Cahill and the Politics of Rape Prevention - Who Does What?

Just writing with a couple of quick thoughts on the last part of our class today and the Cahill piece. Cahill’s article responds to the critiques of self-defence classes that suggest they only act to increase fear of rape, place an undue burden on the role of women and are ineffective in combating certain types of assaults only. She responds by asserting her and Marcus’ arguments present potential actions women can take (such as self-defence classes or interrupting the rape script) only, and that by no means are women’s actions being construed as the ultimate determinant of their experiences – they’re only part of the political movement which could be used to prevent rape. I think the assertion that if it’s done right, a self-defence class with a feminist twist would not reinscribe gender norms, has some value.

However for me, the biggest challenge I’m trying to get my head around is what Cahill and Marcus would imagine the rest of the political movement to look like. If Cahill suggests the endorsement of self-defence classes is a potential aspect of a political movement of rape prevention, what else is being done? If self-defence classes help to reshape women’s bodies and experiences by introducing the capacity for resistance, is there a class for people not identifying as women which embody transformations of how they do gender? At the moment for me, Cahill’s inattention to potential strategies involving other genders limits how persuasive I think her response to Mardorossian’s critique is. I personally would like to see something move away from the concept of learning the capacity to do violence to respond to violence.