To expand on this, Cahill asserts that “self-defense courses should remain a crucial element in feminist anti-rape activism” (363). However, she also states as a qualifying factor, that “self-defense classes can serve to mitigate the effects of a [rape] culture” (366). Regardless of the merits of her argument here, it seems to me that her foundation of what she is arguing for is fractured; attempting to mitigate the effects of rape culture is not the same thing as working for anti-rape activism. That an idea has been labelled as an ‘activism’ suggests that its purpose is movement, progress, and change. To work with after-effects suggests taking care of symptoms instead of demanding change that would result in those after-effects’ demolition. Two immensely and powerfully different ideas.
Next, Cahill asserts makes the distinction between self-defense courses and feminist self-defense courses, stating that feminist self-defense courses are “courses that are grounded in a political understanding of sexual violence and its relationship to other social and political phenomena” (367). Although I can appreciate the attraction of a self-defense course of this description, I want to know the ways in which the self-defense moves taught in this class are different from those taught in a regular self-defense class. Does having a different philosophy behind each movement make the movement different than it is without that philosophy? Does it matter what kind of philosophy a self-defense class holds if in the end the message being sent home with its learners is the same: You need to defend yourself against rape?
I want to give Cahill the benefit of the doubt in this argument, I do. Maybe I don’t understand enough about this stuff to grasp what she’s trying to tell me. All I do know for sure is that her argument feels misguided, and therefore holds little merit with me.
Hey Shannon,
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this too. It reminds me of this article published in the guardian a while back:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/21/self-defence-classes-women-feminist-female-kickboxer
While I'm not wholly convinced about Cahill's idea of a "feminist" version of self-defense, the author of this article reiterates some interesting points about what that would look like and why we need it. Cosslett recognizes the potential for victim-blaming when self-defense equates to women taking responsibility for their own safety and acknowledges that we live in a culture where survivors are often assumed to be at fault for the violence and violation done to their bodies. Despite this, she argues that she's not going to "sit around waiting for a mammoth cultural shift" and argues that self-defense is more of a choice than a responsibility. Although, a “choice” still implies responsibility I think, because if we make the “wrong” choice then somehow we could have been more accountable or proactive especially when we have an option like self-defense. Obviously not everyone has access to learning self-defense, let alone FEMINIST self-defense classes. Cosslett expands on what this means and says that they teach things like consent and healthy relationships, which I am all for. I agree that self-defense can be physically empowering; it can encourage new ways of experiencing the body, beyond feminine norms of passivity and fragility, for example. However, Cosslett says that it can also equip women with “information about the behaviours which hint at the potential to commit sexual and violent assaults, and who they are likely to victimize” – which to me still says: the threat of rape is very real and the onus is on the individual to protect themselves. They should realize the “signs” and be able to react appropriately. So while Cahill and Cosslett would probably align with Marcus in thinking feminist self-defense interrupts a sort of “rape script”, I share your hesitancy in imagining how this solution exists outside deeply engrained gender norms and has the potential to create a new sort of "script".