win in the size and strength category. I'm no slouch, but if I'm attacked by someone 6 ft 5 and 250lbs...I think my strategy might be different than for someone more equally matched.

-For the trainers, are these types of things addressed in your Force on Force curriculum? or do you think this might be better handled in a different class altogether?
-For those who participate in Force on Force training, how would you respond to a woman in the scenarios?
-Women, would you take a Force on Force class? and if not, why not?

 

[Jackson]

This is an awesome topic. You win the best topic of the day award. When I get back to my computer I will respond.

 

[cedartop]

We actually seem to have a higher percentage of women in our FOF classes than in our other clases. I think this is a good thing. The biggest difference I have noticed so far is the reluctance of the female to actually pull the trigger on the attacker. Sometimes it takes untill near the end of the second day before they are comfortable with it. These are in our Force on Force (Interactive Gunfighting) classes. I have yet to see a lady in our 0-5 ft Pistol Gunfighting classes. (These have far more H2H).

You are on the right track with your points. This can warrant a change on the use of force scale.

 

[mercop]

Since my force on force includes open hand combatives, edged weapons, impact weapons and firearms and is advertised as such both men and women know what they have signed up for. Also, even during firearms classes you stand a good chance of getting bumped around.

And the reality is that unwillingness to participate in force on force does not diminish the need for it.

If I had to point to one thing that really seems to shock the ladies is how fast someone can close the distance and overwhelm them without the use of any weapons and suppress their weapons.- George

 

[Lonestar6]

Does anybody know how military combatives training translates into civilian training? Is it in the same vein as FOF training? I have had my share of combative training.

 

[Jeepcrazed]

For clarification, my questions really aren't around the physical contact involved in a class like this. Granted, I may be different than other women in that I can probably take it and even dish a little out before I'm overwhelmed by my attacker.

What I'm most interested in hearing about is how, or even if, any scenarios/tactics/de-escalation efforts might be addressed differently, specific to the interest and needs of a woman, given what she might encounter in "the real world."

 

[Shay]

I do not change scenarios based on gender.

 

[Jackson]

Jackson started a thread asking why there aren't more women in this part of the forum, and that started me thinking. I take classes, love to learn and feel very strongly that I need to train in order to be prepared. That being said, I want to do a Force on Force class...but haven't yet. Why is that?

That's a good question. Why haven't you?

So here's a question for you trainers, as well as those who attend training.

How would you work with a woman in a Force on Force class?

In my experience, there is no significant difference between the approach of classes and instructors based on gender. Most of my FoF experience is firearm-based rather than hands-on combative based. I don't know if that would have an impact, but it gives you an idea of where my answer comes from.

While I think that most firearms training can have men and women completely equal, this is one area where I do see a few differences between men and women that I believe are important to recognize.

1. The "why" of an attack on a woman could be vastly different than a man. Personally, I see this as the biggest difference.
2. I could be completely off here, but I would suspect the method of approach by an attacker could be different, maybe due to point number 1....or maybe due to the next point..
3. While there are differences within the sexes, as I mentioned in Jackson's thread, men will generally win in the size and strength category. I'm no slouch, but if I'm attacked by someone 6 ft 5 and 250lbs...I think my strategy might be different than for someone more equally matched.

The why of the attack might be different, but the methods may be similar. I suppose an attacker's approach to lure you in or get you close may vary based on gender. I don't think your response to an unknown individual or unwanted contact should be different. I think your trigger points and thresholds for escalation up the force continuum may be different, but the points on the continuum are going to be the same.

-For the trainers, are these types of things addressed in your Force on Force curriculum? or do you think this might be better handled in a different class altogether?
-For those who participate in Force on Force training, how would you respond to a woman in the scenarios?
-Women, would you take a Force on Force class? and if not, why not?

I can only answer the second one. People's responses in FoF training are as varied as the people who attend them. I have been in scenarios involving female agressors, and there were some distinct differences that came out. In general, men tend to be reluctant to believe the woman is the threat in a scenario. However, the whole point of scenario based training is to answer the question you're asking. How will people respond to the real thing? We answer it by making the scenario as real as possible and testing it. If you want to see how men respond to women in scenarios, take the trianing and be the woman in the scenario.

 

[Dead Duck]

Women in Force on Force training

So...You got any Pictures?

 

[Jackson]

Women in Force on Force training

So...You got any Pictures?

I think we just figured out why they don't post in here.

 

[dirtdigger]

I think we just figured out why they don't post in here.

You may be on to something!

 

[the1kidd03]

Does anybody know how military combatives training translates into civilian training? Is it in the same vein as FOF training? I have had my share of combative training.

Not exactly. Since you use the term "combatives" I think I'm safe to assume you're in the Army. While that training is typically conducted in live, man on man scenarios and does contain some aspects of FOF it doesn't always have them all (depending on the instructor's teachings).

Civilian FOF training can consist of a variety of topics which typically focus on hand to hand combatives, use of a gun in close contact, use of other weapons in close contact, and decision making. While it is FOF because it involves live opponents, the combatives you've had focuses mostly on the hand to hand section. That particular training begins to fall short when mixing in use of a pistol to close combative scenarios. Don't get me wrong, there is training for that, but typically the focus is more on rifle use than pistol.

On that same line of thought, most military training is FOF in some level (at least after basic training). Staging war games, using simmunition, joint operations, etc. They pretty much always try to incorporate live opponents to training as much as possible (at least we and most I know did/does). The one aspect which military FOF sort of falls short in is the decision making. It's not because that's not part of the training necessarily, but more because the weapons, tactics, and ROE are different in civilian life. Those who've been in very hostile situations numerous times typically find less value in FOF training from a decision making aspect, but that's not say you can't learn SOMETHING so why not give it a shot? I recommend taking at least one class to measure its value against your relative training/experience.

 

[the1kidd03]

And the reality is that unwillingness to participate in force on force does not diminish the need for it.

Personally, I find this statement to be a little "off." Most in this industry are often lacking in one area and that's the business aspect and all that entails (market research, advertising, marketing, pricing, social responsibility, etc.). Merely owning/running a business doesn't inherently mean they know much or anything about it or determine that it'll be successful. That's not to say that's everyone in the gun industry, but it is many if not most of the smaller privately owned businesses I observe.

My point is that it's easy to say "unwillingness to participate" when classes aren't over flowing rather than identifying areas that the business needs to address and improve.

If I had to point to one thing that really seems to shock the ladies is how fast someone can close the distance and overwhelm them without the use of any weapons and suppress their weapons.- George

This is my experience as well. This and pointing out the idea of no duty to protect by LEO. Both are huge eye openers with women typically bringing on huge gasps from shock of the knew experience.

 

[iChokePeople]

Not exactly. Since you use the term "combatives" I think I'm safe to assume you're in the Army. While that training is typically conducted in live, man on man scenarios and does contain some aspects of FOF it doesn't always have them all (depending on the instructor's teachings).

Civilian FOF training can consist of a variety of topics which typically focus on hand to hand combatives, use of a gun in close contact, use of other weapons in close contact, and decision making. While it is FOF because it involves live opponents, the combatives you've had focuses mostly on the hand to hand section. That particular training begins to fall short when mixing in use of a pistol to close combative scenarios. Don't get me wrong, there is training for that, but typically the focus is more on rifle use than pistol.

On that same line of thought, most military training is FOF in some level (at least after basic training). Staging war games, using simmunition, joint operations, etc. They pretty much always try to incorporate live opponents to training as much as possible (at least we and most I know did/does). The one aspect which military FOF sort of falls short in is the decision making. It's not because that's not part of the training necessarily, but more because the weapons, tactics, and ROE are different in civilian life. Those who've been in very hostile situations numerous times typically find less value in FOF training from a decision making aspect, but that's not say you can't learn SOMETHING so why not give it a shot? I recommend taking at least one class to measure its value against your relative training/experience.

I think it depends almost entirely on when and where you served. I don't want to derail this thread with that discussion, but would submit that we can't answer the poster's question without knowing a LOT more about his/her experiences in the military. I think the correlation number could go anywhere from nearly zero to something like .9.

Back on topic, I think it's great that you're interested in it and thinking through it all. I'm not a trainer, so will avoid giving any advice or BS disguised as wisdom, but kudos for thinking through it and considering it. And I don't blame you for popping the guy with the forehead tattoo in the back bedroom at the low light class.

 

[the1kidd03]

I think it depends almost entirely on when and where you served. I don't want to derail this thread with that discussion, but would submit that we can't answer the poster's question without knowing a LOT more about his/her experiences in the military. I think the correlation number could go anywhere from nearly zero to something like .9.

True. I made the assumption he's a recent infantry vet and that the Army's training practices are similar to Marines. Of course, even then your level of training will depend on your specific command. Some COs, 1st Sgts, etc. are as lazy as civilians (no offense) and don't train outside of what's mandated by higher ups.

Regardless, one should be able to find SOME value in ANY training. Even if it's only what to look for and avoid in a trainer, it's still a learning experience.

 

[Jeepcrazed]

That's a good question. Why haven't you?

Several of the reasons are scattered through this thread.
Thanks, Jackson. I do appreciate your comments.

Back on topic, I think it's great that you're interested in it and thinking through it all. I'm not a trainer, so will avoid giving any advice or BS disguised as wisdom, but kudos for thinking through it and considering it. And I don't blame you for popping the guy with the forehead tattoo in the back bedroom at the low light class.

Thanks. Not sure Obijohn would agree with you on the tattooed guys fate, but it was definitely a good example of how men and women might have very different thresholds for threat and why.

Though I'm not convinced that FoF is the best answer for me, I will likely find a FoF offering and give it a try. I will also keep looking for what I think is a the right fit...somewhere in between "just randomly fire a double barreled shotgun out the back door" and "HTFU and be a man."

If anyone teaches, or knows of a live force, scenario based training that acknowledges and addresses the different needs/situations/techniques for woman's self-defense, and incorporates firearms, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[esrice]

Great thread Jeepcrazed!

There have already been many good points raised so far. I'll mirror some and add a few of my own.

First, as cedartop said above, I too have noticed more women in force on force classes than I have in live-fire courses. In fact, I've never attended a FoF course (as a student or roleplayer) where there wasn't at least one woman in attendance. I can think of several live-fire courses I've been in that were all-male.

I can't speak for others' FoF offerings, but I do know that at Mindset Lab the scenarios do not change based on gender. Only a few types of attacks could even be categorized as more female-specific (like rape), but our scenarios are crafted in such a way that they are applicable to all genders. The lessons learned apply to any attack in which you are compelled to do something that you do not want to do.

Having a female in class does give the roleplayers a unique opportunity to use some gender-specific 4-letter (5-letter? 6-letter?) words that really drive home the role of the attacker. I'm still learning myself, but don't expect anyone to "go easy" on you because you're a woman. Realize that we won't say anything that your common low-life street thug wouldn't say to your face.

PM inbound on the specifics. It'd be great to have you come out and train with us.

 

[Aaron1776]

1. The "why" of an attack on a woman could be vastly different than a man. Personally, I see this as the biggest difference.
2. I could be completely off here, but I would suspect the method of approach by an attacker could be different, maybe due to point number 1....or maybe due to the next point..
3. While there are differences within the sexes, as I mentioned in Jackson's thread, men will generally win in the size and strength category. I'm no slouch, but if I'm attacked by someone 6 ft 5 and 250lbs...I think my strategy might be different than for someone more equally matched.

-For those who participate in Force on Force training, how would you respond to a woman in the scenarios?

First of all, great topic. Rep for that.
Second, I'm not a trainer, just a guy who likes to train and has been in his share of fights, so take what I say with a good helping of salt.

1: The "why" of the attack could be different sure, rape and abduction come to mind. (Though those things happen to men as well)
2:.... but violence is violence and the tactics for setting up an ambush on a woman aren't really going to be different than setting on up on a man to abduct him. You're still human. You're just generally smaller and weaker, thus making for an easier target for such vile things.
3: Good techniques that emphasize speed and leverage will help you here. I'm not a big guy, and at least half of the fights I was in involved pitting me against a guy who was substancially bigger. The key is speed and full on aggression, neither of which change with gender.
Which leads to why women (and men) need this sort of training so badly. Most women (and men) aren't naturally aggressive and need to be taught how to be. The nature of violence is such that you need to be decisive and brutal against your opponent. That being said, if you're not comfortable enough with violence and are substancially weaker (small man or a woman), creating space/time is probably something you should focus on more. Then again I could say that about everyone who carries a gun. If you're trained on a firearm, it is to your advantage to use tactics that allow you to use the firearm rather than resort to grappling and knives.

As for how I would treat a woman in training.......just like a man. She needs someone who is trying to kill her just like a predator would be.

I'm really glad to hear that women are getting this training and that the guys over at mindset aren't treating them any different.

 

[obijohn]

If anyone teaches, or knows of a live force, scenario based training that acknowledges and addresses the different needs/situations/techniques for woman's self-defense, and incorporates firearms, I'd love to hear about it.

Check ACT's schedule. We will be making the formal announcement shortly. There are a few really good choices for FoF training in Indiana.

 

[rhino]

Thanks. Not sure Obijohn would agree with you on the tattooed guys fate, but it was definitely a good example of how men and women might have very different thresholds for threat and why.

That's a good point, both in terms of practical matters at the time as well as legal and civil liability later. Establishing your personal "line in the sand" before such things happen is a Really Good Idea. Naturally that line can shift depending on circumstances, but we all need to have a baseline.