T S Petrus. Journal of Social Development in Africa. Volume 32, Issue 2. July 2017.
Introduction
Let me begin by stating unequivocally that this discussion is not about the merits (or otherwise) of whether or not sexual and domestic violence are a reality in South Africa, or, for that matter, elsewhere in the world. It is also not an indication that I am a denialist of sexual and domestic violence. What I am attempting to do in this discussion is to foreground an issue of anthropological significance within the context of sexual and domestic violence, and with specific reference to the South African situation.
The role of gender in discourses and policies on development is a global issue. As such, it is necessary to also consider its importance within the context of development in Africa. Often, concepts such as gender equality and women empowerment lose their meaning because they become entangled in the political and social propaganda driven by an extreme feminist and gynocentric agenda that seeks to create conflict between the genders, specifically between men and women. In this discussion I use the concept of gender to refer exclusively to men and women, that is, a more conventional or traditional understanding of the sexes based upon biological and traditional cultural criteria. In other words, I do not include the myriad new definitions of gender that have emerged in recent years. These newer interpretations include concepts such as transgender, bigender, agender and third gender, to name a few. There is little doubt that these newer manifestations of gender have added new dimensions to gender discourses, but it is not my intention here to bring these into the discussion. My reason for limiting the discussion to traditional conceptions of the male and female genders is to highlight and interrogate the notion of a rape culture that has emerged, specifically in contemporary South African gender discourse.
The discussion takes the form of an anthropological critique of what I consider to be a feminist-imposed construct that has been uncritically accepted in the South African public and social domain. The critique lays particular emphasis on the reference to rape as a culture in South Africa. It is argued that the notion of a rape culture is erroneous because it distorts the meaning of culture and what constitutes culture. Furthermore, it is also argued that this distortion does little to improve gender relations in South Africa, and in fact contributes to an emerging gender war. Finally, I also argue that such distortions and references to rape culture, as is driven by feminist and gynocentric interpretations, ironically hamper efforts to improve the situation of women in development.
A brief outline of the relationship between gender and development
When stakeholders, policymakers, development practitioners, government development agencies, and even academics speak of gender and development, almost invariably what is actually meant is women and development. This is interesting since gender, widely recognised as a social construct that includes both masculine and feminine traits and behaviours, is a concept that incorporates both male and female aspects. According to the UN’s World Health Organisation (2017), ‘Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men [emphasis mine] – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.’ However, despite the concept including both men and women, the dominant discourses and narratives pertaining to gender and development place women exclusively at the centre. For example, in the latest issue of the academic journal Gender and Development (2017), published by Routledge, all six of the articles in that issue focused exclusively on women. The theme of the issue was broadly focused on the ‘impact of religious fundamentalisms on women’s rights and gender justice.’ The journal itself is seemingly very influential in development circles, as it is described as being ‘essential reading for development practitioners, policymakers and academics’, while also having ‘a readership in over 90 countries.’ The latest issue of the journal also makes it clear that the contributors are feminists, thereby emphasising the overwhelming ideological interpretation of the discussions, arguments and issues raised in the published articles. This represents one of the main issues in gender and development, namely that feminist and gynocentric interpretations have a tendency to distort the concept of gender by elevating the feminine/female at the expense of the masculine/male, thereby elevating women as the predominant gender and hence placing women at the centre of development.
Another example of the skewed interpretation of gender, and its relationship to development comes from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). According to the ADB website, the ‘ADB’s Policy on Gender and Development identifies gender mainstreaming as the key strategy and approach for promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment across all sectors.’ (ADB, 2017). Again, here it is also apparent that gender and women are regarded as one and the same, rather than the more accurate notion of gender including both men and women.
From the above examples, what becomes clear is the notion that the relationship between gender and development really refers to the relationship between women and development. As such, discourses on development serve to foreground the idea that women exclusively should benefit from development initiatives. If one should ask why this should be the case, often the justification provided is that women have been disadvantaged due to gender inequality and patriarchy, and therefore in the current context development should rightly favour women in order to address past gender disparities. This point is explicitly made if one analyses the UN’s eight Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), as established following the UN’s Millenium Summit of 2000. From the eight MDGs, Goal 3, ‘To promote gender equality and empower women’ and Goal 5, ‘To improve maternal health’, directly emphasise the centrality of women in the UN’s global development agenda. All of the countries represented at the Summit committed themselves to this ‘new global partnership’ to achieve these goals by 2015 (United Nations, 2017).
The UN’s position on gender and development has also filtered down into Africa, specifically with the policies and work of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). According to UNECA (2017), ‘Women’s economic and social advancement is a crucial precondition for Africa’s development.’ To assist in this process, UNECA established the African Centre for Gender which ‘provides technical support to member States to address gender inequality and women’s empowerment…’ (UNECA, 2017). Once again, gender is taken to refer specifically to women only, while men are excluded. The notion of gender inequality is often also used as justification for the gynocentric interpretation of gender, particularly as it relates to development. Gender inequality can broadly be understood as the perceived lack of equality between men and women, often manifested in terms of unequal access to resources, economic and social opportunities for advancement, as well as gender-based violence, including rape and domestic violence. It is gender inequality that is regarded as the root cause of the lack of development for African women because, as Wekwete (2014:87) argues, ‘gender inequality is still prevalent in all sectors of the economy’ in African countries. Furthermore, such inequality is ’embedded in the deep-rooted cultural norms and beliefs in the societies.’ (Wekwete, 2014:87). Hence, in most if not all African countries, the development agenda is often dominated by the narrative of women empowerment and gender inequality, with the chief culprits behind the apparent lack of progress of women being placed squarely on the shoulders of culture and men.
As if the concept of development was not problematic enough, adding the feminist and gynocentric distorted views of gender to the mix serves to further muddy the waters of an already muddy concept. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to delve into the myriad problems with the concept of development, from a critical anthropological perspective, suffice to say that Western ideological constructs are often programmed into development discourses and initiatives, often with little regard for how these constructs would impact on the existing traditional cultural and social norms of a non-Western society (see for example Kohnert, 2008:6-7; Oguejiofor, 2015:3-4). Even the most elementary scholar of the anthropology of development would flag Western notions of development and progress as applied to non-Western contexts. My concern here is that the distortion of gender, reflected mainly in the gynocentric interpretation of placing women at the centre of development, contradicts traditional cultural norms in various African societies. It is not possible, in my view, to separate gendered discourses on development from the overarching Western-driven global narrative of globalisation and modernisation. Elsewhere (see Petrus, 2017 forthcoming) I, in support of other scholars (see Oguejiofor, 2015; Ibrahim, 2013), have argued that globalisation has had a subversive impact on African societies, particularly in terms of the homogenising influence of cultural globalisation, as manifested by transculturalism. Development and modernisation are a means of spreading this Western cultural homogenisation. Feminist and gynocentric distortions of gender, and linking these to development, implies an attempt to override existing cultural norms that may be perceived as obstacles, antiquated, sexist and discriminatory towards women.
Gender, development, and the division of labour: Biological and cultural perspectives
Anthropologists and other scholars have long been interested in the gendered division of labour. Anthropologists specifically have investigated how the relationship between gender and division of labour is expressed in different cross-cultural contexts. Emanating from such research, various biological and cultural perspectives have been put forward to explain the gendered division of labour in different societies. Biological perspectives have predominantly included four theories, identified by Pasternak, et al.(1997:49-50) as the strength theory, compatibility with-child-care theory, economy-of-effort theory and the expendability theory. These biological perspectives are essentially based on the biological (physical) differences between human males and females that naturally predispose each towards performing certain tasks. For example, strength theory posits that because of men’s general bigger skeletal and muscular structure, compared to women, and also their capacity for greater bursts of speed, they were biologically better suited to activities such as tracking and hunting prey, given the speed and strength required for such activity. By contrast, compatibility-with-child-care posits that women tended to perform duties close to the domestic environment because this allowed them to take care of their children, hence they needed to perform tasks that would not take them away from their children for long periods. However, the biological theories became inadequate when anthropologists discovered contradictions in various societies where division of labour was organised in a manner contrary to what the biological theories predicted. These theories were later criticised as overgeneralisations that failed to take variations in behaviour and personalities between men and women into account (Brettell and Sargent, 2009:3).
The criticisms of biological theories of the division of labour gave way to cultural perspectives, as it became clear that the sociocultural contexts of societies had a greater influence on male and female roles and activities. In fact, culture tended to override biological imperatives in many instances, leading even to the reversal of “typical” male-female gender roles and division of labour. For example, ethnographic studies of foraging or hunter-gatherer societies revealed that among some of these societies, such as the Ju/’hoansi San, Semang and Mbuti, women provided for most of the food because, unlike in other contexts where hunting was the primary means of securing food resources, in the aforementioned societies, gathering was the primary method of food acquisition (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012:332-333; Martin and Voorhies, 1975; Dahlberg, 1981; Weisner, 2002). Furthermore, the more “developed” a society became, the more specialised the division of labour became as well, and hence the more pronounced. Thus, in agricultural and industrialised societies the division of labour was more strict and specialised.
Within the context of development, role specialisation and the strictness of the gendered division of labour created an image of women being somehow disadvantaged. This is one of the justifications given for traditional cultural practices, values and beliefs as being obstacles to development. Consequently, feminist and gynocentric (that is, Western ideological) interpretations label such societies as patriarchal and hence oppressive towards women. It is thus no surprise therefore that development is so often tied to gender. Unfortunately, the overwhelming ideological imperatives that inform such development contradict prevailing cultural norms, including those that determine gender roles. The ethnographic evidence suggests that feminist and gynocentric perspectives are incorrect in their insistence that developing societies are oppressive towards women. Generally, women and men function in a complementary fashion as each has his/her role to perform. This is how these societies have survived for generations. Of course, there are exceptions, as there are in every society, but in the majority of cases both men and women are needed to maintain the society as a whole. Thus, if any form of development is going to succeed, it will require the contributions of both men and women, as both are vital to the functioning of the society. Feminist and gynocentric ideologies that aim to exclude men, or even demonise them, will not only hamper the success of development initiatives but may also create resistance to such initiatives.
In a country such as South Africa, feminist and gynocentric narratives have increasingly become popularised particularly in the public media. As is the case in other African countries, such narratives have also informed development policies and initiatives. However, as stated above, these narratives are increasingly demonising the majority of men, as they are often linked to instances of gender-based violence, such as rape and domestic violence. The next part of the discussion focuses on the South African context by providing some perspective on gender and development in the country. The discussion also then looks at the phenomenon of rape culture as a popular, albeit incorrect, shaming label used against South African men.
Gender and development in South Africa
South Africa’s National Development Plan 2030 explicitly foregrounds the centrality of women in the development strategy of the country. For example, the Plan states that
Although progress has been made to improve the lives of women, discrimination, patriarchal attitudes and poor access to quality education persists [sic]. The plan deals with these factors holistically, recognising that key priorities such as education or rural development will have the biggest impact on poor women. (National Development Plan 2030 Executive Summary, 2011:25).
Furthermore, the Plan also proposes that the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) and the Ministry for Women, Children and People with Disabilities ‘set clear targets for the advancement of women’s rights…’ (National Development Plan 2030 Executive Summary, 2011:26). No mention is made of targets for men’s or children’s rights; the focus is placed exclusively on women’s rights.
It appears that the National Development Plan 2030 also suffers from the same erroneous conflation of gender with women exclusively. In the Executive Summary, this is borne out in a section entitled ‘Women and the Plan’ (2011:33). In the opening paragraph it is stated that ‘The plan takes gender…into account, proposing a range of measures to advance women’s equality.’ (2011:33). These measures highlight the centrality of women in everything from employment and the economy, to crime and health issues.
Interestingly, at the Fourth Feminist Dialogue of the feminist organisation AGENDA in April 2013, one of the main issues raised was the apparent ‘critical absence of women and gender in the National Development Plan’ (AgendaFM, 2013). The Plan was criticised as being ‘gender blind’ as well as ‘disregarding women’s gendered practical and strategic needs and concerns which…should lead to a redistribution of resources and economic growth’ (AgendaFM, 2013). Furthermore, the critique also argued that ‘the NDP should make provision for HIV-positive women’, and lamented the lack of attention to the ‘costs of genderbased violence’ (AgendaFM, 2013). Finally, the critique states that ‘All the chapters of the NDP have gender deficits’ and that the CGE would ‘engage with the [National] Planning Commission about the gender-blind nature of the NDP.’ (AgendaFM, 2013). The criticism of the absence of women in the NDPis contradictory to what appears in the document. It has already been outlined above where the Plan specifically and explicitly illustrates the centrality of women in the NDP strategy. Also, it was alluded to the Plan’s focus on HIV-positive women as well as the prioritisation of women in employment and the economy. While a case could be made for the lack of detail on women and development in the NDP, to argue that there is a critical absence of women is not accurate. If anything, there is a critical absence of men in the NDP, as no reference or mention is made of men and their relationship to development at all. What the criticisms of AGENDA elucidate is that the feminist view of the Plan would have preferred not only the centrality of women but the complete dominance of women in the Plan. In other words, the NDP was not gynocentric enough.
Notwithstanding the criticisms of the feminists, it is clear that the South African approach to development and gender echoes the ideological imperatives of gender and development throughout the continent. However, what makes South Africa’s position somewhat unique is its ambiguous position as both a developing and developed country. One of the characteristic features of postcolonial and postapartheid South Africa is the tension between modernism and traditionalism. Many of the development challenges faced by the country are linked to this dichotomy. This context makes the issue of gender and development even more complex as it highlights the impact of gynocentric and feminist ideologies on more traditional and conservative ideologies. Consequently, various cultural issues have also been brought into the spotlight. Practices such as ukuthwala (marriage of under-age girls to older men), as well as witchcraft accusations and witch killings (see for example Petrus, 2009), are some fairly recent examples of cultural practices targeted by feminists and human rights watchdogs. Thus, these issues have become central concerns within the context of South Africa’s social and cultural development agenda. However, the dominant gynocentric and feminist perspectives imposed on these issues significantly undermine cultural solutions to the obvious human rights problems that they create. Unfortunately, the feminist and gynocentric imperatives serve to frame these issues as a gender conflict and position men against women and vice versa in these debates. In fact, feminist media and propaganda encourage the demonisation of men, removing all accountability and agency from women and placing the blame entirely on men, despite the complicity of women in practices such as ukuthwala and accusations of witchcraft.
It is this feminist and gynocentric imperative that is primarily responsible for the rise and popularity of a concept such as rape culture. The feminist and gynocentric imperative has become uncritically accepted as the default position due to its influence on development discourses and gender. The discussion below illustrates how and why feminist distortion of the culture concept is problematic, especially when applied to rape and sexual violence. Understanding this problematic is critical in order to understand why a dominant feminist approach to development will not achieve what many feminists claim to be their objective with regards to women and development.
Untangling the concept of rape culture: An anthropological critique
The concept rape culture originated in the US in the 1970s. According to the US-based feminist organisation, Women Against Violence Against Women (WAVAW), the concept was ‘coined by feminists in the US in the 1970s’ and was ‘designed to show the ways in which society blamed victims of sexual assault and normalized male sexual violence.’ (WAVAW n.d.). In addition, WAVAW also quotes a definition of rape culture provided by Buchwald et al. (2005:xi) as follows. They claim that rape culture is
a complex set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm…In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable…However…much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.
Marshall University’s Women’s Centre in West Virginia, also in the US, defines rape culture as follows:
Rape culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety. (Marshall University Women’s Centre, 2017).
In South Africa, the concept of rape culture has also been popularised in the public news media. For example, Mosiana (2017) published an opinion piece in the Daily Maverick in which she argues that ‘Rape culture is a product of systemic and institutionalised patriarchy.’ She further states that ‘Rape culture is part of South African culture’, and that it is ‘a product of gendered socialisation…[and that] it is one of the tenets of heteronormativity and patriarchy.’ (Mosiana, 2017). She then goes on to use a definition of rape culture taken from a publication called Everyday Feminism (reference details not provided), which defines the concept as ‘situations in which sexual assault, rape, and incidents of violence are ignored, trivialised, normalised, or made into jokes. It refers to cultural practices that excuse or tolerate sexual violence by trivialising, or normalising it.’ (Mosiana, 2017).
In both the American and South African interpretations of rape culture alluded to above several issues become clear. First, and most obvious, is that each of these definitions is rooted in a feminist and gynocentric interpretation of rape culture. In each conceptualisation it is clearly indicated that women are the only victims of sexual violence in this rape culture, and that men are the only perpetrators of violence against women. Secondly, each of these definitions views rape culture as a normalisation and tolerance of sexual violence against and objectification of women.
Thirdly, the term culture is used without really indicating what exactly is meant by this term. The claim that ‘Rape culture is part of South African culture’, as made by Mosiana (2017), presupposes that her audience knows what South African culture is and can therefore see how rape culture fits into it. What constitutes South African culture in this context? How can a claim that rape culture is part of South African culture be justified if it is not clear what is meant by South African culture in the first place? The problem with the feminist and gynocentric conceptualisation of culture is that it falls into the same category as in many other instances where the term culture has become so overused and bandied about that it really has lost its actual meaning. Consequently, an anthropological perspective is necessary to shed light on what the concept of culture actually means. The earliest anthropological definition of culture provided by Tylor (1871:1) conceptualised culture as ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.’ Now, so as not to appear sexist, Tylor’s definition could be upgraded by substituting humanity for ‘man’, in an effort to make the definition more inclusive. Since Tylor’s time, anthropologists have built upon and developed the concept to the point where it has become ‘a fundamental concept within the discipline of anthropology’ (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012:212). Now anthropologists such as myself certainly cannot lay exclusive claim to the concept, but given the fact that anthropologists since the nineteenth century have spent much time studying the concept and have applied it to numerous ethnographic contexts, they are in a good position to have something to say about how the concept is used, or misused. Nevertheless, the point is that at its core, culture refers to both tangible and intangible aspects of human societies (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012:215) that aid in their survival and adaptation to a complex physical, social and spiritual environment. Culture is thus the primary mechanism by which humans organise themselves in the best manner possible suited to their specific environments in order to ensure their survival. The critical point to make here is that it is both men and women who each have crucial roles to play in the organisation of culture. In other words, there is a complementary relationship between men and women that ensures the viability and sustainability of the cultural system. There is no culture or society that consists of exclusively males or females. All human cultures have both genders represented, and given how long human cultures in general have been in existence on this planet, the success of human survival is testament to the complementarity of men and women in their respective cultures.
Building further on the above, in order for culture to perform its role it must have several characteristics that are critical within a group context. Culture cannot exist independently of human groups, hence wherever one finds human groups there will be some kind of culture in place. The three characteristics of culture are that it is learned by members of a group (through enculturation or socialisation); it is shared (shared language, shared practices, shared beliefs, shared value system); and, it is dynamic and changes in response to environmental influences (culture is foremost a means of aiding humans to adapt to their environments, whether through material means [ such as technological innovations] or through social means [such as creating new customs, beliefs or behaviours]) (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012:215). The values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviours and various other aspects of culture that are learned and shared must be accepted by the majority of a society in order for those aspects to be considered as part of the culture of that group.
In earlier times when human groups were predominantly hunter-gatherers, and even, to a certain extent, when they became agricultural societies, these groups were mainly homogenous groups made up of people sharing the same worldviews, values, beliefs and practices. However, as human societies became more complex in terms of their political, economic and social developments, different competing ideologies and interest groups began to emerge. Consequently, cultural hegemony was created. Cultural hegemony refers to ‘the ideological control by one dominant group over values, beliefs and norms.’ (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012:218). It is this cultural hegemony that has upset the proverbial apple-cart in so many societies and that has led us as human societies into the kinds of issues that we face in the modern era.
The notion of a rape culture is problematic because if rape and sexual violence are to be viewed as a culture then they would need to subscribe to the above-mentioned characteristics and definition of culture. Are rape and sexual violence practices that are deliberately taught and shared by the majority of people in societies? If these practices have become normalised (and thus cultural, according to feminists), why are they still considered crimes? If culture is primarily the means to ensure human survival and adaptability, and if it is dependent on both men and women to successfully function, then how can practices that go against this imperative of survival and adaptability be viewed as cultural? They would actually be antithetical to culture’s primary objective and jeopardise human survival. I would venture to suggest that those who argue for the existence of a rape culture are actually referring to certain groups within society that follow their own versions of cultural hegemony.
Both patriarchy and feminism are two sides of the same ideological hegemonic coin, and their opposition has created what can only be described as a gender war. Globally, there are various examples of how the ideological conflict between pro-feminist advocates and men’s rights advocates has become a gender war. For example, in April 2017, Al Jazeera’s 101 East reported on the gender war taking place in South Korea, where in the aftermath of the murder of a woman in Gangnam district, a ‘vicious public debate about the country’s entrenched misogyny’ ensued. According to the report, ‘Feminists blamed Korea’s gender inequality and took to the streets which sparked counter protests from men’s rights defenders who felt [that] men were unfairly attacked.’ (101 East, 2017). The report described this phenomenon as the eruption of a ‘vicious gender war’. In the US, in 2014 Fox News contributor Suzanne Venker wrote a piece entitled ‘It’s time to end the gender war’ in which she described this war as follows:
Heterosexual marriages rely on the differences between women and men…But masculine and feminine have become dirty words. The feminist establishment insists that gender isn’t biologically determined. Indeed, the purpose of the [gender] war is to convince women they’re really no different from men. All those…differences…are merely social constructs – the result of centuries of restraints and stereotypes imposed by a male-dominated society.
In fact, women can do anything a man can…Society is holding them back. To remedy this so-called problem, women are encouraged…to be independent at all costs. The idea that a woman needs a man for anything at all…has gone the way of the dinosaur. That’s what has become of gender relations.
That is the gender war.
For those in doubt as to the existence of the gender war, Venker (2014) says the following:
Those who question the reality of this war need only turn to the dominant voices in our culture. “In order to win this debate, we need to prove that men, quote unquote, as we’ve historically come to define them – entitled to power, destined for leadership, arrogant, confused by anything that isn’t them…they are obsolete,” writes Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men [publication details not provided].
And let us not forget the US presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In both the public news and social media, the battle between the two candidates was framed as a gender war with Trump labelled a misogynist because of his publicly aired views about women, while Clinton loudly and proudly played the “woman card”.
A final example. The UK Telegraph’s Martin Daubney called for an end to the gender war in the UK (2016). In his piece, Daubney (2016) labels as ‘ludicrous’ and a ‘misconception’ the view that ‘to be born male is to be born privileged’. He supports his argument by citing the statistically supported fact that ‘Suicide is now the biggest killer of men’ under the age of 50, as well as that ‘British boys are falling further behind in education’ compared to girls. However, despite these facts, Daubney (2016) argues that men’s issues are not taken seriously in the media, and worse, those who try to present these issues are either ridiculed or labelled misogynists.
The above are a few examples of the deliberately engineered gender war that purposely sets up feminist and anti-feminist ideologies against each other. Who may be behind this type of social engineering is beyond the scope of this discussion. The point of raising this is to illustrate that the feminist and gynocentric ideological position that permeates everything from development discourses to the notion of rape culture serves a singular purpose: to dominate society and to impose its ideological position on all.
#MenAreTrash: Consequences of rape culture rhetoric for development and women in South Africa
The gender war has also reached South African shores, a fact that has arguably become most noticeable in May 2017. Since May 2017, the South African public media platforms were flooded with the #MenAreTrash and similar slogans following the brutal murders of several women. The murders sparked the predictable and justifiable outcry from the public for increased protection of women from those who enact violence against them. However, the #MenAreTrash slogan saw a cascade of feminist anti-male rhetoric that saturated the public media platforms. For example, Marshall (2017) argued in an opinion piece her reasons for ‘Why we are saying men are trash’, and unequivocally lays the blame squarely on the shoulders of men. Her use of phrases such as ‘South African women [sic] are under attack and they are afraid.’, as well as ‘Will we ever get to the point where schooling aimed at men is as vigorous as the defence of them?’ (Marshall, 2017) are clear indications that the gender war rages in South Africa. Furthermore, as in the case of South Korea mentioned earlier, the blanket statement that categorises all men as ‘trash’ predictably provoked almost immediately a defensive reaction under the hashtags #Women Are Trash (Marshall, 2017) and #NotAllMenAreTrash (Nemakonde, 2017).
In addition to social media proclaiming that South Africa has a rape culture, and that all men are to blame for it, university students across the country also participated in protests against this rape culture. For example, Haffejee (2017) reported on students from several universities in Gauteng that embarked on protests ‘against rape culture’. A picture in the report on NEWS24 (25 May 2017) shows a female student holding up a placard that reads: STOP THE WAR ON WOMXN, again illustrating the feminist gender war rhetoric. In addition, one student, a representative of the South African Students Congress (SASCO) stated that ‘Rape culture and gender-based violence have become normalised. We are not shocked when we hear about it in the media.’ (Haffejee, 2017).
In the final example, Ebrahim (2017) reported on the #ThisIsMyVagina campaign started by the national spokesperson of the Economic Freedom Fighters Student Command (EFFSC). The spokesperson made it clear that the hashtag was about ‘practising black radical feminism’ and was deliberate in its exclusion of males. She also highlighted the normalisation of rape culture (Ebrahim, 2017).
The above examples are a few of the recent illustrations of the gender war in South Africa, as well as the role(s) of the feminist-dominated narrative of rape culture. It has already also been pointed out what the dynamics are in the relationship between gender and development in South Africa. The critical question that emerges in this context is: how viable or successful can development be if it is to be discussed and implemented within the context of a gender war that is currently going on? Also, to what extent does this context really benefit the people of the country, and women in particular? It cannot be argued that violence against women in all forms is unacceptable, and that it is a problem in South Africa, as it is elsewhere. However, the hegemonic position that feminism seems to have taken in controlling the narratives, debates and discourses pertaining to gender and development threatens rather than helps the cause for improving the position of women.
It has already been pointed out earlier in the discussion that a society requires both men and women to co-operate in a complementary manner in order to ensure the successful survival of the society. For development to occur successfully in South Africa it will require both men and women to co-operate and function in a complementary manner. The rape culture rhetoric not only provides a false meaning of culture (as argued above) but it also exacerbates the confrontational rather than co-operational positions of men and women. The gender war is not a manifestation of clearcut ideological positions, as both the masculine and feminine positions have merits and criticisms that could be identified for each. The point however is that when either position seeks to attain dominance and to become the dominant ideology that controls the prevailing narrative and discourse, the consequences for society at large will be the exact opposite of what is expected. Currently, and as the abovementioned examples have illustrated, there is a definite drive by feminism to attain a dominant hegemonic position in contemporary South African gender discourses, specifically as these relate to development. The use of rhetoric such as rape culture is an example of this, and serves to shame and demonise all men as rapists and abusers, regardless of the fact that it is not actually a culture accepted (or practised) by the majority of men at all. This type of extremism in South Africa may lead to a similar movement such as what has occurred in Western countries. In Australia, for example, the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement has created a situation where many men have decided to cut themselves off from women altogether, as a direct consequence of the negative impact of feminism and gynocentrism (Barraclough, 2017). The movement is described as ‘an offshoot of the men’s rights movement’ (Barraclough, 2017) but unlike the men’s rights movement that is still willing to engage with women, MGTOW have made the conscious decision to avoid women entirely, especially in terms of marriage and having children with them. It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into the likely impact of such a movement on a society, especially if more and more men decide to go this route. The point is that the same social conditions created by radical feminism and gynocentrism have now manifested in the South African context as well. Hence, it may not be far-fetched to predict that a movement such as MGTOW may well emerge if the general demonisation and denigration of men continues with the blessing of mainstream society.
Conclusion
I reiterate that I am against abuse, rape or any kind of violence against anyone, be it man, woman or child. The purpose of this article was not to defend the indefensible but rather to point out the problem of a feminist and gynocentric narrative that controls discourses on gender and development. This critique centred on the feminist notion of rape culture and has attempted to show the fallacy of (mis)using the culture concept to enforce a feminist and gynocentric interpretation of sexual violence that generally shames and demonises all men. A confrontational dynamic between men and women, set up by those who would use this as a means to socially engineer a particular type of society, will have no benefits in the long term for either men or women. So although the current discourse seeks to suggest that feminist and gynocentric control of development and society would be beneficial for women, examples from other countries have shown the opposite to be the case. Development is already a serious challenge in South Africa, and the engineered gender war is not doing it any favours. I do not think it is possible, however, to escape this since South Africa has simply unavoidably acquired a Western hegemonic dichotomy that has spread to various parts of the world. The gender war is a global phenomenon now, and as such may likely have global consequences. The question that both men and women need to ask themselves is this: in the end, will all of this matter when we find that we have been the instruments of our own demise? When the necessary co-operation and complementarity needed for our societies to adapt and survive are no longer there, who will carry the blame then?