[trigger warning: sexual assault]
A university in Georgia, Valdosta State University, has released "tips" for avoiding rape that are so WTF?! inducing, I think it may be satire. Satire in exceedly poor taste, but surely no one is this stupid. Right?. Let's review:
The three main reasons women make easy targets for random acts of violence are:
Lack of awareness (you MUST know where you are & what's going on around you.) Don't ever get lost, ever, for any reason.
Body language (keep your head up, swing your arms, stand straight up) swing my arms?
Wrong place, wrong time (DON'T be walking alone in an alley, or driving in a bad neighborhood at night) don't leave the house ever, for any reason. you may end up lost or alone. women have no reason to go anywhere anyway, what are you thinking?!
Always take the elevator instead of the stairs. (Stairwells are horrible places to be alone.) actually not the alone part that is the problem, but if you decide to walk a flight of stairs instead of wait for the elevator, it's your own damn fault!
Do not get on an elevator if your instincts tell you that something is wrong (Remember, bad men don't always look bad). fear all men!
Do not stand back in the corners of the elevator, be near the front, by the doors, ready to get off. because rapists can't touch you if you're within 18" of the door. trufax.
If you get on the elevator on the 25th floor, and the Boogie Man gets on the 22nd, get off when he gets on. well, hell yeah, if the monster from my childhood nightmares gets on the elevator I am definitely getting off, but i thought bad men don't always look bad. pick one.
If the predator has a gun and you are not under his control, ALWAYS run! if the "predator" has a gun, i would say I am, by definition, under his control.
POLICE well known to be the greatest marksmen on the planet only make 4 of 10 shots when they are in range of 3-9 feet. This is due to stress. well, since sociopaths don't experience stress, maybe we need a new hiring policy at the police.
The predator will only hit you (a running target) 4 in 100 times. And even then, it most likely WILL NOT be a vital organ. RUN! define "vital", asshole. I'm fairly certain I don't have a torso mostly filled with packing peanuts, so i'm guessing any gunshot anywhere is potentially very dangerous.
Women are always trying to be sympathetic: STOP IT, it may get you raped, or killed. it's your fault for always being so nice. and having a vagina, but i suppose you can't do anything about that.
REACT IMMEDIATELY: If he abducts you in a parking lot, and is taking you to an abandoned area, DON'T LET HIM GET YOU TO THAT AREA. * If you are driving, react immediately in the situation, and crash your car while still going 5 MPH. * sure. i'll drive into a wall going 5mph. at that speed, it'll totally kill him, but leave me free to run away. If he's driving, find the right time, and stick your fingers in his eyes. when is the right time for that? plus, i'm a little over 5', with accompanying arm length, so how am i supposed to pull that off? any attempt would result in me flailing a hand in his face, nothing more. i am not a master of jijitsu. He must watch the road, so choose an unsuspecting time, and gouge him. It maybe your ONLY defense. While he is in shock, GET OUT. (This sounds gross, but the alternative is your fault if you do not act.)
RESIST: don't go along with him: run, if you are able: Yell statements Help me," "Rape," or "I don't know this man." * You DO NOT want to get to crime scene # 2. DON'T EVER GIVE UP! so i should attack when my GPS announces "crime scene, 0.2 miles ahead"?
GET A CELL PHONE.
There are packages for $19.95 a month that allow you to program only 911 or 5555 (The VSU Emergency Number) into the dialing out program (this is for parents who say it is too expensive for their kids to have a cell phone.) if you're too poor for a cell phone, you deserve to be raped. "excuse me, Mr. Rapist, I just need to dial 9-1- hey, gimme back my phone!"
BREAKDOWNS: (avoid this by ALWAYS keeping your car in good working order how many times will they say that poor women deserve to be raped?)
If your car breaks down, you better have a cell phone to call for help, and lock your doors.
Keep a blanket, and a pair of warm clothes and boots, and a flashlight in your car always for emergencies. boots scare off rapists?
If you don't have a cell phone, shame on you at least one more time, apparently.
If it's noon on a business day, you MAY want to put your hazards on and walk to safety. If it's 2 a.m. and you're close to a populated and well lighted area, go there ASAP. Otherwise, your best bet is to stay in your vehicle. why do women keep leaving their houses? will they never learn?
If you are walking alone in the dark (which you shouldn't be stop. leaving. the. kitchen. bitches.) and you find him following/chasing you:
Try to get to a lighted area, preferably a populated area.
If he's following you, cross the street. like witches and running water, rapists are stymied by streets. If he follows you, turn around and look at him. He will know that he can now be identified and that he has lost the element of surprise.
If he chases you, yell for help and run! my word, run if i am being chased? that's amazing! Too bad I literally cannot manage more than a quick, limping walk.
Find an obstacle, such as a parked car, and run around it, like ring around the rosy. This may sound silly, but statistical data shows that this has SAVED LIVES. statistical data gleaned from Warner Bros. cartoons?
Never let yourself or anyone that you know be a in any type of business (bar, store, restaurant, gas station). I think they mean "an employee". maybe they mean "go into any establishment without male accompaniment. you know, like Saudi Arabia.
Sign up for VSU R.A.D. course. It's a self-defense course for ladies. do you have a self defense course for me?
Friday, February 5, 2010
28 comments:
Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?
I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I attended a summer of Georgia's Governor's Honors Program that (in the '90's at least) is held at Valdosta State. I vaguely remember something along these lines. It isn't new. This is also, almost word for word, something they taught us at my high school in our senior year religion class. (Don't ask, because I don't know.)
ReplyDeleteAnd it conveniently totally ignores the fact that the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults don't involve strangers. I guess they couldn't figure out how to word it, "If you're with a guy you know and he rapes you, it's your own fault. We kept telling you to stay home with an Uzi, didn't we?" Yeah, that doesn't have quite the same ring to it as this current document...
Big chunks of this are recycled from a years-old e-mail of highly dubious origins; I remember debunking them over on the snopes.com message boards *years* ago. Some of it is almost kind of valid - it's a good idea to have a cell phone, and if you're getting a 'bad vibe' off of someone, you should at least ask yourself what's setting off your reaction - but most of it is crap.
ReplyDelete"POLICE only make 4 of 10 shots when they are in range of 3-9 feet. This is due to stress."
ReplyDeleteAs someone who worked with cops, trained to be a cop, and has trained a few cops to shoot I can only say... WHAT?
Cops are notoriously awful shots, owing to the fact that the only mandatory "training" post-academy is that you be able to demonstrate that you can hit the broad side of a barn once every couple years in a well-lit room with a very large non-moving target. Nevertheless, this "statistic" (uncited of course) is a clear and obvious lie. Measure 7 feet for yourself, hold out a finger gun and ask yourself how you could possibly MISS a 5' tall target. Your armspan alone should cover 1/3rd to 1/2 of that!
"The predator will only hit you (a running target) 4 in 100 times. And even then, it most likely WILL NOT be a vital organ. RUN!"
I'm a huge fan of how we went from 4 in 10 to 4 in 100. Apparently someone running in a straight line 7 feet away shrinks from 5' tall to 6" in the blink of an eye...
There are situations in the world where the best thing you can do involves a very serious risk of getting shot. As it'll be you who'd be getting shot, I'll leave you to make that judgement call. Encouraging people as a blanket rule to not worry about it with insanely preposterous fictitious statistics is beyond reprehensible.
Hey, look, everyone knows that only 4 in 1000 men are able to fire a gun, then walk five feet and rape a bleeding woman. Therefore it's a good idea to...
ReplyDeleteOkay, wait a second. Here's something I totally don't get: what, exactly, is the end game for the rapist in this scenario? I mean, I get the part where holding a gun to someone's head has a tendency to cause them to comply with even the most ridiculous of requests. But if the person being held escapes is shooting them really the best option?
I mean, unless you're dealing with a sociopath I'm pretty sure that shooting someone would have a negative effect on the following desire to rape. But in that case you're also far more likely to find yourself in prison, since although women are statistically unlikely to report rape/attempted rape, they're probably extremely likely to report getting shot.
So, basically, unless you're dealing with someone who is dumb, running entirely on emotions/adrenaline, or a sociopath, it seems that running away isn't actually likely to get you shot in this scenario. I mean, I still wouldn't necessarily recommend taking that route, since if you're literally getting raped by a stranger in an alley you don't know. But, then again, back here in reality acquaintance rape is the most common form, and I would suspect that...
You know what? I'm way overthinking this. I'ma stop now.
Brilliant takedown, PF. Especially the part about how you're not filled with packing peanuts. That was sort of my thought on the "consolation" that a gun shot to my body probably wouldn't strike a vital organ so it's all good.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, since most sexual assaults are perpetrated by people women know, why aren't there ever any "How To Not Be A Rapist" guides for dudes?
Anyway, since most sexual assaults are perpetrated by people women know, why aren't there ever any "How To Not Be A Rapist" guides for dudes?
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell it's because people seem to think that they are doing that when they run the, "All Men Are Rapists," lines and/or seminars. Thereby, since all men have been disparaged it's safe to victim blame in the event a woman actually does get raped.
The problem is, of course, that not all men are rapists. Some rapists are inadvertent rapists in that they have a low understanding of what constitutes consent. Then, of course, there are rapist rapists who know exactly what they are doing.
In general the "How Not to be a Rapist" course would only work for the non-rapist or inadvertent rapist. It's easy to come up with a scenario where someone who would never dream of raping anyone could do it due to lack of education on the meaning of consent and education would help.
Of course having "How to Treat Women as People, Too" courses would probably be even more useful, since I have a hard time figuring out a scenario in which the accidental rapist does so after actually listening and taking his partner's wishes in to account when consent is revoked.
What we really need are classes on "How to Treat Rape as a Crime." I mean, I imagine that if I were robbed at gun point I'd be less likely to report it if I knew that the immediate response from police/friends/random passersby would be a series of questions like, "What were you doing to invite the robbery?" and was then told that I should really have been doing things A, B, and C to make sure I didn't get robbed, so it's really my own damn fault. And that doesn't even get in to the tiny little detail that it's probably just a bit less emotionally traumatic to have my wallet stolen...
It's a vicious cycle, really. Rapes don't get reported or prosecuted because the immediate response is to engage in victim shaming. Therefore, guys learn that it's okay to rape, because they can always claim she was asking for it assuming they don't just get away with it completely.
Okay, then. Now I'm mad.
Geds,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with criminals and guns and things not going the way they plan is that they have a bad tendency to freak out. As they feel control of the situation rapidly slipping away (remember that most true rapists are doing it for the control, by the by) it's not hard to guess that they may pull the trigger on a woman without thinking about further consequences. Yeah, they wind up in prison or whatever, which sucks for them, but being dead kinda sucks for the woman involved too...
I may be jumping into a huge fight, here, but – no offense, PF (honestly), but this has got to be the stupidest post I’ve read from you so far. Quite frankly, most of the responses you posted to the advice above employ the sort of over-the-top, hysterical rhetoric that wouldn’t surprise me if it were used by teabaggers, for crying out loud. I’ll try showing what I mean with a few examples, below (can’t use them all or this comment would become two and three real quickly):
ReplyDelete« Don't ever get lost, ever, for any reason. »
Um … that’s not what they said. At all. They simply state that not being aware of your surroundings is a key vulnerability. Ie.: try to be aware as much as you can. Sounds pretty darn reasonable to me.
« Wrong place, wrong time (DON'T be walking alone in an alley, or driving in a bad neighborhood at night) don't leave the house ever, for any reason. you may end up lost or alone. women have no reason to go anywhere anyway, what are you thinking?! »
If anyone else had written this, I’d ask how they could possibly be serious. What part of “don’t go alone in dark places at night” doesn’t make perfect sense? Or worse still, how the hell can it possibly translate to “stay in the kitchen, damn women!”?! First, it doesn’t just apply to women, but anyone with a shred of sensibility. I’m not gonna go walking about in the city streets in the middle of the night. Neither should anyone, unless A) they’re part of a decent-sized group, or B) are carrying something for self-defense (pepper spray, knife, whatever) – just in case.
« Do not get on an elevator if your instincts tell you that something is wrong (Remember, bad men don't always look bad). fear all men! »
Maybe rather, “trust your instincts”? I’m pretty sure you’d try and avoid someone if they gave you the creeps for some reason. It’s a natural response to perceived predators, even if you can’t tell why the person gives you the oogie-boogies. For example, psychopaths are known to cause this sort of reation in people.
« because rapists can't touch you if you're within 18" of the door. trufax. »
Or maybe because, if the guy does try to grab you, it’ll be easier for you to escape and run if you’re closer to the doors than at the back of the elevator? Again, this is just patently obvious common sense.
« The predator will only hit you (a running target) 4 in 100 times. And even then, it most likely WILL NOT be a vital organ. RUN! define "vital", asshole. I'm fairly certain I don't have a torso mostly filled with packing peanuts, so i'm guessing any gunshot anywhere is potentially very dangerous. »
Yes, any gunshot has the potential to cause critical or lethal injury (not to mention hurt like the blazes of hell if it strikes bone). But, you know what? Personally, I’d rather take the chance of getting a bullet in the leg, or the ribs, and just bolt, rather than stay there like a freakin’ sitting duck. At least it gives you a chance at escaping and getting your injuries treated afterwards. Under most circumstances (certainly not all; some judgment is required for you to know when you should or shouldn’t), it’s just the best thing to try.
« If you are walking alone in the dark (which you shouldn't be stop. leaving. the. kitchen. bitches.) »
Again, suggesting that you not make yourself an easy target does NOT equate to misogyny, but freakin’ common sense!
… Seriously, PF. You’re known for being rational and reasonable. What the hell spawned this sort of angry nonsense? Not all of their advice was perfect, admittedly, but your reactions were far worse. There’s a difference between simply advising people to play it safe, and spouting off misogyny.
"There’s a difference between simply advising people to play it safe, and spouting off misogyny."
ReplyDeleteThis list is completely sexist dude. Seriously. It's not aimed at "people" it's aimed at women. There aren't lists out there for men stating "How not to rape women".
Bullshit about how you can't go in a stairwell but you also can't go in a freakin lift is completely stupid "advice". It's insulting to women - whether you see it or not it's saying that women are ultimately to blame for rape because they didn't follow the billions of rules about streets and cellphones and other absolute 100% bullshit. Rules made my rape apologist fuckwits.
I'm not surprised it makes PF angry. It makes most women fucking furious.
I thought it was a great post. If you can't laugh at this shit (and I laughed a lot at your responses PF - spot on!) then you'll most certainly cry.
*rules made BY.
ReplyDeleteMcKen, even besides the inherent ridiculousness of a list of ways to prevent violent crime that's focused on the victim (the only consistent factor in 100% of rapes is the presence of a rapist - not dress, not alcohol, not time of day, not location) - the "walking in the dark" bit is impossible to expect people to follow. What if you get out of work after dark? What if you live in a "bad neighborhood"?
ReplyDeletePlease quit it with the "they're just telling you to play it safe" talk. They're not. They're saying that if a woman doesn't severely limit her options, she deserves to be the victim of a violent crime. They actually say that she is at fault.
Joe, you owe PF an apology. She doesn't write stupid posts, and your comment was offensive and insulting, besides being fractally clueless. Your ridiculous opinion has been noted: now, get out in the real world, grow up, and come back after you've figured things out. Once again, you are writing in defense of rapists, and still too naive to understand how, but I still haven't given up on you. This time, try reading Fannie's posts on mansplaining.
ReplyDeleteNote: pardon in advance if I sound a bit curt, but I’ve been having the most spectacularly shitty day, and hitting the hay is right next on my timetable after this.
ReplyDelete@Rebecca:
« […] the "walking in the dark" bit is impossible to expect people to follow. »
That’s why it’s not an absolute rule; it’s merely a suggestion. The suggestions strike me as guidelines, advice, not as being anything like some sort of “blessed if you do, damned if you don’t[*]” affair. I fail to see how anything from the article’s wording to its tone could possibly come across as meaning “if you don’t follow these suggestions, well neener neener, too bad if you get raped!”. Contrary to what some seem to believe, I actually can tell apart misogyny and the likes. And this, is not it.
« They're saying that if a woman doesn't severely limit her options, she deserves to be the victim of a violent crime. They actually say that she is at fault. »
I simply can’t understand how anyone can find such a meaning in the article. I’m quite certain I’m neither blind nor illiterate, so if someone would please tell me exactly how advising women not to walk around in dark alleyways at night is sexist or “victim shaming” and so on, well, it might help. Because all I’m seeing here are suggestions, the very sort of advice and guidelines you see and hear on police shows, safety websites, and self-defense specials on the Discovery Channel, for crying out loud. And I don’t recall anyone complaining about those.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
@uzza:
I had to take a breather before addressing your comment. Again with this “rape apologist” crap. Do you even realize what you’re saying and what you’re accusing me of, here? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re basically accusing me of defending rapists, or criticizing women for being raped, or whatever the hell it is. If I sound irate here, well, good, because I certainly am. I’m quite sick of your condescension and your belittling of my opinion as though I were some stupid, foolish little child. Having different takes and views than yours does not equate to me being naive, or having a “ridiculous opinion”.
No, I do not owe PF an apology, as I never meant to insult her, and nor was what I wrote aimed at her, but what she wrote. This is a critical distinction to make. Saying that someone says, writes, or believes in erroneous things is not insulting them, and quite honestly and frankly, it is their problem should they take offense as no offense was intended in the first place. I never meant any offense to PF, and would be regretful if that’s how she felt.
And, for the record, I’ve checked out Fannie’s blog several times. To put it mildly, I disagree with a decent amount of what she writes. Her tone strikes me as rather rudely condescending and patronizing at times, and I have no interest following her blog. (No offense to Fannie personally – again, what I said is about some what she writes, not herself as a person. In case I had to point this out again.)
Again, when people are unable to distinguish between simple advice, such as the stuff from the source article (which I can’t seem to access; perhaps the link is broken?), and sexist garbage, there’s a problem. I do not mean to offend anyone here; I am merely sharing my opinion as is anyone else.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
[*] A variant of the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” saying that I just made up to suit my needs.
I simply can’t understand how anyone can find such a meaning in the article.
ReplyDelete"the alternative is your fault" and "shame on you" aren't clear enough?
Contrary to what some seem to believe, I actually can tell apart misogyny and the likes.
Er, no, apparently not.
if someone would please tell me exactly how advising women not to walk around in dark alleyways at night is sexist or “victim shaming” and so on, well, it might help.
Because they're telling victims that they are at fault for being raped. Because they're putting the responsibility for preventing crime on the victims of crime. Because their Super Guidelines for Not Getting Raped involve not going out at night, or not taking certain jobs. Because rape is described as a "random act of violence," as if it's a very tiny meteorite that happens to strike women who are out too late.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re basically accusing me of defending rapists, or criticizing women for being raped, or whatever the hell it is.
The most charitable interpretation it is possible to make of your words is that you are defending people who are blaming women for being raped.
Her tone strikes me as rather rudely condescending and patronizing at times
Projection much?
Again, when people are unable to distinguish between simple advice, such as the stuff from the source article (which I can’t seem to access; perhaps the link is broken?), and sexist garbage, there’s a problem.
When sexist garbage is marketed as simple advice, there's more of a problem.
I am a white male, and I live in the suburbs (generally pretty safe), and as a result, perhaps I'm not the best person to comment on this. Add to that, this is precisely the sort of topic that tends to bring out strong reactions in people, and maybe I should keep my fingers off the keyboard.
ReplyDeleteNevrtheless...
@ Joé McKen - while I, too, thought that some of PF's responses were a bit hyperbolic, that doesn't change the fact that most of what is offered here is not helpful advice. It could be, if the woman it was offered to - and note that it is offered only to women - were only in danger of being attacked by random strangers. (Even so, most of it is still crap - situational factors are so variable that any generalization is going to be wrong, way too often to be worth making the generalization in the first place.) But let's face it: if there's one thing that's statistically unequivocal, it's that rapes by random, predatory strangers are the exception, rather than the rule. So - just by completely ignoring the fact that most victims know their rapists - this advice has marked itself as invalid. "Useless" may be too strong a term, but not by much.
What you have here is not what I would consider "helpful advice." Helpful advice is based on a realistic assessment of dangers. At best, what you have here is a list of Reasons Why You Should Be Afraid. (Example For Males: number one way to avoid getting raped if you're a man? Don't get sent to prison. The holding cells where they keep you while you're awaiting sentencing are poorly monitored, and full of hard-core gang members. Prison rape is rampant, and the odds of avoiding it are miniscule. Do I have a citation for this? Who cares?) At its worst, this is a list of Reasons Why Getting Raped Was Your Own Fault.
Now, add their final line: a pitch for their very own self-defense course. How condescending is that?
I am an amateur martial arist. I am also 5' 8" tall (a bit under two meters), and I weigh a little over two hundred pounds. I will say, with some authority, than anyone who tells you that strength is not important to the martial arts is lying through their teeth. Size (reach), strength, and weight make a huge difference. That's why every open-hand martial sport (boxing, wrestling, Tae Kwon Do, Kickboxing, MMA) has weight classes. Yes, you can overcome them with skill, but a big difference requires a lot of skill to overcome.
...I am, by sheer force of will, dragging myself back from an extended rant on self-defense and martial arts. (The short versions: there's a lot of crap out there, and a lot of it is propagated by people who want to increase their profits by scaring you.)
So, yes: PF may be overreacting... but given the topic and the tone, it's only slightly.
@Rebecca:
ReplyDelete« "the alternative is your fault" and "shame on you" aren't clear enough? »
I admit, I sorta skipped over those remarks when I read the suggestions originally. As I said, it’s not like I agree with all the suggestions from the article/report/whatchamacallit, or its tone, which is a bit … “absolutist” at times (for lack of a better word; you know, like, “if you follow these suggestions, good; if you don’t, too damn bad”). I’m simply arguing that most of the suggestions are rooted in plain common sense. I agree that telling women “if you don’t, then it’s your fault” is rather stupid, but it’s the tone that I would change, not the advice itself.
« Because rape is described as a "random act of violence," as if it's a very tiny meteorite that happens to strike women who are out too late. »
Because most often, it is a random act of violence, in the sense that it’s not like you can predict it will happen if you do this or go there. There’s no “rape formula”; it’s random just as being attacked by gangbangers is random, or being mugged, and so on. Yes, mos rape victims know their aggressors and so on, but that doesn’t mean they knew whom amongst their entourage was about to attack them, right? You can’t know when or how (or if) it will happen. Most times, it just … does.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
@Michael Mock:
« Now, add their final line: a pitch for their very own self-defense course. How condescending is that? »
I agree that it’s poorly placed, and thus seems a fair bit opportunistic and self-serving, but I don’t see it as “condescending” per se.
« I will say, with some authority, than anyone who tells you that strength is not important to the martial arts is lying through their teeth. Size (reach), strength, and weight make a huge difference. »
Getting off-topic here, but with martial arts being an idle interest of mine: I thought the two most prized characteristics/skills in most martial arts were agility (being quick enough to dodge, block, and so on) and technique (knowing what to do and how to do it)? I’ve always held the impression that with enough of those two (and, of course, with a modicum of size and strength, which certainly helps), you can basically use your opponent’s size and weight against them. Or does that apply only to some disciplines and not others?
As I said, I agree that not all the advice given was perfect and that the tone at times was a bit harsh and condescending, but the fact remains that much of the advice, whilst not applicable to all people and all circumstances – but then, no-one said it was – contains some good general guidelines and basics. Yes, I know, sometimes walking alone in the dark, or not having a cellphone, or not having a car, and so on, are unavoidable. But you can’t deny that not walking alone in the dark, and having a cellphone and a car, are simply logical steps to reducing the chances of an attack happening. Yes, it could still happen. Of course. But it’s less likely, which is what I believe the article is arguing all along. (But, again, I can’t access the ruddy thing so I can’t know for sure. But it would make sense.)
it’s the tone that I would change, not the advice itself.
ReplyDeleteThing is, this is not a list of ways to minimize rape. That's just not what it is, and it's wrong to bill it as such.
There’s no “rape formula”; it’s random just as being attacked by gangbangers is random
"Rape is like rape"? Deep.
Yes, mos rape victims know their aggressors and so on
Meaning that the advice here is useless for most rape cases, and feeds the belief that if you know the guy/etc. it isn't really rape.
Re: martial arts - I followed the link, and half the course is apparently risk reduction, probably more of the so-called risk reduction they outline here. Furthermore, if the actual techniques resemble what they describe here, I'm going to seriously doubt its effectiveness. If your advice is "POKE HIS EYES OUT" rather than "open the door and run," that's a focus on punishment, not on self-defense, the primary goal of which is always to get away.
I see that the advice has vanished from the original page, which makes me wonder if they've been taking flak for it (from people besides us, I mean).
ReplyDelete@ Joe - Your impression of martial arts is basically correct. At the risk of overgeneralizing, we can say that there are two basic factors that determine how well someone can fight. The first is what you might call their basic physical traits: strength, speed, balance, endurance... that sort of thing. The second is training. Of the two, training is the more important, and a sufficient advantage in training can overcome disadvantages in size, weight, strength, etc.
More to the point, you can improve your training much, much more than you can improve your basic abilities. Physical conditioning will only take you so far; Personal Failure is never going to beat me at arm-wrestling, no matter how much she works out. On top of that, a lot of the speed and agility that martial artists prize is a *product* of the training; that is, knowing what to do and how to do it is precisely what makes you fast and agile.
As a result, most martial arts focus on technique and training, and rightly so.
However, a lot of the time that focus is presented as if basic abilities don't matter. That is not only incorrect, it's potentially dangerous. (Traditional martial arts are particularly bad about this; more 'modern' styles - MMA, boxing, and the like - tend to emphasize physical conditioning quite heavily.) A man who happens to be six foot tall and two hundred and fifty pounds has a *huge* basic advantage against a hundred and twenty pound woman. That's even more true if they're trying to wrestle. She's going to need a *lot* of training to overcome that advantage.
Now, in this case, we're talking about self defense; so the goal is not for her to defeat him, but rather to clear enough room that she can escape or somehow get help. That makes things easier for her, but she's still operating at a severe disadvantage... and I just don't see how you can learn enough in a twelve hour course to make any noticeable difference.
I don't know what they teach in their course, but I really hope the 'assault resistance tactics' are, well, not any sort of personal combat training. It's possible that the course is sort of like an extended Defensive Driving seminar, in which case it might be more useful than I'm giving it credit for.
Damn it, imma gonna regret this...
ReplyDeleteEternal fence-sitter that I am, my opinion lies somewhere between PF's and Joes: namely:
a) Some of the advise is decent, and Personal Failure did overreact somwhat to those specific items.
b) The rest of it is utter, complete and absolute immaterial crap, and deserves everything it gets.
Given that PF probably read the article all the way through before beginning to comment, it is perhaps unsurprising that her reaction to the crap affected her reaction to the decent.
Joe: Some of the quotes from the article betray the sexist who wrote it. For example: "Women are always trying to be sympathetic: STOP IT" "If you don't have a cell phone, shame on you" and, the real kicker for me: regarding eye-gouging: "This sounds gross, but the alternative is your fault if you do not act."
And, again, when you title something "Sexual Assault Prevention" and then proceed to phrase all your advice as if sexual assaults are something that only happens when a stranger corners you in a dark alley or drags you into a car at gunpoint... well, I tend to think your advice is invalid on the face of it.
ReplyDeleteJoe: "I've checked out Fannie's blog several times...."
ReplyDeleteWow, that was a totally random comment about my blog and "tone." You are certainly welcome to come and counter any of the "many" things I say that you disagree with. I think you would serve as a nice demonstration to my readers of a man, who has no experience living life as a woman, mansplaining from his Totally Objective Viewpoint how things aren't sexist and/or misogynist toward women.
Substantive debate is certainly welcome there, but you'll have to do much better than "I don't like your tone." That's a pretty cheap way of basically refusing to engage with a woman because you deem her too bitchy.
In case you couldn’t tell, Fannie, what I wrote was in response to something Uzza had said. Nothing “totally random” about it. But, hey, keep up the meaningless and baseless snark. Works wonders at sounding inviting, doesn’t it?
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteI've been an adult woman longer than you've been alive. While I do treat those who visit my blog with respect and courtesy, it is not my job to make teenage boys who are ignorant with respect to feminism feel "invited" and intelligent.
As for my "tone," I'll give you a pass for not knowing this, but men and boys have been calling women some variation of bitch for a long, long time for merely pointing out faults in a patriarchal society. Meanwhile, their own animosity and anger goes largely un-checked.
Case in point, I took a brief perusal of your blog where, on the first page, I noticed that you posted a picture of two couples- one of which you called "hideous" looking. Of your intellectual adversaries, you dismiss them as "kooks and cranks." You call people "stupid," "dumb," "inbred bigots," and "idiotic."
Nope, nothing patronizing, condescending, or mean about that. In fact, I find it interesting that you find me "condescending" and "patronizing." Hello Joe, meet my favorite concept: the Weapon of Mass Projection.
It's a mixed bag of suggestions, some pretty good and some pretty useless. It's all overly detailed and specific though.
ReplyDeleteI've taught self-defense and most of it devolves to risk reduction and threat assessment. That can be distilled even further:
1) Do not, when at all possible, place yourself in an isolated or vulnerable position.
2) Do not look like a easy victim
3) If attacked, fight back with the focus firmly fixed upon escaping.
Okay, let's sort this out here and now.
ReplyDeleteJoe: you're being condescending and patronising towards kooks and inbred bigots. Stop it.
Fannie: you're being condescending and patronising towards sexists and asshole homophobes. Stop it.
There. All good. [pats you both on head and gives you a cookie each]
And now you can both team up and criticise me for being condescending and patronising towards Canadians and Americans.
Oh, did I mention I'm a fan of hypocritical humour?
Please don't kill me.
Dammit, James, how can I act all pissy and projection-y when you come here and say funny stuff? Only half a cookie for you. *hmph*
ReplyDelete*nom nom nom*
Good post, PF. I linked to it on mine. http://silknvoice.blogspot.com/2010/02/rape-prevention-tips-that-work.html
ReplyDeleteThank you!
ReplyDeleteI was assaulted and within 24 hours had about 20 copies of this crap emailed to me by well meaning folks. 10 years of martial arts, crossing the road, having a cell phone didn't make a jot of difference.
It IS common sense and women/people already do it but to suggest that following these rules/suggestions will protect you is a fallacy. Worse they stick in people's minds and become part of what they hear when a victim describes their attack... ah it was night if only she hadn't been out alone. Its a mere hop skip and a jump to the blame mentality and makes it harder to be taken seriously (and even if you are it makes it harder to *get your life back* because its almost expected that you will suddenly live in a proscribed way). It also makes it seem like if you don't fight then its your fault - sometimes fighting back just gets you killed. It also perpetuates this idea that there is a *good* rape victim and a *bad* one.
The truth is you can't make a woman *unrapeable* and instead you should focus on not allowing men to become rapists.