Hitting Women

Fantastic.

 

Violence is stupid. Violence against any creature...man or animal is the act of an idiot. I can't make my point using words so i will just punch and kick you like an angry 5 year old child.

 

I am female.

I used to hang out at my local “punk house” all the time. There is a male there that hits/hurts people. He does it mostly when his victim is not even looking. I used to think of him as a “friend”. I witnessed him hurt these people (males) in his fashion. I would look the other way because, I did not know them and hee was my “friend”; he lived there and it was his rules; “they should not have done that”; I wanted to be part of the local “punk scene”.
Years later, when I was still hanging out there at the so-called “punk house”, he hit me, HARD, when I was not looking. No one warned me to duck of the people that saw it coming. They did not help me up, nothing. I thought, how apathetic!
I realized, I was the apathetic one, and those that just stood and watched when it was my turn, were just my mirror of situations past. It is not a bigger deal because I am female, a mother. Was just as wrong when it was done to the males.
Since I came to that realization, I refuse to be a part of that “scene”. I refuse apathy.
I will not sell myself to that “scene/house” If this is what it is, I’d rather be a rogue punk. Is it really self defense if you see them male/female hitting people and still choose to put yourself in their presence? Or is it just asking for the chance to “hit back”? Remember, "It's Your Turn Next"
Since then, I heard his beatings continue, male and female, when they are not looking. And the so called punks are still looking the other way.
p.s.
After I was beaten, I got up and looked him in the face and questioned him as to why he does this to people before staggering home. I did not attempt to hit him back. Also, I have never witnessed anyone hit him.


Why have a sub-culture if everyone in it is just like everyone else?

 

Lennon was a Socialist and was in the white panther party and supported african american rights.

 

Fuck Violence and FUCK HATE. If you hit people, men or women, you're a violent piece of shit, one of the many that are separating all of the human race. Don't hit, don't beat, don't hurt, anti-violence is the only way any of us can achieve no borders. So, yeah, hitting a female IS wrong.
Same with hitting a man.
Same with hitting a child.
Same with hitting a human being.
It's wrong.

 

If everyone is a anti-violent? How will we fight the system? They will arrest us and beat us, and rape us.

 

Gandhi was anti-violent. He was completely passive. And he won back India. With no violence.

 

and he lost pakistan and kashmir and barely survived the riots during the independence/separation troubles - winning back india = taking it over from the WWII-tired brits? and weren't there armed soldiers guarding his litter at his funeral? quite an impact on india...
don't be naive, non-violence is a fine tactic at the right time in the right situation (see prague 1968) but it will never win a revolution.

 

And he was assasinated. I would rather fight the state directly through guerilla warfare.

 

the guy who shot gandhi was a nationalist hindu, a member of the brahman caste, blaming his former idol for weakening the strength of the hindus to rule over a united india - by accepting equal rights for the muslims too in the future independent state.
too bad for the old man that neither side believed in his vision of a side-by-side of the religions or the abolition of the "untouchable"-caste - guess a little bit of sense for the realities wouldn't have hurted him and his death was only the bloody final of several attempts on his life. thats the part of the story that went a bit under in the flood of myths and legends about "winning" india back - for whom?

maybe he should have stayed in south africa where his activism for the rights of the indian minority succeeded brilliantly and non-violence was the perfect strategy to prevent a useless bloody drama.

 

Yes, I know the guy who shot Gandhi was Right-wing. I am saying Gandhi would not defend himself since he is a pacifist, and usually pacifists are murdered or killed. I am against killing or harming innocent people. I just believe in self-defense, and propaganda of the deed; I am against terrorism. I believe that the state does not care if we die. They will just arrest us and kill us if we speak against them and protest peacefully. The Far-Right hate Anarchists and do not believe in peace and will attack us and try to kill us. It is just impossible to be non-violent for every single thing. I am against war though.

 

okay, next argument:
blockades, sieges, squatting/occupying are non-violent tactics, but not peaceful at all - think of Tahir Square in Cairo this year:
it was no revolution, but they made their point, achieved something, including creating a base for future movements - and they prevented the army from running amok.

but propaganda of the deed? a bit lonely and individualist pleasure, but not very effective for the class war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed

 

and?

 

He was a pacifist, I support pacifist struggle too, but I am not a pacifist. I support all ways to change things, I just think pacifism is a dream that is impossible.

I believe in propaganda of the deed if a lot of people take part in it. Anything works with mass revolution. How do you think the cops are gonna respond if the protest is non-violent? They will arrest people and break the protest up and brutalize people; cops own guns and those guns are used to shoot protesters. The cops have weapons, so I believe people should protect themselves from the cops.

 

first of all lennon didn't do shit for anything, sitting in a bag with you're wife isn't a way to make positive social change. that said i really dig a great deal of his music.

secondly about the C word my mom is from the u.k. and that is the one profanity that i am not allowed to utter in her presence, i really don't view that as an excuse. maybe if men were the oppressed gender in damn near every culture for almost the entirety of human history we would be a bit more touchy about being called dicks or pricks or any other such male genital based insult.

now on to the subject at hand, i strongly feel that it is wrong to hit a woman unless an extreme circumstance arises (jacks for instance) I've been punched in the mouth by almost every girl I've ever dated never hit them back, never restrained them (not to say that it's wrong to restrain a woman that's wailing on you, it's just the way i was raised) and i will give a couple of reasons why i feel this way, men are typically stronger not all of the time mind you but a great deal of the time, men more often, not all the time but more often solve their problems with violence. women generally will talk through their problems not to say their aren't some brawlin' ass beatin' girls out there because we all know at least two or three but even so there are a great many who are not so tough. so just tough it out men take and take you're beating with solemn dignity.

 

I did not mean to hit women; I was talking about propaganda of the deed. Women's bodies aren't as strong as men's, but they are equal. Women can be more easily hurt then men.

 

Thats unfortunate and ugly JC. I had an experience much the same and probably with the same people you had an altercation with. I was initially jumped by five people but escalated to falling down and getting kicked and stomped by thirty or more people. I managed to get up but I was still getting swarmed, I thought I was going to be killed so I just started fighting. I managed to escape the unruly "chaos punk" crowd but I hurt a couple of people in the process and one happened to be female. I feel bad but those people were trying to kill me, I had no choice but to fight back.

 

holy fuck dude, i am an incredibly violent and not the most PC of people. hahahah i better watch what i say here

 

This is disgusting - http://www.republicansforrape.org/