
'Suffrajitsu': How the suffragettes fought back using martial arts - brudgers
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34425615
======
wisty
According to Wikipedia, many historians think the suffragettes hurt the cause
of women getting votes. There were several suffragist movements, and
"suffragette" was used to describe the militants (who went on hunger strikes,
committed arson, etc).

The opponents of suffrage would refer to suffragists as "suffragettes" (in
much the same way Fox News might refer to left-wing politicians as socialists
or communists), and would often argue "women are too crazy to vote - just look
at the tactics they use!".

Women got the vote in 1918, 4 years after WSPU (the militant suffragette
group) ceased activity (they essentially disbanded / split after the war
started, because domestic terrorism during a war was obviously not a winning
strategy).

It might be fun to think they beat up policemen, forcing people to take them
seriously. But it actually had the opposite effect. At best, they were
comparable to Malcolm X (making other groups look relatively acceptable).

~~~
teachrdan
Meh. People in power always say the militants were too militant and actually
hurt the cause - whether it's true or not.

When you think about it, the only thing the establishment wants is an
opposition too weak to effectively stop them. Winning movements almost always
have a radical edge. You mentioned Malcolm X, but even Martin Luther King was
accused of hurting the cause for black equality by being too extreme.

And even if all the militant suffragettes did was make the mainstream suffrage
movement look more acceptable, that's still a huge impact for a numerically
small group.

~~~
Kalium
There have been some studies showing that militant tactics in the civil rights
era provoked conservative backlashes compared to geographic areas where
militant tactics were not employed. We're not in the realm of pure hypothesis
and supposition anymore.

[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-
shows...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-
make-america-conservative.html)

It's worth considering that the people in power who say the militants are
hurting their cause _may be speaking the truth_. Rather than dismissing them
out of hand because you find their motives suspect.

~~~
brudgers
_provoked_

Oppression isn't provoked or a backlash. It's cold and calculated for
purposeful effect. The banal logic of colonialism is why Reginald Dyer's
troops had .303 Enfields [and the used because they were too wide armoured
cars] at Jallianwala Bagh. [1]

Jim Crow, the Klan, George Wallace and segregated public schools were long
established before events such as those which earned Edmund Pettus Bridge [2]
it's National Historic Register status. Though I suppose "conservative
backlash" one could mean the Cahaba Boys [3], I'm not really seeing anything
that I would qualify as provocative in a neutral sense of the word.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#The_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#The_Hunter_Commission)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#Civil_rig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#Civil_rights_flashpoint)

[3]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_church_bombing#Pros...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_church_bombing#Prosecution_of_Robert_Chambliss)

~~~
Kalium
OK. Then use a different set of words. Violent protest in these historical
contexts has been demonstrated as causally linked to political changes
antithetical to those preferred by said protesters.

Happier? The exact same phenomenon has now been described without using either
of the words you object to. What has been gained by this exercise? The
phenomenon in question has not changed because a vocabulary some people might
consider more neutral has been used.

Do you have something to contribute to this conversation?

------
kevin_thibedeau
Some examples from the Eastman House collection:

[http://www.geh.org/ar/strip43/htmlsrc/vanderweyde_sum00035.h...](http://www.geh.org/ar/strip43/htmlsrc/vanderweyde_sum00035.html)

I visited once to try and obtain larger copies but archivists look down on the
common folk.

------
rm_-rf_slash
Well that was easily the coolest thing I've seen all day.

I advocate for everybody to study martial arts. Learning to fight is a process
that teaches you to synchronize your mind and body out of sheer necessity: if
you don't practice your technique, strengthen your entire body, or take care
of your diet, you're gonna get punched in the teeth.

Most of my youth was spent playing video games, and sports were boring
exercises that my parents dragged me to. If anyone else can relate to my
experience, take my advice and try a martial art.

~~~
Swizec
Yup, as a kid I was even told by doctors to avoid strenuous exercise because
of a minor heart condition.

These days I do good old english boxing four times a week. It's an amazing
workout and you will never achieve so much focus and flow as quickly as you
will in a sparring session. For those three minutes, you are there, you are
fighting, there is no room to think about anything else, or to stress about
anything else.

Nothing like the immediacy of a potential punch to the face to make all other
stress in your life melt away and become meaningless.

~~~
barrkel
_Nothing like the immediacy of a potential punch to the face to make all other
stress in your life melt away and become meaningless._ The necessity of focus
and putting everything else out of your mind is similar in motorcycling, FWIW.

Bikes are probably more likely to kill you though. But not as likely as horse
riding - that's a seriously dangerous sport.

~~~
Swizec
I think the effect is pretty much the same in all adrenaline sports and
adrenaline seeking behaviors. Which one you pick is a combination of
convenience, enjoyment, money, and risk tolerance.

I love downhill longboarding for instance. But it's extremely inconvenient.
Especially the part about walking back up the damn hill.

------
curiousjorge
I took martial arts as a kid, taekwondo, hapkido, karate. I loved knowing my
limits thats what martial arts teaches you, your physical limits and it lets
you stay out of fights unless absolutely necessary.

More over I loved the discipline, and a strong sense of inner confidence. The
stress release. I find martial arts is more about meditation and practicing
control over yourself.

As for practicality, you are better off learning something that special forces
developed for hand to hand combat.

Out of all martial arts I'd say taekwondo if mastered is the most lethal
because the leg is the most powerful muscle, perfect for women as they have
much more lethal leg muscle than men.

My instructor practiced it since he was a kid and went to a special university
where they practice TKD day and night. His control over space and footwork was
WTF grade. Even when a group of black belts tried to spar him, the non stop
array of fakes and quick turn kicks knocked somebody out.

The most practical form of hand to hand combat is practiced by special forces

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fer7MWiVN6w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fer7MWiVN6w)

------
itistoday2
A favorite martial art of mine is Aikido. It is quite different from all other
martial arts in that it emphasizes disabling your opponent while minimizing
harm to them. There are different styles. Here's a demonstration of one such
style called Yoshinkan (it is considered one of the rougher/more rigid
styles):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugsS2_Z0wpA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugsS2_Z0wpA)

~~~
atom-morgan
I seriously question the practicality of Aikido. It's easy to look good when
your opponents play along with your attacks.

~~~
itistoday2
It's worth questioning for sure, but at the same time it's easy to
misunderstand Aikido.

"opponents playing along" is half-accurate. In Aikido you spend most of your
time practicing techniques with a _partner_ , and they do not play the role of
an uncooperative opponent for two specific reasons:

1\. The goal of Aikido is to, through repetition, build muscle-memory of very
specific techniques. These are very different types of techniques than what
you'll find in say, karate, where it's basically kicking and punching. These
techniques are designed to disable your opponent while minimizing harm. Aikido
is also not about kicking and punching, it's about _responding to kicks and
punches_ (attacks).

There is simply no way to build that muscle memory other than by having
repetition with a cooperative partner. To outsiders this may seem like
opponents that merely "play along" with your attacks, but that is ultimately a
misunderstanding of what's going on.

2\. These techniques _are painful_ if you don't cooperate. The reason the
"opponent" seems to be "playing along" is because they have to do this _over
and over_ for the length of the class session. If you're a poor Uke (the
opponent) and are uncooperative, you will end up missing most of your classes
due to injuries. A good Uke will be uncooperative to the extent that it helps
Nage (the person practicing the technique) learn the technique without
seriously injuring themselves.

~~~
atom-morgan
I don't think the issue of building muscle-memory is exclusive to Aikido. It's
a part of nearly any physical activity.

Why do you think a martial art such as Aikido is nearly non-existent at the
highest level of competition such as the UFC?

~~~
Riseed
Aikidoka have no place in UFC because it goes against the whole spirit of the
art: harmony, self defense, non-competition.

Regardless, Aikido techniques (i.e. joint manipulation) violate the rules of
the UFC. [http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-
regulations](http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations)

~~~
scott_s
The difficulty with that claim is that it's circular, and it makes it
untestable: the effectiveness of Aikido cannot be tested because testing the
effectiveness of Aikido goes against the spirit of Aikido.

~~~
Riseed
Not exactly. The question was "Why do you think...?" "Spirit of Aikido" was my
thoughts, a conjecture, not a claim as spokesperson on behalf of the Aikido
community. :)

To rephrase what I said before: If a high-ranking Aikidoka wants to play UFC,
they're certainly free to do so. However, _I think_ none have done so because
it goes against the spirit of Aikido. (e.g. people attracted to Aikido are not
those attracted to UFC, Aikidoka UFC fans don't associate Aikido with UFC)

~~~
scott_s
I've seen others express the same sentiment. Your explanation may be true, but
I think a parallel explanation is also probably true: they are unprepared for
a fight with a skilled opponent.

~~~
Riseed
I agree that "unprepared for a fight with a skilled opponent" is true for many
Aikidoka (perhaps they are more self-aware of their limitations than students
of other arts?), but it's also true of Cat Zingano ;)

~~~
scott_s
I know you're making a joke, but I don't think it works:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Zingano#Mixed_martial_arts...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Zingano#Mixed_martial_arts_record)

~~~
Riseed
My point, made in jest, was that even the most seemingly prepared, skilled,
and qualified person can be unprepared for a skilled opponent. I was aware of
her record, hence the example. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

~~~
scott_s
She's demonstrably prepared for a fight with a skilled opponent. She's just
not prepared for the _most_ skilled opponent - but right now, it appears that
no other woman on the planet is. Surely our bar for "skilled opponent" in this
discussion has not been Ronda Rousey, a bronze medalist in Judo and the most
dominant female MMA champion, ever.

~~~
Riseed
It seems I misjudged the conversation and should not have made a joke. My
apologies.

------
boothead
Caption reads: "A suffragette defends herself from a policeman's truncheon".
Poor choice of words much?

