I got this from Quirky Black Girls. It is video of a woman who wore a short skirt to university one day and was threatened by hoards and hoards of people.

A 20-year-old student was expelled from Brazil’s Bandeirante University (Uniban) Sunday after hundreds of her classmates rioted over the length of her skirt.

According to Edison Bernardo DeSouza of Brazzil Magazine, on October 22, tourism student Geisy Arruda showed up to class at Uniban, near Sao Paolo, wearing a pink minidress and “heavy makeup,” which apparently prompted her fellow students to go completely insane. Two hundred of them gathered outside her classroom to gawk at her, and when she left to go to the bathroom, men followed, physically fighting with her and trying to take cell phone pictures between her legs. A professor then tried to hide her in another classroom, but 700 students massed outside, shouting, “Let her out Professor, we want to rape her.” As she finally left, escorted by police, some students took videos, including the one above, where you can hear chants of “puta” or “whore.”

*I haven’t stopped thinking about the gang rape of that young woman in Richmond (and the many gang rapes that have been reported on since then). The original question I asked was how do we teach young men to intervene in cases of gang violence against women?

Seeing this video made me think–the answer can’t be in asking single men to do something against huge groups of men. We’re going to have to think deeper and find much more nuanced and unsteadying responses. I have rejected riot violence as a “revolutionary” measure since I read the reasoning of Angela Davis (riots are ultimately unsustainable and in many ways target the most marginalized in the “revolutionary” community)–and this video simply reaffirms my thinking on it.

Now, I guess I’m more wondering: How can we put an intersectional analysis on “group think?” What would that analysis look like? And how can we start creating more and more tools for people like this girl’s brother–who knew something was going on, and was too scared to know what to do, to create an immediate powerful organized *non* riot/gang response to a riot/gang driven violence?

*Our culture is set up to capitalize on “group think.” And seeing as this group think thing is a world-wide event, I have to wonder what connection group think has to capitalism? And the implementation of capitalism?

*I know many many generations of psychiatry etc has worked on the concept of “group think.”–and I really have little patience with most of it, but I am thinking know of certain experiments (such as the one where prison situations were simulated) and wondering how much of it is human nature to desire and be willing to hurt for power–and how much of it is that there are so rarely other options valued enough to be nurtured into an extremely organized, sustainable powerful option?

*Drawing on my literary background, hero Journey scholars like Joesph Campbell would probably argue that group think happens because especially in today’s culture, storytelling that emphasizes “how to make moral life choices,” (as in, will I murder to get what I want? Will I steal?) has been almost completely destroyed. And, indeed, there have been instances of classes being taught to inner city poor people that emphasize “morality” readings (Homer, all the Greek theorists, etc), helped to decreased violence and increased better choice making skills (like: a restaurant worker organizing a union rather than quitting or getting into fight with boss) on the part of the inner city poor person.

Which again, makes me wonder: what does a morality story that teaches better choice making skills to the masses (of men in particular) look like? What does it sound like? And, again, how do institutions, systems, cultures, families, media, etc, support human beings in general *making* the right choices? (as in: monetary support to buy phones, etc–but also as in moral support to combat the “snitches get stitches” and other ostracization “group think” strategies.)

If we stop muddling up what ultimately is an issue of extreme practicality (“violence” has resources and institutional support and “non-violence” and responses to “violence” does not), with extensive “what is wrong with humanity” rants (is the assumption that humanity is inherently fucked up a valid assumption, is it a pracitical realism that non-violence has never been institutionally supported, ever? In other words, if, for example, there were thousands of communities across the u.s. that have a long proud history of, say, printing “how to do anti-violence” phampletes rather than thousands of communities that have a long proud history of creating bomber airplanes (as mine does), would humanity still be inherently fucked up? And if it was, would there at the very least be more strategies and resources for those who *aren’t* fucked up to stop violence?)–what would be the first step to take?

(hint: now should be the time for people (ETA: myself included!!!) to consider how various communities that can’t walk away from violence have begun to address this shit).

This woman is in my thoughts.