All PIV Sex rape?

Some radical feminists have made the claim that all forms of PIV (Penis In Vagina) Sex constitute a form of rape in patriarchal societies. To most people this claim would appear utterly ludicrous, no one denies that rape happens but to say that all PIV Sex is rape is somewhat of an overstatement. Most dismiss the argument out of hand, but I believe such an approach is fundamentally mistaken. There seems to be a surprising number of people who accept this rather dubious argument and therefore I want to examine where the argument(s) go wrong. 

PIV Can't be Autonomous As I have seen it, one version of the argument run something like the following:  

• 1) In patriarchal societies gender power imbalances exist. 
• 2) Such power imbalances undermine women's autonomy/agency. 
• 3) Women therefore lack total autonomy/agency and cannot give proper adequate consent to PIV Sex. 
• C) All PIV Sex is rape 

In order for the argument to run at all we have to accept the first rather uncontroversial premise. The second premise seems to follow from the first premise as well, imbalances in power do tend to undermine autonomy/agency to some extent. Though I would stress that the existence of imbalances of power can undermine autonomy, they do not preclude individuals acting autonomously. Medical ethics is fall of cases where physicians are in a position of power, but this does not necessarily prevent a patient from acting autonomously.  

It therefore seems, that the problem with the argument lies with the third premise. However, it appears that feminists that advance this particular argument adopt a extremely stringent account of autonomy. According to such an account, an action can only be autonomous if it is totally autonomous. However it is rare to find any actions which can be considered totally autonomous, for instance there are a number of different factors that can inhibit our autonomy. 

• Incomplete or incorrect information. 
• Power imbalances. 
• Lack of other desirable choices. 
• Irrational beliefs. 
• Genetic makeup/Background. 

Everything in the above list can inhibit autonomy in a number of different spheres of life. The above factors for instance can limit your autonomy when deciding what job to take or when attempting to give up certain types of negative behavior. But we would be wrong to say that they totally undermine the possibility for autonomous action. A combination of the above factors may preclude autonomous actions in certain situations, but not in all situations. Therefore it can be seen that the conclusion that all PIV Sex is rape does not follow from the third premise of the argument as I have presented it.  

PIV Damages Women's Health (The Consequential Argument) 
It has come to my attention that radical feminists aren't only advancing anti-PIV arguments on the basis that PIV Sex can't not be properly autonomous but they are also running consequentialist arguments against PIV Sex. 

• 1) People can't properly consent to things that harm them. (Embracing a Kantian conception of autonomy) 
• 2) PIV Sex undoubtedly negatively effects women. 
• C) All PIV Sex is rape/cannot be properly consensual.  

This version of the argument clearly embraces a questionable notion of autonomy. Namely, that an autonomous action can only be autonomous if such an action is rational (promotes their welfare). Proper respect for autonomy requires we respect people decisions even if those decisions do not promote their welfare. I personally believe that the Kantian notion of autonomy introduces an unacceptable amount of paternalism into ethics. 

Radical or Gender Feminism as an evidence based philosophy

Recently, bloggers have claimed that radical or alternatively gender feminism is an empirically based philosophy. However, I want to object to this position but this is not to say that certain types of feminism cannot be justified rationally. 

Firstly, I want to make a differentiation between equity feminism and gender feminism.  

• Equity feminism, is a moral doctrine regarding the equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding empirical issues in psychology or biology. It is a normative ethical theory which states how things ought to be and can be rationally argued for in a number of ways. 
• Gender feminism, 'is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive — power — and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups — in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.' (Pinker ) 

I have adopted the definition of gender feminism as used by Pinker in his book 'The Blank State'. While I acknowledge some forms of gender feminism, do not make all three of the claims outlined by Pinker, all forms make some version of at least one of the claims.  

Equity feminism is primarily not an empirical claim it is a moral claim regarding the status of women. While it can make use of certain empirical evidence to establish that women and men deserve equal treatment in regards to being similar in relevant respects. For instance you might choose to argue that both men and women are autonomous rational beings and therefore deserve equal respect. Such a claim might make reference to certain features shared by both men and women in establishing equal treatment, but it is not generally held that such claims are contingent on the empirical evidence. If we were to find out that women were superior in certain respects this wouldn't establish that women therefore deserved preferential treatment, or vice-versa. It is in this respect that equity feminism isn't an evidence based position. 

Now gender feminism is a doctrine that makes certain empirical claims. Though many gender feminists are very hostile much of the empirical evidence offered up by the fields of neuroscience, genetics and evolutionary psychology. This is probably due to the fact that much of this research undermines the power of the gender feminists argument(s). While some of the work done in evolutionary psychology is spurious, there is still some valid and highly interesting scientific work being undertaken in the field. By accepting this spurious empirical hypotheses, I agree with Pinker when he says that 

In embracing these doctrines, the genderists are handcuffing feminism to railroad tracks on which a train is bearing down. As we shall see, neuroscience, genetics, psychology, and ethnography are documenting sex differences that almost certainly originate in human biology. And evolutionary psychology is documenting a web of motives other than group-against-group dominance (such as love, sex, family, and beauty) that entangle us in many conflicts and confluences of interest with members of the same sex and of the opposite sex. {342} Gender feminists want either to derail the train or to have other women join them in martyrdom, but the other women are not cooperating. Despite their visibility, gender feminists do not speak for all feminists, let alone for all women.(Pinker 341-342, The Blank State) 

If feminists want to garner support from society and womanhood in general. I believe that feminists activists need to stick firmly to the equity pathway, adopting forms of radical or gender feminism is only going to undermine the success of the movement. Our current empirical knowledge regarding mankind is totally consistent with the equity feminist cause and there are many good reasons to support equity feminism.