Last week all the employees at my workplace were sent an email offering us a service to help us achieve work-life balance.  No, it was not a raise, a massage, a paid week off, or a nanny.  It was the ability to subscribe to ComPsych Corporation’s GuidanceResources Online Web site. Once you register, you are promised access to useful information, news, interactive materials, and services in your area.

By the company’s own description, “GuidanceResources Online is home to hundreds of articles, assessment tools and multimedia presentations on a wide variety of topics.”

Need a carpenter?  On there.  Need to find childcare?  There.  Tips on coming out a work? Yep. Advice on why monogamy is the best and why cheating is a bad idea (and, let’s face it, will make you a less productive employee)?  Indeed.  It’s as if Oprah had invented this herself!

But no, there is no advice on having a successful and happy polyamorous relationship.

Nor will you find information on self-defense.  Through the search function no information on “sexual assault” comes up.  But searching on “rape” several articles come up.  Here they are.

Gardening?  Seriously?  And take care of cuts and scrapes but no need for a rape kit….  Of course self-defense training is not listed as one of the prevention efforts to engage in. Let’s quote in full the “Date or Acquaintance Rape” page:

It’s amazing what we learn when we read outside our field.  An article by William Scott (University of Bath, United Kingdom), “Public Understanding of Sustainable Development: Some Implications for Education,” published in the International Journal of Environmental & Science Education (2015, 10:2: 235-246), reveals that those engaged with sustainable development efforts face many of the challenges those of us doing sexual assault prevention face.

Specifically, Scott and his colleagues feel that they’ve done too much “downstream remedial” work (measures that deal with the consequences of harm) and not enough “upstream prevention” work (interventions to address the underlying causes of problems).  Sound familiar?

Scott describes an N.E.F. report, which “argues for prevention, and says that bottom-up prevention is best, with people and organisations becoming more resilient: building up their own immune systems, both literally and metaphorically, so that they become less susceptible to harm, changing attitudes and capabilities so that they are better able to take positive actions themselves.”

This is very much our approach with empowerment-based self-defense training. But just as with the other SD (sustainable development), with SD (self-defense) we find rather dramatic disagreement over whether it’s downstream remedial or upstream prevention. In fact, many feminists who are strongly interested in dismantling our rape culture do not emphasize SD on the grounds that it’s downstream remedial. We have long argued that SD can best be understood as upstream preventative.

According to Scott, that logic of prevention in sustainability education contradicts the “rescue principle” of so much philanthropy, charity, and health care.  Rescuing people downstream can feel good but does not do the upstream prevention we need done.  In that same way, bystander intervention programs, counseling services for victims, and training people to emphasize reporting on campus or in the workplace embody the rescue principle in rape prevention and education work.

Interestingly, Scott points out that many individuals and families are making efforts for sustainability, for instance by setting up a solar PV system.  At the same time, only government can bring about macro-level change through “policy shifts, regulatory change, economic levers, and investment activity, for example.”

We here at See Jane Fights Back would like to issue a heartfelt apology to our readers.  (“Sorry!  Sorry, sorry, sorry…) We have thought, we have pondered, we have watched the presidential debates, and now, finally, we get it – women are neither capable of resisting violence nor able to advocate for themselves.

We thought we were, you know?  There’s that data – ALL that data – that says self-defense works, that training women in self-defense can reduce the risk of sexual assault by up to 40%, that there are added benefits in areas like self-esteem, self-confidence, empowerment, and personal freedom.

But those are just facts, and when people hold those facts up against how they feel, what they believe to be true, it doesn’t always add up.  Like how some people don’t believe in global warming.  Or evolution.  Or equality.  Or racism or sexism or homophobia or…well, you get the idea, right?

So what happens, when the facts conflict with our beliefs and behaviors?  We get cognitive dissonance, and that just feels…well, uncomfortable.  And who wants to feel uncomfortable?  So while we COULD adjust our beliefs and behaviors, and acknowledge that 1) violence against women and girls is a global public health crisis, and 2) gendered notions of vulnerability and strength do not solve that that crisis, AND 3) acknowledging effective resistance and offering self-defense training are two important ways to address that crisis, that’s just so HARD.  Like Barbie said math was.

And we don’t like to do things that are hard, do we?  It’s just easier to accept the status quo, to believe violence against women and girls is inevitable, to wait for the knights in shining armor (“Yoo hoo!  Over here!”) to come save us.

So data be damned.  We’ll just go with what makes us comfortable.  Or more accurately, what makes lots and lots of other people comfortable.  Because women being powerful and self-determined and safe is so….so….what’s the word?  Unattractive?  Unreasonable? Discomforting?

Oh wait – we’ve got it.  Reasonable.  It’s just so reasonable.

Happy April Fools Day.

Women’s self-defense advocates must remind people often that self-defense is not simply learning how to punch and kick.  It’s about learning a more entitled, assertive way of being in the world.  That attitudinal shift is remarkable, as Olga Kreimer notes in The Washington Post.  Being aware of your surroundings and speaking up assertively make powerful impressions on people.

And given the way our culture has trained women to put others’ needs and feelings before their own, women’s second-class status is often embodied in the way we dress, sit, stand, walk, and talk.  It’s no surprise, then, that women in self-defense training must practice speaking differently.

And it is worth practicing; here, we imagine how famous quotes might have been spoken by a woman trained in our sexist culture vs. how they were spoken by a more entitled, authoritative person:

Mr. Gorbechev, excuse me but I’m wondering what it’d be like if you were to consider maybe taking that wall down?

            Mr. Gorbechev, tear down that wall!  -Ronald Reagan

I know you’re trying and everything, but it kind of needs to be done, so could you just try to do it?  Thanks… When it comes down to it I’m thinking that, in the end, you will either have done it or not, you know?

          Do or do not, there is no try.  -Yoda

I’m so drunk, and I’m sure you’re really attractive although I don’t really know because beauty is pretty much in the eye of the beholder anyway, but how about I let you know in the morning when I’m sober?

          I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly. -Winston Churchill

Let’s try and see if we can coordinate this and like, live together, you know what I mean?  Wouldn’t that be so much better than perishing together? I mean, how foolish would that be?

          We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.  -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Try to live the kind of life that will model how you want others to live, because if you want them to change you’ve got to show you’re willing to change, too, otherwise that would be hypocritical and nobody likes a hypocrite, and it’s important to be liked.

        You must be the change you wish to see in the world.  – Mahatma Gandhi

I really want you to like me, but I’m not entirely sure that this is the best way to achieve something since my wanting you to like me could lead me to compromise on something, and ultimately you might not like that.  

        If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.  – Margaret Thatcher

Um, that’s my daughter, so could you please leave her alone? 

         Not my daughter, you bitch!  – Molly Weasley

I know things can be really hard, and I’m so, so, sorry about that, and I hate to give you more to do, but maybe you want to do something…?

         Life’s a bitch.  You’ve got to go out and kick some ass.  – Maya Angelou

Also on the Gender & Society blog  (copyright 2016 Jill Cermele and Martha McCaughey)

The 2014 White House Task Force on Sexual Assault on College Campuses has mandated that in order to continue to receive federal funding, colleges and universities must step up their game, including providing rape prevention education. The 2014 “Not Alone” report outlines the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) public health model of sexual assault prevention, and reiterates the need for evidenced-based programming to combat rape and sexual assault. The CDC’s public health model defines the terms and levels of prevention, and articulates what “counts” as primary prevention – namely, bystander intervention training and psychoeducation to shift rape-supportive attitudes. As we describe in detail elsewhere (see McCaughey & Cermele, 2015), despite the overwhelming evidence that self-defense (training and enacting it) works both to stop rape and to shift rape-supportive attitudes, the CDC does not discuss or recommend self-defense training in its public health model.

On the surface, the omission of self-defense training from the category of primary prevention is perplexing, considering the CDC’s own definition. Primary prevention is defined as thwarting violence before it happens, while secondary prevention includes strategies and responses that immediately follow victimization, such as counseling or medical care, to address the short-term effects. The CDC has consistently and openly argued that while teaching (often male) bystanders to intervene in and thwart sexual assault is an established primary prevention tactic, teaching women to intervene in and thwart sexual assault targeted against themselves is not.

This stance is flawed for two main reasons. First, both self-defense training and bystander intervention training target sexual violence at the same point in time – when a sexual assault is imminent or in progress. So while both meet the criteria for primary prevention, they differ on one important dimension: who is encouraged to intervene. Bystander training requires the presence of a (presumably) benevolent and engaged third party to thwart rape, contributing to the erroneous belief that the woman targeted for sexual violence cannot, or should not, intervene on her own behalf.

Self-defense training, on the other hand, disrupts the script of sexual violence by offering women a range of verbal and physical strategies to thwart rape, which, although it can include soliciting bystander intervention, does not require the presence of a bystander in order to prevent assault. Given that both methods of rape prevention education target sexual violence at the same point in time, with the same goal and even potentially similar methods, it stands to reason that they must be in the same category – they are either both primary prevention, or neither are.

Second, only one of these meets the CDC’s second criteria, that rape prevention education be demonstrably effective – and that is self-defense training. The data are clear—and reviewed in our article (McCaughey & Cermele, 2015)—that self-defense is effective in thwarting sexual assault. In addition, numerous empirical studies have documented that self-defense training is what the CDC calls a protective factor, and that women who have taken self-defense training are at less risk for sexual assault than those who have not, reducing risk of sexual assault by as much as 40%. Furthermore, self-defense training creates positive behavior and attitude change, including feelings of empowerment in women. Finally, women’s participation in self-defense training and the enactment of effective resistance strategies directly challenge the attitudes that permeate rape culture: that the safety and integrity of women’s bodies exists at the whim of men’s bodies. Women who learn to defend themselves learn to take themselves and their safety seriously in realistic ways, rather than simply following an unsubstantiated list of “don’ts” – don’t wear this, don’t go there, don’t be alone. Instead, they assess situations better than they did before their training, are more likely to identify situations that could be dangerous, and have the skills to respond if necessary.

We also reviewed the data on bystander intervention training (see McCaughey & Cermele, 2015), which are much less promising. There is some research demonstrating that participants in bystander intervention rape prevention education reported positive changes in attitudes and increased intent to intervene or increased self-reports of intervention. However, there is as yet no empirical data to suggest that bystander intervention programs are effective in actually thwarting rape and sexual assault. And yet, the CDC maintains its stance that bystander intervention training meets the criteria for primary prevention, and self-defense training does not.

This cannot continue. By the CDC’s own criteria, training women in self-defense is a demonstrably effective primary-prevention strategy in preventing rape and sexual assault, and is entirely consistent with the goals of a public health model in combatting the crisis of sexual assault on college campuses. At a time when so many organizations and task forces are looking to the CDC’s public health model for combating sexual assault, the CDC must begin to pay attention to the data and acknowledge women’s capacity for and right to resist sexual assault. Self-defense training belongs at the forefront of their recommendations for sexual assault prevention on college campuses.

Citation

McCaughey, M., & Cermele, J. (2015). Changing the hidden curriculum of campus rape prevention and education: Women’s self-defense as a key protective factor for a public health model of prevention. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, online pre-print, 1-16. DOI: 10.1177/1524838015611674 tva.sagepub.com

In the effort to get men to stop raping, most activists and practitioners have settled for getting men to get other men to stop raping.  This, of course, helped avoid the old “man-hating” charge we faced when we tried to discuss how aggressive male heterosexuality had been normalized in our rape culture.  It’s so much easier to celebrate an idea of masculinity that does the right thing.  Celebrating the majority of men avoids imposing guilt and might explain why this video, dramatizing a group of eight male bystanders who stop two men from assaulting a woman, has gone viral:

Yes, we know.  We, too, wanted her to drop her books, put up her hands, yell, and run.  And we’re not convinced that “every religion protect women” or that “protecting women is religion.”  We also wondered how a woman in that situation would ever be assured that the other men encircling her don’t also mean to do her harm.  Of course, our version of this video would not go viral. (Nothing of ours goes viral.)

The video is a perfect example of the current strategy to tell men that good, masculine, and truly religious men do not rape; and it’s the men who fail to follow these norms who disrespect and attack women.  But as U. of So. Cal. Prof. Michael A. Messner points out in his new Gender & Society article, the effort to change rape culture by framing the problem as one of a few bad apples is a major break from the feminist movement that challenged rape to begin with.  As Messner puts it, in the 1970s feminist women and pro-feminist men thought that

“. . . successfully ending violence against women would involve not simply removing a few bad apples from an otherwise fine basket of fruit. Rather, working to stop violence against women meant overturning the entire basket: challenging the institutional inequalities between women and men, raising boys differently, and transforming in more peaceful and egalitarian directions the normative definition of manhood. Stopping men’s violence against women, in other words, was now seen as part of a larger effort at revolutionizing gender relations.”

As Messner points out, the institutionalization and professionalization of anti-rape work since that time has led us to embrace a health model of rape prevention, which has medicalized the problem of sexual violence–and thereby, at least in some ways, de-politicized it.

This “rebranding” of anti-rape work, Messner says, re-individualizes the problem of rape and appeals to men’s sense of masculine honor and strength.

And, to Messner’s analysis, we would add that, as we pointed out in our Trauma, Violence & Abuse article, the strategy to teach good men that their role is to be intervening bystanders when bad men assault women also positions women as inherently helpless damsels in distress, and men as their knights in shining armor–solidifying one of the central myths of the rape culture we’re trying to dismantle.

Some advocates doing anti-rape work are aware of these tensions.  Seeking to link structural injustices to incidents of sexual violence, for Messner, is the way forward.  We think this also offers insight into how to avoid the charge that self-defense is an individualized, de-politicized solution to rape.  For when a woman claims an entitlement to defend herself, she is insisting on challenging embodied gender roles and fighting structural injustice. When Jane fights back, Jane’s making one small kick for woman, but one giant kick for womankind.  We know Jane can fight back.  We’d like to see that go viral.

The wonderful people at WordPress offer statistics to bloggers like us, and bloggers like us use the site’s administrative functions to see how many people have clicked on which blog posts, how many shares on Facebook a post on our site got, etc.  For instance, in 2015 See Jane Fight Back made 45 posts that enjoyed nearly 10,000 views from visitors across 109 countries.  Most people got to the blog from Facebook or Twitter.

One thing people might not realize is that WordPress also tracks the Internet search terms that landed someone on our blog.  As it turns out, given the contents of a blog on women’s self-defense, some who land here at Château Jane were actually looking for sex videos involving rape and girls fighting, the grabbing of testicles, and sometimes simply “hot slutty Jane”.

So, although we may have disappointed those Internet surfers by failing to provide an eroticized Jane or testicle grabbing, we like to think these folks got a little taste of the way in which women use self-defense to refuse the position of sexual object for men’s pleasure, and to have sex on the terms they consent to.  That’s our fantasy.