Silhouette du soir d'un policier éclairant l'endroit où le corps de Kimberly Rae Harbour reposait après qu'elle ait été brutalement violée et assassinée lors d'une attaque sauvage par une bande de garçons adolescents sur un terrain de jeu près des projets de logements de Franklin Field. (Photo par Steve Liss/Getty Images)

C’était juste avant 2h30 du matin, un mardi matin frais, lorsque Tyrell Holmes a été incendié. Peu de personnes étaient éveillées pour entendre ses cris. Au moment où la police est arrivée, Holmes était tombé mort, son corps fumant à côté d’un conteneur à déchets.
L’autopsie a déterminé qu’il avait été poignardé plusieurs fois, puis recouvert d’essence et brûlé vif. Holmes avait 18 ans. La veille, dans un message posté sur Snapchat, il avait averti ses amis et sa famille que sa vie était en danger.
« Alkhion Dunkins, Yzire Jenkins-Row et Zahmire Welcome », a-t-il écrit. « Si quelque chose m’arrive, sachez que ce sont ces trois-là. »
***
Une cinquantaine d’années plus tôt, l’écrivaine Joan Didion s’était rendue à San Francisco pour rendre compte de l’« hémorragie sociale » de l’Amérique des années soixante. Elle voulait témoigner de la décadence d’une nation et révéler son impact sur une jeunesse désorientée. Ces enfants, écrivait-elle, « dérivaient d’une ville à une ville déchirée, se débarrassant à la fois du passé et de l’avenir comme des serpents muent leur peau » ; ces enfants « n’avaient jamais été enseignés et n’apprendraient jamais maintenant les jeux qui avaient tenu la société ensemble ».
Dans les rues de San Francisco, elle a trouvé une génération engourdie par les narcotiques et l’incohérence idéologique : une jeunesse qui n’était plus en révolte — mais dans un état de torpeur. « Ce n’était pas un pays en révolution ouverte », écrivait-elle dans son essai, Slouching Towards Bethlehem. « Ce n’était pas un pays assiégé par un ennemi. C’était les États-Unis d’Amérique. »
C’était en 1967. Mais qu’en est-il d’aujourd’hui ? Si San Francisco incarnait autrefois un pays s’effondrant sous le poids de ses contradictions, où est notre Bethléem ?
Alors que le rideau tombe sur une campagne électorale définie par sa propre incohérence idéologique, il n’y a plus un seul lieu pour les mécontents de la nation. Depuis au moins une décennie, il y a eu de nombreux Bethléems ici : Philadelphie, Oakland, Seattle, San Francisco. Et plus récemment, cette « hémorragie » s’est répandue dans des coins inattendus du pays.
Aujourd’hui, un endroit plus que tout autre incarne cette anomie. Une ville de la ceinture rouillée qui sert de miroir à la nation. Une ville dans l’État de bataille le plus important d’Amérique ; dans un comté qui a prédit le vainqueur de chaque élection américaine depuis 1912, à l’exception de trois. Une ville qui s’appelle Bethléem.

Ici, en surface du moins, le centre semble tenir. Bethléem est solidement ancrée dans la portion de la vallée appalachienne du Grand Pennsylvanie, et traversée par la douce rivière Lehigh. Elle déborde de charme universitaire. Tim Walz a tenu un rassemblement dans l’un des lycées de la ville en septembre et a été moqué pour avoir admis « nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre quatre années de plus de cela ». Mais à Bethléem, la gaffe est passée presque inaperçue.
Plus tôt cette année, elle a été classée au patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco, et il semble que la ville célèbre encore. Sur la rue principale de Bethléem, des feuilles cramoisies tombent sur le pavé, où elles se transforment en or. Il y a un chœur de belles églises, une crèmerie, deux brasseries — l’une vendant de la bière ; l’autre de l’huile d’olive biologique — et un magasin vendant des drapeaux palestiniens.
À une extrémité, presque hors de vue, l’équipe de campagne de Donald Trump a installé un bureau. « Le bâtiment appartient à un démocrate », me dit le vendeur de drapeaux, avant de hausser les épaules. « Je suppose que l’argent parle. » À la périphérie de la ville, les panneaux de jardin de Trump et Harris s’affrontent, tandis que des panneaux publicitaires démocrates flanquent ses routes d’entrée.
Fidèle à son nom, Bethléem a toujours été attirée par la Terre Sainte. Depuis 1741, lorsque des voyageurs moraves dévots ont fondé le peuplement le 24 décembre, Noël a été central à l’identité de la ville. En six ans, elle a vanté le premier arbre de Noël décoré d’Amérique. De nos jours, elle est connue sous le nom de « Ville de Noël » et, à partir de novembre, des touristes viennent adorer dans les boutiques de cadeaux festifs de la ville. Les plus dévots se marient dans l’opulent Hôtel Bethléem, où les mariages de décembre commencent à 18 000 $. « C’était parfait », murmure une mariée de Bethléem.
Mais de l’autre côté de la rivière, la carcasse rouillée de l’ancienne aciérie de la ville évoque un chapitre différent de l’histoire de la ville. Si Bethlehem a donné à l’Amérique son esprit de Noël, elle a également construit son ossature. Le Chrysler Building, l’île d’Alcatraz, le barrage Hoover, le pont du Golden Gate — tous ont été forgés avec l’acier produit dans ses hauts fourneaux de 16 étages. En 1940, environ 40 % de la silhouette de New York était construite avec des matériaux provenant de Bethlehem Steel. Trois ans plus tard, pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, ses travailleurs construisaient l’équivalent d’un cuirassé par jour. Comme l’a dit Walz lors de sa visite, c’est Bethlehem Steel qui a “libéré le monde de l’oppression nazie”.
Puis vint la reconstruction d’après-guerre, lorsque le Japon et l’Allemagne reconstruisirent leurs propres usines, et que des aciéries plus efficaces furent conçues en Amérique. Lorsque la récession mondiale frappa dans les années quatre-vingt, le destin de Bethlehem Steel était scellé. Elle a tenu jusqu’en 1995, lorsque la tradition de la sidérurgie de la ville est morte dans une dernière cascade nostalgique de feu et de minerai. Un ouvrier a sifflé “Amazing Grace” à travers un système de haut-parleurs sur le sol du four, et l’aciérie est tombée dans le silence.
Aujourd’hui, le terrain appartient à cette autre grande entreprise américaine : une société de casino. Beaucoup des anciens bâtiments d’usine restent vides et clôturés ; quelques-uns sont occupés par des start-ups et des entreprises d’événements. Niché à une extrémité se trouve le casino, dont le centre commercial, le spa et l’impressionnante gamme de 4 000 terminaux de paris attirent des touristes-joueurs transportés en bus depuis le Chinatown de New York. Britney Spears y a donné un spectacle en 2018 ; le mois prochain, Engelbert Humperdinck arrive en avion.
Sous l’ombre des cinq hauts fourneaux défectueux restants, je trouve Tom Sedor, un sidérurgiste de troisième génération. L’histoire de sa famille retrace le déclin de l’industrie. Le grand-père de Sedor était un homme de syndicat mis sur liste noire pendant la Première Guerre mondiale. Son père était également un homme de syndicat, jusqu’à ce qu’il soit tué lorsqu’un four a explosé en 1948. Sedor lui-même a travaillé sur l’électricité de l’usine, jusqu’à la fermeture de Bethlehem Steel.

“La partie la plus difficile était la Règle de 85,” explique-t-il, où un travailleur ne pouvait prendre sa retraite avec une pension complète que si son âge et sa période de service additionnés atteignaient 85 ou plus. “Beaucoup d’hommes ont dû aller dans d’autres usines, principalement à Baltimore, et cela a conduit à de nombreux divorces.”
Sedor, 83 ans, votera pour les démocrates, mais seulement parce que, en tant qu’homme de syndicat de longue date, il ne pourrait jamais voter pour Trump. “Au moins, Harris a visité la Pennsylvanie, contrairement à Hillary Clinton,” dit-il. Mais la vie va-t-elle s’améliorer ? “Je ne pense pas. Prenez le casino. Oui, cela crée des emplois, mais ils ne sont pas bien payés.” Il souligne que le salaire minimum en Pennsylvanie est le minimum fédéral de 7,25 $ de l’heure ; plus de la moitié du tarif du New Jersey voisin.
“Comment quelqu’un est-il censé payer son loyer avec ça ?”
***
Au moment de sa mort en avril 2018, Tyrell Holmes louait un appartement avec deux de ses meurtriers, Alkhion Dunkins et Yzire Jenkins-Row. “À l’époque, le propriétaire ne se souciait pas de la manière dont vous gagniez votre argent,” dit un ancien résident.
La nuit du meurtre, juste après minuit, des voisins ont entendu une bagarre éclater dans leur appartement au troisième étage. Il y a eu un cri suivi d’un fracas — puis le silence. Holmes avait été étranglé jusqu’à perdre connaissance. Il a ensuite été traîné dans l’escalier et jeté dans une voiture au ralenti. Elle est partie silencieusement.
Aujourd’hui, l’immeuble sur East Raspberry Street, à quelques pas du centre de Bethlehem, appartient à une autre société de location, mais une poignée de ses résidents restent les mêmes. Elle, 31 ans, vit dans l’appartement à côté de celui de Holmes depuis six ans. “Je les laissais entrer dans le bâtiment quand ils oubliaient leurs clés,” me dit-elle. Ils écoutaient de la musique forte, dit-elle, mais “ne causaient pas de problèmes”. La nuit même, Elle et son mari sont rentrés juste avant 3h00, après avoir fermé un bar à proximité. “Ils étaient à côté, en train de rapidement ranger leurs affaires — et puis ils sont juste partis.”
Le lendemain, une équipe de police scientifique est arrivée. Elle n’a jamais revu les jeunes hommes.
“L’immeuble est toujours une vraie ruine,” ajoute Elle. “Ils ne réparent rien.” Mais au moins, le loyer est relativement bon marché : il coûte 1 100 $ par mois pour un appartement de deux chambres, soit la moitié du prix du marché. “J’ai eu de la chance qu’ils ne l’aient pas augmenté,” admet l’artiste tatoueuse.
Juste au coin de la rue, un nouveau bloc d’appartements est en construction, où un nouveau studio coûte environ 2 000 $. « Au moins cinq de ces développements ont été réalisés ces dernières années, » dit Elle, « et personne dans la région ne peut se les permettre. »
Mais ces appartements ne sont pas construits pour ceux qui sont nés à Bethlehem. Depuis la pandémie, des résidents plus riches de New York et de Philadelphie s’y installent, à seulement 90 minutes de trajet. Couplé à la population étudiante croissante de Bethlehem — qui compte deux universités privées — les prix des loyers et des maisons ont augmenté de 40 % entre 2019 et 2023.
Écartés de leurs maisons par les nouveaux arrivants, 111 anciens résidents vivent maintenant dans la rue, dont beaucoup sont nourris par New Bethany, une banque alimentaire non loin des aciéries. « C’est la pire situation que nous ayons jamais vue, » dit son directeur Marc Rittle. Il estime qu’il y a eu une augmentation de 91 % du nombre de sans-abri depuis la pandémie, lorsque le gouvernement a augmenté les bons alimentaires et l’aide financière pour les personnes à faibles revenus. Mais lorsque la pandémie a été officiellement déclarée terminée en mai dernier, ce soutien a été retiré.
Les conséquences ont été impitoyables. Marchez vers l’est le long de la rive sud de la rivière Lehigh, passez le panneau « Interdiction d’entrer » et traversez la voie ferrée rouillée. Là, sous un pont d’autoroute, se cache la preuve de la crise des sans-abri de la ville : un camp qui, à la lumière du crépuscule, aurait pu être construit par Huck Finn. Le désespoir est ordonné. De épais duvets sont étendus sur une plateforme en métal ondulé ; des piles de livres à hauteur de genoux s’affaissent contre le mur du fond ; à l’autre bout, une douzaine de DVD attendent d’être regardés sur une télévision qui n’existe pas.
Carlos, 57 ans, est ici depuis un an, après que l’entreprise qui l’employait comme conducteur de chariot élévateur a fermé. « Les week-ends sont particulièrement difficiles, » explique-t-il, alors que la banque alimentaire à proximité est fermée. Bien qu’il soit venu en Amérique de Porto Rico il y a presque 40 ans — un tiers de Bethlehem est hispanique — il n’a pas de papiers d’identité, ce qui signifie qu’il ne peut pas demander de logement ou d’aide financière.
« Je dois juste garder espoir, » dit-il calmement, lorsque je lui demande ce qu’il pense de l’élection. « C’est tout ce que j’ai. » Et il hausse les épaules.
De l’autre côté de la rivière, environ 50 autres personnes ont installé un campement plus grand, mais Carlos préfère le calme. Parfois, il va pêcher avec eux. Il y a une trentaine de tentes. La plupart de leurs occupants attendent que du travail manuel se présente, mais peu sont aussi optimistes que Carlos. Certains y vivent depuis plus de cinq ans et prévoient d’y rester encore cinq. « C’est notre maison maintenant, » dit l’un d’eux. Plus haut dans la rivière, un autre dit qu’il est trop occupé pour parler ; il retourne à sa planche de bois et commence à percer des trous sans but.
George, en revanche, n’a pas besoin de tente. Au lieu de cela, malgré son travail à New Bethany et le fait qu’il touche des allocations sociales, il passe chaque nuit à dormir dans sa voiture. L’année dernière, son loyer a augmenté de 875 $ à 1 000 $ — et il ne pouvait pas se permettre la différence. « Je me gare près de l’hôpital, » explique l’ancien ouvrier du bâtiment, 69 ans. « C’est l’un des endroits les plus sûrs où l’on peut rester à cause du garde de sécurité. » Pour éviter les soupçons avant la tombée de la nuit, il se déplace d’un parking à l’autre, accompagné d’un petit cortège d’autres personnes dormant dans leur voiture.
Sans qu’on lui demande, George décrit comment, après la mort de sa fille en juin, il a commencé à boire pour oublier la douleur et les intempéries. « Mais j’ai tellement bu que j’ai été hospitalisé et je suis sobre depuis, » ajoute-t-il. Et maintenant, il ressent le froid.
Quand je lui demande comment sa fille est morte, il répond comme si je devrais déjà connaître la réponse : « Fentanyl. »
***
Au cours des cinq dernières années, il y a eu plus de 600 overdoses d’opioïdes à Bethlehem. Comme l’a dit un résident, dont l’appartement donne sur la benne à ordures où Tyrell Holmes a été brûlé vif : « Il y a des deals de drogue ici chaque nuit. »
Cinq jours avant la mort de Holmes, cinq membres du gang de Bethlehem « Money Rules Everything » (MRE) ont volé un dealer de drogue. De tels « vols de drogue » — où des dealers ou des fournisseurs sont ciblés — étaient devenus de plus en plus courants à Bethlehem.
Le vol ne s’est pas déroulé comme prévu. Alors que les jeunes hommes s’échappaient avec un sac de marijuana, l’un d’eux a laissé tomber son téléphone. Lorsque le dealer l’a allumé, il y avait deux visages sur son fond d’écran : Alkhion Dunkins et le propriétaire du téléphone, Tyrell Holmes.
La police tente toujours de reconstituer ce qui s’est passé dans la courte période entre cette nuit-là et le meurtre de Holmes. Les témoins ont été réticents à fournir des témoignages ou des preuves ; en 2021, l’un des tueurs, Jenkins-Rowe, a été accusé d’intimidation de témoins depuis sa cellule de prison. (En Pennsylvanie, le meurtre au premier degré est toujours passible de la peine de mort.)
Cependant, certains faits sont connus. Après le vol, Alkhion Dunkins — le colocataire de Holmes et membre de MRE — a commencé à recevoir des menaces de la part du dealer que le gang avait ciblé. Pendant ce temps, Holmes était devenu l’objet d’une enquête interne. Il était accusé d’avoir volé MRE et d’avoir des liens avec des membres d’un gang rival.
« Tyrell menait deux vies », me dit un ami. « Mais il ne méritait pas de mourir comme ça. » Elle essaie d’expliquer pourquoi beaucoup de leurs amis masculins ont été entraînés dans la criminalité : « Ils ont l’impression que le trafic de drogue est le seul moyen de vivre. Il n’y a pas grand-chose pour eux, et ils essaient de contrôler le chaos. » Quand je lui demande si elle pense que l’élection va changer quelque chose, elle répond : « Rien ne va changer. Si quelque chose, tout va empirer. Ça fait toujours ça. »

Elle, la voisine de Holmes, est d’accord. « Ce qui m’énerve, c’est que les deux partis ne se soucient que de choses minimes alors qu’il y a tant d’autres problèmes. » Je lui demande ce qu’elle veut dire. « L’avortement et des choses comme ça sont évidemment importants. Mais qu’en est-il de l’économie ? Qu’en est-il des drogues ? »
Le fentanyl continue de circuler dans les ruelles de Bethlehem depuis la dernière élection. « Quand j’avais 16 ans, trois de mes meilleurs amis sont devenus accros à l’héroïne, » dit Elle. « Mais maintenant, l’héroïne n’existe même plus. C’est juste du fentanyl. C’est partout. »
Rien qu’en cette année, il y a déjà eu 52 overdoses d’opioïdes à Bethlehem, en baisse par rapport à l’année dernière mais toujours significativement plus élevé que la moyenne nationale. En effet, dans l’ensemble de l’État, un habitant de Pennsylvanie meurt d’une overdose toutes les deux heures. Éparpillées autour de Bethlehem, des boîtes violettes contenant du Naxolone, utilisé pour inverser les overdoses d’opioïdes, sont présentes. Il y en a une dans le centre des visiteurs de l’usine sidérurgique, à côté d’un distributeur de collations.
Celles et ceux qui font des overdoses à Bethlehem sont principalement jeunes. Ce sont principalement les enfants de la génération des ouvriers sidérurgistes, et parfois les petits-enfants. À San Francisco, Didion a rencontré une fille de cinq ans dont la mère lui donne de l’acide. À Bethlehem, la situation est tout aussi désespérée. Plus tôt cette année, une mère a plaidé coupable d’homicide involontaire après que son fils de deux ans est mort d’une overdose de fentanyl chez elle. Elle s’était endormie avec le père de l’enfant, qui s’est réveillé pour trouver leur fils inanimé, les lèvres bleues.
Lorsque je visite sa maison, personne ne répond à la porte. Plus haut dans la rue, l’entreprise familiale est toujours en activité. Elle prétend être le vendeur de fenêtres le plus « fiable » de Bethlehem.
***
Avant que Holmes ne soit tué, il y avait au moins quatre gangs opérant dans et autour de Bethlehem. La plupart avaient des alliances avec d’autres organisations de rue — les Latin Kings à Chicago, par exemple, ou les Bloods afro-américains à Los Angeles et leurs rivaux, les Crips.
Mais Money Rules Everything était différent : c’était un « gang de quartier » strictement local — il est né à Bethlehem.
Lorsqu’il a été fondé en 2013, les huit membres de MRE ont pris le contrôle du développement de logements de Pembroke dans la ville. À moins de 10 minutes en voiture des sites classés au patrimoine mondial de Bethlehem, Pembroke abrite 196 unités de logement à faible revenu que le conseil souhaite maintenant démolir. Occupant les zones frontalières de la ville, le lotissement est flanqué d’une station-service et d’un parc poussiéreux surplombé par une usine de bonbons.
Maggie est assise dans le parc de jeux du projet. Elle a vécu dans le lotissement avec son petit ami Lewis jusqu’à il y a deux ans, lorsque leur maison a été détruite par un incendie. Maggie, 33 ans, reste maintenant chez une amie à proximité ; Lewis, 50 ans, squatte les canapés de Pembroke — ou, lorsqu’il n’y en a pas de libre, dort dans une tente dans un bois voisin. « Il n’y a pas de véritable soutien financier, » me dit-il. « Tout le monde ici a des problèmes, » ajoute Maggie.
Ni Lewis ni Maggie ne sont inscrits sur les listes électorales. « Quel est l’intérêt ? » demande Lewis. Maggie affirme qu’un homme est passé il y a quelques semaines en demandant si elle voulait s’inscrire. « Ensuite, il m’a proposé de me vendre de l’herbe, » ajoute-t-elle.
Quand il grandissait, Tyrell passait beaucoup de temps à Pembroke, et je demande s’ils se souviennent de lui. « Nous nous souvenons tous de la mort de ce gamin », dit-elle. « Celui qui a été brûlé. » Et ses meurtriers ? N’ont-ils pas grandi ici aussi ?
« Oh oui », ajoute Maggie. « L’une de leurs mères vit encore ici. » Elle pointe. « Cette maison là-bas. Celle avec la lumière allumée. »

Lorsque Tyrell Holmes a nommé ses éventuels meurtriers, il ne savait pas qu’un de ses plus vieux amis serait parmi eux. Il avait grandi avec Miles Harper ; leurs familles avaient même assisté à la même église quand ils étaient enfants. Mais pour Harper, fraterniser avec un gang rival était pire que le péché.
À ce jour, Harper est le seul meurtrier à avoir plaidé coupable dans la mort de Holmes ; lorsqu’il a été condamné en 2019, il était déjà en prison pour avoir tiré sur deux hommes devant un centre commercial. Les trois autres meurtriers de Holmes doivent comparaître devant le tribunal au printemps prochain ; personne à Bethléem ne doute de leur culpabilité. Même le juge a admis qu’il n’avait jamais présidé un crime aussi impitoyable.
« Je suis la mère de Miles », dit la femme à la porte lorsque j’explique pourquoi je me tiens sur son porche. Tonie Harper est réticente à parler de son fils, disant seulement que peu de choses ont changé dans le domaine de Pembroke depuis son arrestation. Seul son frère aîné, Xavier, une figure espiègle dans la fin de la vingtaine, est légèrement plus loquace.
« Je priais juste quand vous êtes arrivé », explique-t-il. « C’est clairement un signe. » Quand je lui demande s’il est d’accord avec sa mère sur le fait que la vie ne s’est pas améliorée au cours des six dernières années, il dit que c’est ce que Dieu aurait voulu. Quand je lui demande au sujet de son frère et de Holmes, il se répète. Chaque question reçoit la même réponse : un appel à Dieu. La conversation tourne brièvement vers la politique. Il ne votera pas lors de l’élection.
Un ami de Holmes me met plus tard en contact avec son frère aîné. Maintenant âgé de 27 ans, il vit en Floride, où il travaille dans la construction après avoir servi quatre ans dans l’armée.
« Tyrell était un bon gamin », dit-il. C’est Bethléem qui est mauvais. « C’est comme un film d’horreur — c’est comme un trou noir là-bas. » Il ne suit pas l’enquête policière. Il n’a aucune explication pour les impulsions sombres derrière le meurtre de Holmes. Personne n’en a.
Personne ne sait comment un jeune homme de 18 ans a été conduit dans le trou noir qui a conduit à ce qu’il soit étranglé, poignardé puis brûlé vif. Peu semblent s’en soucier. En 1967, Didion a conclu que, « une fois que nous avions vu ces enfants, nous ne pouvions plus ignorer le vide, ne pouvions plus prétendre que l’atome de la société pouvait être inversé ». Un demi-siècle plus tard, la prétention perdure. Malgré le fait que Bethléem soit un « champ de bataille politique », les franges désespérées de la ville sont toujours ignorées : peu importe qui gagne, les choses continueront à se dégrader.
« Il n’y a rien de spécial à propos de Bethléem », ajoute le frère de Holmes. « C’est pareil qu’ailleurs. »
Je lui demande au sujet de l’élection et du rôle démesuré de Bethléem dans le choix de son gagnant.
« Je m’en fiche », dit-il. « Autant lancer une pièce. »
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeVery well said, Mary.
I do hope that Gisèle (it seems wrong to refer to her as Mme Pélicot after this monstrous betrayal) will find some comfort, purpose and hope after this terrible ordeal.
I doubt it. Not very likely. Won’t happen.
My daughter (now nearly 18 and very, thanks God, independent) must read this article.Thank you MH.
I encourage my own daughters to see men as fellow human beings, with roughly equivalent capacities for good or evil as women have.
There are depraved men in the world, yes, and they often victimize men as well – men who assault women sexually will often have a tendency to assault other men physically, which is why we used to arrest muggers, loan sharks, and street pimps with alacrity. Women should give those men a very wide berth, and avoid them like the plague.
Sadistic, psychopathic, or very angry men should always be guarded against, by all of us. Sadly, there are women who write love letters to violent prisoners, or who date men that they know have both a capacity and a proclivity for violence. These men are clearly bad choices as romantic partners, but often have women in their lives.
Similarly, there are also depraved women in the world, who will defraud, defame, or verbally and sometimes physically abuse men (fighting back is rarely a viable option, usually we must flee a female assailant, or risk arrest).
There are also women who pursue wealthy men for their money only, and extend little love in return. Or whom have little compunction about levelling false accusations, for various motivations. And then of course there are simply angry women, who yell and threaten and in general make everyone’s life unpleasant. They should also be guarded against and avoided.
Thankfully, I don’t believe most humans fall into either of those categories. Most of us are decent or at least reasonable people, who love our friends and relatives, and will often even extend kindness to strangers.
I am with you there 100%.
Well I seem to encounter the women and men who yell and threaten on a daily basis lately. But obviously it’s my fault and I’m to blame.
I would guess that such monstrous behaviour, to the degree that it is characteristic of the tendencies of a type, is on the order of 3 or 4 standard deviations from the mean. Enough to generate an audience, but not much of one. But what does that say about the mean, though? Not much, either, would be my second guess. More than a guess, actually. One could go on about the objectification of women, but are these two things even in the same universe, never mind the same frame?
Mary Harrington, for all her gifts, often reads like Susan Sontag.
Gisèle Pelicot said the truest words in that essay. It is not for her to feel shame.
Yes, i agree. Having watched a documentary on this case though, what stood out was the sheer range and banality of those men drawn into the abuse. One of two even had the temerity to present themselves as victims in court; victims of her husband.
How pathetic some men are.
That some men can be cruel and unconcerned with another person’s well-being is an idea that is, unfortunately, a well known one. I’m surprised that there were so many men willing to do this but not that some men were.
What does baffle me is how they could get sexual pleasure from it.
This is obviously and trivially true. Humanity is a real mixed bag. I think the commenters point is that you cannot draw conclusions about men in general from a case like this.
But it will be enforced upon her.
Trump’s claim to be person of the year is not based on him winning an election. It is based on him surviving an assassination attempt by millimetres, when the bodyguards assigned to him by the state had stood down, and then immediately getting back to his feet and refusing to be intimidated. Trump knows that there is a good chance that he will be assassinated before his term ends. He is showing rare courage.
This needs saying again and again apparently because Trump’s opponents refuse to acknowledge that they were prepared to murder someone standing for election in the name of saving democracy.
And we can see precisely how they would have celebrated Trump’s assassination when we see how they reacted to the cold-blooded murder of CEO Brian Thomson, except the magnitude would have been infinitely greater.
A very large fragment of our society is very sick.
good God, is it all you derived from this article ? which outstanding by all accounts. Decidedly, when he has woes everyone knows
Exactly! He’s always a victim. They can’t let it go even though they’ve got what they wanted and he’s president again, something they may come to regret.
Or further contort reality to keep him enshrined as the Brave Victim.
Trump’s opponents still refuse to consider how he happened, that it has nothing to do with the man and everything to do with dysfunction in DC and people being tired of govt that ignores their interests. But considering that would require self-awareness, introspection, and gasp(!), recognizing that they are among Trump’s creators.
I agree that we bear collective responsibility—or credit depending on your point of view—for the Trump phenomenon. Yet I think it has a sizable amount to do with the man himself. I’ve disliked him since about 1986 and found few things to applaud him for, with exceptions like stimulus checks and fast tracking the vaccine. But he deserves some credit for singular charisma and energy, nasty as they often are in him. He has hogged the spotlight and air in the room for a decade. It remains to be seen whether anything like his popular reality show of a presidency can be handed off to a different lead actor, such as Carlson or Vance.
I do hope Trump has a lot more self-awareness and introspection than many in his inner circle have found to possess.
*found HIM to possess.
Everything you say in your comment is spot on but I think the point of the article is not Trump but the consequences of our culture having been “pornified”. The value of her commentary is there.
Exactly. And I was caught up in the horror of inhumanity toward two particular women, but all that evaporated when the writer introduced factory farming.
Oh thank you – too often now every single subject or discussion gets framed with the ‘gender war’. Its so damn tiring. Trump gets 1 line and thats the take-away? Like what?
The essay wasn’t about Trump. Why must you try to make it more important than what Gisele endured? Trump trumps Gisele! So very sexist and one might even say misogynistic.
Because TFS, or Trump Fixation Syndrome, is rampant among both his fans and opponents.
Oh, please!!!!! Can we ever escape Trump zealots and Trump phobes endlessly rehashing their political views underneath every imaginable subject? It was a passing comment within an article on an entirely different subject
I hate generalized philosophical arguments about relationships between the sexes based on the behavior of obvious deviants, whether men or women…
.
PS. Another opus on the theme “All men are bastards!”
.
PPS. It is not my intention to claim direct moral equivalence between factory farming, vivisection, concentration camps, and the crimes of Dominique Pelicot and his co-rapists. But the type of violence is the same across all these (cases)…Once enframed as an “it” in this way, factory-farmed pigs cease to be pigs, with their own instincts and behaviours, and become merely potential kilos of meat. Monkeys become “biological resources”.
- I would advise the author to start the list of the accused with wolves and lions. It will be more consistent, although I know exactly who pigs will become if wolves and lions disappear – the author will be unpleasantly surprised.
If the only thing inspired by this exceptional piece of writing is ‘all the men are bastards’…. well, it says a lot about the commentator’s abilities. Someone who is understandably jealous about M. Hurrington’s gift. Jealousy is another powerful driving force in this world, isnt’ it?.
Zero envy, just disappointment from a very bad article. Envy is a trait that is predominantly characteristic of women, dear Elena
Self – delusion perhaps? ‘Human” I would call envy.
And patronizing predominantly characteristic of men.
Regarding this quote: It is not my intention to claim direct moral equivalence between factory farming, vivisection, concentration camps, and the crimes of Dominique Pelicot and his co-rapists. But the type of violence is the same across all these (cases)…
There is a reading device called the rule of “but” or a similar qualifying term. It often means that the reader can discount everything that precedes ‘but.’ The types of violence involved in these examples are in no way the same and Mary knows it.
“But the type of violence is the same across all these, for all that it differs in degree, and in how tolerated it is culturally”
.
Did you read that?
And, by the way, there is no violence in a lion killing its prey. It’s only in all modern (and very bad!) nature films when lions hunt preys the voice-over is broadcasting about a “merciless killer“
BUT = behold the underlying truth….
It’s difficult for most of us to understand the depravity of Mme Pelicot’s ex-husband, or indeed of anyone who would perpetuate anything so monstrous, particularly against a spouse. Her ex-husband of course deserves as long a prison sentence as possible for his despicable acts. I can’t imagine any decent human being would disagree.
This is all very different from pornography, however. Pornography involves at least the nominal consent of paid performers, unwise or degrading as such a profession may be, and is “sex work,” not a sexual offense. Male actors also participate in pornography, are objectified in very similar ways, and tend to be paid much less money than their female co-stars.
It’s also entirely unrelated to eating meat, which is necessary to nutrition, and is equally unrelated to war or war crimes, and indeed the author goes through a tortured set of logical gymnastics to link the three.
Also is she advocating for the existence of Gandhi, insisting that anything other than celibate vegetarianism is immoral, or sinful, or criminal? Sexual pleasure exists for the purposes of reproduction, so that humanity continues. Carnivorism replenishes and maintains muscle tissue, and provides the body with vital nutrients like iron and Vitamin D.
It’s also worth pointing out that men are regularly exploited for their labor, are statistically much more often subject to the brutal violence of both crime and war, and if we include the incarcerated, are probably sexually abused at higher rates. Men are no less “objectified” than women, if moreso for our labor, than for our beauty.
Sexual pleasure isn’t evil, nor is enjoying a good steak. Wars and violent atrocities are rarely the choices of any one man, but of their political leaders, and pornography is at worst a vice, not a violation. Few soldiers remember the terror and pain of combat fondly, and admiring pictures of other naked humans is clearly very different from assaulting or abusing another person.
One can be horrified, disgusted, and infuriated by this poor woman’s victimization while still acknowledging the above. I do hope this pervert, who violated his wife repeatedly, dies in prison. But that won’t prevent me from having dinner, nor from noticing an attractive female.
Excellent point. And when the porn star who participates voluntarily is described as objectified, are we not denying her agency, her freedom to choose?
It is said that men who visit prostitutes are often looking for companionship much more than sex. Who is objectifying whom in that case?
Voluntary, but cried during and afterward and had to induce a dissociative state–not uncommon when dealing with extreme trauma–to get through it. I think those details were included to suggest that agency and willingness are more complex than many will admit. Left out were her shaking limbs and bloodshot eyes. This 23 year old young woman seems to have little sense of who she is or ‘what she’s here for’, but at least she has youth and beauty–for now. She has my sympathy. And I would try to muster up some for the men involved but can’t manage it just now. I thought Tanya Gold and Julie Bindel got it right in their discussion of these same events.
I agree it is disturbing that someone would put themselves through that for fame and money – but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t voluntary. And most of us put ourselves through experiences we find unpleasant because we want the reward it brings. It’s just that most of us wouldn’t go this far.
As I have said elsewhere, I think Lily is not well. No woman, or man, could be considered in good mental health putting themselves through such an ordeal, self damaging on so many levels. I’m not sure she should not be sectioned for her own protection.
One would guess that Lily Philips has been sexually abused as a child.
This 23 year old young woman seems to have little sense. Period. Same goes for her mother.
Images of beauty will always be desirable – violence and degradation should not be similarly desired.
Thank you. I find it interesting that again, the 2 are always lumped together as one. Sex and violence. One is separate from the other.
A very very interesting article by a man on this subject for thought is this Substack piece by Yoshi Matsumoto.
https://matsumoto.substack.com/p/the-liberal-argument-for-sex-slavery
Be Careful what you wish for.
Sex is rarely about love. LOVE is rarely about love. Often it’s about a wish to be validated by the approval and acceptance of “the cool person”,it’s about status,having the person who everyone else considers desirable as yours,the trophy wife or I guess trophy boyfriend/husband. Or it’s about financial security (mostly for women),or its just a need to be controlling so the controller finds someone stupid and compliant enough to enter into a relationship that intelligent women sense will be controlling but low class women just want a man so their friend group won’t shun them or worse even,mock them
I definitely felt unease about the rather artificial lumping up of eating animals, using animals for experimental purposes, concentration camps , and p0rn industry – and all in the context of Pélicot’s case.
However, I couldn’t formulate my objections in clear enough terms – even for myself. Thank you for unravelling all this so logically and clearly.
You articulated my thoughts much better than I could have done.
Because there are women who lie about the paternity of their children or marry for money or make false accusations, we should not expand their sins to all of them.
Notice that she only criticized modern industrial meat production, not traditional human hunters or butchers.
Very true.
But let us go a step or two beyond.
As much as we might struggle to understand the depravity of the husband who would inflict such a horror upon his wife….what is, in some ways, even more horrible is not the criminal nature of the serial rapes, the lack of consent, but the dehumanizing perversity of the act itself. Even if the wife had, indeed, consented (and in this world, anything is possible) what we would be considering here in both the Pelicot & Phillips cases is the absolutely degrading reduction of what is and should be the most sacred of human acts to bestial itch & scratch.
I consider long prison sentences, absent a real risk of repeating the offence, to be simply vengeance, and not helpful to anyone.
I salute Mme Pélicot for her determination. I agree that ‘there is a distinctive form of violence inherent in treating people, animals, and the world as mere objects, in order to use them to our own ends.’
But it is not new, not a modern phenomenon. Tax farming has enframed and objectified people like this for centuries, viewing people as mere revenue production units. The Church tended their flocks and gathered tithes.
One of the (many) ways of dividing the World into two groups is into the Exploiters and the Exploited.
Apart from my horror and sadness at Lily Phillips’s behaviour and the negative consequences for her personally, I was interested, objectively, that she seems to have been inspired by the Pelicot case to enact a voluntary version of the what was done in that.
Why did Lily the young woman do this to herself, with the help of her mother and other women ?
Mary presents a political and moral explanation/theory for both the criminal and voluntary cases, but it’s not good enough.
What about Lily’s soul ? and her mind ? what happened to her as a developing person that caused her to take power into her own hands as an adult in such a way ? Which is what she did.
That is why Mary’s article fails for me, on the one hand she proposes it is the denial of a person’s humanity that is evil (I agree), but then by making the two happenings equivalent (I don’t think they are) and as a result of our political and social environment, all the protagonists become “unconscious things” that are acted upon by outside forces. We end up with the oppressed v’s oppressors scenario, which is Marxist.
Or is Mary being postmodernist here ?
I’m not sure, but whatever it is, this article just does’nt quite work for me.
It is what the 101 men lacked that is at the heart of the question. They lacked the self-restraint at the very least to refrain from using any woman that way, even if invited to do so. “Madam, this is not what you were brought into the world to be.”
A bit unrealistic I think.
Add on :
How bizarre that you remove the woman Lily Phillips from “the heart of the question” and put the fallibilty of some men there instead.
Why would you do that ?
Women are not eternal infants.
Look at Gisele Pelicot; the only way her deviant husband could master her was to remove her agency by drugging her. She was too powerful for him otherwise, and she still is.
Again, I ask you, please explain, why do you make the poor behaviour of a bunch of fools “the heart of the question” instead of Lily’s initial action, and what caused her to make it ?
If any of the 101 men said ‘No’, they would have been replaced.
If Lily Phillips had said ‘No’, this event would never have happened.
Think about that.
Huh? If Lily Phillips had said ‘No’ you don’t think other women engage in similar acts? There is a vast and sordid world of supply and demand in this field. I believe the old saying is, “It takes two to tango.”
Not really. Clearly they lacked self respect. But it’s a big world, and it’s probably not difficult to find 101 men of this type. But it was Lily who instigated the whole thing, and it’s her who aims to take it further, and stands to make a lot of money out of it.
We have to be careful not to draw a general rule from what is an exception – but that said, this does seem linked to the willingness of significant numbers of women to get involved in a kind of prostitution-lite.
No…it is not self-restraint they lack. That would imply that ALL men would otherwise use the Thing that Lily made of herself if their powers of self-restraint were not so strong. Rather the 101 lack a moral center….a soul….an innate sense of Right & Wrong / Good & Bad and have, instead, objectified and reduced themselves only to appetite. (An appetite for both the sexual shudder AND, perhaps more importantly, the appetite for some sort of ephemeral cultural currency. I would guess someone there was selling TShirts that proclaimed participation in the Lily-a-Thon.)
But if there is no heaven, no hell, then everything — quite clearly — is permissible. And life itself becomes mere Itch & Scratch.
Agree. As I wrote in another comment (now removed by the moderation system), I felt very uneasy about all different types of behaviour described in the article being put in one, amorphous entity. It was, in my view, done in a rather artificial and far-fetched way.
Good that there’s at least one comment here that explains it all in a very clear and well-argued manner.
MH does this increasingly: as if she is trying to give all things she dislikes and opposes some sort of real world unity which they simply don’t possess.
I didn’t notice that myself, but I agree with you. As a whole, her articles are rather uneven in terms of quality and depth.
My impression is that sometimes she decides to write on topics that are not exactly her strength.
I totally agree. Still, even with its overreach and doubtful steps, I think this article belongs in the good pile. I respect Harrington’s passionate defense of a woman wronged.
More than a defense-which she of course shouldn’t need, having committed no offense—but an encomium.
I second your comment, thank you! I’m not sure what points this article is trying to make, the bravery of Mme Pelicot and/or the “my-body-my-choice” decision (stunt) of Lily Phillip? Starting the article with Times’ person of the year choice seems like a click-bait tactic and is not connected with the rest of the article. The quality of Unherd writing is disappointing.
I find Mary Harrington’s writing almost always of a high quality, but perhaps sometimes she over-interllectualizes.
Good to know. I’m new to Unherd. Unfortunately I find many articles are not of high quality as I expected.
I think she mistakes psychological unity (her own likes, dislikes etc) for real world unity. It’s like watching someone rationalise her own disparate feelings on a grand scale. That doesn’t preclude her arriving at important insights, but it does make her writing increasingly laboured.
I think she’s going for postmodernist. Mary’s articles often seem to explore an issue without ever taking a definitive moral stance either way, discussing always what ‘is’ rather than what ‘should be’, what we ‘feel is right’ in lieu of any objective morality. I personally appreciate her approach but I recognize it’s not for everyone. Not everyone has the desire or ability to step outside their own moral framework or belief system in order to try to understand the serial killer and the monster, to try to comprehend and understand pure evil. That’s really what the article is, an attempt to understand evil and draw some line however thin, frail, and tangled between the monstrous and the everyday, hence the concept of ‘objectification’ as a common theme linking things that have been deemed acceptable such as factory farming and animal medical testing to the depraved acts of serial rapists. The case of the woman voluntarily getting gang-banged is an attempt to, I guess, show how one can objectify oneself.
To me, this represents perhaps just a rare miss on the part of Ms. Harrington, or perhaps more accurately a missed opportunity. People do outrageous and stupid things on the Internet all the time just to get attention. The usual reason is for fame and by extension profit. It isn’t clear to me that this Lily Phillips was anything other than yet another young woman for whom the prospect of getting naked and having sex on camera for entertainment purposes, thus allowing others to use her body for entertainment in exchange for money, was preferable to doing much the same thing in any traditional occupation, giving her time and physical labor to some faceless corporation flipping factory farmed hamburgers for far less profit. The prospect of a woman who does something that moves her to tears in order to get clicks from viewers is sad, but is it any sadder than a Chinese factory worker laboring in sweatshops for most of the day while providing for her children that she barely gets to see in order to produce the fiftieth pair of shoes in a suburban mother’s closet? In a world where every corporation has a department of ‘human resources’, the objectification and use of human beings for fun and profit surely goes well beyond the bedroom. If that was Mary’s ‘point’ we are a good deal further down the rabbit hole than she imagines and she has, in a well considered examination of the trees, missed the forest entirely.
The Marxist dynamic is not at all inappropriate here given that pornography can be regarded as an economic activity as much as anything else and the unfair exploitation of people should be prevented to the extent possible by relevant laws and elected leaders. People who engage in illegal acts like rape and profit from videotaping it are the vilest sort, villains in Marxian dynamics as much as others. The existence of monsters such as those discussed in this article highlights the necessity of law and government, not to lead mankind into some ideal future, but to limit the worst kinds of use and abuse men and women can inflict upon one another.
Thank you for your detailed reply. You are right I do not appreciate moral relativism, it is an abnegation of responsibilty in my view and leads to misguided judgements like accusing Israel of genocide.
The difference between Lily Phillips and a Chinese sweatshop worker is as clear as day.
Lily is free to choose, a Chinese sweatshop worker is not.
Lily is an adult living in a Western liberal democracy, which for all it’s faults probably gives her the most options anyone could have, anywhere in the world.
The theoretical Chinese worker has only two, do this work or starve.
I do not think your “Marxian dynamics” argument holds water. Up until about 1997 our laws had developed to such an extent, without any input from Marx, abuses between men and men, and men and women had been limited as much as it was possible to do so.
Unfortunately since then, primarily with the 2010 Equality Act, Special Obligations and Hate Crime legislation, “Marxian dynamics” have had a disastrous effect on our justice system and created more discrimination not less, more anger and division. This was inevitable as Marxian dynamics by their definition are divisive and destructive of peace between people.
Your point about the hypothetical sweatshop worker and Ms. Phillips is valid. I wasn’t really comparing their relative agency. Ms. Phillips does have a choice and she would rather do what she does than another occupation. If she wants to do it and someone wants to pay for that, who am I to prevent it and what purpose does it serve to do so? That is the major difference between us and totalitarian states and you remind us why we’re preparing for a conflict with China.
I think you misunderstand what I mean about Marxism. When I say Marxian, I mean classical Marxism that views the world through the lens of economic power and exploitation, the wealthy and powerful exploit the lower classes who often have few options and little choice, like the Chinese factory worker. The original Marx that discusses the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and the social power dynamics that allow a few people to control the lives of many others through institutional control of the economic system. Marx touched upon some quite novel philosophical insight and saw the world in ways that others hadn’t, and as such. I think he’s gotten a bad rap as a philosopher/intellectual because of the utter failure of basically everyone who tried to implement the philosophy. I still think it is useful as an intellectual tool, for understanding the world as it is, nothing more, but I respect your disagreement. It’s not a viable political philosophy or form of government. We have ample evidence to the contrary. One can examine situations through the lens of Marxism and still understand the practical problems that make doctrinaire communism/socialism unworkable and use those insights to help come up with real pragmatic solutions.
I think you go too far when you say American law has not been influenced at all by Marx. His philosophy has had a profound influence on western civilization and was a vital contributor to such concepts as labor unions, minimum wage laws, workplace safety standards, the eight hour workday, and so on. America was never as much affected by Marx as the social democracies of Europe like Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc., but I don’t think it’s accurate to say there was no influence. I’m really just a cynic arguing that corporations can’t be trusted not to exploit their workers if given the chance and there have to be guardrails like the labor laws America has had since the 1930’s, the mildest sort of socialist policies. We need to update those guardrails because the times have changed and there are now ways for the wealthy and powerful to get around those guardrails and do what they had been doing before those laws were passed, but in other countries.
The laws you mention are not Marxism, except in perhaps the broadest sense of being collectivist philosophies that are not viable in practice. Marx can be useful in interpreting the interactions between macroeconomic forces and sociopolitical forces and how economic stratification can shape human society. The woke progressivism you mention isn’t even viable in theory. In my humble opinion, it’s a philosophical dead end based on sentimentalism, historical grievances, and little else. Hate crimes laws, cancel culture, political correctness, are all so much sentimental schlock based on nothing more than people’s fragile emotional needs. Sheltered young people don’t want to be offended or challenged, and here’s a philosophy that gives them exactly what they want and empowers them to silence anyone and anything that makes them uncomfortable. I don’t even bother arguing with true believers in woke ideology because it’s like talking to a five year old having a tantrum because someone said something mean.
Thanks again. First of all I must own up, I’m British and I was referring to our English Common Law, not American law at all.
I’m pleased to read in more detail what you think about Marx because I agree wth you more or less. Yes, Marxian analysis has it’s uses intellectually, particularly re 1850 – 1990. Now it seems to have mutated into Cultural/Neo-Marxism across the West it is as damaging to human relations as it ever was in it’s other form.
You ask what purpose would it serve to stop Lily Phillips from doing this business of hers; it would keep a young and troubled woman from doing terrible damage to her body, her mind and her soul. God help her.
If you saw a young woman about to throw herself off a bridge and could stop her I’m sure you would.
Instead we must witness Lily’s self damaging behaviour helplessly, I find it heartbreaking. I wish there was something I could do to help her.
A really insightful article. Perhaps more women can now speak up about their own humiliations and rise above them.
No,you’ll just shout at me and jeer. It’s not one law for everyone
Overanalysed at the same time that the case is underreported as some key issues are missing while attempting to take this grotesque obscenity and draw weak cultural anti-male “insights”; not impressed.
A big part of the story was left out and really only surfaced in a segment of the French national press.
Dominque Pelicot was a rabid left-wing activist and avowed communist. His supposed motivation for this repeated violation of his own wife was because he branded her racist for supporting LePen. A ridiculous assertion of his but he’s a disgrace as a human being so no surprise here.
Look at the nationalities of the offenders, the overwhelming majority are non-white and non-French natives. That was by Pelicot’s design but it appears to be left out because it runs against the anti-man narrative and my support the Le Pen narrative.
Thank you for this additional information about D. Pelicot’s politics. It is telling, indeed, that this was not mentioned anywhere in MSM.
Similarly to the narrative about L. Mangioni who is widely presented as a victim of greedy capitalists, when in reality he was not even a customer of UnitedHealth company and was an anticapitalist activist.
Very important details.They also provide a good lead out into a specific malaise in Europe today
It is the gaslighting intimidation and sexual aggression permissible against women who are framed as racist,too white conservative. They must be raped out of their reverie , re educated, broken down – there is collusion across many spheres of influence in this – Gisele has had a phenomenal courageous legal team to persevere in this case and judge .
So who was paying them. Where was the moolah originating from. Who was posting the dosh. I need legal representation but I have no money and dont qualify for legal aid.
Can I point out that many men are doing what they are frustrated and angry with women about – blanket assertions – “all women”. Lumping all things together. I ask if you truly believe his assumptions for his blind hatred to his wife? Really?
I happen to love men more generally. But I reserve my judgement on the behaviour of a person. As do we all.
I despair when a nuanced conversation can be seriously had between the sexes.
Pornography as one.
Rampant violence in porn is one.
Child abuse in porn is another.
These two issues alone is an issue well recognized within the likes of ‘Only Fans’ and PornHub. The facts about these 2 things are indisputable. We need to disseminate one thing from another.
Have we all become so jaded and scorned that we can no longer discern between the 2?
You’re very defensive! My takeaway was how depraved humans can be regardless of sex or race. Harrington included the way we treat animals in factory farms to illustrate that the horror is across the board. There’s something in the human brain that allows violent and cruel behavior and nobody really knows why.
It probably derives from the fact that all of us evolved by killing other living things to survive.
This lady is utterly inspirational.
All of this, the relinquishing of the self to make room for another, is degraded in this way to make sure humanity will not do the one thing that might save us, to relinquish the self to make room for God.
Now for the really difficult addendum.
As Mary Harrington has cast the net wide to include all the examples of ‘enframing’ and what it does to evacuate a being of their unique selfhood, let us make sure that no fish escapes into the anonymity of the ocean of human dissonance.
Ms Harrington: ‘The same objectifying principle applies, too, to animals used as test subjects for medical or other experiments: a practice that usually occurs behind many layers of security, obfuscation, and meticulous cognitive dissonance, for the straightforward reason that if conducted in the open, it would be recognised as monstrous.’
What other practice that is hidden behind many layers of obfuscation, and meticulous cognitive dissonance that if revealed openly would be recognised as monstrous? And in asking that question, ensuring in the manner Ms Harrington does, of avoiding making morally equivalence with any other example of objectification.
There is a biological entity that is called a foetus. As if we spoke a dead language and in doing so used a term from it that makes what is named mysterious. And since mysterious, also unknowable as it is unknown; having no relationship with what is beyond the sac in which it lies. Or else this entity has been called ‘uterine contents’. A term worthy of the laboratory. Or the factory that puts substances in cartons.
If what happens to this biological object in abortion was filmed at each event and all shown on television in an extended reality series, would the audience be horrified to the point of calling it a monstrosity? Would it be denounced as medical porn?
What moral outrage can a country that can accept a quarter of a million abortions a year make to such primeval horrors that emerge from the jungle where men prey on women and children that doesn’t look tainted with a large dollop of dissonance and a seasonal squirt of syrup of humbug? Would some epistemologist come up with a theory that in each abortion a woman was retaining her authenticity over against the man who had impregnated her?
Omg what a twerp you are! I can’t even be bothered to argue with that kind of mentality.
“The transgender writer Andrea Long Chu notoriously made this argument, proposing that femaleness means enframing oneself:” Quoting a man claiming to be a woman about what femaleness means is also a betrayal of women.
You miss the point, rather.
I usually find Mary Harrington’s articles worth reading however this one is a dog’s dinner and best avoided.
One of the saddest aspects of this story is why Gisele felt compelled to remain in this relationship. I in no way blame her for what these monsters did. I just wonder what message as a society is being sent that a grown woman would be made to perceive her situation as one that she must bear, with no alternative, no one to turn to who she could rely on, no one including civic or religious institutions, who would help.
Are you unaware of the facts of the case?
She did not know it was happening until the police, investigating her husband for other offences, found the footage and came to tell her.
She had suffered gynecological problems (the result of the sexual assaults) and been troubled by her mental state (the result of the drugging) and had sought medical help and advice. One can only wonder at the ‘incurious’ attitude of her doctor (who also seems to have been ‘incurious’ in his dispensing of large quantities of heavy sedatives to her husband); not all the rapists have been identified.
Not understanding what was happening to her. What mental torture as well as physical. What did her husband say “it’s all in your head, dear”.
So obviously if the story is real,it was being organized at a deeper level than one malign and stupid husband.
Sounds like more then one man conspired together to take advantage of her vulnerability – there’s a name to describe such a grouping that many people expressed outrage about in these comment sections.
Especially at her age. The article mentioned how the family was aghast. Were none of them on her side? They had three children and multiple grandchildren.
Got to make up then. Got to be extra salacious to be more shocking than the average Hollywood film. Like I thought . Fake.
She must have had an inkling something was going on. Even one visitor in your house leaves something moved,a bit askew,I can’t believe these men werent also drinking,smoking,some of them would have used the toilet. Unless her husband was a magician.at cleaning round there would have been odd little signs.
I will never get over this story. That men could do this. Ordinary men, husbands and neighbors. Beyond comprehension.
Who says they were “ordinary men” ?
Surely the very fact that these deviants took part in this crime and are being charged with rape makes them unusual. There are approx 30 million “ordinary” men in France who did not look for and respond to Pelicot’s online sick offer.
They obviously seemed like ordinary men till they were caught. The scary thing is not knowing which ordinary seeming persons are monsters.
That’s a thought. Maybe an advert should be put online offering people the chance to torture,for real,with no legal comeback. Then when all the applicants have arrived at the venue,they could all be shot dead. I think I’ve just written a synopsis for a movie. Afterwards of course we’d hear all the whimpering excuses from their families.
That is true. It is thought that Fairy Tales teach children a very important lesson subliminally; when the hero or heroine listens courteously to wise animals who offer to help them in the story they survive, but when the churlish characters belittle and sneer at the animals they end up d e a d.
In other words, listen to your gut instincts and be guided by them, you are more likely to survive.
How do know how many applied?
By definition these were not ordinary men. If you mean they looked ordinary, well so did Eichmann. What did you expect? Green skin?
That men could do this?
Heck, everything which has ever been done has been done by someone: men and women both. Evil, perverse, twisted, corrupt, cruel things don’t just happen accidentally — like trees falling in forests. What makes them evil, perverse, cruel and corrupt is that the act is one deliberately & consciously committed.
Of course men and women do these things. There is no one else.
As for what particular perversion they practice (how outrageous the rest of us may think it to be)…. given 10,000 years of human history, I’d venture to guess that NOTHING is beyond those who embrace the darkness.
(and, of course, as others have already noted: these are not ‘ordinary men, husbands, and neighbors’)
As Andrea Dworkin said, “Pornography is the theory; rape is the act.”
Pornography is one of the greatest evils in the world today.
AD said a lot of daft things. That doesn’t make them true. She was clearly deeply disturbed.
Dworkin also said, ““The normal f**k by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation.” Dworkin’s perspective is not one I’d necessarily lean upon.
As for porn being one of the greatest evils in the world today??? What exactly do you define as porn? Is ‘Ulysses’ by Joyce, porn? Lady Chatterley’s Lover? Candy? Justine by deSade? Playboy? Penthouse? Courbet’s ‘Origin of the World’? Renoir’s bounteous nudes? Degas’ ladies in the bath? Herb Ritts, a pornographer? Weston? Bettina Rheims? Elliott Erwitt? Phillip Roth? Norman Mailer? John O’Hara? Updike? Hustler? Club 54? The Kardashians? Jennifer Lopez’ infamous green dress?
And once defined, what makes it porn? And more, what makes it evil?
I’m evil. I get shouted at in the street in denunciation of my evil. I’m evil. What makes me evil. I just am. God created me evil to be the neccesary Hate Figure for other people’s mind health. I garden. That is an affront.
Get some rest, Jane. Pull some weeds. They are evil.
Well done, Mary! One of your best essays IMO. Self-objectification, from selfies to Lily Phillips, is an inevitable playing-out of the objectification of the natural world that Martin Heidegger spoke of. In response to one comment that spoke of the need of animal protein (and therefore the inescapable cruelties of factory farming??), a simple come-back is that animals can be given a full and enjoyable life on a farm that is set up for this deliberately. Such farms are ubiquitous today. It’s clearly better for the consumer and the farmer as well. As with animals, so too with the treatment of human workers, the design of towns and homes, the tenor of all our relationships. It needs only a different way of seeing the world to avoid the immiserating and dehumanizing environments that we have created by this objectification of all around us. Heidegger’s insight is profound here, notwithstanding a few blinkered readers who struggle to grasp it. I am full of admiration for Gisele Pelicot. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and “framing” it so insightfully!
Once you’ve killed God, everything is permissible.
Oh Mary, what a powerful and accurate and heartbreaking piece. This woman – Gisele – is a hero. Where does her strength come from? We need to understand this, so that we can try to understand why a beautiful and resourceful woman like Lily Phillips could do to herself what she has done. Surely it can’t all be for money?
If we look at all the things that human beings are willing to do for money – from working in death camps, through lying about the dangers of tobacco, to marrying someone you don’t really like – yes I guess that’s why. Along perhaps with a kind of perverted competitive spirit and a craving for fame and celebrity.
What is clearly different is her willingness to do this and her lack of repugnance at the act. To hear her talk you wouldn’t think she was talking about sex at all. She gets a bit upset, but she seems to have only a limited sense of disgust. In any case her plan is to do it on a grander scale.
She was obviously sexually abused as a child.
Do you mean that you know that, or you assume she must have been? It’s one explanation, as is some sort of personality disorder. But perhaps she just craves money and celebrity.
We shouldn’t simply assume that she must be a victim of some kind herself.
Once you’ve killed off God, everything is permissible.
Thanks Mary for calling out what needs to be said. I feel we have forgotten and/or turned a blind eye to the realities that do exist in the world. Alongside the beautiful there is, and always has been, the profane. To deny such reality is foolish at best, blind willful ignorance at worst, coupled with worse still, an acknowledgement of a persons dark fantasy within.
The possibility to further elucidate or discuss all the reasons why Lily would even contemplate such a horror begs for words, facts and distillation beyond what is even remotely possible here. The only thing I will offer up, for mulling over is some sentiments, persistent myths and a narrative that was and still is a self – serving story one may cling to, to remove all traces of doubt or self-reflective and project all grievance upon the ‘Other’.
To help enlighten ones perception, I ask for people to view Winston Marshall’s recent podcast with 2 documentary makers, “The Cover Up that Changed Britain”. A film about the absolute prolific, wide spread predominately Pakistani men grooming gangs who groomed what could be 1000s upon 1000s of children and how it was, for multiple reasons, covered up and not acted upon, even with knowledge.
These were and are vulnerable children.
That even as one police officer purported to state, that “it would teach this girl a lesson” – we are talking about a child here.
How is it that these girls have so little ‘value’ as to be ignored? What lies beneath a society’s belief system, aspersions, judgements and thoughts, really? Could it be that we as a society, have a hierarchy of value? A hierarchy of human value and worth?
For further consideration, there is a also a universal grooming technique whose main aim is to confuse, gaslight, create cognitive dissonance, and break the individual will of those they seek to use, destroy and manipulate to for their own use, which would produce a ‘puppet’ state. A ‘vacant’ person with which then the perpetrators or more correctly put, the Predator, can do with as they please. Search any child abuse support groups and advocates to arm yourself with the correct knowledge. This technique has been used for human millennia to bend the will of others. It is and has been used by many for propaganda, even today.
It is also well known that many within the prostitution business have had a abusive childhood. Some were sexually abused as children. It is a ‘slave’ state. The person ‘performing’ is usually not all there. To perform, one must be either in a dissociative state, as Mary suggests, or high on drugs and other substances to create the effect.
I could go on, but it is too large a subject. There are many who have written about this previously.
Look if you dare.
This really is a stretch. Pornography and prostitution, along with sex slavery and harems long predate the modern technology that Heidegger is writing about. And so far as I’m aware Heidegger never wrote on these subjects in this regard.
Whatever motivated her husband to do such unspeakable things to his wife, I doubt it had much to do with modern technology except in that it provided the means for its communication. There have been human beings capable of abominable acts as far back as we know of. But it’s important to distinguish between individual evil acts, and acts which are representative of their age.
Very well said. I respect Heidegger’s philosophy, insofar as it goes, but the dehumanizing possibilities inherent in sexual relations are several thousand years old. Ever heard of Tamar?
It’s two extremes for me. Ms Phillips is a love goddess, if overly influenced by internet pornograthy, while this poor French woman was a victim of a brutal French immigration culture.
How you could describe Phillips as having to do anything with ‘love’ is bizarre? And the ‘poor French woman’ was abused by many non-immigrant Frenchmen (including most obviously her husband).
What a remarkable and courageous woman.
“Women all over the world share a sense of outrage at Gisèle Pelicot’s abuse.”
The sense of outrage is not confined to women. Harrington would better have included men in this observation. I am sure there are millions of us (men!) who are equally disturbed and outraged by this monstrous case and I regret that the article did not acknowledge this.
I’m not sharing anything. I refuse to be part of an amorphous blob. I think for MYSELF and I don’t believe this story. And yes,that makes me a BAD PERSON. Just like not having jabs or wearing a mask or not.drinking alcohol makes me a no fun BAD PERSON.
Terrific. Terrifyingly terrific. What to do about it? Who knows, but the world is falling into greater evil with each passing day. There is a core to this piece which might be more important – for sharing far & wide – than any DEI hand wringing in favour of women’s rights. There is a proper & fit attitude to other beings, even including the inanimate world, which comes before all of that DEI rote learning. It is also urgent that men face something here. MH’s writing drives soul searching in others without a jot of haranguing.
I and Thou. It is so easy to say, even ennobling….and so far from objectifying.
Maybe.
Or not.
If we nudge the philosophic good-feeling associated with our own, clearly innate, ability to recognize God in the Other…good in the Other, even our precious selves in that Gioconda smile across the table, and, having so nudged, ask ourselves as bluntly, as honestly as possible: ‘Do we really believe all that? Do we actually behave that way in any kind of real or consistent manner?’
I mean, sure, we all intellectually recognize that each of us is a wholly formed human being, created in love, formed by God, complete with Soul, fully-equipped with appetites, feelings, desires, fears, et al. If we p***k you,, surely you must bleed. We know all that. But c’mon now…. how many of us embrace such a lofty perspective when we’re not reading Buber, or feeling somehow elevated above the hurly-burly, beyond the daily rush, where ‘getting & spending we lay waste our powers’ on an hourly, daily, year by year basis?
Few, I would suggest.
Nor is our interlude in that elevated state more than a passing phase….quickly surpassed by the need to, once again, objectify the world (and everyone in it) as we continue the demanding process of building and maintaining our own selfish lives. (It’s a dirty job, but who else would do it?)
And we all know that world.
That is the place where there’s Me and Everything Else. I know Me; know him well, in fact. I feel his hungers, sense his appetites; am familiar with both his reach and grasp and know well why one is less. His shoulder aches; my back is sore; I’d dearly love a piece of chocolate / cup of coffee. And you? Well, honestly, if you can get me that piece of chocolate or are well-trained to rub a shoulder or unkink a back…. if you have a lovely voice and can sing or play piano (when I want it)….if you’re strikingly beautiful, if your scent is enchanting, if you walk in beauty like the night, if if if if if …. IF I can see you, hear you, touch you and know you as somehow a Positive for Me (can you cook dinner, do laundry, fix some dry rot in the window sill, treat a cold, or remodel a bathroom… make we feel loved and less lonely, 8 days a week???), well then you are valued in my world.
And if I can do the same for you, then I am equally valued in yours. Given that equilibrium, we may even pledge an undying love, and absolutely mean it. I-Thou-ness, then, is ours…at least as closely as any two, inherently flawed & selfish human beings can achieve it.
But even then, inevitably, we slip; they slip..and we find ourselves frustrated by the fact that the algorithmic simulacrum that we have made and named YOU is not behaving as I thought your ‘object’ was supposed to behave.
In the end, Objectification (the reduction of the Other, the World itself to a Object in the Drama which is Me) is inevitable. We do it constantly. And we do it even with the ones we most truly love. It’s our nature.
So the distinction between Pelicot, Mengele, Bundy and ourselves…. is not the difference between Objectifying and Humanizing….it’s the much more fragile and intangible difference between Moral & Immoral / Good & Evil and how we choose (even when / especially when we see those choices through a glass, darkly).
Deep reflections, thank you. Upvoted. I don’t know how many DO accept your opening premise of a kind of sacred union of all before God. But for what I hope is a majority of us who do, of course that’s rather more easily said than done, believed than lived. That doesn’t make it entirely false, but does call the sincerity or depth of such professed belief into question. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, and some honor the teacher with their lips while their hearts remain far from him.
Excellent piece. I agree that when we’re talking about sexual exploitation and vivisection it is all very Abolition of Man, and the enemy is in plain sight. But when a person is regarded as a “worker” or a “human resource”, is he not also being turned from a thou to an it? And if so, is it possible to engage in Mary’s kind of critique without also being drawn into a wider critique of capitalism and so on?
I’m not saying that we should not be drawn into such a critique. It’s more that once you see this mechanism in action in one domain it’s hard to un-see it in others.
It’s unbelievably horrible of me but I’m not sure I believe this story is REAL. I hope it’s not. I’m doubtful since Nicola Bulley and that strange AI generated face,as it looked to me,and a story that seemed to mist away into fog,even Southport,lots of people have a friend who knows someone who lives in their street. We see all this on a screen or hear it on a radio or device. We have no more real.idea if its true than 14th peasants looking at the mappa mundi and seeing people live in Africa with one big foot they use as a sunshade. And now EVERY horrible crime has to have EXTRA atrocity. Because rape and murder and ugliness,even I gather child abduction and torture, isn’t that what the Freddy Krueger films are about;I don’t watch movies,got to be standard Hollywood movie fare,and I mean mainstream general release films,so now Murder and Rape to appall you nasties,you lot,I mean YOU,has to have extra atrocity value. Or it’s just yawn. Is Giselle for real. Will she get shouted at in the street. It’s all very well us going on about her being heroic but presumably when she shuts her door she is alone. Or is there one law for some people and another law for another. Of course there is. Also I’m questioning the logistics of this. Did her husband get out the hoover and clean the house after all the visitors had left,then clean her inert body up and put on a fresh nightie before she woke up. Think.about it. And I’ve read accounts of women who’ve been date raped while insensible. They dont remember IT but a feeling in their body makes them feel something is not right,that something happened. I do not believe that a woman could be copulated with by numerous men while insensate and wake up ready to go to work,get breakfast ,do whatever. You would feel SOMETHING in the body,if not pain,something not right. This woman is a heroine,will that save her from being shouted at in the street. Will.she really be welcome at social venues and local activities. Does she have lots of friends.? Can’t be or what happened to her could not have. Will this end male violence and teach all the naughty boys a lesson. No. I think it will exacerbate it. This is more like an Andrew Tate recruiting campaign in my opinion.
Gisele was a heroine, Dominque and the many men were all evil, it went on secretly and unsuspected for 10 years, and now, the French Justice system has clarified it all? I don’t believe it can be that simple. Real life is more complicated.