Former journalist Ma Jinyu made headlines after her marriage to a beekeeper in Qinghai and her business venture in a Tibetan area of that province. She posted an expose of the domestic violence she suffered in her marriage online, and was subjected to widespread questioning. Why did she keep quiet for so many years? Why did she try to sweep it under the rug? Wasn't she doing her part to uphold the myths of romantic love, encouraging young people to take risks for love? Did she capitalize on her then-husband’s Tibetan identity? Was she hoping that the huge amount of media attention would help her pay off the massive debts linked to her business? After all, if the conclusion of the investigation into her case by the Qinghai police is to be believed, there may not have been any domestic violence at all. Even if we assume that what she said is true, it was her "mistakes" that were blamed for the situation. She had married in haste for a romantic, idealistic love, ignoring huge differences in cultural background and social status. And by the time she left her husband, she already had three kids. Such questions and accusations seemed endless, and came from all over, from patriotic social media influencers, to random ordinary and attention-grabbing folks, to male chauvinists who regarded anti-feminism as their career, as well as those avid feminists who consistently in the state of anger and vigilance. The amount of vitriol heaped on a single allegation of domestic violence was phenomenal. Online abuse perpetrated on such a scale leaves victims in a weak position, struggling to defend themselves against their critics, with fresh attacks raining down on them all the time, and even supposedly neutral parties getting dragged in, including the government. I was pretty sure that Ma Jinyu, with her connections to the Southern media group, many of whom used their clout to protect her in public and in private, would weather the storm. Nonetheless, Ma Jinyu’s abuse triggered a traumatic response in me. I couldn't bear the blatant cruelty shown by the general public to a victim of domestic violence. I knew she was telling the truth, because I have many years of experience working with the victims of domestic violence. The posts heaping abuse on Ma Jinyu focused on her imperfections. Her mistakes. Perhaps she was a less-than-perfect victim, but she was no less a victim for all that. In April 2019, some people started a hashtag #nottheperfectvictim on Sina Weibo to clap back against the public abuse of the victims of sexual violence. Thousands of women posted out of the darkness that had enveloped them and their stories for too long. Many of them began with the words "This is the first time I have told anyone about this..." I read thousands of their stories, yet there were many more I didn't get around to reading. I felt a responsibility to read the stories of these women, who were speaking out for the first time. I feel an infinite sense of gratitude for the education they gave me, and what they did to raise awareness. Collectively, they are a testament to the cruelties in women's daily lives. This violence is not accidental. It is everywhere, showing itself in abusive families, bus journeys, job interviews, dates. It is part of the experience of countless women; it also shapes their expectations for their future, ones that cannot be without shame and fear. In such an atmosphere of ubiquitous violence, pointing out the flaws in victims is just more of the same, isn't it? Not according to many, including a few feminists, apparently. In December 2019, Kim Lee, an American who sued her Chinese husband, billionaire and "Crazy English" founder Li Yang, for domestic violence, was targeted online after she said in a Sina Weibo post that she still loved and forgave him. "I have never accepted any excuses for violence, and I will never tolerate it again," Lee wrote on a day marking the Convention on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Her words angered and disappointed many feminists. It made no difference that she also said that forgiveness shouldn't be expected of victims, and that perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse should face legal and social consequences for their actions. They saw Lee's about-face as a betrayal of those who had shown her support at the time, one that would have a harmful impact on domestic violence victims and those who campaigned against it. One of Kim's online attackers claimed to have a zero tolerance for domestic violence. And yet this person was perpetrating online violence against a domestic violence victim. This felt to me like more than a misunderstanding of the issue: it was the cruel treatment of Lee that hijacked her experience. Lee, a true individualist, declined to play the role laid down for her, though she did apologize for hurting people's feelings. So what of the imperfect victim? There have been other examples, apart from Lee and Ma. I really feel for them. Whether they choose to stand up or hide from the public eye for whatever reason, victims are finding themselves in an extremely unsafe environment; one in which they are hyper visible and blamed at every turn. The higher their profile, the higher the risks they face. It seems that both feminists and anti-feminists have contributed to this phenomenon, albeit from different angles. Their attacks, not least because anti-feminists appropriate feminist vocabulary, sometimes appear to be coming from the same place, particularly when victims are already under enormous pressure. This is a phenomenon that feminists really need to think about. Communities whose mission should be to defend women’s rights sometimes fail to protect women who speak up or ask for help. They sometimes even mobilize powerful attacks against these people. Firstly, we need to look at the anti-feminist backlash to the feminist movement, at how feminism was born out of a siege mentality, in the face of threats and persecution. Only then should we consider how the poison of misogyny still permeates the movement, creating hostility and narrow-mindedness towards victims. I am not arguing that those who engage in victim blaming should get a free pass just because they identify as feminists. I just think greater awareness is the key. Our movement can't exist outside of the structural sexism and misogyny that force their poison upon us all. It's a part of us, and we have to wrestle with it. I also want to talk about the organized rise of the anti-feminist backlash. The anti-feminist movement has its roots in the failure of two early responses by our patriarchal society -ignoring and silencing - a society that failed to curb the growth of the feminist movement or extinguish its voice. Individual misogynists have always existed. However, their ranks are growing stronger due to the increased intensity and frequency of conflicts with women. At the bottom of this group is a large number of young men who lack social capital beyond their male privilege and whatever social status they were born with. In private, they are hugely frustrated by women's demands in potential marriage negotiations. In public, they face increasing competition from women in education, as well as for jobs. They blame these changes on feminism. They have energy to invest in the war of words being waged against feminism because they remain excluded from the core of patriarchal power. At the top are those whose success depends on the patriarchal system, who believe that women deserve to be exploited and consumed by those who hold power. These men are sexual harassers in the work place and abusers in the home. There are the celebrity tycoons who grandstand to their fans. There are internet service provider companies who run public opinion management operations as part of their business model, adept at picking hot topics that toe the line between political censorship and clickbait. All of these people have one strange thing in common: they are united in their belief in iron-fisted patriotism. Patriotism is most definitely the last refuge for these scoundrels, whose thirst for violent power and totalitarian rule is only equaled by their hatred for feminists. They argue that it is China's national interest to force women to have children. They denounce women's rights organizations as being controlled by "hostile foreign forces." Their male power and privilege have shown us time and again how patriarchal power is a willing slave to totalitarian rule. This isn't so much by design, as a byproduct of a state designed to co-opt women as submissive victims into its notion of a harmonious society, and to outlaw feminist dissent as a sign of political instability. The social media tsar for the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP)'s Youth League once wrote on social media: "True feminism (not the Chinese kind) says yes, I can. I'll take responsibility, fight for my rights, and for self-realization." Meanwhile, a police account in Sichuan's Mianyang city wrote that feminism "stirs up trouble, disrupts social order, and obstructs the implementation of policy. It is of strategic benefit to the hostile forces that are behind it." So, the ways in which public opinion enforcers seek to discipline women for speaking out and crack down on feminism vary. To speak of an organized anti-feminist movement certainly doesn't imply the existence of a specific organization with a unified command structure and clear division of labor. Nonetheless, there is an official consensus of hostility towards feminism, a set of shared derogatory discourses, and associations with nationalistic ideologies. The celebrity tycoons make off the cuff discriminatory remarks, though they never take part in any online discussion. The low-status men band together and bombard women with violent language online. The internet service providers control key network nodes; they sniff out controversy and release dodgy content, stigmatize discourse, set discussion agendas, and ensure an anti-feminist direction. The middle echelon of the anti-feminist movement is where we see some of the closest collaboration. The comradely support for Bao Yuming, who was accused [and later acquitted] of sexually assaulting his adopted teenage daughter, is an example of this. Communication between the various group levels mainly relies on dog-whistle signaling and mobilization. A case in point is the derogatory term "female boxers" used against feminist groups. Anyone using it online can rely on support from their anti-feminist comrades. I don't want to go into details of how these people have repeatedly managed to undermine feminist initiatives, nor their repeated bullying of influential and organized women's rights activists. The more important point is that they have enough power to create a hostile environment for feminism, nurtured in the most despicable and toxic manner possible, by inciting the hatred that is a part of human nature and making feminists feel that they are constantly under surveillance, being probed for evidence, and could be harassed, threatened or doxxed at any time. They are able to achieve this through sheer numbers. In a patriarchal society, there is always more room for potential misogyny than for feminism. Another important factor is the hollowing out of public debate. This includes the long defeat of professional journalism and public intellectuals by a rigorous and extensive program of online censorship since 2013 and a clickbait culture that was deformed, distorted, and supported by government censorship . Public disputes and controversy are used as a form of seeking attention , hence the deployment of rabid anti-feminist comments as already mentioned. The internet service providers draw the lines of battle, both in terms of news and opinion, as long as red lines aren't crossed that trigger criminal charges like "picking quarrels and stirring up trouble." Anti-feminists rarely have to worry about being subjected to balancing a debate or called out on their statements. So, maybe the feminists started this culture war. Why deny it? Women's rights activists in China have been deploying collective tactics to target prominent misogynists for a long time now. This was how the movement was forged. The goal of this kind of feminist online action is not to educate people, but to confront and suppress them. Reasoned debate doesn't come into it. This is because reasoned debate is ineffectual. Once you start using confrontation and suppression, you are looking to exert power through numbers. You don't need to worry about refining your language. For example, the withdrawal from online activities of the Go player Ke Jie [after sexist remarks online] was a satisfying outcome for the women's rights movement. But Ke Jie withdrew not from feminists' arguments, but their sheer numbers. His thin skin and concern for his public image did the rest. By contrast, thicker-skinned misogynists with fewer scruples can call on a wide array of systemic resources and behave as they will online. It's harder for feminists to use mob tactics to deal with them. Eventually, they are overwhelmed by the sheer violence they face as the war of words escalates. In 2014, I praised the coinage of "straight guy cancer," saying that it finally gave feminists a nuclear option after suffering so much verbal violence. Now, I don't see it as any kind of solution, but rather the inevitable outcome of constant escalation between the two camps. The violent language exchanged by misogynists and feminists today has only gotten worse. Naturally, I am not seeking to draw a moral equivalence between the two sides. Considering the sexist double standards and platform censorship, feminists have assembled an impressive array of evidence to support their cause on sites like Zhihu. The violence of feminists’ language reflects their frustration at the lack of social change and the indignity of persecution. As such, it can be seen as an appropriately energetic form of resistance. Yet feminists are being drawn into this inevitable escalation of verbal abuse towards outright gender war. A new generation of youth-driven women's rights movements could emerge out of a sense of impatience with decisions made by current activists. These younger activists are joining the feminist movement with none of the resources, skills or patience of their predecessors. And, more importantly, with no hope of meaningful social change on the horizon. Theirs is an unfortunate awakening, coming as it does at a time when the forces marshaled against them are so formidable. Feminists' only weapon used to be their bodies. So those at the vanguard in 2012-2015 staged street protests, shaved their heads, and posted nude photos. Nowadays, physical, offline forms of disruption are banned, and any online disruption gets deleted. Feminists live in fear, like everyone else. More so when they realize how unwelcome their values are by their own government. In the midst of all that scrutiny and all those algorithms, words are the only thing that can be uploaded and shared. And they can still start a wild fire. Our bodies may be frozen, unable to imagine or pursue a course of action. But words are an increasingly radical form of resistance in today's gender war. Some see them as the most powerful weapons of all-maybe even the only weapons. It's not wrong. It's just the strange situation we find ourselves in. And why should feminists alone be asked to desist in a society where violent language is justified by the state, where the worship of power ensures the law of the jungle? The debate that arose at the end of 2020 from stand-up comedian Yang Li's jokes targeting men could be historically significant. First, regardless of whether Yang herself identifies as a feminist, it shows us that feminist ideas have become mainstream. It also shows their potential to spark controversy and to polarize society. Evidence of social division is everywhere. People now make judgments and form opinions based on identity labels alone, and make collective decisions based on prejudice. There is no more communication, and no attempt to find common ground. The gender war is only part of a larger picture. The two sides like to argue about who started the gender war. As I have said, it was the feminists. But it seemed a justified response to thousands of years of oppression. And while the issues were caused by the patriarchy, we are now in a stalemate, which is detrimental to the people asking for change. When feminism that was once richly informed by critical thinking is reduced to a set of infinitely repeated, self-reinforcing offensive patterns, it loses not just its intellectual and aesthetic appeal, but also its ethical appeal. Feminism can always justify itself with the sins of the patriarchy, but doing so allows the patriarchy to define the framework and the terms of the debate. It means that feminism can only function as a sort of anti-patriarchy. To me, this explains how it is that feminists have been attacking their own kind. It explains how those imperfect victims of domestic violence -the ones who don't get divorced quickly enough, who don't report abuse to the police, who live a traditional lifestyle, who marry, have kids, and give them their father's last name - are being stigmatized. Some people claim that they are not attacking the women themselves, but their support for, and obedience to, the patriarchy. This self-defeating dishonesty only tells us one thing: they can't face up to the fact that they are attacking their own, because this is in conflict with feminist principles. Once feminists start using the language of violence, it becomes harder to control how it gets used. The disconnect between external behavior and inner justification gets harder to reconcile, and people become unwilling to think about that. In the war against the patriarchy, feminism doesn't have many advantages in the long run. But a war waged against those imperfect women who have already succumbed can still feel like some kind of victory. Even a celebrity like Shanghai influencer PAPI Sauce is a bit of an outlier, in that she lacks the protection of the patriarchy. By making her out to be more influential than she is, they can justify deleting her posts, shutting down her accounts, or just having internet trolls attack her. So why are women turning on each other? Maybe they are getting desperate. Maybe they realize how hard it is to dislodge the power of the patriarchy, and they are looking for easier targets. But even if women cut all ties with men, that wouldn't end the patriarchy, would it? Even if women always called the police immediately, always file for a quick divorce, chose never to marry or have kids, or cut themselves off from the in-laws, would it really an end violence and exploitation? The patriarchy isn't a pill that we can refuse to swallow, but rather a structure that sucks all of us in. Violence isn't a tumor on an otherwise healthy body, but a normalized structure that permeates every aspect of the lives of women and men. There is no point in blaming the victims of male violence. It's just a displacement activity of the kind that has always been encouraged by those in positions of male power. The fact that some feminists are turning on their own kind reveals the depths of their despair and restlessness, and that's putting it gently. A harsher analysis would conclude that identifying as a feminist doesn't make a person's shortcomings disappear. It can even have the opposite effect, if the flexible vocabulary is used only to criticize others, while simultaneously justifying one's own choices. It is a fact that women in a patriarchal society often suffer from its sickness and are in danger of being poisoned by it. Feminists often don't talk about that, perhaps for fear of offering misogynists an easy target, or perhaps out of a naive belief that the movement only attracts good and beautiful souls. Far from it. Feminist movements contain multitudes, from performative types in it for selfish gain to those who like to promote social justice while remaining addicted to their own privilege. Some are seeking meaning in their lives through the manipulation of others, while others are looking to make up for something they feel is missing in themselves. Feminist ideas aren't the problem; but our theories don't give us a way to guarantee the character of all those who jump on our bandwagon. Anyone who holds such expectations, or is disappointed by the reality, has succumbed to weak-minded sentimentalism. This cruel entanglement causes me a kind of pain I have never felt before. Once upon a time, I thought that I was working for a just cause. I was sure that people would support it, once they had been sufficiently educated. Now, I realize just how much power a totalitarian government can wield when it comes to manipulating and changing public opinion. I am panicked and unsettled, like a dog that can't find its way home. Once upon a time, I trusted those who called themselves feminists, unless they gave me reason to stop trusting them. That system no longer works for me. I had wanted to argue against the victim blaming of Ma Jinyu. But it has become harder and harder to have a conversation about that. My fear is always that the escalation of words in the gender war will end in disaster. Despite all of this pain, there are still many who are fighting for social justice, even in today’s political environment, where they are forced to remain anonymous. I believe that the beating heart of our movement still lies with them.
