What is wrong with this picture?

[Mulan]

WARNING: the following is based on minimal research and no formal training whatsoever!

Reading through some threads on this forum, I notice a lot of them are about how women are weaker, women are smaller, women can't take as much damage, women don't have the mindset to inflict injury on their attacker (please excuse me as I break down laughing), and mind-boggling extremes such as if a 7' tall 500lb man attacked the average woman she'd be SOL (uhuh, and the average man wouldn't be?). It's true, the majority of women in the world are brought up to be docile, and aren't exposed to the rough play and physically abusive bullies that conditions men to endure pain and trains reflexes. Both genders are also force-fed stereotypes about how strong and tough males are, and how weak and fragile women are (or, at least, should be).

But I think the reality is rather different. We're all the same species, we're all human; men are a lot weaker and more fragile than the movies (or our society) makes them out to be, and women are a lot stronger and tougher than the movies (or our society) makes them out to be. There is a gap, but given the proper mindset, physical conditioning, and training, the playing field is more equal than it seems. As some people have pointed out in various threads, fighting a female is comparative to fighting a lightweight male - they don't stand still, and use moves as well as the next person.

The only real difference is, society programs us to view males and females differently. Therefore, an interesting paradox emerges in the case of a female against a random male attacker: the male's greatest disadvantage is underestimating the female, and the female's greatest disadvantage is overestimating the male and underestimating herself. The taller somebody is than you, the more exposed their throat (and other sensitive areas) is - particularly if they aren't expecting a fight. Also, as many have pointed out, typical hostile male-on-female attacks occur in close quarters - unguarded close quarters, since you can't undress somebody and hold them down at the same time, which makes the males prime targets for various grappling techniques and throws.

But enough about the ugly stuff. I honestly don't see being "smaller" or "weaker" as fatal disadvantages for either females or males. Being "big and strong" are qualitites that are pathetically easy to use against the average untrained opponent, but are too crude to decide the outcome of a fight when more advanced variables (mindset, training, speed, power, technique, strategy, evasion, environment, sheer randomness, dare I even say "chi," etc) come into play.

We all have advantages and disadvantages as males and females, as well as as individuals: men might be stronger and better able to take damage, women might be more flexible and better able to avoid damage, etc - different but equal. When we pick which martial arts we train in, we have to acknowledge that each style has its pros and cons, many skills specialize in rock-paper-scizzors type inter-relatedness, some styles are better for light/agile people, others better for large/tough people. Taking all that into account, the idea is to train in styles and skills that maximize our advantages and minimize our disadvantages.

I am by no means implying men and women should train differently when studying the same martial art. But just that we as individuals must all acknowledge our innate strengths and weaknesses (which vary between male and male, between female and female), play up our assets, and make the most out of what we got. If the training is done properly, then the average cross-sex playing field (not talking about extremes here) should theoretically be a lot more equal in one-on-one matches.

P.S. About smaller, lighter opponents being less capable of taking damage... I've seen Chi Kung demonstrations where kids have bricks broken on their head without flinching, bend metal with their bare skin, and could withstand many pounds of pressure placed onto their body. Basically, one of Chi Kung's benefits seems to be near-invulnerability to external pressure/strikes/pain. *shrug* Could be something for lighter/smaller people to consider to even out ability to withstand damage.

P.P.S. I suppose all of this was talked about before, but I'm new, sorry!

[TNT]

Originally Posted by Mulan

WARNING: the following is based on minimal research and no formal training whatsoever!

Reading through some threads on this forum, I notice a lot of them are about how women are weaker, women are smaller, women can't take as much damage, women don't have the mindset to inflict injury on their attacker (please excuse me as I break down laughing), and mind-boggling extremes such as if a 7' tall 500lb man attacked the average woman she'd be SOL (uhuh, and the average man wouldn't be?). It's true, the majority of women in the world are brought up to be docile, and aren't exposed to the rough play and physically abusive bullies that conditions men to endure pain and trains reflexes. Both genders are also force-fed stereotypes about how strong and tough males are, and how weak and fragile women are (or, at least, should be).

But I think the reality is rather different. We're all the same species, we're all human; men are a lot weaker and more fragile than the movies (or our society) makes them out to be, and women are a lot stronger and tougher than the movies (or our society) makes them out to be. There is a gap, but given the proper mindset, physical conditioning, and training, the playing field is more equal than it seems. As some people have pointed out in various threads, fighting a female is comparative to fighting a lightweight male - they don't stand still, and use moves as well as the next person.

The only real difference is, society programs us to view males and females differently. Therefore, an interesting paradox emerges in the case of a female against a random male attacker: the male's greatest disadvantage is underestimating the female, and the female's greatest disadvantage is overestimating the male and underestimating herself. The taller somebody is than you, the more exposed their throat (and other sensitive areas) is - particularly if they aren't expecting a fight. Also, as many have pointed out, typical hostile male-on-female attacks occur in close quarters - unguarded close quarters, since you can't undress somebody and hold them down at the same time, which makes the males prime targets for various grappling techniques and throws.

But enough about the ugly stuff. I honestly don't see being "smaller" or "weaker" as fatal disadvantages for either females or males. Being "big and strong" are qualitites that are pathetically easy to use against the average untrained opponent, but are too crude to decide the outcome of a fight when more advanced variables (mindset, training, speed, power, technique, strategy, evasion, environment, sheer randomness, dare I even say "chi," etc) come into play.

We all have advantages and disadvantages as males and females, as well as as individuals: men might be stronger and better able to take damage, women might be more flexible and better able to avoid damage, etc - different but equal. When we pick which martial arts we train in, we have to acknowledge that each style has its pros and cons, many skills specialize in rock-paper-scizzors type inter-relatedness, some styles are better for light/agile people, others better for large/tough people. Taking all that into account, the idea is to train in styles and skills that maximize our advantages and minimize our disadvantages.

I am by no means implying men and women should train differently when studying the same martial art. But just that we as individuals must all acknowledge our innate strengths and weaknesses (which vary between male and male, between female and female), play up our assets, and make the most out of what we got. If the training is done properly, then the average cross-sex playing field (not talking about extremes here) should theoretically be a lot more equal in one-on-one matches.

P.S. About smaller, lighter opponents being less capable of taking damage... I've seen Chi Kung demonstrations where kids have bricks broken on their head without flinching, bend metal with their bare skin, and could withstand many pounds of pressure placed onto their body. Basically, one of Chi Kung's benefits seems to be near-invulnerability to external pressure/strikes/pain. *shrug* Could be something for lighter/smaller people to consider to even out ability to withstand damage.

P.P.S. I suppose all of this was talked about before, but I'm new, sorry!

....you have to remember...a lot of stuff....is written........by men.

Welcome aboard, don't apologize for bringing things up that are important to you because more than likely it's important to others, someone has to be the voice. Further,sometimes it's good to revisit things, maybe help revise things

[Mulan]

Thanks, I hope so. It just annoys me how some people view the whole issue from generalized perspectives of "male" and "female" instead of treating people as individuals with unique and complicated potentials that go way past size or strength. But even if one must generalize "male" and "female," it annoys me that the two are viewed as almost completely different species instead of residing on the same spectrum range of abilities. The fact is, it doesn't matter if a man or a woman hits you - it still hurts!

[Tom Yum]

Originally Posted by HandtoHand

No matter how many time you practive holding a screwdriver, watch videos screwing the screw in, screwing in an immaginary screw in bare air, with the screwdriver the first time you do it you arent going to be as good as somebody that has already done it.

Do you work at a bar ?

How many screws did the screw driver drive you to get screwed?

[Bjjexpertise@be]

and the female's greatest disadvantage is overestimating the male and underestimating herself. The taller somebody is than you, the more exposed their throat (and other sensitive areas) is - particularly if they aren't expecting a fight.

Actually, the female's greatest disadvantage is not having testosterone.

And aiming for the throat is rather hard in a fight, both hands are up for protection and if you do manage to get pass the hands you might hit the chin instead.
You said that the throat would be easy to hit if they are not expecting a fight. If they are not expecting a fight, that means you are starting the fight .

P.S. About smaller, lighter opponents being less capable of taking damage... I've seen Chi Kung demonstrations where kids have bricks broken on their head without flinching, bend metal with their bare skin, and could withstand many pounds of pressure placed onto their body. Basically, one of Chi Kung's benefits seems to be near-invulnerability to external pressure/strikes/pain. *shrug* Could be something for lighter/smaller people to consider to even out ability to withstand damage.

Not really invulnerability. More like destroying every nerve on your body then suffering from this as you get older. Indeed kids can break boards or bricks over their heads but those items are specifically made for breaking.
Last week, I went camping with a friend of mine who has done TKD for 10 years. As a joke I told him to break a cinder block. We put the cinder block into position. He does the karate yell then tried to break the cinder block with a palm strike.










Guess what happened...







Broke his wrist
Had to be the most hilarious thing I've ever saw in a while.




Last thing. Mind you, the average guy that tries to rob you or rape you hsa had experience in the streets. He knows how a real fight is knows how to survive in one. Which is a considerable advantage over the average female no matter what martial arts she does.







That's my views as a biased male . Hope you can forgive me.

















Oh yeah and welcome to the forums!

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by Bjjexpertise@be

Not really invulnerability. More like destroying every nerve on your body then suffering from this as you get older. Indeed kids can break boards or bricks over their heads but those items are specifically made for breaking.
Last week, I went camping with a friend of mine who has done TKD for 10 years. As a joke I told him to break a cinder block. We put the cinder block into position. He does the karate yell then tried to break the cinder block with a palm strike.

Guess what happened...

Broke his wrist
Had to be the most hilarious thing I've ever saw in a while.

I think you're confusing the average brick-breaking and various conditioning that goes on in martial arts with Chi Kung. Not only that, but brick-breaking done wrong. Chi Kung is an internal art and does not oblitterate nerves. It is not about breaking bricks... that's just what they do in external demonstrations, and they hardly stop at bricks. Try bending spears with soft throat tissue.

I have been in fights. In fact, I've escaped rapists. The ol' claw hard in the face and bite down on arm works as great as ever. I know it's hard to aim for the throat, but it's a lot easier to do if somebody's guard is down from underestimating you. It doesn't quite matter if a female hits less forcefully than a male (if you go by just muscular strength), the effect is still there, and can add up fast if she does it more often (females can be just as fast if not faster than males... I'm not talking about distance running, I'm talking about body movement).

But really, it doesn't matter. Everybody can say what they like and think what they like... that's not really going to affect how effective individuals are. Mindset, or guts, is the most important aspect of self-defense or in fighting in general, and that varies from individual to individual... next important point is perhaps sheer chance or luck.

My biggest pet peeve is a curious double-standard going on. If a guy posts on these boards saying he's worried that his size, weight, or other aspects of his stature might prevent him from being good in martial arts, and he's having trouble with bigger or stronger opponents... Nobody here tells him "don't bother, it's not worth it, you'll never be as good." Instead, you get all these posts of "don't get intimidated by size, train harder, try different positioning, work on strategy, use leverege, etc," or sometimes "bah, don't worry about it! Look at the scrawny Muay Thai boxers but they kick major ass!!" If god forbid a woman says the same thing, it's as if that part of the brain shuts off and all you hear is "woman weak small woman woman soft female woman small woman woman...... range!!!1!" And I find that kinda strange.

I know this board is predominantly male, and I know there is a lot of bias going on, and I find that really sad. But, then again, if the average male knew what real women are capable of - not nameless statistics, and not ones that act helpless cause they don't know any better - I'd lose my biggest advantage.

[squidd]

but maybe all this stems from semantics. i think that when people say that males are "stronger" the word is used in reference to "building muscle." i think science backs that up in that men have more testosterone which is a crucial component in muscle building.

i would like to disagree (albeit respectfully, and i hope we can discuss this civilly) with your example that men, due to strength, might be able to take more damage and women, being more flexible, might be able to avoid damage making the "equal." you go on to use the rock-scissor-paper game to solidify this analogy.

i think the problem here is that we are overlooking the basic tenet that "everything else being equal, the stronger fighter will win." for example, we take mike tyson and say, filipino boxer manny pacquiao. given that their boxing skills are equal, tyson will always prevail because he will just steam-roll through the smaller opposition. i suppose this is why most fighting sports are segregated into weight divisions. think of these weight divisions as a measure of muscle and, subsequently, strength. the natural predisposition of women to store fat rather than muscle, i think, will alwyas be a disadvantage.

under most fighting conditions, the one that can take more battering and still dish o ut his or her share of offense will win. in other words, i do acknowledge your thesis part way in that a trained woman WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ON a man of the same size or even slightly bigger, but surely not a bob sapp.

thanks for listening.

[TNT]

Originally Posted by squidd

i think the problem here is that we are overlooking the basic tenet that "everything else being equal, the stronger fighter will win."
thanks for listening.

Squidd,
my take on that quote is that "all else being equal, the CRAZIER person wins!!!

[gregimotis]

My biggest pet peeve is a curious double-standard going on. If a guy posts on these boards saying he's worried that his size, weight, or other aspects of his stature ... Nobody here tells him "don't bother, it's not worth it, you'll never be as good." ... " If god forbid a woman says the same thing, it's as if that part of the brain shuts off and all you hear is "woman weak small

This is very true of many MA boards I've seen. I've no doubt that stronger and bigger generally equals winner; but I also know more than one woman who can hit harder and more often than most men like getting hit.


It's interesting to me how often men (in MA) imply that women just shouldn't even bother trying - while at the same time professing the craziest stuff about the invinciblity of (insert art of the week here). If Kung Thai Jitsu Do is so overpowering, way won't it work for women?

I mean, sure it's a disadvantage being smaller, but what's the alternative - just lay down and play dead? Ignore it and it'll go away? BAH - fight, you haven't got anything to lose that they weren't already planning to take from you anyway.

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by squidd

i would like to disagree (albeit respectfully, and i hope we can discuss this civilly) with your example that men, due to strength, might be able to take more damage and women, being more flexible, might be able to avoid damage making the "equal." you go on to use the rock-scissor-paper game to solidify this analogy.

Thank you for an intelligent reply!

I did not mean to imply that it makes them equal. Lightweight males I'm sure can dodge just as well. But still, flexibility and evasion are advantages of smaller targets. So, I was pointing out that both being heavyweight and being lightweight comes with advantages and disadvantages, and that the potential of those advantages and disadvantages could be maximized and minimized repectively depending on which skills you focus your training on. There are combat skills that neutralize strength (such as circular blocks of the softer arts) or nullify force (and even use that force agains the opponent such as in Tai Chi Chuan or Aikido), there's an overwhelming amount of combat skills that do not utilize brute strength and are meant to be useful for every fighter regardless of stature, and so on.

Originally Posted by squidd

i think the problem here is that we are overlooking the basic tenet that "everything else being equal, the stronger fighter will win." for example, we take mike tyson and say, filipino boxer manny pacquiao. given that their boxing skills are equal, tyson will always prevail because he will just steam-roll through the smaller opposition. i suppose this is why most fighting sports are segregated into weight divisions. think of these weight divisions as a measure of muscle and, subsequently, strength. the natural predisposition of women to store fat rather than muscle, i think, will alwyas be a disadvantage.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the key word here is "sports." Yes, there are weight classes in sports, and yes I acknowledge that a smaller boxer would, by and large, not win against a much bigger boxer - by the rules of the boxing ring. But in a fight outside the ring, where there are no restrictions in movement, I think the results would be less obvious and depend more on the skills and knowledge of the individuals.

"All things being equal..." I assume you mean if both people know the same skills or use the same tactics. But, seeing as how it's practically impossible to excel in every single fighting style, this is very rarely true. Every martial artist typically has a limited set of skills (some of which they are more adept at than others) in their arsenal and applies them as s/he sees fit. Every skill and style has its pro's and con's. If the other person knows a set of skills that defeat the skills their opponent uses, and they use them competently, it significantly improves their chance of winning. How often does that happen? It's probably quite random and varies from individual to individual.

So, while I agree that if people who know the exact same skills, are of equal strategic intelligence, have the same intensity of mindset, and the only thing not equal between them in strength, then that is the factor that tips the scales. But the chances of that are slim unless you're dueling clones. The next closest scenario is same-style tournaments. Even then, the outcome of such fights is only predictable in a highly controlled environment (such as a tournament), where environmental factors, sheer chance, luck, and other factors don't interfere.

Originally Posted by squidd

under most fighting conditions, the one that can take more battering and still dish o ut his or her share of offense will win. in other words, i do acknowledge your thesis part way in that a trained woman WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ON a man of the same size or even slightly bigger, but surely not a bob sapp.

I dunno, those Chi Kung demonstrations sure do look impressive as far as impact and pressure tolerance goes. But I'll have to train in it myself before I can tell you my own opinion on it.

Originally Posted by TNT

my take on that quote is that "all else being equal, the CRAZIER person wins!!!

I second that revision!

[squidd]

i'd go out on a limb and say that in a streetfight "the person that can take more battering will win." but then, that opens up to a question i can't answer. if these brick-breaking, spear bending, etc., etc. fighters are so invincible, i wonder why none of them have participated in the UFC or Pride?(or at least none in the those i've seen, if they have then i stand corrected).

surely someone impervious to strikes who has cement like extremities would be invincible and could have a merchandising plug like

able to survive a tito ortiz slam...
will not submit to a fabiano iha arm bar...
able to breath through a noguiera triangle...
impervious to a a chuck liddel hook...

THE CHUI KUNG MAN (or woman)

going back to serious mode. i believe that getting hit is part of fighting which is why i would bnet that muay thai fighters would probably do best outside the ring. they are battered since childhood and will be able to execute even if things go less than perfect and they do get hit.

another thing, while its clear that i hold the opinion that men and women are not and canot be physical equals, i share in mulan's disdain for the "don't bother" attitude. i, for one, have seen women training together with and under the same regimen as men. in extreme cases it might not make up for the natural disparity in muscle, but along the mean and median, it WILL make a difference.

oh, and tnt, please try not to say CRAZY. gives me the jitttttttteers. see what you made me do with the keyboard.

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by squidd

that opens up to a question i can't answer. if these brick-breaking, spear bending, etc., etc. fighters are so invincible, i wonder why none of them have participated in the UFC or Pride?(or at least none in the those i've seen, if they have then i stand corrected).

I shall go out on a limb again and try to reply even though I have not trained in Chi Kung!

*cough* Basically, from what I've read and seen, it requires a lot of training and focus. As far as I know, there are no Chi Kung fighters. It's not in itself a martial art, but it is ideally used to enhance the chi-based martial arts... just like hitting sand-bags might harden parts of your body, but will not in and of itself teach you to fight. I remember one Kung Fu master type person saying regarding Chi Kung something like "being able to take all the punches in the world isn't going to do you much good if you don't know how to fight." However, historically, Chi Kung was part of Shaolin Kung Fu training, and is the reason behind the legend of ancient Shaolin monks being near-invulnerable to attacks. I don't think it's meant to withstand chi-based attacks, tho (but I could be wrong).

The highest goal of Chi Kung practitioners is not to withstand impact or pressure (those are just side bonuses), but the health and spiritual benefits that come from raising, focusing, and flowing chi (if you believe in chi). External Chi Kung demonstrations, however, do focus on various mind-over-matter displays just to show its effectiveness.

So I guess the reasons why it's not as widely used for combat nowadays, other than its diminishing association with martial arts, are:
(1) because it takes a long time and most people would rather focus on the more external aspects of fighting
(2) because it takes concentration and perhaps most people can't hold that type of concentration during a fight
(3) because it seems too far-fetched to be bothered with and most people don't even try to apply it to combat situations.

I can't personally speak for it's effectiveness in combat or otherwise. I'm just saying what I read and what I saw. I do plan to practice Chi Kung in the very near future, though, so I'll get back to you on that if I ever manage to use it effectively in a fighting scenario. ^^ It's worth a shot, imo... worst thing that can happen is I'd be healthier for doing it.

I actually dont' know much about it yet and am kinda hoping somebody who actually does it can step in and explain it better ^_^;;

[mrniceguy148]

Originally Posted by Mulan

WARNING: the following is based on minimal research and no formal training whatsoever!

Hi Mulan,

Welcome aboard! I'm glad to see that I'm not the only novice lurking around here! However, having said that:

You really do need to take the time to stop into a few MA schools in your aria and just watch closely and compare which gender group seems to hit the bags harder in 95% of the cases. Then check to see which gender group seems to have the greater hand and foot speed. Also, when your watching, don't even worry about who holds what belt ranking! Just look for power, hand speed and foot speed.

Well, what do you think that you're probably going to see! Yup! You guessed it! The guys will almost always be light years ahead of the women in all three categories!

In my experience, we had over 100 adult women training in the three branches of the school that I used to attend. On a week in and week out basis I would see guys walk through the door for their first class who where already capable of killing every women in that school in a fair, bare knuckle and no holds barred, fight. Truthfully, I was absolutely shocked to see how bad every one of those women actually were! Understand, I'm a self- professed 98 pound weakling and these women seemed weak even too me! That's the extent of gender gap that we've been discussing here.

However, there are some exceptions. At another school I did see this one tall and strong female black-belt who looked like she actually could fight on the same level with many of the guys. However, very few women actually have the drive and the athletic ability to become anywhere as deadly as she is.

Fortunately though, this doesn’t mean that most women cannot defend themselves. They certainly can!
And, may I ad, congratulations for fighting off that rapist!

However, you do seem to be confusing “self-defense” with the fantasy that average women can go toe to toe with the guys in some kind of death match . You can forget about that ever happening on a regular basis; at least not in our lifetime.

Can the average women learn to defend herself? Yes! Can the average women get some training and then go out and beat up all the bad guys? No chance!

In order to look at this thing rationally, we need to keep in mind that, 1) size, power and speed actually count for something, 2) there is some bad MA instruction floating around out there, 3) if it seems too easy then it probably won’t work and, 4) self defense is about practical solutions for escaping dangerous situations, and it's not about proving that you can beat someone up in a "fair" fight………

Anyway, I hope that this answers your question.

Again, welcome aboard,

Mr. Niceguy

[Mulan]

[edit] grr, it double-posted somehow...

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by mrniceguy148

You really do need to take the time to stop into a few MA schools in your aria and just watch closely and compare which gender group seems to hit the bags harder in 95% of the cases. Then check to see which gender group seems to have the greater hand and foot speed. Also, when your watching, don't even worry about who holds what belt ranking! Just look for power, hand speed and foot speed.

As a psychology major, I would have to say that isn't the best way to size up a demographic. There are a lot less females taking martial arts classes than males, and a lot of those females carry heavy cultural baggage regarding their abilities. That small number of women is in no way representative of female abilities as a whole, nor is casual observation a good way to size up the abilities of such a small sample, since casual observation is prone to a lot of selective bias - conscious or not. Either way, I'm not interested in comparing a group with a group, I'm more interested with the capabilities of individuals.

Originally Posted by mrniceguy148

In my experience, we had over 100 adult women training in the three branches of the school that I used to attend. On a week in and week out basis I would see guys walk through the door for their first class who where already capable of killing every women in that school in a fair, bare knuckle and no holds barred, fight. Truthfully, I was absolutely shocked to see how bad every one of those women actually were! Understand, I'm a self- professed 98 pound weakling and these women seemed weak even too me! That's the extent of gender gap that we've been discussing here.

Hmm, where do you live and what school is it? Cause I've seen these discussions on other MA boards and a good number of teachers say the female students pick up lessons faster than many of the male students and also initially hit harder (because they underestimate their strength and don't hold back). So, putting your statement together with various other people's, I would have to say you have had an unrepresentative amount of bad experiences with female martial artists.

Originally Posted by mrniceguy148

However, you do seem to be confusing “self-defense” with the fantasy that average women can go toe to toe with the guys in some kind of death match . You can forget about that ever happening on a regular basis; at least not in our lifetime.

You represent one side of the opinion spectrum, I represent the other. I would say reality is probably closer to squidd's assessment of "having seen women training together with and under the same regimen as men. in extreme cases it might not make up for the natural disparity in muscle, but along the mean and median, it WILL make a difference." I for one know a number of guys I'd be able to beat up even without training. But I'm really not into martial arts to beat people up, or even for street self-defense. In street self-defense I'd rather shout disorienting gibberish, go for the nearest crowbar and bash an attacker's brain in while shouting ghastly obscenities. Or, better yet, utter a paralyzing scream (and believe you me I've got a scream that can pop eardrums), claw/mace/stungun, and run.

Originally Posted by mrniceguy148

In order to look at this thing rationally, we need to keep in mind that, 1) size, power and speed actually count for something, 2) there is some bad MA instruction floating around out there, 3) if it seems too easy then it probably won’t work and, 4) self defense is about practical solutions for escaping dangerous situations, and it's not about proving that you can beat someone up in a "fair" fight………

I agree with all of that, especially #2 (and I won't even get into gender-biased MA instruction). But aside from size and varying fractions of "power" (which can either be defined as "brute strength" or force outside of brute strength... I typically mean the latter), I do not see how it would hinder females significantly more than lightweight males of similar size. Perhaps my opinion will change after formally sparring males, perhaps that will only reinforce it... I'd rather see for myself.