A significant problem here might be for the martial arts themselves. In lieu of any particular views of the world, etc., they increasingly are forced into becoming fairly simplistic, immediate and similar modes, essentially just various practice activities coagulated into one 'art,' which of course tends towards sameness. Their 'ethical heart' is increasingly not distinguished significantly from, 'Sit in a corner and be quiet for 10 minutes,' and increasingly passive in response to Western cultures. They are not expected to focus much on explaining things or such with children, and hence have to ultimately leave their motivation and so on aside in favour of apparent results. This can obviously lead in many situations to being primarily a spectacle, or a ceremonial thing, and the eschewing of motivation and the considerations behind whatever's left can lead to a tendency towards merely acting without consideration, or over-extending and acting out despite lack of consideration. This might be part of why such martial arts might have been popular in the West in some ways, despite their cultural origin being significantly different, and why they might still be associated with Western stereotypes of acting 'hard' - often associated with drug culture, xenophobia, etc. - and so on while they would be in nature quite a departure from this.
Of course, the martial arts had a brief time as an instrument of war, etc., and while they are generally significantly watered-down and diluted, this does qualify any absolute identification between them and mere restriction to 'self defence.' As Marx said, a thing is, "an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways," this also applying in some ways to commodified and dilute 'martial arts.' It might be said that martial arts only retained their integrity in part due to their association with Asian states, and generally speaking being subjected to people-pleasing in principle is likely to lead to dilution of their central themes after this, into something which is in essence non-violent.
Sadly, the backward teaching to today's generation is showing how if you are being assaulted you should just be assaulted.
Generally, religions such as Christianity have led away from people trying to dissuade personal harm primarily, rather focussing on an overall religious scenario. If martial arts do not generally wish to challenge these beliefs, and indeed they are not generally inclined towards developed theology on the part of practitioners or instructors, they should perhaps keep to their place, whichever place that may happen to be.
This seems to be the main reason why people take up a Martial Art and I get that you want to be able to defend yourself on the street, but this to me can very easily turn into the "i want to be able to beat someone to a pulp" syndrome (patent waiting).
Eh, people aren't going to get much emotional gratification out of learning something just because it might, possibly, help them - or end up with them getting beaten up, as after all it does welcome all practitioners who can act likable for a brief time, including people who might cause them problems - at a situation which might, possibly, come up, although of course it might not. Generally speaking, they have to draw on more visible stimuli to convince people that such things are not only distant hypotheticals, but visible 'results,' and hence as you note they might have a tendency towards more underhanded violence and social pressure, along with their mostly pacifistic, conservative nature, although this might further stymie their progression. They very easily slipped into things which, though socially passive, were not merely responsive.
Otherwise they're merely teaching a thing and relying on others to make it at all worthwhile, which seems to also come with tacit support or tolerance of these.
