violence and social permission

Jennifer F Armstrong: A general societal top-down logic in terms of who is permitted to be violent is also replicated in terms of gender. Male violence is either normalised or, when in excess, is seen as "a tragedy": for instance, as a crime of passion. Female violence is considered to be "against nature" and invites a tremendous amount of social censure, even if the 'violence' is relatively trivial and symbolic.


Cedric Beidatsch: Yes, that is true, very true. I am of the view that patriarchy is the oldest and deepst of the oppressions, and in fact provides the pattern for subsequent exploitation of nature, classes, ethnes and so on. So to be pedantic it is the gender logic that is replicated in the top down logic of violence. have I phrased that clearly?


Jennifer F Armstrong: Yes.The gender logic does appear to be, in most respects, the archaic form of logic that is replicated in the top-down sense. You can analyse this in the sense that those at the bottom of society are deemed to have symbolically "womanish" qualities. (NOTE: these qualities are attributed on the basis of a metaphysical construct and tend to have little to do with how people actually behave, if we were to appraise the behaviour from a phenomenological perspective alone. Rather, by virtue of hermeneutics, specifically by 'framing' interpretations, those who lack power are deemed to be 'women'.)

This is why complaining from a position of structural (concrete) powerlessness will generally not work. The 'womanish' qualities, according to Western metaphysics, are those of fickleness, deception, exaggerated emotionality and incoherence. (Actually, these are the qualities that Western men project onto the Western women.)

It doesn't seem to matter whether or not OBJECTIVELY you happen to embody any, or none, of these qualities. If you are relatively powerless in society and are deemed to be rocking the boat, these are always the qualities that are attributed to you.