Why do Violence Prevention Advocates Resist Self-Defense?

An interview with researcher Jocelyn Hollander

 

 

Jocelyn Hollander has been an advocate for women's self-defense for more than 20 years. As a researcher she conducted one of the only systematic studies of why those who advocate women's empowerment and sexual violence prevention struggle embrace the work of IMPACT and other similar organizations.

 

IMPACT: How did you initially become interested in self-defense as a response to violence against women and sexual violence in particular?

JOCELYN HOLLANDER: I took my first self-defense class more or less by accident. My college roommate became interested in women’s self-defense and talked me into taking a class with her. I was actually quite reluctant to take that class – little did I know that it would transform my life and direct my career path for the next two decades. I probably wouldn’t be a sociologist, and I certainly wouldn’t be studying violence against women, if it weren’t for that class. My college roommate has a lot to answer for!

Once I overcame my initial resistance to taking that class, I fell in love with self-defense. I suddenly understood the world around me in a new way. For example, I realized how much my life had been governed by fear, and I stopped taking that fear for granted. Why should I feel afraid? Why should I have to rely on others for protection? I realized that I had the ability to protect myself, and that realization was life-changing.


IMPACT: What are some of the positive outcomes you've observed in women as they participate in self-defense training programs?

JH: I’ve studied women who have taken a class much like the first one I took – an intensive, feminist class offered on a college campus. Not surprisingly, I’ve found that learning self-defense increases women’s confidence in their ability to defend themselves. They feel stronger, they know a range of verbal and physical strategies they could use if confronted with an assault, and they feel confident that they’d be able to actually use these strategies.

Even more importantly, my research has found that learning self-defense also empowers women in many other areas of their lives. They feel better about themselves and their bodies. For example, they say things like, “I feel more comfortable in my own skin,” or “I see my own power and strength.” They report feeling more comfortable interacting with everyone from family to friends to partners to strangers. They develop more self-confidence, and they no longer see women as weak and men as inevitably more powerful. Perhaps most importantly, they have an increased sense of self-worth – they believe that they are worth defending. These are huge changes; they affect virtually every aspect of women’s lives.


IMPACT:  You've done and excellent systematic analysis of why people struggle with or object to self-defense training as a strategy for preventing sexual violence.  More specifically you've addressed the struggles of feminists and sexual violence prevention advocates. What are the most common reasons for resistance?

JH: I’ve encountered three types of resistance. First, some people believe that women are fundamentally incapable of defending themselves. I’ve called this the “it’s impossible” reaction: why encourage (or teach or study or fund) women’s self-defense if women are simply too weak to be effective?

Second, some people argue that teaching women self-defense is too dangerous. The argument here is that if women learn self-defense, they’ll become over-confident – or foolhardy or even aggressive – and go out looking for fights, which of course (buying into the “it’s impossible” theme) they’ll inevitably lose.

Finally, some people argue that teaching and advocating women’s self-defense is victim-blaming, because it can imply that women are responsible for controlling men’s violence.  Perhaps, they argue, learning about the effectiveness of self-defense will encourage survivors to blame themselves – if they’d only fought back, or fought back more effectively, then the assault would not have happened.

There’s also been another argument recently that says that self-defense training should not be a priority because our main focus should be on “primary prevention” – that is, on the root causes of violence. Self-defense training, these folks says, is nothing more than a band-aid that doesn’t do anything to reduce the incidence of violence.


IMPACT: How have you responded to these objections?

JH: The “it’s impossible” response just isn’t supported by the evidence. There’s quite a bit of research now that shows that women often do resist when they are attacked, and that when they do resist, they are often successful in preventing sexual assault – even when they are not trained in self-defense. We don’t yet have any research on whether self-defense training makes them more successful; I’m in the middle of some research now which I hope will help us answer that question. But the research we have so far is pretty unequivocal: women can defend themselves, and can do so successfully. (Of course, it’s also important to say that this conclusion is based on the examination of large numbers of incidents, and that in any particular situation self-defense may be more or less possible.)

As far as the “it’s too dangerous” response, I’ve asked the women I’ve studied whether they feel learning self-defense has made them overconfident. So far, not a single person has said that it has. They still have a healthy fear of violence; the difference now is that they feel like they have some strategies to prevent it and cope with it if it happens.

The “it’s victim-blaming” response is in some ways the most difficult. I have a lot of sympathy for this position – women are blamed for their own victimization in a variety of ways, and I don’t want my research to contribute to that. But I think it’s possible to say that women can defend themselves without implying that they are responsible for the violence against them. Just because women can fight back doesn’t mean that it is their responsibility to fight back, or that they should do so in every situation. Responsibility for violence always lies with the perpetrator. Sometimes compliance is the safest choice, and women shouldn’t be blamed if they choose not to resist – or if they do resist and are unsuccessful.

The main point I make in my research, however, is that the real root of all these different types of resistance is our societal beliefs about gender – our beliefs about what women and men are and should be like. These ideas keep us from being able to see women as strong and capable and men as potentially vulnerable (the “it’s impossible” reaction). They encourage us to think that women will become overconfident or foolhardy (the “it’s too dangerous” reaction), by suggesting that women aren’t capable and/or that they somehow aren’t rational enough to use self-defense tools wisely. Finally, the “it’s victim-blaming” response sees women as incapable of understanding complex ideas, such as the fact that perpetrators are responsible for violence whether or not women employ self-defense strategies. As I say in a recent article, “Would anyone seriously suggest that men be shielded from information about how to deter muggers because it
might make them blame themselves for past muggings?” Of course not, but somehow we think that women are so emotionally vulnerable that they will be devastated by the knowledge of self-defense.

Women’s self-defense training is dangerous because it challenges these deeply-held beliefs – and because in doing so, it challenges gender inequality. In the end, I think that’s why many people are resistant to the idea of women defending themselves. 


 

Comments

[Jill Shames]

This research is incredibly important to our work. That you for sharing this interview. I have added you to my Blog Feed and strongly urge others interested in stopping violence against women to do the same.

All The Best,
Jill Shames
Rehovot, Israel

[atorres]

"sees women as incapable of understanding complex ideas, such as the fact that perpetrators are responsible for violence whether or not women employ self-defense strategies. As I say in a recent article, “Would anyone seriously suggest that men be shielded from information about how to deter muggers because it
might make them blame themselves for past muggings?”

I think this statement is missing the larger context. Self-defense classes do not exist in isolation and we certainly aren't a society that is free from victim-blaming. The concern of many advocates in regards to self-defense for women isn't about not seeing women as capable of understanding complex ideas, it has more to do with concern over the message being sent to the larger public. A public that already blames victims, a public that already places extreme responsibility solely on women to prevent crimes against them, a public that is all too quick to suggest self-defense for women as the fix-it solution to violence against women in lieu of real prevention.…the concern is that this public, will see and hear the message of self-defense as just another outlet for their victim blaming beliefs. It’s not that women are incapable of understanding the complexity of this; it’s the patriarchal society we live in that doesn’t understand and has a negative impact on survivors. That is what makes self-defense difficult for advocates to embrace. In addition, advocates are also aware of the very normal response that many survivors have to severe trauma, which is self-blame. How do self-defense classes help heal this issue for survivors? How does it not contribute to this harmful belief? In addition, the analogy you make about men being shielded from info regarding muggings is not really an equal analogy. Men in our society have tremendous privilege…part of what makes this example so outrageous is not that it calls into question the gender inequality of how we respond to self-defense for women, it’s that it is hard to imagine a situation in which men would be blamed for anything in the same way that women are when it comes to violence against them. No one is suggesting shielding information from women or that women can’t understand the information, but you do have to take into account the context of the larger society in which self-defense exists and the serious impact that victim-blaming has on survivors.

[Meg]

Atorres, thank you for taking the time to comment. I assure you that concerns about victim blaming and about ensuring that self-defense is part of a comprehensive prevention strategy are key considerations of IMPACT and many other organizations that teach self-defense as part of a comprehensive response to rape.

IMPACT has taught numerous survivors and is always careful to counter self-blaming beliefs. Most survivors leave our classes feeling good about themselves and more resolved about the past. This is true because our programs support survivors in feeling less fearful. Feeling fearful and unable to advocate for oneself is as much of a long-term concern of survivors as self-blame and a trauma-informed self-defense course is a uniquely effective way to help survivors work through this.

Yes, taking self-defense in isolation is a concern. But every single response to rape -- from support groups to legal advocacy to men's engagement to media literacy-- is incomplete and possibly harmful in the absence of other strategies. That's why I believe that prevention should be comprehensive and inclusive of all effective strategies.

Meg Stone
Director, IMPACT Boston