Why do some countries have more of a right to defend themselves than others?
What’s behind the inconsistent support for self defense.
In February 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, European and North American world leaders were slow to respond to Ukraine‘s call for help. Germany outright blocked providing assistance to Ukraine at the time, only changing its position when German Foreign Minister Annalena Braebock pointed out to Chancellor Olaf Scholz that Ukraine has a right to defend itself. Even then, members of the German Parliament grumbled that they wanted no part in Braebock’s “feminist foreign policy”.
To justify his position, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has used the argument that Ukraine is the first line of defense against a Russian expansion into Europe. And while that is actually true, he has also spent the better part of the last 18 months begging for every helmet, every bullet, every weapon system, every piece of medical aid and every penny to defend his country against an invading force.
On October 7, when Hamas launched an attack on Israel, European and North American world leaders leapt to Israel’s support, pledging munitions, weapons, aircraft carriers, medical supplies, humanitarian aid, and money without hesitation, regardless of the fact that Israel already has one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world, including its own nuclear arsenal.
World leaders from the US to the UK to the EU announced that Israel had a right to defend itself, even as Israel launched a retaliation into Gaza so severe that within a week the Chinese government protested that Israel’s response to Hamas had gone beyond the definition of self defense.
What does that have to do with women’s self-defense and why am I even talking about this?
Well, there are direct corollaries between individual self-defense and international self-defense, and who is allowed to defend themselves, and who is not.
For decades, self defense classes were almost exclusively taught by men, either members of the police force, military or martial artists — all of which continue to be male-dominated industries. In North America and Europe, women’s self defense has historically been marketed exclusively to middle-class white women.
Why is that?
At first glance, it seems obvious: wealthy women can afford private security or, at the very least, private transportation and are therefore less likely to be in environments where stranger violence is likely to happen. They can literally buy their safety.
Working class and poverty-level women simply can’t afford self defense classes. That’s why they are occasionally offered for free at local community centers.
Women of color, lesbian women, trans women and non-binary individuals fall somewhere in an undefined and messy middle that comes with the unspoken implication that people in these demographics are living in violent environments already, and therefore any violence they experience is low-key kind of their fault anyway.
So that leaves middle class white women who, if measuring by the above parameters, are the most vulnerable group of all, who must be protected or, when that is not possible, be entrusted with the tools to protect themselves.
If you’re thinking that this has anything to do with protecting a woman’s womb and her ability to have children, you would be right. And to the extent that white supremacy is a fundamental part of patriarchy and capitalism, these women’s wombs are valuable to that service.
But that’s not the real reason there is so much protection for middle class white women — be it guns or self defense classes or the police.
The real reason is utility.
Recent years have shown quite clearly that middle-class white women are more likely to uphold and even defend patriarchal structures than anyone else. We can see this on an individual level with women who are referred to as Karens, as well as on a larger, political level, from Sarah Huckabee to Liz Truss to Ursula von der Leyen.
Audre Lorde famously said, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” and the tools she was referring to are these women.
These women protect the House.
[In this article I’m referring mostly to middle-class white women, but the truth is that it is not restricted to skin color. It is, however, restricted to socioeconomic class. In the years that I’ve been teaching self defense around the world, I recognize the same pattern in Southeast Asia, African countries, and Latin American countries.]
The tools of self defense have traditionally been given to the people who are will most likely and most reliably uphold the status quo and maintain the current balance of power.
Zooming out, we must ask ourselves: what is the utility of the countries “approved” for self defense in relation to the current global balance of power?
Providing weapons and supplies to Ukraine’s self defense disturbs the current balance of power: remember that Russia has a veto seat on the UN security council along with the US and China. Supporting Ukraine to fully defend itself invests it with a level of autonomy and empowerment that directly challenges the current world order.
On the other hand, the sole purpose of the Israeli nation state for Western powers is to uphold the current status quo and the current balance of power.
So if you are wondering how these world leaders can claim to defend democracy while turning a blind eye to ethnic cleansing and genocide, it’s because they are, in fact, only defending their own power.
You have to act as if it were possible to radically transform the world. And you have to do it all the time.
— Angela Davis
I’m the founder of Pretty Deadly Self Defense, a women’s self defense program that promotes body literacy over bodily harm. And I’m the CEO of SINGE, a social impact company focused on the safety and security of women in mobility. I like interacting with readers, so feel free to leave comments and, if you’re not already a member and like what you’re reading, buy me a coffee (and fuel more articles!).
