Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Women's Monopoly on Violence

The title of this post is also the title of a post on another blog—a post I wish I'd written myself! Please go and read it; I can assure you that you won't be disappointed:

http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2009/11/womens-monopoly-on-violence.html

I thoroughly appreciate his "take the bull by the horns" approach to the issue, and I'd love to see what any feminist or male collaborationist would say, or even COULD say, in rebuttal to such an argument.

Personally, I would tend to handle this issue (of female violence against men and cultural immunity from retaliation) in a more indirect way, a more legalistic and serpentine way. I would argue somewhat along the following line:

"Female violence against men is both culturally and legally sanctioned. This voids any social contract that would obligate any man to behave non-violently toward women. Therefore, I cannot will male non-violence toward women as a purely social imperative or as an objectively grounded moral law. Given that no social contract presently exists that would constitute the objective basis for such an imperative, it follows that no such basis factually exists save it were manifested as a moral law within myself, grounded in my personal identity, agency, and autonomy."

All of which is a fancy way of saying that I am free to deal with women as the case demands, and as my personal honor and goodness dictates, and that nothing external to myself can dictate the exact form that my personal honor and goodness might assume.

But Snark tackles the question of female violence against men by a more straightforwardly ethical and axiological line of approach—an approach I find refreshing in its candor.
---------------

It has additionally occurred to me that women's monopoly on violence maps very closely to the state's monopoly on violence. The following links are relevant in this connection:

http://tinyurl.com/np2k6r

http://tinyurl.com/yfdore6

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Confronted with this, most women and feminists will be hit with the phenomenon "optional blindness" and "bad feeling", which in turn would spark off a lot of shaming language and random, nonconfirmed statistics-lying.
But I´d guess you know already, right??

2:41 AM  
Blogger Snark said...

Wow!

Just read that earlier article and listened to your mp3 ... it's certainly a lot smarter than anything I said! But hey ... I'm new to this game!

Your commentary on social contractualism has made me realise something - namely, that I may be missing the bigger picture. However, the link you made between the personal being political and totalitarianism hits the nail on the head and is something I was already planning to write on!

In the meantime ... my shoulders certainly feel lighter from that big bag of rocks I just cast off ...

3:45 AM  
Anonymous julie said...

I thought it was very good. Actually above really good. I particularly liked the way the writer spoke of moral relativism in his writing.

I didn't think picking on it was appropriate because there was such a lot of good in it.

But over here I think I can make one little pick. And that is that we do allow murder. We allow it in war.

3:38 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Julie: Oh my, did somebody pick on it? ;)

3:53 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"But I´d guess you know already, right??"

Sadly, you have guessed right! :(

3:55 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Snark:

"..something I was already planning to write on!"

Ahh...and something I am already planning to read on, you may be sure! :)

3:58 PM  
Anonymous julie said...

@ Fidelbogen

Oh my, did somebody pick on it?

Smarty pants. :D lol!

4:11 PM  
Blogger Snark said...

"But over here I think I can make one little pick. And that is that we do allow murder. We allow it in war."

I agree, julie, although war would be one of those exceptional circumstances in which the moral rule is set aside. This is true despite the frequency of war ... it is not perceived as a normal state of affairs; rather it is (seen as) the prime example of a situation beyond normal social functioning, where moral boundaries are bypassed as a matter of necessity.

4:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home