mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (07/28/85)
In article <3014@hplabsb.UUCP> pc@hplabsb.UUCP writes: >So, please guys-- show some respect!!! It makes me ill to see so many >men try to defend those who deliberately harm others. I cannot for the >life of me understand putting down obviously hurt women by defending, >excusing, or even "understanding" the actions of assailants. It is a >collosal insult. > > Patricia Collins > {ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pc The following will probably not be too popular. If you wish to comment on my opinions on women and rape, I have provided ample information that clearly shows my opinion. However, this is not the topic I will address. Previous posters, including myself, have offered suggestions on the motivations and politics of rape, among other things. Among these suggestions have been statements about the likely behavior of rapists, sometimes expressed in the point of view of the rapist, for greater clarity. These comments are meant to show likely behavior, and the reasoning that leads to this behavior, and does not pass judgement on the behavior itself. It has been said that this constitutes "defending", "excusing", "forgiving", or various other terms equating with vindication or pardon. It is nothing of the sort. Showing how an action comes to pass does not make the action moral, right, or proper. The previous poster did not say that the crime of rape was excused by the dress of the victim, nor was this implied. This thought was added by the reader, who followed with an attack on all postings attempting a description of the motivations of a rapist. The "apologist" merely tried to follow a train of thought, as an unemotional observer, that is ascribed to rapists, to understand the motivations, whatever they are. This does not imply agreement with the train of thought, or any assessment of validity of any kind. It is also not a statement about the morality (or lack of it) of rape. There is no insult in this. No judgement is passed on either culprit or victim. The hideousness of rape is not changed. No apology for the crime is offered. No vindication is presented. What is morally wrong is still morally wrong, even when explained. But the explanation may be useful in preventing rapes in the future. To coin a word: "rapism", the disorder that both allows and compels certain men to rape. Very little is known about it. It is possible the rapist has a view of the world that is very different from that of others. Understanding this world view could provide the basis for eliminating rape, at last and forever. From Beyond the Known Universe... --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (evolved) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (pre-cambrian) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA Quotes on the Nature of Existence: "To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare) "I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes "<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/02/85)
> Previous posters, including myself, have offered suggestions on the > motivations and politics of rape, among other things. Among these suggestions > have been statements about the likely behavior of rapists, sometimes > expressed in the point of view of the rapist, for greater clarity. > These comments are meant to show likely behavior, and the reasoning that > leads to this behavior, and does not pass judgement on the behavior itself. The problem is that on the net, only outrageous and stupid things are discussed. Therefore, all the good constructive suggestions are ignored and the idiotic ones are blown up out of proportion. That is why the issue of "provocative clothing" has been discussed to death on the net for so long even most "serious" psychologists who actually study rapists and criminals have discounted that argument a long time ago. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with trying to understand what goes on through a rapist's mind. I think it is an obsolutely necessary pursuit in order to stop rape. The netters who have stuck to the "provocative clothing" argument so tenaciously keep on telling those of us who tried to point out the stupidity of that argument that rapists are humans not animals, and we should therefore be interested in what they think. This is an extremely good point. I think that the proponents of the "provocative clothing" explanation should apply it to themselves. Rapists are not like bulls who run because they see a red flag waved in front of them, yet some people on the net who try to have us believe that rape can be explaned in such simplistic animalistic terms. Who is calling who an animal here? (besides, even bull's motives might be more complicated than that). If rape was as simplistic an issue as that, we'd see more occurence of it among the so-called "lower" animals, whose actions are supposedly dictated even more by their hormones and the visual cues they receive from the females of their species. Yet non-human animals do not rape (which might suggest that it might be insulting to animals to call rapists animals <-:). > To coin a word: "rapism", the disorder that both allows and compels certain > men to rape. Very little is known about it. It is possible the rapist has > a view of the world that is very different from that of others. Understanding > this world view could provide the basis for eliminating rape, at last and > forever. > > Eric McColm Actually, quite a lot is known about rapism. Rape has been studied extensively by psychologists and feminists and lay persons. I do not know offhand of any actual psychology studies on rape but I have seen enough references to such studies around to believe that they have been made. The best work on rape that I have seen so far has been Susan Brownmiller's book, which she wrote already 10 years ago, I believe. The title is something like "men, women, and rape". Another good, old book on rape was written by a policeman whose name escapes me right now. It is called "how to say no to a rapist and survive". It is written as a self-defense guide for women, but it dwells mainly on trying to understand the psychology of rapists and playing on that. I have only tried one of his techniques once, and it actually worked. It is a very good book, which was described at the time as anti-feminist because it assumed that rapists had some humanity left in them. It is a very no-nonsense book, completely non-jargonny, and quite sensitive as well as sensible. By the way, my opinion (and that of quite a few feminists) is that rape is not a personal problem of a few individuals with a distorted world view, but a deep societal problem of the inequality between the sexes. Society will have to be cured if we want the individuals cured. Again, I do recommend Brownmiller's book very strongly. But I guess she's a feminist (YICCKEE POO!!!!) so I suppose that many netter will probably believe her opinion is probably not worth listening to. Much more fun to talk about probvocative clothing and that bitch Madonna. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (08/03/85)
Eric McColm: > To coin a word: "rapism", the disorder that both allows and compels certain > men to rape. Very little is known about it. Really?! So all of the programs in the various prisons that deal with rapists as people who desire to dominate, and not with normal sexual urges, are based on "very little" knowledge? (It wouldn't surprise me, but upon what is this assertion based?) I can imagine non-raping men trying to understand rapists, and concluding that provocation is a factor, because for them, if they *were* to rape, it *would* be a factor. After all, it is what motivates them to wish that they *could* "have" a particular woman. What I have never seen is any study or program of treatment of rapists that includes the "problem" of provocation. If "provocation *is* a problem, why don't these studies and programs deal with it? If I am the victim of one-sided exposure, then will someone please inform me of the studies and programs that I have missed? Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (08/05/85)
Sophie Quigley writes: > receive from the females of their species. Yet non-human animals do not > rape (which might suggest that it might be insulting to animals to call > rapists animals <-:). Are you sure you want to say this? Seems to me that in a great number of species, sex is associated with force and violence (including killing of mates). There are really very few human behaviors (language may be one) that are unique to Homo sapiens. > Actually, quite a lot is known about rapism. Rape has been studied > extensively by psychologists and feminists and lay persons. I do not > know offhand of any actual psychology studies on rape but I have seen > enough references to such studies around to believe that they have been > made. The best work on rape that I have seen so far has been Susan > Brownmiller's book, which she wrote already 10 years ago, I believe. > The title is something like "men, women, and rape". That's "Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape". That work is principally a political tract. When I was in college, my friends and I (male and female) spent some time discussing it (the discussion, at times, got rather hot). Its central thesis is that all men are rapists (it contains that exact phrasing); what is actually said is that rape is a conspiracy engaged in by all men for the benefit of all men. Sophie, if you really believe that, please stop telling men to do something about the problem; if Ms. Brownmiller's thesis is true, we are the enemy and you should not negotiate with us. If, on the other hand, you consider it rhetorical excess designed to make a point, that's quite a different story. > By the way, my opinion (and that of quite a few feminists) is that rape > is not a personal problem of a few individuals with a distorted world > view, but a deep societal problem of the inequality between the sexes. > Society will have to be cured if we want the individuals cured. If that was as far as Brownmiller went, I'd agree. She goes a lot further than that. I'm a little distressed by some of the proposed changes. Seems some feminists (I consider myself a feminist, but often disagree with your postings, so I don't know) are becoming allies of the right wing. Let's junk freedom of speech and press (right wing because of offense against God, feminists because of bad images of women); let's junk due process (right wing because they don't believe in sissy stuff like reasonable doubt; feminists because they feel (correctly) that the current system doesn't punish rapists effectively enough). -- Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck | 10011 N. Foothill Blvd. ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA | Cupertino, CA 95014
dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski) (08/08/85)
In article <1698@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: >than that). If rape was as simplistic an issue as that, we'd see more >occurence of it among the so-called "lower" animals, whose actions are >supposedly dictated even more by their hormones and the visual cues they >receive from the females of their species. Yet non-human animals do not >rape (which might suggest that it might be insulting to animals to call >rapists animals <-:). > But, Sophie, animals do rape. At least, some ducks do. (In fact, gross as it may seem, the male mate of a raped duck is likely to repeat the offense immediately.) In general the practice of rape is sufficiently common in the "wild kingdom" that there is a rather neutral term for it: mixed reproductive strategy. Civilization and humanitarian ideals (as well as simple empathy) are supposed to assist us humans in providing a more kindly environment for our (male and female) fellows. Sorry it works so poorly. Dick >> men to rape. Very little is known about it. It is possible the rapist has >> a view of the world that is very different from that of others. Understanding >> this world view could provide the basis for eliminating rape, at last and >> forever. >> >> Eric McColm > >Actually, quite a lot is known about rapism. Rape has been studied >extensively by psychologists and feminists and lay persons. I do not >know offhand of any actual psychology studies on rape but I have seen >enough references to such studies around to believe that they have been >made. The best work on rape that I have seen so far has been Susan >Brownmiller's book, which she wrote already 10 years ago, I believe. >The title is something like "men, women, and rape". > >Another good, old book on rape was written by a policeman whose name >escapes me right now. It is called "how to say no to a rapist and >survive". It is written as a self-defense guide for women, but it >dwells mainly on trying to understand the psychology of rapists and >playing on that. I have only tried one of his techniques once, and it >actually worked. It is a very good book, which was described at the >time as anti-feminist because it assumed that rapists had some humanity >left in them. It is a very no-nonsense book, completely non-jargonny, >and quite sensitive as well as sensible. > >By the way, my opinion (and that of quite a few feminists) is that rape >is not a personal problem of a few individuals with a distorted world >view, but a deep societal problem of the inequality between the sexes. >Society will have to be cured if we want the individuals cured. Again, >I do recommend Brownmiller's book very strongly. But I guess she's >a feminist (YICCKEE POO!!!!) so I suppose that many netter will probably >believe her opinion is probably not worth listening to. Much more fun >to talk about probvocative clothing and that bitch Madonna. >-- >Sophie Quigley >{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie -- Dick Karpinski Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick (415) 666-4529 (12-7) BITNET: dick@ucsfcca Compuserve: 70215,1277 Telemail: RKarpinski USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143
tami@calmasd.UUCP (Tami Morse) (08/09/85)
In article <1698@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > >I personally don't think there is anything wrong with trying to >understand what goes on through a rapist's mind. I think it is an >obsolutely necessary pursuit in order to stop rape. > ... >The best work on rape that I have seen so far has been Susan >Brownmiller's book, which she wrote already 10 years ago, I believe. >The title is something like "men, women, and rape". > Susan Brownmiller's book is called "Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape", and it is a very good analysis of the societal bases for rape. > >By the way, my opinion (and that of quite a few feminists) is that rape >is not a personal problem of a few individuals with a distorted world >view, but a deep societal problem of the inequality between the sexes. >Society will have to be cured if we want the individuals cured. Another good book that answers to this and also the observation that we need to understand what goes on in a rapist's mind to end rape once and for all is the book 'Men and Rape' (I've forgotten the author's name), in which a man interviews other men on the subject of rape. The interviewees include rapists and men whose SOs have been raped, as well as men who had had no such direct contact with rape. One of the most striking (to me) interviews was with a male file clerk who felt women used their good looks to make men feel powerless. He watched women in the office where he worked come in dressed up and looking good, and flirting with the more powerful men there, totally ignoring him. The sense I got was of frustration and powerlessness, and he said it made him so mad that he might very well rape. This isn't a personal problem, this is a societal one -- a matter of class distinctions, women as status objects, sexual baiting in a professional environment... As long as power is an aphrodisiac, as long as sex is a valid way for women to improve their positions in life and more effective than ways that are more personally rewarding, as long as women are seen on any level as prizes to be claimed, rape will exist. Sorry to get so preachy, I just got carried away. Anyway, check out these two books; they are enlightening. >-- >Sophie Quigley >{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie Tami Morse G.E. Calma Co., San Diego, CA {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!tami
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/13/85)
In article <184@epicen.UUCP> jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >Seems to me that in a great number of >species, sex is associated with force and violence (including killing of >mates). There are really very few human behaviors (language may be one) >that are unique to Homo sapiens. > From everything I have read about the matter, the only mammals who rape are humans. I could be wrong though, and even if I was, humans are supposed to be "superior" (morally??) to other animals, so rape in the animal kingdom might explain rape in humans, but certainly does not condone it. >> The best work on rape that I have seen so far has been Susan >> Brownmiller's book, which she wrote already 10 years ago, I believe. >> The title is something like "men, women, and rape". > >That's "Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape". That work is principally >a political tract. Yes, the work is political as it analyses human power struggles. It is not exactly a "tract" since it is not a free pamphlet, but it does express an opinion and contains an appeal, so has some qualities of a tract. It is my impression that you think that the adjective "political" is derogatory. I am not sure why you have such an opinion, but here's Susan Brownmiller's comment on that term (from the last chapter called "fighting back"): (words surrounded by *s are in italics in the book) "When, just a few years ago, we began to hold our speak-outs on rape, our conferences, borrowing a church meeting hall for an afternoon, renting a high-school auditorium and some classrooms for a weekend of workshops and discussions, the world out there, the world outside of radical feminism, thought it was all very funny. ``You're talking about *rape*? Incredible! a *political* crime against women? How is a sex crime political?...''" >When I was in college, my friends and I (male and >female) spent some time discussing it (the discussion, at times, got >rather hot). Its central thesis is that all men are rapists (it >contains that exact phrasing); what is actually said is that rape is >a conspiracy engaged in by all men for the benefit of all men. End of chapter 1 of "Against our will": "Man's dicovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which *all men* keep *all women* in a state of fear." This is not exactly the same as saying that all men are rapists. I think that the wording of this sentence is very unfortunate because it is ambiguous. INtimidation by the threat of rape is not at all the same as intimidation by rape. However, I do grant you that the use of the word "conscious" in that statement is questionable and does make it sound as though she believes in a male conspiracy. I certainly would not have worded my opinion in such a way. >Sophie, >if you really believe that, please stop telling men to do something about >the problem; if Ms. Brownmiller's thesis is true, we are the enemy and >you should not negotiate with us. From the last chapter again: "Rape can be erradicated, not merely controlled or avoided on an individual basis, but the approach must be long-range and cooperative, and must have the understanding and good will of many men as well as women." >> By the way, my opinion (and that of quite a few feminists) is that rape >> is not a personal problem of a few individuals with a distorted world >> view, but a deep societal problem of the inequality between the sexes. >> Society will have to be cured if we want the individuals cured. > >If that was as far as Brownmiller went, I'd agree. She goes a lot further >than that. I'm a little distressed by some of the proposed changes. Like what? the legal changes I have seen proposed in her book are censorship of pornography (although she was quite vague in that matter) and replacing the prosecution of prostitutes by prosecution of their clients. All the other suggestions I've seen were concerned with changing society's priorities. >Seems some feminists (I consider myself a feminist, but often disagree with >your postings, so I don't know) are becoming allies of the right wing. I don't know either. Why do you consider yourself a feminist? >Let's junk freedom of speech and press (right wing because of offense >against God, feminists because of bad images of women); let's junk >due process (right wing because they don't believe in sissy stuff like >reasonable doubt; feminists because they feel (correctly) that the >current system doesn't punish rapists effectively enough). > >Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc. I am not too comfortable with the union between feminism and right-wing groups either. I have avoided all discussions on censorship so far because I just am not satisfied with any of the opinions I have heard expressed. Like any ideology, feminism suffers from factionism: I know of pro-choice and pro-life feminists and pro and anti censorship feminists and the opinions I have heard them express are all sound even if irreconciliable. I guess different people have different priorities. What more can I say.. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/14/85)
> >> The best work on rape that I have seen so far has been Susan > >> Brownmiller's book, which she wrote already 10 years ago, I believe. > >> The title is something like "men, women, and rape". > > > >That's "Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape". That work is principally > >a political tract. > > End of chapter 1 of "Against our will": > "Man's dicovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear > must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, > along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric > times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is > nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which *all > men* keep *all women* in a state of fear." > > This is not exactly the same as saying that all men are rapists. I think > that the wording of this sentence is very unfortunate because it is ambiguous. > INtimidation by the threat of rape is not at all the same as intimidation by > rape. However, I do grant you that the use of the word "conscious" in that > statement is questionable and does make it sound as though she believes in > a male conspiracy. I certainly would not have worded my opinion in such a > way. I'm glad of that. I have not read Brownmiller's book; for that reason I have been silent about it, and tried to withhold judgement. However, *if* this excerpt is representative, I would have to say that the misogyny illustrated on net.women is nothing compared to the misandryny (is that the word?) contained in this book. I could not be more non-plussed and revolted if I were reading a "scientific" Nazi tract on the characteristics of Jews. I have always thought that one sex theorizing about the behavior of the other could lead to much idiocy; never have I seen my thoughts so convincingly demonstrated. Why do I feel this way? Two reasons, primarily: First, I have *never* thought of my genitalia as a weapon to generate fear (although I know all about fires and axes), and second, the conscious process Brownmiller describes is impossible (I offer myself as counterexample, since she said "all men"). And yet, no doubt, many people have read these words and accepted them as truth. The range of human belief is truly miraculous. Jeff Winslow
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/15/85)
In article <525@calmasd.UUCP> tami@calmasd.UUCP (Tami Morse) writes: >interviewees include rapists and men whose SOs have been raped, as well >as men who had had no such direct contact with rape. One of the most >striking (to me) interviews was with a male file clerk who felt women >used their good looks to make men feel powerless. He watched women in >the office where he worked come in dressed up and looking good, and >flirting with the more powerful men there, totally ignoring him. The >sense I got was of frustration and powerlessness, and he said it made >him so mad that he might very well rape. This isn't a personal problem, >this is a societal one -- a matter of class distinctions, women as >Tami Morse >G.E. Calma Co., San Diego, CA >{ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!tami I listen to men talk about situations where they feel women have taken advantage of them. I compare and contrast my mind chatter when I get angry or upset with women with that when I get angry at men. When I do it seems to clear to me that men who rape are just at one extreme end of a wide spectrum of male attitudes. When men are in a mood of thinking that violence is a solution they tend to think of killing other men but they tend to think of sexual violence towards women. I realize that I have not conducted a scientific survey, but becuase it comes from listening to men when they are not "thinking" it may be more accurate than interviews etc.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/29/85)
> I listen to men talk about situations where they feel women have taken > advantage of them. I compare and contrast my mind chatter when I get > angry or upset with women with that when I get angry at men. When I do > it seems to clear to me that men who rape are just at one extreme end > of a wide spectrum of male attitudes. When men are in a mood of thinking that > violence is a solution they tend to think of killing other men but they tend > to think of sexual violence towards women. > > I realize that I have not conducted a scientific survey, but becuase it comes > from listening to men when they are not "thinking" it may be more accurate > than interviews etc. Interestingly enough, rape of males is also a problem, and probably much underreported one. Once there was a series of articles in Washington Post about conditions in DC jails. Reporters conducted many interviews with men who were jailed. It appears that gang rapes are a common occurence there. Quite revealing, the perpetrators are usually not homosexual. That supports greatly the contention that rape is an expression of aggression rather than an expression of sex drive. Another revealing feature of the discibed situation is how underreported and unprosecuted those rapes are. Besides factors like ill-will of the jail authorities (who wants to protect criminals) and low in average social status of the victims, there seem to be another factor. It appears that men are in even worse position toward rape than women. Since men are not supposed to be weak, the humiliation is correspondingly bigger. Also, it is much less expected. My though was that the victims from DC jails were in the position of women some years ago, when being a victim of rape was shameful. I do not think that rape can be removed from the society entirely. Probably, the best defence is the following: press charges and prosecution as much as possible. If the emotional costs seem to be to high, one should remeber that this is not an action for personal revenge, but to a defence of the future victims. The law seem to be the only reliable weapon, and this is a gun with to many bullets unspent. Piotr Berman