Here is the next episode of “Anna Really Hates Marketing.” Here you will find excerpts from her new book, which is now out on the Kindle! Paper version should follow shortly. Hopefully. Or so they tell me.
Still talking about commonly-held beliefs that:
- Deprive people of the resources to deal with violence as it’s happening;
- Deprive them of the emotional, psychological, and social resources to facilitate recovery;
- Prevent them from absorbing self-defense teachings.
2. ‘Violence is inherently evil.’
Outside of the world of self-defense, there is a growing sentiment that violence is always bad, or that ‘violence never solved anything.’ To people with this outlook, every use of force is inherently bad. It doesn’t matter whether that use of force was in self-defense. These people believe that non-violence is always feasible; that it is the only option one should consider; and that being forced to engage is in itself a sign of a strategic failure or personality flaw. Therefore, they believe that all those who use force in self-defense have done something wrong, and that those who train with a view to use force in self-defense are demonstrating a kind of cancer of the soul.
The underlying idea is that if nobody engaged in violence of any kind, for any reason, then there would be no violence. That’s a beautiful theory, but a damn big IF. It deliberately ignores the demonstrable fact that some people don’t have any restraints against using violence for gain or entertainment and can’t be deterred by peaceful means alone. Tim Larkin states that “Violence is seldom the answer. But when it is, it is the only answer.” Marc MacYoung modifies it to “Violence is seldom the answer. But when it is, it is the best answer.”
Attitudes that reject the use of force as a necessary tool put an extra burden on survivors, because they turn conflict into a lose-lose situation. If survivors are incapable of defending themselves, they may be badly hurt. If they are capable of defending themselves, they may be socially punished. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. As a result, they are under extra stress, which depletes their physical and mental resources through adrenalization.
The icing on the cake is that this attitude only affects good people, who are committed to doing good things. Lo and behold, bad people either don’t care about that kind of social approval, or belong to subcultures that see physical force as a perfectly viable option.
These efforts at enforcing non-violence aim to create a better world. In the world as it is, however, they take away resources from those who most need them. They make conflict infinitely more stressful for those who actually care about avoiding or reducing it. They punish the good and the weak. They paralyze victims into complete inaction, turning them into human punching bags. They scare victims into silence, because reporting acts of violence can result in punishment.
Until this belief is shaken, these people may either not be able to effectively self-defend, or may not be able to do so without negatively impacting their opinion of themselves. They will either freeze, conflicted because defending themselves would require them to commit an evil deed, or act and then castigate themselves for doing so.
Is this amazing or what?
And, guess what: there is more! Stay tuned!