The bras are safe—we're not victims anymore

Bra-burning feminists of the 1960s will admit that we are well beyond the days where, as put by Germaine Greer, "we were required to cram our breasts into bras constructed like mini-Vesuviuses, two stitched white cantilevered cones which bore no resemblance to the female anatomy". From women's rights legislation to teenage magazines, academics to activists, and Hollywood to commercialism, the image of the woman has seen a dramatic reconfiguration. Regardless, feminists remain at large, bickering, whining and campaigning for – let's face it, no one really knows what.
First wave feminism of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, associated with women's right to vote and property rights, was replaced by the second wave feminism of the sixties that sought to weaken patriarchal structures that oppressed women both culturally and politically. Third wave feminism did something radically different by challenging essentialist, homogeneous female identity and ultimately claiming that there is no such thing as 'woman'.
But this is seen by some as stabbing feminism in the back. Next week is the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre: on the 6 December 1989, 25 year old Marc Lépine walked into an engineering class, pulled out a gun and ordered all the men out of the room. He then shot all the women. The significance of this event was to throw back theories of sex and gender as socially constructed identities. A commemoration plaque read "To all women who have been murdered by men". For many feminists, Lépine's act of "fighting feminism" turned women back into a victimised group, needing to mobilise themselves as a singular political identity in order to fight back.
This is perhaps the least helpful way of dealing with violence and oppression. Rather than being a characteristic example of male violence against women, Lépine's act reveals that sex and gender distinctions are still recognised by society as "natural". It is this distinction that needs to be tackled and undermined; feminist 'victimhood' only reinforces stereotypes.
What needs to be realised is that sexual difference is a mode of discourse and not something 'real'. A naked child confronted with its reflection in the mirror, without any access to that which is different from them, will not know whether they are male or female. In this way, sex and gender, requiring a social context, is a cultural production.
An awareness of this makes it clear that gender relations are inextricably bound to broader cultural forces. 'Woman' as a category can only be conceived if all other factors are dismissed. It is therefore entirely reductive to think about gender relations in terms of patriarchy and 'girl power'.
Not only does blaming the 'masculinity' of Marc Lépine no longer hold any ground, but feminism itself should be left to rest in the sixties. By objectifying women into a singular homogeneous category and ultimately reinforcing what it attempts to challenge, feminism is a deeply flawed concept.
'Patriarchy' is a symptom of history, culture and discourse. We must learn to attack the system as a whole, rather then struggle within it by ineffectually snapping at symptoms. There needs to be an attempt to break out of perpetuating stereotypes and pandering to gendered expectations of society. Gender equality can only truly be achieved once sexual difference is, on the whole, of little significance to society.
Marc Lépine's shooting spree was a failure of the system, not the male species, and it should be not be remembered as an attack on women, but as a human tragedy.