![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You know, if you go to a casino, and they think there's a decent chance you are counting cards at blackjack, you not only don't get to go back to THAT casino, but, if any other casino recognizes you, you don't get to go there, either.
Jul. 21st, 2014
The idea of broad-based consensus as a decision model is central to some versions of feminism. And I think we're seeing the limitations of that model.
I think Wiscon tries to work with the ideal of democratic anarchy, with large, broad-based communities working together to hash out actions without a centralized authority to impose ideas by force. Centralized forceful authority that can hammer down Rules From On-High is, as I understand it, the defining characteristic of patriarchy. Whether or not that authority has a penis or not. This particular meaning of "patriarchy" is a concept of how to do things, not something that is around people who identify as "male".
One form of feminism is defined in part by "democratic egalitarian consensus-based anarchy as opposed to centralized authoritarian ruling power."
And what we're finding is that democratic egalitarian consensus-based anarchy is helpless to deal with an active ongoing threat in its midst. In order to deal with threats, cons are having to institute pockets of patriarchy. A Safety Committee may be run by consensus within itself, and its formation may be set up by democratic consensus. But there has to be a decision that "this group has authority to make and enforce exclusionary decisions." That's pretty much what patriarchy is, in at least one definition.
Edited to Add: Comments locked, because the fight in the comments started to get more embarrassing than funny.
I think Wiscon tries to work with the ideal of democratic anarchy, with large, broad-based communities working together to hash out actions without a centralized authority to impose ideas by force. Centralized forceful authority that can hammer down Rules From On-High is, as I understand it, the defining characteristic of patriarchy. Whether or not that authority has a penis or not. This particular meaning of "patriarchy" is a concept of how to do things, not something that is around people who identify as "male".
One form of feminism is defined in part by "democratic egalitarian consensus-based anarchy as opposed to centralized authoritarian ruling power."
And what we're finding is that democratic egalitarian consensus-based anarchy is helpless to deal with an active ongoing threat in its midst. In order to deal with threats, cons are having to institute pockets of patriarchy. A Safety Committee may be run by consensus within itself, and its formation may be set up by democratic consensus. But there has to be a decision that "this group has authority to make and enforce exclusionary decisions." That's pretty much what patriarchy is, in at least one definition.
Edited to Add: Comments locked, because the fight in the comments started to get more embarrassing than funny.