I firmly believe that the only way for me to survive on the streets, is to be harmless and not a threaten to anyone. However, I say this as a small person who physically is not a threat to anyone at all.
This means, do not argue with the aggressor. Show your hands. In most cases, you will be left alone.
Yet I know of a few tall men who get picked on occasionally in the rougher suburbs of Vancouver by men who are so intimidated by men taller than themselves that their fear morphs into aggressive behavior which is inappropriate to social norms and violates the rules governing civil behavior.
Even though I may know the motives of the aggressors, and take pity on their victims, who considered it beneath their dignity to fall for the ruse but are physically capable of defending themselves, I point them out not out of criticism but out of one question, "Why?"
Any person who picks a fight on a person, regardless of size would reply, "Because I can."
It is not worth my time to argue against this kind of logic since it all too often leads to a fight.
Instead, I am now going to discuss two types of self-defense, the first of which requires speed and a lot of hiding places which provide enough safety to call for help and the second, a corner and a very strong will to live.
The number one rule in both forms of self defense is maintain distance between your self and the aggressor. No matter how much psychological warfare he uses through insults and verbal forms of aggression, maintain the advantage by not falling for it. Tell him to keep his distance.
For the first form of self-defense is called "run and hide". It assumes that the person under attack knows all the hiding places which will provide up to 30 minutes of safety.
A stairway in a building is a good example but the person must be willing to climb flights of stairs during those critical 30 minutes. Even better is a secured place with a door for which the person has a key but that still assumes that the aggressor is far enough away to unlock, close and lock the door. This assumes that the person under attack has the physical stamina to climb a lot of stairs. It also assumes that the person knows the physical layout of each level of the building.
My reason for a hiding place providing 30 minutes of safety is that is the minimum time it takes for the police to arrive when calling 9-11.
Another variant of "run and hide" is called "Frogger" and requires being near a stream of city traffic and agility. When under attack you dance into traffic, avoiding cars and trucks, and try to time things so that the aggressor abandons pursuit. This requires agility as not all drivers will stop and honk when a person is blocking traffic. This variant is also called "run and hide in plain sight". ;)
In the second form of self-defense, this is called "backed in a corner". It requires the person to fight off his aggressor, and is a no-win scenario if the aggressor is bigger than he is, or has a weapon. However, the tactic to use in the no-win scenario is to use psychological warfare to 1) show you have no weapon, and 2) appeal to the ego of the aggressor to fight a fair fight and engage in fair play. In such a scenario, there is no margin of safety at all. :o
However, more psychological warfare may be done to give the person under attack an advantage.
Another variant of this kind of self defense is called "chicken plucking" and involves the person under attack to remove articles of outer clothing to demonstrate to the aggressor what a fair fight involves. >:)
If you want to avoid robbers, when you see a person who has been following you for fifteen minutes, then walk towards him. Few robbers will attack a person face to face, since you have seen their face. "Run and hide" will only work if you know the neighborhood.
As for avoiding being mugged, act paranoid. A mugger needs the element of surprise.
Originally posted on November 28, 201 at 7:41 PM
Showing posts with label street survival. Show all posts
Showing posts with label street survival. Show all posts
20131124
Rant about the UBC Rapist (satire)
I am a man and according to feminist thetoric I am inherently sexist. Isn't that too a sexist statement? Yes, neither side of the gender divide is innocent of sexism.
Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p
Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.
At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.
For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.
Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.
Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.
Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.
How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.
The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.
When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.
Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.
So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.
In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.
My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.
Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.
Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.
Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.
This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.
Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.
What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.
As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.
How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!
If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.
A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.
To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.
Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."
These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.
Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p
Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.
At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.
For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.
Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.
Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.
Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.
How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.
The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.
When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.
Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.
So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.
In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.
My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.
Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.
Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.
Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.
This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.
Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.
What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.
As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.
How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!
If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.
A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.
To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.
Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."
These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.
20050527
Words More Powerful Than a Gun
The pen and the tongue are more powerful than a Colt 45.
After six shots, that Colt could kill a half dozen people; but a wrongly placed word spoken or written can mean life or death for billions of people.
After six shots, that Colt could kill a half dozen people; but a wrongly placed word spoken or written can mean life or death for billions of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)