I’m reading the broken teapot and realizing that my very tentative understanding of anarchy does not have good answers for women’s issues.
First quote:
I did not want an accountability process and all the exposure and tendrils that came with it. I wanted to be left alone. I would not identify myself as a victim because I was not solely ‘a victim’. Is anyone? In their saner moments neither was my ex solely ‘a perp’,
I guess this is probably a basic concept but it sounds like that thinking would make anarchy equally or more permissive of sex crime than the current model of government?
Second point:
There is no space we can create in a world as damaged as the one we live in which is absent from violence. That we even think it is possible says more about our privilege than anything else. Our only autonomy lies in how we negotiate and use power and violence ourselves.
This might not be an anarchist issue, but for others who have arrived at this conclusion already is there a subsequent evolution in thought that follows it?
Depends on what you mean by permissive. I think a more liberated society would be both less accepting of sexual violence but also less punitive towards it. As with other types of crime, a greater emphasis should be put on prevention, making the victim whole, and, whenever possible, rehabilitation of the offender.
In my view, our carceral based “justice” system has been an almost complete failure and needs to be redesigned from top to bottom. But this is an important issue that should be taken seriously, and if new systems don’t solve it effectively, then they might need further iteration.