Feminism, as a political
movement, is defined through the actions that are taken in its name.
It is no use to refer to dictionary definitions of feminism as the
defense of « gender equality », when the tactics of the
movement have already impressed upon the popular imagination a more
specific and more debatable meaning. This is not to say that there
are no significant differences within the feminist movement ;
but that the conscious choice of a label implies the endorsement of
the history of struggle which it represents. This history represents
a series of choices in both the movement's tactics and in the
theorization of its goals. One of the most central, and most
problematic, is the framing of gender equality as resulting from a
struggle of women against male domination.
This idea is now so
entrenched that it becomes hard to see how it could be otherwise –
how could one defend gender equality without attacking
« patriarchy » ?
Yet in modern society, men
do not organize as a group to defend their collective interests
against those of women. Indeed, « Men » do not form a
group. Society is atomized into small disparate units :
individuals, families, friend groups, subcultures, some remaining
local communities in rural areas and among immigrants or their
immediate descendants. In local communities, patriarchy may exist
depending on the culture, but its reach is limited by the boundaries
of the community.
In this atomized state of
western society, suggesting that there is an organization of men is a
ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Even in nonwestern
civilizations where something akin to patriarchy does exist, the way
in which feminists seek to wield the concept is fundamentally flawed.
Basing feminism on an analogy with class struggle leads to the
illusion that women can, or should, organize as a group to oppose the
« domination of men ». This ignores the fact that, in all
societies, men and women are inextricably bound together by
parentage, love and sex. As a result, not only is it impossible for
women to fight men without destroying the very fabric of society ;
it is also impossible for men to oppress women without the
collaboration of the women themselves. If mothers were not willing to
teach sexist cultural norms to their children, patriarchy could not
exist for long.
Thus, any analysis which
proposes to separate men and women as oppressor and oppressed is
fundamentally misleading.
As a result, there was a
comical mixture of rage, incomprehension and denial when feminists,
expecting a receptive audience, instead met with opposition from
muslim women who defended wearing the veil as a free choice. These
women genuinely believed that the veil was the way for a
self-respecting woman to dress, and that other women were whoring
themselves out by dressing fashionably, in an ironic parallel to
feminist criticism of objectification.
Did feminists think that
patriarchy provided itself with no justification ?
Did they get swallowed up by
their narrative in which muslim women are victims waiting to be
rescued by dashing Western liberals ? Muslim women have reminded
modern feminists of their agency in the most unpleasant way possible
– by telling them once again what they should never have forgot,
that patriarchy comes from a system of values and not from brute
force.
If feminists overestimate
the feminist tendencies of women, they underestimate the egalitarian
aspirations of men. In all but the most repressive patriarchies, men
have wives, sisters, mothers who they care for and with whom they
share their lives. In these conditions, why should they be less
receptive than women to an egalitarian message ? Yet feminists
have neglected men in their outreach and antagonized them by making
them responsible for the subjugation of women. In a self-fulfilling
manner, the resulting apathy or hostility of most men to the feminist
movement has been taken as confirmation that nothing could be
expected of them.
Because feminists have
concluded that man is woman's oppressor, they see any incident in
which a woman is harmed as part of a broader pattern of patriarchal
oppression. Ideology shapes their view of the world and highlights
certain events as significant. However, once we recognize that no
overarching patriarchy exists in the West, the arbitrary nature of
this classification becomes evident.
So it is with rape, which
despite being universally recognized as a crime worthy of a lengthy
prison term, is still considered as somehow significant of male
power. In any society, some individuals will be criminals – it is
naive to think that anti-social behaviour can be eliminated. However,
criminal behaviour isn't the mark of a powerful individual – rather
the opposite, it is the act of a powerless individual trying to
assert themselves in a way that is guaranteed to cement their
position at the bottom of the social hierarchy. What makes rape seem
systemic is the large number of victims. When up to 20% of women have
been raped, the conclusion that rape is a form of patriarchal
domination seems unavoidable.
However, this is an
illusion. The reason rape is much more prevalent than other crimes of
comparable gravity is not « rape culture », as has been
often said by feminists. « Rape culture » carries the
misandrist implication that rape is a widespread behaviour among men.
The reality is that very few men commit rape – about 3%, according
to the most reliable statistics. « Rape culture » is an
optical illusion in which a small minority of perpetrators make
themselves seem much larger than they are, because they are able to
assault very many women.
Thus, the real problem with
rape is not that we tolerate it morally but rather that we are unable
to bring perpetrators to justice. The reasons for this are linked to
the nature of the crime, which rests fundamentally on a purely
interpersonal fact : the absence of consent. While the reality
of murder is usually undeniable, determining whether rape occurred
depends on whether we trust the victim more than the perpetrator.
This is unacceptable, and for good reason, in a justice system that
has been founded on presumption of innocence and the notion that
guilt should be proven « beyond a reasonable doubt ».
As a result, the
investigation of rape claims is necessarily intrusive. The court has
to determine which of the victim or the perpetrator is more
trustworthy. The invasive nature of a rape investigation is in turn
the main reason why so few victims of rape are willing to come
forward.
Yet feminists miss the mark
when they demand that victims be believed unconditionally. They rest
this demand on the statistical fact that very few false accusations
are made. Obviously, if an accusation has little chance of success
and a high cost in terms of negative publicity, as is currently the
case, very few women are going to indulge in false accusations. But
if the recommendations of these feminists were followed and women
were always taken at their word, the number of false accusations
would probably increase greatly. A false rape accusation would become
an easy way to ruin a man's life. Anyone with enough of a grudge and
lacking enough in morals could do it.
Both the current situation
and this « trust the woman » feminist alternative are
wholly unacceptable.
A third alternative has to
be created, so that rape can finally become an ordinary crime.
Part of the solution is
given by the very nature of the problem : the fact that rapists
are relatively few but tend to be repeat offenders. A way could be
created for women to tell the police that they have been raped
without either the victim or the perpetrator having to face the
consequences of a full trial. This would allow the police to
constitute a record of potential rapists. Once enough complaints have
been recorded against a given man, he could then be thouroughly
interrogated, put under police surveillance, intimidated in various
ways, and finally taken to court.
Such a solution is not
ideal, either in delivering justice for the victims of rape, or in
terms of civil rights. Women would still not have the ability to see
justice for their own crime. On the other hand, innocent men could
still be threatened with a complaint to the police, even if the
weight of this threat would be diminished. However, women who have
been raped would have a much easier time coming forward with a rape
accusation. False accusations would be much less effective than with
the feminist proposal. Most importantly, serial rapists would
eventually end up behind bars.
Patriarchy, like an idol,
has led feminists astray. Rape is far from the only problem whose
real cause has remained hidden behind this vague abstraction. In
this series of posts, I will endeavour to dispell the illusion of
male domination and to show the dead ends to which it has led the
feminist movement.
