WENDO: women's self defense

[Spartacus Maximus]

Among all the RBSD systems that exist WENDO is probably the only one exclusively intended for women. After an acquaintance decided to attend one of these courses, I decided to do a bit of research on it. The goal was to find if this system had anything different to offer than all the other similar courses.

Unfortunately, all I could conclude was that it was no different than all other systems. The only difference was that the entire system is based around a very anti-male philosophy and attitude. Men and even boys(children) are completely forbidden to even observe. Besides being women, the founders and a majority of so-called instructors have little to no background in MA, law enforcement or anything else that may be of any use.

According to the available information, the content of the course is nearly all based on physical techniques with only a very brief explanation if any at all. The rest of the courses focus on discussions more akin to therapy than meaningful, direct topics on violence.

It claims to prepare women to deal with violence, but only feeds the victim mentality, anti-male attitude(ie: all men are potential rapists etc) and a very dangerous false sense of security.

It uses many of the same buzz words to promote itself and seems popular on school campuses and the like. I wonder if anyone else has any information or experiences with this system.

Any ideas

[bushido_man96]

I've never heard of it, but if that's the rundown of it, it doesn't sound like it would be an effective style to get into. I can understand why they try to stay "women only," to perhaps prevent men from seeing their tactics, but even still, they won't be doing anything knew under the sun. I'd advise her to beware.

[cathal]

There's very little information on them aside from their own website. What little I found on youtube didn't seem to represent enough of their techniques to comment on, except this one part where it showed an instructor blocking a partner's punches. The blocks didn't seem to deflect and I wasn't left with the impression they'd be effective.

I sincerely hope it isn't a hate group disguised as self defence.

[tallgeese]

I will, respectfully, be the desisting voice here. While the best way to train to physically prevail in a conflict is to train, regularly, seminars like these continue to be a mainstay in introducing different populations to fighting arts. Given that, some training will almost alway be better than none as long as it is relevant.

We can dissect technique and application and agree or disagree with it, but at the end of the day this program is designed for people coming from NO background. More than technique, you're looking and mindset. It's stressing awareness, avoidance, verbal and then physical resistance. The numbers they are touting are accurate. These things WILL decrease the likelihood of assault.

You'll note, the FBI and DOJ studies don't cite WHAT course of physical resistance prevent assault, just that it DID! Now, take a female with no background in fighting and hasn't even considered the fact she might be assaulted. Teaching her these things and even a strike or parry that we might not like as practicing martial artist has RADICALLY changed her outlook on things. It's given her and idea of action. That action, and action, is more important than technical details AT THIS POINT.

We can set here and go on about this or that concept or efficiency, but we train constantly. She hasn't. She's just increased her potential response by 100 percent. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be violent.

As for the mindset, I didn't find anything in the verbage to be aligned as anti-male. Yes, women have a radically different version of what aggression looks like than men. Right or wrong it's a cultural truth. Is every man a potential threat? Until you know them yes. Even then look at the numbers of assaults that come fro "acquaintances." Yes, they should be cautious and carry a different mindset than male counterparts.

So, if the program is less than ideal in our eyes is irrelevant. Is it teaching them to play to the documented percentages that will give them a chance to avoid assault? If it is, more power to them.

[sensei8]

I will, respectfully, be the desisting voice here. While the best way to train to physically prevail in a conflict is to train, regularly, seminars like these continue to be a mainstay in introducing different populations to fighting arts. Given that, some training will almost alway be better than none as long as it is relevant.

We can dissect technique and application and agree or disagree with it, but at the end of the day this program is designed for people coming from NO background. More than technique, you're looking and mindset. It's stressing awareness, avoidance, verbal and then physical resistance. The numbers they are touting are accurate. These things WILL decrease the likelihood of assault.

You'll note, the FBI and DOJ studies don't cite WHAT course of physical resistance prevent assault, just that it DID! Now, take a female with no background in fighting and hasn't even considered the fact she might be assaulted. Teaching her these things and even a strike or parry that we might not like as practicing martial artist has RADICALLY changed her outlook on things. It's given her and idea of action. That action, and action, is more important than technical details AT THIS POINT.

We can set here and go on about this or that concept or efficiency, but we train constantly. She hasn't. She's just increased her potential response by 100 percent. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be violent.

As for the mindset, I didn't find anything in the verbage to be aligned as anti-male. Yes, women have a radically different version of what aggression looks like than men. Right or wrong it's a cultural truth. Is every man a potential threat? Until you know them yes. Even then look at the numbers of assaults that come fro "acquaintances." Yes, they should be cautious and carry a different mindset than male counterparts.

So, if the program is less than ideal in our eyes is irrelevant. Is it teaching them to play to the documented percentages that will give them a chance to avoid assault? If it is, more power to them.

Solid post!!

[cathal]

Yep well said tallgeese. I don't see your opinion as dissenting but rather highlighting a reality. As for the issue about hate-mongering I'm personally taking a grain of salt on it.

[Luther unleashed]

Tallgeese really nice. I have 3 daughters and a wife so I focus on things for my family to focus on that they can learn easily, quickly, and without much consistent training.

A guy who does tai chi lives in my neighborhood and found my info from another neighbor. He teaches at a library. Long story but he hit me and asked if I'd be interested in doing a women's self defense seminar. I accepted. I'm set for December 5th and if numbers are good it will be monthly. It's free for everybody, and the library cuts me a check. Pretty cool.

I feel that although I'm not going to teach them deep and agressive technuiqes I am excited to have a positive impact. I want to get them mentally focused on this type of situation possibly happening where they may need to protect themselves. Who knows what can be sparked in their minds, and I really feel there's a real mental aspect to self defense that I can help them focus on. Real excited.

[Montana]

The biggest flaw I see in an all-women class is..who are they going to train with in these self-defense scenerios?

Women vs women?

BAH! That is just plain stupidity IMO. Is a woman going to grab you like a man would? Tackle you? Punch you?

I have always hated women's self-defense classes..except for one. They are motly a total waste of time IMO.

[Luther unleashed]

The biggest flaw I see in an all-women class is..who are they going to train with in these self-defense scenerios?

Women vs women?

BAH! That is just plain stupidity IMO. Is a woman going to grab you like a man would? Tackle you? Punch you?

I have always hated women's self-defense classes..except for one. They are motly a total waste of time IMO.

The idea isn't to train like karate, and give a life like situation! The idea is to give them information, and help to spark something in their way of thinking. I find your general attitude to be disappointing about it. In general when somebody posts their excitement about their oppertunity to reach others, especially those with no experience, I think it's best to post our opinions with less of a salty taste, and more of a supportive nature towards our forum friends. I also find your opinion that women training with women for a self defense situation for a man, a bit of a sexist statement. You know, when we train In martial arts and do drills, am I to feel my drills are not worth it because my attacker in the street is probably nothing like the more humble, and possibly nicer person in front of me? I happen to feel this way of thinking g could easily be called "stupid" IMHO!

It's highly unlikely I'll face a person in the street who know karate, so it's a waist of time to defend against karate drills as well I suppose. Why do we bother at all?

[Montana]

The biggest flaw I see in an all-women class is..who are they going to train with in these self-defense scenerios?

Women vs women?

BAH! That is just plain stupidity IMO. Is a woman going to grab you like a man would? Tackle you? Punch you?

I have always hated women's self-defense classes..except for one. They are motly a total waste of time IMO.

The idea isn't to train like karate, and give a life like situation! The idea is to give them information, and help to spark something in their way of thinking. I find your general attitude to be disappointing about it. In general when somebody posts their excitement about their oppertunity to reach others, especially those with no experience, I think it's best to post our opinions with less of a salty taste, and more of a supportive nature towards our forum friends. I also find your opinion that women training with women for a self defense situation for a man, a bit of a sexist statement. You know, when we train In martial arts and do drills, am I to feel my drills are not worth it because my attacker in the street is probably nothing like the more humble, and possibly nicer person in front of me? I happen to feel this way of thinking g could easily be called "stupid" IMHO!

It's highly unlikely I'll face a person in the street who know karate, so it's a waist of time to defend against karate drills as well I suppose. Why do we bother at all?

IMO...If you're taching a womens "self-defense" class aimed at women learning to protect themselves against men, it's rediculous to have your practice "attackers" women. Very seldom does a woman "attack" another woman like a man will. Very seldom does a woman grab like a man will. Very seldom does a woman have the strength or aggression that a man will.

I don't know what kind of martial arts drills you do in your class, but in mine the emphasis is on the attacker attacking hard, fast and strong..not tossing out punches, kicks and grabs lightly. I emphasise realistic attacks, not wimpy attacks.

Take just about any woman who has taken a couple weeks class of a womens self-defense program..wait about a week or two afterwards, bring them back and give them a man attacker that uses mid-level force in his attack, and I'll give you GREAT odds that that woman will FAIL to do anything in her own defense..anymore than she would have without previous training.