We Have Been Losing Focus for Years

Over the last couple of decades, the conversation around women’s safety has gone through several phases. Each phase had good intentions. But looking back honestly, each phase also had a common problem: we kept focusing on the wrong thing.

First, the focus was on the victim. What was she wearing? Where was she going? What time was it? The entire conversation revolved around what the woman did or did not do, as if crime was somehow her responsibility. Thankfully, society has largely moved past that narrative. We recognise now that blaming the victim helps no one.

Then the focus shifted to physical techniques. Suddenly, every self-defense program became about karate chops, kickboxing combos, and martial arts demonstrations. Women were taught to punch bags and kick pads, and somewhere along the way, everyone started equating “self-defense” with “martial arts.” The problem? Martial arts and self-defense are not the same thing. Martial arts is a sport, a discipline, a lifestyle. Self-defense is about surviving a crime. These are fundamentally different objectives.

And now, we have arrived at the latest misdirection. The focus has shifted to the gender of the instructor. “We need a female instructor for our women’s self-defense workshop.” Once again, the spotlight has moved away from what actually matters: the crime, the psychology of the crime, and how to prepare women to deal with it.

“We have spent years focusing on the victim’s clothes, then on martial arts techniques, and now on the instructor’s gender. At every stage, we have managed to look everywhere except at the crime itself. And the crime does not care about any of these things.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

Self-Defense Is a Knowledge Domain, Not a Gender Role

Let us think about this the way we think about every other professional service.

A male cardiologist treats female patients. A female lawyer represents male clients in court. A male psychologist helps women work through trauma and abuse. A female financial advisor manages portfolios for male executives. In none of these situations does anyone say, “We need to match the gender of the professional to the gender of the client.” Because we understand that professional competence is not linked to gender.

Self-defense instruction works exactly the same way. It is a specialised knowledge domain that requires expertise in crime psychology, behavioural threat assessment, situational awareness, legal frameworks, emotional resilience training, and practical response strategies. None of these skills are gender-specific.

A good instructor is a good instructor. Their value lies in what they know, how they teach, and whether they can genuinely prepare someone for a real crisis. Their gender does not make them more or less qualified to do that.

What Real Self-Defense Training Actually Covers

Here is where I think much of the confusion comes from. Many corporates, and many people in general, still think of self-defense as primarily physical. Kicks, punches, wrist releases, that sort of thing. And if that is the entire scope of the training, then perhaps it starts to feel like a very physical, very gendered space.

But real self-defense, the kind that actually makes a difference, is about much more than physical techniques. Let me share what a comprehensive program actually involves.

Pre-Crime Psychology

This is perhaps the most important phase, and it is the one most commonly ignored. Pre-crime psychology deals with how criminals select their targets. What makes someone appear vulnerable? What behavioural cues do predators look for? How does social conditioning, the training we all receive from childhood to be polite, to avoid confrontation, to not make a scene, make women more susceptible to manipulation?

This phase also covers awareness. Not the vague “be alert” advice that everyone gives, but specific, practical awareness skills. How to read environments. How to identify threat indicators. How to trust your instincts even when your social conditioning tells you not to.

During-Crime Response

This is where physical techniques come in, but they are only part of the picture. The during-crime phase is also about managing the freeze response, the single biggest reason why people fail to protect themselves. It is about decision-making under extreme stress. It is about understanding the difference between a situation that requires confrontation and one that requires escape. It is about using voice, body language, environment, and strategy, not just fists.

Post-Crime Recovery

This phase is almost never addressed in traditional self-defense workshops, and it is critically important. What do you do after an incident? How do you preserve evidence? Who do you contact? What are your legal rights? How do you deal with the psychological aftermath? How do you prevent re-victimisation?

None of these three phases require a specific gender to teach. They require knowledge, experience, sensitivity, and skill. Those are the qualifications that matter.

“Most self-defense programs teach women how to throw a punch. Very few teach them how to recognise danger before it reaches them, how to think clearly when fear takes over, or what to do after the incident is over. That is the gap. And that gap has nothing to do with whether the instructor is a man or a woman.”

Read Franklin Joseph Corporate Women Empowerment / Self Defense ArticlesCall 9886769281 for Corporate Workshops

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

The Comfort Question: Protection or Limitation?

I want to address the comfort argument directly, because I hear it often, and I think it deserves an honest conversation.

The reasoning usually goes like this: “Our women employees will feel more comfortable with a female instructor. They will be more open. They will participate more freely.”

I understand this thinking. And yes, creating a respectful, professional environment is absolutely essential. No argument there.

But let us think about what we are actually saying when we prioritise comfort above all else. We are saying that a woman who is expected to handle aggressive clients, navigate hostile work environments, manage high-pressure deadlines, and lead teams of diverse people cannot handle learning from a male instructor in a safe, controlled, professional classroom.

We are also saying something else, something that has real implications for safety. If a woman’s training environment is designed to shield her from any male presence, what happens when she faces a real threat? Real threats do not come with the option of choosing a comfortable scenario. Domestic violence survivors do not get to choose a female aggressor. Women facing street harassment do not get to choose a less intimidating situation.

The entire point of self-defense training is to build the capacity to function effectively in uncomfortable, frightening, and unfamiliar situations. If the training itself is designed to avoid discomfort, it is working against its own purpose.

“When we design training around a woman’s comfort zone, we are reinforcing the idea that her comfort zone is where she belongs. But crime does not happen inside comfort zones. Real empowerment means expanding the zone, not decorating it.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

The Legal and Ethical Perspective

Beyond the training effectiveness argument, there is a legal and ethical dimension that corporates should be aware of.

When a company specifies that only a person of a particular gender can perform a job, it is applying a gender-based filter to professional engagement. Under Indian law, including Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, the Equal Remuneration Act (Section 5), the Code on Wages (Section 3), and the spirit of the POSH Act itself, this kind of gender-based exclusion in procurement is legally questionable.

The concept of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) does allow gender to be a job requirement in very specific cases where gender is genuinely essential to the job. But self-defense instruction, which is fundamentally a knowledge-based and skill-based service, does not meet the BFOQ threshold.

Companies with strong DEI policies need to be especially careful here. If your policy states that you do not discriminate based on gender in hiring and engagement, then specifying the gender of a trainer creates an inconsistency between your stated values and your actual practices.

Internationally, this is also significant. ILO Convention No. 111, CEDAW, and frameworks like ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reporting standards all emphasise non-discrimination and the elimination of gender stereotyping. A company that reports strong ESG scores while simultaneously engaging in gender-based vendor selection may face credibility questions.

Evaluating What Truly Matters

So what should you look for when hiring a self-defense expert for your corporate workshop? Here is what I would suggest.

• Depth of knowledge in crime psychology. Does the instructor understand how criminals think, plan, and act? Or are they simply teaching physical moves?
• Coverage of the full safety spectrum. Pre-crime awareness, during-crime response, and post-crime recovery. All three should be addressed.
• Understanding of psychological barriers. Fear, freeze response, social conditioning, learned helplessness. These are the real enemies of self-defense, and a good instructor knows how to address them.
• Scenario-based, reality-grounded training. Real attacks do not look like martial arts demonstrations. The training should reflect actual crime patterns and situations.
• Sensitivity and professionalism. A good instructor, regardless of gender, knows how to create a safe, respectful learning space while still challenging participants to grow.
• Track record and credentials. How many workshops has this person conducted? What do past clients say? What is their background in personal safety and crime prevention?

These are the criteria that lead to effective training. Gender is not on this list. And it should not be.

True Equality Means Consistent Standards

Here is the final thought I want to leave with you.

True equality is not something we practice selectively. We cannot celebrate women leaders in the boardroom and then assume women employees cannot learn from a male instructor in the training room. We cannot champion gender-neutral hiring policies and then apply gender filters to vendor procurement. We cannot advocate for shattering stereotypes and then make decisions based on the stereotype that women can only be comfortable learning from other women.

Equality means applying the same standard, consistently, across every decision. And in this case, that standard is simple: choose the best person for the job, based on what they can do, not on what gender they are.

“True empowerment of women is about recognising and nurturing their strength. It is not about organising the world around their insecurities. Every time we assume a woman cannot handle something, we take away a piece of her power. And that is the exact opposite of what self-defense is supposed to do.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph