What is “Self-Defence?”

The first point we cover in any program we offer is the definition of the term, “self-defence.” One of the best definitions provided by a participant was, “A set of verbal, physical, and other skills employed in the face of confrontation.” As comprehensive as this definition is, it isn’t the best one to use when looking at interpersonal violence. “Self-defence” is, first and foremost, an answer to a charge under the Criminal Code of Canada (“The Code”) or the laws of your jurisdiction. That charge may be anything from destruction of  property (Mischief, Section 430), Breaking and Entering (Section 348), Trespassing (Section 177), or Theft (Section 322), all the way to Assault (Sections 264 – 269), or even Manslaughter (Section 236) or Murder (Section 229). This is not a plea of “Not guilty,” it’s more of a “Guilty, but…” That is to say, you are admitting to having done something that would normally be considered a (sometimes indictable) offence, but, once you’ve explained the circumstances, you believe the judge/jury will agree you had no other choice but to act in an otherwise illegal way. If you’re unable to convince the court your actions were justified, you will be found guilty of the crime with which you’ve been charged and subject to whatever punishment is considered appropriate.

These are 18 people you want to avoid.

Restraint Related Sudden Death

For the lay-person, discussion of “self-defence” often invokes thoughts of fancy throws, takedowns, escaping from wrist-grabs and other holds, as well as containing aggressors with elaborate restraining techniques à la the mixed martial arts. While any of these things could be fun to learn, they have a very narrow-to-non-existent context of application within the realm of interpersonal violence. The average person is much better served by techniques that will allow for escape, rather than for a prolonged or close-quarters interaction with an aggressive individual that may result in someone dying. In fact, we will typically only teach restraints for the purpose of counter-violence to those who will be employed in what are considered “use-of-force” positions – that is to say, law-enforcement, military, health-care, and related fields.

In recent years, a great deal of attention has been placed on what has been termed as Restraint-Related Sudden Death (RRSD). The most common cause of these fatalities is, arguably, asphyxiation. There are many theories about who might become victim to restraint asphyxia/positional asphyxiation, including the notion that one who is suffering from “excited delirium” is more susceptible to RRSD than one who is calm. The reality is, we would not likely find ourselves in a position of defending against a calm person. Nor would we typically find ourselves with the resources to effectively determine whether someone is suffering from the controversial diagnosis of “excited delirium.”

While a great many factors may prove to be involved in restraint asphyxia such as exposure to certain toxins, medications, illicit drugs, behavioural disorders, organic disease, and delirium from environmental & situational causes, the common denominators tend to include a combination of exhaustion, exertion, fear, and restricted breathing or blood-flow due to restraint or other force. While there is no guaranteed safe way of restraining an individual – just as there is no safe way of striking an individual – there are methods which are considered to be extremely dangerous and others which are considered to be less so.

Of the dangerous and therefor to-be-avoided methods are any prone (face-down) restraint or any restraint which mimics a prone restraint, i.e. a restraint that presses the anterior side (front) of the body against any surface, be it the ground, a wall, a desk, or even another person. Also to be avoided are methods of restraint that involve pressure on the neck or throat, or cause manipulation of the head. These restraints can cause damage not only to the airway, but to the spinal column, carotid arteries, and nervous processes, leading to severe injury or even death.

When faced with an acute behavioural disturbance that may result in physical altercation, one must already be prepared to employ their best options first. These options include attempts to calm the individual in question, tactical withdrawal, and a call for more -or more appropriate- resources, to name a few.

Any use of force should only be employed with the realization that someone may die as a result. Prior to laying hands on an individual for the purpose of restraining them, be sure of your motivation: Are they a risk to themselves or others or are they merely rude and uncooperative? Reference to professional policy and protocol may also be required: Is there a mandate you are not to be involved in physical restraint? If there is no protocol or policy and related training that addresses use of force or physical restraint, or the current model is insufficient, it is in your best interest to be proactive and motivate those in charge to address this very serious matter effectively.

This Isn’t An Episode of Law & Order

Professional use of force and self-defense are only slightly different things, but the main underlying difference is that one is employed by someone already in a position of authority, while the other is employed by any person when they or someone in their care is in danger. It is more than noteworthy that while professional use of force is subject to policy and protocol, any use of force is a matter of law.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada (sections 34 and 35) one has the right to defend oneself, but as with any right there are certain associated responsibilities.

Before undertaking any physically violent means of self-protection, it is prudent to ask yourself the same question regarding your adversary mentioned above: Are you or someone for whom you are in a legal position of care at risk? When one employs physical means to defend oneself, there is an assumption of criminal responsibility for any excessive force used.

It is important to remember that while having training in physical self defense may save your life or the life of another, it may prove useless if you ignore the non-physical and preventative measure training you have received. Physical self defense is not about being tough, it’s about having additional options should a situation deteriorate to the point of needing physical intervention. After all, you wouldn’t encourage someone to mismanage their medical condition because you’ve got training that may save their life, nor should you neglect to recognize, avoid, or defuse a situation just because you know some methods that may save your life in the event things become physically violent.

The moment of violence is not the appropriate time to address questions like “Did I do all I could to prevent this?” “Did I attempt to retreat to a safe distance?” “Am I using only the force that could be considered reasonable under the circumstances?” These issues must be dealt with ahead of time in order to best deal with potential professional, legal and personal repercussions.

Even if one does “everything right” according to policy, protocol, training, and law, there is always the possibility the result will not be what was expected. We may find ourselves facing legal action or professional review despite having adhered to a very high standard, and these issues may demand a great deal of time and energy before being worked out. Similarly, post-incident we may find ourselves coping in a much different way than expected or previously experienced. Even in a situation where you are completely justified in the use of force, you may find yourself second-guessing decisions and actions.

One piece of rhetoric I often hear from instructors and practitioners alike is, “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six,” referring to a jury as opposed to pallbearers. That’s fine, however I would rather avoid all 18 of these people if at all possible, since none of them is likely to impact my life in a positive way. Any time force is used against another person, someone can die. A trial, no matter how successful the verdict may seem, can result in bankruptcy due to legal bills, loss of the family home or other property in an attempt to meet those same costs, loss of employment, loss of relationships (even familial), health problems including depression and the effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder/Critical Incident Stress, and a pathological reliving of the events that led to the charges being filed. Additionally, all of this assumes it’s the other person who dies – not you. All in all, it would be prudent to avoid the use of force if at all possible. Since avoidance isn’t always an option, it’s best to understand what your next and best options are, as well as what the results of employing any option may be.

In order to best deal with critical incidents and the resultant stress, support systems should be in place prior to an incident occurring. These can take many forms, such as personal and religious counsellors, reliable personal confidantes and trusted co-workers, but should most certainly be available in the form of outreach provided with the support of the employer. Critical Incident Stress can be career-ending if not effectively handled. For this reason, you are encouraged to seek or review education regarding recognizing and responding to psychological emergencies, maintaining your health & well-being, and Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (all of which are available through TheBestDefenseProgram.com).

What comes to mind when you hear the term, “self-defence?”

You keep saying you’re not a ‘women’s self defence’ instructor. Why not?

Simply put, “Women’s Self-Defence” can be one of two things: it can be a women-only safer-space, in which case I am not allowed to be there, or it can be a contribution to rape culture; a perpetuation of a system wherein men get to set rules for women in order for women to remain safe from sexual assault (the efficacy of those rules being disputable).

Now, that isn’t to say I cannot teach women -I most certainly can, and do- or that I cannot address issues that disproportionately affect women, like sexual assault. It’s important I do it in ways that recognize a few key realities:

1) I, as a man, cannot occupy a women-only safer space.

2) Power-hoarding on the part of men contributes to all spaces being unwelcoming and unsafe.

3) Men have the most power in preventing sexual assault because we are the ones who harbour the offenders.

4) While I would never tell anyone to do something they don’t feel safe doing, most of the “advice” being trotted out to women is victim-blaming in nature, tends to be either ineffective or outright *damaging,* and should be demystified and debunked. 

5) All risk-reductive strategies should be evidence-based and supported, not just a list of “alwayses and nevers.”

Beyond that, the law is the law, movement is movement, and counter-violence is counter-violence – it really doesn’t need to be gendered in order to be effective.

Now, I have a question for you:

What are some ways men can make spaces safer and more inviting for women?

Don’t wear makeup. Don’t wear your hair long. Don’t wear short skirts. Don’t. Don’t. Don’t.
Don’t exist.

“Don’t go out alone at night.”

“Stay out of Neighbourhood X.”

“Don’t dress too sexy.”

“Don’t leave your drink unattended.”

“This is what you do when some guy grabs your wrist.”

That’s where the conversation is. And it’s bullshit, victim-blaming advice. If we’re going to give advice to anyone on how to be safer, let’s at least give the right advice. “Self-defence” is an implicitly gendered term; guys don’t learn to defend themselves, they learn to own the space they’re in, to not accept treatment they don’t feel they want or deserve, to be comfortable, and some even learn to fight (also, they usually don’t but that’s a topic for another rant). Women are constantly pressured to learn to defend themselves, to take defensive measures, to “reduce risk” in ways that don’t actually reduce risk. I can only imagine how much of a headache that is, how difficult it makes just getting ready to go out or meeting someone new or getting to sleep at night.

Men have the power to stop violence against women. If we don’t abuse our partners, if we don’t rape, if we don’t engage in street harassment, if we don’t tell jokes that undermine the feminine experience, then we know someone who does. Let’s not be that guy and let’s not allow that guy’s existence to be all that comfortable; let’s shame him out of existence. Let’s make public and private spaces safer and more inviting for women. If we accomplish that, we’ve actually done something to not only protect women from violence, but we’ve improved our half of the species.

</rant>

~Gaz

If a teen drives drunk and is killed in an accident, or worse, kills someone else and we find out their parents never discouraged them from drinking and driving, we blame the parents. Yet for some reason we don’t discuss the role of alcohol in sexual assault the same way.

At this point, I’m thinking, “Darn right, Ms. Groff! Tell it like it is!” After all, isn’t it time we discussed consent with our kids when we talk about alcohol? Let’s make sure they know alcohol isn’t an excuse for asocial behaviour. But then…

Of course as a woman I shouldn’t have to worry about how I behave and how much I drink anywhere — in an ideal world that is. But we don’t live in an ideal world. In an ideal world I could leave my door unlocked or propped open when I leave my home. It’s my property and no one has any legal right to set foot in it unless I give them permission to. But again, we don’t live in an ideal world, so I lock my door.

 

And yet for some reason as a culture we refuse to discuss alcohol and assault with the same clarity. The discussion seems to get drowned out by histrionics and extremists from all sides. There are those morons who seem to think that women have to dress and act like nuns in order to avoid accidentally signaling to men that we are ready to be raped. Then there are those who seem to throw equally unhelpful pieces of philosophical wisdom into the conversation, about our right to be naked where we want, when we want, with who we want as intoxicated as we want and it’s nobody’s business.

Well, that was disappointing. Kelli Groff started out okay, but then she started going down the same old, tired route of blaming the victim. Essentially, this now is about Jane Doe’s drinking instead of the assault she endured. Is it completely unnecessary for me to say I find this to be problematic? This Huffington Post article seems to be just another way for its author, someone who was “raised a practising Christian,” to impose her morality onto others rather than focusing on behaviour that is focused outward, like rape.

Okay. But do you really want to encourage your daughter to go through life that way? Especially since Steubenville reminded us that not every man who’s dangerous looks like Charles Manson. Some of them look like the guy next door. Those who say, “A man shouldn’t touch me no matter how drunk I am,” have the moral high ground on this issue, no question. But will it make you feel better to pat yourself on the back and say “I have the moral high ground on this one,” the next time another teen girl is assaulted because she was too intoxicated to say no? Because you told her not to worry about it, since she has the “moral high ground”?

The issue for me isn’t one of “she should be able to,” it’s actually one of “she can and she does.” It’s also not an issue of “it’s nobody’s business” or of “rights,” but one of causal relationship versus correlation. Yes, predators target those who are vulnerable. Yes, predators often provide what’s necessary to make their target vulnerable. And yes, predators look like regular people and so are hard to distinguish from the pack. Of course, it’s also worth mentioning the fact predators are regular people. Before we blame the alcohol, before we blame the parents, let’s look at a culture that not only allows men to joke about sexual assault but also to regard it as a standard worth upholding. The Steubenville “Rape Crew,” not the alcohol, are responsible for this crime. The society that tells young men they are above accountability for their actions. The young men and their adult support system who allowed the “Rape Crew” to exist -unchallenged- in their midst.

Getting blackout drunk is a bad idea whether you are 16 or whether you are 40, whether you are a teen girl or an elderly man.

Who doesn’t know this? Those who don’t adhere to someone else’s standards -whether intentionally or not- aren’t responsible for what others do when they’re drunk. After all, getting drunk is something you do to yourself. Rape is something someone does to another person. It’s highly freaking likely this group of offenders would have drugged her drink if she restricted herself to just one – they’re rapists after all. Getting “blackout drunk” or not isn’t always up to the individual doing the drinking, and being able to do that in a safe place surrounded by safe people is more the direction we should be going. We can travel that route in a number of ways and the first I can think of is to teach our boys (and men) to not objectify, to not take part in a culture of rape jokes and the belittling of women, to see our female counterparts as human fucking beings. And then, not only will they not rape her, they can say, “Hey, you seem to be wanting to escape into that bottle. Want to talk?”

Personally, I would like to see us equip our kids with the ability to call out questionable behaviour in their peers and to not be the type of person whose behaviour needs to be called out. Then, if they want to get falling-down-drunk they can do it in a safer environment. The person who binge drinks hurts nobody else with their actions any more than the person who makes any other decision about their own body. The person who attacks the drinker is visiting harm on another person and we are all responsible for that behaviour. I’m speaking mostly to men, here; men are at the forefront of the lessons that teach and reinforce the attitudes that support rape culture and men need to take the lead in teaching the attitude that will dismantle it.

When I said this to a new friend, she countered with, “Sadly, that’s an uphill battle. Our culture doesn’t encourage calling other people out when they hurt others. Did you ever try, in grade school (or even in a college dorm) to defend the person being bullied? You probably got laughed at or shouted down, even though it was obvious what you were doing was morally right…“

I have called people out – even as a kid. If you’ve gone this route you already know it’s not easy; the rest of civilization is against you. Just like they’re all for you getting drunk and passing out. Now, with both behaviours being difficult to fight, which one do you think we should spend our energy combating? I know we can fight both, this isn’t a zero-sum game, but if we have 20 kids and one will binge drink and one will defend her/call out the offenders, we have more assurance of safety.

Not to mention, “Don’t get so drunk you can’t defend yourself” is pretty privileged advice. It’s ableist, really. And potentially somewhat classist, I think. Definitely privileged – the privilege of being able to see there is no safe place after the fact.

Until we live in a world free of all rape — or a country in which we can predict who belongs on a sex offender registry before their crimes land them there — we should aim to become a country free of binge drinking.

That sounds zero-sum to me. I get that the writer is trying to make a point, though, so I will allow it. However, it’s still victim-blaming. Jane Doe likely assessed her situation to be a safe one, to the best of her ability. Those in her company decided it was either safe or Jane wasn’t as valuable and worthy of safety as she is. To me, it seems we can teach people to assess their own safety by providing them with a few simple tools (that’s “simple” not “easy“) we discuss in another post. But the real crux of it is about self-worth. Someone who understands their personal value may still get “blackout drunk,” but they may also have more of a tendency to do that in the company of people they’ve (somewhat reliably) assessed as safe. The other thing self-awareness can mean is a passing familiarity with the fact binge drinking is a health risk – it can lead to brain damage, breathing emergencies, alcohol poisoning, and so on (of course, to say it leads to rape is a non sequitor). Bystanders will be better equipped to intervene, too – they can take part in ensuring her safety while she drinks herself under the table and they can speak to her honestly about her drinking and the potential damage she is doing to herself, all while respecting her right to make her own decisions about her life.

In the meantime, you know what we won’t see as a headline in the news? “Woman gets drunk with men, nothing bad happens.” And we won’t see it not because it doesn’t happen, but because it isn’t sensational when it does. Women and men drink together all the time – it’s a part of socialization. So, instead of trying to remove agency from someone else with a dose of pre-emptive blame, why don’t we focus on teaching and showing respect? You’re valuable, just like everyone else, and this is how valuable people can expect to be treated. Bam! Instil that lesson -learn that lesson- and we’ve got people who can see and respect other people’s boundaries while creating and maintaining their own.

So, I have some questions for you:

Do we fail as a society to address drinking with the same clarity as we do rape/consent?

Where’s the imbalance?

How do you think the conversation should be framed?

Who should be leading the discussion?

- Ask first. I know hugs are the common greeting at this time of year but it’s important you ask before embracing someone you only hug during the holidays. As with any “yes/no” question, be prepared to respect either answer. “Yes” is yes, but a whole lot more means “No;” remember consent has to be real for any physical interaction to take place.

- In order to make sure everyone is safe, don’t assault. Remember: violence is subjective and often determined by the person on whom it is visited. This means that you or everyone else around might think it’s “just a hug” but the most important person to consider is the one you are hugging.

- Being at parties where family and friends have gathered means someone is going to end up spending time with a person who has already assaulted her/him. It’s a particularly good time of year to lend support to those who don’t want a hug from someone else. Quickly changing the subject, creating a diversion, or even shaming those who attempt to subject others to their sense of entitlement are all good methods of intervening and lending support. If you know someone who will be spending time with an offender and want to support them, you can ask what support might look like to that person.

- We live in a society that values the opinions and actions of men more than it does women. Until that changes, men who intervene are much more likely to encounter success while women are much more likely to encounter resistance. Men who are in the presence of an offender can also make a difference by lending support, right now, to women who intervene. Ask first if it’s appropriate to do so – she may have the situation well under control and not need “rescuing.”

- If someone discloses, believe what you are told and lend support in every way you can. You don’t have to invite everyone and you don’t have to be where offenders are – the safety of the victim is paramount, let her/him take a lead in deciding what the best course of action is.

- The holidays are not the worst time to disclose. Those who disclose do so when they are ready to, so it’s important to remember this and lend support when you hear about another person’s trauma. It also doesn’t matter how much you like someone, they could still have violated another person’s safety; “nice” or “likeable” is a way people act, not a quality they possess.

- If you’re someone who becomes more aggressive when drinking or using, and this can lead to interpersonal conflict, it’s up to you to moderate your consumption. It is not up to others to navigate your change in behaviour or moods. Don’t drink and drive and don’t drink and offend. If you need help with this, consider enlisting an accountability partner ahead of time who is aware of the possibilities and willing to intervene as necessary. Other options include not being among other people, as it’s your behaviour that needs to be moderated not the behaviour of anyone you might victimize.

- Know that no matter what a person does, nobody can create an offender. Those who violate the sanctity of another person’s body are to blame, not the person who drank/used in their presence regardless of any other behaviour or lifestyle.

This isn’t a complete list of holiday tips, so feel free to add to it. We can do a lot of really simple things to make the holidays just that much safer and enjoyable for everyone involved. Remember the best tips aren’t usually the ones intended to tell potential victims what they should never/always do, but ones that are intended to increase safety and comfort for everyone involved.

Creepy, debasing, intrusive, intimidating, insulting, invasive, objectifying, startling… These are just some of the words that can be used to describe street harassment.

Nearly 100% of women have experienced some form of street harassment, often beginning as soon as a girl is old enough to walk in public alone. This includes mothers, sisters, and daughters as well as extended family, intimate partners, co-workers, teachers, friends and neighbours. Virtually every woman is subjected to street harassment, often making public places completely unwelcoming.

All the advice I’ve got on how to confront street harassment is based on you being able to accurately assess your own safety. While most street harassers are not dangerous, you are the best judge of your own security and comfort. Keep in mind that alcohol and other drugs can impair judgment, and a harasser who is under the influence may be less inhibited and more likely to escalate – such a situation may mean taking extra steps to ensure your safety. Trust your gut and take only the risks you feel comfortable taking.

For women:

Just like with your risks, it’s up to you to determine what makes you uncomfortable and what doesn’t. If you are spoken to or looked at in a way that someone else might not consider harassing when you talk about it later, that doesn’t mean it was innocent. Most interpersonal communication is non-verbal, and what you read in the moment can be far different from what someone else – someone who wasn’t there – might read into it afterwards. If it feels like harassment, it very likely is.

When confronting anybody it’s best to adopt an assertive posture, maintain eye-contact, and speak in a firm, steady tone. Don’t use personal attacks, insults, threats, or obscenities. Instead call attention to the behaviour and it’s unacceptability:
“______ is harassment. Stop it.”

Report the harasser if you feel up to it. Harassment coming from someone who is working is a poor reflection on the company he represents, so make note of the time and place of those in uniforms or company vehicles, and contact their employer. If you felt unsafe, consider contacting police and making a formal complaint with them. Also keep in mind that any city employee likely has a radio or telephone with which to contact authorities. Business managers, bus-drivers, teachers, etc., all have a mandate to keep their environment as safe and inviting as possible, and when one person infringes on the safety of another there may be a law being broken.
If you’re up to it and you have a phone with a camera available, record the incident for use in reporting to police, employers, or even the news media.

For bystanders:

Consider stepping in. In cases of street harassment, there is usually a power differential (a man inherently has more power than a woman, whether physically or societally), and numbers can lessen that unbalance. Men who step in may even make a bigger difference, as the harasser is more likely to seek another man’s approval than that of a female target.

Alternatively, you can use a smart phone or other device to record the harassment for use as evidence for either employers or police.

For men:

Consider the effect your words and actions will have on others. Whistling, cat-calls, making kissing noises or other sounds is disrespectful at the very least, and can be scary or even illegal. Flashing, grabbing, groping and some statements are also illegal. Telling a woman what you think of her appearance isn’t a compliment, or helpful. Telling her what you would like to do to her, what she can do to you, or what you can do together is threatening and may meet the legal definition of uttering threats (Criminal Code of Canada, S.264.1). Would you accept similar behaviour from other men? She isn’t there for your pleasure or to be picked on or humiliated, and as harmless as you may think your actions are they can be rightfully interpreted as intimidating.

A polite interaction with a woman can be a simple smile, “Hello,” or nod of acknowledgment. Don’t engage in street harassment, and don’t accept such behaviour from the men you know – it makes you and all men look bad. If you’re interested in another resource, check out StopStreetHarassment.org, a website and organization dedicated to making public spaces safe and inviting run by Holly Kearl. If you’d like to print this information to share with others, you can download a PDF brochure of it right here.

Have you experienced street harassment? How have you dealt with it?

Part 1:

Imagine, in your mind’s eye, a photograph. The image on it is of a person who, based on colour, creed, gender or other status, is routinely placed in a position of being considered insignificant or “less than.” Perhaps even someone who

is marginalized in numerous ways. For ten seconds, and only in your mind, come up with as many negative words you can call this person. If you are a member of the marginalized group, that’s fine – you can use words you have heard hurled at you. I know you would never do this in real life, and I would never want you to, but this is an exercise. First imagine the person, and then words used against them. Ready? Go.

How many words did you come up with?

Part 2:

In a moment, you are going to flip that photo over and do the opposite exercise. This time you’re going to come up with as many positive things you can say about the person whose image is on the other side. Ready? Ten seconds of positives about… YOU.

Now, remove anything that cannot be substantiated or is purely subjective – “good looking” doesn’t count, nor does “smart,” and neither does “nice.” These are states we tend to transition through, as they don’t really have a definition everyone can agree on – and let’s face it, some days we wake up, look in the mirror, and say, “You got it going on!” Some days we look in the mirror and say, “Go back to bed.” Similarly, we sometimes “feel” smart and other times as dumb as a bag of hammers. “Hard working” counts, but only if it’s true. Once you’ve trimmed the really generic, subjective, and privilege-based (being Irish isn’t an accomplishment but an accident of birth) words away, how many are you left with?

Results may vary:

Generally speaking, it is easier to “other” someone than it is to positively appraise one’s self. Even for progressive-minded folks like us who recognize all of our privilege, that positive self-assessment can be difficult; we can typically (when we attack the exercise honestly) come up with many more ways to other someone than we can to recognize our own value. Othering is also easier to do with more obvious differences and with distance (think race/nationality, politics, gender, or religion). This, by the way, is a real battle tactic; othering is a tool that has been used for centuries by the military, police organizations, religious groups, governments and other institutions, as well as predatory criminals. A willingness and ability to use this tactic is one of the things that makes violence such an effective tool for them. It’s even used in sports, both amateur and professional.

As discussed in Nine Tips, the first step toward being able to properly defend ourselves is to recognize our value; an honest, positive self-assessment is necessary in order to recognize we are worthy of defence on even the most basic level. As you likely discovered, it can be very difficult to carry out a positive self-assessment. Tackling this exercise a second time, most of us will start to see a trend in the things that make us valuable – our relationships, whether they be with family or friends. Even “hard working” tends to be something that’s reflected back to us in our relationships with co-workers/classmates/team-members, employer/teachers/coaches, employees/students/teams, clients/patients/customers, or others who rely on our hard work. Our strongest and most prized relationships tend to come with a certain measure of healthy obligation – not to be confused with the sense of obligation that consistently feels like a burden. For some of us, though, those relationships are hard to pin down, are transient in nature, or are non-existent… In each of these cases, it behooves us to build that relationship with ourselves, and to instil a similar sense of healthy obligation. One of the most effective ways to do this is to set a goal you want to keep, make a plan, act on it, realize the goal, and repeat. Goals worth pursuing can be small or large, short-term or long-term, and each of these types of goals should be set. Visual reminders or daily exercises toward our goals, whether they are based on internal or external relationships, are important aspects of such plans. I call this the mirror of healthy obligation, as we see our value reflected in the healthy obligations we not only have, but fulfill. An attack on you is an attack on your relationships, plans, and obligations and such an attack will be met with a ferocious defence.

If we must build a healthy self-image in order to see ourselves deserving of employing counter-violence, we must also other someone in order to visit violence upon them; it is virtually impossible for good people worthy of good things to envision striking someone for whom they have empathy. Heck, even saying, “No” to someone with whom we empathize is difficult! Don’t worry, I’m not asking you to quietly harbour xenophobic tendencies – in fact, a conflict between our ability to other someone and recognition of our positive attributes can result in a sense of imbalance, psychologically and emotionally. It’s important to other someone both effectively and properly; if your personal method of othering relies on bigotry, it could become very difficult to see yourself as a fair, accepting person worthy of defence. Conversely, “jerk,” “creep,” and so on speak more to another person’s interactions with you than to any aspect of their person not inherently offensive. And, by identifying and fostering healthy, respectful interaction and knowing the opposite is “creepy” or the territory of the jerk, we are better prepared to other someone based on their treatment of us (for instance, those who seek to exploit the social contract) and take the appropriate action early. In most cases, action would mean refusing to interact with someone, addressing their treatment directly, or otherwise enforcing boundaries. In rare cases, this can mean employing counter-violence or other defensive tactics.

When you look in your mirror of healthy obligation, what do you see worth defending?

Just the other day, I wrote about the misguided antics of another blogger. Since then, a discussion broke out on his page, he received the support of Marc MacYoung (noted victim-blaming author on the subject of self-defence), Oleg Volk (noted propagandist supporter of gun-culture), and a few other readers. As well, there were those who linked to my response and supported my position on the subject. One of those approaching things from the side of blogger the Happy Crow referred to me numerous times as a woman who didn’t like men talking about the sexual assault of women, and when she was corrected on it asked for proof my post hadn’t been written by one of the female instructors. For clarification, I (Gaz) do most of the writing for this blog. Actually, so far it’s all of the writing but I tend to turn to the other instructors as well as friends for help with proof-reading. That said, the posts on this site reflect the views of my organisation; as the head of this organisation, I determine the direction and philosophy of the group. And -though I value everyone’s opinion- it’s not really a democracy. I was not bothered by someone assuming I am/was a woman, but I was bothered that when the assumption was made my words lost value. Many women have -and continue to- fight against victim-blaming in ways that are at least as informed and eloquent as any contribution I’ve made.

The discussion on the blog boiled down to a few points, and I’ll outline the main ones here:

• Happy Crow does not like being called a rape apologist or a victim-blamer.

Of course, this one has an easy fix: Like racists who don’t like being called racists, misogynists who don’t like being called misogynists, and assholes who don’t like being called assholes, stop with the offending behaviour and the label will no longer be necessarily applied. Rape apologists rarely recognise the fact they are indeed siding with the rapist and blaming the victims, but that is what they are doing.

• Marc MacYoung supported Happy Crow, so, hey, Happy Crow must have done something right.

Or Marc MacYoung is wrong, too. I’ve read a couple of Marc’s books. Some of what he has to say is worthwhile reading. Some things I approach differently. Some, however, is victim-blaming rape apologia. Marc has been challenged on this several times, and wears those challenges as a badge of honour.

• Happy Crow will not tolerate anyone calling him a rape apologist, and anyone who does will have their comments deleted and will be banned from further commenting.

Except, that part’s not true. At first, only I was banned and had my comments deleted, regardless of the fact I engaged in discussion with him in as diplomatic a tone as I could muster (see below). One commenter even went so far as to make comments consisting of only calling the Happy Crow a rape apologist and he was not banned for a full day, despite Happy Crow continuing to engage with him after those comments were made.

• Those who disagree with the Happy Crow are either trolls, uneducated, ignorant, or intentionally misreading his words.

Um… No. Those who disagree are accused of those things, but only because the Happy Crow was unable to rebut their comments with the same intelligence they brought into the discussion. Essentially, the Happy Crow stomped his feet with his fingers in his ears and eventually did the internet equivalent of running into his room and slamming his door: he not only blocked people, but deleted just about any comment he could not address. What’s more, he completely disregarded one brave soul who disclosed right there on his page in an attempt to show him his “advice” was flawed.

At one point, it was suggested by one of the Happy Crow’s supporters the discussion be taken to her private inbox rather than muddying up his blog. While she was initially insistent refusals to do so meant those in the discussion were interested more in public controversy than actual dialogue, she did abandon that notion when challenged. Unfortunately, being banned means the discussion cannot happen in the clear on that page, where she might be able to take part. If she – or anyone else, including the man who joyfully feeds on carrion (seriously, what else makes a crow so happy?) – would like to continue that discussion here, I am open to hosting it. We can also do that on my Facebook page.

This is the offending piece that got me banned from the Happy Crow blog:

Hi Happy Crow, Marc (if you’re still reading along), and company,

First off, I’d like to address the notion of someone taking this discussion private. If anyone does – and that’s entirely up to the individuals involved – the discussion stops being one where the casual reader can be exposed to differing viewpoints and becomes one that must be repeated over and over again because it was not had in the clear. Personally, while I welcome private messages, I prefer to have these sorts of discussions in the open in order to have fewer of them. Discussing this topic in private can be a full-time job. Suggesting someone is interested in public controversy rather than actual dialog is as much a tactical approach to winning an argument as yelling is. Yelling, by the way, is not possible in the written form; even if the writer chooses to use all-caps, the reader can still choose to read the words with one level of volume in order to glean the gist of the message, if not the passion behind it. That said, this is a very hot topic, and passion is to be expected on either side of the debate.

I think it’s fair to mention that, according to Marc, the rape crisis centre “business” is just that: a business. What’s more, again according to Marc, it’s a business that has an agenda that seeks the perpetuation of rape as a means of staying in business: “I get more hate and flack for my approach of prevention than any other part of my webpage. Apparently pointing out that ‘rape crisis’ is a business (one that is not really interested in preventing rape so it can stay in business) is NOT how to win friends and influence people.”  This is a conspiracy theory of epic proportions, and is unsupported when one looks objectively at the evidence provided and considers how complicit pretty much everyone in research, psychology, healthcare, government, and law-enforcement would have to be in order for it to be so. Conversely, Marc MacYoung has made a career out of selling books that paint him as the person to turn to in order to get information on predators. This is not to say Marc is intentionally marketing misinformation in order to feed into fears and give a false sense of security to his readers, but I do believe – and have read the papers to support my stance – Marc is wrong. Furthermore, I believe he has painted himself into a corner with his diatribe on the rape-crisis centres and is either unwilling or unable (or perhaps even both) to admit when he is wrong. Let us not forget Mr. MacYoung is human, and only one human at that. I believe Mr. MacYoung has a lot to offer by way of advice to those wishing to understand personal safety, by the way, it just does not carry over into the realm of sexual assault.

I’ve already addressed this post on my own blog (thanks for leaving the pingback link), dissecting your “two faces” analogy point-by-point, but I’m going to bring up a few things here for discussion as well.

1. “Asking for it” refers to not minimizing risks, or to taking stupid risks.  Yes, you should be able to walk around in nothing or almost nothing, wherever you want, and not fear any untoward consequences whatsoever [...]

This is followed by what amounts to a really big “BUT.” That “but” undoes what came before it: “You should be able to, BUT, you can’t.” See what I mean? If the truth of your stance is she should be able to, then educating her on why not to is the wrong tactic. Educating others on why she should be able to is important. Will you reach the mind of the rapist? Well, that part’s not really important. Reaching everyone around the rapist – who uses “buts” like yours to hide behind – is more important. If you do that, the rapist will no longer have the protection of society (specifically, male society) and will have to change his ways.

2. [...] sociopaths and psychopaths frequently fool the professionals.  If you meet a man who’s “so slick he can slide uphill,” who’s awesome and amazing and always, always says exactly the right thing — step back and ponder that for a minute.  “So smooth you don’t even realize it until later” is a warning sign.

Warning signs are warning signs. Absence of warning signs are warning signs. Opposites of warning signs are warning signs. This advice, if followed, leads to a state of hyper-vigilance as you’ve said nothing other than, “You’re at risk. From everyone. Be careful.” And then, if she’s somehow victimised despite having restricted her own freedoms to the point of inaction, it can be said she just wasn’t “careful” enough. “Be careful” is lousy advice because it’s just too general, too all-encompassing, and too easily turned against someone when they couldn’t possibly have accounted for everything. You’ve given no real advice on how to tell the predators from the good guys, and can’t – they even fool the professionals.

3. Alcohol does not excuse a man raping you.  But at the same time, alcohol doesn’t mean you get a free pass on your behavior, either.  You do not lose your ability to give consent simply because you’ve chosen to drink and/or to get drunk — the sad truth is that a lot of women drink in order to give themselves permission to have sex.  One survey in England (not exactly a Saudi-like bastion of sexual repression) that came out not too long ago suggested that a significant percentage of married women had never had sex, even with their husbands, while actually sober.  Men know that lots of women drink to give themselves permission to screw, and many men will assume that if you’re drinking and dressed in a sexy way, that it’s perfectly reasonable to put 2 and 2 together and get 4.  Don’t set yourself up for future emotional anguish if you don’t trust yourself when you’re drinking.  Have a drinking buddy you can trust, and if you don’t want to get laid, make sure the guys you’re drinking with know that.  It’s not rape if you get really drunk and get laid,  but then regret the hell out of that the next morning, no matter how horrible you feel afterwards.  Sorry — that’s about as politically incorrect as it gets.  But you’re just as responsible for your actions as men are for theirs.  (And if you use that as an excuse to take it out  on the man by filing a false rape charge, you are officially A Bad Person.)

Your post has effectively jumped the shark with this one. Suddenly you’re treading mightily down the path of “women are lying bitches.” Instead of showing the two faces of rape, you’re showing a face-and-a-half of non-rape: Men aren’t rapists, they just take advantage when women aren’t clear enough(!) and women aren’t raped, they just make false accusations.

4. And a world in which women aren’t required to be responsible for their actions just like men are, drunk or not, is no world you want to live in…. unless you like being treated like a legal permachild the way 17th and 18th-century women were.  Your mothers and grandmothers fought like hell to get out of that world and into a world of legal equality.  You should honor their achievements.

So, if a woman gets drunk and a man “takes advantage,” she was not responsible for her actions… And if she trusted him, she wasn’t careful enough. And if he exploited that trust and raped her, she wasn’t careful enough, responsible enough, and should now take responsibility for his actions. You’ve already established these men can fool professionals, so your advice now boils down to: 1. Don’t trust anyone. 2. Don’t have the fun I’m allowed to have. 3. Your mothers and grandmothers already did the feminist thing, so stop.

5. Just because you were drinking or because you said “yes” doesn’t mean you can no longer say “no,” either.  Stand your ground, and don’t be afraid to prosecute — or to scream for help if necessary if you’re too impaired to get away.  (On the other hand, men who use date-rape drugs on you, even if the assault doesn’t succeed, should always, always, always be reported to the police.  If the bastard tried it on you, guaranteed he’s either succeeded or is setting up to succeed on somebody else.  The answer to roofies isn’t self-doubt, but hard time in prison for the people who put women through that hell).

With this bit, you, HappyCrow, are actually being controlled by the rapist. It is the rapist who wants to mandate the type of resistance (saying “no,” screaming, fighting to get away) you’re suggesting. No other crime requires as much resistance as rape, and that’s not right. Here’s something to remember on that: those who will say, “No” don’t need your help or reminders. Those who will scream or violently resist will do so if they feel safe enough. Those who will not be able to (the vast majority) or those whose screams or resistance are inefficient have not been helped. In effect, it would be better if you had said nothing rather than contribute to the blame game and guilt. It is also not the responsibility of the victim to report a crime – at least not until we stop making references to disproportionate false claims and take the shame of reporting away, much like it’s been removed from other crimes. Once reporting a rape is as easy as reporting a break in, we can talk about responsible citizenry; on the way there, however, we need to focus more attention on making rape the crime socially that it is legally. Piece of unhelpful advice #4: Just say, “No.”

6. Just because a guy has his pants off, doesn’t mean you’re no longer entitled to say no.  You can say “no” any time you want, including ninety-percent through intercourse while both your eyes are bugging out, for any reason whatsoever.  Yes, this can and likely will result in sexual frustration, confusion, and possibly even hurt feelings for the guy involved, just as it would for you if the guy suddenly bailed out and wanted nothing to do with you under the same circumstances.  That’s unavoidable, and hopefully you’ll both be very gentle and understanding with each other….but you still retain the absolutely inviolable right to say “no,” “stop,” “wait,” or any variation on that theme, at any time.  Anyone who says otherwise should never be allowed to take their pants off in your presence.

Yes, we all understand: “No” means “no.” Unfortunately, rapists attack the “no” or the non-consent. They make it impossible to say, choose to not hear it, or coerce/intimidate/threaten it into a “yes.” Now, I’m not sure if we should really add this to the list because it’s just re-emphasizing point 4 and talking about sex rather than rape. We’ll count it as a half-point, so you’re at 4.5 really crappy pieces of advice. But wait, I know what you’re thinking: You aren’t giving “advice,” you’re drawing the “two faces of rape.” Problem is, you’re doing it by pointing fingers and creating the notion of the false rape claim as epidemic.

7. […]Accusing someone of rape is every bit as serious as committing rape in the first place.  And if you’re offended by that, substitute the word “murder” and see if you don’t get why. There is also no faster way to cause some men to doubt a victimized woman’s valid rape accusation than to bring a rape charge for a false or spurious reason.  If you “cry wolf” and try to use a false criminal accusation as a weapon to hurt somebody, you deserve to do hard time in prison.

Do you really think women don’t know the difference between whether they’ve been raped or not? Or do you think so many women are liars they accuse men who they actually wanted in the moment but changed their mind when they saw how he looks with bed-head? Accusing someone of not being raped after the fact is re-victimisation. If you don’t get why, substitute “rape” with “murder” and see what you get. Tip #5.5: Don’t lie, you weren’t really raped.

8. Sadly, some men hurt women because they’re just as clueless about sex and relationships as you are, and they don’t understand how women work at all.  That sucks, and it happens surprisingly often — men and women are different.  It’s also one of the reasons why, prudish and old-fashioned as it sounds, survey after survey finds that women who wait until they’re in a committed relationship to have sex tend to be much happier than those who aren’t.  Men benefit from real relationships too, but being less emotionally sensitive, are less likely to suffer psychologically from a bad fling.  A pickup gone bad lingers and never gets resolved — in a real relationship, both parties are still around to work it out.  The Sexual Revolution was important — women have a lot more options and can make a lot more choices — but when you make those choices, make sure they’re choices you can not only live with, but look back on with a smile rather than a giant bucket of regrets.

Again with the false-rape accusation diatribe, only this time with reference to “survey after survey” about why you think women shouldn’t be “sluts.” Slut-shaming and victim-blaming go hand-in-hand. Grown ups get to make their own decisions (yes, even women). Slut-shaming works because women have far more convention they are required to adhere to than men do, but if we remove the convention, we allow for freedom of choice. Tip #6.5: Not only were you not raped, you’re a slut.

Now, taking into account what I’ve laid out for you, can you understand why you’ve been painted as a rape apologist? So far in this discussion, you’ve had some really great counter-points brought up but you’ve chosen to ignore them. Will you do me the courtesy of addressing mine?

In the end, though, our happiest of crows did not do me that courtesy. Instead, he deleted my contributions to the discussion and blocked me from further comments.

Our esteemed writer is a believer in what he terms the “Oleg Volk school of rape prevention.” Mr. Volk, however, is not a preventer of rape but a proponent of “gun culture.” Volk uses propaganda tactics to argue his point on firearm legislation, equating those who favour gun control to racists who would prefer all potential victims of crime be unarmed and defenceless. A similar tactic was used in Canada recently when Vic Toews said those who were not in favour of strict internet controls were on the side of child pornographers; the tactic is the same regardless of who uses it, and betrays the lack of understanding of an opposing argument as well as a penchant for fear mongering. Guns and self-defence, or counter-violence in response to assault, is an option not everyone chooses to employ, or is capable of employing. Mandating counter-violence of any kind, which is what the either/or fallacy amounts to in the context of self-defence, is highly problematic and can serve to call into question the authenticity of a victim of crime.

Back to our blog-writer. He starts off weakly with an anecdote to prove he isn’t a rapist (because rapists don’t drink coffee?), explains why he doesn’t think rationally when he discusses rape (apparently he can’t help but think of sexually assaulting and killing rapists), and then moves on to some advice for men on how to not be a rapist… All goes reasonably well until he gets to point 6 on his list:

Don’t take advantage.  Don’t take advantage for two reasons.  First, you are, or should be, a better man than than to cause someone distress in a situation that should simply be awesome and good.  Second, for those men who aren’t better than that, there are legal repercussions — “taking advantage” isn’t rape, but a lot of women equate the two directly, and if you’re the kind of schmuck who pushes it, you’re a lot more likely to find yourself up on charges where your actual crime (of being a first-class jerk) is going to get you a reputation for being a social predator (aka, the kind of person most men would happily kill on sight without a shred of remorse if they thought they could get away with it — and some have gotten away with it).

Ah. So, many rapists are actually just misunderstood guys who “took advantage” of a woman who didn’t want to have sex. Gotcha. No, dear writer, men who have sex with unwilling partners are not simply “first-class jerks,” they’re rapists. If she’s not able to give consent for any reason, it isn’t “taking advantage” in any innocent sense of the term – it’s rape.

To his credit, the writer of this piece does go on to tell men about enthusiastic consent – though only when referring to men who have sex with women; the advice also applies to, well, everyone – but on the way to that advice he reminds men they may be accused, charged, and even convicted in the event a false accusation is made. He does not, however, identify just who would make that false accusation. Hint: False accusations of rape are about the same as they are for virtually every other crime out there: between 2% and 4%. False accusations are nowhere near as rampant as rape apologists would have you believe.

I would have given the post a pass had it not been for the next bit of advice, namely that which he directs at “her,” stopping along the way to deny the ubiquitousness of victim-blaming. Oh, silly blogger! Victim-blaming is real. Nobody has to say, “You deserved to get raped” in those words in order for victim-blaming to be real. “She shouldn’t have dressed like that/been there/acted that way, it’s no wonder she got raped!” is victim-blaming. So is spreading mythology about false accusations, denying the authenticity of the victim, or boiling rape down to biological imperatives. So is the “advice” given to women on how to keep themselves safe that just doesn’t work for beans. I’m going to dissect the advice, point for point, below:

1. “Asking for it” refers to not minimizing risks, or to taking stupid risks.  Yes, you should be able to walk around in nothing or almost nothing, wherever you want, and not fear any untoward consequences whatsoever.  And I should be able to walk around the “bombed-out” sections of Richmond, East Saint Louis, South Chicago, or Anacostia at night without suffering a very high probability of getting the everloving shit kicked out of me simply because I happened to be there.  We don’t live in a perfect world:  be realistic about the world you live in.  (Why do a lot of folks look askance at clubs?  Because a lot of predatory shit-heads hang out in clubs, that’s why)

There is no such thing as minimising risks when it comes to clothing. A rapist doesn’t typically prefer one style of dress over another, nor are certain bits of skin showing more or less likely to result in attack. Less than 4% of rapists remember what their chosen target was wearing, and of those who do the memory is anecdotal (he remembers ripping her shirt, etc.). As well, crime happens in every neighbourhood, and most crime involving interpersonal violence is perpetrated by someone known to the target. The perpetrator of sexual assault works to gain the trust of the victim in most cases. In the case of “stranger rape,” the victim is usually assaulted in or near their place of residence, work, or recreation. If we are to minimise risk associated with clothing, it is as reasonable to say, “Don’t wear clothing” as it is to advise not to wear a certain style. Similarly, “Don’t be in places” is as worthy a piece of advice as “Don’t be in x neighbourhood or at y.” We may as well add “Don’t trust anyone” to the list of helpful tips. Oh, wait, he added it.

2. Some monsters walk on two legs:  3-4% of the human population is made up of psychopaths.  That is, one out of every twenty five-to-thirty people is incapable of feeling guilt for their actions, and feels absolutely no psychological difference between ordering a hamburger and shoving a Bowie knife into your eye.  These are people who can literally disembowel babies, and not only not feel guilt, but not feel anything.  Rape, algebra homework, genocide:  it’s all the same to these people.  The APA says that a somewhat-higher percentage of these people happen to be male.  Be careful: there are a lot of good men out there, but there are also some very, very bad ones, and the bad ones are usually much, much better liars — sociopaths and psychopaths frequently fool the professionals.  If you meet a man who’s “so slick he can slide uphill,” who’s awesome and amazing and always, always says exactly the right thing — step back and ponder that for a minute.  “So smooth you don’t even realize it until later” is a warning sign.

Is it really good advice to not trust any men, including those who seem nice? This nugget amounts to “Be afraid. Be very afraid. And when you least expect it, expect it!” That’s crap advice. It denies the fact we are all equipped with instinct, and the real issue is we – as a society – teach women not to listen to theirs. Here’s a bit of advice: Know that feeling in the pit of your stomach you push down when you meet someone who gives you the creepy vibe? Don’t do that. Trust your gut. Human instinct has allowed us to rise to the top of the food-chain and maintain that position for almost 4 billion years.

3. Alcohol does not excuse a man raping you.  But at the same time, alcohol doesn’t mean you get a free pass on your behavior, either.  You do not lose your ability to give consent simply because you’ve chosen to drink and/or to get drunk — the sad truth is that a lot of women drink in order to give themselves permission to have sex.  One survey in England (not exactly a Saudi-like bastion of sexual repression) that came out not too long ago suggested that a significant percentage of married women had never had sex, even with their husbands, while actually sober.  Men know that lots of women drink to give themselves permission to screw, and many men will assume that if you’re drinking and dressed in a sexy way, that it’s perfectly reasonable to put 2 and 2 together and get 4.  Don’t set yourself up for future emotional anguish if you don’t trust yourself when you’re drinking.  Have a drinking buddy you can trust, and if you don’t want to get laid, make sure the guys you’re drinking with know that.  It’s not rape if you get really drunk and get laid,  but then regret the hell out of that the next morning, no matter how horrible you feel afterwards.  Sorry — that’s about as politically incorrect as it gets.  But you’re just as responsible for your actions as men are for theirs.  (And if you use that as an excuse to take it out  on the man by filing a false rape charge, you are officially A Bad Person.)

Actually, being inebriated does remove your ability to give consent. True for contracts, true for sex. If Person A is unable to give consent and Person B proceeds, that’s rape. Is there a breathalyzer for people who are under the influence and there’s a possibility of sex? No. But if Person A is unable to knowingly give enthusiastic consent, Person B isn’t just “taking advantage” if he/she proceeds without that consent. How about if they’re both really drunk? Are they raping each other? Don’t be absurd. The rapist exploits a power differential, and alcohol can contribute to that differential or even reverse it. The rapist may try to blame his/her actions on the alcohol, but he/she is just as culpable as the driver who gets behind the wheel while drunk. In order to add legitimacy to this point on consent, our blogger throws in the idea of the ever-so-popular false rape claim. Again. As for the claim of women never having sex while sober, I’d like to point out that six percent, while significant, is not an overwhelmingly significant number of women who have not had sex while sober (94% of women are not in that group), especially when we know nothing else about the women surveyed other than they fall somewhere into the range of 18 to 50 years of age and were part of only 3000 women surveyed. Also important is the context of the study: research was conducted in order to find out about body image, concluding women will drink before getting into bed in order to overcome their inhibitions about their bodies. Sounds like consent was already established long before sex occurred.

4. And a world in which women aren’t required to be responsible for their actions just like men are, drunk or not, is no world you want to live in…. unless you like being treated like a legal permachild the way 17th and 18th-century women were.  Your mothers and grandmothers fought like hell to get out of that world and into a world of legal equality.  You should honor their achievements.

Oh good, we’ve achieved equality among the sexes. Awesome. I had a hard time finding the advice in this point, but I think it’s “Honour the achievements of the feminists before you.” I think he’s telling women they’re equal now, so shut up. Yeah, that’s good advice. Hey, Ass-hat, bit of advice for you: If you’re going to tell a group of people how to solve their problems by telling them the problems are already solved, DON’T. Aside from that, this is just more nonsensical ramblings of a rape apologist. Women aren’t only responsible for their actions, victim-blaming like this ensures a woman is also responsible for his actions.

5. Just because you were drinking or because you said “yes” doesn’t mean you can no longer say “no,” either.  Stand your ground, and don’t be afraid to prosecute — or to scream for help if necessary if you’re too impaired to get away.  (On the other hand, men who use date-rape drugs on you, even if the assault doesn’t succeed, should always, always, always be reported to the police.  If the bastard tried it on you, guaranteed he’s either succeeded or is setting up to succeed on somebody else.  The answer to roofies isn’t self-doubt, but hard time in prison for the people who put women through that hell).

Another sinister form of victim-blaming is to tell someone future victims depend on her actions. Actions our faithful blogger has already gone through the trouble to inform us will result in the perpetrator (possibly someone known not just to the target but the entire family) will be “forced to stay in a little metal box” and be “forcibly sodomized for years or even decades without any hope or help.” That’s some motivation to report a trusted family friend to the police and be scrutinised as a possible false-rape claimant. But how is this victim-blaming? There wasn’t any discussion of blame. Well, it’s simple: victim-blaming isn’t just about those things I briefly mentioned before, but pretty well anything that removes blame from the perpetrator and adds the feelings associated with blame to the victim, in this case the guilt associated with action or inaction. I’ve said it elsewhere on this blog, and I’ll say it again now: Defence takes many forms, and can be counter-violence, can be silence in the moment, can be reporting to police, can be seeking counseling, can be talking to friends or family or religious leaders, can be many things, but needn’t must be anything.

6. Just because a guy has his pants off, doesn’t mean you’re no longer entitled to say no.  You can say “no” any time you want, including ninety-percent through intercourse while both your eyes are bugging out, for any reason whatsoever.  Yes, this can and likely will result in sexual frustration, confusion, and possibly even hurt feelings for the guy involved, just as it would for you if the guy suddenly bailed out and wanted nothing to do with you under the same circumstances.  That’s unavoidable, and hopefully you’ll both be very gentle and understanding with each other….but you still retain the absolutely inviolable right to say “no,” “stop,” “wait,” or any variation on that theme, at any time.  Anyone who says otherwise should never be allowed to take their pants off in your presence.

The essence of point six is alright, but, I’ll admit this one has me a bit confused. It’s “unavoidable” there will be frustration, confusion, and hurt feelings, but you may both be able to exercise gentleness and understanding..? But, if both are able to exercise gentleness and understanding, is the unavoidable not avoided? And then it boils down to “No means no,” which is a word a rapist has ways of not hearing, either because he chooses to not hear it when it’s said, or because he intimidates his prey into being unable to utter it. How about we move this one up the the “His” category and change it to be “Yes means yes and anything less than enthusiastic consent is no.” Aside from that almost insignificant (that’s sarcasm, by the way) point, I don’t have issues with this one as I believe open communication before, during, and after sex can make sex that much more fulfilling for all involved. Naturally, I would remove the heteronormative aspect from the equation.

7. There is no faster way to make a man hate all women, and to reflexively treat all every woman he meets like crap for the rest of his life than to subject him to a false rape accusation.  Accusing someone of rape is every bit as serious as committing rape in the first place.  And if you’re offended by that, substitute the word “murder” and see if you don’t get why.  There is also no faster way to cause some men to doubt a victimized woman’s valid rape accusation than to bring a rape charge for a false or spurious reason.  If you “cry wolf” and try to use a false criminal accusation as a weapon to hurt somebody, you deserve to do hard time in prison.

“There is no faster way to make a man hate all women….” Really? No faster way? And that’s absolutely the result that will occur? I take issue with the inflexibility of this particular formula, but I’m so glad he finally got to the false rape claim. First off, if a man hates all women because one woman made an accusation for a crime he didn’t commit, that’s just ignorant. Could he have trust issues afterwards? Sure. Especially with women? Maybe. Should a woman considering an accusation consider what it will do to the man she accuses? Not really. She is quite capable of making up her own mind on whether to proceed with a criminal complaint without the advice of a rape apologist clouding the issue. Should she be concerned about prison time if the prosecution is unable to secure a conviction? No. The false-rape-claimant-is-as-bad-as-a-rapist argument is a tool of the “men’s rights activist” (read: misogynist and rape apologist) that is designed to frighten victims of sexual assault into silence lest they be jailed for standing up and telling the truth about their abuser. There are already systems in place for protecting people from false accusations that deserve no greater attention with rape than they do with any other crime, and to bring those up as the female face of sexual assault is disingenuous at best. Of course, telling those who do report crime they may be damaging the chances of a similar crime being prosecuted if someone doesn’t believe them doesn’t help, either. Now all we need is some slut-shaming…

8. Sadly, some men hurt women because they’re just as clueless about sex and relationships as you are, and they don’t understand how women work at all.  That sucks, and it happens surprisingly often — men and women are different.  It’s also one of the reasons why, prudish and old-fashioned as it sounds, survey after survey finds that women who wait until they’re in a committed relationship to have sex tend to be much happier than those who aren’t.  Men benefit from real relationships too, but being less emotionally sensitive, are less likely to suffer psychologically from a bad fling.  A pickup gone bad lingers and never gets resolved — in a real relationship, both parties are still around to work it out.  The Sexual Revolution was important — women have a lot more options and can make a lot more choices — but when you make those choices, make sure they’re choices you can not only live with, but look back on with a smile rather than a giant bucket of regrets.

Nothing denies agency (and points fingers) quite like some good old fashioned slut-shaming. Women are capable of making their own decisions about who they will or will not sleep with, and this entire point is nothing more than an attempt to restrict those choices, refocus attention on the false rape claim as something women do when their romantic feelings aren’t reciprocated, and insist again that feminist ideology is a thing of the past. Fail.

Our writer finishes off by addressing both men and women on the idea that society-as-a-person doesn’t exist, and therefor the things “society” says should not be taken to heart. Unfortunately, when police officers tell women to not dress like sluts, judges hand down light sentences for rapists because “sex was in the air,” and those who comment on news of SlutWalk say “Rape is not always just the fault of the man,” we are talking about real people. Not to mention you, dear blogger, a man who gives out crap advice about how women can prevent sexual assault, how men can be “real” men, and how we should all “walk the walk” (so long as it isn’t a walk against victim-blaming).

We should all “walk the walk,” and I do mean against victim-blaming. Winnipeg SlutWalk 2012 is slated for September, by the way. Hope to see you there.