http://www.malaysiakini.com.my/archives_news/2000/nov/nov1/news1.htm
Nov 1, 2000
Unmasking rape
M Nadarajah
Noor Suzaily's rape was brutal
enough to have jolted a large number of
Malaysians even in spite of the
fact that we are told that it is just a "rare"
occurrence and there is no need
for us to be alarmed.
This rationalisation through the
"statistical mode of thinking" strategy for
administrative and political consumption
really kills our humanity and
substitutes cold numbers instead.
Even if a nation does not grieve over this
very unfortunate incident, we
can avoid being unkind.
In the rapist life, in a moment, one aspect of civilisation
had melted away while "another" pushed the cold,
calculative animal that had come to be, to its logical end.
It is not about numbers we are dealing with here as much
about democracy and humanity, its scope and its
presence in our norms and values and as part our private
and public behaviour in the context of social
relationships.
In considering civilisation, people seem to think that rape
is uncivilised behaviour (so we call a rapist an "animal")
when in actual practice there is an aspect of our
"civilised practice", or civilisation, in which rape can be
socially located. This aspect
of our civilisation needs to be intensely
interrogated and confronted. What
are we really dealing with here?
Perverse logic
The general tenor of the way we
deal with social problems in this country is
to further punish the victim.
That is part of our national problem solving
strategy! So when we are faced
with a violent situation in which a woman's
body is violated, we seem to,
overtly or covertly, blame women.
Thus, men involved in the act of
rape are presented by making women share
the blame for it too. The blame
on the male is sought to be reduced, if not
legally, at least in terms of
general public opinion. There is an attempt to
frame a non-binding, but damaging,
social verdict: women are also partly or
fully responsible.
The other side to this "the-woman-provoked-it"
argument is saying, "Men will
be men, women have to watch out".
This general socio-biological position, or
the wisdom of the evolutionist-biologist,
simply implies "women take care". In
a sense, this argument also suggests
"all men are potential rapists".
So, for one group of people (certainly
not outside civilisation) the cause of
rape is a man's biology. He just
cannot help what he is doing. It is, as the
evolutionist-biologist likes to
argue, a violent "form of male reproductive
behaviour". The male rapes in
order to maintain the continuity of our species.
What perverse logic?
An extension of this argument is
one that focuses on misguided individuals,
irrationally acting individuals,
badly brought up individuals, etc. Thus, rape is
presented as the act of an individual.
Is it?
These explanatory or rationalisation
attempts take away and hide a "cause"
that is embedded deep in the structures
and attitudes of our society. While
we can take the individual rapist
to task through a legal process, how do we
take to task the patriarchal -
an ideology and practice that privileges men -
society we live in, the "societal
womb" that is the Father of all rapists? In
fact, it is one aspect of our
so-called civilisation that is at the root of what
happened to Noor Suzaily.
Noor Suzaily is certainly the victim
of our patriarchal patterns of behaviour as
much as the poor public security
measures that we have and the individual
who actually committed the act,
an individual produced by the same society
that treats women on principles
different from that applicable to the men.
Gender inequality
There are many kinds of rape situations, some of which are:
Rape taking place when an
anonymous male rapes a woman in a place not
"visible" to the public - "anonymous
male" rape;
Rape taking place during
social conflict - communal/ethnic confrontation or
war;
Rape within marriage when
a husband rapes a sexually unwilling wife -
"domestic rape";
Rape taking place within
a family - adult and senior male member of a family
raping a younger female member
of the family;
Rape during a period of captivity,
either as prisoner - prison rape - or as
"slave"-like work situation, and
Rape during a date -"'date/acquaintance' rape".
Consider these situations with the following observations.
Among the social inequalities in Malaysia is certainly the form
that exists between the male and the female - gender
inequality. This form of inequality articulates at the economic,
political and socio-cultural levels. This has serious
consequence. Work, a critically
important activity, is by definition "male
work"; "housework" certainly is
not. Housework, and consequently women's
work, is as free as fresh air,
or of poor quality.
Thus, a typical structuring of
a patriarchal society contributes to the
economic marginalisation of women
and the assertion of the male position.
The power to make important domestic
or public decisions is hardly in the
hands of women. This consequence
also becomes a cause for her marginal
status.
Stop for a while and make casual
calculations of women's housework in terms
of hours of work. Put a wage bill
on it and soon you will realise how much her
contribution outstrips men's.
This is not about her larger contribution as
much as how we treat her in spite
of her larger contribution. What civilisation
are we talking about?
Then there is serious "cultural
framing" of the female in terms of values,
norms or her expected behaviour.
The cultural framing also defines the
"masculine" and the "feminine".
A close examination of this will also reveal
how we treat our womenfolk or
the girl child at home and in society. For
instance, career is about the
upward mobility of men. She is expected to
move where he goes, even give
up her career.
Socialisation
Far more serious is the socialisation
of our children. Socialisation is gender
biased and, through the process,
we build a number of myths about women's
inferior position in relation
to men's superior position. It helps to culturally
sustain her marginalisation. In
all these, the "male supremacy complex" is
subtly introduced. And, along
with it emerges a sense of how one is
privileged as a male and what
is expected of women.
In relation to this, a close and
careful examination of some of our legislation
will also reveal gender insensitivity.
Our religions have aspects of gender
inequality. Some commentator on
the rape incident mentioned about the
Hindu society having some control
over rape behaviour because of the
practice of Mother Goddess worship.
I do not have the comparative figures,
but some of the worst atrocities on
women - like bride burning - can
be found in India and among the Hindus,
which is the predominant religion.
In fact, it puzzles the average Indian social
scientist of the contradiction
- Mother Goddess worship on one side while
beating and killing women on the
other.
Cultural framing also influences
the assignment of work and to what levels a
woman can go up in an organisation.
There are "glass ceilings" that obstruct
her career paths. Culturally,
an unkind aspect of this kind of society is the
general negative opinion about
raped women (extrapolating the findings of a
1977 study of rape in Penang).
A rape victim would have had to go through
the shame of it all and daily
face a society that will look at her as a "spoilt"
woman.
A critical look at the socialisation
process will reveal a democratically
unsustainable gendering process
in place. Within a supposedly caring
atmosphere of the home environment,
a difference between the male and
female child is slowly converted
into a socially unequal situation. Many
amongst us certainly privilege
the male child. This shift also has a serious
societal presence.
A logical development of this shift involves the
transformation of a physical difference between the male
and female in strengths into an expression of social
power. A physical difference, in combination with other
features described above, becomes symbolically
evaluated. And one very serious logical conclusion of this
development is rape.
Another serious development is the threat the male can
present to the female in many areas of social life in which
he "rules", which can force her to agree to do many
things, including sexual favours. The "sex-as-strategy"
used by women only make sense if one evaluates why it
has become a strategy in the first place.
The media adds to the problem - eroticising, commodifying
and marginalising women. And with the Internet, the
commodification of women has reached a new height.
There is almost an infinite classification
of the sex act in which the framing
of the act is always from the
point of view of the "male gaze".
The images almost always portray
the physical satisfaction of male sexual
desire through penetration or
ejaculation within a context of the male
dominating the female or her unalloyed
attention to satisfying his desire.
They even have a category called
"bondage" where images represent the
eroticising of male brutality.
Images and depiction of situations in our popular
books, magazines and advertisement
also contribute to our children and
youth acquiring a view of society
in which the female is eroticised and
commodified as an object.
The general features cited above
are aspect of the patriarchal society that
we live in. This is supposedly
a civilised society. It is not difficult to see that
"civilisation" is as much responsible
for Noor Suzaily's death as the individual
and the poor public security measures.
Public security
The modernisation of society has
opened up and enlarged the public sphere
for our activity. This process
puts women in the public sphere but does not
adequately prepare support structures
or a democratic environment for her
protection in that sphere. There
is hardly a careful consideration of serious
public security measures or procedures.
Consequently, there are many lonely
places in the public sphere or lonely
situations in the private sphere
that neither has democratised normative
protection, which is more pervasive,
nor police protection, which is more
localised.
Practically, the police cannot be everywhere. The chances of
police being present at a place of possible rape are really low.
We therefore need actively sustained public security procedures
and measures that can help ordinary folks defend themselves.
But the only serious and sustainable defence we have is
normative pressure within a democratised culture.
If not, a combination of lonely
public or private spaces and a patriarchal
mentality or social ethos based
on the male supremacy complex that turn
women into erotic commodities
makes a perfect ground for social predation,
and that can certainly lead to
rape.
Patriarchal society is certainly
guilty of doing to women, on a daily basis,
more harm than we can imagine.
For now we have convicted the individual
rapist but patriarchy is still
at large. We need to address the roots of the
patriarchal society we live in
and weed out unsustainable expressions of
woman-man relationship.
There is a need to build an all
round democratic culture. That will eventually
reduce the unfortunate occurrences
like the one in which Noor Suzaily got
entangled.
The All Women's Action Society
is organising a public forum, "Eliminate
Rape! Our Responsibility", this
Saturday, Nov 4, at 3pm, Pearl
International Hotel (Forum on
rape to dispel misconceptions, Nov 1).
DR M NADARAJAH teaches sociology
and organisation theory at Stamford
College and is involved in activities
related to sustainable development and
urbanisation.