I was one of the main instructors for Jan de Jong and did many, many private lessons with female students. They were conducted in private and with me being the 'attacker' where I would execute a 'bear hug' from behind that would come into contact with their breasts. I would sit on top of them holding their arms down. I would put my hand between their legs to demonstrate a 'scooping throw' and have them do likewise to me when learning the technique. A push on the chest often involved contact with their breasts. A bear hug from the front ... no more needs to be said.
The simplistic (ignorant) anti-PC crew would say that they knew what they signed up for. That it is just a part of training and they shouldn't make a fuss. I can guarantee you that those same people would be the first to object if a man put his hand between their legs, touching their 'package' ostensibly to teach/learn a technique. The simplistic, ignorant anti-PC crew are all 'you can't take a joke' until the joke is on them.
In the late 90s I came to appreciate that women might feel uncomfortable with this physical contact when engaging in lessons. Long before #MeToo, I changed my teaching such that I informed the female student about what physical contact was involved in the technique to be taught and training, and gave them the opportunity of say no. I asked their permission (legally consent).There was no judgment involved ... but it also provided the opportunity to discuss many other issues other than physical defence against a violent attack.
This was not a policy of the Jan de Jong Self Defence School. This was a policy that I developed and adopted on a unilateral basis. It was based on reflection and also because I listened to my female private lesson students.
Three of my female private lessons students were engaging in private lessons because they felt 'uncomfortable' in another male instructor's classes because of the 'attention' that he paid to them. It's so easy for the physical contact to be misconstrued, particularly with the passage of time, however the culture of the times also emboldened those who took advantage of their position of dominance. You only have to read the experiences of those who were abused in an power-imbalanced relationship to see that this is true. However, in these cases, the instructor in question had a reputation. A reputation that was ignored by management.
We had the whole Catholic thing going on in the school because when I reported this 'situation' to management (not Jan de Jong), I was attacked. How could I say such horrible things about the male instructor? Not once did the management person ask after the welfare of the three women involved. And of course the instructor in question continued teaching and still continues to teach today.
What is the lesson to be learned. Most martial arts teachers are amateurs. They have very little concept of occupational health and safety issues. They need to think about the physical contact between students, and between students and instructors. They need to develop, implicitly or explicitly, sexual harassment policies. Think about the student's feelings, from their perspective, and act accordingly.
For those martial arts schools that are attempting to go it alone. This is a marketing strategy that establishes a point of differentiation between your school and others. That you explicitly consider the welfare of students when teaching and training.
Sunday 23 December 2018
Tuesday 11 December 2018
Martial Arts Instructors and Students Need to be Auditors
The Jan de Jong school prided itself on not mindlessly and unquestioningly following the teachings of an instructor, including that of Jan de Jong.
De Jong taught principle in addition to tactics and techniques. He was a good teacher; I was a great student. During one black belt class he was teaching a defence that did not conform to the principles he taught. I questioned that inconsistency. I was taken aside by a senior instructor of the school (who now has his own school) and told never to question de Jong's teachings.
As it turns out, I was right. De Jong was focused on one aspect of the defence to the detriment of another which he was teaching in error. Against the senior instructor's 'advice,' I raised the issue with de Jong who acknowledged his error, explained it, and corrected it at the next black belt class.
Martial arts instructors and students need to adopt an auditor's attitude. Management teachings often look to the martial arts for guidance, the martial arts can benefit from doing likewise.
Auditors must exercise professional judgment, which requires professional scepticism.
What is professional scepticism? It means having a questioning mind, being alert to anything that may indicate misstatement due to error or fraud, and critically assessing audit evidence.
What drives professional scepticism? Personal attitudes and ethical values; levels of education, training, and experience; the actions of the firm's leadership; and the culture of the firm.
It's easy to see why there is a distinct lack of professional scepticism exercised in the martial arts.
How can I boost professional scepticism? Have the self-confidence and strength of character to maintain an enquiring mind; suspend trust, rationally and logically consider all the likely options, not just the one that is put in front of you; resist the temptation to just accept the easy answer.
There are errors in de Jong's jujutsu grading system. Those errors are mostly being perpetuated by the instructors teaching de Jong's jujutsu grading system because they do not exercise professional scepticism for a variety of reasons.
To correct de Jong's errors or not? That is the question.
A GREAT deal can be learnt from these errors. If we lose those errors we lose those lessons.
The next post will explore what can be learned from de Jong's mistakes in his jujutsu grading system. Before the well-intentioned misguidedly leap to de Jong's defence, this exploration is in the best tradition of de Jong's teaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)