I have a lot of doubts about the
effectiveness of self-defense.
First of all, I don't know if it is
really a helpful strategy. A lot of people's reaction to being
assaulted is to freeze up out of extreme fear and/or shock – which
is, without a doubt, a perfectly normal response to a completely
abnormal event, but someone who's had self-defense training yet still
has the freezing reaction might experience even higher levels of
guilt and self-blame. Self-defense can give women a false sense of
security, or it can have the opposite effect and increase women's
levels of fear and paranoia.
I also have a problem with it
fundamentally, in principle. I feel like it places responsibility on
the individual, once again, to defend oneself. Additionally, Marcus's
claim that every time rape happens it reinforces the rape script,
almost seems to imply that women are complicit in the script by not
acting out and defending
themselves. It assumes that women have the power,
individually, to interrupt the rape script as it's happening.
Which I find unlikely, for a
myriad of reasons – the victim is impaired by drugs or alcohol; the
victim freezes up; the perpetrator is someone the victim knows, rather than a random attack by a stranger (which is most often the case); the victim does not feel safe fighting back
(fighting back can in fact increase the level of violence of the
assault); or, the victim isn't actually being physically overpowered,
because the concept of self-defense doesn't account for coercion.
It's not like sexual assault is always a full-out physical struggle –
often, it isn't. Why, then, the focus on physical self-defense rather
than other types of self-defense? Types of self-defense that defend
you against pressure, threats, or manipulation? Or better yet, why
don't we focus on rape prevention that is directed at perpetrators
and society at large rather than a solution that puts even more
responsibility on women? The whole concept of self-defense is built
around the perpetual threat of a potential male attacker. It is built
on the rape script. It's not really active and aggressive – it's
reactive.
The
idea of self-defense is appealing because it seems like an
opportunity for agency and it offers the hope that women have the
power and the ability to not get raped. Unfortunately, I just don't
think that's true. There
are other opportunities for agency for women, but I don't have a lot
of faith in self-defense as an effective strategy.
I'm not sure if I can effectively say just how much I agree with everything you say - I wonder if there have been any studies of women who have been assaulted after having this self-defence training and what their emotional reaction is. I would not be surprised if they were more ashamed of themselves than they would be had they never taken a class. I know in a lot of cases, the first question a survivor is asked after speaking about an assault is "Did you fight back?" "Did you try to get away?"
ReplyDeleteHow could you if you froze or you thought you couldn't get away? What if not fighting was your only way to survive?
Hi Jill, thank you so much for sharing with us this week. You brought up many important points that I found very interesting.
ReplyDeleteAs you have said, there are many issues with the concept of self-defense, particularly the neoliberal context in which self-defense is often seen—putting the responsibility of sexual assault onto the survivor rather than the perpetrator as not having been a proper risk-managing citizen. As well, I find that self-defense courses often focuses on “stranger danger,” ignoring the fact that sexual assaults are most often perpetrated by someone the survivor knows, or that not everyone has the ability to fight back, whether due to intoxication, coercion, physical and/or mental ability, or a freezing up reaction.
As well, I have concerns over using violence to ward off violence, which seems contradictory to me. This concept of violence vs. violence also makes me worried about what happens when women do fight back. Some people are already painted as incredible victims, whether due to racial stereotypes, mental ability, or levels of intoxication. I am worried that although fighting back may be empowering and point to the credibility of some survivors, others who fight back who do not fall into the “good victim” will further proof to construct them as unstable, i.e. “everything was fine and then she went crazy and assaulted me” or, my favourite example that I like to use in my blog posts and comments that I witnessed during my CSL hours in court “She’s psychotic.” Am I constructing a worry out of nothing, or for some people, could fighting back help construct them as incredible victims?
That being said, although there are many concerns with the rhetoric of self-defense as a preventative measure for sexual assault, as well as potentially problematic results that could arise when we promote violence in our society, I would argue that there is merit in making self-defense courses available (as long as they are used in combination with other campaigns like those that you discussed, such as rape prevention directed at the perpetrators). Self-defense can help women inhabit their bodies differently, painting the body as a friend rather than an enemy. It can change the idea of violence and defending yourself, I mean, since passivity is often aligned with feminine, which many women internalize, they may think that they could never fight back, and freezing up is a perfectly natural response in the face of sexual assault. However, I believe that self-defense can help women conceptualize another option of reaction and help women discover their bodies as a site of strength.