Where Care Becomes Carelessness

There is something quietly happening across corporate India that nobody seems to be questioning. Companies are reaching out for women’s self-defense workshops and, before asking a single question about the program content, the methodology, or the instructor’s qualifications, they ask one thing: “Is the instructor female?”

I have been doing this work for decades, and I want to say clearly that I understand the intention. HR teams want their women employees to feel at ease. They want the session to feel welcoming. They picture a female instructor and assume that will automatically create a more comfortable space.

The intention is caring. The policy, however, is problematic. And it is worth understanding why.

When a Policy Contradicts Its Own Purpose

Think about what a self-defense workshop is supposed to achieve. It is supposed to prepare women for real danger. Real danger that is, in the vast majority of cases, going to come from a man.

Now think about the policy behind the workshop. The company has decided, before the program even begins, that its women employees should not have to learn from a man. The training is about facing danger, but the hiring policy is about avoiding discomfort. These two ideas are pulling in completely opposite directions.

If the training environment is carefully curated to remove any element that might feel unfamiliar or challenging, including the simple presence of a professional male instructor, then the training is already working against its own goals. It is building a bubble when it should be building armour.

“Good intentions without good thinking produce bad outcomes. Wanting women to feel comfortable is kind. Designing their safety training around that comfort is counterproductive. Crime does not adjust itself to make you comfortable. Your training should not either.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

The Legal Problem Nobody Is Talking About

Beyond the training effectiveness issue, there is a straightforward legal problem with specifying the gender of a trainer when gender has nothing to do with the job.

Under Indian law, gender-based discrimination in hiring and service engagement is restricted by multiple provisions.

• Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution collectively establish that no person should be excluded from an opportunity based on gender alone.
• The Equal Remuneration Act (Section 5) and the Code on Wages (Section 3) prohibit discrimination based on gender in recruitment for the same or similar work.
• The POSH Act requires workplace safety training but says nothing about the trainer needing to be a particular gender. The focus is on the quality and relevance of the program.
• BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) standards allow gender to be a job requirement only when it is essential to the nature of the work. Teaching personal safety is a knowledge-based profession. Gender is not essential to it.

Most companies also have their own DEI policies that prohibit gender-based discrimination in hiring and vendor engagement. Specifying that only a female instructor is acceptable creates a direct conflict with those policies.

Internationally, ILO Convention No. 111, CEDAW, ESG reporting standards, and UN SDG 5 all reinforce the principle that gender should not be used as a basis for professional exclusion.

The point here is not to frighten anyone. The point is that a policy born from good intentions can still be legally unsound. And companies that pride themselves on governance and compliance should be aware of this.

The Comfort Argument Falls Apart Under Examination

Let me walk through the comfort argument step by step, because I think that once you see where it leads, you will understand why it does not hold up.

The argument says: women will feel more comfortable learning from a female instructor.

Let us accept that premise for a moment. Now let us follow it to its logical conclusion.

If a woman is not comfortable engaging with a professional, respectful male instructor in a controlled classroom with colleagues around her and HR present, how is she going to deal with a male attacker on a street? Or a male stalker who follows her home? Or a male domestic partner who threatens her behind closed doors?

The scenarios where self-defense skills are actually needed are, by definition, deeply uncomfortable. They involve fear, aggression, unpredictability, and almost always, a male aggressor who is not concerned with making her feel at ease.

Training that shields women from all discomfort is training that leaves them unprepared for reality. And training that leaves women unprepared for reality is not training at all. It is a photo opportunity.

“The comfort zone is where safety training goes to die. If your employees leave the workshop feeling nothing but comfortable, they have not learned anything that will help them when comfort is no longer an option. And in a real crisis, comfort is the first thing that disappears.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

The Myth of “Just Learning Tricks”

Often, the demand for a female instructor is rooted in a fundamental misconception about what self-defense actually is. Most people assume personal safety is simply about learning a few physical “tricks” or maneuvers. The logic follows that a female instructor might be better suited to teach these physical tricks to another woman.

But here is the dangerous reality: physical tricks are reaction-based tactics. They only come into play after the crime has already started.

If a woman relies solely on physical reactions, she is forced to confront the harsh biological reality of the size and strength disparity between men and women. Once a physical assault is underway, fighting back using brute strength or mechanical tricks is an incredibly difficult path.

Furthermore, real-world crime is rarely a spontaneous, fair fight. It is mostly planned. A criminal chooses the ambiance, selects the method, brings weapons, and often operates with other people. You cannot defeat a planned, armed, or multi-person ambush with a few practiced kicks or punches.

Therefore, self-defense is not just about learning physical tricks. True personal safety is about crime psychology—understanding how predators operate, recognizing the setup, and avoiding the trap before the crime ever becomes physical. This requires an instructor with deep expertise in threat assessment and criminal behavior, not just someone who shares the same gender.

What a Good Policy Actually Looks Like

So if “female instructor only” is not good policy, what is?

A good policy evaluates trainers on what actually matters for the safety of employees.

1. Expertise in crime psychology. Does the instructor understand how criminals select, approach, and control their victims?
2. Comprehensive curriculum. Does the program cover pre-crime awareness, during-crime response, and post-crime recovery? Or is it just two hours of kicks and punches?
3. Understanding of psychological barriers. The freeze response, social conditioning, learned helplessness, fear of confrontation. These are the real obstacles to self-defense, and they require specialist knowledge to address.
4. Professionalism and sensitivity. A good instructor, regardless of gender, creates a respectful, safe learning environment while still pushing participants to grow.
5. Track record. Verifiable experience, client testimonials, and documented outcomes.
6. Alignment with legal frameworks. Does the program complement your POSH compliance requirements?

This is a policy based on competence. It produces better outcomes for employees and creates zero conflict with your DEI commitments, your legal obligations, or your governance standards.

The Real Message You Send

Every policy sends a message, whether you intend it or not.

When you specify that only a female instructor is acceptable, the message your women employees receive, consciously or unconsciously, is this: “We do not think you can handle learning from a man.”

When you choose an instructor based on their expertise and track record, regardless of gender, the message is very different: “We trust you. We believe in your strength. We have found the best person to help you become even stronger.”

One message reinforces limitation. The other reinforces empowerment. The choice is straightforward.

“Every decision you make about women’s training tells your women employees something about how you see them. Make sure it tells them they are strong. Not that they are fragile.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

Moving Forward

I want to be clear about something. This is not about shaming any company. Every HR professional who has asked me for a female instructor has done so from a place of genuine care. That care is valuable.

But care and competence are both needed. Caring about your employees means wanting the best for them. And wanting the best means choosing the best, based on what will actually protect them, not based on an assumption about gender that does not hold up under scrutiny.

Good intentions are the starting point. Good policy is the destination. And the bridge between them is honest, informed thinking. I hope this post helps build that bridge.

“The road from good intention to good policy is paved with honest questions. Start asking them. Your employees will be safer for it.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph