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.

DR M NADARAJAH teaches sociology and organisation theory at Stamford College and is involved in activities related to sustainable development and urbanisation.