Fear, feeling and embodiment

This week, in our readings and in my research for my paper, I have been thinking about the ways that our daily actions and embodied relationships with the world are impacted by gendered fears and and the ongoing threat of assault. Clearly these fears are largely due to the rape scripts that Marcus discussed in her article, which are completely entrenched in our understandings of ourselves and the world, but as Cahill illustrates, these kinds of fears can really affect our embodiments. It is interesting to think of prevention strategies, such as self-defense courses, as ways with which we can eliminate our fears, and therefore have positive affects on our subjectivities. I feel as though this is less about actually combating the physical act of rape, but rather, speaks to the power of altered embodiment as a whole. This seems to be not just about taking space in a way which renders one less seemingly vulnerable to potential perpetrators, but also, and perhaps more importantly, about enabling women to feel less vulnerable and more present in their own bodies. I think that the idea of shifting the scripted power imbalances between those who rape and those who are raped, is really meaningful. The potential of making women feel more in control through self defense, etc. seems more important to me than whether or not such strategies are very effective for protecting oneself in the moment of rape, because these embodied differences affect so many more aspects of our lives, before and after any the potential experience of assault.

These ideas also came to mind while I was at the follow-up meeting today. Sam from the Sexual Assault Centre talked to us about the importance of allowing ourselves to step back and feel when dealing with such heavy, theoretical concepts as we have been discussing in class, or when dealing with examples of rape culture in our own lives. I thought this notion of allowing oneself to engage in these kinds of topics on an emotional level, rather than one which is purely intellectual or rational was very relevant to the ideas about embodiment which I am trying to work out. Especially when these emotions are so wrapped up in the scripts which shape our understandings of rape, and are so pervasive in our culture, we sometimes need time to sift through these to take meaning from them. I think that there is a real power in learning to understand our emotional reactions in a way that doesn't necessarily comply with the scripts about rape, and that this difference in embodiment can change how we understand ourselves and the ways that we interact with our environments in really positive ways.

Thoughts on Men and Rape Culture

The readings this week were especially difficult for me, as I felt like each piece had something vital missing, though I couldn’t quite place my finger on what it was. That is, until I had the misfortune of watching the film Knock Knock at the Garneau this Thursday, and my issue with this week’s readings became glaringly obvious. For now, I’m going to focus on Cahill’s piece, as I feel it is the most fitting to work through my discomfort with it in relation to the film I watched.

My apologies in advance for spoiling the film, but if its any consolation, I don’t think it’s worth seeing in the first place. Knock Knock is a thriller about two young, attractive women throwing themselves at a middle aged husband and father repeatedly until he “gives into temptation” and “has sex” with the two women. Later on, the women punish the protagonist for cheating on his wife with them, physically and psychologically abusing him for the rest of the film. What is shot as sexy, consensual sex between three people, is quite clearly coercion and rape. The women continue making advances despite the male character repeatedly physically separating himself from them, talking about his happy monogamous marriage, and outright saying “no” several times. Eventually, the protagonist “gives in” and is shown as enjoying himself for the rest of the evening. As both a feminist, and survivor of similarly coercive rape, I understand that “enjoying yourself” is one way to survive rape, and to reduce the amount of harm being caused by the rapist. It was incredibly upsetting to sit in a theatre full of people that clearly thought the protagonist was “lucky” and that the many gratuitous rape scenes throughout the film were entertaining. 

The reason I found Cahill’s article disturbing is that not only did she not account for coercive and acquaintance rape, which is much more common than stranger rape, but also only speaks for women who are raped by men. I understand that feminist theories about rape and rape culture often focus on how women are coded as rapable and passive objects, and how this leads to men being aggressors and perpetrators. However, patriarchy also dictates that men must always want sex, and cannot be overtaken by women, and are therefore unrapable. This stigma is incredibly damaging for men and masculine of centre non-binary folks who are raped, as they are always read as actively consenting, no matter how they react to the situation. 

Cahill argues that because rape culture “constructs” women as passive, that feminist self-defence classes may allow women to feel more in control of their bodies, and of their autonomy (364). Although I understand that Cahill believes this will lead to more women standing up for themselves, rather than being able to physically defend themselves against rape, it still implies that rape happens in a very specific way, and that rapists will simply give up after a certain amount of time. Coercion is insidious in that it plays into the scenario at hand. For example, even though men are constructed as active and dominant, a rapist may be able to play into these tropes to convince the victim that he must want to sexual interaction, because it is going to happen regardless. How does Cahill account for coercion, or for rape victims that don’t fit into the social construction of passivity?

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

A small attempt to undermine rape culture in Dewey's

I was at Dewey’s to watch the federal election results this Monday. I was sitting with a few friends and my partner, a couple drinks deep, when a former classmate (a male classmate) came up to me and started talking to me (at me?) about the Liberal party. I like politics, so I listened to what he had to say. But I started to get the feeling that That Thing was starting to happen: that thing where you’re just being friendly with someone (that someone usually being an entitled white dude), and they assume you’re being flirty. Life is hard. 

When he turned to leave, he turned in to say goodbye. Next thing I know, he leans in to try and kiss my cheek in a weird, chivalrous way. I react so viscerally that I almost dumped my beer in my lap. 

“WHAT ARE YOU DOING?” I shrieked, my voice reaching octaves I didn’t know it could reach. “I DON’T WANT YOU TO KISS MY FACE.” 

“Oh. I… I’m so sorry,” he muttered. He looked so shocked. I felt rude, but so violated. 

Is this what Marcus is talking about when she says that “women must resist self-defeating notions of polite feminine speech as well as develop physical self-defence tactics?” As a someone who tries to play a wholly supportive role to survivors of sexual assault, I usually am wary of talking about self-defence in the context of sexual assault. But this week, through these class readings, I’ve learned they have some merit. 

When I was considering Marcus’ line that rape “a process to be analyzed and undermined as it occurs,” this event came to mind. In this moment, though I felt rude and violated, some part of me felt empowered, like maybe I could have stopped this “well-intentioned” guy from thinking it’s okay to touch people without them being okay with it. I don't think what I did was violent, but is somewhat violently interrupted what he was doing.

However, I have also had experiences where I wasn’t able to react quickly, and I know too many other people who have felt the same. And that’s okay — we did what we had to do in that moment to feel safe. I don’t think Marcus would ever contend that all women are compelled to fight back, and I certainly would never suggest that. But I do think that in seemingly small moments like this, we can work towards scaring the shit out of rape culture.

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.

The Band-Aid Approach

            While reading Anne Cahill’s piece this week, I had mixed feelings about the idea of Feminist Self-Defense classes. One point that was made in class today was the way that these sort of classes would not only teach women how to defend themselves during attempted assaults, it would teach us how to break through the cultural idea of passive femininity. Conversely, I believe that even self-defense classes set on the basis of feminist ideals would add to victim blaming, and jointly position us with men on the very erroneous belief that the victim should have been able to “ward off their perpetrator” through sheer physicality.

            Firstly, Weiss describes in her article on Male Sexual Victimization, describes men’s hesitance to report their victimization due to the socialized idea that it is “men who are supposed to be strong, virile, and able to protect themselves,” therefore leading to males feeling too “embarrassed to admit that they had been overpowered and forced into submission” (Weiss, 2007). In this sense, if we take the position that women should participate in self-defence classes in order for them to better protect themselves against possible perpetrators, we open up yet another way of holding the woman accountable for her rape. In spite of this, Cahill makes the point that other forms of non-feminist responses on how to avoid sexual assault “limit women’s sense of freedom and access to physical space, and since they are virtually never accompanied by exhortations aimed at men, the dominant social message is that it is women who are responsible for limiting the possibility conditions for sexual violence” (Cahill, 2009). While Cahill does make the point of inferring that Feminist defense classes would teach women to be in control of their bodies, she fails to acknowledge the many different circumstances in which sexual assaults happen, and the vast spectrum of perpetrators in which the use of self-defense would be ineffective. In my opinion, Martin’s argument that these courses would be merely a partial solution, due to the prevalence of date rape, is not easily refutable. However, Cahill continues to argue that these courses are more that “a mere Band-Aid approach,” (Cahill, 2009) yet I would argue that they are just that, and that this approach may in fact add the prevalence of victim blaming within society.

            While I don’t agree entirely on the concept of self-defense courses as a way to combat rape culture, her argument to use it as a way to bring about change could be something to consider. With all the negatives to this approach, I feel that her idea to “[re-center the body with regard to the political phenomenon of sexual violence,” and adding that this approach is less individualistic and more to do with inherent values in the learned skills (Cahill 2009), could have great value. In this sense, teaching women to be assertive, sure of themselves, and holding themselves in a stronger more confident way, may have less to do with preventing rape and more to do with how women are socialized.

            In the end, I am not sure exactly where I stand on her argument for feminist self-defense courses. However, I feel that if they were presented more on the basis of being “pro-woman strength” classes and less of a “rape prevention” course, there could be much more potential to this approach. Finally though, in defense of Cahill and as Marcus so rightly states, “we will be waiting a very long time if we wait for men to decide not to rape.”

Some merit to a rape script

The concept of a rape script really intrigues me. I am intrigued by Marcus’s proposal that a rape script can aid in the prevention of sexual assault and that by noticing the signs you may begin to interrupt it. Yet the script that Marcus’ proposes can only accurately predict very specific instances of sexual assault to a specific demographic.

My critique of Marcus’ rape script are varied. Most obvious are the ways this script refute individual agency. First through the assumption that all experiences can be truncated into a series of steps or patterns to the overwhelming responsibility yet lack of agency afforded to individuals. Second, this particular script focuses on the experiences of heteronormative, cis-gendered individuals. And due to Marcus’ lack of specific discussion on the script and its context, the script itself can only be helpful in dissecting situations between strangers but not partners or acquaintances. Therefore the script leaves out the lived experience of all other individuals, from those of different genders to those of different socio-economic backgrounds and racial identity.

I personally do believe there exists a rape script, in which popular opinion and law enforcement continually use to discredit survivors and their experiences. This is already evident within the police force and their screening process when hearing from survivors. Within popular television shows, literature, and comedy rape myths are utilized to further trivialize sexual assault whilst demonizing survivors. This is made possible only because there are certain linguistic and bodily cues people have come to recognize as symbolic of sexual assault. The success of television shows and movies that depict implicitly (or explicitly) sexual assault are due precisely to the subconscious understanding that rape ‘should’ happen in a certain way.

That being said I still believe there is merit to seeing rape through the context of a script, I think it would be more helpful to use it to illustrate how perpetrators are socialized to accept the plausibility of sexual assault. Although Marcus’ piece was directed at rape prevention from the standpoint of survivors, I believe it could be an effective tool to understand the ways society and popular culture have inundated the minds of perpetrators. This socialization is exactly through the repetitive use of a rape script in pornography, literature, comic books, and movies to make acceptable sexual assault overall.