> When there is a women's committee, I will not be on it.
Then why do you fantasize, with obvious glee, what will be done to the offending male? Will you be an adviser? Or will you merely sit back, grab yourself, and enjoy the "revolutionary" violence that clearly gets you up?
>Who do you want to make up the law in your ideal anarchist state? It
> seems to me that you would have to be a very moderate form of anarchist to
> have much objection to women's committees.
I have no objection to "women's committees" in general, whatever they might be. But I would object to vigilante violence fueled by the fascist politics you espouse.
> One of the "good things" of the early days of the Chinese revolution was
> precisely the institution of women's committees who would go to the house
of
> the patriarch who beat his wife, and beat him. What's wrong with that,
pray
> tell?
When my sister was continually beaten by her (now ex-) husband, I was more than ready to drag his sorry ass into their front yard and beat the living shit out of him for all the neighbors to see. And I said as much and nearly did it, until I was warned by a cop friend of my other sister that I would be arrested for assault. In this case, I was ready for direct action, however wrong-headed. But, that said, I think that the example you gave reveals the utter poverty of your politics. Vigilantism in support of authoritarianism (which Maoism was) is just another version of state violence.
Besides, your violent reverie was inspired by the imagined leer of Rob. What would be next -- watching porn? Masturbating to erotic lithographs? Fantasizing about a three-way? You sound pretty repressed, pal, which probably explains your repressive politics.
DP