Can we talk about female violence? I need to get my response straight

[GrassIsSinging]

I know this is celeb rubbish, but am finding my blood boiling over comments from FB friends and the like over the Solange Knowles -punching-Jay Z debacle.

Lots of seemingly conscious, smart, reasonable people condemning violence of any sort (great, agreed), but then saying things like 'the double standards in society sicken me...Chris brown beats Rihanna and he is a monster...Solange attacks Jay Z and people dont respond in the same way'. Others (people I thought were decent) saying 'You couldnt have blamed him for hitting back...people have a right to defend themselves' etc.

This riles me massively. Am I a freak for thinking that male violence against women IS often (not always, but very often) much more devastating than vice versa? Because men are usually physically stronger...because male violence against women is a huge problem in this world...? And that a decent man will not hit a woman, even if provoked. Is this an 'old fashioned ' view now?

Feminism doesnt mean we now have to accept men punching us, ffs!

Depressed...

Phanesis, komogrammateus of Thmoinausiris and the associated villages, to Pesouris, greetings. On the 16th of the current month, the phylakitai in [4] 2 Rhodonos Nesos seized Horion, one of the farmers from the same village. He was sent to Herakleopolis in order (to appear?) before Komanos, the epistates phylakiton. After
this, on the same day, Agathinos and Philammon and others, from [Dionysios?], archiphylakites, set upon the same village, (and) put a seal on the [8] house of Ababikis, in which the aforementioned Horion was staying, as well as Petesouchos, one of the royal farmers from the same (village), without our permission, or (our permission) to bring along some of our men. There follows the list of the things (stolen) which [ – – ] submitted: 1 pickled goose, 2 pillows. … [12] having made
a seal, they went to Herakleopolis. I have written to you so that you may know. Farewell. Year 33, Pharmouthi 16.

( ZPE 141 [2002] 185–7.2–13 [Herakleopolite, 137 B.C. ] )

Oh, excellent, you've crossed the line into personal attack, Mont.

I apologize to whomever perceives that I called them a pickled-goose thief.

In fact, the thief is the farmer Horion.

anarchism merely hand-waves the problem of discord

No, do some more reading, anarchism specifically is about engaged consent. Mouffe describes it as radical democracy. It functions specifically through seeking consent rather than participation and has to engage areas of disagreement in order to realise that consent. Mouffe's description of radical democracy can only function in the context of a plurality of competing perspectives.

I became an anarchist after joining some of the transient protest communities that have been run anarchically. Really fucking amazing high quality informed engagement, no one is in charge, some fucking amazingly effective meetings even around contentious issues, especially around the stuff you can't agree on, there is nothing like anarchy to get a number of positive and realistic solutions in areas of massive disagreement. So I think your theoretical resistance to it is because you just can't imagine how consensual decision making takes place. Which is about your lack of imagination really.

"Mouffe's description of radical democracy can only function"

And how exactly does it function?

I think your theoretical resistance to it is because you just can't imagine how consensual decision making takes place

Which is about your lack of imagination really.

some of the transient protest communities have been run anarchically

do some more reading,do some more reading

So once again you hand-wave the central question.

Anarchism is trash.

Anarchism is trash

Factually incorrect as well as metaphorically lame

do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading

how does democracy function?

think about that then imagine... no one was in charge

Better to read Mein Kampf - at least that has more practical virtue than non-solutions to problems which they pretend do not exist.

ha ha, you've never been involved with an actual political movement then mont, just stuck on the computer? Contemporary anarchy in the UK arises out of practices and not theories, it is eminently practical and solution based.

Mein Kampf on the other hand is pure ideology, it's hardly a manifesto.

I'm not going to do your fucking homework for you

do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading

Many feminist organisational structures are anti-hierarchical and non-violent, find yourself a feminist community and look at their organisational and procedural values. Anarchist all the way

I think your theoretical resistance to it is because you just can't imagine how consensual decision making takes place I find that really interesting. I think a lot of people have issues making that leap (me included). I think that's why imaginary matriarchal societies that could perhaps take place in the future are always predicted to be as bad as patriarchal societies. Because we can't see beyond the hierarchies currently in existence.

Woman on the edge of time gave a good example of consensual decision making in the 'Utopia'. It really got me thinking anyway.