That's the thing with beating people based on personal morality, other people's morals will differ from yours.
It's why we have laws. No-one gets quite what they want, but (in theory) you're protected from people who think a blunt instrument is an argument winner.
Yes and no. I agree that the rule of law is profoundly important, and that vigilante action is ultimately damaging to us all. But there is another element, which is arguably missing from your analysis.
As a society we decide which rights are to be protected, and we make laws which reflect the consensus we can agree on. In the best case that is a peaceful process: those who are excluded make their case and reasonable people listen to that case and they adopt laws which extend the rights to minority groups where those are missing.
There are times when this process does not work well: it does not work when an artificial difference is manufactured or perceived in order to justify different treatment of some group. This is easily seen in the case of women's suffrage: or slavery: or the disenfranchisement of the poor. There are many examples.
In those cases the "morality" of the society was fine: the exclusion rested on a wriggle which allowed those with power to distance themselves from those without. It would be nice to think that this changes when the "outgroup" organises and makes a case which is persuasive in terms of the avowed principles of the society: and that is indeed a necessary condition. But as I look at the history of such movements it is not sufficient. Too many people are short on empathy: short on principles: long on laziness and personal comfort and advantage.
That kind of law is changed partly on the basis of some conception of justice but it is generally necessary to accompany that with some kind of threat: all that does is change the cost/benefit analysis somewhat: but that is required. It can be done by "passive resistance" as epitomied by Ghandi: that worked by makiing the mismatch between avowed values and actual practice uncomfortably apparent: and most folk are decent and will grasp that mismatch if it is forced on their attention. Thus the need for a case to be made. Very admirable if you can do that without violence: but it is only successful if other things conspire with it: wider social change, including a change in the economic/power benefit of retaining the status quo:I am not sure that ghandi's movement could have worked at another period: the effects of the war on the british attitudes to the "other" was important, amongst other things
For other groups at other times there is always the case: and the enforcement of the case. Each movement which seeks to participate in a culture which excludes them includes a majority which wishes to do so by peaceful means: and a minority which gets frustrated with the slow or non-existent pace of change. That minority will take direct action of one kind or another. And if the peaceful process is not producing a response then more will decided that direct action is necessary. The existent power will resist that and call it terrorism or criminality: and they will be right to call it that because that is what it is. But it is also effective, if it is sustained, because the cost of retaining the power gets higher. The reporting of the violence also raises the profile of the grievance and it forces more of the decent people to awareness and to thought.
Many would argue that this is not applicable to the position of women: and it is certainly true that some progress has been made through peaceful means. But it is also true that the law is not effective in protecting a great many women: and that violence against women is not quite seen in the same way as violence againt men. We can argue about the extent that is true, and to what extent a direct action response is justified in our present circumstances. One problem in answering that question is that in some senses women do not self-identify as a group - though that has changed to some exent it remains the case: one tension within the feminist movement is the way you reconcile the wish to be seen as fully human: and the necessity to develop a separate group identity in order to achieve that. That tension exists in other movements too, and it is a bit of a double bind which is difficult to negotiate. But one of the sad truths appears to be that the characterisation of women as "other" rests in part on their general reluctance to be violent. It is almost funny: the proof you are serious is willingness to fight when it comes to it: and the requirement to fight a bigger and stronger enemy, and to accept martyrdom, is what passes for a membership card to the human race: without it the theory that you are content is sustainable. And it is that attitude which forces the minorities to take direct action: then they cut up rough when the lesson is learned.
But the point is that if the law does not effectively protect the citizen by reason of membership of a group seen as "other" then one must make it worthwhile for those with power to re-think that stance. And one must also protect oneself, because for so long as you do not the majority will conclude that you are ok with how things are: born to be slaves or mothers or whatever: no need to think much about it if there is no evidence that the theory of difference is not correct. A few fighting back can be portrayed as aberrant, of course: but if many do then it is direct challenge to that theory and if other factors combine to support it change may well come.
Violence focusses the mind of the individual and the society. That is not desirable but it happens to be a fact. It is not inescapable: it is not the only way to achieve change: but it is a necessity when the culture will not recognise legitimate grievances because "power comes from the barrel of a gun". Like it or not many movements from the chartists to the civil rights movement show that this is true: the peaceful protest did not work by itself no matter how we like to re-write history after the event.
In the case Roadtoad described the action was not society wide: but the bloke had a theory: his theory was that he could beat up his partner with complete impunity. He has grounds for that belief: we as a society are very poor at protecting women in the context of the family so he could reasonably conclude he would get away with it. And we have a strong societal pressure against vigilante action, as you say. So his theory was she would not protect herself directly either. Such men do not assault big strong men in bars because they "see red" when provoked: funnily enough most of them manage to control themselves in those circumstances. So it is not a question of "losing it": it is a theory about the limits and entitlements of different relationships. In this case the lady demonstrated that the theory was wrong, or at least not as universally applicable as he liked to think. That is what is meant by "attitude adjustment", or, as I prefer to see it, education. He tested a hypothesis which holds true in many cases, and found it failed. But the real problem is that he had that hypothesis in the first place. And he did no make it up out of his own head: it is supported by the society we live in. And while that remains true it is not enough to characterise it as "vigilante-ism", for that is to individualise a societal problem.
I'm not even going to get in to how people hoot and cheer jilted wives gluing a penis or attacking with a knife, but if a guy goes after his cheating wife he should be locked up.
I hope that what I have said above is enough to demonstrate a difference between the two cases, though I expect it is not. It is a very common phenomenon to equate/conflate those things and to pretend that there is equality when there is not: it is perfectly possible to argue that the difference I am proposing does not exist; or is not relevant, of course. But you have to do it. It is not a given, as this part of your post suggests. Once again it is individualising a problem which is bigger than the individual. In the same way those suffragettes who broke the law were treated as common criminals by the state: and lauded as heroes by those who recognised the injustice of the position they were in. But do you really think those who broke windows for the right to vote were the same as those who broke windows for the pleasure of seeing glass break or for robbery? I dont. The actions have a context.
