Playing the Devil's Advocate

120 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 1 2014 20:06

How hard it is to speak up now is absolutely not irrelevant and therefore as a point it should not be dismissed because I do not see any point in the near or mid future in which this is not going to be the case. The discussion is about supporting survivors now and in the immediate future, not at some distant point in the future when we've smashed the patriarchy. (Looking at being a real tall order right now.) Are you supposing that anarchist organizations exist entirely in a vacuum and it's members are entirely unaffected by the outside world? Because until a world exists when survivors aren't treated like shit, it is still going to be hard to speak up and that will be irrespective if there's a policy supporting survivors in place or not. If you think it's going to be easy just because there's such a thing in place, then you are wrong.

edit: cross posted with Fingers Malone.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Apr 1 2014 20:08

You've just admitted the policy your all proposing is futile?

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Apr 1 2014 20:11

No, she's saying that anarchist organisations can't escape the conditions they live in, but they can at least make an effort not to replicate the worst aspects of it..

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 1 2014 20:20
Quote:
No, she's saying that anarchist organisations can't escape the conditions they live in, but they can at least make an effort not to replicate the worst aspects of it..

THIS.

And if we can't change the conditions we live in, doing some small things for the people around us to make it even a tiny bit better is never futile.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Apr 1 2014 20:38

Ok seriously. Really seriously. I don't want innocent men to be beaten up. I don't want to impose a politics where everyone has to assume I'm right all the time. I don't want any kind of women-led tyranny. I just want an end to the prevailing conditions where people have really bad things happen to them and then get treated like shit because of it and everyone pretends they didn't see anything.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Apr 1 2014 20:47

And why the fuck am I justifying myself like this? Why do I have to make some special plea that I really, really promise I'm not out to get the men? Because I'm asking for people to believe that women shouldn't be treated as automatic liars?

Jesus, this whole thing makes me feel fucking sick.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 2 2014 17:24

4 Rape Revenge Plots Unfolding Worldwide:

Sophie Lewis wrote:
Whether those Western commentators delighted by reports of a stick-wielding sisterhood in pink saris would respond similarly to a ‘bashback’ approach to Woody Allens, Julian Assanges and Jimmy Saviles remains to be demonstrated.

bounce's picture
bounce
Offline
Joined: 29-10-12
Apr 2 2014 23:08

The Croydonian, what would you suggest as an alternative approach to the ones being suggested?

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Apr 3 2014 10:22

Simply one where there are explicit, democratically agreed upon principles/rules as to what form support for the victim should/can take based on everyone's abilities, time etc all above a default of "will not commit physical violence against the accused"

EmC
Offline
Joined: 21-03-14
Apr 3 2014 11:36

So basically your no1 concern is that there is no violence against rapists.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Apr 3 2014 12:40

Big up my friend and comrade fingers malone for her contributions on this thread. Not that everyone else's posts have been shite, like, but just saying.

My take-home from this thread has been the observation that no-one expresses similar reservations about fascists ("They might just have their arms up like that because they're pointing to an aeroplane"). Makes you think, eh?

Anyway, I'll STFU again now.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Apr 3 2014 13:29
EmC wrote:
So basically your no1 concern is that there is no violence against rapists.

no

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Apr 3 2014 13:50

Sorry but to be frank I think that is utter shit, a massive massive departure from what I am suggesting, which is easily preventing something un neccessary.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Apr 3 2014 14:12

Whether you are right or wrong, there comes a time to let things go...

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 3 2014 14:28

Hello, missed the original thread here, but I'd just like to say that every time I see a discussion like this, I'm always really impressed by the level of patience the anarcha women have in explaining their points and working through all of the (largely irrational) fears (and occasional attacks) of anarcho men, especially considering the intensity of the subject.

Croydonian, sorry boss, but it seems like you're sticking at this point out of some sort of pride here. I think you've realised that what you're highlighting isn't actually a real world problem, nor is it a position ascribed to anyone posting on this thread. The fact that you're resorting to a fantasy scenario (rather than referring/listening to the actual experiences of others) should be pretty indicative of that.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Apr 3 2014 15:17
the croydonian anarchist wrote:
Sorry but to be frank I think that is utter shit, a massive massive departure from what I am suggesting, which is easily preventing something un neccessary.

What are you suggesting?

To me it's a bit unclear, but what comes across quite strongly is that you're much more concerned about making sure violence is not committed on someone who has been falsely accused of rape, than you are about how to support survivors of rape, how to minimize sexist behaviour and attitudes in organisations (which serve to help justify/normalise rape) etc.

As others have repeatedly pointed out, I don't know how you can't see it's massively skewed and offensive when a discussion about sexual violence has to be about men, and how it might negatively affect them.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 3 2014 15:49
Croy wrote:
Simply one where there are explicit, democratically agreed upon principles/rules as to what form support for the victim should/can take based on everyone's abilities, time etc all above a default of "will not commit physical violence against the accused"

In an ideal world having a good policy would be enough. But we're not living in an ideal world, but in a horrible misogynistic, patriarchal rape culture. Common Cause had a sexual violence policy; it had been worked on for a long time, gone through modifications etc. What happened to the survivor? Well, the sexual violence policy was used against the survivor; that the survivor was "wrong" because Common Cause had a policy. In other words, a policy trumped the word of a survivor. Now our branch (that defederated and then disbanded after failing to fight the rape culture in the organization) as soon as we heard that the policy had been used as a weapon against the survivor, just scrapped it. Later we heard that our branch had "betrayed" the Toronto branch for not sticking to the policy, that e.g. we should have told everything to them everything what the survivor told us even though we had promised the survivor not to talk to anyone about it. In other words, the Toronto branch didn't give a shit about the survivor but was instead much more concerned that "policy" hadn't been followed.

What is the point telling this? Well, it's because you clearly haven't read the posts by survivors in this thread. Every single instance is unique; there is no general way of dealing with this. You absolutely have to consider the unique histories of survivors, the unique needs they have that, sorry, a general policy just won't cover. Although, a general policy of (a) listening to and believing the survivor, (b) supporting the survivor and (c) accepting that it is not about you or your organization would be a good start.

And by the way, your use of "victim" shows what you think survivors are. There are lots of difference in implications of viewing people who have suffered sexual violence as victims vs. survivors.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 3 2014 16:01
Croy wrote:
Sorry but to be frank I think that is utter shit, a massive massive departure from what I am suggesting, which is easily preventing something un neccessary.

No its not. Even in your post where there is a "victim" you still refer to the "accused" not to an actual perpetrator. And you even say the "default" is no violence against the accused; nothing about a "default" on believing and supporting the survivor which is what should be the focus of such a policy.

Quote:
Simply one where there are explicit, democratically agreed upon principles/rules as to what form support for the victim should/can take based on everyone's abilities, time etc all above a default of "will not commit physical violence against the accused"

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Apr 3 2014 17:51

I don't think it's fair to imply that me saying victim rather than survivor means I somehow think less of them. I am using the word because these women have been a victim of something really shit, rape, that has been committed against them. I am referring to the accused as the accused because not all accusations are true. Most of them are, some aren't. Simple.

As for commie princess, I literally can not fathom how you are still un clear as to exactly what I am proposing. Post 70.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Apr 3 2014 18:03

Ah ok, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that a suggestion so crude, poorly thought-out and demonstrative of your complete lack of understanding on this issue must have been a mistake or just badly explained.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 3 2014 18:31

Because victim is a word which removes our agency. Victim implies powerlessness, something which happened to you, putting the emphasis back on the perpetrator. A victim is someone who has been subjected to something and it denies any strength or resolve, which just getting up and moving on requires. There's a passivity implied in victim. Victim is what you are referred to in the criminal justice system, in which you are merely the witness for the prosecution. Survivor is an empowering word. Surviving is what you have to do. It's a process. It's what you do to get on with your life. There is a strength in survivor, which is absent in victim. Do not call me a victim. That is not what I am.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Apr 3 2014 19:04
Croydonian wrote:
As for commie princess, I literally can not fathom how you are still un clear as to exactly what I am proposing. Post 70.

Tbh bruv, I have no idea what you are actually proposing in that post.. like..

Quote:
explicit, democratically agreed upon principles/rules as to what form support for the victim should/can take based on everyone's abilities, time etc

... could mean literally anything.. we can agree explicitly agree to exclude the accused from the group or we can explicitly agree to hold a committee where we quiz those involved or we can explicitly agree that he apologises and we all get on with it.. we can explicitly agree to tend to believe the accused or we can explicitly agree to 'innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt'..

The only concrete bit you propose is to not commit physical violence against the accused (which I agree with, btw).. so I think it's fair enough to not get what it is you're proposing..

EmC
Offline
Joined: 21-03-14
Apr 3 2014 22:17

So if we agree that there be no physical violence against the (in 99% of cases not alleged) perpetrator... Does that mean that my friend who later beat up their rapist should be disciplined by the organisation, expelled, or would the group just put out a statement condemning them?
Or what about me? If I couldn't take being harassed any longer and let my friend/s beat up my stalker would you do the same to us?
(Of course I already know the answer is yes. I've already been treated like I'm the perpetrator just for making a complaint and every time I've talked about what happened for how I've brought it up.)

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Apr 3 2014 23:20
EmC wrote:
So if we agree that there be no physical violence against the (in 99% of cases not alleged) perpetrator... Does that mean that my friend who later beat up their rapist should be disciplined by the organisation, expelled, or would the group just put out a statement condemning them?

That's not really what I meant, sorry. I don't condemn survivors or their friends for their reactions to situations like this.. I just agree with Croydonian that the default reaction should be non-violent as a) premeditated assault of someone you know (and, more importantly, who knows you) will get you in lots of shit while the perp gets off scot-free and b) if punishment beatings become policy, then I think it can complicate safer spaces policies (even further!).. it's already hard enough getting people to take the survivor's side when it's just a matter of excluding a rapist from some little anarcho-collective; I can't imagine how difficult it would be if the stakes were raised to handing out beatings..

Strategically, from the point of view of defending against future sexual assaults, I don't think it's productive. At the same time, I can't really judge a survivor or their friends for how they react, i certainly wouldn't put out a statement condemning them or whatever..

EmC
Offline
Joined: 21-03-14
Apr 3 2014 23:29

Not a single person here has argued that an organisation should engage in physical violence. The argument is whether organisations should condemn it or have policies that their members as individuals not be allowed to engage in it. I think this would be an attack on survivors. Also I don't think it's up to people here who have no idea about the individual situations to decide whether it's counterproductive or not.

EmC
Offline
Joined: 21-03-14
Apr 3 2014 23:34

I generally think fighting with cops is a bad idea, and beating up nazis is often a bit of a wank. BUT I would totally oppose any group having a blanket policy condemning these actions or against their members engaging in them. Sometimes it's necessary to do these things. I don't see why it's any different with rapists.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Apr 3 2014 23:39

Croy, Ok, so any clues on what people should do if the attacker goes on a stalking/harassing/threatening/repeat attacking obsession thing for years? Ok you think the woman and her friends and comrades mustn't hit him, ok I got that, what should they do?

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Apr 4 2014 00:04

It's funny how EmC is going to be outraged at the prospect of being excluded from a political group in the case of being a consequence for beating up accused rapists but by the same hand will say exclusion is absolutely not a violation of freedoms or a big deal in anyway in a different context. Double standards.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 4 2014 00:11

I'm defiantly in favor of physical violence against abusers when its necessary/useful, and i hope every one else here is. I don't think it should general be the first resort, and its probably necessary to do it interdependently of of formal organizations a lot of the time, but to expel or condemn members for taking such action would be utterly unacceptable.

EmC
Offline
Joined: 21-03-14
Apr 4 2014 00:21
Quote:
It's funny how EmC is going to be outraged at the prospect of being excluded from a political group in the case of being a consequence for beating up accused rapists but by the same hand will say exclusion is absolutely not a violation of freedoms or a big deal in anyway in a different context. Double standards.

He wants survivors excluded from groups if they beat up their rapist.
He doesn't want accused rapists (of which 99% ARE rapists) excluded from groups.
Can we end these stupid word games now?