An Uncomfortable Irony

I have spent decades training women in corporate environments across India. I have worked with companies of all sizes, across all industries, and I have seen the genuine care that organisations put into their women’s safety initiatives. That care is real, and it is something I deeply appreciate.

But I have also noticed an irony that has been growing over the past few years, and I think it deserves an honest conversation.

The very companies that champion workplace equality, that run campaigns against gender bias, that celebrate breaking stereotypes, and that invest heavily in diversity and inclusion programs are increasingly making one very specific request when it comes to self-defense training: “Can you send a female instructor?”

In other words, companies that publicly fight against gender-based discrimination are privately practising it, in the very act of trying to empower women.

The Request Decoded

Let us unpack what this request actually communicates, even if unintentionally:

• To the male professional: Your decades of expertise, your specialised knowledge in crime psychology, your proven track record with corporate clients, none of that matters as much as the fact that you are male.
• To the female employees: You are not strong enough to learn from a male instructor. A man’s presence in the training room is something you need to be protected from, even when that man is a professional who is there to help you.
• To the organisation itself: Gender is an acceptable filter for professional engagement, as long as we feel our reasons are good enough.

None of these messages align with the values of equality, empowerment, or inclusion. And yet, they are the messages embedded in every “female instructor only” request.

Equality Cannot Be Selective

Here is a principle that I believe every corporate leader already understands but sometimes forgets to apply consistently: equality is either universal or it is not equality at all.

You cannot celebrate International Women’s Day with speeches about shattering glass ceilings and then, the following week, refuse to engage a male professional because of his gender. You cannot run unconscious bias training for your teams while your procurement team applies a conscious gender bias to vendor selection. You cannot champion a world where women are judged by their competence and then judge a male professional by his chromosomes.

These contradictions do not go unnoticed. They may not be challenged openly, because challenging a company’s women’s safety initiative feels uncomfortable. But the inconsistency is there, and it matters, legally, ethically, and practically.

“You cannot fight for equality with one hand and practise discrimination with the other. If gender should not determine what opportunities a woman gets, then gender should not determine what opportunities a man gets either. That is not a controversial statement. That is the definition of equality.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

The Evolution of Missing the Point

I sometimes describe the history of women’s self-defense in India as an evolution of misdirection. Each era brings a new focus, and each focus manages to avoid the one thing that actually matters.

Era 1: Blame the victim. The focus was entirely on the woman. What was she wearing? Where was she going? What time was it? The message was that crime is the victim’s responsibility to prevent through her behaviour and clothing. This was not just wrong; it was harmful.

Era 2: Teach her martial arts. The focus shifted to physical techniques. Karate chops, kickboxing combinations, self-defense moves borrowed from combat sports. The assumption was that if women could fight, they would be safe. But crime is not a martial arts tournament. It is unpredictable, psychologically overwhelming, and often over before a person’s body catches up with what their mind is experiencing.

Era 3: Make sure the instructor is female. The latest focus. The assumption now is that the gender of the trainer determines the quality of the training. This is just as misguided as the previous two eras, and for the same fundamental reason: it avoids addressing the actual nature of crime.

In each era, the focus drifts further from the core question: How does crime actually work, and how do we prepare women to deal with it?

“First we blamed the dress. Then we blamed the lack of martial arts training. Now we are blaming the gender of the instructor. At what point do we stop looking for the wrong answer and start asking the right question? The question is: how does crime work? Start there, and everything else falls into place.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

What Real Self-Defense Training Actually Requires

Effective self-defense training is not about physical fitness, fighting ability, or the gender of the person at the front of the room. It is about understanding the complete lifecycle of a crime and building the psychological and practical tools to navigate each phase:

Pre-Crime: Awareness and Avoidance

Most crimes have a build-up phase. Criminals assess, approach, test, and then act. Training should teach women to recognise these pre-crime signals, to understand the body language of predatory intent, and to take preventive action before a situation escalates. This requires knowledge of criminal psychology that goes far beyond martial arts training.

During Crime: Response Under Pressure

When a crime is happening, the biggest enemy is not the criminal’s physical strength. It is the freeze response. Research consistently shows that a significant percentage of assault victims freeze during the attack, unable to scream, run, or fight. This is not weakness. It is a neurological response. Effective training addresses this response specifically, teaching women to break through it and act even when their brain is telling them to shut down.

Post-Crime: Recovery and Action

What happens after a crime is just as important as what happens during it. Does the woman know how to preserve evidence? Does she know her legal rights? Does she know where to seek help? Does she have a framework for processing the psychological aftermath? Comprehensive training covers all of this.

Notice that none of these elements have anything to do with whether the instructor is male or female. They have everything to do with whether the instructor is qualified, experienced, and deeply knowledgeable about how crime actually works.

The Comfort Zone Trap

Let me address the comfort argument one more time, because it is the most common justification for the “female instructor only” request.

Comfort is not a training objective. In fact, in self-defense training, comfort is often the enemy of progress. The entire purpose of the training is to prepare women for situations that are profoundly uncomfortable. A woman being stalked is uncomfortable. A woman facing a physically aggressive person is uncomfortable. A woman in a domestic violence situation is uncomfortable every single day.

If training does not push women past their comfort zone, at least a little, then it has not prepared them for anything real. A comfortable workshop where everyone feels nice produces participants who feel nice. It does not produce participants who can handle a crisis.

And here is the deeper issue with the comfort argument. When we remove a male instructor to make women “comfortable,” we are actually telling women that their discomfort around men is something to be managed by the world around them, not something they have the power to overcome themselves. That is not empowerment. That is the opposite of empowerment.

“Empowerment is not about removing every source of discomfort from a woman’s environment. It is about building her capacity to face discomfort and still function. That is what keeps her safe. Not a comfortable room. A capable mind.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

What I Would Like to See

I would like to see corporates evaluate self-defense trainers the same way they evaluate any other professional service provider: based on competence, experience, methodology, and results.

I would like to see procurement emails that ask about a trainer’s approach to crime psychology instead of asking about a trainer’s gender.

I would like to see DEI principles applied consistently, not just in the boardroom, but in the training room and the vendor selection process.

And I would like to see women trusted. Trusted to learn from the best available instructor, regardless of gender. Trusted to handle a professional male presence in a controlled environment. Trusted to be stronger than the stereotypes that even well-meaning companies sometimes project onto them.

That trust, more than any technique or any workshop format, is the foundation of real empowerment.

“The greatest compliment you can give a woman is to trust her. Trust her intelligence, trust her resilience, and trust her ability to learn from anyone who has genuine knowledge to share. When you start trusting women to be strong, they start proving that they always were.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph