Activist Scenes are No Safe Space for Women

[Poop]

Your a kinder person then I am in this regard. If I didnt kill the person, for whatever reason thinking he*/she was not of sain mind, I would beat them within an inch of their life, and lecture them while they think they are about to die.

Have you considered running for attorney general, police chief, or prison guard? You seem to believe pretty strongly in post-crime punishment for an anarchist.

About the nicest thing I would concider, if the community realy felt he wasnt too much of a threat and is the victim of abuse himself is maybe to drug the person with Jimson weed or some other narcotic, tie him to a tree naked and poor honey on him so the insects eat his skin. Maybe put a sign over his head saying rapist, and let him go on the third day.

During this time let any of his victims do as they like to him, or just let leave them alone if they dont want to see him. They could also do it black block style if they dont want him to know who they are.

Well, it's good to know the victims will have a say, albeit a small one, in how your sadistic revenge for actions against them plays out.

I would do the same if a man raped another man. Its not nessisarily about an attitude twards protecting women, but protecting all members of my community.

I don't really see any connection between torturing people or otherwise inflicting violence against them and protecting the community.

I know that if somebody raped me, I would appreciate any help in tracking this person down and killing him. I wouldnt accuse those who volonteer to help me do this of being macho in my defense. I would just say thank you for helping me. This is why I cant relate to the example Kevin gave.

Not every rape victim would appreciate someone going out and killing the rapist on his/her behalf. If they didn't want that, and you did it anyway, it would likely make them feel even more powerless.

Perhaps the victim should have some say over what should be done.

Perhaps?

I dont believe in non-violence at all. I like the idea of letting the victims decide what will happen to them rather then adopting a dogmatic code of non-violence even against violent attackers.

I don't like the idea of giving victims control over the rapists' lives, and neither do I like adopting a dogmatic code of nonviolence against violent attackers. And I don't advocate adopting a dogmatic code of violence against violent attackers regardless of what the victim may think of it.

Just letting them go likes its not big deal is the worst thing you could possibly do.

There are more options than killing the person and doing nothing.

[Post_industrial]

Honestly, I do feel that rape victims should be entitled to vengence should they choose to persue it. I also think they should free to recruit help from their freinds should they ask of it.

If we had a mutual freind who was an anarchist, and she/he was beaten and raped, black eyes, cuts, screaming, possibly druged, it happened in the same day, we find this person and, the victim asks us to do something about to make him regret his decision, and I am ready to attack this person, would you actualy come to his defense against me to protect him from post crime punishment?

Also, what would you propose as an alternative after you had succeded or failed in protecting the rapist?

Why should an individual who dominates the will of another through rape have more rights then anarchists would give to a government who dominates the will of individuals with military force?



So perhaps killing the person is a little harsh. What if I agreed instead to make him feel like he was in a car accident for the next 6 months, maybe taking away some of his physical ability to dominate others while he recovers?

During this time you could nurse him back to health, and offer him counciling about why its bad to beat and rape people, and why it makes people angry when they see their friends victimized.


But do you honestly think that a rape victim him/her self should not be entitled to vengence?

[Din]

But do you honestly think that a rape victim him/her self should not be entitled to vengence?

Yes, I honestly think that. Why should they or anyone else be entitled to vengence? It's a silly thing, this idea of creating a future act of violence based on a past act of violence. When your future act of violence becomes a past act of violence, the victim of your act of violence might plan a future act of violence based on your past act of violence. Somewhere down the line, the distinction between victims and abuser gets lost and the victims become monsters too.

Vengence leads only to more vengence.

You neglect to addressed the point that I made that many perpetrators of sexual abuse have experience in being sexual abused themselves. Encouraging victims of sexual abuse to enact violent reprisal on their abusers could very well lead them to be abusers themselves.

I have no problems with violence or even killing another human being. But let it be done for reasons other than vengence.

I'd much rather bring the abuser and the abused face to face for a dialogue. That's the sort of alternative path that I would hope to see in an anarchy. A communicating, mediating attempt at resolving the conflict without resort to punitive justice.

[Tom]

A communicating, mediating attempt at resolving the conflict without resort to punitive justice.

I would also suggest that this would be healthier for the victims, too.

Repression and PTSD aren't fun.

[Rapter]

About the nicest thing I would concider, if the community realy felt he wasnt too much of a threat and is the victim of abuse himself is maybe to drug the person with Jimson weed or some other narcotic, tie him to a tree naked and poor honey on him so the insects eat his skin. Maybe put a sign over his head saying rapist, and let him go on the third day.

actually.. killing them would be much much nicer then that.. in my opinion thats inhumane, torture is much worse then death, because of the pain involved, in otherwords, you are saying "lets give the rapist a slow death instead of a quick death" and like poop put it




edit:forgot something.. what you are suggesting would also be like the old feudel(sp.. =P) way of dealing with criminals..... i do not approve of it, in my opinion, the entire community should have a consensus of the rapist/murderer/criminal(i hate using this word) sentance, then if the victim agrees, he/she can carry it out, or the community can carry it out.

[Guest]

Being bit by ants isnt going to kill someone. Its hurts like a bitch, but then its over, you recover and can go about your life. There is a big diference between a slow painfull death, and a fucked up 3 days that you can think about for the next few months.

Im going to stop talking about violence on my part, and instead just listen to your ideas as you explain to me how you can protect your community with non-violent measures.

I agree that it would be ideal if you could give therapy to all violent criminals, including rapists and somehow get through to them that their actons are wrong. Maybe if you just give them enough love they will stop raping people right?
The problem with that thinking is that its highly unlikely that you will be able to sit them down long enough for therapy sessions that wil make any diference. To hold someone in a prison against their will is more authoritarian then giving them a fast hard ass kicking. To hold somebody against their will, giving them psychotherapy to change the way they feel about rape is form of athoritarian mind control. Perhaps in this instance you may see it as the lesser evil to violence, but its no less authoritarian. Perhaps tying somebody to a tree is also authoritarian as you are holding somebody against their will, which is why on second thought I probibly wouldnt actualy do that. But I dont like this idea becuase it basicly requires you to build prisons which I hate. I personaly would rather get my ass kicked then sit in jail and recieve psychotherapy.

So Im going to stop talking about what I may do, and Im going to seriously listen to how you think non-violent methods might work.


But here is something to think about. When someone you are very close to is hurt, it provokes feelings of anger. I dont know if anyone you have been close to has ever been beaten and raped, or physicaly mutalated with sharp objects but once its actualy right in fron of you and someone you realy love is seriously hurt and needs to go to the hosptital, you may find that your ideals and ethics get put on the back burner, and you feel the desire to hurt the person who did this to you.

Its easy to talk about when you are not the victim, in an objective mannor in accordence with lofty ideals, but when you actualy see it, you may find yourself doing things that dont fit that philosophy.

[Poop]

If we had a mutual freind who was an anarchist, and she/he was beaten and raped, black eyes, cuts, screaming, possibly druged, it happened in the same day, we find this person and, the victim asks us to do something about to make him regret his decision, and I am ready to attack this person, would you actualy come to his defense against me to protect him from post crime punishment?

Maybe. Do you think all acts of violence against someone should be handled by acts of vengeance, possibly in murder? If someone beats up our mutual friend, and our friend wants us to do something to the attacker, are we entitled to beat him up?

Also, what would you propose as an alternative after you had succeded or failed in protecting the rapist?

I don't know. I don't have a solution. I think if I cared about the person, instead of conjuring up elaborate tortures to get back at the rapist, I might say, "if there's anything you want me to do or not do, just tell me and I'll oblige. If you want me to be there, I'll be there for you. If you want to be alone, I'll go away." And then, I would listen.

So perhaps killing the person is a little harsh. What if I agreed instead to make him feel like he was in a car accident for the next 6 months, maybe taking away some of his physical ability to dominate others while he recovers?

It's not just killing and/or torturing the rapist that I object to; it's the entire idea of vengeance. Do you consider vengeance and end in itself, or do you think it's a means to some other end? I would reject vengeance as an end in itself, and I don't see what positive ends it might accomplish.

During this time you could nurse him back to health, and offer him counciling about why its bad to beat and rape people, and why it makes people angry when they see their friends victimized.

I doubt that beating the shit out of person, and then instructing him/her, as a superior, that beating people is a bad idea, will convince the person to be nonviolent. It's essentially the same as a relationship between an abusive parent and child. And what happens to abusive children when they grow up? They'll probably act in the same way the rapist will after you beat the shit out of him.

and why it makes people angry when they see their friends victimized

I don't really give a shit about the victims' friends. I'm more concerned about the victim, and preventing other people from becoming victims.

But here is something to think about. When someone you are very close to is hurt, it provokes feelings of anger. I dont know if anyone you have been close to has ever been beaten and raped, or physicaly mutalated with sharp objects but once its actualy right in fron of you and someone you realy love is seriously hurt and needs to go to the hosptital, you may find that your ideals and ethics get put on the back burner, and you feel the desire to hurt the person who did this to you.

Maybe I will, but that doesn't mean that whatever I do will be effective.

Its easy to talk about when you are not the victim, in an objective mannor in accordence with lofty ideals, but when you actualy see it, you may find yourself doing things that dont fit that philosophy.

Unless I missed it, I don't recall you ever mentioning anything about being raped. You've talked about being the friend of someone who is raped, though, which is entirely different from being raped yourself. If someone rapes your friend, your friend is the victim, not you.

[Post_industrial]

Lets see if I can fiture out how to use these tags.

If we had a mutual freind who was an anarchist, and she/he was beaten and raped, black eyes, cuts, screaming, possibly druged, it happened in the same day, we find this person and, the victim asks us to do something about to make him regret his decision, and I am ready to attack this person, would you actualy come to his defense against me to protect him from post crime punishment?

Maybe. Do you think all acts of violence against someone should be handled by acts of vengeance, possibly in murder? If someone beats up our mutual friend, and our friend wants us to do something to the attacker, are we entitled to beat him up?

Well for your first question, as to wether all acts of violence should nessisarily be dealt with by acts of vengence, the answer is possibly no. It not appropriate under all circumstances. I may even say that its not appropriate if a mentaly ill person raped somone, and in a wide variety of other circumstances.

For your second question, should I be entitled to beat up someone who attacked me and recruit the help of my friends? Yes, becuase I dont need your permission. Just because you decide to become the new peace police doesnt mean I acknowledge your authority to enforce non-violence against somone who attacked me.

Also, what would you propose as an alternative after you had succeded or failed in protecting the rapist?

I don't know. I don't have a solution. I think if I cared about the person, instead of conjuring up elaborate tortures to get back at the rapist, I might say, "if there's anything you want me to do or not do, just tell me and I'll oblige. If you want me to be there, I'll be there for you. If you want to be alone, I'll go away." And then, I would listen.

There you go. You dont have an answer. If you refrain from insulting me, Ill be willing to listen to alternative non-violent methods for dealing with this issue. If you dont have a preferable course of action, then we dont have much to talk about untill you think of something.

Well, looking back maybe I was out of line when I said that they should be attacked anyway. I think the victim should have some say in it. I dont however think that taking action requires unanimous consensus. It may be advisable to work with the community to exile this person, or to warn others that he/she is a sex offender, though if the victim and a friend found the attacker, I dont think they should have to call for a council befor taking action on their own. At the very least, kicking their ass will make them less likely to want to stick around.

It's not just killing and/or torturing the rapist that I object to; it's the entire idea of vengeance. Do you consider vengeance and end in itself, or do you think it's a means to some other end? I would reject vengeance as an end in itself, and I don't see what positive ends it might accomplish.

Thats a fair criticism. I agree that there should be a higher purpose to acts of agression if they are to be used at all. I dont believe that violence would nessisarily be completely non-productive in all casses. Depending on how dangerous the person is to the community and other people, violence can 1) Chase the person away, and make them leave faster then if you politely asked them. 2) May possibly detur them from commiting the same act again, though it would not nessisarily do so. If somebody is already going around raping people, I dont think they will suddenly become more violent just becuase they got their ass kicked. 3) In extream casses with multiple victims, like a serial rapist who attacks children, it could physicaly stop them from being able to rape others, either by damaging their body, or killing them. I dont take this third option lightly, and I believe it should be reserved for only the absalute most dangerous criminals. For most casses I dont think it would be appropriate or nessisary.

I doubt that beating the shit out of person, and then instructing him/her, as a superior, that beating people is a bad idea, will convince the person to be nonviolent. It's essentially the same as a relationship between an abusive parent and child. And what happens to abusive children when they grow up? They'll probably act in the same way the rapist will after you beat the shit out of him.

First of all, I wouldnt be asking him to be non-violent, just asking him not to rape people.

Second, I dont believe in psychotherapy as a solution to criminal behavior. I dont believe it would be effective, and I dont think they would volonteer to stick around and listen to what you have to say.

and why it makes people angry when they see their friends victimized

I don't really give a shit about the victims' friends. I'm more concerned about the victim, and preventing other people from becoming victims.

Fair enough.

But here is something to think about. When someone you are very close to is hurt, it provokes feelings of anger. I dont know if anyone you have been close to has ever been beaten and raped, or physicaly mutalated with sharp objects but once its actualy right in fron of you and someone you realy love is seriously hurt and needs to go to the hosptital, you may find that your ideals and ethics get put on the back burner, and you feel the desire to hurt the person who did this to you.

Maybe I will, but that doesn't mean that whatever I do will be effective. Its hard to say what would be effective. It is possible to stop rapists with violent, though to go that far would be too harsh in alot of peoples minds. At the very least you can forcefully expell this person from the community, and give them an ass kicking if they refuse to leave the community alone.

Its easy to talk about when you are not the victim, in an objective mannor in accordence with lofty ideals, but when you actualy see it, you may find yourself doing things that dont fit that philosophy.

Unless I missed it, I don't recall you ever mentioning anything about being raped. You've talked about being the friend of someone who is raped, though, which is entirely different from being raped yourself. If someone rapes your friend, your friend is the victim, not you.

Ive been sexualy assulted by other men twice as an early teenager, though luckily I was able to avoid being raped.

[Din]

The problem with that thinking is that its highly unlikely that you will be able to sit them down long enough for therapy sessions that wil make any diference. To hold someone in a prison against their will is more authoritarian then giving them a fast hard ass kicking. To hold somebody against their will, giving them psychotherapy to change the way they feel about rape is form of athoritarian mind control.

Who said anything about therapy?

I'm thinking dialogue, not monologue. I'm thinking an opportunity for the alleged abuser to speak his (or her) mind, defend his (or her) actions, justify his (or her) conducts - to the alleged victim, no less. Not everyone will welcome the opportunity, but I think many will and if we can have a dialogue, we have at least gotten further than some act of violence would.

But here is something to think about. When someone you are very close to is hurt, it provokes feelings of anger. I dont know if anyone you have been close to has ever been beaten and raped, or physicaly mutalated with sharp objects but once its actualy right in fron of you and someone you realy love is seriously hurt and needs to go to the hosptital, you may find that your ideals and ethics get put on the back burner, and you feel the desire to hurt the person who did this to you.

And the person who did the beating and the raping and the mutilating and the hurting might have also done it all out of anger.

[Post_industrial]

Im realy going to try an keep an open mind here. I see that I offended a few of you with my intentionaly inflamatory verbal position twards rapists whom I have no respect for. Im willing to have dialoge.

Anonymous wrote:
The problem with that thinking is that its highly unlikely that you will be able to sit them down long enough for therapy sessions that wil make any diference. To hold someone in a prison against their will is more authoritarian then giving them a fast hard ass kicking. To hold somebody against their will, giving them psychotherapy to change the way they feel about rape is form of athoritarian mind control.


Who said anything about therapy?

I'm thinking dialogue, not monologue. I'm thinking an opportunity for the alleged abuser to speak his (or her) mind, defend his (or her) actions, justify his (or her) conducts - to the alleged victim, no less. Not everyone will welcome the opportunity, but I think many will and if we can have a dialogue, we have at least gotten further than some act of violence would.

The method you are speaking of is the same one that was used by the elders of the rainbow gathering over the last 17 years for this James in the Rain character. Over the last 17 years or so, he has been in 9 or more diferent councils with simmiler dialoge, each with mostly diferent people who have never befor heard the story, and each of the 9 councils decided that he should be kicked out of the gathering and all future gatherings. Since that time at least 40 diferent women claim to have been raped by this same person at the rainbow gathering alone since his fist council.

Each time one of the members of the original council, or subsequent councils hears that he raped another person, they look for him and try to escort him out of the gathering. This almost always leads to another council so that a new group of people can understand why somone is being kicked out. It takes several hours, and they come to the same decision as last time, that he has to leave the gathering. He usualy just moves his tent and rapes another woman.

This has continued for way too long in my opinion, and the councils rather then getting to the root of the problem of his psychological issues is only giving him positive reinforcement, telling him that this is a safe place to rape women, where he is actualy protected by a bunch of pacifists from getting his ass kicked, where they generaly wont report him to the police, and where they have virtualy no power to keep him out of the gathering. This has done jack shit to prevent more rapes, and has instead made it his favorite place to rape women and get away with it.

I say its time to beat the shit of out him, and threaten him with worse if we ever catch him there again. I realy think that in this case it would do more to protect the community then dialogue would.

Im not saying every case is like this, or that dialogue never works, but when you have a guy as stuborn as this guy, I think its time to give it up.
I personaly find his life alot less important then the well being of those 40 plus women.

It is the blatant ineffectiveness of this method which leads to vigilante movements where the women loose faith in the council method alltogether, and instead ask people to take direct action instead. I have volonteered to do this for other people befor when asked, and it has always been more effective in keeping people out of the gathering then dialogue has.

Quote:
But here is something to think about. When someone you are very close to is hurt, it provokes feelings of anger. I dont know if anyone you have been close to has ever been beaten and raped, or physicaly mutalated with sharp objects but once its actualy right in fron of you and someone you realy love is seriously hurt and needs to go to the hosptital, you may find that your ideals and ethics get put on the back burner, and you feel the desire to hurt the person who did this to you.


And the person who did the beating and the raping and the mutilating and the hurting might have also done it all out of anger.

Its possible. It is not always true that rapists were raped themselves, or that they have issues with anger. It is also a myth that its entirely about power rather then pleasure. I cant prove this, but its what I believe. I think there are casses where its about power or previous abuse, but its not nessisarily so.

So what if they did it out of anger?
I would ask what the victim could possibly have done to anger the attacker. I would ask why they would use rape instead of harsh words or even a smack. Not that any of those things are good. In that case maybe it is about power and insecurity, and perhaps that person needs some serious dialogue if they are open to it.

If they are angry at their father for example, then they rape a woman or small child, I dont see that as a valid excuse whatsoever. I dont think it should offer them any protection from the community, especialy in repeat casses where it obviously isnt working, like with this James in the Rain guy.

[Poop]

For your second question, should I be entitled to beat up someone who attacked me and recruit the help of my friends? Yes, becuase I dont need your permission. Just because you decide to become the new peace police doesnt mean I acknowledge your authority to enforce non-violence against somone who attacked me.

When did I imply that one of the reasons for not resorting to violent revenge was a lack of permission from me? And I would think that a macho sadistic thug who goes around inflicting violence against people under the illusion that it deters crime would be more deserving of the epithet "police" than someone who, under certain circumstances, might make an effort to protect someone from an act of violence.

I don't know. I don't have a solution. I think if I cared about the person, instead of conjuring up elaborate tortures to get back at the rapist, I might say, "if there's anything you want me to do or not do, just tell me and I'll oblige. If you want me to be there, I'll be there for you. If you want to be alone, I'll go away." And then, I would listen.

There you go. You dont have an answer. If you refrain from insulting me, Ill be willing to listen to alternative non-violent methods for dealing with this issue. If you dont have a preferable course of action, then we dont have much to talk about untill you think of something.

Sorry. I didn't know I had to have a solution in order to discuss the merits of your proposed solution.

Well, looking back maybe I was out of line when I said that they should be attacked anyway. I think the victim should have some say in it. I dont however think that taking action requires unanimous consensus. It may be advisable to work with the community to exile this person, or to warn others that he/she is a sex offender, though if the victim and a friend found the attacker, I dont think they should have to call for a council befor taking action on their own. At the very least, kicking their ass will make them less likely to want to stick around.

I don't see why authority should be invested in any council.

Thats a fair criticism. I agree that there should be a higher purpose to acts of agression if they are to be used at all. I dont believe that violence would nessisarily be completely non-productive in all casses. Depending on how dangerous the person is to the community and other people, violence can 1) Chase the person away, and make them leave faster then if you politely asked them. 2) May possibly detur them from commiting the same act again, though it would not nessisarily do so. If somebody is already going around raping people, I dont think they will suddenly become more violent just becuase they got their ass kicked. 3) In extream casses with multiple victims, like a serial rapist who attacks children, it could physicaly stop them from being able to rape others, either by damaging their body, or killing them. I dont take this third option lightly, and I believe it should be reserved for only the absalute most dangerous criminals. For most casses I dont think it would be appropriate or nessisary.

Okay, so under certain circumstances, a violent course of action can be effective if and when dialogue and concensus-reaching fails. If the person can't be reasoned with, then violence can make the person leave, deter him/her from doing it again, or just kill or maim him/her enough so that any further act of violence on his/her part will be impossible. As a radical I try to go to the root of the problem. I don't think the rapist 1) being in the community, 2) not being afraid of physical pain in retaliation to raping someone, or 3) being alive, are getting at the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that someone wants to rape someone else. I want to address that. If the root issue can't be solved for whatever reason, then we can consider going after the branches.

Second, I dont believe in psychotherapy as a solution to criminal behavior.

Why not? Do you think it would even be worth pursuing before resorting to retaliatory violence?

Its easy to talk about when you are not the victim, in an objective mannor in accordence with lofty ideals, but when you actualy see it, you may find yourself doing things that dont fit that philosophy.

Unless I missed it, I don't recall you ever mentioning anything about being raped. You've talked about being the friend of someone who is raped, though, which is entirely different from being raped yourself. If someone rapes your friend, your friend is the victim, not you.

Ive been sexualy assulted by other men twice as an early teenager, though luckily I was able to avoid being raped.

I meant in the course of this thread, we haven't been discussing how the victim would/should react, or how we would/should if we were the victim, but how we would/should react if someone we knew were the victim. Like I said earlier, it's not about the victim's friends; it's about the victims.

[Post_industrial]

I more or less agree with some of what you said in this post. I agree that it shouldnt be about the victims friends desires, but should be about the desires of the vitcim him/herself. I was out of line saying that outsiders should decide what should be done.

However, I think you are out of line calling me authoritarian when you state that you would come to the aid of the rapist, even when it is the desire of the victim herself to have the rapist thrown out of the community with the use of violence as incentive. I think maybe you should rethink your position on this. Otherwise you are just being the peace police who goes around telling people how to deal with their own personal conflicts. Your position reminds me of Y saying its wrong for Iraqis to attack US troops with violence.

I also dont agree with psycho-therapy, and feel its just another form of mind control. I agree with talking to people, and giving advice, but not in the use of psychotherapy to control their views.


According to the Anonymous poster, the rapist first mentioned in this thread is someone who posts here on this site. As an outsider perhaps it would not be my place to hunt this person down and kick his ass, since I was not realy involved, and havnt heard both sides of the story. If I found myself in a community or council with both of these people, I would not just jump into using violence, but would want to work with the community to solve this as the group saw fit.

However, in the case with this james in the rain guy, the method that you proposed of basicly doing nothing but talking to the guy in hopes that not kicking his ass will change his heart has lead to the additional rape of 39 more women who might have been better protected by kicking this ass, and threatening him with worse if he ever returns, or does it again.


I believe that preventing a victim from seeking justice against an attacker is more authoritarian then the victim seeking justice. That is why I called you the Peace Police. Yet I do agree with you that the victim should have more say then outsiders.

Rapists do not deserve the protection of the Community. Those who defend the safety of rapists who continue raping women and children without punishment should be looked at with suspicion.

[Din]

I also dont agree with psycho-therapy, and feel its just another form of mind control. I agree with talking to people, and giving advice, but not in the use of psychotherapy to control their views.

And the usage of violence is not a form of control too?

However, in the case with this james in the rain guy, the method that you proposed of basicly doing nothing but talking to the guy in hopes that not kicking his ass will change his heart has lead to the additional rape of 39 more women who might have been better protected by kicking this ass, and threatening him with worse if he ever returns, or does it again.

I do not know much of the specifics of this case to comment, but if we are going to debunk something on its ineffectiveness, I'm sure that there are countless instances of rapists who have continued to rape despite being violently beaten up.

After all, there's no reason why the person you beat up could not just pack up and go to another city and start all over again.

I believe that preventing a victim from seeking justice against an attacker is more authoritarian then the victim seeking justice.

And if the victim seeks justice through imprisonment, something that many anarchists have specifically fought against?

Rapists do not deserve the protection of the Community. Those who defend the safety of rapists who continue raping women and children without punishment should be looked at with suspicion.

Guilt by association?

[Din]

The method you are speaking of is the same one that was used by the elders of the rainbow gathering over the last 17 years for this James in the Rain character. Over the last 17 years or so, he has been in 9 or more diferent councils with simmiler dialoge, each with mostly diferent people who have never befor heard the story, and each of the 9 councils decided that he should be kicked out of the gathering and all future gatherings. Since that time at least 40 diferent women claim to have been raped by this same person at the rainbow gathering alone since his fist council.

That doesn't really sound like what I was describing, actually. I'm thinking here dialogue not with "different people who have never before heard the story" but rather with the victim.

I would imagine that sparks would fly if you bring him face to face with each and every one of those 40 different women.

[Post_industrial]

Well, I am still open to ideas for how to deal with this.

I would actualy like to hear the opinion of some other women on this issue, what they think would be the righr course of action. I would specificly be interested in hearing the opinion of an anarcho-feminist on the issue of rape. I would imagine some people would compare violence against a rapist simmiler to violence against the state. I dont think that the oppressed are being authoritarian when they use force against their oppressor. Even when that violence is totaly ineffective, I still dont concider it authoritarian.

There are other moral arguments about the use of violence and vengence, but the authoritarian argument does not hold up in this instance in my opinion.


I would definitly be open to a non-violent method that could actualy help reform another rapist. However, while I am open to it, and continue my search for a viable option, I feel that the use of force to kick somebody out of a space they are not welcome is justified. Especialy if the victim does not fee comfortable around their attacker, and the attacker will not leave the activist space, gathering, squat house, general area, ect, I feel that a good ass kicking will often do the job to get them the fuck out.


Now the reason I feel this is at least somewhat effective is that anarchist spaces, rainbow gatherings, squats, and other like places generaly are not under the "protection" of the police. Anarchists dont like to work with police officers, becuase police for the most part are here to protect the wealth of the rich rather then protect the poor. Thats only once reason actualy. These spaces have become dangerous for women anarchists becuase most of the men involved allow it to happen while claiming not to support patriarchy. In this way, anarchist communites that are not openly hostile to rape will attract rapists who feel they can get away with anything.

I think some good can be done just by driving them away from spaces where you know women are vulnerable.

If you have a better long term plan, I will hear you out though.

So far the dialogue method in the case I mentioned at the rainbow gathering has only lead him to keep comming back to rape more women, and every time he sits down for more dialogue he justs keeps feeling safer and safer about doing it.

Personaly, I would like to break both his knees, as that is an effective way to take away some of his physical ability to rape women.


I do think that non-violent means should be used as a preferance to violence when they are effective, but the avoidence of violence is not a priority for me when no other viable means present themselves.

Again, I admit I was out of line saying that outsiders should have control of what happens to the attacker. I think the community as a whole should have a say in how they protect themselves, and the victim should have the most say in how this person should be dealt with, and should reserve the right to ask for help from the community, wether this help requires violent or pacifist means.