The "Mazan rape" trial reminded us that sexual and gender violence, even
when it takes the form of rape, is omnipresent in Western societies. It
is "embedded" in the social and ideological structures of our societies:
it is therefore "systemic". It also highlighted the opposition between
two feminist visions: on the one hand, the stigmatization of a "violent
camp" that would include all men, on the other, the assertion that "not
all men are guilty". Yet, through the statements of Gisèle Pélicot, who
has been made a heroine by feminist movements, there is the possibility
of finding a synthesis between these apparently irreconcilable positions.
For ten years, Gisèle Pélicot was drugged by her husband, who raped her
and had her raped while she was unconscious, on more than 200 occasions,
by strangers he recruited from the website Coco.fr - which has since
been closed - and who filmed these sordid crimes. In addition to the
horrifying nature of this case, Gisèle Pélicot's decision to refuse to
hold the trial behind closed doors and to allow the viewing of the rape
videos has given the trial a unique character. So much so that many
commentators have spoken of "a before and after of the Pélicot trial".
In September 2024, Gisèle Pélicot declared that she wanted to dedicate
her battle "to all women and men around the world who are victims of
sexual violence". For her, this was a political battle. On the day the
verdict was announced, she refused to discuss the amount of sentences or
participate in the controversy that developed over the "too lenient"
sentences.
He simply stated: "I respect the Court and the verdict." Far from acting
out of revenge, he simply reiterated: "By opening the doors of this
trial on September 2, I wanted society to be able to take stock of the
debates that have taken place. I have never regretted that decision. I
now have confidence in our collective ability to seize a future in which
all, women and men, can live in harmony, with mutual respect and
understanding."
We would also like to be optimistic and think that this process can
really lead to a break with the male chauvinist logic that devalues
women. Let us remember that only a few decades ago French law was
cleansed of the provisions that subjected women first to the authority
of the father and then to that of the husband. Attitudes and
relationships of domination did not transform immediately.
It is this matrix of devaluation that maintains social relations of
denigration, discrimination and, ultimately, violence against women.
While rape by strangers has always been socially condemned, because at
the time it was analyzed as a damage to the honor of the father or
husband, rape and domestic sexual violence have escaped any social
questioning for too long. "If you don't know why he beats your wife, she
knows," as the saying goes!
From this point of view, the Mazan trial marks a turning point. The
heaviest sentence, the maximum penalty provided by law, was for the
husband. His status as a husband was considered an aggravating
circumstance. The others, the unknown men, received lighter sentences,
but they were all convicted for the sexual assaults they committed,
without any mitigating circumstances. There is no such thing as
ordinary, accidental or involuntary rape!
You are not born a man, you become one!
There is, however, a great contradiction between, for example, the
statement that violence against women is "systemic" and the demand of
some feminists for a "20-year sentence for all". Although such violence
is a fact of society, the fundamental issue is not so much to punish or
take revenge, but to send a clear message to society as a whole: all
violence against women, whether committed by family members or
strangers, must be punished by law, with the aim of producing a change
in society.
Gisèle Pélicot's comments above are fully in line with this approach.
Gisèle Pélicot tells us that it is in women's interest to emancipate
themselves from the unequal relationship with men, but that the same
applies to men, who have every interest in "living in harmony, with
mutual respect and understanding" with women.
Of course, feminist movements ask women to emancipate themselves from
the social role to which they are confined by patriarchal society. So
let us not hesitate to paraphrase Simone de Beauvoir, who in her book
"The Second Sex" wrote: "One is not born a woman: one becomes one."
Likewise, one is not born a man, one is not born with a macho behavior
just because one has a penis, but it is through education, through being
imbued with the dominant culture, that one adopts these predatory
behaviors. And the education of children, it should be remembered, is
also imparted, perhaps above all, by women, themselves under the
pressure of the dominant male ideology. So it is not only men who
perpetuate patriarchy. It is the hold that patriarchy has on the entire
society that must be destroyed.
Once again, Gisèle Pélicot hits the nail on the head: by dedicating her
battle "to all women and men around the world who are victims of sexual
violence", she highlights a forgotten reality. The study commissioned by
the Conférence des évêques de France (French Episcopal Conference)
following the scandal of sexual violence in the Catholic Church shows
that today in France 5.5 million people over the age of 18 have suffered
sexual violence, whether in their immediate circle, among the clergy (6%
of attacks were committed in a religious context), in sports or cultural
clubs, at school or in holiday camps.
These attacks, overall, affected 14.5% of women and 6.4% of men. Of
course, the number of victims is 2, 3 times higher among women than
among men. But the male victims of the patriarchal order are not a
marginal reality. If we add to this the men who are victims of
homophobia or all the boys and men who are victims of physical or mental
violence or of a "simple" devaluation because they are not virile
enough, it becomes clear that the system that organizes the inequality
between men and women does not really pit men against women, but rather
a minority part of the population against the majority, among whom women
are obviously more numerous.
So violence is not the "natural" expression of masculinity. Our common
culture pushes men to be dominant and women to submit voluntarily or by
force. In reality, this violence is part of the desire to impose
domination. This is what Dominique Pélicot admitted during the trial.
His fantasy was to "subdue a rebellious woman".
Psychiatrist Nicolas Estano, for example, who works in the Forensic
Psychiatry and Psychology Unit of Ville Evrard, which tries to treat
perpetrators of sexual violence with therapeutic obligation, also thinks
so: "Most people who rape adult women do not suffer from any pathology."
Similarly, for criminologist Loïck Villerbu: "Rape is first and foremost
an aggression. And the aggressor chooses the sexual field." The
aggressor "seeks omnipotence and domination."
This reality raises questions for us. In capitalist societies, social
relations are permanently marked by relations of domination, between
social classes, on the basis of gender or origin, etc. Is it possible to
think of putting an end to unequal relations between men and women
without globally questioning the logic of domination that organizes
capitalist society, and therefore without leaving capitalism?
Are all men part of a violent camp?
In an article dated November 19, 2024, the daily newspaper Le Monde
recalls that "the banality of the profiles of the 51 defendants, 37 of
whom are fathers, and the chilling mechanism of this case, have shaken
the "tranquility behind which men have hidden until now" (...).
Firefighter, lawyer, worker, truck driver, journalist... All men, from
26 to 74 years old. Our neighbors, our colleagues, our brothers".
This observation inspired the writer Lola Lafon, who wrote in the
newspaper Libération: "If all men are not rapists, rapists can
apparently be any man." Indeed, the least we can say is that the Pélicot
case highlights several realities of sexual violence. First, it reminds
us that most assaults occur in a family context. Second, it sheds light
on the "systemic" nature of sexual violence, which in the vast majority
of cases affects women. Sexual violence concerns society as a whole and
affects all its members. No one can claim to be totally immune from the
mechanisms produced by the dominant ideology. It is therefore not a
question of reassuring ourselves by saying that the perpetrators of
sexual violence are only a minority of men or, above all, of considering
them sick or monstrous.
The militants of La Plateforme are convinced that when it comes to
sexual assaults against women, as with any form of physical or
psychological violence against people, a large number of men "turn at
least one eye". But we also know that this is not just a male
characteristic.
Faced with any form of aggression, such as genocide, history shows that
human beings fall into three categories. Those who participate in or
support the horror, others who are indifferent or let it happen out of
fear, and finally those who do not accept it. The same goes for rape. So
condemning all men, ordering them to "be ashamed", as the philosopher
Camille Froidevaux-Metterie did, is a form of manipulation.
Let us not forget that Simone de Beauvoir, in The Second Sex , a
founding book of contemporary feminism, demonstrated that women can be
responsible and participate in their own subjugation. Therefore, the
fact that women are the first victims of sexual violence does not mean
that they, like men, have no individual or collective responsibility in
perpetuating the relations of domination that ultimately generate this
violence.
Raising the question of the responsibility of men as a whole
paradoxically obscures the social role of male chauvinist ideology,
which is globally responsible for the process of sexual violence.
Society as a whole is sick. It is the dung of relations of domination
that fuels the devaluation of women and legitimizes the violence imposed
on the dominated.
These all-encompassing "feminist" positions are not only an obstacle to
challenging the system of inequality between women and men. They are
also a strategic mistake, as they sideline sincere allies in this fight.
So how can we combat sexual and gender-based violence?
Ultimately, Gisèle Pélicot's wish for a society in which "all, women and
men, can live in harmony, with mutual respect and understanding" does
not seem vain to us, even if it probably will not come true immediately.
But first we must win the battle to have the "systemic" nature of gender
violence recognized. And shift the responsibility for this reality not
onto men as a whole, but onto patriarchal society as a whole!
The battle is not won! So we must continue. Over the past decades,
feminist movements have addressed the issue of sexual and sexist
violence. There are victories that can be achieved that will make it
harder to take action and will probably reduce the level of violence.
The Mazan trial could facilitate some changes. A comprehensive law
against gender violence could even be drafted and, we dream, the
necessary funds released. Fundamental work must also be done in the
field of education to abolish gender injunctions - references, models
and behaviors towards children - that lock them into a
dominant/dominated pattern.
But we know how fragile these prospects are, given the political rise of
the far right. The question of including consent in the legal definition
of rape has been raised. But it is a controversial issue.
The specific question of the victim's consent, or lack thereof, could
once again shift the focus of judicial questioning onto the victim
herself, with all the abuses that come with it, once again putting the
victim alone at the center of attention. More specifically, within
social movement organizations and political organizations, there is
still a long way to go to end sexism, including sexual violence.
The battle is far from won. If we look at the first place where gender
domination is organized, that is, the family, we can argue that it is
becoming the very prototype of all domination. The feminism currently in
the spotlight declares itself "intersectional", that is, it takes into
account all processes of domination. This goes in the same direction as
our previous questions about the possibility of canceling machismo
without questioning the very principle of domination.
However, this feminism too often forgets the question of the foundations
of domination and alienation in general, and therefore the question of
class in the construction of its actions. Is it because proletarian
women are sadly underrepresented in feminist organizations?
A truly intersectional feminism should place the question of class,
which runs through all social processes, at the center of its thinking.
Naturally, the realities of sexual and/or gender domination present
particularities that justify specific work.
But it is crucial that the aspirations of working-class women to improve
their economic situation are actually taken into account by feminist
associations. Until recently, the most recent struggle of working-class
women that received some media coverage, the Vertbaudet strike of 2023,
was supported by only a small minority of feminist organizations.
However, as always happens, this strike has allowed the strikers to
become aware of the particularities of their exploitation because they
are proletarians and women. It is clear that the feminist struggle
cannot be conducted only within feminist associations.
For all revolutionary militants, the fight against machismo must also be
waged within social movement organizations.
This is probably where the link between the class struggle and the
struggle for women's emancipation will arise.
*) The original text available at
https://plateformecl.org/laffaire-des-viols-de-mazan/
http://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
