Nine Real Self-Defence Tips
I hate all the “never do this” and “always do that” garbage I see out there passed off as self-defence advice. I’m tired of seeing victim-blaming masquerading as empowerment. Here are nine tips that don’t engage in victim-blaming, are applicable to virtually anyone, and can work as well as a kick in the balls.
- Repeat after me: Nobody can “invite” attack. Not through clothing, appearance, behaviour, lifestyle, location, or any other act or omission. The responsibility for an attack always rests squarely on the shoulders of the attacker. Knowing that anyone who – either physically or otherwise – attacks another person is to blame for the attack won’t likely stop an attack from taking place, but it can a) increase your awareness of how the people around you treat others (including you), b) help to keep you from engaging in victim-blaming that can contribute to the damage of anyone around you who has been victimized (either as a primary victim or secondary/tertiary), and c) help you deal with the lingering aftermath of any attack you may yet (or did already) experience.
- Practice saying and hearing, “No” and reading how the word is received – not because an offender will necessarily hear and respect it, but because you will and that will contribute to you recognizing discomfort and disrespect early. The earlier you recognize it, the earlier you can do something to change it.
- Stop apologizing. You and a friend can practice not apologizing for everything. Not only do women apologize for things that are not their fault (please excuse the genderalization), but things for which nobody can be at fault – or worse, for things the other party need apologize for instead. Practice this with and around each other first, and then let it spread like your use of the word “no” has. The hyper-vigilance associated with constantly being on the lookout for things to apologize for can be very damaging to your health, both physically and psychologically. Excessive passivity is disrespectful to yourself, and you are worthy of respect.
- Establish comfortable boundaries for you and reinforce them, first in those safe settings and increasingly as you get more comfortable doing so. Things like, “Hey, Bob, could you please not make those offensive jokes?” are a fairly good, safe place to start. This won’t necessarily stop an attack, but it will make it easier for you to recognize discomfort early.
- Build some good relationships that enhance your sense of self. Surround yourself with as many people as you can who are more likely to sincerely uplift and empower you than put you down.
- Familiarize yourself with the differences between passive, aggressive, passive-aggressive, and assertive. In everyday interactions assertive is the most respectful of you. Since you are the most important person you know, it follows you should be most respectful of you out of anyone. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Know that aggression can be appropriate too. Know that passivity is acceptable now and again, like after a hard day, especially if you are with people who have already demonstrated respect for your established boundaries.
- Get comfortable. Not complacent, not lazy, but actually comfortable. With yourself. With life. Know you are valuable and expect to be treated as such. This isn’t easy, and most people can’t maintain it always & forever, but it’s a good thing to work toward for most of the time
- Advocate for change. In your personal circles, in your workplace, at your school, in government, in life. The focus needs to be taken off what can “provoke attack” (nothing) and placed on what creates attackers, off the idea that neutral or even “poor” decisions can prompt someone else to disrespect other human beings on the most personal of levels, and onto what instils in people the notion this behaviour is acceptable. Teach those around you intent creates access, but access does not create intent.
- Do some training, but only if you really want to. Self-defence lessons can (if they’re good) enhance your sense of empowerment and safety. That said, Counter-Violence and Advocacy Training isn’t only about what to do when confronted with violence, but also about how to affect the social landscape, addressing popular mythologies in order to combat victim-blaming. Unlike self-defence, counter-violence education redirects focus away from the actions of potential victims and onto empowering communities against violence, person by person.
If you would like to download these tips in a three-panel brochure, click here.
Contact us today to discuss your counter-violence and advocacy training options.
2011-12-17 at 18:05
Thanks for the sensible advice. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction that if somebody is attacked they blame themselves or others do that for them. Where does risk assessment fit into the blame game that goes like ‘if I’d only not walked through that alley in the bad end of town I wouldn’t have been attacked’.
2011-12-18 at 11:56
Excellent question, Jim.
The self-blaming statement could just as easily be, “If I’d only walked down the alley instead of the sidewalk, I wouldn’t have been attacked.” It’s important to know a neutral decision – one which carries no penalty in and of itself – doesn’t actually increase our threat potential. The “alley in a bad end of town” likely has foot-traffic on a fairly regular basis, and most of those pedestrians aren’t attacked, so to consider the decision to walk down an alley to be poor is victim-blaming (and it often starts in ourselves), either preemptively or after the fact. In fact, the alley could be chosen as a way to avoid a perceived threat and an attack can happen anyway.
It’s also important to know what a poor decision actually is, so we aren’t condemning our neutral (or good) decisions. A poor decision is one which carries a natural penalty regardless of how many times it’s made without causing damage. If I drive drunk I increase my likelihood of a motor vehicle collision. It doesn’t matter how many times I “get away with it,” if I crash I only have myself to blame. On the other hand, someone else deciding to attack me (even if I’ve been drinking) is based on decisions outside my control.
It makes sense, though, when we start looking for answers as to why a crime occurs, we look to our own behaviour first – after all, it’s the only behaviour over which we have any control. Sometimes, this can lead to some decent changes being made to our routine that might enhance our safety, while other times it leads to unhealthy self-blame and/or superstitious behaviour modification.
For instance, consider the advice given to children: “Don’t talk to strangers” seems like good advice until we look a little closer and realize we are dependent on strangers for our survival; they grow the food we eat and at least partially prepare it, make and sell us our clothing, build and repair our homes, answer the call when we dial 9-1-1, and a great many of our closest friends were strangers when we met them. On top of this, most children (most adults, too) aren’t harmed by strangers.
The offender is the only person responsible for an attack, as that’s the person who had intent, created opportunity, and inserted him/herself into the life of the victim in such a way as to exploit the encounter and do damage.
Thanks for taking the time to comment and for your question.
2012-08-31 at 19:52
2012-10-10 at 11:35
2012-11-29 at 18:40
2013-03-04 at 09:17
I’m a little taken aback by what I _think_ it is that I’m reading on this blog.
Everyone always has to take responsibility for their actions, including not putting them selves in a situation where something you wouldn’t want to happen would have a greater likelihood of occurring.
Even as an adult male who trains martial arts, there are certain areas of Winnipeg I would not walk the streets alone, especially at night. If go there and I get attacked, no it’s not my “fault”, but I most certainly contributed to it by my own decisions. A huge part of not being in the ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ is not intentionally going to the wrong place.
Are you saying you disagree with that basic premise?
2013-03-04 at 16:44
Essentially, I am.
The “wrong place” isn’t determined by the victim of a crime, it’s determined by the person who harbours intent, makes a plan, selects a victim, and carries out an attack. Most violence isn’t perpetrated by a stranger, either, so the advice to not go to “certain areas” alone isn’t really all that helpful as the person who accompanies you is just as likely to be your attacker as anyone else. Additionally, classifying “certain areas” as unsafe tends to be more classist than it is about actual safety. Clearly, just being there doesn’t lead to assault since there tend to be residents of any given area present at any given time who are not assaulted.
“Don’t go there” is restrictive advice, not empowering. “This is how predators behave” is empowering advice.
Incidentally, the language you use, “I most certainly contributed to it” is blaming language. You’ve assumed blame/responsibility/fault with it. If you are assaulted based on something you contributed to, how much responsibility do you bear? 10%? 50%? Is the perpetrator that much less responsible? If not, then did you actually contribute or are you just reflecting internalized blame in the form of “If only I had/hadn’t done X?” If we consider the idea we “contribute” to you victimization, how easy will that make it to heal psychologically from it? How does that impact an ability or desire to find and punish the perpetrator?
“Don’t go there” and “Don’t go there alone” are magical bits of advice based in mythology. It’s an illusion that it works, as it cannot be proven to have prevented any assault.
2013-03-11 at 14:59
That attitude makes me worry about the people you teach. The most important part of self-defense is to avoid conflict where ever possible. “Blaming language” doesn’t help after the fact, but it most certainly should be foremost in your mind in terms of avoiding the incident in the first place.
Yes, we shouldn’t have to worry about bad people doing bad things. The unfortunate fact is, we do. You advice only works if those bad people don’t exist in the first place.
2013-03-11 at 16:39
Your advice on how to avoid conflict only works if one has some sort of precognitive ability. It’s the stuff of martial mythology, not of a rational mindset. Again, “Don’t go there” and “Don’t go there alone” are not empowering statements, they are judgmental, restrictive, classist, racist and -more often than not- sexist. At no point do I suggest we shouldn’t “avoid conflict where ever possible.” You and I differ on how one can avoid conflict and, it would seem, where that conflict is to be found. I would never tell you to be someplace you aren’t comfortable being, though I might challenge the thoughts that contribute to your decision that any particular area is unsafe.
The “wrong place” and the “wrong time” are both decided by the perpetrator of a crime, not the victim.
2013-06-03 at 12:43
If I’m understanding your argument correctly, your argument seems to be that
1. Crime is totally unpredictable and therefore,
2. I can go wherever I want and act however I want, because if something bad happens to me, it’s not my fault.
If that’s your argument, I find it a deeply disturbing one.
2013-06-03 at 15:10
Tell you what, Jake, why don’t you tell me how you can predict a crime and then restrict your freedom in order to avoid it? Because if I’m understanding your argument to be the opposite of your presentation of my argument, you’re saying
1) Crime is entirely predictable and avoidable.
2) There are places you should not go and things you should do in order to control the actions of another.
If that’s your position, Jake, I find it rife with victim-blaming, martial mythology, racism, ableism, sexism, classism, and a belief in precognitive ability. I therefor find your default position to be “deeply disturbing.”
“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” – Benjamin Franklin
2013-06-04 at 09:07
Hmh.
Let me start by acknowledging that my opening post was not the most diplomatic, and not a great way to start this conversation. For that, I apologize.
I am honestly trying to understand your position here, because I agree with part of it, but not all of it. Or at least, I think I do. Perhaps I’m wrong.
The attacker is the one responsible for the assault. That is true.
Let’s try an example.
This past weekend, my wife and I were visiting her parents, and we decided to take advantage of the fact that we could leave the house after our son fell asleep. We weren’t sure what we were going to do, we just wanted some alone time. Her mother suggested a local bar, but then added jokingly “but don’t to got the bar where a fight breaks out every night. People have even gotten stabbed and shot there!”
Now, she was joking (the bar in question was too far away, and we weren’t really in a bar sort of mood), BUT…she wasn’t at the same time. There is a bar where people routinely get into fights, and get shot and stabbed.
If we went there…that would not be wise.
Could we say for 100% certainty that we would be assaulted if we went there? No. Are there couples that go there and don’t get assaulted? Perhaps there are. But knowing that there is a place where violence routinely occurs, doesn’t it make sense to avoid that place?
Very few things on this planet are 100% predictable. But that doesn’t mean we don’t take steps to be safer. We make risk/reward calculation every day.
Somewhere on this site (I don’t remember where), you offered the example of drunk driving. Now, drunk driving is obviously a poor correlate for a violent assault (the driver chooses to drink, the victim does not choose to be assaulted, which I think was your point), but the fact remains that you cannot, with 100% accuracy, predict the results of a single persons choice to drive drunk at any given time. There are people who drive drunk and do not get into accidents.
But statistically, we know that driving drunk leads to accidents, and thus, we try to prevent it.
You note above that many attackers fail to hear the word “no”, and that if you are interacting with someone who doesn’t seem to hear “no”, that is a sign that you can use to take steps to change that dynamic (including, I would assume, leaving or getting away from this person if you felt threatened).
I’m just having trouble understanding how you move from “you cannot perfectly predict when and where you will be attacked” to “there is absolutely nothing you can do to predict an attack”. It doesn’t seem to be a zero sum game to me.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point.
2013-06-04 at 20:44
Hi Jake,
I appreciate your acknowledgment of the lack of diplomacy. While I believe we can have a more respectful discussion, now, I’m afraid you’ve misread some things as well as missed the fact this discussion was actually had with another commenter. My analogy was not a “drunk-driving” one, but a driving analogy, since so many people try to make driving and personal safety analogous. The reason this distinction is important is simple: a drunk driver is not a victim but a perpetrator. There are rules to driving. When someone disobeys a rule, someone else can stand to pay a price – that person is a victim. The person who broke the rule – for example, the drunk driver – will be held accountable for any damage they may cause or the threat they posed. Similarly we have rules around interaction outside of cars – “Don’t shoot people” would be an example of one such rule. The issue is, when we draw comparisons between drunk driving and violence we often make the perpetrator of drunk driving a victim, and the victim of violence a perpetrator. Clearly this is a mistake.
Secondly, you say there is a bar where shootings and stabbings are “routine.” This is disingenuous, a straw-man easily knocked aside. Perhaps you’re just being hyperbolic in an attempt to make your point, but then you compound matters with, “Are there couples that go there and don’t get assaulted? Perhaps [emphasis mine] there are.” Perhaps? Almost certainly the rate of occurrence of people not being assaulted is routine, and the likelihood of “frequent” assaults is subjective and therefor subject to skepticism (“Perhaps there are frequent assaults. Perhaps not.”)
What do we call the place where people don’t get to decide where they go, what they do, or what they wear? Prison. Advice like, “Don’t go to bars” is restrictive. Now, I don’t fault you for not going to the bar your mother-in-law warned you off of, but the idea her advice can suddenly be standardized and followed by everyone is the issue. If the police could predict crime effectively, they would be able to make arrests pre-emptively. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that. But they can’t, so they aren’t allowed to restrict the freedoms of people they believe are perpetrators. Why do you seek to restrict the behaviour of people who are potential victims? Consider this:
I visit your mother-in-law. She warns me off the bar where people get shot or stabbed, and recommends a restaurant. I take her advice, and while nobody is shot that night I end up with food-poisoning. Did your mother save my life or endanger it? Clearly her advice -based on subjective data- is not a factor. Now, she can decide not to go to the bar in question, and you can decide to not go based on her advice, but those are (or at least, should be) personal choices. If I make a decision with the information I have, nobody has any business shaming me for it whether an attack takes place or not. I did not cause an attack, even if you would make a different decision and believe your decision would make you safer.
Another thing to consider is the risk/payoff equation. You play Muay Thai. Do you know how many people are injured practising martial arts every year? As well, many people die in plane crashes. Do planes lead to crashing, or is it a combination of mechanical failure, human error, weather, or even terrorism? To blame the plane and not fly would be phobic, and while I wouldn’t tell you, “You must fly,” I would question your advising others to not fly based on your personal boundary. I highly doubt you would engage in an activity where you thought, “I’m gonna get royally fucked if I do this.” We don’t work that way. What sense is it to tell people to not do things they are perfectly capable of assessing as safe or unsafe? So, rather than give a list of “always and nevers” that cannot take into account the realities of individuals and their own abilities, I choose to focus on more reliable methods of addressing violence – before we are ever faced with it, immediately pre-conflict, throughout the conflict, and post-conflict.
Gaz
2013-06-05 at 19:45
“2. Where my concern/confusion came from regarding your post was that I feel like it could be read or interpreted in an adolescent “well, I’m just going to do whatever I want to, because I can”, which is just a poor way to go through life.”
Where exactly is this “advice”? I have read through this list multiple times, and nowhere does it read anything that could be interpreted that way at all.
“I do think, however, that it’s worth being mindful of where you are, the kind of culture or society you are in, and understanding that your environment reacts to you as much as you react to the environment.”
Do you honestly believe that if we, for one minute, shift the conversation away from “don’t wear that skirt” “don’t drink too much” “don’t have long hair” “don’t flirt” “don’t be rude” “don’t go there” “don’t go out at night” “don’t go out alone” and all the other “safety advice” and towards “let’s hold abusers accountable and quit blaming victims for their victimisation” that everyone in the world who is not an abuser will suddenly, en masse, take to the streets drunk, naked, and alone with hundred dollar bills sticking out of them at three in the morning and stagger down alleys with bushes where perpetrators may have concealed themselves? I’m really asking. That’s not sarcasm.
2013-06-06 at 10:43
It was mostly point 7, particularly the line “. Nobody can “invite” attack through clothing/appearance, behaviour/lifestyle, location,”
Really, it was the “behaviour/lifestyle” thing, since, as Gaz and I worked out below, being an asshole CAN invite an attack. I’m fine with acknowledging that I misread or misinterpreted the point, but I shared out the article to several fellow self-defense folks, and I wasn’t alone.
To answer your non-sarcastic question: no. I don’t believe that. I’m not really sure why you would think I did.
2013-06-06 at 16:23
“Really, it was the “behaviour/lifestyle” thing, since, as Gaz and I worked out below, being an asshole CAN invite an attack. I’m fine with acknowledging that I misread or misinterpreted the point, but I shared out the article to several fellow self-defense folks, and I wasn’t alone.”
Actually, that’s not what we worked out. My position is that being an asshole can provoke someone to take a defensive stance against you. Being an asshole is, by definition, a form of attack; it’s something you do to someone else.
While I think one can never be too clear when giving out advice on personal improvement or safety, especially in light of the fact dissection of that advice or chasing down the roots of it will often result in a discovery of victim-blaming ideology, I think you also decontextualized things in an attempt to find fault rather than for the purpose of discussion in good faith. With regard to your sharing of the article with “fellow self-defense folks,” this smacks of Confirmation Bias and an Appeal to Authority. I could similarly point out the fact this particular piece has been translated into numerous languages and shared in different countries across the globe by those who work in the fields of violence prevention & response, psychology, sociology, social-services, law-enforcement, victim-services, education, and medicine, but would it be reasonable to expect you agree with me just because others who share my perspective do?
2013-06-06 at 17:57
“To answer your non-sarcastic question: no. I don’t believe that. I’m not really sure why you would think I did.”
It’s because you said this.
“2. Where my concern/confusion came from regarding your post was that I feel like it could be read or interpreted in an adolescent “well, I’m just going to do whatever I want to, because I can”, which is just a poor way to go through life.”
So, if you *don’t* believe that, then why are you saying that you do? Which is it? Must we always every time we have a discussion about violence pull out the list of not effective at all rules, or can we have other conversations that might go somewhere? And why is it that every time we try to shift the conversation away from not effective at all rules, someone like you shows up being all concerned that if we don’t pull out the not effective at all rules society will run amok like adolescents?
2013-06-05 at 11:35
Ok. I think I’m starting to find where the disconnect is, at least on my end. I’m not 100% certain we’re on the same page, but we may be closer than I thought, at least initially. I’m going to see if I can break this down.
1. If you’ve looked at my blog/profile, then you know I also teach self-defense. In thinking about this conversation, I realized that in my self-defense courses, I don’t give out “don’t do this” kind of lists either. The only “don’t” I ever give people is “don’t let yourself be moved to a secondary crime scene”, which is advice I imagine you wouldn’t find objectionable.
We tell people in our courses that we’re options facilitators. Our job is to help educate them about violence, What they do with that info is up to them.
If what you’re objecting to is advice like “never go to bars”, then I’d agree with you.
2. Where my concern/confusion came from regarding your post was that I feel like it could be read or interpreted in an adolescent “well, I’m just going to do whatever I want to, because I can”, which is just a poor way to go through life. Aside from the obvious problems (such as the rules you mentioned that punish people for violating them), there’s also the reality that the way we interact with other people does carry consequences.
It happened right here. I opened the conversation with hostility, you responded in kind. I changed tone, so did you.
Please do not misunderstand me–I am not trying to extrapolate that into saying that means that the victim of an assault should have somehow known better, or that people who go into certain areas “deserve” to get attacked. No one deserves that.
I do think, however, that it’s worth being mindful of where you are, the kind of culture or society you are in, and understanding that your environment reacts to you as much as you react to the environment.
I hope that all makes sense.
2013-06-05 at 19:58
Hi again, Jake,
I’m glad to hear you think we agree more than we disagree, but if you’ll permit me I would like to challenge you on a couple of notions. The first is your presumed default position of your students, which seems to be a little bit of infantilization combined with a criminal -or at least somewhat dubious- mindset. For instance, to assume someone to read, “[W]ell, I’m just going to do whatever I want to, because I can” to conclude as “and this will result in me engaging in activity that will get me assaulted,” is somewhat problematic. If, prior to exploring responses to violent crime, we discuss the difference between fighting (two assholes engaging in mutual combat) and assault (one asshole seeking out and exploiting vulnerabilities and victimizing), then we’re way ahead of the game. When we explore crime prevention, the first discussion is necessarily about not being an asshole. There, crime prevention at its most effective. If I then tell you, you can do whatever you want, how are you possibly getting to the conclusion I said it was okay for you to start fights, rob, not ask for consent, or generally be an asshole? And, actually, what I said was, “Know that no matter what, anyone who -either physically or otherwise- attacks another person is to blame for the attack. Nobody can “invite” attack through clothing/appearance, behaviour/lifestyle, location, or any other act or omission. The responsibility for an attack always rests squarely on the shoulders of the attacker. Knowing this won’t necessarily stop an attack from taking place, but it can a) increase your awareness of how the people around you treat others (including you), b) help to keep you from engaging in victim-blaming that can contribute to the damage of anyone around you who has been victimized (either as a primary victim or secondary/tertiary), and c) help you to deal with the lingering aftermath of any attack you may yet -or did already- experience.” When I say nothing you can do can be the cause of your assault, this automatically assumes you didn’t willfully engage in criminal or asocial activity that could logically result in you being hit.
The second area of issue is (and this is especially troubling if you are dealing with individuals who cannot take “do what you want” to mean, “so long as it’s legal and consensual”) “Don’t let yourself be moved to a secondary crime scene.” In reality, if I decide to take you to a second location, there may be very little (if anything) you can do about it. So, if “Don’t let yourself…” is the script you’ve got running in your head and I do manage to take you to a secondary scene, you’ve been set up to blame yourself. That blame and its associated guilt are killers, since it can create a downward spiral of thought in your head at the time when rational thought is the most elusive. So, for this reason, we discuss the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary crime scenes, as well as what your best options are at each (arguably only the first two) stages with empowering language, since that’s the script we want to be running through your mind at the time of the assault.
Similar scripts and issues could include the person who has decided to change their diet and exercise program. Frequently, people in this position will run into scripts like, “Don’t cheat on the diet.” When the inevitable “cheat” happens, they will routinely run into the logical place that script has aimed them: “Well, I’ve completely fucked my diet so I may as well keep going.” Instead, “Well, I’ve rewarded my efforts with x, now it’s time to get back to work,” or, “I’ve consoled myself with x, and now it’s time to get back to work” would be a better script to have playing.
Next, contrast these two statements considering you identify as an instructor of self-defence:
(Regarding the bar you mentioned) “If we went there…that would not be wise.”
“Please do not misunderstand me–I am not […] saying that means that the victim of an assault should have somehow known better[…]”
Do you see how these two statements are at odds? Your decisions ought to be based on your comfort. “It would not be wise to go there” does not acknowledge the comfort you feel in going elsewhere, instead putting you in a position of being always vigilant (hyper-vigilant) for an attack that may never happen. This is discomfort. For the hyper-vigilant, it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish one sense of discomfort from another since the script never changes. If, however, you focus on doing only what is comfortable (the restaurant instead of the bar), you will notice discomfort much more easily and in a wider variety of circumstances.
“I opened the conversation with hostility, you responded in kind. I changed tone, so did you.” Actually, Jake, I opened the conversation in good faith, with a friendly tone, and using empowering language and terminology. You introduced hostility to it, and I responded appropriately. When I did that, it caused a shift in your thinking, and your conduct was altered in order to suit the new environment you found yourself in. Had I started in a defensive mindset rather than an open one, it’s entirely possible we both would have stayed there and no progress would have been made.
Finally, there is a vast difference between martial sports and self-defence systems. A martial athlete’s default mindset is one of confrontation being acceptable and inevitable, and you are programmed to see your students as those who accept this idea. I approach from the mindset my students want to avoid/repel confrontation, and it’s the options that meet this end that are explored – without resorting to blaming them should they fall victim to attack.
Gaz
2013-06-06 at 10:40
Gaz,
Thanks for clarifying your position. I couldn’t find the “don’t be an asshole” advice in the article as written, which is what lead me to misinterpret your point. It’s much clearer now.
I will certainly consider some of the things that you’ve written with regard to word choices.
In return, I’d ask that you consider that you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about how I interact with and coach my self-defense clientele. Most of them aren’t accurate.
2013-06-06 at 16:07
“Thanks for clarifying your position. I couldn’t find the “don’t be an asshole” advice in the article as written, which is what lead me to misinterpret your point. It’s much clearer now.”
Hi Jake,
I suppose it’s logical one could come to that conclusion, but there are a couple of responses to it that come to mind when I read it. First, “Don’t be an asshole” isn’t “self-defence” advice, it’s prevention advice that assumes the reader is a perpetrator. Arguably, if they haven’t received the lesson of not being an asshole prior to visiting my blog they are unlikely to accept it now. That said, if you read through my blog, you’ll find advice like, “In order to make sure everyone is safe, don’t assault,” “Consider the effect your words and actions will have on others,” “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.” “it is the rapist who is in control of the actions of the rapist,” and, “‘This is how we speak to everyone else’ […] along with ‘this is what I expect of people who talk to me.’” Even above, I suggest we “practice saying and hearing” the word “no.” If we hear it and respect it, we’re not being assholes. Also above, I discuss the differences between passive, aggressive, passive-aggressive, and assertive, as well as recognizing personal value and building good relationships; I think it’s a much more reasonable assumption to draw a conclusion that includes not being an asshole from any of these words than it is to think, “nobody can invite attack” suggests we are allowed to be assholes to other people.
“I will certainly consider some of the things that you’ve written with regard to word choices.”
I’m glad you found some value in that. The “scripts” we use have a lot to do with how well we will respond to any sort of conflict, whether interpersonal or personal.
“In return, I’d ask that you consider that you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about how I interact with and coach my self-defense clientele. Most of them aren’t accurate.”
I will do that. I’d like to point out where some of my ideas come from, though. For instance, you read an article about improving a life, interacting with others in positive ways, and supporting those who have been or may yet be victims of violence. Your first comment was, by your own admission, hostile. This tells me I wasn’t too far off in my assessment of your methods of preparation for and conditioned expectation of conflict are to the point of you, arguably, seeking it out. You did engage in victim-blaming when you suggested having gone to the bar you mentioned and having been attacked would have been a result of an unwise choice – again, I refer to the idea of the scripts we use, and your default position was to automatically assume blame for your own victimization. If you have that script running ahead of time instead of the script of, “I will be comfortable going to a restaurant,” how would you expect your self-blame to manifest if you were actually assaulted? How about the self-blame of a student who has only your chosen words as their script? I would suggest it is highly likely a person would default to the script of, “I did something unwise to cause this to happen.” That default script is much more readily available to the more vulnerable members of society, many of whom show symptoms of hyper-vigilance or post-traumatic stress disorder despite having no traumatic event to reference.
2013-06-10 at 09:13
:-)
I certainly won’t argue that I have not been my own best representative here.
I’m human. I make mistakes. Occasionally, I do not live up to the ideals I’d like to. This was one such case.
Thanks for your time.
2013-06-10 at 16:23
Hi Jake,
I appreciate your reflection on this. Because we began in disagreement it may not seem like it, but I also appreciate the conversation. Without your participation it’s not as easy to get my point across, nor is it as effectively represented without being “tested” by someone who disagrees. You’ve clearly considered the position you presented here and brought some solid discussion to the table, making for a better discussion. Hopefully you’ll continue to read along and take part in discussion as we go, as it’s these discussions that really clarify our philosophy on personal protection, as well as aid in its evolution.
Gaz
2013-06-16 at 20:01
2013-11-24 at 11:24