"Gender violence has occurred with such frequency for so long in this country that many people are no longer alarmed by how common it is. It is the status quo, an unremarkable feature of the social landscape.

What is perhaps even more disturbing is that in this culture, many people see gender violence as a problem of sick or damaged individuals, and not as a social phenomenon that’s causes—and solutions—lie in much larger social forces. So let me be clear. There is no such thing as an isolated incident of rape, battering, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment. These are not merely individual pathologies. It is not enough for us to ask in each case: “What went wrong in his life?” “Why would he do something like that?” These problems are much too widespread for us to think about them in such narrow terms."

@3 months ago with 7129 notes
#sexual abuse #violence 

Is Ian Brady right? 

The serial child murderer Ian Brady, has made his first public appearance in decades at a mental health tribunal. On hunger strike and kept alive via a feeding tube, his declared intention is to be transferred to a regular prison rather than a secure psychiatric unit to be able to starve himself to death more easily. 

Brady is undoubtedly an extremely evil individual. But he is also clearly someone of distinct intellect. It is this intelligence that assured his ease in manipulating his accomplice in the murder of five children, a child abuse victim herself, Myra Hindely.

Brady made a particular point regarding the Moors murders the they were “petty compared to politicians and soldiers in relation to war.”

Frankly, I find it hard to argue with Brady’s moral point. But the distinction I want to make clear is that Brady probably makes such statements under the rationale of them making his unspeakable crimes supposedly more palatable to the outside. Rather, it emphasises the argument that the political acts by those in power are equally as morally depraved Brady and Hindley’s horrendous crimes.

The American solider Robert Bales is facing life imprisonment for indiscriminately murdering sixteen Afghan civilians, including children. Though he is correctly facing punishment for this terrible crime, I do not sense that they are met with the same level of moral indignation, disgust or sorrow that the Moors murders are thought of with.

Over a hundred Pakistani and Yemeni children, classified as “collateral damage” have been killed in drone strikes ordered by Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

Brady’s remarks should not make us think of his murder and rape of young children being any less nefarious. But they should make us reflect on our hypocritical cognitive dissonance in regards to violence against the innocent. After-all, shouldn’t the latter justify Brady’s logic, given the thousands of foreign civilian victims being politically and culturally dehumanised as much as Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey and Edward Evans were in the eyes of Brady and Hindley?

@1 year ago with 5 notes
#drones #moors murders #ian brady #blog post #war #violence #murder 

"The fourth distinction to be made and the most important one is on the subject side: whether or not there is a subject (person) who acts. Again it may be asked: can we talk about violence when nobody is committing direct violence, is acting? This would also be a case of what is referred to above as truncated violence, but again highly meaningful. We shall refer to the type of violence where there is an actor that commits the violence as personal or direct, and to violence where there is no such actor as structural or indirect. In both cases individuals may be killed or mutilated, hit or hurt in both senses of these words, and manipulated by means of stick or carrot strategies. But whereas in the first case these consequences can be traced back to concrete persons as actors, in the second case this is no longer meaningful. There may not be any person who directly harms another person in the structure. The violence is built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life chances."

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research6(3), 167–191. (via philosophy-of-praxis)

(Source: ceborgia)

@1 year ago with 21 notes
#violence 

"I must remind you that starving a child is violence. Suppressing a culture is violence. Neglecting school children is violence. Punishing a mother and her family is violence. Discrimination against a working man is violence. Ghetto housing is violence. Ignoring medical need is violence. Contempt for poverty is violence."

- Coretta Scott King (via samirathejerk)

America is a violent country.

(via thewhitemankilledthetruth)

(via ceborgia)

@1 year ago with 15665 notes
#violence 

(Source: guerrillatech, via resmc)

@2 years ago with 205 notes
#george orwell #violence 

"

Love and violence, properly speaking, are polar opposites. Love lets the other be, but with affection and concern. Violence attempts to constrain the other’s freedom, to force him to act in the way we desire, but with ultimate lack of concern, with indifference to the other’s own existence or destiny.

We are effectively destroying ourselves by violence masquerading as love.

"

@2 years ago with 323 notes
#violence 

"It is organized violence on top which creates individual violence at the bottom. It is the accumulated indignation against organized wrong, organized crime, organized injustice, which drives the political offender to act."

@3 years ago with 237 notes
#Emma Goldman #injustice #violence 

"…subjective violence is experienced as such against the background of a non-violent zero level. It is seen as a perturbation of the “normal” peaceful state of things. However, objective violence is precisely the violence inherent to this “normal” state of things. Objective violence is invisible since it sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as subjectively violent. Systemic violence is thus something like the notorious “dark matter” of physics, the counterpart to an all-too-visible subjective violence. it may be invisible, but it has to be taken into account if one is to make sense of what otherwise seem to be “irrational” explosions of subjective violence."

@3 years ago with 58 notes
#Violence #slavoj zizek 

goatcorporation:

sticks and stones may break my bones but words may create discursive spaces in which hateful actions, including outright physical violence, are regularized and implicitly condoned

(via ralexmox)

@7 months ago with 7397 notes
#violence 

"I must remind you that starving a child is violence. Suppressing a culture is violence. Neglecting school children is violence. Punishing a mother and her family is violence. Discrimination against a working man is violence. Ghetto housing is violence. Ignoring medical need is violence. Contempt for poverty is violence."

Coretta Scott King (via samirathejerk, foulmouthedliberty)

(via azspot)

@1 year ago with 15665 notes
#coretta scott king #violence 
philosophy-of-praxis:

A Typology of Violence, from Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.

philosophy-of-praxis:

A Typology of Violence, from Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research6(3), 167–191.

(Source: ceborgia)

@1 year ago with 28 notes
#violence 
ikenbot:

untitled-mag:

 Why isn’t this getting headlines?

and people seriously think there’s nothing going on here.

ikenbot:

untitled-mag:

 Why isn’t this getting headlines?

and people seriously think there’s nothing going on here.

(Source: iamselfmade2, via afro-dominicano)

@2 years ago with 11997 notes
#sexism #misogyny #war on women #violence 

"

I would risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.

“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier…But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature….

“But I do not believe India to be helpless….I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature….Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
We do want to drive out the beast in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

“I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.

“My method of nonviolence can never lead toloss of strength, but it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.

“My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once….that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.

“No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be nonviolence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent, and die in the attempt. This is bravery, but not nonviolence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice. In the first cases, the man will have love or charity in him. In the third case, there would be a dislike or distrust and fear.

“My nonviolence does admit of people, who cannot or will not be nonviolent, holding and making effective use of arms. Let me repeat for the thousandth time that nonviolence is of the strongest, not of the weak.

“To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one’s faith in man and God, even one’s own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith.

“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

“The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.

“Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.

“But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself. He is a stranger to nonviolence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to his nature. Before he can understand nonviolence, he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away from nonviolence.

“Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind nonviolence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one’s life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.

“Self-defence….is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.

“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.

"

Gandhi, on the subject of self defense by violence, as compared to nonviolent resistance. (via disobey)

(via )

@2 years ago with 64 notes
#gandhi #violence 

“The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” by Steven Pinker 

Pinker believes that the decline of violence is testimony to the triumph of classical liberalism — the ideas of Hume, Locke and Voltaire. The Age of Enlightenment caused a ripple of reason to spread across the world, gradually vanquishing unbridled emotion. The head imposed itself on the heart. But therein lies a problem. As he points out, the most powerful country on Earth is composed of two cultures. The blue states resemble liberal Europe, which has led the way in taming violence. The red states, however, have more in common with those nations less successful in stifling aggression. In other words, a peaceable future depends in part on the culture war currently raging in America. The outcome of that contest might determine whether those graphs of violence maintain a downward diagonal.

(Source: azspot)

@2 years ago with 7 notes
#steven pinker #psychology #philosophy #violence 
liquidnight:

Wolf Suschitzky
St Paul’s Cathedral
London, 1942
From Wolf Suschitzky: Photos

liquidnight:

Wolf Suschitzky

St Paul’s Cathedral

London, 1942

From Wolf Suschitzky: Photos

@3 years ago with 275 notes
#Vintage #Black and white #Photography #Art #Wartime #Cityscape #Portrait #Wolf Suschitzky #London #England #St. Paul's Cathedral #Cathedral #Church #Dome #WWII #World War II #World War Two #War #Violence #Destruction #Damage #Broken #Shattered #Window #Air raid #Bombing #Bombed #UK #United Kingdom #Britain 
"Gender violence has occurred with such frequency for so long in this country that many people are no longer alarmed by how common it is. It is the status quo, an unremarkable feature of the social landscape.

What is perhaps even more disturbing is that in this culture, many people see gender violence as a problem of sick or damaged individuals, and not as a social phenomenon that’s causes—and solutions—lie in much larger social forces. So let me be clear. There is no such thing as an isolated incident of rape, battering, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment. These are not merely individual pathologies. It is not enough for us to ask in each case: “What went wrong in his life?” “Why would he do something like that?” These problems are much too widespread for us to think about them in such narrow terms."
3 months ago
#sexual abuse #violence 

goatcorporation:

sticks and stones may break my bones but words may create discursive spaces in which hateful actions, including outright physical violence, are regularized and implicitly condoned

(via ralexmox)

7 months ago
#violence 
Is Ian Brady right?→

The serial child murderer Ian Brady, has made his first public appearance in decades at a mental health tribunal. On hunger strike and kept alive via a feeding tube, his declared intention is to be transferred to a regular prison rather than a secure psychiatric unit to be able to starve himself to death more easily. 

Brady is undoubtedly an extremely evil individual. But he is also clearly someone of distinct intellect. It is this intelligence that assured his ease in manipulating his accomplice in the murder of five children, a child abuse victim herself, Myra Hindely.

Brady made a particular point regarding the Moors murders the they were “petty compared to politicians and soldiers in relation to war.”

Frankly, I find it hard to argue with Brady’s moral point. But the distinction I want to make clear is that Brady probably makes such statements under the rationale of them making his unspeakable crimes supposedly more palatable to the outside. Rather, it emphasises the argument that the political acts by those in power are equally as morally depraved Brady and Hindley’s horrendous crimes.

The American solider Robert Bales is facing life imprisonment for indiscriminately murdering sixteen Afghan civilians, including children. Though he is correctly facing punishment for this terrible crime, I do not sense that they are met with the same level of moral indignation, disgust or sorrow that the Moors murders are thought of with.

Over a hundred Pakistani and Yemeni children, classified as “collateral damage” have been killed in drone strikes ordered by Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

Brady’s remarks should not make us think of his murder and rape of young children being any less nefarious. But they should make us reflect on our hypocritical cognitive dissonance in regards to violence against the innocent. After-all, shouldn’t the latter justify Brady’s logic, given the thousands of foreign civilian victims being politically and culturally dehumanised as much as Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey and Edward Evans were in the eyes of Brady and Hindley?

1 year ago
#drones #moors murders #ian brady #blog post #war #violence #murder 
"I must remind you that starving a child is violence. Suppressing a culture is violence. Neglecting school children is violence. Punishing a mother and her family is violence. Discrimination against a working man is violence. Ghetto housing is violence. Ignoring medical need is violence. Contempt for poverty is violence."
Coretta Scott King (via samirathejerk, foulmouthedliberty)

(via azspot)

1 year ago
#coretta scott king #violence 
"The fourth distinction to be made and the most important one is on the subject side: whether or not there is a subject (person) who acts. Again it may be asked: can we talk about violence when nobody is committing direct violence, is acting? This would also be a case of what is referred to above as truncated violence, but again highly meaningful. We shall refer to the type of violence where there is an actor that commits the violence as personal or direct, and to violence where there is no such actor as structural or indirect. In both cases individuals may be killed or mutilated, hit or hurt in both senses of these words, and manipulated by means of stick or carrot strategies. But whereas in the first case these consequences can be traced back to concrete persons as actors, in the second case this is no longer meaningful. There may not be any person who directly harms another person in the structure. The violence is built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life chances."
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research6(3), 167–191. (via philosophy-of-praxis)

(Source: ceborgia)

1 year ago
#violence 
philosophy-of-praxis:

A Typology of Violence, from Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
1 year ago
#violence 
"I must remind you that starving a child is violence. Suppressing a culture is violence. Neglecting school children is violence. Punishing a mother and her family is violence. Discrimination against a working man is violence. Ghetto housing is violence. Ignoring medical need is violence. Contempt for poverty is violence."

- Coretta Scott King (via samirathejerk)

America is a violent country.

(via thewhitemankilledthetruth)

(via ceborgia)

1 year ago
#violence 
ikenbot:

untitled-mag:

 Why isn’t this getting headlines?

and people seriously think there’s nothing going on here.
2 years ago
#sexism #misogyny #war on women #violence 
2 years ago
#george orwell #violence 
"

I would risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.

“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier…But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature….

“But I do not believe India to be helpless….I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature….Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
We do want to drive out the beast in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

“I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.

“My method of nonviolence can never lead toloss of strength, but it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.

“My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once….that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.

“No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be nonviolence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent, and die in the attempt. This is bravery, but not nonviolence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice. In the first cases, the man will have love or charity in him. In the third case, there would be a dislike or distrust and fear.

“My nonviolence does admit of people, who cannot or will not be nonviolent, holding and making effective use of arms. Let me repeat for the thousandth time that nonviolence is of the strongest, not of the weak.

“To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one’s faith in man and God, even one’s own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith.

“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

“The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.

“Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.

“But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself. He is a stranger to nonviolence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to his nature. Before he can understand nonviolence, he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away from nonviolence.

“Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind nonviolence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one’s life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.

“Self-defence….is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.

“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.

"
Gandhi, on the subject of self defense by violence, as compared to nonviolent resistance. (via disobey)

(via )

2 years ago
#gandhi #violence 
"

Love and violence, properly speaking, are polar opposites. Love lets the other be, but with affection and concern. Violence attempts to constrain the other’s freedom, to force him to act in the way we desire, but with ultimate lack of concern, with indifference to the other’s own existence or destiny.

We are effectively destroying ourselves by violence masquerading as love.

"
2 years ago
#violence 
“The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” by Steven Pinker→

Pinker believes that the decline of violence is testimony to the triumph of classical liberalism — the ideas of Hume, Locke and Voltaire. The Age of Enlightenment caused a ripple of reason to spread across the world, gradually vanquishing unbridled emotion. The head imposed itself on the heart. But therein lies a problem. As he points out, the most powerful country on Earth is composed of two cultures. The blue states resemble liberal Europe, which has led the way in taming violence. The red states, however, have more in common with those nations less successful in stifling aggression. In other words, a peaceable future depends in part on the culture war currently raging in America. The outcome of that contest might determine whether those graphs of violence maintain a downward diagonal.

(Source: azspot)

2 years ago
#steven pinker #psychology #philosophy #violence 
"It is organized violence on top which creates individual violence at the bottom. It is the accumulated indignation against organized wrong, organized crime, organized injustice, which drives the political offender to act."
3 years ago
#Emma Goldman #injustice #violence 
liquidnight:

Wolf Suschitzky
St Paul’s Cathedral
London, 1942
From Wolf Suschitzky: Photos
3 years ago
#Vintage #Black and white #Photography #Art #Wartime #Cityscape #Portrait #Wolf Suschitzky #London #England #St. Paul's Cathedral #Cathedral #Church #Dome #WWII #World War II #World War Two #War #Violence #Destruction #Damage #Broken #Shattered #Window #Air raid #Bombing #Bombed #UK #United Kingdom #Britain 
"…subjective violence is experienced as such against the background of a non-violent zero level. It is seen as a perturbation of the “normal” peaceful state of things. However, objective violence is precisely the violence inherent to this “normal” state of things. Objective violence is invisible since it sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as subjectively violent. Systemic violence is thus something like the notorious “dark matter” of physics, the counterpart to an all-too-visible subjective violence. it may be invisible, but it has to be taken into account if one is to make sense of what otherwise seem to be “irrational” explosions of subjective violence."
3 years ago
#Violence #slavoj zizek