What role does the state play in perpetuating or preventing sexual violence?

Why have I chosen to write about this? According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network), only 2.5% of sexual assault cases lead to the imprisonment of the assaulter. Roughly 58% of women and 31% of men experience sexual harassment after entering higher education; no university is an exception to that. Besides gender division, aspects like sexual orientation and race can increase the risk of being sexually harassed exponentially. For example, according to research by the department of Gender Studies at Science Po, 0,9% of straight men report being raped at the university, whereas for queer men thats roughly 10%. Besides the undeniable relevance of the issue, it may be a topic that is uncomfortable to discuss for some, even when others have to live through this daily. 

Historically, sexual violence has often been perceived as an isolated, personal crime. However, feminist movements like #MeToo have reframed it as a systemic issue deeply rooted in social and political power dynamics. The heightened visibility of #MeToo during Donald Trump’s presidency revealed how political actors and state institutions can either empower or silence victims, highlighting the inherently political nature of sexual violence. 

Understanding the state’s role in perpetuating or preventing sexual violence is crucial for developing effective legal reforms and social justice strategies. During my studies at SU (my side quest is getting a political science degree there in case my artistic side won’t pay off), I have had quite a few discussions on the topic and read thought-provoking publications and theories by Michel Foucault, Susan Moller Okin, and Catharine MacKinnon. Using that research I conclude that sexual violence reinforces patriarchal dominance, sustains social hierarchies, and illustrates the state's power in regulating bodies; only my girlfriend can regulate my body by cooking me healthy meals.

Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and biopolitics helps illuminate how states regulate sexuality through surveillance, discipline, and/or religion and normative practices. According to Foucault, disciplinary power operates by imposing social norms that define acceptable sexual behaviour, influencing societal perceptions of sexuality and violence. State institutions, through legal frameworks and public policies, either reinforce or challenge patriarchal norms. Historically, laws have often protected male interests and honour, rather than women’s bodily autonomy. And before you get the thought “But men are suffering from it too!” and stop reading, 99% of perpetrators are men, while 91% of victims are women worldwide according to WHO and RAINN. Back to the topic - marital rape remained unrecognized as a crime in every U.S. state until 1993, demonstrating how legal standards institutionalize gender inequality. 30 years ago in the US, it was okay, legally speaking, to sexually assault your partner, which, with the more recent political environment, has a chance of “making a comeback” in the future. 

Sweden provides another example, where until the 1980s, rape laws required proof of physical resistance, effectively shifting blame onto victims and normalizing sexual violence. Yeah, right, why was the victim not fighting back double my size? And what was she wearing? As if the problem is not in him being violent, but in her not using violence in response. Foucault’s theories explain how such laws and cultural narratives perpetuate gendered power dynamics, further embedding sexual violence as a societal norm.

Susan Moller Okin’s feminist critique of liberal democracies highlights structural limitations within gender-neutral legal frameworks. Okin argues that liberal states often fail to address embedded patriarchal structures, allowing gender inequalities to persist. Liberal democracies, according to Okin, inadequately regulate the private sphere, leaving spaces where sexual violence commonly occurs unchallenged. This public-private divide perpetuates patriarchal power by silencing victims and enabling systemic abuse. Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) illustrate this issue in the United States by protecting powerful perpetrators under the guise of privacy. Sweden has similarly struggled with accountability, evidenced by scandals within institutions like the Swedish Academy, demonstrating how liberal frameworks implicitly sanction gendered violence.

Catharine MacKinnon’s radical feminist analysis contends that sexual violence is inherently political, reflecting broader patriarchal power structures. MacKinnon argues that laws related to rape and sexual harassment frequently reflect male entitlement (which also makes one think of the incel culture, where men feel entitled to women and their bodies, being on the rise), positioning the state as complicit in perpetuating gender oppression. Historically, U.S. rape laws required victims to prove resistance, mirroring societal expectations of female behavior and reinforcing male dominance. In Sweden, cultural narratives of victim-blaming further align with MacKinnon’s argument, demonstrating that states are active agents in maintaining patriarchal control. If you think that in Sweden, a “What were you wearing?” statement is a shadow of the past, you’re misinformed - I was asked that question by both male and female investigators as if that changes the rapist's guilt.

However, states can also be powerful agents in preventing sexual violence through transformative reforms. Foucault’s theory suggests that altering discourses and practices can challenge patriarchal norms. Sweden’s 2018 consent-based legislation criminalised sex without explicit consent, shifting accountability from victims to perpetrators and redefining societal norms around sexual autonomy. Similarly, in the United States, Title IX mandates educational institutions to combat sexual violence, holding them accountable for institutional complicity and promoting cultural change through legal interventions. Whether those legislations work is a whole separate discussion.

MacKinnon underscores the necessity of legal frameworks reflecting women's lived experiences. Sweden’s consent legislation aligns with MacKinnon’s vision by prioritising victim experiences and autonomy. Meanwhile, feminist legal activism in the U.S. challenges NDAs, demonstrating the potential for legal reform to dismantle patriarchal structures.

Comparative analyses of the United States and Sweden illustrate how states simultaneously perpetuate and prevent sexual violence through their laws, policies, and cultural narratives. In the U.S., NDAs perpetuate sexual violence by shielding perpetrators, whereas Title IX represents proactive state intervention. Sweden’s progressive consent laws and educational campaigns illustrate proactive prevention. Yet, persistent patriarchal narratives within cultural institutions, as seen in Sweden’s high-profile scandals, indicate ongoing challenges.

The combined insights from Foucault, Okin, and MacKinnon offer a comprehensive understanding of sexual violence’s political dimensions, emphasising the state’s dual role as both perpetrator and potential preventer. Their theories highlight the importance of critically examining state power and advocating for feminist legal reforms that dismantle entrenched patriarchal norms.

The state significantly influences sexual violence through its legislative frameworks, institutional practices, and cultural narratives. Understanding that the root of sexual violence lies in the state structures that allow it to happen, provides a vital framework for the necessary social change. Achieving genuine gender equality necessitates reimagining state power as a force for gender justice, challenging patriarchal norms, and promoting comprehensive legal reforms alongside cultural education.