An exploration of Cahill's Article on Self-Defence

Cahill states “because that rape culture not only acts upon, but also in fact partially constructs, feminine bodily comportment and therefore possibilities, self-defence classes, as long as they are informed by feminist politics, are a more robust response to rape culture than…”people may recognize (Cahill 364).

            I feel as though I’m struggling with the line between self-defence classes disturbing gender norms and feminine bodily oppression and perpetuating victim blaming. I think that my issue may rest in the name “self-defence” and my own ideas and historical context attached to it. I have been trying to go back and understand my grievances with advertising or using self-defence as a beacon for changing rape culture and, seeing it as a viable option. Some of the elements adding to my discomfort with self-defence classes is in how I experienced self-defence classes in junior high and myths or expectations placed on women who have taken defence classes when they’re faced with danger.

            I tend to agree more with Mardorossian in “Defense of Self-Defense” that putting pressure on women to learn self-defence reifies the ideology that rape culture is up to women to change, battle and defeat socially held ideas by challenging gender roles and, the expectation that women are weaker, smaller and less adept. Cahill paraphrases Mardorossian’s critique in saying that a focus on women’s ability to protect or not protect themselves “inappropriately de-emphasizes the true cause of rape: male aggression” (Cahill 365).

Mardorossian interjects that “female passivity is neither a constant nor a cause of rape. Passivity is only sometimes a response to rape; it may or may not be an (un)successful deterrent (qtd. In Cahill 365). Although I believe that changing gendered societal scripts is very necessary I feel that too much pressure is put on women after they are sexually assaulted even if they don’t have self-defence courses as to why they didn’t fight back. However, it is theorized that in a dangerous situation bodies react instantaneously to how they decide their biggest chance of survival will be. In an example outlined by the University of Alberta Sexual Assault Centers presentation to educate around the issue of sexual assault they compare someone’s reaction during an assault to walking down a path and meeting a bear. Hikers may know what the best way to deal with a bear is in theory and, they may have many plans to execute if they do ever run into one. However, the hiker never knows how they will react in that situation until they are in it. When we are in danger our bodies go into a flight, fight or freeze response in response to the danger and, in that moment there isn’t a decision being made there is just a bodily response. It is the same in a situation for sexual assault. Sometimes the body freezes and, leaves the victim or survivor with questions of why they didn’t fight back. The guilt in this scenario is big enough without the survivor having the tools to defend themselves. With self-defence or history of self-defence classes’ victim-blaming and self-blame may be larger than someone without.

I think my resistance with encouraging self-defence as an option for disrupting rape culture is in the name. I think there are many cultural narratives around what self-defence classes are; that appear in movies and television shows that don’t involve feminist interruption or theory about the larger picture of gender oppression and don’t view freezing or flight as a legitimate and valid form of self-defence. To conclude I feel as though there needs to be a shift in what main-stream self-defence classes focus on and, perhaps a rebranding before self-defence classes are marketed or viewed as an option to interrupt embodied gender norms and sexual assault.

Work Cited

Cahill, Ann J. "In Defense Of Self-Defense." Philosophical Papers 38.3 (2009): 363-380.

Humanities International Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2015